>>>I am not a fan of government mandated healthcare... but for the GOP and people like Beck to claim its A MAJOR ATTACK ON OUR FREEDOM... when they supported the USA PATRIOT ACT and Presidential Signing Statements... is the height of hypocrisy. Same goes for the Tea Party >>>
Therefore we should sit on our ass and do nothing. No thanks. I will continue protesting. It has to stop. All of it. The Healthcare (eventual) monopoly, the Patriot Act, all of it must be repealed.
>>>So you're upset by Healthcare, but you weren't worried when the government got permission to do wiretaps without a FISA order >>>You're angered by bank bailouts, but not by citizens being held without trial... >>>You are more concerned about TAXES then protesters being put in 'Free Speech Zones"...
Strawman argument. I didn't vote for Bush, and I thought his decision to go to war just because ~1500 people died was foolish, and I though the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and other anti-liberty laws were even more foolish.
Nice try though. You made the false assumption that because I oppose Democrats/Obama, I must automatically support Bush, but you were flat wrong. Never assume. I said I was Jeffersonian and that's what I meant.
I don't like where Obama (and Sarkozy and Conroy and Gordon Brown) are taking western civilization. It's as if they are trying to restore the monarchies/oligarchies that existed pre-1800, where the government (nobility) restricts and circumscribes the daily routines of its citizens (commoners) rather than allow true liberty, and I am a fan of anybody who challenges them.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson. He also said, "I hope we shall crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
I'm not buying into your belated back-peddle. You meant what you typed - that Glenn Beck fans are drooling retards AND outraged by the decision, in your opinion.
I've had liberals tell me right to my face, that she never said it. Or she was joking. Or that she did say it seriously, but it's okay to admire mass-murderers like Mao or Lenin or Hitler, as useful sources for ideas.
Isn't that what's called "cognitive dissonance"? People bending over backwards to try to explain away facts that challenge their brains' built-in views? It appears that way to me.
I've been watch Beck since he was on CNN. He based Bush and the Republicans quite frequently (ditto that other guy Bill O'Reilly). This was just a quick search, but here's a couple videos I found where Beck was bashing Bush and/or Bush's policies:
"There's little question that Jones was an avowed communist."
You have a strange definition of the word "refuted". Have I dropped into 1984? Perhaps I should be using newspeak about how this article is doubleplusgood?
Jones joined the communist party, and perhaps now he's dropped out to join the Democrats, but that doesn't mean his core views have changed. I'm no longer a Libertarian Party member, having realized the LP has little hope of winning, but I'm still libertarian in my thoughts. I suspect Jones is also still communist in his thoughts..... especially when he talks about redistributing the wealth, and how the whites are trying to poison the blacks (with pollution dumped into black neighborhoods).
>>>Anyone who listens to Glenn Beck gets zero respect from normal, educated Americans.
I'm educated. I have two Bachelors Degrees, one Masters degree, and an IQ of 135. I watch Beck. I'm also a fan of Jefferson, who had an estimated IQ of 160, and I'm sure would also enjoy Beck's "question boldly" show theme. Jefferson argued that the Tenth Amendment was the most important amendment, because it blocked the central government from going out of control and turning into a tyranny.
Government is meant to be challenged, authority to be held accountable, and the people to be informed.
>>>>>I am sure that the drooling retards who call themselves Glenn Beck fans are outraged about this decision. >>> >>>I want one of those broad brushes. > >The GP is correct in his assumption.
No he isn't. I watch Glenn Beck and I'm not outraged. Every website owner has a right to free speech, even those lacking basic manners, or haters like the KuKluxKidiots. I'm not outraged when the First Amendment's law reigns supreme
You are right that Beck would have been wiser to ignore the website, and respect their right of free speech. Even dickheads like the KKK have that right to smear other people.
As for Beck's show, I think it's worth watching. I would not have known that Mr. Jones wants to take my money and give it to Indians ("give them the wealth") or that he believes whites are poisoning blacks ("dumping their pollution in black neighborhoods") or tat he used to be not just Obama's right hand man, but also a communist. ----- I would not have known about the ACORN scandal where they advise their customers to cover-up illegal prostitution houses, and file false claims with the IRS. ----- I would not have known that Obama's Communication Director considers Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao her favorite philosophers, and that she admire how Mao overthrew the Democratic Chinese government.
