And so, you would support considering such political mockery intellectual property theft? I'd say, GP found an excellent example of why political speech should be exempt from all free speech restrictions — including copyright claims.
(Ironically, the author of the (in)famous "Hope" poster is a thief (and a liar) himself:-)
This title seems to support Chuck DeVore've claim, that his "theft" is parody — that the pick was based on the views of the authors. Something like: if this perpetually-high lunatic supports my opponents, you all should support me.
In either case, I'd say, political speech should be exempt from even the copyright rules. Otherwise we may, eventually, find that it is impossible to quote any of your opponents and their supporters.
Imagine, Jeremiah Wright, for example, claiming, that his America-bashing sermons are copyrighted (the way Scientologists copyright their material) and anybody using them against Obama is not only racist (as all RepubliKKKans), but also an intellectual-property thief...
Try having another religion other then christianity then, thats basicly what i was talking about.
Can't parse the above...
And the cartoon riots were incited by a handful of clerics
Exactly. These people were lead by the priests, which is what I'm talking about: today's Islam is fuller (of wonder), than today's Christianity — or, pretty much, anything else out there...
people here in Europe are going on about "Eurabia"
That unfortunate sentiment is not religious, but racist. As such, it is off-topic to our conversation...
If thats the case why were the Muslim countries ten times more liberal then its western counterpart 1000 years ago?
Actually, Christianity was quite liberal 1000 years ago — before the crusades, before the Inquisition (and the worst abuses thereof). The priests were allowed to marry. Even the "great schism" separating Roman (Catholic) and Byzantine (Orthodox) Churches has not happened yet.
The fact that there are thousands of different law school should be an indication of that.
Well, the anti-cartoon riots were world-wide, from the Wahhabist Arabs, to the moderate Pakistanis, to the perfectly "liberal" Indonesians.
Surely, Christians would've been upset and hurt by a disrespectful depiction of Jesus. But they don't go to hundreds-of-thousand demonstrations, nor issue death threats — much less follow-up on any...
But my suggestion — that the relative age of Islam may be the explanation of its adherents absurd behavior — was only a guess anyway... I just can't think of a more charitable explanation, unfortunately.
You, moron, deprived of any sense of style, irony, subtlety, or even originality, witless and blabbering your pathetic attempts at "humor", which fall flat in a deadening silence of the startled audience unable to comprehend, how that seemingly able body of yours could possibly house such a cruel caricature of intelligence.
Go away, hide, and don't come back until you are through all of your summer reading assignments and have written "I will not use the word `shit' in a joke again" in foot-tall letters on the highway. In bright crayons. 200 times...
Though religions are, indeed, full of wonder, some are fuller than others... Religion of Peace in particular... Maybe, it is just because it is so young — over 700 years younger than even Christianity, though.
I declined, because I knew he would very quickly find weed in the car and in the pockets of everyone in the car.
...
Know your rights. It's fucking important.
Yours is a crappy example, because you were guilty of a crime (possession and transporting, probably, across state-lines too). You just helped reinforce the already widely-held opinion, that people refusing a search do, indeed, have something to hide... I really do wish, you and your companions got arrested and prosecuted back then — law-enforcement lost a good fight that evening, despite the cop's instinct being right about your group. (As long as weed is illegal, police ought to fight it — deciding the merits of the prohibition is not up to them.)
You'd do your future audiences a great service, if you teach them the importance of knowing their rights without admitting your guilt like that... There are good reasons to refuse to cooperate with overzealous police, but your incident did not involve any.
therefor, when you refuse to answer questions on those grounds, you indicate that you believe at least one of two things:
You're guilty of the crime you're charged with
You're guilty of another crime
By your logic, it is impossible to invoke the Fifth Amendment without admitting belief in your own guilt...
Such thinking is wrong, of course, and defeats most of the purpose of the Amendment... One may be perfectly innocent and do the invoking merely to ease their defense, for example...
He didn't say he'd hire zero lobbyists. He said he wouldn't hire a lot of lobbyists.
Weaselese...
As in, of the field of lobbyists, most would not be getting a job offer in the Obama administration.
Meaningless. There are tens of thousands of lobbyists in the US. Even if Obama staffed (stuffed?) his White House only with lobbyists, most of the the lobbyists would not have a job offer from him.
Here is, what he declared on the first day in the office though — already a change of tone from the election campaign:
In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.
