100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Another shady association for conservative fodder,,,lol | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Forget Barack Obama’s praise for legal scholar Derrick Bell. Never mind his decades-long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Neither of these connections will matter once you get a load of what I’ve uncovered: a linkage between the president and someone at least as radical if not more so than either of those. A man whom President Obama has openly praised, and not just twenty-two years ago at some fairly innocuous law school protest, but regularly, in his books, in his speeches, repeatedly, over the course of his political career. Someone whom he has still never repudiated, as he did with Wright, no matter the many statements this individual is on record as making, and which line up rather nicely with many of Wright’s views. What does this radical for whom Obama has shown so much gushing and uncritical praise, say about economic issues? Only that capitalism is a system “permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few,” and that, “Something is wrong with capitalism…Maybe America must move towards democratic socialism.” What does this militant, for whom the president shows so much love, say about white folks and race in America? Only that “Racism is a way of life for the vast majority of white Americans, spoken and unspoken, acknowledged and denied, subtle and sometimes not so subtle — the disease of racism permeates and poisons a whole body politic,” and that whites largely refuse to acknowledge “the debt that they owe a people who were kept in slavery,” for hundreds of years. What is the position of this dangerous subversive to whom Barack Obama is clearly tethered, when it comes to the role of the United States in the world? Only that, “We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation.” There is more, much more in fact: pointed condemnations of white racism and arrogance, trenchant critiques of American nationalism and patriotism, and withering bromides against the wealthy, all from a man whom Barack Obama praises often, and apparently regards as something of a national role model. Indeed, he said as much a few months ago, when he dedicated a monument to this man on the Mall in Washington — the recently unveiled statue for Martin Luther King Jr. ...of course, you can pick ANY president in my lifetime and pretty much be sure to be able to make this 'controversy' apply to them,,,lol Here is the dividing line. MLK said many things. However unlike Mr. Farrakhan or Mr. Wright, MLK said also to do it with peace... With peace... Not calling for death or violent action (which begats death and violent action)... So (meaning nothing racial here) Mr. Farrakhan and Mr. Wright are simply black men with loud mouths. (as R. Limbaugh is but a white man with a loud mouth). Martin Luther King was a man of greatness. When I think of him it is not as a 'black man'. It is as a man that had a dream. Which I picked up also. I dont recall Wright 'calling' for violence and I only recall Farrakhan talking about DEFENSIVE violence, which we praised pretty highly in america when we felt 'americans' were under attack by 'muslims' (and many still harbor ill feelings and mistrust of the whole group, yet would be the first to belittle Mr Farrakhans feelings and beliefs,,,) really? what was "mr wrights" opinion on jews again? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was a copy and paste (except the last line, which was my opinion) that I did on the way out the door to work this morning Then it is a copy right violation. You should provide the link, cite your source and make sure to abide by the fair use terms and conditions. It is also considered standard internet practice even when the article is not copy right restricted. Just FYI. I don't always follow fair use guidelines, but I find this interesting because you argued in defense of SOPA. Under SOPA, if wise had complained to the feds, the feds could have blacklisted this entire site over such an innocent mistake. I doubt it...and I doubt anyone could show me the text of SOPA that says they could the first step is given to the SITE itself to discontinue my participation until the matter was cleared up,, which could be done easily,,, Yes, you are agreeing with my statement ('could' and 'over' do not mean 'first step'). The site would have to take their own draconian preventative steps under the threat of being blacklisted over every single such posting as the one you just made. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 03/14/12 12:11 PM
|
|
