Granted, that was (is?) a fairly effective strategy for the female of the species.
True, the argument I heard for it was essentially that if she has a "nice" guy to raise the kids, then the kids' odds of succeeding are good, but if she has kids by a player, then her male offspring will be more likely to be players as well therefore spreading her genes further.
And, yes, that wasn't "all" you were saying. I just forgot to put some indicator that I was being only partly serious;-)
I'll look into that. I've read studies that say the opposite so someone is pushing junk studies. I'll investigate more.
An important point to keep in mind when looking into it is that pedophiles ( people who like fucking real little prepubescent kids) do have a very high recidivism rate. "Sex offender" includes them as well as 18 year olds fucking their 17 364/365s year old willing girlfriends and people who were peeing in an alley when a minor walked by as well as rapists (of adults) and similar.
Those are some of the major things skewing statistics into the realm of insanity. And things you need to keep in mind when trying to form an accurate picture the issue.
Yes, because we all know that the police never abuse their authority. Any story suggesting that they have done so is obviously fake.
Damn, Dude. Why no love for Illinois in your links? We had to empty the entire fucking death row statewide because so many of the people there were *proven* to have had their confessions beaten out of them by the police. "Welcome to Chicago".
I have never understood the debt to society business.
That part of it is easy to understand. "Society" in this context means the government. The government makes lots of money for its friends by building and maintaining prisons.
I don't personally agree with much of the rest of what you said, but at least I can clear up that one point you weren't clear on.
free market globalism. Specifically, if IBM can go to india for 50% less than an american, why can't an american buy prescription drugs from Canada at a discount? Why can't they buy and import the DVD from Hong Cong for 10%(not talking about pirated, but just cheaper legit goods)?
The answer to your presumably rhetorical question is fascism plain and simple. Those are canonical examples of it. For anybody who wants to reply with some nonsense equivalent to "durrr but fascism == teh holocaust" grow up and learn to think.
That is *exactly* what fascism is. Corporate power owning your government and using it to fuck you.
Maybe all ex-cons who aren't released on parole should undergo a mandatory "civil commitment" hearing.
I was called up for jury duty some years back, and the one case I was in the running to get selected for was something like that. It was a man in his late 20s, who was about to be released from prison after serving his sentence for raping a little kid. Little and rape, not 17 or willing, or something idiotic like that. He'd admitted the crime during the original trial, so it's not like he'd been railroaded or anything.
The prosecution wanted him to be put away in a mental institution instead of releasing him. A few of the potential jurors verbally questioned the legality of it and neither the judge nor prosecutor could do much more than look silly and talk about his danger to society without even attempting to address the question. They did admit that it was "irregular" though.
I didn't get selected, so I don't know anything about how the arguments went, but at least in San Diego, CA something similar has been tried (heh).
The funniest part of the sick situation was when they were questioning the potential jurors about their ability to be unbiased. One guy asked who was raped and was told that it was a boy. He then claimed that since he was a Christian that everyone should know his feelings toward "gays". It's almost certainly not the case, but he really made it sound like he'd be ok with it if the guy were raping little girls.
I laughed out loud (and surreptitiously spit on him), but the jury was full before they got to me so that didn't have anything to do with why I wasn't selected (if anybody but him even knew, and he knew;-).
For the record, I just happened to be processing ground ozone data at work when I signed up for the account.
Dude, how the heck do you grind ozone? What do the machines look like? Do you just get oxygen out of it, or do you grind it finer than that. If so what stops the Kaboom?
The recidivism rates for sex crimes are actually lower than that of other crimes....
I can't even manage to play Devil's Advocate on this one. It's just too absurd.
The recidivism rate for pedophiles is, from what I understand, very high. A pedophile though is somebody who likes little *prepubescent* children. A lot of the time the people pushing for draconian anti freedom legislation like to pretend that "sex offender" == "pedophile", which is why so many people are tracked. If you split pedos out of it, I think you'd find what you were looking for, but not many people really need Devil's advocatism over that issue;-)
Says who? It may be the stereotypical jock that gets all the hot chicks at the bar for one night stands. But the geek stands a decent chance at getting the hot chick to marry him because the geek is stands a better chance at being gainfully employed and has the resources (money) to provide for that chick and her offspring.
All you're saying is that the nerd gets stuck raising the jock's kid though. That's a quite common and effective strategy for the female, but it's not good for the nerd.
