Just having the government do it imposes some fairness.
So, having the government require people to pay tens of thousands a year for insurance they can't use, plus taxes to fund health care to which they are not entitled, while they stare at a $20,000+ deductible before anything they've spend gets them a dime of services from a doctor every year... that's the imposition of fairness, in your mind? The Democrats weren't the least interested in "fairness" when they rammed through the ACA on a 100% partisan basis, using a months-long campaign of deliberate, purposeful lying by Obama himself, Pelosi, Reid, and all of their proxies. It was all about vote buying through cash confiscation/distribution in a way favorable to their preferred demographic. They showed no interest (let alone action) in the area of actually reducing what it costs a doctor to provide services, or in allowing the market for insurance to escape the absurd 50-duplicate-markets silo imposed by law. They're too beholden to trial lawyer cash to have touched tort reform with a ten foot pole, and now they're back to saying that anybody who wants to face up to the fact that Obamacare was never sustainable and was doing incredible damage to people who can no longer afford to participate (but who must, by law)... they're saying that anybody trying to make it sustainable is heartless and wants children to die, blah blah blah. Give me a break on the "fairness" bit. Please.
Everybody pays taxes. Some just don't declare it, but they do pay.
If by "pay," you mean "file, and get other people's money as a 'refund' against income taxes they're not obligated to pay under the progressive approach to taxation..." sure I guess if you want to totally mis-use words to mean things nobody else thinks they mean, sure.
But you are entitled.
No, I'm not. I'm not a veteran - I didn't enter the military and the sort of contractual arrangement that gets me as part of the deal. Instead I pay huge amounts of money for government health programs that I would be a criminal for attempting to use, and am required by law to pay huge amounts of health insurance for coverage that I'm not allowed to use as actual health care. If I want health care, I have to also pay extra cash, separately, for that. The people who work the hardest and actually foot the bill for all of it are NOT entitled to its use. Quit pretending you don't understand that.
The economy is more than prosperous enough to trivially pay for it.
Really? California just ran the numbers. "Trivially paying for it" in that state would exceed their entire state budget - ALL of it. By huge margins. If you think taking on unsustainable mountains of new debt, or tripling taxes on the people carrying the load is a "trivial" matter... never mind, you don't think that. You know that's BS and you're just spouting nonsense again because you like to.
I'll take that over Conservatives, who want to make people criminals for being generous by giving out food and shelter to the homeless
The only people obsessed with punishing charity are the liberals. They can't STAND the idea of someone helping another person without a government employee making six figures (after union dues that fund liberal politicians) playing the middleman. The only places where me feeding a homeless person is a crime are where liberals run the legislatures. Does it physically hurt to get everything so exactly backwards? You sound like a laughably lame Russian propagandist or perhaps Saddam's spokesman. Asserting an alternate reality doesn't actually cause that to be real. You know that, right?
Right. That's why jerks who resort to violence and destruction to show how much better the liberal/progressive world view is... tend to alienate ever more voters every time they have another violent tantrum. Every time progressive protesters block an ambulance from getting to a dying person, or burn a small business owner's only way of making a living, or decide to assassinate a bunch of legislators they wish hadn't won elections all across the country, they just set their own movement back even farther.
The Democrats have no interest in a system where everybody pays taxes and gets a single-payer system. They want a small portion of the population to be forced to pay for everyone who gets a stubbed toe and wants to hear a doctor tell them to put some ice on it.
Our tax money entitles all of us to adequate government services
But I don't get any government-provided health care. I do, though, now have to pay several times more for government-required features on my health insurance, like... mandated full maternity coverage for a couple that won't be having any babies. And of course, absolutely zero actual health care in exchange for thousands of dollars in required payments, until over thirteen thousand more has been spent in cash, first. That's all in addition to taxes, of course.