it was a copy and paste (except the last line, which was my opinion) that I did on the way out the door to work this morning Then it is a copy right violation. You should provide the link, cite your source and make sure to abide by the fair use terms and conditions. It is also considered standard internet practice even when the article is not copy right restricted. Just FYI. I don't always follow fair use guidelines, but I find this interesting because you argued in defense of SOPA. Under SOPA, if wise had complained to the feds, the feds could have blacklisted this entire site over such an innocent mistake. I doubt it...and I doubt anyone could show me the text of SOPA that says they could the first step is given to the SITE itself to discontinue my participation until the matter was cleared up,, which could be done easily,,, Yes, you are agreeing with my statement ('could' and 'over' do not mean 'first step'). The site would have to take their own draconian preventative steps under the threat of being blacklisted over every single such posting as the one you just made. yes, and current seatbelt laws COULD cause deaths in cases where people end up being crushed WITH The car because they were strapped in (my mother would have been permanently paralyzed had she not been thrown from a rolling car when I Was younger) BUT, those 'possiible' abuses, still dont outweigh the intended , likely protection of millions of others whom seatbelts save just like 'possible' overreaching in this bill doesnt outweigh the intended and likely protection this bill affords people who wish to receive either proper credit or proper compensation for their creations,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forget Barack Obama’s praise for legal scholar Derrick Bell. Never mind his decades-long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Neither of these connections will matter once you get a load of what I’ve uncovered: a linkage between the president and someone at least as radical if not more so than either of those. A man whom President Obama has openly praised, and not just twenty-two years ago at some fairly innocuous law school protest, but regularly, in his books, in his speeches, repeatedly, over the course of his political career. Someone whom he has still never repudiated, as he did with Wright, no matter the many statements this individual is on record as making, and which line up rather nicely with many of Wright’s views. What does this radical for whom Obama has shown so much gushing and uncritical praise, say about economic issues? Only that capitalism is a system “permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few,” and that, “Something is wrong with capitalism…Maybe America must move towards democratic socialism.” What does this militant, for whom the president shows so much love, say about white folks and race in America? Only that “Racism is a way of life for the vast majority of white Americans, spoken and unspoken, acknowledged and denied, subtle and sometimes not so subtle — the disease of racism permeates and poisons a whole body politic,” and that whites largely refuse to acknowledge “the debt that they owe a people who were kept in slavery,” for hundreds of years. What is the position of this dangerous subversive to whom Barack Obama is clearly tethered, when it comes to the role of the United States in the world? Only that, “We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation.” There is more, much more in fact: pointed condemnations of white racism and arrogance, trenchant critiques of American nationalism and patriotism, and withering bromides against the wealthy, all from a man whom Barack Obama praises often, and apparently regards as something of a national role model. Indeed, he said as much a few months ago, when he dedicated a monument to this man on the Mall in Washington — the recently unveiled statue for Martin Luther King Jr. ...of course, you can pick ANY president in my lifetime and pretty much be sure to be able to make this 'controversy' apply to them,,,lol Here is the dividing line. MLK said many things. However unlike Mr. Farrakhan or Mr. Wright, MLK said also to do it with peace... With peace... Not calling for death or violent action (which begats death and violent action)... So (meaning nothing racial here) Mr. Farrakhan and Mr. Wright are simply black men with loud mouths. (as R. Limbaugh is but a white man with a loud mouth). Martin Luther King was a man of greatness. When I think of him it is not as a 'black man'. It is as a man that had a dream. Which I picked up also. I dont recall Wright 'calling' for violence and I only recall Farrakhan talking about DEFENSIVE violence, which we praised pretty highly in america when we felt 'americans' were under attack by 'muslims' (and many still harbor ill feelings and mistrust of the whole group, yet would be the first to belittle Mr Farrakhans feelings and beliefs,,,) really? what was "mr wrights" opinion on jews again? oh my goodness,, was he caught not 'worshiping' Israel with his statements?  