"IF mere hosts have total arbitrary control as you advocate there can be NO such thing as "Free Speech" on The Internet."
Start your own damn website and say whatever the hell you want. That's "Free Speech" on The Internet. Just don't think you can do that on my website, Mike's website, or Twitter's website.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the lin
"...he's not going away, he's still popular among his base, and, for now at least, he's still got a great deal of power to help or hurt fellow Republicans at the polls."
If he follows through with his claims to run in 2024, particularly if he announces early (Inauguration day!), then nothing will change, because those spineless transactors will believe they have to continue to kowtow to him to further their careers.
"What the fuck does the looks of a desk have to do with anything?"
This is how Trump's brain works, or doesn't work. He's incapable of distinguishing the important things from the unimportant things, or at least appreciating which things that are important to him (gaudy trinkets) are not necessarily important to others. He simply believes you're genuinely impressed by 'his' desk.
"One of Trump's lawyers says that someone should be murdered..."
You gotta wonder what the state bar thinks about that. It may technically be legal speech but that doesn't mean lawyers should be able to get away with such shockingly unprofessional behavior.
These are people who want to be violent, and likely joined the police because they knew they would be provided both the opportunity to perform violence and protection from any consequences. The fact that additional officers kept joining in despite there being absolutely no need to shows they saw that opportunity and took it.
Re: Re: Re: You've objected to hosts regarded as "Neutral P
Your truth/substance has been debunked so many times, but you keep repeating it. At this point, saying you're not very smart is not ad hom, it's a statement of observable fact.
Re: Re: So: 1) ridiculous over-exaggemeration of importance of s
*"A plain reading of the text suggests it’s for the common good of culture, not the ones producing it. It does so by giving incentive to artists in the form of copyright if Congress wants to."
It's such a simple, self-evident concept, but boy do these chuckleheads struggle with it.
It's genuinely difficult to see how he could've done worse; almost everything he's touched has turned to shit. And he's rounding things out by petulantly trashing things on the way out the door while actively risking national security.
"Evidence shows it did work. Raises did go out. Spending Went up. Bonuses went up. Stock grants went up. I definitely felt it."
What proportion of the population gets stock grants and bonuses? If you're one of the lucky few to benefit then good for you but only the ignorant would think these benefits were fairly distributed. The very rich did wonderfully out of it and future generations will pay for it. Not exactly sound fiscal policy; more like grifters gonna grift.
"Keep insulting 72M Americans who believe in a well funded police force vs defunded."
I'll bet most people would prefer a police force with an appropriate level of funding, a respectful attitude to the populace that pay them to uphold laws, a respectful attitude to those laws, a desire to avoid violence where possible, and an acceptance of accountability, but that's not really where things are so... maybe try something different?
And sorry, but it's really easy to keep insulting the vast majority of those 72M who, because of ignorance or racism or selfishness or whatever, keep voting against their own best interests, let alone those of the whole country.
When someone calls into question your entire argument by accusing you of obviously not watching the movie, and the first words in your response aren't "Actually I did...", I'm going to comfortably assume you didn't and take your belated claim that you did with a grain of salt...
"Did you watch it JMT?"
I haven't and probably won't, it's just not a story I'm that interested in. But I have read several reviews with varying opinions and believe the moral outrage is totally overblown. It's pretty obvious most of the backlash is from people who've only seen the ham-fisted Netflix marketing campaign and not the actual message of the film. Even if you've watched half of it, I'm gonna stick you in that group anyway.
Even if copyright was to significantly improve in favor of the general public, nobody will ever, or should ever, automatically "own" a photo taken of them unless there is prior written agreement. It would be ridiculous and completely unworkable.
Re: Maliciously prosecuted for opposing a violent mob.
"2) A mob at best alarming, stopped to confront, clearly hostile."
"I was alarmed!" is not a valid defense for brandishing a weapon, legally or morally. The protesters did not stop or confront the McCloskeys until guns were pointed at them. Even then there was never any direct threats towards them.
"4) "Brandishing" doesn't apply when reaction to threats on one's property when surrounded and the house could be burned down."
They were not "surrounded" and there was never any threat to their property. You sound as paranoid and delusional as they do.
An image of them is not theirs; that's not how copyright works. And there are limited circumstances where you need permission to photograph someone, and this ain't it.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re: Re: Re: He's Still Fighting
"IF mere hosts have total arbitrary control as you advocate there can be NO such thing as "Free Speech" on The Internet."
Start your own damn website and say whatever the hell you want. That's "Free Speech" on The Internet. Just don't think you can do that on my website, Mike's website, or Twitter's website.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the lin
"...he's not going away, he's still popular among his base, and, for now at least, he's still got a great deal of power to help or hurt fellow Republicans at the polls."
If he follows through with his claims to run in 2024, particularly if he announces early (Inauguration day!), then nothing will change, because those spineless transactors will believe they have to continue to kowtow to him to further their careers.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re:
"What the fuck does the looks of a desk have to do with anything?"
This is how Trump's brain works, or doesn't work. He's incapable of distinguishing the important things from the unimportant things, or at least appreciating which things that are important to him (gaudy trinkets) are not necessarily important to others. He simply believes you're genuinely impressed by 'his' desk.
On the post: White House Still Pushing To Slip Section 230 Repeal Into 'Must Pass' Military Spending Bill
Re: Good News
"BiG TeCh!!!"
You realize 230 applies to and protects every single website on the internet right?
Rhetorical question, of course you don't.