Still, you accidentally made a good point. Paying a ton of taxes should indeed entitle one to the services one buys with those taxes. What about the people who don't actually pay any taxes? And how do you define "adequate?" Should Grandma get a $50,000 knee replacement surgery and all of the surrounding care because it would make her a little more comfortable? OK. But wouldn't she also be more comfortable in a newer car that doesn't cramp her right leg so much? Let's get some taxpayers to give her that, too. And she'd definitely be more comfortable with a less drafty house, so I think you should pay more taxes to buy her all new windows, insulation and a new roof. Heck, a whole new house. That would be "adequate."
Start writing checks! Anything anyone defines as an "adequate" service to be provided by the minority who pay the vast majority of the taxes should be immediately taken from those people and provided to the non-tax-paying people who want it. Nancy Pelosi can provide the standards by which that transfer takes place. Or would you prefer Bernie Sanders? He's much more generous with other people's money than even Pelosi. Though he might be a little distracted right now with his wife under federal criminal investigation for fraud - you know, playing fast and loose with the facts in order to get other people's money to pay for something she wanted to appear generous about. I'm sure it was all meant to be adequate, though.
Shared by people that are firmly against the Government helping do exactly what they're wanting.
No, they're firmly against being forced, literally at the point of a gun with threat of jail time and having their possessions taken away, to be generous. Liberals LOVE to be generous with other people's money, and even more so when they can make people criminals if they're not generous in exactly the way that obeys their ideology. Asking for help from (and offering help to) like-minded people isn't even remotely the same as being forced on pain of imprisonment to do the same thing, after, of course, also being forced to pay for a huge body of government middle-men and their supporting infrastructure that do exactly nothing towards the actual expense (say, funding a surgery) being met.
Why did you? Oh wait, it's because you don't want to admit that, yes, manufacturers have been sued and lost, for their own actions
That's a fine strawman collection you're building there. Does it feel good to fight them when nobody else is looking?
We're not talking about the manufacturer's actions. We're talking about the users of the products and THEIR actions. For example, somebody operating a drone. That person is responsible for their own actions. If the manufacturer is liable when the operator flies it into the groom's face while making a wedding video (or into the intake on a commercial aircraft when flying where they're not allowed to operate), that's not the manufacturer's fault. How are you not clear on this? Just because manufacturers have been successfully sued for things THEY did has nothing, whatsoever, to do with placing nonsensical regulatory burdens on those manufacturers and then (per the person we're responding to, here) suggesting that if the manufacturer pushes back against those absurd regulations that they're suddenly liable for something completely unrelated when a user of their product breaks the law. How, again, are you not able to process this?
No surprise you don't want to even mention the most extensive harm from automobiles, though, none at all.
You mean, an eeeevil unamed harm that you are too childishly frightened to mention yourself, because... it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand? Carry on, though. It's fun to watch you get yourself all confused and then pretend it's somebody else's fault. I suspect this is how you handle most of your interaction with the rest of the world. Please do us all a favor and don't. Interact with the rest of the world, that is. Especially by voting. Since you seem to like the idea of assigning legal liability via childish non sequitors.
This is a misrepresentation of what the story and parent are saying.
You are (deliberately) grossly dumbing-down the issue. Let's say I'm a car manufacturer and I lobby to reduce regulations on where we can source the fibers for the carpets I use in my products, or think that the government specifying the resolution on the back-up cameras I use isn't the right way for me to choose the technology I want to sell. So here I am lobbying for less regulation... does that mean I should be in jail when someone driving one of my cars uses it as a weapon to hurt people? Or when someone with no sense runs into oncoming traffic because they're not at handling the complex task of driving a car in traffic? So if improve my profits by having more flexibility in how I source my carpet fibers, that should expose me to liability when someone mis-uses my product? You're connecting lobbying to allow a product to be more flexible with someone else's criminal mis-use of the product. It's nonsense.
And yes, manufacturers have been sued and lost, for their own actions, even over and beyond driver conduct. Call Ralph Nader and ask him for a list.