Im sure, as a consequence, since he doesnt worship them, he must hate them and wish violence upon them 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was a copy and paste (except the last line, which was my opinion) that I did on the way out the door to work this morning Then it is a copy right violation. You should provide the link, cite your source and make sure to abide by the fair use terms and conditions. It is also considered standard internet practice even when the article is not copy right restricted. Just FYI. I don't always follow fair use guidelines, but I find this interesting because you argued in defense of SOPA. Under SOPA, if wise had complained to the feds, the feds could have blacklisted this entire site over such an innocent mistake. ... just like 'possible' overreaching in this bill doesnt outweigh the intended and likely protection this bill affords people who wish to receive either proper credit or proper compensation for their creations,,, I'm grateful to all the people who value free speech that they helped stop that tyranny-friendly bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why do people place EVERYTHING that they want to do or say under the umbrella of 'free speech'
we speak from our mouths, this bill had nothing to do with being able to 'speak' freely,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forget Barack Obama’s praise for legal scholar Derrick Bell. Never mind his decades-long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Neither of these connections will matter once you get a load of what I’ve uncovered: a linkage between the president and someone at least as radical if not more so than either of those. A man whom President Obama has openly praised, and not just twenty-two years ago at some fairly innocuous law school protest, but regularly, in his books, in his speeches, repeatedly, over the course of his political career. Someone whom he has still never repudiated, as he did with Wright, no matter the many statements this individual is on record as making, and which line up rather nicely with many of Wright’s views. What does this radical for whom Obama has shown so much gushing and uncritical praise, say about economic issues? Only that capitalism is a system “permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few,” and that, “Something is wrong with capitalism…Maybe America must move towards democratic socialism.” What does this militant, for whom the president shows so much love, say about white folks and race in America? Only that “Racism is a way of life for the vast majority of white Americans, spoken and unspoken, acknowledged and denied, subtle and sometimes not so subtle — the disease of racism permeates and poisons a whole body politic,” and that whites largely refuse to acknowledge “the debt that they owe a people who were kept in slavery,” for hundreds of years. What is the position of this dangerous subversive to whom Barack Obama is clearly tethered, when it comes to the role of the United States in the world? Only that, “We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation.” There is more, much more in fact: pointed condemnations of white racism and arrogance, trenchant critiques of American nationalism and patriotism, and withering bromides against the wealthy, all from a man whom Barack Obama praises often, and apparently regards as something of a national role model. Indeed, he said as much a few months ago, when he dedicated a monument to this man on the Mall in Washington — the recently unveiled statue for Martin Luther King Jr. ...of course, you can pick ANY president in my lifetime and pretty much be sure to be able to make this 'controversy' apply to them,,,lol Here is the dividing line. MLK said many things. However unlike Mr. Farrakhan or Mr. Wright, MLK said also to do it with peace... With peace... Not calling for death or violent action (which begats death and violent action)... So (meaning nothing racial here) Mr. Farrakhan and Mr. Wright are simply black men with loud mouths. (as R. Limbaugh is but a white man with a loud mouth). Martin Luther King was a man of greatness. When I think of him it is not as a 'black man'. It is as a man that had a dream. Which I picked up also. I dont recall Wright 'calling' for violence and I only recall Farrakhan talking about DEFENSIVE violence, which we praised pretty highly in america when we felt 'americans' were under attack by 'muslims' (and many still harbor ill feelings and mistrust of the whole group, yet would be the first to belittle Mr Farrakhans feelings and beliefs,,,) really? what was "mr wrights" opinion on jews again? oh my goodness,, was he caught not 'worshiping' Israel with his statements? Im sure, as a consequence, since he doesnt worship them, he must hate them and wish violence upon them worship? you do know what worship means, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forget Barack Obama’s praise for legal scholar Derrick Bell. Never mind his decades-long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Neither of these connections will matter once you get a load of what I’ve uncovered: a linkage between the president and someone at least as radical if not more so than either of those. A man whom President Obama has openly praised, and not just twenty-two years ago at some fairly innocuous law school protest, but regularly, in his books, in his speeches, repeatedly, over the course of his political career. Someone whom he has still never repudiated, as