So, you complain that the patriot act is fascism; over-reaching; govt gone wild; abuse of power; unconstitutional; blah, blah, blah. Well, no shit sherlock!
I don't like the patriot act either, but it is also disgustingly hypocritical when progressives don't utter a freaking peep, but actually fervently support when the govt chips away at all out other freedoms by:
- controlling what lightbulbs you can use
- controlling what type of gas you can put in your car (example: seasonal/botique blends. really?)
- controlling how much water your toilet can use
- controlling your consumption of trans-fats (see NY's latest bullshit)
- controlling how/if you can improve your own land (example: small pond deemed "wetlands")
- controlling when/where/how you can exercise your 2nd amendment rights (obvious)
- controlling your access to medication your doctor recommends (example: mail-order meds from Canada)
- controlling who you can buy insurance from (example: Obamacare)
- controlling the food we buy/sell (example: raw milk)
- and on and on and on and on and on...
Yet all of a sudden when the Govt stays true to freakin' character, you get all pissy about it??!!
You jackass progressives created this monster. Now show us what you can do to leash the damn thing! Let's start with a revival of personal-responsibility, self-determination and a commitment to excellence -- instead of near total reliance upon a nanny-state to provide for your cradle to grave needs and protect you from yourself. Can we try that for a few decades??!!
The Sheriff said if they were after a suspect and they thought he might be in someone outbuildings/garage, they would SEEK PERMISSION to check them out. If a deputy knocks on my door and says a burglar/rapist/murderer was chased into my neighborhood, not only would I allow them to look in my outbuildings, I'd ask if they needed any help.
The Sheriff went further and said this ruling would likely be revisited and that he stands by his oath to uphold the Constitution.
How "Allison Bricker" came out of that interview with the Sheriff wanting to conduct warrantless, random, house-to-house searches without property-owners consent is a question I would like answered. It's crap reporters like Bricker that throw out some unfounded, inflammatory tripe that gullible rubes eagerly lap up and begin frothing at the mouth about.
The ruling is bad enough. Purposefully deceiving/misquoting a chief law enforcement officer is just making it worse.
That "firestorm of indignation" over Adams' blog makes the aggrieved seem more like Al Sharpton than Rosa Parks and actually helps make Adams' point. Men should not hit women, the mentally-handicapped or children for similar *reasons*; not that one equals another.
The "Al Sharpton" mentality ignores the obvious intent of the statement and twists the meaning to suit the more easily defensible and righteously condemnable meaning of, "you're a bigot".
Hence, that "firestorm of indignation" says much more about the indignant, than the perceived offender.
I think that if a movie makes a nice profit for it's investors, then it qualifies as a success. I don't think a particular film has to out-do a summer block-buster to be labeled a success. I guess the real question is how should "nice profit" be defined.
Other than that, I have no interest in paying to see this film on the big screen.
Kloppenberg suffers from "premature electulation". Even for a Democrat, claiming victory by that original Associated-Press reported razor-thin margin was nuts. The more rational among you, if intellectually honest, would agree.
Yes, the vote counts that Kloppenberg claimed victory on were unofficial counts reported by the A.P.
The A.P. was given the incorrect totals and sped full bore into "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" territory. Only in Dummy-crat land do you call an election based on a news agency's reporting. Sort of like calling an election based on "exit-polling" in carefully selected districts (another Dem tactic). And let's not forget the Franken debacle which required yet another Dem tactic: A magic car-trunk full of (ahem) uncounted votes! Or even just good old fashioned Chicago-Dummy-crat ballot-box stuffing.
Did no-one in her campaign think to counsel her to hold her flapping maw until the state gave her an "official" count? That is one stupid person, considering she was running for a JUDICIAL SEAT!
The only reason the fringe-left is pissed is because, if they don't have a good idea of the vote tally, they don't know how many "magic-car-trunk" votes they need to come up with after the polls close to steal the election. Yes, giving the A.P. just enough rope to hang Kloppenberg with was an unintentional stroke of brilliance!
The only thing that went wrong was that the A.P. ran with unofficial numbers *AND* dumb-ass, dummy-crat candidate Kloppenberg (in her questionable wisdom) decided to claim victory based on a journalists unverified reporting. With that questionable judgement, a reasonable and prudent person would have *SERIOUS* doubts as to Kloppenberg's capacity for unbiased, reasoned judgement.
Oh, who am I kidding -- Kloppenberg is an IDEAL dummy-crat justice!! So easily swayed and prone to knee-jerk decisions based more on ego & emotion than truth, logic and reason. She was the union's DREAM candidate: Willing to prostitute her decisions FOR FREE!!
But if you STILL have a problem with the counts, the co-chair -- a devout democrat, Ramona Kitzinger -- has given the process the thumbs-up as legit and above-board valid count. Normally, Dems *EMBRACE* idiots who abuse their office and/or fall afoul of the law. In this case, Kitzinger is playing fair, so I suspect she will get tossed under the bus soon.
