Do you consider it an invasion of your privacy if I ask you if you own a gun? Should the NRA lobby to make me asking that question illegal? The government wasn't asking doctor's to do this yet the NRA lobbied FL to make it illegal for a Dr to ask. If you think that information should be private, tell the doctor that if he asks.
I'd have the same number of problems with the NRA (or it's equivalent roller-skating lobbying group) objecting to doctors asking patients if they have roller-skates in the house as I do with the NRA crafting a bill in FL to prevent doctors from asking.
The relevant linked to article had zero to do with the PPACA.
Then point out the inconsistency. Please. I've read this blog for years. I've never seen Mike advocate for the abolition of the 2nd amendment or anything close to it.
First of all, Mike didn't write this article, so even if this article were anti-2nd amendment, that wouldn't be an inconsistency on Mike's part.
Second, this article isn't anti-2nd amendment. I'm a proponent of the 2nd amendment. I love it. I think it's trivialized far too often. I fail to see how this article is anti-2nd amendment. Please, please, please point me to where all this anti is.
I'm not gun control neutral. I think the government is in the business of gun control far more than it ever should have been, and I think the NRA is nuts to object to doctors asking their patients if a gun is in the house.
I have not heard of the NRA objecting to the government "polling about guns in conjunction with something to do with health care" because as far as I am aware, the government has never done that. If the government were to do that, and the NRA were to object, I might be right there with them, depending on the circumstances of the polling and the objections, but that is a devil whose details are not yet known.
I'm a huge second amendment proponent. I fail to see how this post is in any way anti-2nd amendment. Pointing to logical inconsistencies and hypocritical statements by a group that is in favor of X is not the same as being anti-X. Even being anti-group-that-favors-X is not the same as being anti-X. I don't like Hustler or Larry Flynt, but I love me some 1st amendment. I'm against PETA, but I'm in favor of animal rights. The NRA is being inconsistent here but I love the 2nd amendment.
They'll never shut it down. It's an awesome tool to have all the people who want change to congregate and let off their steam so they have less energy and will to protest on the National Mall. A bunch of people show up on that site, voice their anger, get a response, and feel like they've done something, so they are much less likely to continue petitioning the government in other ways to air their grievances.
That's why I think copyright inheritance needs to be taxed at inheritance levels. Let's suppose 1) that Fitzgerald made millions from Gatsby while alive, and 2) that Gatsby entered the public domain before he died, then his daughter would surely inherit the millions and be taxed for that inheritance. No one really sees any problem with this. But the system allows Fitzgerald's daughter to inherit millions without inheritance tax because Fitzgerald hid it inside a copyright.
Copyright should have been taxed in two ways; 1) Every dollar his daughter earns from Gatsby should be taxed at inheritance levels (how fun to do tax amendments each year as the amount she earns increases, putting her into higher and higher inheritance tax brackets) and 2) the duration of the copyright should be taxed at the inheritance level (i.e., if 20% is the tax rate, and the copyright has 10 years, then now it has only 8).
It is always happening. Starting at the time that CBS informed CNET that CBS had final say, the writers will choose what to write based on that, even if subconsciously. I doubt many writers will spend a lot of time on certain articles knowing there is a possibility that it will be censored. We know that next year during CES, CNET will not be considering all possible gadgets for their Best Of. It's a fact. Each writer will look at the possibilities and think, "CBS might not like that one, so I won't even consider it."
And that thought process will happen for every article idea from every CNET writer. The article they eventually write might not been edited or changed by CBS, but the writer will have written it with that possibility in mind already.
Think also how this chills the other journalists. Sure they could write a possibly-controversial piece and hope it gets published, but why bother? It's not just that we'll never know if something published was filtered; it's that we definitely know that some things won't be written to begin with.
I can agree with that. But they should not be able to use the intent of the law to convict someone, only to choose to not prosecute. The only thing prosecutors should be able to use in the court room is the law as written, not the intent. The defendant, on the other hand, should be able to bring up the intent of the law to show how [s]he wasn't breaking the intent even if they might have been breaking the letter.
Don't forget the difference between civil and criminal.
Also, there is the difference with the enforcers of the law vs just some guy.
There's also the difference in roles. The DOJ is supposed to enforce laws for the betterment of society in a just manner. This guy does not play any of those roles.
I get it. He's trying to twist laws. That's bad. It shouldn't happen. He's an idiot for doing so (and probably other reasons, too). But to say there's little difference between the two is asinine. He's got very limited funds to keep this lawsuit going, certainly less than CBS has to squash it. The DOJ, OTOH, has practically limitless funds to go after people whose funds they can take away at will (cf. Mega).
Intent of the law should never be used to convict, but it can be enough to acquit. Meaning, I shouldn't have to know the intent to the law to be able to break that law, but knowing the intent should help exonerate me. If you follow the letter of the law, you should never be guilty, no matter what the intent of that law is; but if you break the letter of the law and show that you were really following the intent of it, then you should be exonerated (or at least given a reduced sentence).
