If the creator profits from letting someone else control the copyright, even though the creator took a one time lump sum payment, he is still profiting from the monopoly created by law.
Also, you should look into who did what to copyrights. The US has always lagged behind Europe on the length of copyright terms. Most of the adjustments to the terms or time a copyright is valid is due to a treaty already taken up by our European Friends. While US companies might be leading the pack in promoting these changes, the US itself plays follow the leader to other countries (mainly England).
Read what I wrote. Your comments are dribble that has nothing to do with it. I know people who claim that if you do not like Obamacare or do not support his push to ban guns, you are somehow a racist. This is nothing close to prefacing a comment then spitting something racist out. This is saying I don't share the same political beliefs as someone and then those legitimate differences of opinions or ideology all the sudden being claimed they are racist only because the person you do not agree with is black. It is a WTF moment for sure.
Not that I disagree with you, but I became an ordained minister years ago by mailing $25.00 to the address on the back of the match book cover. This was in the 80's and I assume that according to the state of California, it is still valid since there is no expiration date on the certification and it is still on file with that state (I live elsewhere). I did it just to see what it would do, not really trying to con anyone or anything. I did have thoughts of creating a church in my home so I could deduct living expenses from my taxes but that never worked out on paper once someone who knew the tax laws looked at the plan.
Uhh, that's almost completely wrong. The only harvested trees that are taken out of the loop are ones shoved into the earth's crust somewhere. Otherwise, they go right back into the system.
Wrong. Trees harvested over 100 years ago are still inside my old house that is still standing at the site it was originally built. Eventually, harvested trees might end back into the loop, but they remain out for along time with quite a few of them ending up in land fills as garbage or construction wastes.
Meanwhile, there are millions and millions of trees that aren't dying, but are instead growing larger, consuming more and more carbon. A study a few years back (Google for it) showed that, for many plant species, the amount (not percent, raw amount) of wood they added each year continued to grow as they aged, even if the percent of growth slowed down. And you can't forget the majesty of old growth forests - if you haven't seen an old growth tree in person, you really don't understand what old growth means,
Sure, and if the trees don't end up dieing in a forest fire like what happens in the western USA every year......
The indoor tanning tax was implemented pretty much the day the law was signed (mid-2010). Final regulations on it took awhile (they were just issued this month), but everyone whose paid to use a tanning bed since 2010 has been required to pay the tax.
Ok, who was subject to the tax that wanted to end obamacare but did not attempt it? Just because someone was taxes doesn't mean the person wanting to challenge the tax was the one taxed.
The started as a House Bill, HB 3590. Since origination is never defined in the Constitution these conservatives made up a definition that doesn't include it. Unfortunately for them nobody outside of their tiny anti-ObamaCare circle is gonna take their definition of "Origination" very seriously because it's just that: their definition. The people who actually matter in these things are the US House, which did not object to the Senate bill. Seperation of Powers means the Courts only intervene in the other branches interpretation of their particular Constitutional clauses in cases where those branches are seriously violating somebody's rights.
Then put all your mental might into a legal brief and submit it to the courts hearing this. As I said, it's being challenged and you not liking it doesn't change that fact. I am quite positive that if there was no merit, it would have been dismissed or will be before it gets any steam. The fact that it hasn't lends me to believe you are wrong.
That's why nobody who paid the Tanning Tax sued on the basis ObamaCare was Senate-originated and therefore not allowed to have taxes in it. What's gonna happen is the District Court will refuse to rule, probably on the basis that the origination clause is only the Judicial branch's business if it's being abused to oppress religious minorities (First Amendment) or racial minorities (14th and 15th Amendments); they'll appeal to the Appeals Court, which will refuse to ruls on the basis of "Fuck you asshole," and then the Supremes will ignore them.
Remember, people have paid taxes without objection even when later those taxes have been rescinded because of constitutionality. Just because no one has argued about a certain tax because a legal theory fites does not mean the theory is defective, it means no one has argued it. And as I said before, it's up to the courts, I think it has more merit then you do but we will have to wait and see.
I don't know. But when you look at the progression of this thread and my comments to it, then any misunderstanding would be on your part for not being specific. If you meant something other then what the thread was discussing, the onus would be on your to distinguish that when making your comment. That would clear up any confusion.
When "i don't agree with obamacare" is equal to being a racist, your comment is a joke. Seriously, not agreeing with the president is considered racist now. Its a WTF moment all the way around.
Someone should have told snowden and manning that.