Please stick to arguing the case, personal attacks don't make you any more credible.
No, you go out and learn what an ad Hominem actually means. The fact that you are extremely stupid or a troll was the conclusion of the argument absolutely demanded by your statements. It was not in any way part of the argument. Your whiny little bitchery did nothing to address the sound, valid points which I arrayed against you. Obviously, you know that or you wouldn't have resorted to whining so soon.
No it isn't, your interpretation is not what I argued.
No, you argued something that was directly contradicted by your own argument. That's entirely *your* failure. Learn logic. It will help you greatly.
Taking a personal possession or efforts from someone without due compensation and for the free use of everyone is communism.
No, it isn't.
That is *one* possible event that could occur under communism, but it isn't communism. Being deeply ignorant isn't a good thing.
On top of that someone else profiting from your stuff being taken from you without you getting any more compensation is just plain stealing. In my book anyway.
OK, but now you're talking about something entirely different. Nobody is talking about doing that. The topic under discussion is *at what point* do you remove an artificial, government enforced monopoly on things which do not belong to you.
How is this absolute? I believe free content that is 5 years old will at best keep new content creation at todays level and at worst lower the amount (and possibly quality) created.
The fact that you have to invoke "belief" all of a sudden when we were talking about real things demonstrates your lack of ability to defend your position. I believe magical fairies will make everything ok! Wow, now we're at the same level.
Your entire argument was based on the fact that *more* innovation in distribution would inevitably occur given that situation.
So you have a situation where more efficient distribution methods will come into place as you argued. More efficient distribution methods will demand more content to distribute. That's how it works. You also have more people able to play off of old themes, leading to even more content being generated.
You have not offered a single argument or idea that backs up your conclusion. Everything you're saying promoted and argues for that idea. Your failure to recognize what your own arguments are saying is really sad and pathetic. You're arguing against yourself and in favor of the people you think you're against.
This is because I believe fewer people will be buying if they can get other stuff for free. (just like not everyone wants to spend money on the new latest and greatest car and buys second hand)
Of course they will. Why would you buy the same old crap? Are you arguing that reselling your car should be illegal? Rhetorical question. You absolutely are. That's an obvious and integral problem with your arguments.
Both yours and mine conclusions are speculative as there is no proof either way, so, again, no need for name calling.
The need for "name calling" is simple honesty. The words I applied to you are absolutely demanded by your lack of ability to reason, and the specifics of your inability to do so. Your point is not, in any way, "equally valid". It's totally invalid. That is a well defined logical term which you should look up before attempting to win an argument based on whining.
But my main point is: too much government interference.
No, your point is that you want even *more* government interference and your failure to even grasp what you're arguing is what *demonstrates* you to be a fool or a troll.
Why should there be a law that prevents you from selling the same old crap?
There isn't one. What you are arguing for is laws to *help* you to sell the same old crap at the expense of somebody who can do so more effi
I do not see why anyone should not be allowed to make a good investment and then live off it for the rest of their lives. Are we really going to force people to produce more?
Define "good investment". You'll quickly realize that you're just making a circular argument.
It would be like doing 10 years of good investing on the stock market, retiring on $10M dollars only to be told 5 years down the track to hand all your capital gains over because you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your work; you must keep working.
You're either *extremely* fucking stupid or a troll.
The money the stock market investor made is equivalent to the money the "intellectual property" creator made. Nobody is talking about taking that away.
And why would I pay for something new the artists created when I can have so much stuff that is only 5 years old for free?
If the new stuff isn't that much better than you shouldn't. That wasn't even a good question. It's just an artifact of your inability to get past your initial logical fallacy.
What you are proposing is pretty much communism and after 5 years anyone can get it for free, but it would also mean anyone can make money on it!
So since anybody... or more accurately whoever does it more efficiently, can make money off of it it actually is completely unrelated to to communism. It's actually an example of a free market, which your clearly fascist tendendcies cause you to despise.
Imaging a 5 year rule and "Top Gun" has become public domain years ago, but most people can not get it easily, so someone WILL make money of selling copies on DVD.
So you're saying absolutely that it creates a free market situation once you remove government granted, market manipulating, effects.
I think not and it would be counterproductive to your "artists would have much more incentive to produce new works".
No, you clearly don't even understand what *you're* saying.
