You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and allow uninformed rabid lefty haters to drive your opinion-forming process. Or, you do know what you're talking about, and are deliberately lying in an attempt to persuade other people who are too lazy to check out the facts for themselves. Just in case it's the latter, please cite some of Beck's actual anti-semitism. Be specific.
Beck's only problem is that he's acutely religious. He solved his drinking problem by swapping it out for a different drug (his religion), and he allows that to creep into his formulation for how to solve problems (essentially, God will take care of it). But just because he makes that mistake doesn't mean that his observations about what's actually happening around us are incorrect. He's painfully dead on when he breaks down the motivations and money-movement behind the scenes on the left. He's hated by the left because he does things like run videos of them saying, out loud, what they actually think.
When you use someone's name, and say "is" about their nature, and then use a group's name and recount what you say they've done, and then use a specific label for the person to whom you're replying ("traitor") you're describing plenty of facts. When you use those factual statements in a deliberately false way, you're lying. It's not exactly mysterious. What might be attributed to a mistake or ignorance can be discounted in this case, because it's all being delivered with such deliberate, poisonous hate.
Excellent work, there. Way to show you're coming form an informed, rational, and better place. Nothing like a few un-backed-up lies from an anonymous coward to actually prove the point. Your need to spew bitter invective, rather than actually addressing the GP's very specific question, says plenty about you. With any luck, though, once you get out of high school, you'll start to think a little more clearly. But then, I'm optimistic to a fault, sometimes.
Money is taken from everyone to fund the government.
And when that money is used to do things like build roads, "everyone" gets to review the details of the contracts and uncover bad decision making when it comes to how the money is spent. We get to "intrude" into that process as a matter of course. If those taxpayers are going to have enormous deficits, in the trillions, spent on healthcare - and wildly unfair portions of it spent on people who cost the most because of their own behavior - a few guidelines aren't unreasonable. Just like "intruding" into the life of someone who's getting welfare cash, by having them show what they've done to look for work. Show what you're doing to avoid racking up a $100k bill for avoidable metabolic diseases.
Except not from corporations
Unless their US operations show a profit, in which case we take one of the largest percentages in the world, which is exactly why so many of them do a lot of their business overseas, instead.
or often from the people who own them.
Are you referring to actual criminal tax evasion? Lots of people go to jail for that.
No, this is not more government intrusion. The people from whom money is being taken are not being any further intruded upon. The people to whom the money is being given, however, are being asked to exhibit some sign that they are actually aware that they're burning up other people's money as they eat enough junk food to be obese. I not only don't consider that to be intrusive, I consider it to be a much delayed nod towards some due dilligence in how the levied taxes are being doled out. That's not just talking about it, that's doing it. It's completely rational to use standards in giving away other people's money.
Republicans vote for "Conservatives" like Jan Brewer when they promise things like "less intrusive government". Then the "Conservatives" get power and force the government's clutches right into your digestive tract.
No, you're missing the point. She's talking about a system that already has government involved (this is about peoplpe who use government to extract money from other people to pay for their daily upkeep - so the government is involving not only the people who get free stuff, but also all of the people who must pay for it). All this does is put a reasonable condtion on the circumstances under which some of that redirection of other people's wages takes place, taking into account that a very large number of people are specifically deciding to do thing that increase how much more money must be taken from others. Reducing that forced redistribution and dependency is a conservative thing to do. Hell, it's simply the rational thing to do.
We could put the entire system back into positive revenue/spending mode if we could just fine people who - while having a holier-than-thou rant like yours - aren't intellectually capable of understanding the difference between "its" and "it's" or between "their" and "they're" or between "your" and "you're" (you managed to get all of them wrong in just one post - congratulations!). Just a nickle per incident should do the job. Ultimately, we'd get at least a few people to learn to be better communicators, and we'd certainly have state revenue right back up where it needs to be to keep up with all of the spending on self-inflicted diabetes for which everyone else has to pay.
You are confusing somebody's unexplained experience with being evidence of aliens buzzing the planet. The complete lack of any actual evidence is the problem, here. People discount the UFO nuts because the UFO nuts haven't yet come up with a single scrap of credible evidence, but do continue to put forth all sorts of plainly obvious hoaxes in order to keep silly people paying attention to them.