Oh wait, they did. Sometimes something needs to be said but saying it could be worse for you than what needs pointed out. Some times an anonymouse post saying does so and so look pregnant is better then a husband saying why are you getting fat.
People are already charged by weight. All garbage going to landfills or that are burnt for energy has a fee asociated with it either the ton or hundred weight. The bill you see asociated with it or even you rent if its included already considers that.
I don't know if you understand this or not, but trees need to be harvested and used to take the carbon out of the loop else they die and decay and go right back into it.
Lol. I remember it going from 5 to 10 cents just before the pladtic 2 liter came to market. The biggest benefit if those were weight and durability. Some of the early commercials actually showed knocking them off the table without breaking as a selling point.
I bet the ac you replied to has always seen plastic softdrink bottles being availible and likely never saw mcdonalds serving it's big mac sandwiches in styrofoam boxes
I hope you understand that laws generally except police in their official capacity. The police acted within the confines of the law so the word you are actually loking for is detained- not abducted
At one point in time the US was more free then other countries. This is because the size and scopr of the federal government has traditionally been constrained and limited for the most part. The cold war changed a lot of that ss well did the hippy movement of the 60's and the economic colapse in the 70's. Government expanded rapidly trying to "PROTECT" us from then communidt russians and the people started demanding more of the federal government which they were more then happy to address as long as it could increase the powet it held over the people.
This isn't party specific either. Even when a party runs against it as part of their platform, once they get power then make it worse but different.
There's a reason nobody made this argument, despite the fact that the Mandate-Tax was not the only tax in the bill. There's the Cadillac Tax, investment income tax hikes, Medicare payroll tax hikes, etc.
Yes, that reason is because you cannot argue standing against a tax that you are not yet subject to. You have to show injury in fact in your standing and until the tax impacts you, that has not happened.
They're quite open that this isn;t a serious legal argument, it's a political effort to get Roberts to change his mind.
Roberts will not change his mind if there is no legal backing for it. None of the judges will support the concept if it isn't legally sound. You seem to be reading too much into what was said. Roberts said the penalties were taxes because they were essentially taxes laid in a reverse order. Once those taxes have an impact on someone, standing to sue over the process they became law becomes possible.
Anyways, it isn't my argument, it is an argument being made and it will end up at the supreme court unless they refuse to hear it.
And I pointed out where you are completely wrong. Neither is silenced as I pointed out. There is even supposed to be a million Muslim march on Washington soon too. How is that possible if they are silenced?
Turns out I recall alright - if you wish to enter into 'life' you can merely keep the commandments; though being 'complete' seems to require more:
Jesus said to him, âoeIf you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.â But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
Well, you have proved you have absolutely no understanding of the bible. Jesus told someone trying to buy his way into heaven that. His point was that he put money before God and he would have to fix that problem not that all Christians are to be broke forever. Further, timothy and luke and a few other books talk about this too. They describe how rich people fall to sin in gathering and relishing their riches.
There's nothing irrational about pointing out inconsistencies in how people follow a religion. Being able to criticise religion is a luxury of the modern age for which I'm quite thankful, though Islam seems determined to put itself beyond any and all criticism still. Christians don't seem to be able to muster up the same anger these days.
Christians generally never did muster up that sort of anger. People positioning themselves for power have (inquisition) and people who were scared have (Salem witch hunts), but Christians themselves often turn the other cheek when criticized. Anyways, what you pointed out doesn't say what you think it says.
Sadly many Christians also accept the Old Testament, particularly the evangelical denominations. Needless to say most of the nasty or downright bizarre stuff gets glossed over (e.g. Samson killing a load of people because they cheated at his 'riddle' about killing a lion and finding bees and honey in its carcass instead of gore).
lol.. Here is more of your misunderstanding. The old testament is properly placed in Christianity because it teaches the covenants the lord made with the people and the prophecies that legitimizes Jesus as Christ. The part you think is glossed over is the history of the other covenants. Those books were supposedly written while those covenants were still active and added to the collection called the bible.
Liken it to this if you still don't understand. Suppose there is a town and it flooded every 10 or so years when it rained a lot. People and property were destroyed because other rains would erode the path of the flood waters and it would enter from different points. So they built a dam and held the waters back. Now suppose that dam had burst at some time and killed half he town and destroyed 1/3 of it. They rebuilt it to be a better dam and built a channel to direct the water away from town along with flood gates to lower the water levels before the rainy season. Now several decades have passed with no incidents and someone wants to build an apartment building in the middle of the new flood plain. They petition to have the dam removed or alternatively to stop the release of water. But people look back at the history and understand why the dam is there and why there is a release of water. This is essentially the old testament simplified. Its the history of the new testament, it outlines the prophecies that needed fulfilled for Jesus to be our savior and the new testament is the history of that happening along with what we are commanded under the latest covenant.