Beck may be a nitwit but he's the only one revealing what's happening behind closed doors. NBC, CNN, and the rest certainly don't discuss these things. MSNBC goes so far as to edit video of a black man carrying a rifle, and then saying he's a "white racist". link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
>>>have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.
Don't. Trust that if you offer a fair product at a reasonable price, then the consumers will buy it rather than copy it. It's the same model that worked with Non-copy protected cassettes back in the 80s and 90s.
Also: The article is about the BBC which is funded by the taxpayers. In my humble opinion, the taxpayers entitled to take the product free-of-charge since they already paid for it.
(goes back to drinking German beer)
"A woman on the radio talks about revolution, but it's already passed her by. I was alive and I waited for this. Right here, right now; there is no other place I want to be..... watching the world wake-up from history. ----- I saw the decade end, when it seemed the world could change at the blink of an eye. And if anything then there's your sign. I was alive and I waited, waited for this. I was alive and I waited for this. Watching the world wake up from history! Right here. Right now."
You make a good point. I was reading about Romania's dictator and his wife. He was not terribly bright, and his wife was a peasant who dropped-out of school in 4th grade. She used her power to force people to write research papers, and put her name on them, but she was dumb as a doorknob.
It seems government attracts the not-so-bright to positions of power.
Your comment about the "bloody knife in your hand" reminds me of a recent case in Baltimore. A man was presumed guilty and spent over 20 years in jail, because he was at the scene of the crime, and he *looked* guilty. But then a test was performed, and it was discovered that the DNA left-behind by the murderer (on the knife) was not the man in prison. Baltimore had caused an innocent man to lose 20+ years of his life.
This type of thing happens a LOT. We shouldn't be presuming guilt. We should be presuming innocence. Just because you have a knife in your hand, or child images on your PC, or $2000 suddenly appeared in your Bing Cash account, doe snot mean you committed the crime. You could have been framed (malware) or mistakenly identified (your neighbor downloaded the stolen songs, not you) or whatever.
The onus should be on the prosecutor, not to just provide evidence, but also proof that YOU committed the actual act. If he can't do the latter then you should presumed innocent and freed.
Wow. Somebody who thinks. Yes that was my point. The problem is that we don't know how to get that 75 billion kWh from the oil. Likewise we don't know how to harness all the energy the sun is throwing at us.
It is? Hmmm. I can not lay my hand on any part of the People's Constitution that grants the United States the power to uphold business interests rather than obey the law. On the contrary the Supreme Law says that power, if it exists, belongs to the State Legislatures.
I think you read too much into that exchange. A short while ago the Washington D.C. gun ban fell after having stood for over 3 decades. Why did it take so long? Because the pro-gun lobby was waiting for a case that was favorable to their cause. They didn't want to bring just any case - they wanted the "perfect" case where they could be certain of the outcome (i.e. SCOTUS sides with the gun owner).
I think Mr. Stewart is following the same thought process when he says, "We thought that this case would provide an unsuitable vehicle..." He would have rather waited for a later case where the outcome would be in his favor (pro-patent rights). Instead he got this one.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>I am not a fan of government mandated healthcare... but for the GOP and people like Beck to claim its A MAJOR ATTACK ON OUR FREEDOM... when they supported the USA PATRIOT ACT and Presidential Signing Statements... is the height of hypocrisy. Same goes for the Tea Party
>>>
Therefore we should sit on our ass and do nothing. No thanks. I will continue protesting.
It has to stop. All of it. The Healthcare (eventual) monopoly, the Patriot Act, all of it must be repealed.
>>>So you're upset by Healthcare, but you weren't worried when the government got permission to do wiretaps without a FISA order
>>>You're angered by bank bailouts, but not by citizens being held without trial...
>>>You are more concerned about TAXES then protesters being put in 'Free Speech Zones"...
Strawman argument. I didn't vote for Bush, and I thought his decision to go to war just because ~1500 people died was foolish, and I though the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and other anti-liberty laws were even more foolish.