he did with Wright, no matter the many statements this individual is on record as making, and which line up rather nicely with many of Wright’s views. What does this radical for whom Obama has shown so much gushing and uncritical praise, say about economic issues? Only that capitalism is a system “permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few,” and that, “Something is wrong with capitalism…Maybe America must move towards democratic socialism.” What does this militant, for whom the president shows so much love, say about white folks and race in America? Only that “Racism is a way of life for the vast majority of white Americans, spoken and unspoken, acknowledged and denied, subtle and sometimes not so subtle — the disease of racism permeates and poisons a whole body politic,” and that whites largely refuse to acknowledge “the debt that they owe a people who were kept in slavery,” for hundreds of years. What is the position of this dangerous subversive to whom Barack Obama is clearly tethered, when it comes to the role of the United States in the world? Only that, “We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation.” There is more, much more in fact: pointed condemnations of white racism and arrogance, trenchant critiques of American nationalism and patriotism, and withering bromides against the wealthy, all from a man whom Barack Obama praises often, and apparently regards as something of a national role model. Indeed, he said as much a few months ago, when he dedicated a monument to this man on the Mall in Washington — the recently unveiled statue for Martin Luther King Jr. ...of course, you can pick ANY president in my lifetime and pretty much be sure to be able to make this 'controversy' apply to them,,,lol Here is the dividing line. MLK said many things. However unlike Mr. Farrakhan or Mr. Wright, MLK said also to do it with peace... With peace... Not calling for death or violent action (which begats death and violent action)... So (meaning nothing racial here) Mr. Farrakhan and Mr. Wright are simply black men with loud mouths. (as R. Limbaugh is but a white man with a loud mouth). Martin Luther King was a man of greatness. When I think of him it is not as a 'black man'. It is as a man that had a dream. Which I picked up also. I dont recall Wright 'calling' for violence and I only recall Farrakhan talking about DEFENSIVE violence, which we praised pretty highly in america when we felt 'americans' were under attack by 'muslims' (and many still harbor ill feelings and mistrust of the whole group, yet would be the first to belittle Mr Farrakhans feelings and beliefs,,,) really? what was "mr wrights" opinion on jews again? oh my goodness,, was he caught not 'worshiping' Israel with his statements? Im sure, as a consequence, since he doesnt worship them, he must hate them and wish violence upon them worship? you do know what worship means, right? to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forget Barack Obama’s praise for legal scholar Derrick Bell. Never mind his decades-long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Neither of these connections will matter once you get a load of what I’ve uncovered: a linkage between the president and someone at least as radical if not more so than either of those. A man whom President Obama has openly praised, and not just twenty-two years ago at some fairly innocuous law school protest, but regularly, in his books, in his speeches, repeatedly, over the course of his political career. Someone whom he has still never repudiated, as he did with Wright, no matter the many statements this individual is on record as making, and which line up rather nicely with many of Wright’s views. What does this radical for whom Obama has shown so much gushing and uncritical praise, say about economic issues? Only that capitalism is a system “permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few,” and that, “Something is wrong with capitalism…Maybe America must move towards democratic socialism.” What does this militant, for whom the president shows so much love, say about white folks and race in America? Only that “Racism is a way of life for the vast majority of white Americans, spoken and unspoken, acknowledged and denied, subtle and sometimes not so subtle — the disease of racism permeates and poisons a whole body politic,” and that whites largely refuse to acknowledge “the debt that they owe a people who were kept in slavery,” for hundreds of years. What is the position of this dangerous subversive to whom Barack Obama is clearly tethered, when it comes to the role of the United States in the world? Only that, “We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation.” There is more, much more in fact: pointed condemnations of white racism and arrogance, trenchant critiques of American nationalism and patriotism, and withering bromides against the wealthy, all from a man whom Barack Obama praises often, and apparently regards as something of a national role model. Indeed, he said as much a few months ago, when he dedicated