Just because they didn't spell it out for you, it doesn't mean they're not doing it. Their kool-aid is no different from the other's. J. Edgar Hoover wasn't exactly working within the constraints of the law either. The only difference between then and now is they do it in broad daylight. Besides, it's too easy to get a warrant anyway.
And it would have saved Americans a few hundred billion dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and prevented thousands of home foreclosures by eliminating medical bankruptcies.
Doubt it very much, but there's no way of knowing. I believe it would be just as corrupt. To do it right, just make it so a guy can walk in and be fixed without a lot of paperwork. There's no reason to be tracing every step they make. Her system still feeds her corrupt friends in the business. And it would be abused by the authorities still.
I know McCain is a shill. Just want to point out that they all bend with the wind. You can be sure I won't vote for him. But the others will find a reason to keep us there also. Next thing you know we will have "secret bombings in Syria, just like Cambodia in 1970. And I believe it's "only" 100 years.
Don't be fooled. There is only one Party running the country. They represent the same thing. The last 45 years alone has illustrated just that.
He's just another believer in trickle down. He's like that "other guy" who equates free with communist. It looks like they translated to english with a Russian accent. "FOSS destroys market." Well, in Soviet Union maybe.
You want me to shut up - inconvenient truth and all that.
Well you got it wrong. You are the one to cut off the discussion. But you are definitely wrong to blame anyone for the results other than those who produced them directly. That's just simple fact, not an opinion. And the simple fact is that enough people voted for Bush for him to win the election. Your loss is due to your own divisions. The fact is that you all failed to produce a single candidate to defeat him. The fact is that Gore would have given you the same results that you have. The eight years before Bush provides more than enough evidence of that. Enough people knew that to decide to look elsewhere. But good old bling ruled the day. I do not want you to shut up. But don't put your thoughts into my head, or as the case may be here, words in my mouth. I do expect you to see what happened in a logical vein. To blame someone who is every bit as qualified, more so actually, as the standard bearers of the status quo for your(editorial) own failures is not reasonable. You are telling him to shut up, and he's telling you, "No". And to anyone who will stand up to these people, I will always say, More power. If I like what you say, you will get my vote. And you shouldn't be so quick to condemn activism. That activism brought many freedoms to people who didn't have them in the past. And we need it now more than ever to take back the freedom to move about unmolested that we have lost over the past several years. We need that same activism to free the political prisoners of the drug wars. The disaster we are experiencing now is due to excessive compromise for nothing more than appearances. So don't shut up. Speak up! While you can. Or don't. It's all up to you.
That's all fine and dandy. Just don't go around blaming me for the Bush/Cheney victory. Which is basically what you're saying because I didn't vote for your favorite candidate when I saw an adequate alternative. Nobody "siphoned off" my vote. I didn't vote for him. And I didn't vote for Gore/Lieberman either for the same reasons. I don't vote for criminals and despots. If you think the system is so broken, then fix it, instead of complaining about people who threaten your agenda. I hope you get my drift. thankyouverymuch.
We need political conscription. I say draft the SOB and make him serve:-) That'll teach him not to ever get our hopes up again. Then again he might be much more effective as a lobbyist. We should create a PAC slush fund to help out. Oops...wait a minute.
I don't care whose plagiarism it is! The fact is he was plagiarized. That is my only issue with this case. And yet All I'm seeing here is a bunch a yammering about distribution. Ok, not from you or the GGP. One little slip up on my original post, and the whole thread went straight to hell. *sigh* I see no hope of getting people back on track. I'm not going to even get into it with them over that other crap. I've made my peace with that subject, and I see no point in arguing it anymore.
In case you haven't noticed, most of the democrats are neo-cons in cheap, shabby neo-lib clothing. And I saw lot higher numbers under democrat rule in congress during the Vietnam war. Blame the Bush victory on Bush voters, where it belongs. I'm not falling for it, and I'm not going to vote to maintain the status quo. That stopped in 1972.
It certainly is a shame that the subject of plagiarism has been completely pushed aside in this thread. It's the only issue that copyright should be dealing with. It's the only issue that deals with a creator's natural, permanent, non-transferable rights.
Read it again. I'm talking about claiming the work of somebody else as your own. It doesn't even matter if it's for commercial gain or not. I shouldn't have included that bit in my original post. I repeat. If copyright was limited to stopping or reducing plagiarism, I would be all for it. Nobody has a right to control distribution.