That policy was immediately violated:
Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
It would've all been fine, of course — the President is entitled to pick anyone for his Administration (save for a few posts, which must be approved by Congress), but his pre-election grandstanding is now hurting him — despite your and yours best efforts.
read what I highlighted - they said "most", which meant that Ratzinger indeed handled some before 2001.
I asked you for evidence of Ratzinger's misconduct — not insinuations, but actual misdeeds: what did he do to deserve being anally raped with a splintered broomstick, and when did he do it.
Ratzinger was the man who decided that one of the abusers would go back into the field and be allowed to work with kids again despite being warned against it.
You don't like reading the opponent-suggested material, do you? New York Times lied to you — by omission. In fact:
That diabolical priest, Lawrence C. Murphy, was assigned to St. John's School for the Deaf in 1950, before Joseph Ratzinger was even ordained.
Reports of his abuse of the deaf children surfaced in the 1950s. But, under three archbishops, nothing was done. Police and prosecutors were alerted by parents of the boys. Nothing was done.
Weakland, who became archbishop in 1977, did not write to Rome until 1996.
And as John Allen of National Catholic Reporter noted last week, Cardinal Ratzinger "did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001.... Prior to 2001, Ratzinger had nothing personally to do with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, even the small percentage which wound up in Rome."
By the time Cardinal Ratzinger was commissioned by John Paul II to clean out the stable, Murphy had been dead for three years. [emphasis mine -mi]
The abuses now coming to light have taken place under earlier pontiffs — including the Jean Paul, whom the Left were praising (for his anti-Bush stance). I think, someone has already pointed that out to you... Here is a more detailed rebuttal to the current anti-Catholicism hysteria.
atheism is now the fastest-growing belief [emphasis mine -mi] in the US.
Religion is stupid and foolish. It is based on "belief" [emphasis mine -mi], not facts.
(Quotes don't change the meaning here...) There are good arguments for and against Atheism (or Agnosticism), but calling other belief-systems "stupid and foolish" merely for being belief-systems &mdash is not one of them...
also stupid and/or foolish. All of them. Every single one.
The evidence shows that he sent the priest back into the field, after being sent memos saying that the guy would re-offend.
He may have thought, the memos were wrong. Or that the priest was too good at his main job. Or whatever — I'm not agreeing with him, just stating, again, that his action was not necessarily evidence of "cognitive dissonance". Catholic church has been extremely lenient towards its members for many centuries (except in the crimes against the Faith itself, of course)...
Fuck the pope. Preferably with a broomstick. With splinters.
Oh, wow... And then — after calling for such cruel and unusual punishment for a person, who has not even done anything remotely similar to anyone himself, you'll turn around and protest waterboarding and other "torture" of people credibly and strongly suspected of terrorism and, maybe, even the death penalty (for convicted murderers)...
Read-up and count the number of items, with which you agree... Kill yourself, when you reach 50%.
John Kerry was in the military.
John Kerry's problem was, he had nothing else to brag about. 20-something years in the US Senate and all he talks about during his Presidential campaign, is the 4+ months he spent in Vietnam? Thousands of others did too, idiot, talk about, what makes you a better fit for Presidency, than a guy who fought for 8 months?
Obama went a different direction with his life
To each his own, of course. I was just pointing out, that John McCain — and both Republican Presidents before him — could fly a plane, as in the movie. Obama would not be able to. That's all.
it doesn't make him less of an able leader or man in general.
18 months late for the fight, with a blood alcohol level of 74 mg/100
George W. Bush stopped drinking at the age of 40. He was fit and healthy enough to be running regularly during his first term (had a knee problem later). Obama, meanwhile, can't stop smoking — despite all the bad PR it gives him — talk about character...
And, yes, all of those Republicans I listed did have fighter-pilot training. Two of the three even saw actual combat and both were shot down by the enemy.
What do your lawyers have to brag about? Getting disbarred?..
Am I the only one annoyed and offended by the flashing "reduce speed" signs, which implore me to slow down without knowing my current speed? Would they stop blinking if I stopped completely?
It is like that mother asking her husband: "Go check, what the kids are doing, and tell them to stop."
They're the holy grail of transportation engineering: streets and highways specifically designed to encourage automobilists to drive less quickly, reducing the rates of passenger fatalities and generally encouraging a safer urban environment.
Citation needed...
Roads are for us to get somewhere — and quickly...
I want one! Here, on Earth... It can even be bigger in size than a mini-Cooper — so as to be able to accommodate passengers and cargo. But, on the other hand, it does not need to be so sturdy as to survive a landing on Mars — only the reactor needs to be protected so as to not explode upon falling into Grand Canyon.