New works are promoted. Reselling the same old crap is discouraged. It follows absolutely from what you're saying. Your conclusions are completely opposed to your own arguments. Sane people change their minds at that point.
I do not think it is quite a clear cut as you seem to think it is!
His argument might not be clear cut, but yours is dead wrong and internally contradictory as a even a school kid could figure out if he had basic reasoning skills.
No, it's called having a scrap of common sense in the real world.
Some of us were going to wait until the bill was actually introduced before writing our MPs to protest. I thought it might be nice to see what's in it for myself first.
You know who's writing it and you know they're paying your elected officials to betray you with it (or you're a delusional idiot), so obviously waiting that long to do something about it is something only a fool would consider reasonable.
What should I do if my MP shrugs me off saying he will ask about my question in Parliament, then tell me he doesn't have time to discuss his point of view of Copyright because of Mulroney?
I guess I'm enforcing my right to smoke pot by smoking pot, and my right to bang hookers by banging hookers.
Yes, absolutely you are (assuming, of course, that you actually smoke pot and bang hookers;-).
But if I get caught I'll still go to jail, unless I exersize my 2nd amendment rights and get killed.
Absolutely. Which is proof positive that we do not live in anything approximating a free country.
You have to die fform something, but I'm not going to exersize my 2nd amendment rights against the governmen all by myself.
Right. Which is just a simple example of the strategy known as "divide and conquer" which is one of our governments primary policies.\ against the people of this nation.
As to whether he's corruptable or not, the only thing that frightens me more than a corruptable politician is a self-righteous holy man. Ron Paul is just such a man, and it also looks like he's supported and surrounded with swirly-eyed Yes-men who go out unto the world to preach the Word According to Paul with a frightening religious fervor.
Your points might sound even remotely sane if *all* of the major party candidates weren't far worse in every way.
"Oh no Ron Paul will destroy the country"
Hot tip, Sparky, the other candidates are all self-righteous holy men as well with the difference that there isn't even anything good any of them are standing up for. They stand for all the abuses and excesses of the Bush administration and their sole means of differentiating themselves is by promising to do even more of the wrong things.
You might be right about Paul, but you're completely failing to address the batshit insanity that completely defines *every single one of the other candidates*.
You only have such rights as you can enforce. When your government removes your right to free speech, you have no right to free speech.
Right. So it seems that according to both your definition and mine I have a right to own guns in the city of Chicago. The law is unenforceable, and I enforce my right by exercising it.
If your point is that "right" and "left" are relatively useless terms because they lack any sort of nuance or precision and halfway switched sometime since they were originally defined, I agree.
Yes, that's more or less my point.
What are your "far left" and "far right"?
Far left would be Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. They used the power of the state to great effect to enfoirce their ideas of equality on their people.
Far Right is Corporatism, Corporate welfare, The Holocaust, Hereditary monarchy, and generally theocratic regimes. The difference is the right believes in the idea of an elite who deserves to be on top and will use the power of the state to keep that elite on top. ( Of course, the left usually ends up with an elite but it's just out of the goodness of their hearts that they step up and help the poor dumb masses (do I really need sarcasm tags here?), and not so explicitly part of the ideology)
Those are opposite extremes in ideology, even though the results often don't look that different (getting killed because you were born the wrong whatever sucks, but so does getting killed because you're ideologically impure even though all the colors of the rainbow are represented). That's essentially the difference between right and left wing purges.
So given that they are opposite extremes, the middle ground between them is the area I'm talking about, and that is Liberalism. It fundamentally disagrees with using the power of the state against the individual, therefore fundamentally disagrees with both the left and the right.
I don't think he's halfway between a laissez faire capitalists and authoritarian monarchy,
No, he *is* a laissez faire capitalist (more or less). So he doesn't think that corporations should be run by the government to make sure one of them doesn't get ahead of the rest and to make sure that it's operated in the interests of keeping the people equal. On the far far other side, he doesn't believe that the people of this country should be robbed at gunpoint by the government to give huge gifts to already massively profitable corporations which then fire masses of employees and give the money to the execs as a bonus.
Do you at least understand the vast difference I'm describing even if you don't agree?
and where does socialism fit on either of those lines?
On the left. How far really depends on the implementation.
RP would generally be both more socially liberal and fiscally conservative than either of the big parties.
