Yea, I mean paying and organization to download music.
BTW, the US style laws is because of the WIPO WTC and WPPT treaties. Of course the RIAA equivilents are interested in it too but those two treaties which were in effect before the US changed their laws last (DMCA) contain all the provisions of the DMCA.
Your crazy if you think your starting a revolution or that you would have a chance.
You can make whatever rationalization you like, but hard sales pitches ARE insulting. Dell's hard sales pitch was especially insulting given the context in which it was delivered.
No, it wasn't insulting. He said I heard your comment, agreed with it, and i'm here to offer any services you can use. The words were different but that's the context of what was said. Culture and translation got in the way though.
To any true socialist (which I doubt Putin is), Dell's comments are even more insulting. Allow me to rephrase Dell's question to be more transparent to his motives: "What goods and services can we sell you at inflated prices, so that we may unfairly enrich ourselves and our own and disadvantage you and yours?" Remember, a goal of socialism is exchanges of equal value in every transaction, as much as that is humanly possible. What Dell's offer implied was anything but philanthropic or socialistic.
Lol.. That's just crazy. Dell didn't say anything about prices nor did they say anything about control or that they would be at a disadvantage. All of that is your warped little mind injecting predetermined thoughts into the mix. Putin would have had the choice to go it alone just as he would have had the choice to take them up on it if they found the costs to their liking. That's the benefit of a free society, if you don't like the price, you can look somewhere else. But even in a socialist point of view, one side doesn't get to dictate the value of something. They can only express the value to themselves.
And Dell did this on a public stage at an economic forum. Putin had every reason to be insulted.
Nope. He had no reason if he would have understood the point coming across and how it wasn't meant to be demeaning. Dell was within the topic of the summit and addressed issues on topic. He probably would have been better off making the statement in a more personal setting so as questions on the intent and misunderstandings could have followed but it wasn't an insult.
That could be. Anyways, that's the intent of my statement. They know that not all plugins will be derived works and therefor they can't force the GPL onto them yet they are claiming they can.
I was thinking, if I created a plugin that was nothing more then a socket extending the API from GCC to the api for my socket which allowed commercial plugins to use GCC by proxy of my socket, then promised to never enforce the GPL requirements if you download the plugin from me, we could bypass the "GPL only" inferences altogether. I'm the only one who can claim copyright on my works and I'm the only one who can enforce it so non-compliance wouldn't be a problem.
I was thinking exactly the same. Can I help you and how can I help you are stock greetings in retail for everything from cars to computers to cameras to lumber yards. Even receptionists start off with can I help you and similar techniques.
This is more of a clash of cultures with a little lost in translation mixed in with it. Dell could probably put a computer on Putin's desk tomorrow if they explained where the comment was coming from and that people in America see that as a friendly greeting when people are wanting to sell you something.
I say this not as a Dell Supporter. I think their tech support sucks, their computers leave a lot to be desired and their sales campaigns piss me off (the stoner dude who gets a chubby when someone buys a dell or the interns who aren't competent enough to see if someone is still in the room before shutting the lights down). But fair is fair, and I'm not against dell, I believe your on spot with your analysis.
Perhaps you should move to Russia and put your childish rebelion to work,
However, from what I heard in the video, the problem is more of a translation problem then an insult. Dell was simply saying we will be happy to set up shop and allow you to tap our resources because we want to sell things to you. It's obvious that the word help which when companies speak of it in the US, they usually mean provide something you want to buy, got translated in a way that questioned Russia's competence in IT. As Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in the beginning, we are not invalids, you should help them. Where in the later part of the video, he talks about using imports and partners from other countries as crutched more or less but stated their goals were to build Russia's abilities and support local development and sources.
Now, he basically conflicts the impression of the beginning statement with an actual statement made further into the video. This tells me that Micheal Dell was a country boy in a big city where what he thought he said meant something else. In America, the sales person generally asks how can I help you with the intentions of making a sale. In this case, Russia's terminology or customs probably aren't aware of this so it came across insulting instead of just a sales pitch. The comments were not bigoted, arrogant or egotistical at all, they were just different styles that were lost in translation.
Just wait until it's anti virus program starts flagging audience members with the sniffles as viruses and put warning incidents out there or tries to remove them.
I was going to make some lame comment about how Tampa is finally getting tech like Miami (CSI TV show) and rant about the costs/effectiveness in a non-obvious way. It takes real imagination to come up with a stop error ****0x0000B00B
Well, the story on that is, I don't know where it is. The majority of people would have gotten a replacement from their providers well before the switch was finalized as the tech in that area moves at a much faster pace then a mature standard that leaves little to no room for improvement. The government did allow the providers to move over gracefully but you were already matching phones to third party services so it isn't really the same. I know people who's phone worked until they disconnected the service then they couldn't find a new service provider that would activate it.
However, I can see where the use of a voucher could be warranted in the same ways. The analog phones got better reception, didn't sound like a broken CDs with a tinny voice (newer phones are better but earlier ones were noticable). Perhaps a voucher was warranted. BUT, one wrong doesn't make another legitimate. If I robbed your house and got away with it, it doesn't mean your next door neighbor should too. And this really is where something is being taken from you without compensation. The air waves are public property, the government said "this is what is needed to work" and disallowed anything else (keeping strict control over it) then before those products were at the end of it's life expectancy, they made it functionally obsolete without the help of another third party in the form of a one time charge for a converter box or by subscribing to a monthly plan. So they took the intended use of the devices away from you. Now, because that happened in the past and may have been wrong then, it doesn't mean that it isn't wrong now nor does it mean that some compensation shouldn't be warranted. This is especially true when you realize that the main reasons for doing so is to sell the excess bandwidth and make money from it.
So in reality, even though you may have a point about needing a voucher for an AMPs cell phone, it really does nothing about the need to a converter box voucher today.
Do you really think that corporations will miss a single dime of profit if the pollution standards increase?
All they will do is jack up the costs to consumers which means less of them will be able to afford them. The companies who aren't already operating at a lost (which seems to be none of them at this point) will go out of business making more people poor. That all that will happen.
You come across as if these corporations are attempting to sneak an extra $10 past you or something. That simply isn't the case. If the tech was here, they would probably already be using it. You can't magically say let there be cleaner engines and poof, it happens.
BTW, I'm against abortions too. It's because it seems to be targeted at minorities and the people who some elitist bullshitter's think are less desirable. Look at planned parenthood, they won't even set an abortion clinic up unless more then 20% of the local population is black. Black Americans are the only group shrinking in size as a percentage of the population because of abortion. Granted they actually grew in percentage wise from 2000 to 2008 but only by 1.2% when they were projected to grow around 4% by 2010. That's quite a lot of niggars getting killed because this way is legal genocide.
Sure, we need to send condoms and birth control to those filthy savages in Africa and everywhere else they deem not worthy of a strong and numerous population and convince them to abort their future. Of course you got the religious whackjobs saying that life begins at conception so now we counter with saving the lives of the worthy who can pay for stem cell procedure by using the aborted cells. It all a racket and only a small minority of abortions are performed to save human life, the rest is to rid society of the undesirables and the crap they might start. Supporting abortion is something we should really be proud of.
I remember Frank saying just days before Fannie needed bailed out that they were in fine shape and people should invest with them.
I also remember Bush calling for regulations on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003 then republican senators in 2005 and again in 2007 all getting shot down or lost in commities that Frank and Dod chair. I'm not sure how Obama enters the mix outside of being one of the few senators getting campaign finance donations from Fannie and Freddie.
Actually, left and right wings are used in today's American politics to describe opposing sides of ideology.
Words and phrases can have more then one meaning. They often do. Take red for instance. It could mean a color or an insinuation of being communist. And yes, I know the communist part comes from the red flags.
Isn't discrimination on pay already illegal? So what good would another law do and how is that important?
BTW, the right wing that you believe needs de-funded by the president (the president shouldn't be doing anything to any political wing) believes that enforcing the laws on the books helps more then having new laws that don't get enforced. And no, Bush was no Right wing, he's a moderate.
The telecom immunity bill provides absolutely no protections for this guys new claims. If it's ringing a bell, it's the end of the round.
In fact, the immunity bill didn't provide any immunity that wasn't already there but incapable of being realized because of classifying the paperworks under national security secretes.
You would think people would be this smart but they aren't.
I know a person who spent 6 years taking care of her aunt in her own home as she was suffering from some disease and they decided not to stuff her into a nursing home seeing how there was only one other relative besides her alive still. She had around 3-5 million in rental property and probably another 2 million in other assets like stocks, bank accounts, jewelry and so on.
So after the aunts death, the will was read with the two surviving family members present. She ended up leaving everything to her attorney (who also made out the will). Not one dime went to anything else except her funeral and final medical bills.