Autism isn't a disease, it's the next step in human evolution.
If, by "evolution" you mean "an adaptation that will - like so many others - prove to make for an interesting episode that fails to produce anything useful," then... sure. Autism (especially the heavy-duty kind) doesn't produce humans that can function in the sort of social groups that form advanced societies (or reproducing pairs, for that matter).
Bush Jr's Iraq endeavor was the uninterrupted continuation of the earlier kick-Saddam-out-of-Kuwait action. Saddam never complied with the UN's terms when he was pushed back from that invasion. He continued to shoot at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones set up during that event, he continued to obstruct UN inspectors checking out his large stash of WMDs (do you know where all of that VX went? neither does the UN), he continued to build the long-range missiles he agreed to stop making, he continued to import weapons from places like North Korea, and so on. It was his years of deceit and defiance of the terms to which he had already agreed (when pulling out of Kuwait) that led to the additional UN sanctions and the UN approval of the use of force to remove him. Blaming Bush Jr on having the urge to get rid of Saddam completely ignores that it was Clinton's 8-year policy to remove him as well.
A regrettable and preventable loss of live and so much unnecessary suffering
Are you talking about the regrettable and preventable loss of life caused by Gaddafi using his military to attack people in his own country? Yes, that was both of those things. And because it was easily seen how regrettable it was going to be, and plain as day how preventable it could be, the main problem was that force was not used more quickly. The people who could have stopped the slaughter spent 30 days talking to each other about it while Gaddafi's hired goons (first) and military (later) went about butchering people. Regrettable, and preventable. We could have used the same force that was used over the last few days to save considerable lives over the last several weeks. That's what you mean, right?
Weapons inspectors have been Iraq up until the last war started.
In the country, but prevented from actually going where they wanted to go. In the country, but handed mountains of false or vague "documentation" about the disposition of things like the huge VX stores that were seen are reported by UN inspectors for years. Of course you know all of this, and are just trying to ignore the parts of the history that get in the way of your hate-fest.
What the ruse? The support for societies that are friendly to an objectively better culture, or the support for those that are friendly to a mysogistic, medieval-minded, theocratic, apocalyptic bit of nonsense as envisioned by the mullahs in Iran, or by the Taliban's allah-by-the-sword tyrannical idea of how the world should be? There's no ruse. Hardcore Islamists are worse for the world than their opposition is. It's that simple. Just like totalitarian communists are worse for the world than their opponents are.
Be careful when you tell other people they're getting their history wrong. The UN authorized force to deal with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. He never complied with the terms of the "cease fire" that saved his skin as he pulled back from that invasion, and he continued to shoot at the allied aircraft enforcing the UN-approved no-fly zone set up to prevent his ongoing slaughter of innocents in the north and south. He never stopped fighting following his invasion of Kuwait. All the rest is beside the point, and demanded the use of force to finally stop his regime. On top of that, of course, he never complied with the UN mandates that he allow proper inspections to find out what he did with the mountains of VX gas and other goodies that UN inspectors saw on the ground.
Combine that with Saddam's ongoing construction of the long-range missiles he promised to stop building/importing, his publicly announced cash payments to suicide bombers, his smuggling operations with places like North Korea, his violation of the terms of the financial aid packages intended to feed and care for his citizens (he used the money for weapons, cash for cronies, and more palace building) and you have the conditions that led to the UN authorizing force to remove him. Don't know how you forgot that part, but apparently you did.
War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
No, but sometimes the use of force is the only way to stop someone like Gaddafi from continuing to use force as he slaughters his own people. I realize that you think he should just stop doing so because several Important People have used Really Stern Language telling him that he must stop doing so. But (shockingly!) he just keeps on dropping bombs on those civilians, and using artillery to kill them. What part of that are you not actually understanding? Or when say that we're "believing lies," do you mean that the Gaddafi regime's statements about the nature of what they're doing is actually the correct body of information? That all of the international press on the ground - who are sending us video of Gaddafi's aircraft attacking people on the ground - that they're all part of the conspiracy?
And you're calling other people deluded? How much money are you getting from Gaddafi to astroturf on behalf of his regime, anyway? Do tell.
you are pushing emotional arguments against copyright infringement as though it were more important than any of the aforementioned issues
No. I'm just not so sophomorically theatrical as to pretend that we can only pay attention to one thing at a time. You remind me of - what movie was it? - the scene where the committee representative from the too-serious sorority says, "I don't know how anyone can plan a homecoming dance when there are hungry people in the world!"
And, yes, I'm happy to use "ripping off" to describe what people do when they hunt for, find, and use a method to get a copy of something they want for their own entertainment, and do so - by skipping out on paying - contrary to the means by which the person who created it has agreed to offer it. If you think the artist is an ass for asking people to pay for a copy of their work, then just walk away - since you and that artist are obviously at odds, philosophically. Surely you don't want to be entertained by someone you so dislike, do you? A little intellectual integrity will solve the whole problem, because you'll self-select for artists who don't want to charge for their work, and then nobody has a single thing to complain about.
Yet we have room in our prisons for people who share files.
Ignoring for the moment your use of that absurd euphamism ("share"), you're deliberately missing the point. This is about people who are in the busines of ripping off other people's work so they can draw visitors to their own web sites and generate their own ad revenue without having to invest money in creating the content that brings eyeballs in. As bad as it is when someone rips off all of their own entertainment, this is about people being in the business of ripping it off in order to have a "product" to attract ad dollats. Surely you see the difference. Never mind, you probably don't.
with free shows paid for by advertising, like TV or radio?
So when somebody rips out all of the advertising, bundles up the other person's content without permission, and then presents it online without any mechanism for ad revenue to get back to the people who invested time and money in producing the material in the first place... you're not seeing the difference, there?
Slashdot Mirror
I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and allow uninformed rabid lefty haters to drive your opinion-forming process. Or, you do know what you're talking about, and are deliberately lying in an attempt to persuade other people who are too lazy to check out the facts for themselves. Just in case it's the latter, please cite some of Beck's actual anti-semitism. Be specific.
Beck's only problem is that he's acutely religious. He solved his drinking problem by swapping it out for a different drug (his religion), and he allows that to creep into his formulation for how to solve problems (essentially, God will take care of it). But just because he makes that mistake doesn't mean that his observations about what's actually happening around us are incorrect. He's painfully dead on when he breaks down the motivations and money-movement behind the scenes on the left. He's hated by the left because he does things like run videos of them saying, out loud, what they actually think.
There are no facts in the prior post
When you use someone's name, and say "is" about their nature, and then use a group's name and recount what you say they've done, and then use a specific label for the person to whom you're replying ("traitor") you're describing plenty of facts. When you use those factual statements in a deliberately false way, you're lying. It's not exactly mysterious. What might be attributed to a mistake or ignorance can be discounted in this case, because it's all being delivered with such deliberate, poisonous hate.
Excellent work, there. Way to show you're coming form an informed, rational, and better place. Nothing like a few un-backed-up lies from an anonymous coward to actually prove the point. Your need to spew bitter invective, rather than actually addressing the GP's very specific question, says plenty about you. With any luck, though, once you get out of high school, you'll start to think a little more clearly. But then, I'm optimistic to a fault, sometimes.
I was having it shipped in from Moller's new facility in China.
Money is taken from everyone to fund the government.
And when that money is used to do things like build roads, "everyone" gets to review the details of the contracts and uncover bad decision making when it comes to how the money is spent. We get to "intrude" into that process as a matter of course. If those taxpayers are going to have enormous deficits, in the trillions, spent on healthcare - and wildly unfair portions of it spent on people who cost the most because of their own behavior - a few guidelines aren't unreasonable. Just like "intruding" into the life of someone who's getting welfare cash, by having them show what they've done to look for work. Show what you're doing to avoid racking up a $100k bill for avoidable metabolic diseases.
Except not from corporations
Unless their US operations show a profit, in which case we take one of the largest percentages in the world, which is exactly why so many of them do a lot of their business overseas, instead.
or often from the people who own them.
Are you referring to actual criminal tax evasion? Lots of people go to jail for that.