Do you know what is meant by the term "Economic Liberalization". That's fiscal liberalism, not conservatism. The "liberal" "conservative" divergence of meaning in the US is even worse than the "left" "right" one. If you listen to small government conservatives, then you see that what they're trying to conserve is Liberalism which just makes the whole debate worthless with those terms in play;-)
How does an issue like abortion fit in? It's framed as both a social liberty and taking away life depending on who's making the argument.
Well, pro choice is purely liberal by my definitions. The American right is against it primarily for religious reasons. It's such a major point in their extremist interpretations of their religion because it allows them to punish the evil sinners who dare to have sex. It's also designed to keep the poor poor and keep women down. So the right is soundly on the right on that issue. The whole "killing babies" thing is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with the issue. If it did have anything to do with it, then the right wouldn't support the death penalty and bearing false witness against their neighbors in order to justify stealing from the American people to pay to go murder a bunch of people in the desert. Respect for life is a joke when coming out of the mouth of somebody on the right (often the left too, there's no monopoly on extremist nutters.)
Bzzt wrong. You would be right if the GGP's sentence was "Looks like they're back to square one". He wrote, however, "their". "their" is the possessive for "they"
Right, and the back is what is possessed by them. It's perfectly cromulent.
Now if you wanted to talk about what's really wrong you would have mentioned something about how I got an "informative" mod for making up nonsense idioms to mess with the non native speaker.
Hillary Clinton, supporting socialized medicine, is a right fringe candidate?
You missed the bit about left-fascist leanings. Socialized medicine if realized in this country will be a huge boon for big pharma.
Ron Paul, the small-government libertarian, is a centrist? May I ask what country you're from?
The one where he's not right enough for the Republican party, hence his crappy poll numbers running for the party who's stated platform he's the only candidate who even wants to discuss?
The one where many Democrats see him as the only sane person on the other side?
In short, I'm from this country.
It may be nice trivia who sat on which side of the French Legislative Assembly following their revolution, but it's of no practical purpose to use antiquated definitions that directly conflict with the modern ones and serve only to confuse your audience.
So you're saying that the ability to discuss politics in a rational manner serves no rational purpose?
In the first place, the definitions I'm using can not directly contradict with the "modern ones" because the modern ones do not span the topic. Do you know what a projection is, like putting a 3D drawing on a 2D piece of paper? That's all you've done, and you are guaranteed to lose information in that process.
Look at what you're capable of discussing using your definitions.
You have a "left" which you define as big government, nanny state, high taxes, whatever. You have a "right" which you're defining as the opposite of that.
So, then in that scheme, our current government does not even exist. Since you've redefined "right" to mean "Liberal" and you've left "left" with some of the usual consequences of both the left and the right as its definition but nothing to illuminate the causes or admit the differences, you don't have a word left to describe the actual right. Corporate welfare, troops all over the world, interventionism, religious extremism are all hallmarks of the right and they don't exist in your definitions yet they've been defining characteristics of America for quite some time now.
The Republican party doesn't even fit anywhere in the world described by your definitions. The Democrats do but only sort of and once in a while.
There really are two different ideologies characterized by the left and the right. But you have totally lost the fact that there is a third idea which both of them are opposed to which is the idea that individual liberty is the key. And you clearly do not understand why and how both of them are opposed to it. You don't even have the words to talk about it.
Interesting sentence construction of yours. It parses like "To square one, [it] looks like their [Microsoft's] back".
Right. It means that they fell behind the beginning, lost ground from the start, got lapped by inertia, you know.
Yes, I'm being extremely rude because I KNOW parent is a native speaker. Non-native speakers do not make such silly mistakes. Oh, btw, English is my second language...
So having learned English as a second language, you know how idiomatic it is. It's OK, you'll get it eventually. We can't all park our cars on the same yard!
Oh crud, I always forget this one... You roll around in a huge pile of money and then jump around like a spastic sweaty monkey? Wait. Other way around. That way the money sticks to the monkey sweat and then you hop up and jump around some more?
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, that was (is?) a fairly effective strategy for the female of the species.
;-)
True, the argument I heard for it was essentially that if she has a "nice" guy to raise the kids, then the kids' odds of succeeding are good, but if she has kids by a player, then her male offspring will be more likely to be players as well therefore spreading her genes further.
And, yes, that wasn't "all" you were saying. I just forgot to put some indicator that I was being only partly serious
I'll look into that. I've read studies that say the opposite so someone is pushing junk studies. I'll investigate more.