I suggested that she fight the will and take some of the money, if nothing else, attempt to get additional money for taking care of her for the last 6 years. She decided against it because every lawyer she spoke with wanted 30 or 35% of the judgment and her aunts lawyer could spend some of the funds in defending the will. She would have needed no money at all and the lawyers would only be paid if they won and they were confident they could have the will invalidated. I told her she was stupid because 60% of 5-7 million dollars is a hell of a lot more then her $35,000 a year income. Her boyfriend, the restaurant manager who work his way up from a dishwasher convinced here that it wasn't worth it.
By my calculations, she should have still gotten around 60% which should be between 3 and 4 million to be split between two people. But somehow she was convinced that a lawyer taking over 1.75 million was just too much so she let it go to another lawyer without a fight. It's been about 5-6 years and not to long ago, she told me she finally realized how much money she let slip by.
People are stupid about these types of things even when otherwise intelligent. I don't know if it is fear or the uncertainty but it's easy for someone not directly connected to it to see the mistakes as they are happening.
Okay, there's the thing. What do the Iraqi people have to do with our war, and why are they in peril? By creating a war on "Terrorism", and then bombing innocent civilians and their children until the remaining populous turns to arms in order to fight back, you most certainly ARE giving aid to the enemy (it is a nebulous entity we declared war on).
It doesn't matter, it is a war in and of itself. What you are describing is one of the hells of war. Using the same logic, we can say that anyone who supports Israel is committing treason too because Israel shells the terrorists in Lebanon and the Palestine territories. Bin laden himself claimed 9/11 was because of our support for Israel so should Bill Clinton have been hung for treason? If you answered yes, then you need to do some serious thinking about this.
I have been questioning your fiat declaration of Iraq as a "theater of war" since the beginning of this conversation, and you've not responded to it properly yet. You seem to make the assumption that since we're dropping bombs in Iraq, it's a legitimate theater of war, and that since war is Hell the consequences are both unavoidable and blameless. This is what I've been saying bullshit about the whole time. Being that Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks on 20010911, every single terrorist that comes or has come out of Iraq since the invasion was created without cause or provocation by Bush's policies. The very moment that one of these men joins Al Qaeda, the terrorist Bush (and friends) created wholecloth has become material support for Al Qaeda.
That's because my point wasn't about the justification for Iraq being at war. War is a function of government and in our case defined by the constitution and as long as our government takes on that act, then any consequences because of it can't be used to apply treason against a sitting president. And it doesn't matter is Iraq took part in 9/11 or not, that has nothing to do with the situation.
I get what you're saying, I am saying that since Iraq is NOT a legitimate theater of war, that the whole "war is Hell" idea doesn't apply. Creating those terrorists was a choice made by Americans, not Arabs. If we were talking about Afghanistan, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but we're not.
But Iraq is a legitimate theater of war. Congress passed the appropriate levels of authority in order to go to war in Iraq, Bush didn't act alone or in defiance of government procedures or permission. He acted within the guidelines availible for reasons he thought just regardless of any final knowledge of their accuracy.
BTW, the treason part would have to be treason towards Americans, it doesn't matter what the Arabs think. The president of the United States as well and every citizen is not obligated to foreign powers or their ideas of treason. Treason is an act against your own country, not a foreign country. The fact that we went to war with another country and that caused support for another faction doesn't come into play. You can't be acting legally and be convicted of treason. Especially when it is a legal concept specifically defined within the constitution.
If a bunch of Canadians attacked China, and then China attacks my home state here in the U.S., bombing a school and killing my sons, then yes China itself (certainly not Canada) created whatever Hell I can (and would) unleash upon them, and the person who ordered the attack on my homeland would be solely responsible (aside from me myself, of course, the blame would be shared and I would be happy to revel in my part in it in such a case, but no third party could possibly be held accountable).
First of all, if the bunch of Canadians weren't backed by the Canadian government, then it wouldn't be war eve
To keep the analogy going, there would still be cabs and buses that you could use instead of your own car, even tow trucks that would tow your car.
The problem here is more like outlawing bicycles then cars. With bricking the TVs and VCRs and stuff, it is taking something that was usable without paying a third party at all and now it is dependent on paying a third party. Imagine if the city outlawed bicycles on the side walks and public streets and forced you to take a cab or bus (or buy a converter- your own car) to a designated bike path at your expense just to go the last mile to your destination the same way. Obviously this wouldn't be right, especially if the trip to the bike path was longer then the trip to your destination. But now the device you purchased to use for it's intended purpose to your advantage has been made functionally obsolete without the payment to a third party for what appears to be arbitrary reasons. Now imagine this being the case for all roads and streets across the country.