Which is the OPPOSITE of what we're talking about. Did Ralph Nader sue (and win) in a complaint against a car manufacturer because someone driving one of those cars committed a crime or didn't have (or choose to use) the skills required to operate the vehicle in a typical setting? No. Nothing even remotely like that. Why change the subject?
Funny, though, you didn't mention the most extensive harm from automobiles. Funny.
What are you talking about? The behavior of the drivers? That's exactly what we're talking about.
But does your car have a GPS-powered, built-in feature that prevents you from driving it on sidewalks? Or from twitching your hand to the left on an undivided road and ramming at 55+mph into a passenger van full of kids? Nope. You are responsible for not using your car to kill people. The people who run the manufacturer aren't, and shouldn't be, responsible for reckless or malicious use of their products.
Clearly this guy forgot to grease the right palms like having a membership at Mar-a-Lago...
So what you're saying is that he was paying off the Obamas up until a few months ago? Don't be coy. Say what you mean. You think that Obama was taking cash from a robocall scammer.
Will the execs do hard time when a drone takes down a plane
Will the executives at companies which manufacturer weather balloons do hard time if someone mis-uses one of those, and it gets sucked into an engine causing a crash? You sure hope so, right? And of course you're definitely in favor of the executives at Ford, GM, BMW and others going to jail when a terrorist uses a car to mow down some people on a sidewalk, a drunk driver kills somebody. Because no manufacturer should escape prison if people criminally or negligently mis-use their products. And people who write software should definitely do time if a criminal uses their software to do something illegal, for sure.
All Vid Angel is doing is acting as a fancy remote to fast-forward or mute for you
No, they're making money by altering someone else's creative work without permission. Do you get paid by other people to operate your remote and modify movies for them? No? Ah.
Directors/writers/etc don't subtitle their movies or overdub them.
Actually, yes, they do. Many films are produced with global markets in mind, and the studios are very involved in prepping the foreign release versions where dubbing or subtitling make sense for a given place/culture/market.
Directors/writers/etc don't make fun of their movies either.
Actually, yes, they do. Cultural references and satire are extremely common. Indirect references to other characters, performers, directors, soundtracks, etc., are extremely common - on TV, in film, on stage. Such references and satire fall squarely under Fair Use when employed correctly.
If you don't know these things, you have no business commenting on the matter until you get better informed - you're far too sheltered. There's a big difference between a studio sending a version of their film to Italy with subtitles or dubs that meet the creative team's vision for the performance... and a third party service doing an unauthorized Quick! Hide In Your Safe Space! hatchet job on their art.
Right! Because, after considerable thought, each chose to join the military and sign a contract that made specific offers (such as that health care). Vets EARNED the use of all of those professional services, materials, and people's skills by putting their lives on the line (or, if they were behind the scenes, working in a generally pretty sucky environment and for modest pay within a very rigid structure). They deserve that health care deal because that's part of what they BOUGHT with their service.
Doesn't it follow that non-vets deserve at least accessible basic healthcare?
That depends. What did you do to earn the services of a podiatrist to look at your stubbed toe? Why do you deserve part of that doctor's day, and the staff she pays, and the rent she pays on her office, and the materials she consumes, and the insurance she has to buy in case you want to frivolously sue her because your sore toe didn't heal fast enough to let you compete in the Olympics as a figure skater even though you've never been on the ice before?
Or are you saying that you're BORN with a claim on that doctor's time? Is that doctor born with a claim on some of your time? No? Why not?
Complaints come first, then formation. But you say we can't complain. Well, besides that being false logic, it's also a violation of free speech, which means you're fighting against one of the principles under which are government is constrained.
Really? Does it hurt your back to bend that far out of the way of processing common idioms in order to pretend you don't understand the point? "Can't complain" means "don't have a basis for complaint" in the sense of "If you can't trouble yourself to provide a better option, you don't have the grounds to complain about the options you have." Which you know, but you're pretending you don't. It's odd how anxious you are to avoid the actual subject matter. Strange.