Please tell me more about what that has to do with an action the UK took at a UK airport under UK law with UK agents? How exactly again can Obama or the USA fire and imprison those UK agents for not doing something under UK law?
I guess it has been a long while since you checked, you recalled completely incorrectly as if you had little clue about what you were talking about.
But hey, try again. I'm sure you are going to pop up with some other the bible says so everyone else is not worthy comment in some irrational attempt to discredit Christians.
I don't see any charges on Assange that the US has on him. Please point me to this list of laws he violated.
Oh, and his imaginary claims that if he went to another country to face rape charges or even an investigation into the allegations that he would be somehow end up in club gitmo is not enough.
And yet you attempted to claim one message would be heard and the other silenced, one was good and the other bad. You are full of shit was my point. As for the typo in your name, I wasn't really trying to pay you with respect. It was accidental with no rage involve, but the sentiment remains true- ignorant - deceptive.
I think one of the major problems is that the US was never intended to be a monolithic top down model as so many people seem to think it needs to be today. The States is where the politicians need to consider the needs and wants of the people. The federal government outside of post offices, post roads and military, it largely an intermediate government that represents the states to the rest of the world. They regulate Interstate Commerce but constitutionally the intent was more about making trade among the states reasonable and fair instead of this idea of unlimited power if someone could marginally impact trade.
Originally, the three branches of government were designed to represent the major components of the US. The senate originally represented the state itself. This is reflected by the senators originally being selected from state legislators and appointed by the governors of the states. The house of representatives represented the people of the states and the Presidency represented the people of the nation. The idea was that each party had a dog in the fight, the people in their local settings, the states as a whole, and the country as a whole.
That has morphed into a serve me and serve me now mechanism that leads to a lot of the strife and dismay that you express. It is also something that has accelerated the bastardization and outright ignoring of the US constitution which has been going on for quite some time. Political parties is part of the problem, but expecting the government to be something it wasn't intended to be is also a key to the problem. Before any electoral system is altered, it would be wise to alter the intent of the government and document it in something solid like a constitution. Only then will what I think you are after will be reasonably achievable.
Not all conservatives are religious and not all religious conservatives are of the same religion. Further, not all conservatives are conservative in everything they do and practice.
I hope that didn't shock your reality and cause some severe cognitive dissonance within your own self. You seem to be suffering the same mental process called stereotyping that has allowed racists to claim all blacks are drug pushing gangster wanna be's who thieve, kill, and lie because they met a couple like that at some point in time or saw it on the news.
IF we take this a step further, we can assume you are inclined to reference all conservatives as Christians but don't understand what that means. You see, Jesus was a neccesity because Man could not live up to the standards and laws God put to us. His entire premise is that he offers a way into God's grace and eternal salvation by sacrificing himself for our sins. All we have to do to get this is accept Jesus into our hearts and ask for forgiveness.
Now here is the important part. If the Chrisitan religion is developed around acknowledging that we cannot be perfect and need to ask for forgiveness from time to time, then why is someone screwing up their marriage supposed to be a sign of cognitive dissonance or pathological? I mean make peace with your maker, repent and move on. There is no problem at all if you understand what you seem to be railing again.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a little misleading.
If the creator profits from letting someone else control the copyright, even though the creator took a one time lump sum payment, he is still profiting from the monopoly created by law.
Also, you should look into who did what to copyrights. The US has always lagged behind Europe on the length of copyright terms. Most of the adjustments to the terms or time a copyright is valid is due to a treaty already taken up by our European Friends. While US companies might be leading the pack in promoting these changes, the US itself plays follow the leader to other countries (mainly England).
Read what I wrote. Your comments are dribble that has nothing to do with it. I know people who claim that if you do not like Obamacare or do not support his push to ban guns, you are somehow a racist. This is nothing close to prefacing a comment then spitting something racist out. This is saying I don't share the same political beliefs as someone and then those legitimate differences of opinions or ideology all the sudden being claimed they are racist only because the person you do not agree with is black. It is a WTF moment for sure.
Not that I disagree with you, but I became an ordained minister years ago by mailing $25.00 to the address on the back of the match book cover. This was in the 80's and I assume that according to the state of California, it is still valid since there is no expiration date on the certification and it is still on file with that state (I live elsewhere). I did it just to see what it would do, not really trying to con anyone or anything. I did have thoughts of creating a church in my home so I could deduct living expenses from my taxes but that never worked out on paper once someone who knew the tax laws looked at the plan.