An important point to keep in mind when looking into it is that pedophiles ( people who like fucking real little prepubescent kids) do have a very high recidivism rate. "Sex offender" includes them as well as 18 year olds fucking their 17 364/365s year old willing girlfriends and people who were peeing in an alley when a minor walked by as well as rapists (of adults) and similar.
Those are some of the major things skewing statistics into the realm of insanity. And things you need to keep in mind when trying to form an accurate picture the issue.
In the case of the DUI miscreants it should be a warning to liqour stores and bars: "DO NOT SERVE THIS PERSON".
hehe, yeah. Cut off their best customer? Highly unlikely. You forget we're a militantly capitalist society.
Yes, because we all know that the police never abuse their authority. Any story suggesting that they have done so is obviously fake.
Damn, Dude. Why no love for Illinois in your links? We had to empty the entire fucking death row statewide because so many of the people there were *proven* to have had their confessions beaten out of them by the police.
"Welcome to Chicago".
I have never understood the debt to society business.
That part of it is easy to understand. "Society" in this context means the government. The government makes lots of money for its friends by building and maintaining prisons.
I don't personally agree with much of the rest of what you said, but at least I can clear up that one point you weren't clear on.
free market globalism. Specifically, if IBM can go to india for 50% less than an american, why can't an american buy prescription drugs from Canada at a discount? Why can't they buy and import the DVD from Hong Cong for 10%(not talking about pirated, but just cheaper legit goods)?
The answer to your presumably rhetorical question is fascism plain and simple. Those are canonical examples of it. For anybody who wants to reply with some nonsense equivalent to "durrr but fascism == teh holocaust" grow up and learn to think.
That is *exactly* what fascism is. Corporate power owning your government and using it to fuck you.
Maybe all ex-cons who aren't released on parole should undergo a mandatory "civil commitment" hearing.
;-).
I was called up for jury duty some years back, and the one case I was in the running to get selected for was something like that. It was a man in his late 20s, who was about to be released from prison after serving his sentence for raping a little kid. Little and rape, not 17 or willing, or something idiotic like that. He'd admitted the crime during the original trial, so it's not like he'd been railroaded or anything.
The prosecution wanted him to be put away in a mental institution instead of releasing him. A few of the potential jurors verbally questioned the legality of it and neither the judge nor prosecutor could do much more than look silly and talk about his danger to society without even attempting to address the question. They did admit that it was "irregular" though.
I didn't get selected, so I don't know anything about how the arguments went, but at least in San Diego, CA something similar has been tried (heh).
The funniest part of the sick situation was when they were questioning the potential jurors about their ability to be unbiased.
One guy asked who was raped and was told that it was a boy. He then claimed that since he was a Christian that everyone should know his feelings toward "gays".
It's almost certainly not the case, but he really made it sound like he'd be ok with it if the guy were raping little girls.
I laughed out loud (and surreptitiously spit on him), but the jury was full before they got to me so that didn't have anything to do with why I wasn't selected (if anybody but him even knew, and he knew
For the record, I just happened to be processing ground ozone data at work when I signed up for the account.
Dude, how the heck do you grind ozone? What do the machines look like? Do you just get oxygen out of it, or do you grind it finer than that. If so what stops the Kaboom?
The recidivism rates for sex crimes are actually lower than that of other crimes....
I can't even manage to play Devil's Advocate on this one. It's just too absurd.
The recidivism rate for pedophiles is, from what I understand, very high. A pedophile though is somebody who likes little *prepubescent* children. A lot of the time the people pushing for draconian anti freedom legislation like to pretend that "sex offender" == "pedophile", which is why so many people are tracked.
If you split pedos out of it, I think you'd find what you were looking for, but not many people really need Devil's advocatism over that issue
Says who? It may be the stereotypical jock that gets all the hot chicks at the bar for one night stands. But the geek stands a decent chance at getting the hot chick to marry him because the geek is stands a better chance at being gainfully employed and has the resources (money) to provide for that chick and her offspring.
All you're saying is that the nerd gets stuck raising the jock's kid though. That's a quite common and effective strategy for the female, but it's not good for the nerd.
Please stick to arguing the case, personal attacks don't make you any more credible.
No, you go out and learn what an ad Hominem actually means.
The fact that you are extremely stupid or a troll was the conclusion of the argument absolutely demanded by your statements. It was not in any way part of the argument. Your whiny little bitchery did nothing to address the sound, valid points which I arrayed against you. Obviously, you know that or you wouldn't have resorted to whining so soon.