Well, I don't believe in "imaginary property" either. The real issue to me was that somebody else claimed to have taken the picture. I wouldn't be as sympathetic if proper attribution was given.
Use of P2P is not plagiarism for commercial gain. While I'm all for the abolishment of copyright, laws against plagiarism are still needed as this case clearly shows.
I'm saying that you see a difference between democrats and republicans that just doesn't exist. Just look how the whole of congress has voted over the last seven years. The democrats put up no opposition the white house policies because, in reality, they are not opposed to them. Rationalized by not wanting to appear "soft on terrorism". Screw them. They are not the "lessor evil". They are the same evil, to the core. They were pushing for Bush-like policies while Clinton was in office. I don't dislike one side of the Party any more than the other. Both will always bring about the same results. I watched them send over 58,000 Americans to a needless death 40 years ago(and at that time by force, with military conscription), and they're doing the same now(and they are threatening to reinstate that conscription). What they do is motivated by political expediency. "Anything to win". These crooks win because people vote for them. They aren't voting for the lessor evil. They are voting to bring those earmarks to their home town with no regard for the consequences. The time to vote your conscience is always. That's the obligation of everybody who votes.
Instead of directing your distaste for those who voted for Nader, you direct it to those who voted for Bush. They put him into office, not the Nader voters. And Lieberman has his name all over patriot act in case you have any doubts about him. His vote for that(and his authorship of same), the war, the military commissions act show he's no different from the goons in the white house and their staff. You don't need to imagine anything. His record speaks for itself. And his relationship with Obana is a little too chummy for my tastes. And now he and McCain will make a fine pair. Rest assured Gore would have lead us down the same path that we are on now. Nader was the only hope for anything different, and the same applies if he runs now. The other three are joined at the hips.
But, there is only one possible outcome of another Nader run. That is to draw votes away from Obama. If Nader runs and McCain wins then Nader bears the blame just like he bears the blame for getting Bush elected.
I'm sorry, but that just sounds a little too much like "the devil made me do it". Kucinich was in the primaries, but the simple fact is that he didn't get the votes. It wasn't because somebody put a gun to peoples' head and said "don't vote for him". It was a free choice on the part of the public because they choose to believe the propaganda. It's not the system's fault that people will only pay attention to what's being presented to them. It is their own fault for not seeking out the alternatives, of which there are many. Nader bears the blame for nothing. It lies squarely on the shoulders of the voting public who voted for Bush. They are the ones that got him elected simply because they voted for him. To believe otherwise is to deny that humans have a free will, of which I do have my doubts also. B.F. Skinner anyone?
Sure 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan may well still have happened, but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore.
WHAT?! Are you aware of the part that Lieberman played in writhing the patriot act? Everybody talks about Gore, Gore, Gore, apparently ignoring the baggage he carried by having Lieberman on the ticket. It's why I didn't vote for him. Not in a million years. Lieberman is every bit the warmonger that Cheney is. Maybe more. And Clinton wanted all that wiretapping ability before 9/11. And you do remember the Clipper chip, right? Crypto export control? Line item veto? Tipper? Hillary's "health plan" which called for national IDs? And guess who spoke the loudest against those things. That's right, McCain. A proud member of the Keating Five. You better open your eyes. Nader is right about the dems and the GOP being the same, because they are. Nader is way ahead of Gore and the present front runners in terms of personal freedoms and corporate control of the government. But 99% of of you prefer to stick with the status quo.
Would you feel the same if he had won? He didn't cost the election. He provided an alternative to the Party. Something the country desperately needs. Besides, I can guarantee you that Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. THAT'S what cost the democrats the election.
The 'problem', such as it is, isn't the system, but your particularly shitty implementation of it.
...fact is, the problem isn't the system per se - the problem is that too few people actually give a damn enough about forcing a change in the nastier incidents within it, at least not until the impact of any aspect affects them personally.
Maybe a second opinion is needed, but I think you just said exactly what he did. Though it is possible that your version is "safer" for the whole family to read.
Slashdot Mirror
Dupe!
Carnivore was not mass warrantless wiretapping.
