"infant mortality is high, and a quarter of our citizens are uninsured"
Our infant mortality rates are skewed higher than many countries because we count the deaths of "preemies". Other countries rig the numbers so that categories like this (at the highest risk of death) aren't even counted when they die. Uninsured? So what. Insurance is not the same as health care. 100% of Americans lack food insurance too, but this does not mean starvation.
You are an idiot to want to destroy the system. There is much to be proud of: it works well for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and the drugs produced and the hospitals lead the world. There are problems that must be fixed (start with banning the frivolous lawsuits that make costs go up), but that is no reason to take the entire system away from the people and turn it over to greedy, unaccountable ruling elites. Stalinizing it is not the solution to anything, except the "problem" of government not having enough power.
"Now, Chavez has about an 80% approval rating (unlike Bush who is in the 30's). "
Of course Chavez is Loved by Millions. It is the law there. Also, the Dictator of the Month site is not "right wing". It is merely anti-dictator, and shows a marked lack of "wing" bias. Roughly half (or at least half?) of the dictators named are "right wing". If they had any sort of right-wing bias, they would have quietly left OFF the list Pinochet and Marcos and many others.
As for Israel, I know that hatred of Israel is typically rooted in hatred of Jews. I'm honest enough to admit that. Honesty is not shilling. "Disapproval of the policies of the Israeli government" is a straw-man, typically a cover for rabid hatred of Israelis. A typical ludicrous belief that someone hides under mere "disapproval" is the idea that Israel has no right to fight back when attacked or invaded. It ranges from there on down to the belief that Israelis don't have a right to exist: a wish for genocide shared by countries ranging from Iran all the way to "moderate" Dubai.
"Of course you don't care, since it makes your assertion completely ridiculous."
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of Jewish people who are willing to shrug off or even support antisemitism, just as "hate my own race" racists are found in other ethnic groups. This does not change my assertion at all. I really don't care what their ethnic group is: I just care about the hatred they support.
"Can you explain to me how a democratically elected president (as confirmed by president Carter himself) is a dictator?"
Here is one good place. Democracy is rather shaky in Venezuela now that there are laws in place demanding jail terms for those who vocalize criticism if the dictator. "Evil socialist"? The terms are kind of redundant. However, all Carter did was verify that the vote counting was fair. This does not stop Chavez from rigging the elections in other ways to further fascism and thwart democracy.
"As for the antisemitism bullshit part"
Yes, "Democracy Now" does give vent to antisemitic bullshit. You are right, however, pointing out the self-hating Jew part. Chomsky is also quite antisemitic, but his hate goes way beyond that. Chomsky is one of those who gave "intellectual" arguments supporting Pol Pot's Killing Fields. I really don't care whether Goodman and Chomsky are Jewish or not. That does not change their pro-fascist, anti-semitic, hateful views. Antisemitism at "Democracy Now" is quite apparent when they downplayed Chavez' speech from about a year ago when the dictator blamed Jews for all the evil of the past 2000 years.
"Disagreeing with the US does not make one a "fascist dictator".
No, but being a fascist dictator does the trick for Chavez. Disagreement with the US (he even said he wanted to "bury" the United States!) does not make one a dictator, however. I never claimed it did. Chavez was elected with 80% so he is not a dictator? Saddam Hussein was always elected with 100%, so that made him even more democratic using your defend-the-dictator logic. "Good grief, you are stupid"
The hatred of Israel (which is mostly based in good old fashioned antisemitism) is another issue.
"Taiwan may be a de facto separate state, but definitely not a separate nation"
It's a separate nation in reality. Everyone recognizes it as such except for just one foreign country. The only time it is not treated as a separate nation is when someone has to give a wink toward mainland China's wishes. The world operates under the basic attitude of "Of course Taiwan is a separate country. When forced to, we'll agree when Beijing for its own silly reasons says it isn't, but that is just to make them happy and NOT because Beijing's argument has any merit. Otherwise, we treat Taiwan for what it is: a separate nation."
"Lebanon's invasion of Isreal? Sure you've got that the right way round?"
Lebanon invaded Israel and kidnapped two Israelis. This started that war that happened earlier this year. Israel struck back. How were you not aware of this?
"Dictatorship Cuba has prospering social system and doesn't initiate and doesn't intervene in international conflicts."
They have a real bad record of this, actually. They intervened in Nicaragua and caused a war there during the 1980s that killed tens of thousands. Similar in El Salvador. Angola in Africa fought to free itself from a European colonial power: Cuba intervened against Angola. Currently, they are backing fascist movements in Colombia and Venezuela.