No it isn't, your interpretation is not what I argued.
No, you argued something that was directly contradicted by your own argument. That's entirely *your* failure. Learn logic. It will help you greatly.
Taking a personal possession or efforts from someone without due compensation and for the free use of everyone is communism.
No, it isn't.
That is *one* possible event that could occur under communism, but it isn't communism. Being deeply ignorant isn't a good thing.
On top of that someone else profiting from your stuff being taken from you without you getting any more compensation is just plain stealing. In my book anyway.
OK, but now you're talking about something entirely different.
Nobody is talking about doing that. The topic under discussion is *at what point* do you remove an artificial, government enforced monopoly on things which do not belong to you.
How is this absolute? I believe free content that is 5 years old will at best keep new content creation at todays level and at worst lower the amount (and possibly quality) created.
The fact that you have to invoke "belief" all of a sudden when we were talking about real things demonstrates your lack of ability to defend your position. I believe magical fairies will make everything ok! Wow, now we're at the same level.
Your entire argument was based on the fact that *more* innovation in distribution would inevitably occur given that situation.
So you have a situation where more efficient distribution methods will come into place as you argued. More efficient distribution methods will demand more content to distribute. That's how it works.
You also have more people able to play off of old themes, leading to even more content being generated.
You have not offered a single argument or idea that backs up your conclusion. Everything you're saying promoted and argues for that idea. Your failure to recognize what your own arguments are saying is really sad and pathetic. You're arguing against yourself and in favor of the people you think you're against.
This is because I believe fewer people will be buying if they can get other stuff for free. (just like not everyone wants to spend money on the new latest and greatest car and buys second hand)
Of course they will. Why would you buy the same old crap? Are you arguing that reselling your car should be illegal? Rhetorical question. You absolutely are. That's an obvious and integral problem with your arguments.
Both yours and mine conclusions are speculative as there is no proof either way, so, again, no need for name calling.
The need for "name calling" is simple honesty. The words I applied to you are absolutely demanded by your lack of ability to reason, and the specifics of your inability to do so. Your point is not, in any way, "equally valid". It's totally invalid. That is a well defined logical term which you should look up before attempting to win an argument based on whining.
But my main point is: too much government interference.
No, your point is that you want even *more* government interference and your failure to even grasp what you're arguing is what *demonstrates* you to be a fool or a troll.
Why should there be a law that prevents you from selling the same old crap?
There isn't one. What you are arguing for is laws to *help* you to sell the same old crap at the expense of somebody who can do so more effi
I do not see why anyone should not be allowed to make a good investment and then live off it for the rest of their lives. Are we really going to force people to produce more?
Define "good investment". You'll quickly realize that you're just making a circular argument.
It would be like doing 10 years of good investing on the stock market, retiring on $10M dollars only to be told 5 years down the track to hand all your capital gains over because you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your work; you must keep working.
You're either *extremely* fucking stupid or a troll.
The money the stock market investor made is equivalent to the money the "intellectual property" creator made. Nobody is talking about taking that away.
And why would I pay for something new the artists created when I can have so much stuff that is only 5 years old for free?
If the new stuff isn't that much better than you shouldn't. That wasn't even a good question. It's just an artifact of your inability to get past your initial logical fallacy.
What you are proposing is pretty much communism and after 5 years anyone can get it for free, but it would also mean anyone can make money on it!
So since anybody... or more accurately whoever does it more efficiently, can make money off of it it actually is completely unrelated to to communism. It's actually an example of a free market, which your clearly fascist tendendcies cause you to despise.
Imaging a 5 year rule and "Top Gun" has become public domain years ago, but most people can not get it easily, so someone WILL make money of selling copies on DVD.
So you're saying absolutely that it creates a free market situation once you remove government granted, market manipulating, effects.
I think not and it would be counterproductive to your "artists would have much more incentive to produce new works".
No, you clearly don't even understand what *you're* saying.
New works are promoted. Reselling the same old crap is discouraged. It follows absolutely from what you're saying. Your conclusions are completely opposed to your own arguments. Sane people change their minds at that point.
I do not think it is quite a clear cut as you seem to think it is!
His argument might not be clear cut, but yours is dead wrong and internally contradictory as a even a school kid could figure out if he had basic reasoning skills.
That's a bit harsh...
No, it's called having a scrap of common sense in the real world.
Some of us were going to wait until the bill was actually introduced before writing our MPs to protest. I thought it might be nice to see what's in it for myself first.
You know who's writing it and you know they're paying your elected officials to betray you with it (or you're a delusional idiot), so obviously waiting that long to do something about it is something only a fool would consider reasonable.
Good luck being a fool!
What should I do if my MP shrugs me off saying he will ask about my question in Parliament, then tell me he doesn't have time to discuss his point of view of Copyright because of Mulroney?
Document everything and then get loud about it?
Was that a rhetorical question?
I guess I'm enforcing my right to smoke pot by smoking pot, and my right to bang hookers by banging hookers.
;-).
Yes, absolutely you are (assuming, of course, that you actually smoke pot and bang hookers
But if I get caught I'll still go to jail, unless I exersize my 2nd amendment rights and get killed.
Absolutely. Which is proof positive that we do not live in anything approximating a free country.
You have to die fform something, but I'm not going to exersize my 2nd amendment rights against the governmen all by myself.
Right. Which is just a simple example of the strategy known as "divide and conquer" which is one of our governments primary policies.\ against the people of this nation.
As to whether he's corruptable or not, the only thing that frightens me more than a corruptable politician is a self-righteous holy man. Ron Paul is just such a man, and it also looks like he's supported and surrounded with swirly-eyed Yes-men who go out unto the world to preach the Word According to Paul with a frightening religious fervor.
Your points might sound even remotely sane if *all* of the major party candidates weren't far worse in every way.
"Oh no Ron Paul will destroy the country"
Hot tip, Sparky, the other candidates are all self-righteous holy men as well with the difference that there isn't even anything good any of them are standing up for. They stand for all the abuses and excesses of the Bush administration and their sole means of differentiating themselves is by promising to do even more of the wrong things.
You might be right about Paul, but you're completely failing to address the batshit insanity that completely defines *every single one of the other candidates*.
( ) A lack of support from famous Musicians and Actors
You should probably check that one too.
You only have such rights as you can enforce. When your government removes your right to free speech, you have no right to free speech.
Right. So it seems that according to both your definition and mine I have a right to own guns in the city of Chicago. The law is unenforceable, and I enforce my right by exercising it.
If your point is that "right" and "left" are relatively useless terms because they lack any sort of nuance or precision and halfway switched sometime since they were originally defined, I agree.
;-)
Yes, that's more or less my point.
What are your "far left" and "far right"?
Far left would be Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. They used the power of the state to great effect to enfoirce their ideas of equality on their people.
Far Right is Corporatism, Corporate welfare, The Holocaust, Hereditary monarchy, and generally theocratic regimes. The difference is the right believes in the idea of an elite who deserves to be on top and will use the power of the state to keep that elite on top. ( Of course, the left usually ends up with an elite but it's just out of the goodness of their hearts that they step up and help the poor dumb masses (do I really need sarcasm tags here?), and not so explicitly part of the ideology)
Those are opposite extremes in ideology, even though the results often don't look that different (getting killed because you were born the wrong whatever sucks, but so does getting killed because you're ideologically impure even though all the colors of the rainbow are represented). That's essentially the difference between right and left wing purges.
So given that they are opposite extremes, the middle ground between them is the area I'm talking about, and that is Liberalism. It fundamentally disagrees with using the power of the state against the individual, therefore fundamentally disagrees with both the left and the right.
I don't think he's halfway between a laissez faire capitalists and authoritarian monarchy,
No, he *is* a laissez faire capitalist (more or less). So he doesn't think that corporations should be run by the government to make sure one of them doesn't get ahead of the rest and to make sure that it's operated in the interests of keeping the people equal.
On the far far other side, he doesn't believe that the people of this country should be robbed at gunpoint by the government to give huge gifts to already massively profitable corporations which then fire masses of employees and give the money to the execs as a bonus.
Do you at least understand the vast difference I'm describing even if you don't agree?
and where does socialism fit on either of those lines?
On the left. How far really depends on the implementation.
RP would generally be both more socially liberal and fiscally conservative than either of the big parties.
Do you know what is meant by the term "Economic Liberalization". That's fiscal liberalism, not conservatism.