No, this is not more government intrusion. The people from whom money is being taken are not being any further intruded upon. The people to whom the money is being given, however, are being asked to exhibit some sign that they are actually aware that they're burning up other people's money as they eat enough junk food to be obese. I not only don't consider that to be intrusive, I consider it to be a much delayed nod towards some due dilligence in how the levied taxes are being doled out. That's not just talking about it, that's doing it. It's completely rational to use standards in giving away other people's money.
Republicans vote for "Conservatives" like Jan Brewer when they promise things like "less intrusive government". Then the "Conservatives" get power and force the government's clutches right into your digestive tract.
No, you're missing the point. She's talking about a system that already has government involved (this is about peoplpe who use government to extract money from other people to pay for their daily upkeep - so the government is involving not only the people who get free stuff, but also all of the people who must pay for it). All this does is put a reasonable condtion on the circumstances under which some of that redirection of other people's wages takes place, taking into account that a very large number of people are specifically deciding to do thing that increase how much more money must be taken from others. Reducing that forced redistribution and dependency is a conservative thing to do. Hell, it's simply the rational thing to do.
We could put the entire system back into positive revenue/spending mode if we could just fine people who - while having a holier-than-thou rant like yours - aren't intellectually capable of understanding the difference between "its" and "it's" or between "their" and "they're" or between "your" and "you're" (you managed to get all of them wrong in just one post - congratulations!). Just a nickle per incident should do the job. Ultimately, we'd get at least a few people to learn to be better communicators, and we'd certainly have state revenue right back up where it needs to be to keep up with all of the spending on self-inflicted diabetes for which everyone else has to pay.
Fantastic.
You are confusing somebody's unexplained experience with being evidence of aliens buzzing the planet. The complete lack of any actual evidence is the problem, here. People discount the UFO nuts because the UFO nuts haven't yet come up with a single scrap of credible evidence, but do continue to put forth all sorts of plainly obvious hoaxes in order to keep silly people paying attention to them.
Now we have a confirmed meltdown
Why are you lying? I mean, what's the point, really?
Autism isn't a disease, it's the next step in human evolution.
If, by "evolution" you mean "an adaptation that will - like so many others - prove to make for an interesting episode that fails to produce anything useful," then ... sure. Autism (especially the heavy-duty kind) doesn't produce humans that can function in the sort of social groups that form advanced societies (or reproducing pairs, for that matter).
Bush Jr's Iraq endeavor was the uninterrupted continuation of the earlier kick-Saddam-out-of-Kuwait action. Saddam never complied with the UN's terms when he was pushed back from that invasion. He continued to shoot at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones set up during that event, he continued to obstruct UN inspectors checking out his large stash of WMDs (do you know where all of that VX went? neither does the UN), he continued to build the long-range missiles he agreed to stop making, he continued to import weapons from places like North Korea, and so on. It was his years of deceit and defiance of the terms to which he had already agreed (when pulling out of Kuwait) that led to the additional UN sanctions and the UN approval of the use of force to remove him. Blaming Bush Jr on having the urge to get rid of Saddam completely ignores that it was Clinton's 8-year policy to remove him as well.
A regrettable and preventable loss of live and so much unnecessary suffering
Are you talking about the regrettable and preventable loss of life caused by Gaddafi using his military to attack people in his own country? Yes, that was both of those things. And because it was easily seen how regrettable it was going to be, and plain as day how preventable it could be, the main problem was that force was not used more quickly. The people who could have stopped the slaughter spent 30 days talking to each other about it while Gaddafi's hired goons (first) and military (later) went about butchering people. Regrettable, and preventable. We could have used the same force that was used over the last few days to save considerable lives over the last several weeks. That's what you mean, right?
Weapons inspectors have been Iraq up until the last war started.
In the country, but prevented from actually going where they wanted to go. In the country, but handed mountains of false or vague "documentation" about the disposition of things like the huge VX stores that were seen are reported by UN inspectors for years. Of course you know all of this, and are just trying to ignore the parts of the history that get in the way of your hate-fest.
Korea wasn't about Korea. It was about China.
No, it was about what China was trying to do to Korea. For a start.
If we cared about Korea, it would be unified
Specifiy how you would make that happen without the use of force or economic calamity (vis-a-vis China). Be very specific.