"Cuba has one of the top health systems in the world."
Does this include the fact that they treat being infected with HIV as criminal justice matter (go to prison)? Their system is also not "one of the top", being mere 40 out of 190. That's the upper 1/4, but not tops. You have to wonder about it being ranked that high. It is ahead of New Zealand.... however, can you find one person who would rather go to a Cuban hospital than go to one in New Zealand? There's also the matter of how the Cuban government, since it controls everything and limits access to investigators, has great leaway to make up fake numbers to make things look better than it is.
"They have low crime level."
That's what you can get in a police state/dictatorship. The crime level is similarly low in North Korea.
" When Clinton proposed universal health care it was HMO's and drug companies lining up to throw money at influencing public opinion against it."
I'm glad they did. Hillary's plan to destroy health care (which actually included jail terms for seeing your doctor without government approval) was definitely not in the public interest. Health care is just too important to have the government take it all over and trash it.
"you do not have the right to re-copy and distribute it when you purchase the DVD"
What if it is not available in the theatre and you are too lazy to sell the DVD? There was a period of some months, I recall, between when "The Two Towers" stopped showing in theatres and when the first DVD was sold of it. Someone gave me a copy, which I watched gladly (I could not wait until the regular DVD of it was out, and I bought it....but there are probably many others who got the free one and never bought the real one when it came out). What of situations like this where a pirate version is the only one available, and the proper content distributors won't even take my money for it?
When the justice tells a lie (as has happened here), it is not outrageous to point it out. What is the most outrageous is that the justice told a whopper. Thankfully, the rest of the justices perhaps recognized this: for whatever reason, the whopper was left out of the court's actual decision.
"She admits to her willingness to steal software and admits to illegally downloading content from bittorrent"
Can you show one specific instance where LaurieKnight said he/she was willing to steal software? Validate please? The bittorent reference is off-topic for the question, so I'll ignore it (it is as relevant as accusing Laurie of flatulence on subways).
"Why must you insert yourself into other conversations, krell"
That might have almost looked like a good retort, but you forgot to change the subject line which I set a while ago when I started the conversation. I'm changing it again now...
Dfghjk has accused you of being willing to steal Apple's software. Despite (as usual) any support from you of doing this, or anything that implies a pro-theft attitude on your part. So tell us, do you like theft? There's no evidence of it, but perhaps Dfghjk can read minds:)
I checked Laurie Knight's messages, and there was never a support of theft in them. Can you back up your inflammatory libel? (libel being, of course, just another expression of free speech)? Can you show one instance of theft being supported by Laurie Knight?
"merely that they both involve the taking of property. In theft, *by definition*, the victim is deprived of the property that is taken"
I know what you are getting at, and unlike some, you don't just make outrageous claims and expect everyone to accept them. However, how does copyright infringement involve the "taking of property"? If you take something from someone, aren't they supposed to be deprived of it? Looking at the definitions of taking and property, it is rather hard to to apply them to copyright infringement.
"Absolutely not, but thanks for finally choosing a dictionary definition"
I quoted one yesterday. I even agree with the Wikipedia one you produced.
"What is required is for someone to take, without permission, property or service. This is clearly the meaning Breyer is using and one that you are failing to understand."
Absolutely. Copyright infringement, as we all should know, does not include taking. I understand Breyer fully: he lied. His fellow justices perhaps recognized this too: in any case, they left his language out of the Court's opinion.
" The FACT is the copyright infringement IS theft (at least in the US as declared by SCOTUS)."
There are two non-facts there. Are they both lies, or are you just blissfully ignorant? You have yet to provide evidence that copyright infringement is theft. As for SCOTUS? They never said it. Their opinion on that Grokster case did not contain any such false statement. The lie is, however, present in Breyer's concurring opinion. Whether or not he is a judge, he lied. It's not the first time Supreme Court justices have done dumb things. Concurring opinions are the opinions of judges, and are not part of the actual decision: just like dissenting opinions are. They are often published alongside the actual court decision, but only someone grossly ignorant of the Supreme Court process would dare to assert that opinions of individual judges are the same as the Court's official decision and actually think that concurring or dissenting opinions had any weight.
Slashdot Mirror
"infant mortality is high, and a quarter of our citizens are uninsured"
Our infant mortality rates are skewed higher than many countries because we count the deaths of "preemies". Other countries rig the numbers so that categories like this (at the highest risk of death) aren't even counted when they die. Uninsured? So what. Insurance is not the same as health care. 100% of Americans lack food insurance too, but this does not mean starvation.