Just because they didn't spell it out for you, it doesn't mean they're not doing it. Their kool-aid is no different from the other's. J. Edgar Hoover wasn't exactly working within the constraints of the law either. The only difference between then and now is they do it in broad daylight. Besides, it's too easy to get a warrant anyway.
And it would have saved Americans a few hundred billion dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and prevented thousands of home foreclosures by eliminating medical bankruptcies.
Doubt it very much, but there's no way of knowing. I believe it would be just as corrupt. To do it right, just make it so a guy can walk in and be fixed without a lot of paperwork. There's no reason to be tracing every step they make. Her system still feeds her corrupt friends in the business. And it would be abused by the authorities still.
I know McCain is a shill. Just want to point out that they all bend with the wind. You can be sure I won't vote for him. But the others will find a reason to keep us there also. Next thing you know we will have "secret bombings in Syria, just like Cambodia in 1970. And I believe it's "only" 100 years.
Don't be fooled. There is only one Party running the country. They represent the same thing. The last 45 years alone has illustrated just that.
He's just another believer in trickle down. He's like that "other guy" who equates free with communist. It looks like they translated to english with a Russian accent. "FOSS destroys market." Well, in Soviet Union maybe.
I need ammo!
You want me to shut up - inconvenient truth and all that.
Well you got it wrong. You are the one to cut off the discussion. But you are definitely wrong to blame anyone for the results other than those who produced them directly. That's just simple fact, not an opinion. And the simple fact is that enough people voted for Bush for him to win the election. Your loss is due to your own divisions. The fact is that you all failed to produce a single candidate to defeat him. The fact is that Gore would have given you the same results that you have. The eight years before Bush provides more than enough evidence of that. Enough people knew that to decide to look elsewhere. But good old bling ruled the day. I do not want you to shut up. But don't put your thoughts into my head, or as the case may be here, words in my mouth. I do expect you to see what happened in a logical vein. To blame someone who is every bit as qualified, more so actually, as the standard bearers of the status quo for your(editorial) own failures is not reasonable. You are telling him to shut up, and he's telling you, "No". And to anyone who will stand up to these people, I will always say, More power. If I like what you say, you will get my vote. And you shouldn't be so quick to condemn activism. That activism brought many freedoms to people who didn't have them in the past. And we need it now more than ever to take back the freedom to move about unmolested that we have lost over the past several years. We need that same activism to free the political prisoners of the drug wars. The disaster we are experiencing now is due to excessive compromise for nothing more than appearances. So don't shut up. Speak up! While you can. Or don't. It's all up to you.
That's all fine and dandy. Just don't go around blaming me for the Bush/Cheney victory. Which is basically what you're saying because I didn't vote for your favorite candidate when I saw an adequate alternative. Nobody "siphoned off" my vote. I didn't vote for him. And I didn't vote for Gore/Lieberman either for the same reasons. I don't vote for criminals and despots. If you think the system is so broken, then fix it, instead of complaining about people who threaten your agenda. I hope you get my drift. thankyouverymuch.
We need political conscription. I say draft the SOB and make him serve :-) That'll teach him not to ever get our hopes up again. Then again he might be much more effective as a lobbyist. We should create a PAC slush fund to help out. Oops...wait a minute.
I don't care whose plagiarism it is! The fact is he was plagiarized. That is my only issue with this case. And yet All I'm seeing here is a bunch a yammering about distribution. Ok, not from you or the GGP. One little slip up on my original post, and the whole thread went straight to hell. *sigh* I see no hope of getting people back on track. I'm not going to even get into it with them over that other crap. I've made my peace with that subject, and I see no point in arguing it anymore.
In case you haven't noticed, most of the democrats are neo-cons in cheap, shabby neo-lib clothing. And I saw lot higher numbers under democrat rule in congress during the Vietnam war. Blame the Bush victory on Bush voters, where it belongs. I'm not falling for it, and I'm not going to vote to maintain the status quo. That stopped in 1972.
Easy for you to say when you have no idea if it wouldn't have been 10,000 under Gore/Lieberman. Try again.
It certainly is a shame that the subject of plagiarism has been completely pushed aside in this thread. It's the only issue that copyright should be dealing with. It's the only issue that deals with a creator's natural, permanent, non-transferable rights.
...producing a sales agreement signed by one ' Michael Zubitskiy' (who they said took the photo...)
