I monitor the shit that gets played on the television and radio, that does not mean that I own the content, the MAFIAA will quite pointedly tell you that if you need a 3rd party mediator in the matter...
eh actually, the 1st amendment does protect someone from being held to account for the speech itself. If there are actions taken on behalf of the speech, then the person can be held for accessory/inciting murder. See the entire issue with the Quran planned burning. The govenrment could not stop the act, nor could it stop the speech, all it could do was to counsel the minister and try to convince him that he was being a fucktard, and then add a polite "if anyone dies because of this, you will fry" on the end.
No, they just demand the personal information of the people that "may have been involved". re: Twitter, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Birgitte Jonsdottir et al.
Worse yet hate speech is frequently a very vague term. We had a local minister burning the Koran. That does not imply that he hates anyone at all. But in the minds of many Moslems they feel it is hate speech because the action offends them. Offending people does not mean that you hate them. I am reminded of that lunatic Baptist sect that turns up when soldiers lost in war funerals take place. Obviously they offend almost 100% of the population by troubling those funeral services. But they do not hate the dead soldiers nor do they hate the families of the dead soldiers. What they are against is paying attention to the dead instead of paying attention to Christ and they also try to point out that Christians may not take up arms. Yet the entire world sees them as a hate group. This stuff with special classes of people has simply gone too far. Maybe we should be telling our young never to take up arms for any reason. If it was good enough for Christ is it not good enough for all of us?
I very nearly shat myself I laughed so hard.
Burning someone else's religious symbols tends to show how much you "dislike" them
It's Muslims, not moslems.
Intentionally offending people tends to mean you "dislike" them, usually to the extent of hating them
Right, and I haven't been called a "baby killer" by these lunatics...(and yes, I have been), told me pretty well they didn't like me not one bit.
Paying attention to the dead instead of Christ....? So, normal run of the mill Christians don't have funerals? Amazing, maybe you should tell all those cross bearing nutjobs that block my streets with their funeral processions regularly
...may not take up arms... Ok so, 1st crusade, 2nd crusade, 3rd crusade, the child's crusade, (biblical reference) "An eye for an eye", more people have died in the name of "God" than for any other reason...
So your solution to it is bury your head in the sand and hope that any bullies that come along just pass you by. So when the non-christian sects from around the world show up at your doorstep, drag you out of your house and torture you, then demand that you believe in "their faith" rather than christianity, you're just going to go with the flow and let it happen?
"America" isn't a country. The United States, Canada, Mexico, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Argentina, Aruba, Bolivia, Bonaire, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Curacao, Ecuador, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela are all countries within North, Central and South "America". Stop thinking that the United States is the 'only America'.
I have zero issues with GMT as it provides a standardization that has been agreed upon for time tracking. It wouldn't matter to me if if was titled something else and set somewhere else as long as it's agreed upon and enough people use it.
Statements like yours is big reason why this conflict is still raging. As long as the conspiracy theories, omission of facts, and outright lies continue to circulate the level of animosity will continue to grow. Until the Arab's stop threatening Israel's existence there will be no peace. The Arab's initiated this conflict in 48 and then got their asses handed to them in 67 and again in 73. It was in 48 when the Arabs repudiated the UN decision to create the state of Israel and then evacuated most of the Arab's in the expected area of conflict with promises they could come back in a few days after they finished killing all the Jews. Everyone knows how that turned out. The Arab's should have paid lip service to the UN decision at least long enough to work out some type of plan before rushing the war. I'll admit I don't know whether the UN resolution was a good decision or not but time has made that irrelevant today. The fact is the resolution was passed and Israel does exist and I seriously doubt the Israeli's are going to pack up and leave anytime soon. In 48 the world was still recovering from war and the horrors associated with war. The discovery of the death camps was fresh in every ones mind at that time and that generated a lot of sympathy for the Jews and I have to believe that sympathy made a big impact when it came to passing the resolution.
And if the UN stepped in and took half or more of your country away from you because a western country couldn't control the populace, you wouldn't be pissed off? I'd damn well expect my neighboring countries to step up and defend against an annexation.
It's not a "getting even" issue. The land belonged to the Palestinians. The British pulled out being unable to come to a happy medium and lelf it up in the air until the newly formed UN created the state of Israel and assisted in expelling the Palestinians. I'm not on either of their sides, seeing as I would prefer a happy medium to be met, but the shit of it is, the western world kicked it off this go-round after WWII and it's understandable that the Palestinian's want their land back.
I don't like the new shit they are spewing out, all the music i generally like to listen to, I have purchased, downloaded or gotten from friends. When/if they do actually produce music that is worth me listening to, I MIGHT consider buying it, but if someone else does and gives me a copy... ah well.
>>>as if everyone who downloads a pirated song would have run out to buy the CD otherwise
Precisely. I certainly don't buy songs; why should I, when the music is available 24/7 on youtube or pandora? Nowadays the only music I buy is on Greatest Hits CDs (because you get ~20 songs for less than a dollar each).