The biggest problem here is that the government controlled the specs that the TVs used for over the air broadcasts. The switch shouldn't have happened until after the expected lifespan of the previous equipment so at some time, everyone would have replaced the old stuff with newer and capable stuff. A way to achieve this would have been to allow a spec for the digital broadcasts to run in parallel with the analog (as it is today in most places) at a length of time reasonable expected for older devices to fail and need replacement. The biggest problem most people have, other then being able to put it into words that are understandable, is that even after the law was made mandating the changes, the new equipment being sold still had the previous tech only in it so as little as 5 years ago, you could have went to the store and purchased a digital ready TV because of an s-video connection with no ASTC tuner capabilities in the device and no warnings at all. The TV you purchased 10 years ago that is expected to last another 10 years is functionally obsolete now if you don't pay a third party some money in addition to what you already paid or expected to pay.
Imagine buying something and then finding out after the sale in which it was represented that it would just work, that you either had to buy a service from a third party or another device to make it work because someone decided to make extra money from auctioning off part of the (airwaves) way it works.
Jefferson would find your reliance on the Government pretty troubling.
No, I doubt he would find it troubling. In fact, Jefferson was a reasonable man who would probably see that the troubling problem would be the government controlling the broadcast channels in the first place let alone mandating specs on manufacturing devices meant for provate markets ab consumption them making a law that all the sudden turns those previous devices to junk before their expected life span was up. He would probably look at the incompetence there as well as the encroachment of the federal government acting in ways and places it never should have constitutionally been and they presume that the government had an obligation to make the people whole again.
This is not a hey, take from him and give to me. This is a we played by your rules and now that you changed those rules and turned out investment to junk to benefit private companies, the people want a way to continue using their investments that followed the rules set forth by the government when it was made.
It's the same principle as cutting programs in the budget when the program still has more funding then it did the previous year except that it didn't get as much as it wanted.
It's just a ploy to work on emotion by ignoring relevant facts. The democrats have been playing it on their supporters for a long time now. It's like the same idea that you can tax the rich and take all their money and expect the jobs to still be there paying the same amounts the next year when the companies turn evil and ship them to India, Mexico or China.
Or when to take cover because a tornado is coming at you, or to stock up on supplies because the snow storm will leave you stranded, or to get out of dodge because the hurricane is coming, or not to look directly into the light because we are under attack and so on. Ther existed a need to maintain communications with the populace to save human life and property well before any FEMA was established and there will be after that too. Don't let what you perceive to be a bad or alarming thing distort that.
I honestly hadn't thought of this way. I guess I'm coming from the (admittedly emotional) perspective that society is moving in the direction of eliminating legal differences between men and women, and that this is (on the whole) a good thing. As such, I feel saying "you can't discriminate for housing (or employment or whatever) on the case of gender" means that "marriage is only between one man and one woman" is discriminatory.
To a point. The gender discrimination laws for housing are just that, laws. Being a law, they can and do apply to the extent another law doesn't stop it from applying. In my area, the laws goes even further and protects the family unit too. This means that they can't discriminate in housing based on having a family, not having a family, or calling unrelated people a family regardless of gender, race or whatever.
Now, marriage is not housing, and a law about housing wouldn't apply to marriage. We need to keep things organized into how they actually are. I will agree that the lack of protection is disheartening and somewhat depressing for some but I'm of the belief that you cannot stop a damn from bursting by building a bird house. What I mean by that is that you have to understand the root of the issues and how the different aspects intertwine and apply before realizing what must be done. You then have to do what will be effective instead of threatening to others. Otherwise your just tilting at windmills and getting upset when people inform you of that or laugh at the action.
You're right, this is much more of an emotional argument than a legal one. And, honestly, most of what I've seen of the efforts to overturn Prop 8 seem on rather shaky legal ground. So I don't know...But you've convinced me that waving my hands won't make gay marriage legal...(as much as I might wish it would).
Most people are reasonable when given the chance. A big problem is that they aren't emotional about it and see things for what they are. Then when you have people calling them homophobes or making claims that just don't pan out, you end up with people who haven't had the opportunity to be reasonable. I don't know how many times I have been called a homophobe because I didn't want to be around a lude flamer or because of this entire legal verses moral issue or because I said I didn't care if someone was gay or not (that's actually a funny story- someone was attempting to convince me that a gay person wasn't retarded because he was gay- but he actually was retarded, rode the short bus, and had a mind equivalent to a 8 year old at age 35). There are tons more examples but all it does is put people in defense mode where they dig in and cling to what they know and are comfortable with instead of listening to reason. When you ask people why gays should be allowed to marry, you get responses like "to get health insurance", or "tax breaks", or "to visit someone in the hospital" and so on. The real reason is because when two people love each other, they want to join themselves into one single new family and the states have a law that enables that called marriage. All the other stuff is just part of being in a family and most people don't see the benefits of it as much as gays do (taking it for granted) or they see it more as a scam attempt to game the system.