In my book, that's plagiarism. And yes, I would include perjury for good measure if statements were made under oath.
Read it again. I'm talking about claiming the work of somebody else as your own. It doesn't even matter if it's for commercial gain or not. I shouldn't have included that bit in my original post. I repeat. If copyright was limited to stopping or reducing plagiarism, I would be all for it. Nobody has a right to control distribution.
Well, I don't believe in "imaginary property" either. The real issue to me was that somebody else claimed to have taken the picture. I wouldn't be as sympathetic if proper attribution was given.
Use of P2P is not plagiarism for commercial gain. While I'm all for the abolishment of copyright, laws against plagiarism are still needed as this case clearly shows.
I'm saying that you see a difference between democrats and republicans that just doesn't exist. Just look how the whole of congress has voted over the last seven years. The democrats put up no opposition the white house policies because, in reality, they are not opposed to them. Rationalized by not wanting to appear "soft on terrorism". Screw them. They are not the "lessor evil". They are the same evil, to the core. They were pushing for Bush-like policies while Clinton was in office. I don't dislike one side of the Party any more than the other. Both will always bring about the same results. I watched them send over 58,000 Americans to a needless death 40 years ago(and at that time by force, with military conscription), and they're doing the same now(and they are threatening to reinstate that conscription). What they do is motivated by political expediency. "Anything to win". These crooks win because people vote for them. They aren't voting for the lessor evil. They are voting to bring those earmarks to their home town with no regard for the consequences. The time to vote your conscience is always. That's the obligation of everybody who votes.
Instead of directing your distaste for those who voted for Nader, you direct it to those who voted for Bush. They put him into office, not the Nader voters. And Lieberman has his name all over patriot act in case you have any doubts about him. His vote for that(and his authorship of same), the war, the military commissions act show he's no different from the goons in the white house and their staff. You don't need to imagine anything. His record speaks for itself. And his relationship with Obana is a little too chummy for my tastes. And now he and McCain will make a fine pair. Rest assured Gore would have lead us down the same path that we are on now. Nader was the only hope for anything different, and the same applies if he runs now. The other three are joined at the hips.
But, there is only one possible outcome of another Nader run. That is to draw votes away from Obama. If Nader runs and McCain wins then Nader bears the blame just like he bears the blame for getting Bush elected.
I'm sorry, but that just sounds a little too much like "the devil made me do it". Kucinich was in the primaries, but the simple fact is that he didn't get the votes. It wasn't because somebody put a gun to peoples' head and said "don't vote for him". It was a free choice on the part of the public because they choose to believe the propaganda. It's not the system's fault that people will only pay attention to what's being presented to them. It is their own fault for not seeking out the alternatives, of which there are many. Nader bears the blame for nothing. It lies squarely on the shoulders of the voting public who voted for Bush. They are the ones that got him elected simply because they voted for him. To believe otherwise is to deny that humans have a free will, of which I do have my doubts also. B.F. Skinner anyone?
A roll of toilet paper is a really good idea.
Sure 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan may well still have happened, but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore.
WHAT?! Are you aware of the part that Lieberman played in writhing the patriot act? Everybody talks about Gore, Gore, Gore, apparently ignoring the baggage he carried by having Lieberman on the ticket. It's why I didn't vote for him. Not in a million years. Lieberman is every bit the warmonger that Cheney is. Maybe more. And Clinton wanted all that wiretapping ability before 9/11. And you do remember the Clipper chip, right? Crypto export control? Line item veto? Tipper? Hillary's "health plan" which called for national IDs? And guess who spoke the loudest against those things. That's right, McCain. A proud member of the Keating Five. You better open your eyes. Nader is right about the dems and the GOP being the same, because they are. Nader is way ahead of Gore and the present front runners in terms of personal freedoms and corporate control of the government. But 99% of of you prefer to stick with the status quo.
Would you feel the same if he had won? He didn't cost the election. He provided an alternative to the Party. Something the country desperately needs. Besides, I can guarantee you that Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. THAT'S what cost the democrats the election.
Anywhere in the world in 45 minutes or it's free.
Maybe a second opinion is needed, but I think you just said exactly what he did. Though it is possible that your version is "safer" for the whole family to read.
Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?
Right here
You're welcome
for the new world order