Nice try though. You made the false assumption that because I oppose Democrats/Obama, I must automatically support Bush, but you were flat wrong. Never assume. I said I was Jeffersonian and that's what I meant.
How come Beck quit CNN and moved to FOX?
If I were him I would stayed at CNN.
Yes well I'm both a watcher and a fan.
I don't like where Obama (and Sarkozy and Conroy and Gordon Brown) are taking western civilization. It's as if they are trying to restore the monarchies/oligarchies that existed pre-1800, where the government (nobility) restricts and circumscribes the daily routines of its citizens (commoners) rather than allow true liberty, and I am a fan of anybody who challenges them.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson. He also said, "I hope we shall crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Hug rejected.
I'm not buying into your belated back-peddle. You meant what you typed - that Glenn Beck fans are drooling retards AND outraged by the decision, in your opinion.
Anonymous Shit said
You, sir, are a moron of the highest order. This revelation explains much of the drivel you post to this site.
Log-in and say that, so we can mod you down as the -1 Troll you are.
>>>Don't take my word for it. Watch it in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhFk7lH0LmE&feature=player_embedded# [youtube.com]
>>>Anita Dunn Naming Mao Tse Tung as One of Her Favorite Philosophers
I've had liberals tell me right to my face, that she never said it. Or she was joking. Or that she did say it seriously, but it's okay to admire mass-murderers like Mao or Lenin or Hitler, as useful sources for ideas.
Isn't that what's called "cognitive dissonance"? People bending over backwards to try to explain away facts that challenge their brains' built-in views? It appears that way to me.
I've been watch Beck since he was on CNN. He based Bush and the Republicans quite frequently (ditto that other guy Bill O'Reilly). This was just a quick search, but here's a couple videos I found where Beck was bashing Bush and/or Bush's policies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tWzOomIGEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a3Bfox0k4g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrcEY4ywcQM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaCtj8qzU5I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_cyRPJ3yZA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7I-VW5m28Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWDFrPKJvJ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNM4qVAfMNg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpIr5C__aro
"There's little question that Jones was an avowed communist."
You have a strange definition of the word "refuted". Have I dropped into 1984? Perhaps I should be using newspeak about how this article is doubleplusgood?
Jones joined the communist party, and perhaps now he's dropped out to join the Democrats, but that doesn't mean his core views have changed. I'm no longer a Libertarian Party member, having realized the LP has little hope of winning, but I'm still libertarian in my thoughts. I suspect Jones is also still communist in his thoughts..... especially when he talks about redistributing the wealth, and how the whites are trying to poison the blacks (with pollution dumped into black neighborhoods).
Hello.
>>>Anyone who listens to Glenn Beck gets zero respect from normal, educated Americans.
I'm educated. I have two Bachelors Degrees, one Masters degree, and an IQ of 135. I watch Beck. I'm also a fan of Jefferson, who had an estimated IQ of 160, and I'm sure would also enjoy Beck's "question boldly" show theme. Jefferson argued that the Tenth Amendment was the most important amendment, because it blocked the central government from going out of control and turning into a tyranny.
Government is meant to be challenged, authority to be held accountable, and the people to be informed.
>>>>>I am sure that the drooling retards who call themselves Glenn Beck fans are outraged about this decision.
>>>
>>>I want one of those broad brushes.
>
>The GP is correct in his assumption.
No he isn't. I watch Glenn Beck and I'm not outraged. Every website owner has a right to free speech, even those lacking basic manners, or haters like the KuKluxKidiots. I'm not outraged when the First Amendment's law reigns supreme
A better link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfGF-wI6KUw&feature=related
You are right that Beck would have been wiser to ignore the website, and respect their right of free speech.
Even dickheads like the KKK have that right to smear other people.
As for Beck's show, I think it's worth watching. I would not have known that Mr. Jones wants to take my money and give it to Indians ("give them the wealth") or that he believes whites are poisoning blacks ("dumping their pollution in black neighborhoods") or tat he used to be not just Obama's right hand man, but also a communist. ----- I would not have known about the ACORN scandal where they advise their customers to cover-up illegal prostitution houses, and file false claims with the IRS. ----- I would not have known that Obama's Communication Director considers Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao her favorite philosophers, and that she admire how Mao overthrew the Democratic Chinese government.