That said, I think your final thoughts in reply to my original post were a little harsh:
I don't think I was too harsh, at least for the levels of frustration we were seeing. IF I offended you, I apologize.
I didn't say not letting gays marry is tyranny, and it's misrepresenting my view to claim I did. I specifically said it's tyranny of the majority, in the same way keeping interracial marriage illegal was. And interracial marriage was not corrected with constitutional amendments, but with a Supreme Court ruling in 1967. You're right, the road was paved with XIV, but it t
How in the hell can you not understand. Jesus fuck man, you need help.
Reread my previous post and look to where I was explaining that I wasn't making a statement on the hells of war, I was making a statement on stretching laws to incorporate coverage where it shouldn't otherwise be and how that is dangerous and can be applied in reverse thereby effecting you too. You and the op may very well be brain washed into believing the perils of war aid the enemy thereby creating a situation of treason by nature of getting involved into another war but that reasoning is so thin that it can be applied to your speaking out against was in the same light and make you guilty of the same.
If you still don't understand, I suggest just hanging it up on the topic. Any normal person should have got it by now. They most likely got it in the beginning.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, I mean paying and organization to download music.
BTW, the US style laws is because of the WIPO WTC and WPPT treaties. Of course the RIAA equivilents are interested in it too but those two treaties which were in effect before the US changed their laws last (DMCA) contain all the provisions of the DMCA.
Both of them of course. Do you wear more?
Your crazy if you think your starting a revolution or that you would have a chance.
No, it wasn't insulting. He said I heard your comment, agreed with it, and i'm here to offer any services you can use. The words were different but that's the context of what was said. Culture and translation got in the way though.
Lol.. That's just crazy. Dell didn't say anything about prices nor did they say anything about control or that they would be at a disadvantage. All of that is your warped little mind injecting predetermined thoughts into the mix. Putin would have had the choice to go it alone just as he would have had the choice to take them up on it if they found the costs to their liking. That's the benefit of a free society, if you don't like the price, you can look somewhere else. But even in a socialist point of view, one side doesn't get to dictate the value of something. They can only express the value to themselves.
Nope. He had no reason if he would have understood the point coming across and how it wasn't meant to be demeaning. Dell was within the topic of the summit and addressed issues on topic. He probably would have been better off making the statement in a more personal setting so as questions on the intent and misunderstandings could have followed but it wasn't an insult.
That could be. Anyways, that's the intent of my statement. They know that not all plugins will be derived works and therefor they can't force the GPL onto them yet they are claiming they can.
I was thinking, if I created a plugin that was nothing more then a socket extending the API from GCC to the api for my socket which allowed commercial plugins to use GCC by proxy of my socket, then promised to never enforce the GPL requirements if you download the plugin from me, we could bypass the "GPL only" inferences altogether. I'm the only one who can claim copyright on my works and I'm the only one who can enforce it so non-compliance wouldn't be a problem.
I was thinking exactly the same. Can I help you and how can I help you are stock greetings in retail for everything from cars to computers to cameras to lumber yards. Even receptionists start off with can I help you and similar techniques.
This is more of a clash of cultures with a little lost in translation mixed in with it. Dell could probably put a computer on Putin's desk tomorrow if they explained where the comment was coming from and that people in America see that as a friendly greeting when people are wanting to sell you something.
I say this not as a Dell Supporter. I think their tech support sucks, their computers leave a lot to be desired and their sales campaigns piss me off (the stoner dude who gets a chubby when someone buys a dell or the interns who aren't competent enough to see if someone is still in the room before shutting the lights down). But fair is fair, and I'm not against dell, I believe your on spot with your analysis.
Perhaps you should move to Russia and put your childish rebelion to work,
However, from what I heard in the video, the problem is more of a translation problem then an insult. Dell was simply saying we will be happy to set up shop and allow you to tap our resources because we want to sell things to you. It's obvious that the word help which when companies speak of it in the US, they usually mean provide something you want to buy, got translated in a way that questioned Russia's competence in IT. As Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in the beginning, we are not invalids, you should help them. Where in the later part of the video, he talks about using imports and partners from other countries as crutched more or less but stated their goals were to build Russia's abilities and support local development and sources.