Will I ever have one? Ok, if not me, maybe, it can be produced in an 18-wheeler form-factor? No? A rail-road locomotive?
Talk about eliminating dependency on (foreign) oil!
I'm fairly happy with my Sony Bravia — hooked up to my home network (both Ethernet and WiFi are there), it can go to things YouTube or Netflix directly.
It can also play contents off of your computer, although it is, unfortunately, rather picky... The server must comply with DLNA-standard (not merely UPnP MediaServer). The set of supported formats is rather disappointing too, both for movies, and even for JPEG-pictures. For example, Sony's own software (also found in their digital picture frames) rejects Progressive JPEGs.
But, on balance, the direct access to so many things with the TV's own remote is great...
Slashdot Mirror
And so, you would support considering such political mockery intellectual property theft? I'd say, GP found an excellent example of why political speech should be exempt from all free speech restrictions — including copyright claims.
(Ironically, the author of the (in)famous "Hope" poster is a thief (and a liar) himself :-)
Can I mock both of you? Him for being a (bad) king and you for supporting him?
This title seems to support Chuck DeVore've claim, that his "theft" is parody — that the pick was based on the views of the authors. Something like: if this perpetually-high lunatic supports my opponents, you all should support me.
In either case, I'd say, political speech should be exempt from even the copyright rules. Otherwise we may, eventually, find that it is impossible to quote any of your opponents and their supporters.
Imagine, Jeremiah Wright, for example, claiming, that his America-bashing sermons are copyrighted (the way Scientologists copyright their material) and anybody using them against Obama is not only racist (as all RepubliKKKans), but also an intellectual-property thief...
Can't parse the above...
Exactly. These people were lead by the priests, which is what I'm talking about: today's Islam is fuller (of wonder), than today's Christianity — or, pretty much, anything else out there...
That unfortunate sentiment is not religious, but racist. As such, it is off-topic to our conversation...
Actually, Christianity was quite liberal 1000 years ago — before the crusades, before the Inquisition (and the worst abuses thereof). The priests were allowed to marry. Even the "great schism" separating Roman (Catholic) and Byzantine (Orthodox) Churches has not happened yet.
Well, the anti-cartoon riots were world-wide, from the Wahhabist Arabs, to the moderate Pakistanis, to the perfectly "liberal" Indonesians.
Surely, Christians would've been upset and hurt by a disrespectful depiction of Jesus. But they don't go to hundreds-of-thousand demonstrations, nor issue death threats — much less follow-up on any...
But my suggestion — that the relative age of Islam may be the explanation of its adherents absurd behavior — was only a guess anyway... I just can't think of a more charitable explanation, unfortunately.
You, moron, deprived of any sense of style, irony, subtlety, or even originality, witless and blabbering your pathetic attempts at "humor", which fall flat in a deadening silence of the startled audience unable to comprehend, how that seemingly able body of yours could possibly house such a cruel caricature of intelligence.
Go away, hide, and don't come back until you are through all of your summer reading assignments and have written "I will not use the word `shit' in a joke again" in foot-tall letters on the highway. In bright crayons. 200 times...
Though religions are, indeed, full of wonder, some are fuller than others... Religion of Peace in particular... Maybe, it is just because it is so young — over 700 years younger than even Christianity, though.
Could it be, that simply flashing anything colorful — be it a McDonald's logo, or Obama's "Hope" poster — will make a person impatient?
Yours is a crappy example, because you were guilty of a crime (possession and transporting, probably, across state-lines too). You just helped reinforce the already widely-held opinion, that people refusing a search do, indeed, have something to hide... I really do wish, you and your companions got arrested and prosecuted back then — law-enforcement lost a good fight that evening, despite the cop's instinct being right about your group. (As long as weed is illegal, police ought to fight it — deciding the merits of the prohibition is not up to them.)
You'd do your future audiences a great service, if you teach them the importance of knowing their rights without admitting your guilt like that... There are good reasons to refuse to cooperate with overzealous police, but your incident did not involve any.
By your logic, it is impossible to invoke the Fifth Amendment without admitting belief in your own guilt...
Such thinking is wrong, of course, and defeats most of the purpose of the Amendment... One may be perfectly innocent and do the invoking merely to ease their defense, for example...
Weaselese...
Meaningless. There are tens of thousands of lobbyists in the US. Even if Obama staffed (stuffed?) his White House only with lobbyists, most of the the lobbyists would not have a job offer from him.