You are an idiot to want to destroy the system. There is much to be proud of: it works well for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and the drugs produced and the hospitals lead the world. There are problems that must be fixed (start with banning the frivolous lawsuits that make costs go up), but that is no reason to take the entire system away from the people and turn it over to greedy, unaccountable ruling elites. Stalinizing it is not the solution to anything, except the "problem" of government not having enough power.
"Now, Chavez has about an 80% approval rating (unlike Bush who is in the 30's). "
Of course Chavez is Loved by Millions. It is the law there. Also, the Dictator of the Month site is not "right wing". It is merely anti-dictator, and shows a marked lack of "wing" bias. Roughly half (or at least half?) of the dictators named are "right wing". If they had any sort of right-wing bias, they would have quietly left OFF the list Pinochet and Marcos and many others.
As for Israel, I know that hatred of Israel is typically rooted in hatred of Jews. I'm honest enough to admit that. Honesty is not shilling. "Disapproval of the policies of the Israeli government" is a straw-man, typically a cover for rabid hatred of Israelis. A typical ludicrous belief that someone hides under mere "disapproval" is the idea that Israel has no right to fight back when attacked or invaded. It ranges from there on down to the belief that Israelis don't have a right to exist: a wish for genocide shared by countries ranging from Iran all the way to "moderate" Dubai.
"Of course you don't care, since it makes your assertion completely ridiculous."
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of Jewish people who are willing to shrug off or even support antisemitism, just as "hate my own race" racists are found in other ethnic groups. This does not change my assertion at all. I really don't care what their ethnic group is: I just care about the hatred they support.
The anti-TV attitude represents the same sort of close-mindedness found in book burners. TV can't make anyone more stupid than books can.
"Resist your corporate overlords!! "
Oh. A tinfoil helmet nutjob? That must explain it. You'd better burn the books too: most of them are published by corporations. shudder.
sorry. I made the mistake in assuming that "Neelie" was one of those US female names that usually male when outside of the US. Like "Laurie".
That's a great reason why "world" kangaroo courts are worthless.
"Can you explain to me how a democratically elected president (as confirmed by president Carter himself) is a dictator?"
Here is one good place. Democracy is rather shaky in Venezuela now that there are laws in place demanding jail terms for those who vocalize criticism if the dictator. "Evil socialist"? The terms are kind of redundant. However, all Carter did was verify that the vote counting was fair. This does not stop Chavez from rigging the elections in other ways to further fascism and thwart democracy.
"As for the antisemitism bullshit part"
Yes, "Democracy Now" does give vent to antisemitic bullshit. You are right, however, pointing out the self-hating Jew part. Chomsky is also quite antisemitic, but his hate goes way beyond that. Chomsky is one of those who gave "intellectual" arguments supporting Pol Pot's Killing Fields. I really don't care whether Goodman and Chomsky are Jewish or not. That does not change their pro-fascist, anti-semitic, hateful views. Antisemitism at "Democracy Now" is quite apparent when they downplayed Chavez' speech from about a year ago when the dictator blamed Jews for all the evil of the past 2000 years.
"Disagreeing with the US does not make one a "fascist dictator".
No, but being a fascist dictator does the trick for Chavez. Disagreement with the US (he even said he wanted to "bury" the United States!) does not make one a dictator, however. I never claimed it did. Chavez was elected with 80% so he is not a dictator? Saddam Hussein was always elected with 100%, so that made him even more democratic using your defend-the-dictator logic. "Good grief, you are stupid"
The hatred of Israel (which is mostly based in good old fashioned antisemitism) is another issue.
"Taiwan may be a de facto separate state, but definitely not a separate nation"
It's a separate nation in reality. Everyone recognizes it as such except for just one foreign country. The only time it is not treated as a separate nation is when someone has to give a wink toward mainland China's wishes. The world operates under the basic attitude of "Of course Taiwan is a separate country. When forced to, we'll agree when Beijing for its own silly reasons says it isn't, but that is just to make them happy and NOT because Beijing's argument has any merit. Otherwise, we treat Taiwan for what it is: a separate nation."
" so is EU commissioner Neelie Kroes."
But what about his cousin Mie Kroes Offt?
"Lebanon's invasion of Isreal? Sure you've got that the right way round?"
Lebanon invaded Israel and kidnapped two Israelis. This started that war that happened earlier this year. Israel struck back. How were you not aware of this?
I wonder if they would eventually filter entries such as those that state the obvious fact that Taiwan is a separate nation.
"Dictatorship Cuba has prospering social system and doesn't initiate and doesn't intervene in international conflicts."
They have a real bad record of this, actually. They intervened in Nicaragua and caused a war there during the 1980s that killed tens of thousands. Similar in El Salvador. Angola in Africa fought to free itself from a European colonial power: Cuba intervened against Angola. Currently, they are backing fascist movements in Colombia and Venezuela.
"Cuba has one of the top health systems in the world."
Does this include the fact that they treat being infected with HIV as criminal justice matter (go to prison)? Their system is also not "one of the top", being mere 40 out of 190. That's the upper 1/4, but not tops. You have to wonder about it being ranked that high. It is ahead of New Zealand.... however, can you find one person who would rather go to a Cuban hospital than go to one in New Zealand? There's also the matter of how the Cuban government, since it controls everything and limits access to investigators, has great leaway to make up fake numbers to make things look better than it is.
"They have low crime level."
That's what you can get in a police state/dictatorship. The crime level is similarly low in North Korea.
" When Clinton proposed universal health care it was HMO's and drug companies lining up to throw money at influencing public opinion against it."
I'm glad they did. Hillary's plan to destroy health care (which actually included jail terms for seeing your doctor without government approval) was definitely not in the public interest. Health care is just too important to have the government take it all over and trash it.
They also love the fascist dictator of Venezuela, and their coverage of the Middle East is downright antisemitic.
"you do not have the right to re-copy and distribute it when you purchase the DVD"
What if it is not available in the theatre and you are too lazy to sell the DVD? There was a period of some months, I recall, between when "The Two Towers" stopped showing in theatres and when the first DVD was sold of it. Someone gave me a copy, which I watched gladly (I could not wait until the regular DVD of it was out, and I bought it....but there are probably many others who got the free one and never bought the real one when it came out). What of situations like this where a pirate version is the only one available, and the proper content distributors won't even take my money for it?
"Weird Al has the same problem with his work"
As a result of how he goes about it, he really has very little problem.
When the justice tells a lie (as has happened here), it is not outrageous to point it out. What is the most outrageous is that the justice told a whopper. Thankfully, the rest of the justices perhaps recognized this: for whatever reason, the whopper was left out of the court's actual decision.
"She admits to her willingness to steal software and admits to illegally downloading content from bittorrent"
Can you show one specific instance where LaurieKnight said he/she was willing to steal software? Validate please? The bittorent reference is off-topic for the question, so I'll ignore it (it is as relevant as accusing Laurie of flatulence on subways).
"Why must you insert yourself into other conversations, krell"
That might have almost looked like a good retort, but you forgot to change the subject line which I set a while ago when I started the conversation. I'm changing it again now...
Dfghjk has accused you of being willing to steal Apple's software. Despite (as usual) any support from you of doing this, or anything that implies a pro-theft attitude on your part. So tell us, do you like theft? There's no evidence of it, but perhaps Dfghjk can read minds :)
"your willingness to steal their software."
I checked Laurie Knight's messages, and there was never a support of theft in them. Can you back up your inflammatory libel? (libel being, of course, just another expression of free speech)? Can you show one instance of theft being supported by Laurie Knight?
"merely that they both involve the taking of property. In theft, *by definition*, the victim is deprived of the property that is taken"
I know what you are getting at, and unlike some, you don't just make outrageous claims and expect everyone to accept them. However, how does copyright infringement involve the "taking of property"? If you take something from someone, aren't they supposed to be deprived of it? Looking at the definitions of taking and property, it is rather hard to to apply them to copyright infringement.
"Absolutely not, but thanks for finally choosing a dictionary definition"
I quoted one yesterday. I even agree with the Wikipedia one you produced.
"What is required is for someone to take, without permission, property or service. This is clearly the meaning Breyer is using and one that you are failing to understand."
Absolutely. Copyright infringement, as we all should know, does not include taking. I understand Breyer fully: he lied. His fellow justices perhaps recognized this too: in any case, they left his language out of the Court's opinion.
" The FACT is the copyright infringement IS theft (at least in the US as declared by SCOTUS)."
There are two non-facts there. Are they both lies, or are you just blissfully ignorant? You have yet to provide evidence that copyright infringement is theft. As for SCOTUS? They never said it. Their opinion on that Grokster case did not contain any such false statement. The lie is, however, present in Breyer's concurring opinion. Whether or not he is a judge, he lied. It's not the first time Supreme Court justices have done dumb things. Concurring opinions are the opinions of judges, and are not part of the actual decision: just like dissenting opinions are. They are often published alongside the actual court decision, but only someone grossly ignorant of the Supreme Court process would dare to assert that opinions of individual judges are the same as the Court's official decision and actually think that concurring or dissenting opinions had any weight.