If over 50% say the R's and D's don't represent them, but can't be troubled to form their own group of people with a single viable candidate that DOES represent them, then they can't complain. You're suggesting that instead of forming a third party and putting forth a single, unifying candidate that will attract 50% of the people in this very diverse political landscape isn't viable, and therefore shooting people is a good option?
Learned WHAT from the president? How to send people to rallies to start fights? Oh, right, that's liberals. How to stage plays and public relations stunts with corporate sponsorship that depict the murder of political opponents? Oh, right, that's liberals. Encouraging the writing of editorials that cheer on things like Berkeley liberals literally beating people bloody for the sin of not being in perfect groupthink sync? Oh, right, that's liberals. Egging on multiple media networks to spend 24x7 on utterly unhinged phony narratives to distract from a growing series of election losses, rather than face why they lost? Oh, right - liberals!
The only fascists here are on the left. They're the ones using and - as a large, organized movement, praising the use of violence to suppress free speech and to try to undo election results. It doesn't GET any more brownshirty than the way progressive activists conduct themselves. The wannabe tyrants - the ones who say the First Amendment is dangerous, and that their political opponents should be silenced with systematic violence and oppression - are on the left. They're proud of it. They LIKE violence when it's their own pet thugs doing it.
Somehow, the US has more mass shootings than any other country on the planet.
Spectacularly incorrect on the basic facts. I know, irritating, isn't it.
Not to mention, "mass shootings" include, by US standards, things like three drug dealers standing on a corner at night, and someone fires a single pistol shot at one of them AND MISSES. But the bullet hits the brick wall and all three get minor cuts from little chips of flying masonry. But the standards being used to report these stats, THAT is a "mass shooting with multiple victims."
The violent liberal Bernie Bro who attacked people with a rifle this morning? The FBI says that more people are beaten to death every year with pipes, baseball bats, and bare hands then are killed with any sort of long gun (rifles, shotguns, etc) and that includes hunting accidents, suicides and the rest.
Do you understand how the Constitution actually structures the country? It's a republic, made up of fifty states. It's not mob rule. Are you saying that Obama ran and won twice by winning the electoral vote and losing the popular vote? That this "keeps" happening? Have you considered actually coming to terms with the fact that millions of two-time Obama voters opted, out of disgust, not to support the Democrats in November because the Clinton machine, the DNC, and Hillary herself displayed nothing but contempt for their own taken-for-granted demographic?
We don't fill congressional seats or governor's desks or the White House with "record setting protests." We do it by routinely holding elections and going through the peaceful transfer of power. When millions of Democrats shrug their shoulders and refuse to give the Clintons back the power they so desperately craved, why do you think that's some sort of failure of the constitution, rather that a failure on the part of her, her party, and the majority of the media? They so breathlessly presumed her coronation that she didn't feel the need to set foot, even once, in places like Wisconsin... and then pretended shocked that she lost, and blames the lack of money, misogyny, and Russians in no particular order.
And your implication is that this guy from Illinois was maybe on the right track, and that shooting the people who won the election (and HAVE been winning elections - under Obama, the Democrats have lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court fight, and millions of disgusted D voters) is the proper solution? Rather than, say, figuring out why they've alienated so many millions of people? Could it be because they chose a lying, corrupt candidate who called millions of the women in the country irredeemably deplorable racists?
At what point should the first two options be exhausted? When someone in power demonstrably violates the constitution and the other checks and balances (like, elections) cannot replace that person. And since that hasn't happened, it seems we're just fine letting things like elections do what they're supposed to. If the Democrats can't trouble themselves to field a candidate that most of the states actually like well enough to vote for, then they really can't complain.
Slashdot Mirror
Just having the government do it imposes some fairness.