Now, he basically conflicts the impression of the beginning statement with an actual statement made further into the video. This tells me that Micheal Dell was a country boy in a big city where what he thought he said meant something else. In America, the sales person generally asks how can I help you with the intentions of making a sale. In this case, Russia's terminology or customs probably aren't aware of this so it came across insulting instead of just a sales pitch. The comments were not bigoted, arrogant or egotistical at all, they were just different styles that were lost in translation.
Just wait until it's anti virus program starts flagging audience members with the sniffles as viruses and put warning incidents out there or tries to remove them.
Nice!
I was going to make some lame comment about how Tampa is finally getting tech like Miami (CSI TV show) and rant about the costs/effectiveness in a non-obvious way. It takes real imagination to come up with a stop error ****0x0000B00B
My hats off to you.
Well, the story on that is, I don't know where it is. The majority of people would have gotten a replacement from their providers well before the switch was finalized as the tech in that area moves at a much faster pace then a mature standard that leaves little to no room for improvement. The government did allow the providers to move over gracefully but you were already matching phones to third party services so it isn't really the same. I know people who's phone worked until they disconnected the service then they couldn't find a new service provider that would activate it.
However, I can see where the use of a voucher could be warranted in the same ways. The analog phones got better reception, didn't sound like a broken CDs with a tinny voice (newer phones are better but earlier ones were noticable). Perhaps a voucher was warranted. BUT, one wrong doesn't make another legitimate. If I robbed your house and got away with it, it doesn't mean your next door neighbor should too. And this really is where something is being taken from you without compensation. The air waves are public property, the government said "this is what is needed to work" and disallowed anything else (keeping strict control over it) then before those products were at the end of it's life expectancy, they made it functionally obsolete without the help of another third party in the form of a one time charge for a converter box or by subscribing to a monthly plan. So they took the intended use of the devices away from you. Now, because that happened in the past and may have been wrong then, it doesn't mean that it isn't wrong now nor does it mean that some compensation shouldn't be warranted. This is especially true when you realize that the main reasons for doing so is to sell the excess bandwidth and make money from it.
So in reality, even though you may have a point about needing a voucher for an AMPs cell phone, it really does nothing about the need to a converter box voucher today.
It does if they knew they are wrong.
Fuck, can't you follow your own post? You laid it out, I said they were wrong just after saying they were wrong and knew it by claiming deception.
Do you really think that corporations will miss a single dime of profit if the pollution standards increase?
All they will do is jack up the costs to consumers which means less of them will be able to afford them. The companies who aren't already operating at a lost (which seems to be none of them at this point) will go out of business making more people poor. That all that will happen.
You come across as if these corporations are attempting to sneak an extra $10 past you or something. That simply isn't the case. If the tech was here, they would probably already be using it. You can't magically say let there be cleaner engines and poof, it happens.
BTW, I'm against abortions too. It's because it seems to be targeted at minorities and the people who some elitist bullshitter's think are less desirable. Look at planned parenthood, they won't even set an abortion clinic up unless more then 20% of the local population is black. Black Americans are the only group shrinking in size as a percentage of the population because of abortion. Granted they actually grew in percentage wise from 2000 to 2008 but only by 1.2% when they were projected to grow around 4% by 2010. That's quite a lot of niggars getting killed because this way is legal genocide.
Sure, we need to send condoms and birth control to those filthy savages in Africa and everywhere else they deem not worthy of a strong and numerous population and convince them to abort their future. Of course you got the religious whackjobs saying that life begins at conception so now we counter with saving the lives of the worthy who can pay for stem cell procedure by using the aborted cells. It all a racket and only a small minority of abortions are performed to save human life, the rest is to rid society of the undesirables and the crap they might start. Supporting abortion is something we should really be proud of.
What's false about it?
I remember Frank saying just days before Fannie needed bailed out that they were in fine shape and people should invest with them.
I also remember Bush calling for regulations on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003 then republican senators in 2005 and again in 2007 all getting shot down or lost in commities that Frank and Dod chair. I'm not sure how Obama enters the mix outside of being one of the few senators getting campaign finance donations from Fannie and Freddie.
Actually, left and right wings are used in today's American politics to describe opposing sides of ideology.
Words and phrases can have more then one meaning. They often do. Take red for instance. It could mean a color or an insinuation of being communist. And yes, I know the communist part comes from the red flags.
Isn't discrimination on pay already illegal? So what good would another law do and how is that important?
BTW, the right wing that you believe needs de-funded by the president (the president shouldn't be doing anything to any political wing) believes that enforcing the laws on the books helps more then having new laws that don't get enforced. And no, Bush was no Right wing, he's a moderate.