The real thing harming music companies (and radio) is the internet and the fact you can access almost anything at anytime you desire. Maybe they should try suing that. (LOL)
And you sir, by purchasing these greatest hits cd's, are now liable to be sued by the artists for damages due to not legally obtaining a copyrighted work from them.. re: CRIAA recent settlement.
So let's see here. If I buy a pirated CD, I'm liable for infringment.
If I download a pirated song, I'm liable for infringement.
If I buy a pirated song (in bundle) from the RIAA's members, I'm NOT liable... WTF
Actually, "life sentence" does not mean "for the duration of your natural life" in most states/countries. Most countries have laws determining a set minimum time that has to be served on a life sentence before a person can be considered for parole. These minimum sentences range from 5-35 years generally as well as the addendum "without the portability of parole". When someone is sentenced to "consecutive life sentences" it quite literally means that, even with a minimum of 5 years, they would have to serve 5 years per life sentence before being eligible for parole. i.e 5 consecutive life sentences would be a minimum of 25 years. But again, it depends on the country and/or state.
so your argument is, that in a case of US vs Joe Smoe (Joe allegedly stole some office supplies), the US can subpoena my records because Joe and I post on/. together and we just so happened to post comments on the same article?
erm Obama has the right of veto, and he damn sure SHOULD use it with explanation as to why. Passing a bill with bullshit just because there are other important matters is in actuality perpetuating bullshit. Veto that fucker, send it back and say do it again.
Thanks for the info, however I would ask: in the issuance of a "subpoena duces tecum", does the government not have to provide reasonable suspicion that the persons indicated in the subpoena took part in the crime?
A single individual's action towards another's speech is not covered by the first amendment. It would be murder. However, if the government passed a law stating "no person shall voice their opinion on the tastes of Ice cream, or arrested you for it, then it would absolutely be a violation of free speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It means that the Gov't cannot make any law restricting what you can say. Most constitutional lawyers I know will tell you very clearly that the first amendment is meant specifically for citizens to speak to/about their government without fear of punishment. They will also tell you very specifically that you can face consequences for what you say.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's ok to boot people off of land that they already live on? get real.
At least he isn't suing for 21% more than the world's GDP...
I monitor the shit that gets played on the television and radio, that does not mean that I own the content, the MAFIAA will quite pointedly tell you that if you need a 3rd party mediator in the matter...
eh actually, the 1st amendment does protect someone from being held to account for the speech itself. If there are actions taken on behalf of the speech, then the person can be held for accessory/inciting murder. See the entire issue with the Quran planned burning. The govenrment could not stop the act, nor could it stop the speech, all it could do was to counsel the minister and try to convince him that he was being a fucktard, and then add a polite "if anyone dies because of this, you will fry" on the end.
No, they just demand the personal information of the people that "may have been involved". re: Twitter, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Birgitte Jonsdottir et al.
Worse yet hate speech is frequently a very vague term. We had a local minister burning the Koran. That does not imply that he hates anyone at all. But in the minds of many Moslems they feel it is hate speech because the action offends them. Offending people does not mean that you hate them. I am reminded of that lunatic Baptist sect that turns up when soldiers lost in war funerals take place. Obviously they offend almost 100% of the population by troubling those funeral services. But they do not hate the dead soldiers nor do they hate the families of the dead soldiers. What they are against is paying attention to the dead instead of paying attention to Christ and they also try to point out that Christians may not take up arms. Yet the entire world sees them as a hate group. This stuff with special classes of people has simply gone too far. Maybe we should be telling our young never to take up arms for any reason. If it was good enough for Christ is it not good enough for all of us?
I very nearly shat myself I laughed so hard.
Burning someone else's religious symbols tends to show how much you "dislike" them
It's Muslims, not moslems.
Intentionally offending people tends to mean you "dislike" them, usually to the extent of hating them
Right, and I haven't been called a "baby killer" by these lunatics...(and yes, I have been), told me pretty well they didn't like me not one bit.
Paying attention to the dead instead of Christ....? So, normal run of the mill Christians don't have funerals? Amazing, maybe you should tell all those cross bearing nutjobs that block my streets with their funeral processions regularly
...may not take up arms... Ok so, 1st crusade, 2nd crusade, 3rd crusade, the child's crusade, (biblical reference) "An eye for an eye", more people have died in the name of "God" than for any other reason...
So your solution to it is bury your head in the sand and hope that any bullies that come along just pass you by. So when the non-christian sects from around the world show up at your doorstep, drag you out of your house and torture you, then demand that you believe in "their faith" rather than christianity, you're just going to go with the flow and let it happen?
and yes, i did rise to troll bait, it felt good.
erm, the stockpiles of jets, munitions, vehicles, training etc the the US and other UN nations have been providing since the founding of Israel....
"America" isn't a country. The United States, Canada, Mexico, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Argentina, Aruba, Bolivia, Bonaire, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Curacao, Ecuador, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela are all countries within North, Central and South "America". Stop thinking that the United States is the 'only America'.