So, having the government require people to pay tens of thousands a year for insurance they can't use, plus taxes to fund health care to which they are not entitled, while they stare at a $20,000+ deductible before anything they've spend gets them a dime of services from a doctor every year ... that's the imposition of fairness, in your mind? The Democrats weren't the least interested in "fairness" when they rammed through the ACA on a 100% partisan basis, using a months-long campaign of deliberate, purposeful lying by Obama himself, Pelosi, Reid, and all of their proxies. It was all about vote buying through cash confiscation/distribution in a way favorable to their preferred demographic. They showed no interest (let alone action) in the area of actually reducing what it costs a doctor to provide services, or in allowing the market for insurance to escape the absurd 50-duplicate-markets silo imposed by law. They're too beholden to trial lawyer cash to have touched tort reform with a ten foot pole, and now they're back to saying that anybody who wants to face up to the fact that Obamacare was never sustainable and was doing incredible damage to people who can no longer afford to participate (but who must, by law) ... they're saying that anybody trying to make it sustainable is heartless and wants children to die, blah blah blah. Give me a break on the "fairness" bit. Please.
Everybody pays taxes. Some just don't declare it, but they do pay.
If by "pay," you mean "file, and get other people's money as a 'refund' against income taxes they're not obligated to pay under the progressive approach to taxation..." sure I guess if you want to totally mis-use words to mean things nobody else thinks they mean, sure.
But you are entitled.
No, I'm not. I'm not a veteran - I didn't enter the military and the sort of contractual arrangement that gets me as part of the deal. Instead I pay huge amounts of money for government health programs that I would be a criminal for attempting to use, and am required by law to pay huge amounts of health insurance for coverage that I'm not allowed to use as actual health care. If I want health care, I have to also pay extra cash, separately, for that. The people who work the hardest and actually foot the bill for all of it are NOT entitled to its use. Quit pretending you don't understand that.
The economy is more than prosperous enough to trivially pay for it.
Really? California just ran the numbers. "Trivially paying for it" in that state would exceed their entire state budget - ALL of it. By huge margins. If you think taking on unsustainable mountains of new debt, or tripling taxes on the people carrying the load is a "trivial" matter ... never mind, you don't think that. You know that's BS and you're just spouting nonsense again because you like to.
I'll take that over Conservatives, who want to make people criminals for being generous by giving out food and shelter to the homeless
The only people obsessed with punishing charity are the liberals. They can't STAND the idea of someone helping another person without a government employee making six figures (after union dues that fund liberal politicians) playing the middleman. The only places where me feeding a homeless person is a crime are where liberals run the legislatures. Does it physically hurt to get everything so exactly backwards? You sound like a laughably lame Russian propagandist or perhaps Saddam's spokesman. Asserting an alternate reality doesn't actually cause that to be real. You know that, right?
Right. That's why jerks who resort to violence and destruction to show how much better the liberal/progressive world view is ... tend to alienate ever more voters every time they have another violent tantrum. Every time progressive protesters block an ambulance from getting to a dying person, or burn a small business owner's only way of making a living, or decide to assassinate a bunch of legislators they wish hadn't won elections all across the country, they just set their own movement back even farther.
The Democrats have no interest in a system where everybody pays taxes and gets a single-payer system. They want a small portion of the population to be forced to pay for everyone who gets a stubbed toe and wants to hear a doctor tell them to put some ice on it.
Our tax money entitles all of us to adequate government services
But I don't get any government-provided health care. I do, though, now have to pay several times more for government-required features on my health insurance, like ... mandated full maternity coverage for a couple that won't be having any babies. And of course, absolutely zero actual health care in exchange for thousands of dollars in required payments, until over thirteen thousand more has been spent in cash, first. That's all in addition to taxes, of course.
Still, you accidentally made a good point. Paying a ton of taxes should indeed entitle one to the services one buys with those taxes. What about the people who don't actually pay any taxes? And how do you define "adequate?" Should Grandma get a $50,000 knee replacement surgery and all of the surrounding care because it would make her a little more comfortable? OK. But wouldn't she also be more comfortable in a newer car that doesn't cramp her right leg so much? Let's get some taxpayers to give her that, too. And she'd definitely be more comfortable with a less drafty house, so I think you should pay more taxes to buy her all new windows, insulation and a new roof. Heck, a whole new house. That would be "adequate."