Anyway, the counts are solid and Kloppenberg looks to be the loser. I do hope the Dummy-crats demand a hand-recount though. Mainly because after sinking over $3 million into the race, they will have to pay for the recount which will just add more to their losses.
Presuming I read you correctly, the fact that someone earned/won/inherited a ton of money equates to being a "leisured parasite"?
How do you compare that to the govt taking my hard-earned money under duress and at risk of suffering the thuggery of the IRS, in order to give it away to the nth-consecutive-generation of welfare recipients?
Take Obama's Aunt who overstayed her visa AND is in public-housing AND receiving welfare and/or disibility without ever having worked a single day in the US or paid one red cent in taxes? Would she qualify for your (presumed well-considered) label as a "parasite,"?
Or is that label just reserved for wealthy folks who only spend large sums of cash and pay larger sums in taxes than I do?
Bottom line: I don't personally admire the "Paris Hilton's" of the world anymore than you do; but I'll be damned if I'll fault them for having successful relatives that provided for them. They don't owe me and I don't owe them. Obama's Aunt on the other hand, certainly has a public debt she is personally amassing. In her case, "parasite" seems a reasonable & prudent description.
So, this is a satire piece, right? That's it, isn't it! It's some goofy satire article -or- some sort of weird internet study or experiment put out by an undergrad to poll reactions for (heckifIknow) studies...
Tax more and you raise the price of business, making it painful to do business, invest or hire. So, tax revenues fall as business flatlines or decreases.
Tax less and you decrease the price of doing business, which frees up money for investment and hiring. So, tax revenues go up (as business increases).
Lower prices sell more units; lower taxes grow more businesses. Raised prices sell fewer units; raised taxes grow fewer businesses.
As simple as this truth is, it is amazing that there are businesses (and governments like the US, among others) that still refuse to accept it.
Do you seriously find equivalence between $50m condos in Hong-Kong and $0.99 mp3 tracks?
Like the previous poster said, if she had shoplifted the actual CD's out of a music store, what would you imagine the judgement to have been? How about 1 to 2 years unsupervised probation and *maybe* a $500 to $1500 fine plus court-costs and the cost of the merchandise? Compare that to the extreme judgement she was given. There is no way a reasonable and prudent person can reconcile the differences without resorting to fantastically theoretical "what-if" arguments and over-the-top theatrics.
Opinions may vary, but I doubt reasonable opinions will vary much...
It seems to me like the market always decides. Once the RIAA/MPAA loses enough money AND more artists decide to drop their RIAA/MPAA affiliation, then nature (in the marketplace) will take it's course.
It just hasn't reached critical mass yet. Unfortunately, we who detest the RIAA/MPAA practices find the wait intolerable.
We just need to keep supporting non-affiliated artists as much as we can, avoiding affiliated artists as much as we can and boldly speaking up as sincerely as we can wherever the subject arises.
The market will do the rest.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TS.Atomic.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazing... Progressives bitching about Govt...
I don't like the patriot act either, but it is also disgustingly hypocritical when progressives don't utter a freaking peep, but actually fervently support when the govt chips away at all out other freedoms by:
- controlling what lightbulbs you can use
- controlling what type of gas you can put in your car (example: seasonal/botique blends. really?)
- controlling how much water your toilet can use
- controlling your consumption of trans-fats (see NY's latest bullshit)
- controlling how/if you can improve your own land (example: small pond deemed "wetlands")
- controlling when/where/how you can exercise your 2nd amendment rights (obvious)
- controlling your access to medication your doctor recommends (example: mail-order meds from Canada)
- controlling who you can buy insurance from (example: Obamacare)
- controlling the food we buy/sell (example: raw milk)
- and on and on and on and on and on...
Yet all of a sudden when the Govt stays true to freakin' character, you get all pissy about it??!!
You jackass progressives created this monster. Now show us what you can do to leash the damn thing! Let's start with a revival of personal-responsibility, self-determination and a commitment to excellence -- instead of near total reliance upon a nanny-state to provide for your cradle to grave needs and protect you from yourself. Can we try that for a few decades??!!
Now, hang on a minute...
The Sheriff went further and said this ruling would likely be revisited and that he stands by his oath to uphold the Constitution.
How "Allison Bricker" came out of that interview with the Sheriff wanting to conduct warrantless, random, house-to-house searches without property-owners consent is a question I would like answered. It's crap reporters like Bricker that throw out some unfounded, inflammatory tripe that gullible rubes eagerly lap up and begin frothing at the mouth about.
The ruling is bad enough. Purposefully deceiving/misquoting a chief law enforcement officer is just making it worse.