Here is, what he declared on the first day in the office though — already a change of tone from the election campaign:
That policy was immediately violated:
And the list keeps growing...
It would've all been fine, of course — the President is entitled to pick anyone for his Administration (save for a few posts, which must be approved by Congress), but his pre-election grandstanding is now hurting him — despite your and yours best efforts.
I asked you for evidence of Ratzinger's misconduct — not insinuations, but actual misdeeds: what did he do to deserve being anally raped with a splintered broomstick, and when did he do it.
Put up or shut up. Thank you.
Maybe, it the time for you to lay down your evidence?.. Or, as they say, {Citation needed.}
You don't like reading the opponent-suggested material, do you? New York Times lied to you — by omission. In fact:
The abuses now coming to light have taken place under earlier pontiffs — including the Jean Paul, whom the Left were praising (for his anti-Bush stance). I think, someone has already pointed that out to you... Here is a more detailed rebuttal to the current anti-Catholicism hysteria.
(Quotes don't change the meaning here...) There are good arguments for and against Atheism (or Agnosticism), but calling other belief-systems "stupid and foolish" merely for being belief-systems &mdash is not one of them...
Mirror... Look in the mirror!
He may have thought, the memos were wrong. Or that the priest was too good at his main job. Or whatever — I'm not agreeing with him, just stating, again, that his action was not necessarily evidence of "cognitive dissonance". Catholic church has been extremely lenient towards its members for many centuries (except in the crimes against the Faith itself, of course)...
Oh, wow... And then — after calling for such cruel and unusual punishment for a person, who has not even done anything remotely similar to anyone himself, you'll turn around and protest waterboarding and other "torture" of people credibly and strongly suspected of terrorism and, maybe, even the death penalty (for convicted murderers)...
Talk about dissonance!..
Invalid comparison:
vs.
Maybe, hiding pedophiles encourages more of the perversion. But it is not automatically "cognitive dissonance" to think otherwise.
Read-up and count the number of items, with which you agree... Kill yourself, when you reach 50%.
John Kerry's problem was, he had nothing else to brag about. 20-something years in the US Senate and all he talks about during his Presidential campaign, is the 4+ months he spent in Vietnam? Thousands of others did too, idiot, talk about, what makes you a better fit for Presidency, than a guy who fought for 8 months?
To each his own, of course. I was just pointing out, that John McCain — and both Republican Presidents before him — could fly a plane, as in the movie. Obama would not be able to. That's all.
Not joining the military does not, I agree.
George W. Bush stopped drinking at the age of 40. He was fit and healthy enough to be running regularly during his first term (had a knee problem later). Obama, meanwhile, can't stop smoking — despite all the bad PR it gives him — talk about character...
And, yes, all of those Republicans I listed did have fighter-pilot training. Two of the three even saw actual combat and both were shot down by the enemy.
What do your lawyers have to brag about? Getting disbarred?..
There are only two ways lawyers can fly — as a passenger, or from high point down
McCain could fly a plane, I suppose. Ditto for both Bushes. Obama (or Clinton)? Only in a movie...
Am I the only one annoyed and offended by the flashing "reduce speed" signs, which implore me to slow down without knowing my current speed? Would they stop blinking if I stopped completely?
It is like that mother asking her husband: "Go check, what the kids are doing, and tell them to stop."
Citation needed...
Roads are for us to get somewhere — and quickly...
I want one! Here, on Earth... It can even be bigger in size than a mini-Cooper — so as to be able to accommodate passengers and cargo. But, on the other hand, it does not need to be so sturdy as to survive a landing on Mars — only the reactor needs to be protected so as to not explode upon falling into Grand Canyon.
Will I ever have one? Ok, if not me, maybe, it can be produced in an 18-wheeler form-factor? No? A rail-road locomotive?
Talk about eliminating dependency on (foreign) oil!
Remember that quote? "The Net views censorship as damage and, sometimes, routes into it..."
Oh, yes, another one of those "Why can't we be more like Europe?!" moments...
I'm fairly happy with my Sony Bravia — hooked up to my home network (both Ethernet and WiFi are there), it can go to things YouTube or Netflix directly.
It can also play contents off of your computer, although it is, unfortunately, rather picky... The server must comply with DLNA-standard (not merely UPnP MediaServer). The set of supported formats is rather disappointing too, both for movies, and even for JPEG-pictures. For example, Sony's own software (also found in their digital picture frames) rejects Progressive JPEGs.
But, on balance, the direct access to so many things with the TV's own remote is great...