Start writing checks! Anything anyone defines as an "adequate" service to be provided by the minority who pay the vast majority of the taxes should be immediately taken from those people and provided to the non-tax-paying people who want it. Nancy Pelosi can provide the standards by which that transfer takes place. Or would you prefer Bernie Sanders? He's much more generous with other people's money than even Pelosi. Though he might be a little distracted right now with his wife under federal criminal investigation for fraud - you know, playing fast and loose with the facts in order to get other people's money to pay for something she wanted to appear generous about. I'm sure it was all meant to be adequate, though.
Shared by people that are firmly against the Government helping do exactly what they're wanting.
No, they're firmly against being forced, literally at the point of a gun with threat of jail time and having their possessions taken away, to be generous. Liberals LOVE to be generous with other people's money, and even more so when they can make people criminals if they're not generous in exactly the way that obeys their ideology. Asking for help from (and offering help to) like-minded people isn't even remotely the same as being forced on pain of imprisonment to do the same thing, after, of course, also being forced to pay for a huge body of government middle-men and their supporting infrastructure that do exactly nothing towards the actual expense (say, funding a surgery) being met.
Why did you? Oh wait, it's because you don't want to admit that, yes, manufacturers have been sued and lost, for their own actions
That's a fine strawman collection you're building there. Does it feel good to fight them when nobody else is looking?
We're not talking about the manufacturer's actions. We're talking about the users of the products and THEIR actions. For example, somebody operating a drone. That person is responsible for their own actions. If the manufacturer is liable when the operator flies it into the groom's face while making a wedding video (or into the intake on a commercial aircraft when flying where they're not allowed to operate), that's not the manufacturer's fault. How are you not clear on this? Just because manufacturers have been successfully sued for things THEY did has nothing, whatsoever, to do with placing nonsensical regulatory burdens on those manufacturers and then (per the person we're responding to, here) suggesting that if the manufacturer pushes back against those absurd regulations that they're suddenly liable for something completely unrelated when a user of their product breaks the law. How, again, are you not able to process this?
No surprise you don't want to even mention the most extensive harm from automobiles, though, none at all.
You mean, an eeeevil unamed harm that you are too childishly frightened to mention yourself, because ... it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand? Carry on, though. It's fun to watch you get yourself all confused and then pretend it's somebody else's fault. I suspect this is how you handle most of your interaction with the rest of the world. Please do us all a favor and don't. Interact with the rest of the world, that is. Especially by voting. Since you seem to like the idea of assigning legal liability via childish non sequitors.
This is a misrepresentation of what the story and parent are saying.
You are (deliberately) grossly dumbing-down the issue. Let's say I'm a car manufacturer and I lobby to reduce regulations on where we can source the fibers for the carpets I use in my products, or think that the government specifying the resolution on the back-up cameras I use isn't the right way for me to choose the technology I want to sell. So here I am lobbying for less regulation ... does that mean I should be in jail when someone driving one of my cars uses it as a weapon to hurt people? Or when someone with no sense runs into oncoming traffic because they're not at handling the complex task of driving a car in traffic? So if improve my profits by having more flexibility in how I source my carpet fibers, that should expose me to liability when someone mis-uses my product? You're connecting lobbying to allow a product to be more flexible with someone else's criminal mis-use of the product. It's nonsense.
And yes, manufacturers have been sued and lost, for their own actions, even over and beyond driver conduct. Call Ralph Nader and ask him for a list.
Which is the OPPOSITE of what we're talking about. Did Ralph Nader sue (and win) in a complaint against a car manufacturer because someone driving one of those cars committed a crime or didn't have (or choose to use) the skills required to operate the vehicle in a typical setting? No. Nothing even remotely like that. Why change the subject?