Wrong. Trees harvested over 100 years ago are still inside my old house that is still standing at the site it was originally built. Eventually, harvested trees might end back into the loop, but they remain out for along time with quite a few of them ending up in land fills as garbage or construction wastes.
Sure, and if the trees don't end up dieing in a forest fire like what happens in the western USA every year......
Ok, who was subject to the tax that wanted to end obamacare but did not attempt it? Just because someone was taxes doesn't mean the person wanting to challenge the tax was the one taxed.
Then put all your mental might into a legal brief and submit it to the courts hearing this. As I said, it's being challenged and you not liking it doesn't change that fact. I am quite positive that if there was no merit, it would have been dismissed or will be before it gets any steam. The fact that it hasn't lends me to believe you are wrong.
Remember, people have paid taxes without objection even when later those taxes have been rescinded because of constitutionality. Just because no one has argued about a certain tax because a legal theory fites does not mean the theory is defective, it means no one has argued it. And as I said before, it's up to the courts, I think it has more merit then you do but we will have to wait and see.
I don't know. But when you look at the progression of this thread and my comments to it, then any misunderstanding would be on your part for not being specific. If you meant something other then what the thread was discussing, the onus would be on your to distinguish that when making your comment. That would clear up any confusion.
When "i don't agree with obamacare" is equal to being a racist, your comment is a joke. Seriously, not agreeing with the president is considered racist now. Its a WTF moment all the way around.
Someone should have told snowden and manning that.
Oh wait, they did. Sometimes something needs to be said but saying it could be worse for you than what needs pointed out. Some times an anonymouse post saying does so and so look pregnant is better then a husband saying why are you getting fat.
People are already charged by weight. All garbage going to landfills or that are burnt for energy has a fee asociated with it either the ton or hundred weight. The bill you see asociated with it or even you rent if its included already considers that.
I don't know if you understand this or not, but trees need to be harvested and used to take the carbon out of the loop else they die and decay and go right back into it.
Lol. I remember it going from 5 to 10 cents just before the pladtic 2 liter came to market. The biggest benefit if those were weight and durability. Some of the early commercials actually showed knocking them off the table without breaking as a selling point.
I bet the ac you replied to has always seen plastic softdrink bottles being availible and likely never saw mcdonalds serving it's big mac sandwiches in styrofoam boxes
Thats an interesting idea. Who or what should i contact to organize it for the animals mentioned?
The problem will more likely be in the food sources. High fructose corn syrup seems to be part of it.
I hope you understand that laws generally except police in their official capacity. The police acted within the confines of the law so the word you are actually loking for is detained- not abducted
At one point in time the US was more free then other countries. This is because the size and scopr of the federal government has traditionally been constrained and limited for the most part. The cold war changed a lot of that ss well did the hippy movement of the 60's and the economic colapse in the 70's. Government expanded rapidly trying to "PROTECT" us from then communidt russians and the people started demanding more of the federal government which they were more then happy to address as long as it could increase the powet it held over the people.
This isn't party specific either. Even when a party runs against it as part of their platform, once they get power then make it worse but different.
Yes, that reason is because you cannot argue standing against a tax that you are not yet subject to. You have to show injury in fact in your standing and until the tax impacts you, that has not happened.
Roberts will not change his mind if there is no legal backing for it. None of the judges will support the concept if it isn't legally sound. You seem to be reading too much into what was said. Roberts said the penalties were taxes because they were essentially taxes laid in a reverse order. Once those taxes have an impact on someone, standing to sue over the process they became law becomes possible.
Anyways, it isn't my argument, it is an argument being made and it will end up at the supreme court unless they refuse to hear it.
And I pointed out where you are completely wrong. Neither is silenced as I pointed out. There is even supposed to be a million Muslim march on Washington soon too. How is that possible if they are silenced?
Well, you have proved you have absolutely no understanding of the bible. Jesus told someone trying to buy his way into heaven that. His point was that he put money before God and he would have to fix that problem not that all Christians are to be broke forever. Further, timothy and luke and a few other books talk about this too. They describe how rich people fall to sin in gathering and relishing their riches.