The telecom immunity bill provides absolutely no protections for this guys new claims. If it's ringing a bell, it's the end of the round.
In fact, the immunity bill didn't provide any immunity that wasn't already there but incapable of being realized because of classifying the paperworks under national security secretes.
Lol... US style, you mean Canada style right? In the US, the RIAA still has to fund their own lawsuits.
You would think people would be this smart but they aren't.
I know a person who spent 6 years taking care of her aunt in her own home as she was suffering from some disease and they decided not to stuff her into a nursing home seeing how there was only one other relative besides her alive still. She had around 3-5 million in rental property and probably another 2 million in other assets like stocks, bank accounts, jewelry and so on.
So after the aunts death, the will was read with the two surviving family members present. She ended up leaving everything to her attorney (who also made out the will). Not one dime went to anything else except her funeral and final medical bills.
I suggested that she fight the will and take some of the money, if nothing else, attempt to get additional money for taking care of her for the last 6 years. She decided against it because every lawyer she spoke with wanted 30 or 35% of the judgment and her aunts lawyer could spend some of the funds in defending the will. She would have needed no money at all and the lawyers would only be paid if they won and they were confident they could have the will invalidated. I told her she was stupid because 60% of 5-7 million dollars is a hell of a lot more then her $35,000 a year income. Her boyfriend, the restaurant manager who work his way up from a dishwasher convinced here that it wasn't worth it.
By my calculations, she should have still gotten around 60% which should be between 3 and 4 million to be split between two people. But somehow she was convinced that a lawyer taking over 1.75 million was just too much so she let it go to another lawyer without a fight. It's been about 5-6 years and not to long ago, she told me she finally realized how much money she let slip by.
People are stupid about these types of things even when otherwise intelligent. I don't know if it is fear or the uncertainty but it's easy for someone not directly connected to it to see the mistakes as they are happening.
It doesn't matter, it is a war in and of itself. What you are describing is one of the hells of war. Using the same logic, we can say that anyone who supports Israel is committing treason too because Israel shells the terrorists in Lebanon and the Palestine territories. Bin laden himself claimed 9/11 was because of our support for Israel so should Bill Clinton have been hung for treason? If you answered yes, then you need to do some serious thinking about this.
That's because my point wasn't about the justification for Iraq being at war. War is a function of government and in our case defined by the constitution and as long as our government takes on that act, then any consequences because of it can't be used to apply treason against a sitting president. And it doesn't matter is Iraq took part in 9/11 or not, that has nothing to do with the situation.
But Iraq is a legitimate theater of war. Congress passed the appropriate levels of authority in order to go to war in Iraq, Bush didn't act alone or in defiance of government procedures or permission. He acted within the guidelines availible for reasons he thought just regardless of any final knowledge of their accuracy.
BTW, the treason part would have to be treason towards Americans, it doesn't matter what the Arabs think. The president of the United States as well and every citizen is not obligated to foreign powers or their ideas of treason. Treason is an act against your own country, not a foreign country. The fact that we went to war with another country and that caused support for another faction doesn't come into play. You can't be acting legally and be convicted of treason. Especially when it is a legal concept specifically defined within the constitution.
First of all, if the bunch of Canadians weren't backed by the Canadian government, then it wouldn't be war eve
To keep the analogy going, there would still be cabs and buses that you could use instead of your own car, even tow trucks that would tow your car.
The problem here is more like outlawing bicycles then cars. With bricking the TVs and VCRs and stuff, it is taking something that was usable without paying a third party at all and now it is dependent on paying a third party. Imagine if the city outlawed bicycles on the side walks and public streets and forced you to take a cab or bus (or buy a converter- your own car) to a designated bike path at your expense just to go the last mile to your destination the same way. Obviously this wouldn't be right, especially if the trip to the bike path was longer then the trip to your destination. But now the device you purchased to use for it's intended purpose to your advantage has been made functionally obsolete without the payment to a third party for what appears to be arbitrary reasons. Now imagine this being the case for all roads and streets across the country.
The biggest problem here is that the government controlled the specs that the TVs used for over the air broadcasts. The switch shouldn't have happened until after the expected lifespan of the previous equipment so at some time, everyone would have replaced the old stuff with newer and capable stuff. A way to achieve this would have been to allow a spec for the digital broadcasts to run in parallel with the analog (as it is today in most places) at a length of time reasonable expected for older devices to fail and need replacement. The biggest problem most people have, other then being able to put it into words that are understandable, is that even after the law was made mandating the changes, the new equipment being sold still had the previous tech only in it so as little as 5 years ago, you could have went to the store and purchased a digital ready TV because of an s-video connection with no ASTC tuner capabilities in the device and no warnings at all. The TV you purchased 10 years ago that is expected to last another 10 years is functionally obsolete now if you don't pay a third party some money in addition to what you already paid or expected to pay.