Funny, though, you didn't mention the most extensive harm from automobiles. Funny.
What are you talking about? The behavior of the drivers? That's exactly what we're talking about.
But does your car have a GPS-powered, built-in feature that prevents you from driving it on sidewalks? Or from twitching your hand to the left on an undivided road and ramming at 55+mph into a passenger van full of kids? Nope. You are responsible for not using your car to kill people. The people who run the manufacturer aren't, and shouldn't be, responsible for reckless or malicious use of their products.
Unless the scammer made $120M in profits, this goes a little beyond punitive.
So scam artists who attempt large scale fraud but who fail to make a profit shouldn't be fined?
Clearly this guy forgot to grease the right palms like having a membership at Mar-a-Lago...
So what you're saying is that he was paying off the Obamas up until a few months ago? Don't be coy. Say what you mean. You think that Obama was taking cash from a robocall scammer.
Does it physically hurt to regress to thinking and acting like a child, or are you simply stuck there.
Will the execs do hard time when a drone takes down a plane
Will the executives at companies which manufacturer weather balloons do hard time if someone mis-uses one of those, and it gets sucked into an engine causing a crash? You sure hope so, right? And of course you're definitely in favor of the executives at Ford, GM, BMW and others going to jail when a terrorist uses a car to mow down some people on a sidewalk, a drunk driver kills somebody. Because no manufacturer should escape prison if people criminally or negligently mis-use their products. And people who write software should definitely do time if a criminal uses their software to do something illegal, for sure.
All Vid Angel is doing is acting as a fancy remote to fast-forward or mute for you
No, they're making money by altering someone else's creative work without permission. Do you get paid by other people to operate your remote and modify movies for them? No? Ah.
Directors/writers/etc don't subtitle their movies or overdub them.
Actually, yes, they do. Many films are produced with global markets in mind, and the studios are very involved in prepping the foreign release versions where dubbing or subtitling make sense for a given place/culture/market.
Directors/writers/etc don't make fun of their movies either.
Actually, yes, they do. Cultural references and satire are extremely common. Indirect references to other characters, performers, directors, soundtracks, etc., are extremely common - on TV, in film, on stage. Such references and satire fall squarely under Fair Use when employed correctly.
... and a third party service doing an unauthorized Quick! Hide In Your Safe Space! hatchet job on their art.
If you don't know these things, you have no business commenting on the matter until you get better informed - you're far too sheltered. There's a big difference between a studio sending a version of their film to Italy with subtitles or dubs that meet the creative team's vision for the performance
I doubt he's saying that he's actually in favor of illegal immigration. He's just pandering to his low-information liberal fan club.
Yes, vets deserve great healthcare
Right! Because, after considerable thought, each chose to join the military and sign a contract that made specific offers (such as that health care). Vets EARNED the use of all of those professional services, materials, and people's skills by putting their lives on the line (or, if they were behind the scenes, working in a generally pretty sucky environment and for modest pay within a very rigid structure). They deserve that health care deal because that's part of what they BOUGHT with their service.
Doesn't it follow that non-vets deserve at least accessible basic healthcare?
That depends. What did you do to earn the services of a podiatrist to look at your stubbed toe? Why do you deserve part of that doctor's day, and the staff she pays, and the rent she pays on her office, and the materials she consumes, and the insurance she has to buy in case you want to frivolously sue her because your sore toe didn't heal fast enough to let you compete in the Olympics as a figure skater even though you've never been on the ice before?
Or are you saying that you're BORN with a claim on that doctor's time? Is that doctor born with a claim on some of your time? No? Why not?
Complaints come first, then formation. But you say we can't complain. Well, besides that being false logic, it's also a violation of free speech, which means you're fighting against one of the principles under which are government is constrained.
Really? Does it hurt your back to bend that far out of the way of processing common idioms in order to pretend you don't understand the point? "Can't complain" means "don't have a basis for complaint" in the sense of "If you can't trouble yourself to provide a better option, you don't have the grounds to complain about the options you have." Which you know, but you're pretending you don't. It's odd how anxious you are to avoid the actual subject matter. Strange.