I have zero issues with GMT as it provides a standardization that has been agreed upon for time tracking. It wouldn't matter to me if if was titled something else and set somewhere else as long as it's agreed upon and enough people use it.
it's really not nice to make me laugh this hard so early in the morning. You've been watching Fox news again haven't you....
Statements like yours is big reason why this conflict is still raging. As long as the conspiracy theories, omission of facts, and outright lies continue to circulate the level of animosity will continue to grow. Until the Arab's stop threatening Israel's existence there will be no peace. The Arab's initiated this conflict in 48 and then got their asses handed to them in 67 and again in 73. It was in 48 when the Arabs repudiated the UN decision to create the state of Israel and then evacuated most of the Arab's in the expected area of conflict with promises they could come back in a few days after they finished killing all the Jews. Everyone knows how that turned out. The Arab's should have paid lip service to the UN decision at least long enough to work out some type of plan before rushing the war. I'll admit I don't know whether the UN resolution was a good decision or not but time has made that irrelevant today. The fact is the resolution was passed and Israel does exist and I seriously doubt the Israeli's are going to pack up and leave anytime soon. In 48 the world was still recovering from war and the horrors associated with war. The discovery of the death camps was fresh in every ones mind at that time and that generated a lot of sympathy for the Jews and I have to believe that sympathy made a big impact when it came to passing the resolution.
And if the UN stepped in and took half or more of your country away from you because a western country couldn't control the populace, you wouldn't be pissed off? I'd damn well expect my neighboring countries to step up and defend against an annexation.
It's not a "getting even" issue. The land belonged to the Palestinians. The British pulled out being unable to come to a happy medium and lelf it up in the air until the newly formed UN created the state of Israel and assisted in expelling the Palestinians. I'm not on either of their sides, seeing as I would prefer a happy medium to be met, but the shit of it is, the western world kicked it off this go-round after WWII and it's understandable that the Palestinian's want their land back.
Stalin killed 23million Russians, so yeah, I'd definitely have to agree.
go sit infront of your local congressman or senator's house and download a few hunder songs/movies on their "unsecured" wireless network.
I don't like the new shit they are spewing out, all the music i generally like to listen to, I have purchased, downloaded or gotten from friends. When/if they do actually produce music that is worth me listening to, I MIGHT consider buying it, but if someone else does and gives me a copy... ah well.
>>>as if everyone who downloads a pirated song would have run out to buy the CD otherwise
Precisely. I certainly don't buy songs; why should I, when the music is available 24/7 on youtube or pandora? Nowadays the only music I buy is on Greatest Hits CDs (because you get ~20 songs for less than a dollar each).
The real thing harming music companies (and radio) is the internet and the fact you can access almost anything at anytime you desire. Maybe they should try suing that. (LOL)
And you sir, by purchasing these greatest hits cd's, are now liable to be sued by the artists for damages due to not legally obtaining a copyrighted work from them.. re: CRIAA recent settlement.
So let's see here. If I buy a pirated CD, I'm liable for infringment. If I download a pirated song, I'm liable for infringement. If I buy a pirated song (in bundle) from the RIAA's members, I'm NOT liable... WTF
L.......Ron......Hubbard......
Actually, "life sentence" does not mean "for the duration of your natural life" in most states/countries. Most countries have laws determining a set minimum time that has to be served on a life sentence before a person can be considered for parole. These minimum sentences range from 5-35 years generally as well as the addendum "without the portability of parole". When someone is sentenced to "consecutive life sentences" it quite literally means that, even with a minimum of 5 years, they would have to serve 5 years per life sentence before being eligible for parole. i.e 5 consecutive life sentences would be a minimum of 25 years. But again, it depends on the country and/or state.
so your argument is, that in a case of US vs Joe Smoe (Joe allegedly stole some office supplies), the US can subpoena my records because Joe and I post on /. together and we just so happened to post comments on the same article?
Executive orders have less authority than acts of Congress.
this is why he has veto.
erm Obama has the right of veto, and he damn sure SHOULD use it with explanation as to why. Passing a bill with bullshit just because there are other important matters is in actuality perpetuating bullshit. Veto that fucker, send it back and say do it again.
if he was my cell mate, i'd give him mad points and mod him up. but he still wouldn't get my cornbread.
Thanks for the info, however I would ask: in the issuance of a "subpoena duces tecum", does the government not have to provide reasonable suspicion that the persons indicated in the subpoena took part in the crime?
A single individual's action towards another's speech is not covered by the first amendment. It would be murder. However, if the government passed a law stating "no person shall voice their opinion on the tastes of Ice cream, or arrested you for it, then it would absolutely be a violation of free speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It means that the Gov't cannot make any law restricting what you can say. Most constitutional lawyers I know will tell you very clearly that the first amendment is meant specifically for citizens to speak to/about their government without fear of punishment. They will also tell you very specifically that you can face consequences for what you say.