Re: Bah
The "Al Sharpton" mentality ignores the obvious intent of the statement and twists the meaning to suit the more easily defensible and righteously condemnable meaning of, "you're a bigot".
Hence, that "firestorm of indignation" says much more about the indignant, than the perceived offender.
Ok then...
Success?
Other than that, I have no interest in paying to see this film on the big screen.
Re:
Kloppenberg!!
Yes, the vote counts that Kloppenberg claimed victory on were unofficial counts reported by the A.P.
The A.P. was given the incorrect totals and sped full bore into "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" territory. Only in Dummy-crat land do you call an election based on a news agency's reporting. Sort of like calling an election based on "exit-polling" in carefully selected districts (another Dem tactic). And let's not forget the Franken debacle which required yet another Dem tactic: A magic car-trunk full of (ahem) uncounted votes! Or even just good old fashioned Chicago-Dummy-crat ballot-box stuffing.
Did no-one in her campaign think to counsel her to hold her flapping maw until the state gave her an "official" count? That is one stupid person, considering she was running for a JUDICIAL SEAT!
The only reason the fringe-left is pissed is because, if they don't have a good idea of the vote tally, they don't know how many "magic-car-trunk" votes they need to come up with after the polls close to steal the election. Yes, giving the A.P. just enough rope to hang Kloppenberg with was an unintentional stroke of brilliance!
The only thing that went wrong was that the A.P. ran with unofficial numbers *AND* dumb-ass, dummy-crat candidate Kloppenberg (in her questionable wisdom) decided to claim victory based on a journalists unverified reporting. With that questionable judgement, a reasonable and prudent person would have *SERIOUS* doubts as to Kloppenberg's capacity for unbiased, reasoned judgement.
Oh, who am I kidding -- Kloppenberg is an IDEAL dummy-crat justice!! So easily swayed and prone to knee-jerk decisions based more on ego & emotion than truth, logic and reason. She was the union's DREAM candidate: Willing to prostitute her decisions FOR FREE!!
But if you STILL have a problem with the counts, the co-chair -- a devout democrat, Ramona Kitzinger -- has given the process the thumbs-up as legit and above-board valid count. Normally, Dems *EMBRACE* idiots who abuse their office and/or fall afoul of the law. In this case, Kitzinger is playing fair, so I suspect she will get tossed under the bus soon.
Anyway, the counts are solid and Kloppenberg looks to be the loser. I do hope the Dummy-crats demand a hand-recount though. Mainly because after sinking over $3 million into the race, they will have to pay for the recount which will just add more to their losses.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: w00t
Presuming I read you correctly, the fact that someone earned/won/inherited a ton of money equates to being a "leisured parasite"?
How do you compare that to the govt taking my hard-earned money under duress and at risk of suffering the thuggery of the IRS, in order to give it away to the nth-consecutive-generation of welfare recipients?
Take Obama's Aunt who overstayed her visa AND is in public-housing AND receiving welfare and/or disibility without ever having worked a single day in the US or paid one red cent in taxes? Would she qualify for your (presumed well-considered) label as a "parasite,"?
Or is that label just reserved for wealthy folks who only spend large sums of cash and pay larger sums in taxes than I do?
Bottom line: I don't personally admire the "Paris Hilton's" of the world anymore than you do; but I'll be damned if I'll fault them for having successful relatives that provided for them. They don't owe me and I don't owe them. Obama's Aunt on the other hand, certainly has a public debt she is personally amassing. In her case, "parasite" seems a reasonable & prudent description.
Makes no sense!
The same concept works with taxation... (as ts.atomic)
Tax less and you decrease the price of doing business, which frees up money for investment and hiring. So, tax revenues go up (as business increases).
Lower prices sell more units; lower taxes grow more businesses. Raised prices sell fewer units; raised taxes grow fewer businesses.
As simple as this truth is, it is amazing that there are businesses (and governments like the US, among others) that still refuse to accept it.
Re: Re: Good for her (as ts.atomic)
Do you seriously find equivalence between $50m condos in Hong-Kong and $0.99 mp3 tracks?
Like the previous poster said, if she had shoplifted the actual CD's out of a music store, what would you imagine the judgement to have been? How about 1 to 2 years unsupervised probation and *maybe* a $500 to $1500 fine plus court-costs and the cost of the merchandise? Compare that to the extreme judgement she was given. There is no way a reasonable and prudent person can reconcile the differences without resorting to fantastically theoretical "what-if" arguments and over-the-top theatrics.
Opinions may vary, but I doubt reasonable opinions will vary much...
The market decides (as ts.atomic)
It just hasn't reached critical mass yet. Unfortunately, we who detest the RIAA/MPAA practices find the wait intolerable.
We just need to keep supporting non-affiliated artists as much as we can, avoiding affiliated artists as much as we can and boldly speaking up as sincerely as we can wherever the subject arises.
The market will do the rest.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TS.Atomic.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt