The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 1:24pm
Oh, come on, Tim. This was the most honest response to a petition in the history of politics. I'd rather have them being wiseasses in response to a silly petition than giving a canned response that has little to nothing to do with the subject at hand in political speak.
I mean, come on, if they're going to waste my time reading their response, at least make it worth reading.
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 3:12pm
Re:
I enjoy the parity. Group A calls for restrictions of the 2nd. Group B calls for restrictions on the 1st. Equal stupidity under the law.
And no, free speech is not more important than the right to bear arms. The 2nd exists so that the people will always have recourse if the government decides to shit on our other rights. It's not apples to apples, it's apples to apple cart.
Before you go thinking I'm some nutjob, consider that when penning the amendments they'd just finished using privately owned firearms to overthrow an oppressive government. I'm fairly certain they meant for the people to keep that ability.
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 27 Dec 2012 @ 4:01pm
Re: Re: Let's get this clear
You just enumerated exactly why the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment.
Some people say it's only meant for the militia and then declare that the militia means only the national guard. Some people think it protects their right to have weapons to protect themselves and their homes. They're both dead wrong.
History lesson: when the 2nd Amendment was written we'd just finished using quite a lot of privately owned weapons to violently overthrow an oppressive government. You can bet your ass that this was heavy on their minds at the time, so the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure we are able to do it again if necessary.
Keep that in mind next time you hear an argument about reducing us to bolt/lever action rifles, pump shotguns, and revolvers. Privately owned, people-killing, war-waging firearms are precisely why the 2nd Amendment exists.
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 9:34pm
Re:
Now now, let's not forget the highly important spider sqooshing. Hardbacks are far superior due to the added mass and it's a much less expensive proposition to throw one at the ground several feet away for the really big, hairy buggers.
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 8:47pm
Not pointless, specifically the point
For such an experiment that seems pointless.
When you experiment, you do it to find out the results of a specific set of variables. They apparently want to know what the effect of mandating only commercial distribution will be. Makes perfect sense to me since there are already plenty of data points where the artists released work for remixing that allowed or even required non-commercial distribution.
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 8:18am
Re: "Commercial speech" protected only up to a point, Mike.
In common law, corporations are granted the right to exist, therefore obviously whatever a corp says is subject to limits.
This is obvious how, exactly? This would have made an excellent sarcastic comment but as a statement of logic it falls flat. It entirely lacks any means of tying your assertion to your conclusion.
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 15 Nov 2012 @ 6:47am
Re: The key
They're just pissed because they don't like the fundamental nature of A Job. Exchanging useful work for cash is how it's supposed to work, not receiving said cash for allowing others to profit from their work.
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 14 Nov 2012 @ 2:58pm
Couldn't read the article. I couldn't see through the tears from laughing so hard every time I saw the headline. That'll happen shortly after we get off fossil fuels by switching to riding unicorns.
Personally, I think we should go with a flat tax. No deductions. No loopholes. That way everyone gets to be equally miserable come April 15th.
More importantly, everyone has an equal stake in how their taxes should be spent. Currently, people who pay zero in taxes number enough to outvote the top 25% of earners. That's a whole lot of incentive to vote for a handout party and no immediate consequences whatsoever.
I know rich people are the last minority it's still socially acceptable to hate but I can't bring myself to jump on that discrimination bandwagon.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Prenda Law Fails In Attempt To Remove Judge Who Wants To Know Who Alan Cooper Is
Re:
On the post: Official White House Position: We're Not Building A Death Star
I mean, come on, if they're going to waste my time reading their response, at least make it worth reading.
On the post: Dad Hires Digital Assassins To Murder His Son (Digitally)
Re: Re:
On the post: There's A Secret Reason Why The Government Has To Keep It Secret How Many Americans It's Spying On Without A Warrant
Re:
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Re:
And no, free speech is not more important than the right to bear arms. The 2nd exists so that the people will always have recourse if the government decides to shit on our other rights. It's not apples to apples, it's apples to apple cart.
Before you go thinking I'm some nutjob, consider that when penning the amendments they'd just finished using privately owned firearms to overthrow an oppressive government. I'm fairly certain they meant for the people to keep that ability.
On the post: Senate Finally Holds Weak 'Debate' On FISA Amendments Act... But Terrorism!
Re: Re: Let's get this clear
Some people say it's only meant for the militia and then declare that the militia means only the national guard. Some people think it protects their right to have weapons to protect themselves and their homes. They're both dead wrong.
History lesson: when the 2nd Amendment was written we'd just finished using quite a lot of privately owned weapons to violently overthrow an oppressive government. You can bet your ass that this was heavy on their minds at the time, so the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure we are able to do it again if necessary.
Keep that in mind next time you hear an argument about reducing us to bolt/lever action rifles, pump shotguns, and revolvers. Privately owned, people-killing, war-waging firearms are precisely why the 2nd Amendment exists.
On the post: 'War Z' Game Producer Lists Non-Existent Features, Blames Customers' Eyesight And Overactive Imagination
Re:
On the post: Entertainment Industry Mourns The End Of 'Hollywood' Howard Berman Being Their Personal Voice In Congress
Re: Re:
On the post: BitTorrent Book Promotion Drives 40% Of Downloaders To Book's Amazon Page
Re: Wrong as usual, Mike.
On the post: Author Andrew Piper: Turning Pages Is Important, Therefore Reading Ebooks Isn't Reading
Re: Piper's Logic Followed To Its Conclusion
On the post: Author Andrew Piper: Turning Pages Is Important, Therefore Reading Ebooks Isn't Reading
Re:
On the post: Fixing Copyright: The Purpose Of Copyright
Re: Re: "But, if we all agree that [Mike's fantasy] scenario B..."
On the post: Newly Independent Band To Fans: Don't Just Remix Our Music, Please Try To Make Money From It Too
Not pointless, specifically the point
When you experiment, you do it to find out the results of a specific set of variables. They apparently want to know what the effect of mandating only commercial distribution will be. Makes perfect sense to me since there are already plenty of data points where the artists released work for remixing that allowed or even required non-commercial distribution.
On the post: Yes, A Domain Name Can Be Protected By The First Amendment
Re: "Commercial speech" protected only up to a point, Mike.
This is obvious how, exactly? This would have made an excellent sarcastic comment but as a statement of logic it falls flat. It entirely lacks any means of tying your assertion to your conclusion.
On the post: Literary Agent: Authors Don't Need Middlemen, They Need Partners
Re: The key
On the post: Democrats & Republicans Should Come Together To Support A Future Of Abundance
Re: Re:
On the post: Democrats & Republicans Should Come Together To Support A Future Of Abundance
On the post: The Public Apparently Isn't Interested In Sound Economics
Re: Point 4: A "consumption" tax isn't practical.
More importantly, everyone has an equal stake in how their taxes should be spent. Currently, people who pay zero in taxes number enough to outvote the top 25% of earners. That's a whole lot of incentive to vote for a handout party and no immediate consequences whatsoever.
I know rich people are the last minority it's still socially acceptable to hate but I can't bring myself to jump on that discrimination bandwagon.
On the post: Making Sure Players Get The Best Experience Is More Important Than Worrying About How They Got The Game
Next >>