Imagine buying something and then finding out after the sale in which it was represented that it would just work, that you either had to buy a service from a third party or another device to make it work because someone decided to make extra money from auctioning off part of the (airwaves) way it works.
No, I doubt he would find it troubling. In fact, Jefferson was a reasonable man who would probably see that the troubling problem would be the government controlling the broadcast channels in the first place let alone mandating specs on manufacturing devices meant for provate markets ab consumption them making a law that all the sudden turns those previous devices to junk before their expected life span was up. He would probably look at the incompetence there as well as the encroachment of the federal government acting in ways and places it never should have constitutionally been and they presume that the government had an obligation to make the people whole again.
This is not a hey, take from him and give to me. This is a we played by your rules and now that you changed those rules and turned out investment to junk to benefit private companies, the people want a way to continue using their investments that followed the rules set forth by the government when it was made.
It's the same principle as cutting programs in the budget when the program still has more funding then it did the previous year except that it didn't get as much as it wanted.
It's just a ploy to work on emotion by ignoring relevant facts. The democrats have been playing it on their supporters for a long time now. It's like the same idea that you can tax the rich and take all their money and expect the jobs to still be there paying the same amounts the next year when the companies turn evil and ship them to India, Mexico or China.
Or when to take cover because a tornado is coming at you, or to stock up on supplies because the snow storm will leave you stranded, or to get out of dodge because the hurricane is coming, or not to look directly into the light because we are under attack and so on. Ther existed a need to maintain communications with the populace to save human life and property well before any FEMA was established and there will be after that too. Don't let what you perceive to be a bad or alarming thing distort that.
They are wrong.
To a point. The gender discrimination laws for housing are just that, laws. Being a law, they can and do apply to the extent another law doesn't stop it from applying. In my area, the laws goes even further and protects the family unit too. This means that they can't discriminate in housing based on having a family, not having a family, or calling unrelated people a family regardless of gender, race or whatever.
Now, marriage is not housing, and a law about housing wouldn't apply to marriage. We need to keep things organized into how they actually are. I will agree that the lack of protection is disheartening and somewhat depressing for some but I'm of the belief that you cannot stop a damn from bursting by building a bird house. What I mean by that is that you have to understand the root of the issues and how the different aspects intertwine and apply before realizing what must be done. You then have to do what will be effective instead of threatening to others. Otherwise your just tilting at windmills and getting upset when people inform you of that or laugh at the action.
Most people are reasonable when given the chance. A big problem is that they aren't emotional about it and see things for what they are. Then when you have people calling them homophobes or making claims that just don't pan out, you end up with people who haven't had the opportunity to be reasonable. I don't know how many times I have been called a homophobe because I didn't want to be around a lude flamer or because of this entire legal verses moral issue or because I said I didn't care if someone was gay or not (that's actually a funny story- someone was attempting to convince me that a gay person wasn't retarded because he was gay- but he actually was retarded, rode the short bus, and had a mind equivalent to a 8 year old at age 35). There are tons more examples but all it does is put people in defense mode where they dig in and cling to what they know and are comfortable with instead of listening to reason. When you ask people why gays should be allowed to marry, you get responses like "to get health insurance", or "tax breaks", or "to visit someone in the hospital" and so on. The real reason is because when two people love each other, they want to join themselves into one single new family and the states have a law that enables that called marriage. All the other stuff is just part of being in a family and most people don't see the benefits of it as much as gays do (taking it for granted) or they see it more as a scam attempt to game the system.
I don't think I was too harsh, at least for the levels of frustration we were seeing. IF I offended you, I apologize.
How in the hell can you not understand. Jesus fuck man, you need help.
Reread my previous post and look to where I was explaining that I wasn't making a statement on the hells of war, I was making a statement on stretching laws to incorporate coverage where it shouldn't otherwise be and how that is dangerous and can be applied in reverse thereby effecting you too. You and the op may very well be brain washed into believing the perils of war aid the enemy thereby creating a situation of treason by nature of getting involved into another war but that reasoning is so thin that it can be applied to your speaking out against was in the same light and make you guilty of the same.
If you still don't understand, I suggest just hanging it up on the topic. Any normal person should have got it by now. They most likely got it in the beginning.