Beck may be a nitwit but he's the only one revealing what's happening behind closed doors.
NBC, CNN, and the rest certainly don't discuss these things.
MSNBC goes so far as to edit video of a black man carrying a rifle, and then saying he's a "white racist".
link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
>>>good example of how an independent, publicly funded news organisation can work.
Yes. But think of all the stories you DON'T see on the BBC because they conveniently don't discuss them. There are many, many of them, and it's become rather well-known that the BBC is pro-European Union biased. http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
I'd rather watch both sides of an argument (FOX and MSNBC) rather than assume I can trust a single source.
>>>have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.
Don't. Trust that if you offer a fair product at a reasonable price, then the consumers will buy it rather than copy it. It's the same model that worked with Non-copy protected cassettes back in the 80s and 90s.
Also: The article is about the BBC which is funded by the taxpayers. In my humble opinion, the taxpayers entitled to take the product free-of-charge since they already paid for it.
(goes back to drinking German beer)
"A woman on the radio talks about revolution, but it's already passed her by. I was alive and I waited for this. Right here, right now; there is no other place I want to be..... watching the world wake-up from history. ----- I saw the decade end, when it seemed the world could change at the blink of an eye. And if anything then there's your sign. I was alive and I waited, waited for this. I was alive and I waited for this. Watching the world wake up from history! Right here. Right now."
>>>Your property should be insured, and your loss negligible.
So I have to give $1000 a year to insure my property from a thief? That's a nice racket.
You make a good point. I was reading about Romania's dictator and his wife. He was not terribly bright, and his wife was a peasant who dropped-out of school in 4th grade. She used her power to force people to write research papers, and put her name on them, but she was dumb as a doorknob.
It seems government attracts the not-so-bright to positions of power.
Your comment about the "bloody knife in your hand" reminds me of a recent case in Baltimore. A man was presumed guilty and spent over 20 years in jail, because he was at the scene of the crime, and he *looked* guilty. But then a test was performed, and it was discovered that the DNA left-behind by the murderer (on the knife) was not the man in prison. Baltimore had caused an innocent man to lose 20+ years of his life.
This type of thing happens a LOT. We shouldn't be presuming guilt. We should be presuming innocence. Just because you have a knife in your hand, or child images on your PC, or $2000 suddenly appeared in your Bing Cash account, doe snot mean you committed the crime. You could have been framed (malware) or mistakenly identified (your neighbor downloaded the stolen songs, not you) or whatever.
The onus should be on the prosecutor, not to just provide evidence, but also proof that YOU committed the actual act. If he can't do the latter then you should presumed innocent and freed.
It's populism. The idea that government exists to give people money. It's an idea that dates all the way back to the Roman Republic.
As for the corporation aspect, well politicians are told "it's to protect the artists", so in their mind it's still serving the people.
>>>No, its dictatorship, not communism. East Germany happened to be a communist dictatorship
Oh sorry.
Maybe we ought to try Communism here in the US, UK, and EU? This time without the dictatorship aspect. What do you think?
Wow. Somebody who thinks. Yes that was my point. The problem is that we don't know how to get that 75 billion kWh from the oil. Likewise we don't know how to harness all the energy the sun is throwing at us.
It is? Hmmm. I can not lay my hand on any part of the People's Constitution that grants the United States the power to uphold business interests rather than obey the law. On the contrary the Supreme Law says that power, if it exists, belongs to the State Legislatures.
I think you read too much into that exchange. A short while ago the Washington D.C. gun ban fell after having stood for over 3 decades. Why did it take so long? Because the pro-gun lobby was waiting for a case that was favorable to their cause. They didn't want to bring just any case - they wanted the "perfect" case where they could be certain of the outcome (i.e. SCOTUS sides with the gun owner).
I think Mr. Stewart is following the same thought process when he says, "We thought that this case would provide an unsuitable vehicle..." He would have rather waited for a later case where the outcome would be in his favor (pro-patent rights). Instead he got this one.
Jefferson called the Supreme Court a bunch of Oligarchs.
9 Old Men that run the country.