On the post: White House Still Pushing To Slip Section 230 Repeal Into 'Must Pass' Military Spending Bill
Re: He's Still Fighting
"Yesterday, mathematician Bobby Piton was suspended from twitter..."+
No he wasn't, it was a fake account.
"Clearly, social media is not enforcing any if its "rules"..."
Turns out they actually are.
On the post: Utter Insanity: Trump Lawyer Suggests Former Trump Cybersecurity Official Should Be 'Taken Out And Shot' For Saying The Election Was Secure
Re: Good old stochastic terrorism
"One of Trump's lawyers says that someone should be murdered..."
You gotta wonder what the state bar thinks about that. It may technically be legal speech but that doesn't mean lawyers should be able to get away with such shockingly unprofessional behavior.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Denies Immunity To Cops Who Beat And Tased An Unresisting Man To Death
Re:
These are people who want to be violent, and likely joined the police because they knew they would be provided both the opportunity to perform violence and protection from any consequences. The fact that additional officers kept joining in despite there being absolutely no need to shows they saw that opportunity and took it.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: Re: You've objected to hosts regarded as "Neutral P
Your truth/substance has been debunked so many times, but you keep repeating it. At this point, saying you're not very smart is not ad hom, it's a statement of observable fact.
On the post: Trump Fires US Cybersecurity Director Chris Krebs After Krebs Debunks Trump's Claims Of Election Systems Fraud
Re:
Colloquially insane, not medically insane. It's not a comforting lie, it's a perfectly natural reaction.
On the post: Happy 20th Birthday To 'No One Lives Forever', The Classic PC Game That Can't Be Sold Today Thanks To IP
Re: Meanwhile...
The point is not whether you can play the original game but whether it can be remastered and modernized.
On the post: Happy 20th Birthday To 'No One Lives Forever', The Classic PC Game That Can't Be Sold Today Thanks To IP
Re: Re: So: 1) ridiculous over-exaggemeration of importance of s
*"A plain reading of the text suggests it’s for the common good of culture, not the ones producing it. It does so by giving incentive to artists in the form of copyright if Congress wants to."
It's such a simple, self-evident concept, but boy do these chuckleheads struggle with it.
On the post: Trumpland Apparently Just Forgot About Its Manufactured TikTok Hysteria
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I am not saying he couldn't have done better..."
It's genuinely difficult to see how he could've done worse; almost everything he's touched has turned to shit. And he's rounding things out by petulantly trashing things on the way out the door while actively risking national security.
"Evidence shows it did work. Raises did go out. Spending Went up. Bonuses went up. Stock grants went up. I definitely felt it."
What proportion of the population gets stock grants and bonuses? If you're one of the lucky few to benefit then good for you but only the ignorant would think these benefits were fairly distributed. The very rich did wonderfully out of it and future generations will pay for it. Not exactly sound fiscal policy; more like grifters gonna grift.
"Keep insulting 72M Americans who believe in a well funded police force vs defunded."
I'll bet most people would prefer a police force with an appropriate level of funding, a respectful attitude to the populace that pay them to uphold laws, a respectful attitude to those laws, a desire to avoid violence where possible, and an acceptance of accountability, but that's not really where things are so... maybe try something different?
And sorry, but it's really easy to keep insulting the vast majority of those 72M who, because of ignorance or racism or selfishness or whatever, keep voting against their own best interests, let alone those of the whole country.
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I did watch half of it."
When someone calls into question your entire argument by accusing you of obviously not watching the movie, and the first words in your response aren't "Actually I did...", I'm going to comfortably assume you didn't and take your belated claim that you did with a grain of salt...
"Did you watch it JMT?"
I haven't and probably won't, it's just not a story I'm that interested in. But I have read several reviews with varying opinions and believe the moral outrage is totally overblown. It's pretty obvious most of the backlash is from people who've only seen the ham-fisted Netflix marketing campaign and not the actual message of the film. Even if you've watched half of it, I'm gonna stick you in that group anyway.
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if copyright was to significantly improve in favor of the general public, nobody will ever, or should ever, automatically "own" a photo taken of them unless there is prior written agreement. It would be ridiculous and completely unworkable.
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
Re: Re: Re:
"Why are you presuming to know that I haven’t watched the film?"
Because if you had you would've just said that instead of asking why it's presumed you haven’t watched the film. Thanks for confirming.
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: Even "Thad the Ant-Slayer" sees that your own likeness is YO
"The photographer... never sought permission to use the image -- as could have -- so has no rights to it at all."
Take this opportunity to be corrected on a topic you clearly know little about.
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: Maliciously prosecuted for opposing a violent mob.
"2) A mob at best alarming, stopped to confront, clearly hostile."
"I was alarmed!" is not a valid defense for brandishing a weapon, legally or morally. The protesters did not stop or confront the McCloskeys until guns were pointed at them. Even then there was never any direct threats towards them.
"4) "Brandishing" doesn't apply when reaction to threats on one's property when surrounded and the house could be burned down."
They were not "surrounded" and there was never any threat to their property. You sound as paranoid and delusional as they do.
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: So, web-sites can kick anyone off, but DIFFERENT when physic
"Isn't it true that web-site hosts which solicit persons to publish their own views have almost no grounds for such control?"
Nope.
On the post: Gun-Toting Couple Sues Photographer For Privacy Violation Over Photo They Used As Christmas Cards, After He Billed Them
Re: Re:
An image of them is not theirs; that's not how copyright works. And there are limited circumstances where you need permission to photograph someone, and this ain't it.
On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...it wasn't until recently where people's economic well-being was so poor that they thought socialism seemed like a good idea again."
Socialist policies, not 'Socialism'. Looking after more people, fucking over fewer.
Next >>