What the ruse? The support for societies that are friendly to an objectively better culture, or the support for those that are friendly to a mysogistic, medieval-minded, theocratic, apocalyptic bit of nonsense as envisioned by the mullahs in Iran, or by the Taliban's allah-by-the-sword tyrannical idea of how the world should be? There's no ruse. Hardcore Islamists are worse for the world than their opposition is. It's that simple. Just like totalitarian communists are worse for the world than their opponents are.
Be careful when you tell other people they're getting their history wrong. The UN authorized force to deal with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. He never complied with the terms of the "cease fire" that saved his skin as he pulled back from that invasion, and he continued to shoot at the allied aircraft enforcing the UN-approved no-fly zone set up to prevent his ongoing slaughter of innocents in the north and south. He never stopped fighting following his invasion of Kuwait. All the rest is beside the point, and demanded the use of force to finally stop his regime. On top of that, of course, he never complied with the UN mandates that he allow proper inspections to find out what he did with the mountains of VX gas and other goodies that UN inspectors saw on the ground.
Combine that with Saddam's ongoing construction of the long-range missiles he promised to stop building/importing, his publicly announced cash payments to suicide bombers, his smuggling operations with places like North Korea, his violation of the terms of the financial aid packages intended to feed and care for his citizens (he used the money for weapons, cash for cronies, and more palace building) and you have the conditions that led to the UN authorizing force to remove him. Don't know how you forgot that part, but apparently you did.
War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
No, but sometimes the use of force is the only way to stop someone like Gaddafi from continuing to use force as he slaughters his own people. I realize that you think he should just stop doing so because several Important People have used Really Stern Language telling him that he must stop doing so. But (shockingly!) he just keeps on dropping bombs on those civilians, and using artillery to kill them. What part of that are you not actually understanding? Or when say that we're "believing lies," do you mean that the Gaddafi regime's statements about the nature of what they're doing is actually the correct body of information? That all of the international press on the ground - who are sending us video of Gaddafi's aircraft attacking people on the ground - that they're all part of the conspiracy?
And you're calling other people deluded? How much money are you getting from Gaddafi to astroturf on behalf of his regime, anyway? Do tell.
you are pushing emotional arguments against copyright infringement as though it were more important than any of the aforementioned issues
No. I'm just not so sophomorically theatrical as to pretend that we can only pay attention to one thing at a time. You remind me of - what movie was it? - the scene where the committee representative from the too-serious sorority says, "I don't know how anyone can plan a homecoming dance when there are hungry people in the world!"
And, yes, I'm happy to use "ripping off" to describe what people do when they hunt for, find, and use a method to get a copy of something they want for their own entertainment, and do so - by skipping out on paying - contrary to the means by which the person who created it has agreed to offer it. If you think the artist is an ass for asking people to pay for a copy of their work, then just walk away - since you and that artist are obviously at odds, philosophically. Surely you don't want to be entertained by someone you so dislike, do you? A little intellectual integrity will solve the whole problem, because you'll self-select for artists who don't want to charge for their work, and then nobody has a single thing to complain about.
Yet we have room in our prisons for people who share files.
Ignoring for the moment your use of that absurd euphamism ("share"), you're deliberately missing the point. This is about people who are in the busines of ripping off other people's work so they can draw visitors to their own web sites and generate their own ad revenue without having to invest money in creating the content that brings eyeballs in. As bad as it is when someone rips off all of their own entertainment, this is about people being in the business of ripping it off in order to have a "product" to attract ad dollats. Surely you see the difference. Never mind, you probably don't.
with free shows paid for by advertising, like TV or radio?
So when somebody rips out all of the advertising, bundles up the other person's content without permission, and then presents it online without any mechanism for ad revenue to get back to the people who invested time and money in producing the material in the first place ... you're not seeing the difference, there?
Copyright infringement is supposed to be CIVIL LAW, not CRIMINAL LAW.
Running a business based on ripping off other people's work has been more than just a civil issue for a long, long time.
to ensure that streaming content is a fucking felony???
You're leaving out the part where it's about streaming knowingly ripped-off works that are not public domain. Typical.