Christians generally never did muster up that sort of anger. People positioning themselves for power have (inquisition) and people who were scared have (Salem witch hunts), but Christians themselves often turn the other cheek when criticized. Anyways, what you pointed out doesn't say what you think it says.
lol.. Here is more of your misunderstanding. The old testament is properly placed in Christianity because it teaches the covenants the lord made with the people and the prophecies that legitimizes Jesus as Christ. The part you think is glossed over is the history of the other covenants. Those books were supposedly written while those covenants were still active and added to the collection called the bible.
Liken it to this if you still don't understand. Suppose there is a town and it flooded every 10 or so years when it rained a lot. People and property were destroyed because other rains would erode the path of the flood waters and it would enter from different points. So they built a dam and held the waters back. Now suppose that dam had burst at some time and killed half he town and destroyed 1/3 of it. They rebuilt it to be a better dam and built a channel to direct the water away from town along with flood gates to lower the water levels before the rainy season. Now several decades have passed with no incidents and someone wants to build an apartment building in the middle of the new flood plain. They petition to have the dam removed or alternatively to stop the release of water. But people look back at the history and understand why the dam is there and why there is a release of water. This is essentially the old testament simplified. Its the history of the new testament, it outlines the prophecies that needed fulfilled for Jesus to be our savior and the new testament is the history of that happening along with what we are commanded under the latest covenant.
Please tell me more about what that has to do with an action the UK took at a UK airport under UK law with UK agents? How exactly again can Obama or the USA fire and imprison those UK agents for not doing something under UK law?
Oh, so it's some massive conspiracy that the facts for proof exist only in your mind.
I don't doubt him being connected to a report who printing about the crap snowden released, but it still is the UK.
What does the USA have to do with this. This happened in the UK by UK agents using a UK law that was written pre 9/11.
I guess it has been a long while since you checked, you recalled completely incorrectly as if you had little clue about what you were talking about.
But hey, try again. I'm sure you are going to pop up with some other the bible says so everyone else is not worthy comment in some irrational attempt to discredit Christians.
I don't see any charges on Assange that the US has on him. Please point me to this list of laws he violated.
Oh, and his imaginary claims that if he went to another country to face rape charges or even an investigation into the allegations that he would be somehow end up in club gitmo is not enough.
And yet you attempted to claim one message would be heard and the other silenced, one was good and the other bad. You are full of shit was my point. As for the typo in your name, I wasn't really trying to pay you with respect. It was accidental with no rage involve, but the sentiment remains true- ignorant - deceptive.
I think one of the major problems is that the US was never intended to be a monolithic top down model as so many people seem to think it needs to be today. The States is where the politicians need to consider the needs and wants of the people. The federal government outside of post offices, post roads and military, it largely an intermediate government that represents the states to the rest of the world. They regulate Interstate Commerce but constitutionally the intent was more about making trade among the states reasonable and fair instead of this idea of unlimited power if someone could marginally impact trade.
Originally, the three branches of government were designed to represent the major components of the US. The senate originally represented the state itself. This is reflected by the senators originally being selected from state legislators and appointed by the governors of the states. The house of representatives represented the people of the states and the Presidency represented the people of the nation. The idea was that each party had a dog in the fight, the people in their local settings, the states as a whole, and the country as a whole.
That has morphed into a serve me and serve me now mechanism that leads to a lot of the strife and dismay that you express. It is also something that has accelerated the bastardization and outright ignoring of the US constitution which has been going on for quite some time. Political parties is part of the problem, but expecting the government to be something it wasn't intended to be is also a key to the problem. Before any electoral system is altered, it would be wise to alter the intent of the government and document it in something solid like a constitution. Only then will what I think you are after will be reasonably achievable.
Not all conservatives are religious and not all religious conservatives are of the same religion. Further, not all conservatives are conservative in everything they do and practice.
I hope that didn't shock your reality and cause some severe cognitive dissonance within your own self. You seem to be suffering the same mental process called stereotyping that has allowed racists to claim all blacks are drug pushing gangster wanna be's who thieve, kill, and lie because they met a couple like that at some point in time or saw it on the news.
IF we take this a step further, we can assume you are inclined to reference all conservatives as Christians but don't understand what that means. You see, Jesus was a neccesity because Man could not live up to the standards and laws God put to us. His entire premise is that he offers a way into God's grace and eternal salvation by sacrificing himself for our sins. All we have to do to get this is accept Jesus into our hearts and ask for forgiveness.
Now here is the important part. If the Chrisitan religion is developed around acknowledging that we cannot be perfect and need to ask for forgiveness from time to time, then why is someone screwing up their marriage supposed to be a sign of cognitive dissonance or pathological? I mean make peace with your maker, repent and move on. There is no problem at all if you understand what you seem to be railing again.