There is a huge difference between some small-time random guy trying to twist the law to go after a huge company in a civil suit, and the arguably most powerful government twisting the law to go after people in criminal cases.
Anonymous already stated it, but yes, I was referring to intent of the law or law makers. Intent of the person should definitely be considered, but not the intent of the law.
I don't think the intent should play any part in convicting someone. The law as written should be the only thing able to convict.
If intent plays any part at all, it should only be able to exculpate you. That is, if you broke the letter of the law, but followed the spirit, then perhaps intent could clear you of wrongdoing.
The judge should never have brought up intent anyway. Is it then illegal to drive in the carpool lane if the only other people (aside from the driver) are children? Or just don't have licenses? What if you are a designated driver and the others couldn't legally drive no matter their licensed status? Or what if the driver asked them to come along with the sole reason to get in the carpool lane? Should all of these situations be ticketed?
The attitude you espouse seems very similar to the companies who say "I'm selling you this, but after you've bought it, I'm still going to impose the following rules..."
Maybe what he's saying is it's disrespectful to shoot the guy that sold you a Smith and Wesson. Sure you bought it and can do whatever you want with it, but it's still disrespectful.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
What are you on about?
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
The relevant linked to article had zero to do with the PPACA.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Second, this article isn't anti-2nd amendment. I'm a proponent of the 2nd amendment. I love it. I think it's trivialized far too often. I fail to see how this article is anti-2nd amendment. Please, please, please point me to where all this anti is.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
I have not heard of the NRA objecting to the government "polling about guns in conjunction with something to do with health care" because as far as I am aware, the government has never done that. If the government were to do that, and the NRA were to object, I might be right there with them, depending on the circumstances of the polling and the objections, but that is a devil whose details are not yet known.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re:
Some commenters? Sure.
Articles? Haven't seen it. Proof or get out.
Disclaimer: I love the 2nd amendment. Please don't call me anti-2nd amendment or I will shoot you in the face with a bazooka over the internet*.
*It's a joke. Laugh please.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
On the post: White House, Tiring of Death Stars And Deportation Requests, Ups 'We The People' Signature Threshold From 25,000 To 100,000
Re: I agree
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright should have been taxed in two ways; 1) Every dollar his daughter earns from Gatsby should be taxed at inheritance levels (how fun to do tax amendments each year as the amount she earns increases, putting her into higher and higher inheritance tax brackets) and 2) the duration of the copyright should be taxed at the inheritance level (i.e., if 20% is the tax rate, and the copyright has 10 years, then now it has only 8).
On the post: Rep. Issa Promises Investigation Into Aaron Swartz Case
Re:
Oh look, John Adams and the rest of the First Continental Congress capitalizing on the economic loss of the East India Company.
On the post: CNET Finally Reports On Its Own Fight With CBS Over Dish CES Award
Re: Spot on
And that thought process will happen for every article idea from every CNET writer. The article they eventually write might not been edited or changed by CBS, but the writer will have written it with that possibility in mind already.
On the post: CNET Finally Reports On Its Own Fight With CBS Over Dish CES Award
Re: Re: Too little, too late
On the post: Activist Tells Court That Since Corporations Are People, He Can Drive In The Carpool Lane With Incorporation Papers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The intent
On the post: CBS's Censorship Of CNET May Undermine A Different CBS Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re:
Also, there is the difference with the enforcers of the law vs just some guy.
There's also the difference in roles. The DOJ is supposed to enforce laws for the betterment of society in a just manner. This guy does not play any of those roles.
I get it. He's trying to twist laws. That's bad. It shouldn't happen. He's an idiot for doing so (and probably other reasons, too). But to say there's little difference between the two is asinine. He's got very limited funds to keep this lawsuit going, certainly less than CBS has to squash it. The DOJ, OTOH, has practically limitless funds to go after people whose funds they can take away at will (cf. Mega).
On the post: Activist Tells Court That Since Corporations Are People, He Can Drive In The Carpool Lane With Incorporation Papers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The intent
On the post: CBS's Censorship Of CNET May Undermine A Different CBS Lawsuit
Re:
On the post: Activist Tells Court That Since Corporations Are People, He Can Drive In The Carpool Lane With Incorporation Papers
Re: Re: Re: The intent
On the post: Activist Tells Court That Since Corporations Are People, He Can Drive In The Carpool Lane With Incorporation Papers
Re: The intent
If intent plays any part at all, it should only be able to exculpate you. That is, if you broke the letter of the law, but followed the spirit, then perhaps intent could clear you of wrongdoing.
On the post: Activist Tells Court That Since Corporations Are People, He Can Drive In The Carpool Lane With Incorporation Papers
Re: It does too meet the intent
On the post: Amazon Patent Looks To Make Receiving Lousy Gifts A Thing Of The Past
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should shoot him with a Deringer instead.
Next >>