If over 50% say the R's and D's don't represent them, but can't be troubled to form their own group of people with a single viable candidate that DOES represent them, then they can't complain. You're suggesting that instead of forming a third party and putting forth a single, unifying candidate that will attract 50% of the people in this very diverse political landscape isn't viable, and therefore shooting people is a good option?
Do you have any links for this
There's simply no way you are that out of touch, so you have to be pretending to be. Why? Who do you think you're fooling?
He learned it from the President.
Learned WHAT from the president? How to send people to rallies to start fights? Oh, right, that's liberals. How to stage plays and public relations stunts with corporate sponsorship that depict the murder of political opponents? Oh, right, that's liberals. Encouraging the writing of editorials that cheer on things like Berkeley liberals literally beating people bloody for the sin of not being in perfect groupthink sync? Oh, right, that's liberals. Egging on multiple media networks to spend 24x7 on utterly unhinged phony narratives to distract from a growing series of election losses, rather than face why they lost? Oh, right - liberals!
The only fascists here are on the left. They're the ones using and - as a large, organized movement, praising the use of violence to suppress free speech and to try to undo election results. It doesn't GET any more brownshirty than the way progressive activists conduct themselves. The wannabe tyrants - the ones who say the First Amendment is dangerous, and that their political opponents should be silenced with systematic violence and oppression - are on the left. They're proud of it. They LIKE violence when it's their own pet thugs doing it.
Somehow, the US has more mass shootings than any other country on the planet.
Spectacularly incorrect on the basic facts. I know, irritating, isn't it.
Not to mention, "mass shootings" include, by US standards, things like three drug dealers standing on a corner at night, and someone fires a single pistol shot at one of them AND MISSES. But the bullet hits the brick wall and all three get minor cuts from little chips of flying masonry. But the standards being used to report these stats, THAT is a "mass shooting with multiple victims."
The violent liberal Bernie Bro who attacked people with a rifle this morning? The FBI says that more people are beaten to death every year with pipes, baseball bats, and bare hands then are killed with any sort of long gun (rifles, shotguns, etc) and that includes hunting accidents, suicides and the rest.
Do you understand how the Constitution actually structures the country? It's a republic, made up of fifty states. It's not mob rule. Are you saying that Obama ran and won twice by winning the electoral vote and losing the popular vote? That this "keeps" happening? Have you considered actually coming to terms with the fact that millions of two-time Obama voters opted, out of disgust, not to support the Democrats in November because the Clinton machine, the DNC, and Hillary herself displayed nothing but contempt for their own taken-for-granted demographic?
... and then pretended shocked that she lost, and blames the lack of money, misogyny, and Russians in no particular order.
We don't fill congressional seats or governor's desks or the White House with "record setting protests." We do it by routinely holding elections and going through the peaceful transfer of power. When millions of Democrats shrug their shoulders and refuse to give the Clintons back the power they so desperately craved, why do you think that's some sort of failure of the constitution, rather that a failure on the part of her, her party, and the majority of the media? They so breathlessly presumed her coronation that she didn't feel the need to set foot, even once, in places like Wisconsin
And your implication is that this guy from Illinois was maybe on the right track, and that shooting the people who won the election (and HAVE been winning elections - under Obama, the Democrats have lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court fight, and millions of disgusted D voters) is the proper solution? Rather than, say, figuring out why they've alienated so many millions of people? Could it be because they chose a lying, corrupt candidate who called millions of the women in the country irredeemably deplorable racists?
At what point should the first two options be exhausted? When someone in power demonstrably violates the constitution and the other checks and balances (like, elections) cannot replace that person. And since that hasn't happened, it seems we're just fine letting things like elections do what they're supposed to. If the Democrats can't trouble themselves to field a candidate that most of the states actually like well enough to vote for, then they really can't complain.