The "liberal" "conservative" divergence of meaning in the US is even worse than the "left" "right" one. If you listen to small government conservatives, then you see that what they're trying to conserve is Liberalism which just makes the whole debate worthless with those terms in play
How does an issue like abortion fit in? It's framed as both a social liberty and taking away life depending on who's making the argument.
Well, pro choice is purely liberal by my definitions. The American right is against it primarily for religious reasons. It's such a major point in their extremist interpretations of their religion because it allows them to punish the evil sinners who dare to have sex. It's also designed to keep the poor poor and keep women down. So the right is soundly on the right on that issue. The whole "killing babies" thing is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with the issue. If it did have anything to do with it, then the right wouldn't support the death penalty and bearing false witness against their neighbors in order to justify stealing from the American people to pay to go murder a bunch of people in the desert. Respect for life is a joke when coming out of the mouth of somebody on the right (often the left too, there's no monopoly on extremist nutters.)
The American left is more or le
Bzzt wrong. You would be right if the GGP's sentence was "Looks like they're back to square one". He wrote, however, "their".
"their" is the possessive for "they"
Right, and the back is what is possessed by them. It's perfectly cromulent.
Now if you wanted to talk about what's really wrong you would have mentioned something about how I got an "informative" mod for making up nonsense idioms to mess with the non native speaker.
Hillary Clinton, supporting socialized medicine, is a right fringe candidate?
You missed the bit about left-fascist leanings. Socialized medicine if realized in this country will be a huge boon for big pharma.
Ron Paul, the small-government libertarian, is a centrist? May I ask what country you're from?
The one where he's not right enough for the Republican party, hence his crappy poll numbers running for the party who's stated platform he's the only candidate who even wants to discuss?
The one where many Democrats see him as the only sane person on the other side?
In short, I'm from this country.
It may be nice trivia who sat on which side of the French Legislative Assembly following their revolution, but it's of no practical purpose to use antiquated definitions that directly conflict with the modern ones and serve only to confuse your audience.
So you're saying that the ability to discuss politics in a rational manner serves no rational purpose?
In the first place, the definitions I'm using can not directly contradict with the "modern ones" because the modern ones do not span the topic. Do you know what a projection is, like putting a 3D drawing on a 2D piece of paper? That's all you've done, and you are guaranteed to lose information in that process.
Look at what you're capable of discussing using your definitions.
You have a "left" which you define as big government, nanny state, high taxes, whatever.
You have a "right" which you're defining as the opposite of that.
So, then in that scheme, our current government does not even exist. Since you've redefined "right" to mean "Liberal" and you've left "left" with some of the usual consequences of both the left and the right as its definition but nothing to illuminate the causes or admit the differences, you don't have a word left to describe the actual right. Corporate welfare, troops all over the world, interventionism, religious extremism are all hallmarks of the right and they don't exist in your definitions yet they've been defining characteristics of America for quite some time now.
The Republican party doesn't even fit anywhere in the world described by your definitions. The Democrats do but only sort of and once in a while.
There really are two different ideologies characterized by the left and the right. But you have totally lost the fact that there is a third idea which both of them are opposed to which is the idea that individual liberty is the key. And you clearly do not understand why and how both of them are opposed to it. You don't even have the words to talk about it.
By that logic I have the right to do anything I damned well please. Rape, steal, murder, it's my right.
I'm not sure I follow your logic.
I have a right to live, hold my stuff and keep my sphincter inviolate.
What causes you to conclude that you have the right to decide what tools I keep safely within my residence?
It seems like your argument boils down to "the government says it so it must be right", but maybe I'm missing something?
Interesting sentence construction of yours. It parses like "To square one, [it] looks like their [Microsoft's] back".
Right. It means that they fell behind the beginning, lost ground from the start, got lapped by inertia, you know.
Yes, I'm being extremely rude because I KNOW parent is a native speaker. Non-native speakers do not make such silly mistakes. Oh, btw, English is my second language...
So having learned English as a second language, you know how idiomatic it is.
It's OK, you'll get it eventually. We can't all park our cars on the same yard!
The world is changing. Try to keep up.
Oh, well, when you put it in terms of an ad hominem, then of course I must agree.
Dude, just trying to help out and all, but if you don't agree now you look kind of slow.
Do the Microsoft failure dance!
Oh crud, I always forget this one...
You roll around in a huge pile of money and then jump around like a spastic sweaty monkey?
Wait. Other way around. That way the money sticks to the monkey sweat and then you hop up and jump around some more?