a monument to this man on the Mall in Washington — the recently unveiled statue for Martin Luther King Jr. ...of course, you can pick ANY president in my lifetime and pretty much be sure to be able to make this 'controversy' apply to them,,,lol Here is the dividing line. MLK said many things. However unlike Mr. Farrakhan or Mr. Wright, MLK said also to do it with peace... With peace... Not calling for death or violent action (which begats death and violent action)... So (meaning nothing racial here) Mr. Farrakhan and Mr. Wright are simply black men with loud mouths. (as R. Limbaugh is but a white man with a loud mouth). Martin Luther King was a man of greatness. When I think of him it is not as a 'black man'. It is as a man that had a dream. Which I picked up also. I dont recall Wright 'calling' for violence and I only recall Farrakhan talking about DEFENSIVE violence, which we praised pretty highly in america when we felt 'americans' were under attack by 'muslims' (and many still harbor ill feelings and mistrust of the whole group, yet would be the first to belittle Mr Farrakhans feelings and beliefs,,,) really? what was "mr wrights" opinion on jews again? oh my goodness,, was he caught not 'worshiping' Israel with his statements? Im sure, as a consequence, since he doesnt worship them, he must hate them and wish violence upon them worship? you do know what worship means, right? to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion his rants are mainly about whites and jews, and while he doesn't really call for any violence, his underlying tone is quite clear... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why do people place EVERYTHING that they want to do or say under the umbrella of 'free speech' we speak from our mouths, this bill had nothing to do with being able to 'speak' freely,,,, Speak with our mouths? So it would be okay if we are forbidden from writing letters to each other, self-publishing newsletters, using sign language, or having blogs, because we speak with our mouths ?  This bill had everything to do with freedom of speech. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why do people place EVERYTHING that they want to do or say under the umbrella of 'free speech' we speak from our mouths, this bill had nothing to do with being able to 'speak' freely,,,, Speak with our mouths? So it would be okay if we are forbidden from writing letters to each other, self-publishing newsletters, using sign language, or having blogs, because we speak with our mouths ? This bill had everything to do with freedom of speech. no, we write in place of speaking 'words' to communicate with people sharing music isnt about 'communicating' anything, its about sharing a product we have purchased from people who have invested time and money to CREATE it,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why do people place EVERYTHING that they want to do or say under the umbrella of 'free speech' we speak from our mouths, this bill had nothing to do with being able to 'speak' freely,,,, Speak with our mouths? So it would be okay if we are forbidden from writing letters to each other, self-publishing newsletters, using sign language, or having blogs, because we speak with our mouths ? This bill had everything to do with freedom of speech. no, we write in place of speaking 'words' to communicate with people sharing music isnt about 'communicating' anything, its about sharing a product we have purchased from people who have invested time and money to CREATE it,,,, You are missing the point - as you have so often done on this topic. Giving the feds the ability to blacklist websites based on allege copyright violations is a free speech issue, plain as day. Music has nothing intrinsically to do with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why do people place EVERYTHING that they want to do or say under the umbrella of 'free speech' we speak from our mouths, this bill had nothing to do with being able to 'speak' freely,,,, Speak with our mouths? So it would be okay if we are forbidden from writing letters to each other, self-publishing newsletters, using sign language, or having blogs, because we speak with our mouths ? This bill had everything to do with freedom of speech. no, we write in place of speaking 'words' to communicate with people sharing music isnt about 'communicating' anything, its about sharing a product we have purchased from people who have invested time and money to CREATE it,,,, You are missing the point - as you have so often done on this topic. Giving the feds the ability to blacklist websites based on allege copyright violations is a free speech issue, plain as day. Music has nothing intrinsically to do with it. an 'alleged' copyright infringement is kind of like being 'kind' of pregnant one either has the permissions or they dont,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why do people place EVERYTHING that they want to do or say under the umbrella of 'free speech' we speak from our mouths, this bill had nothing to do with being able to 'speak' freely,,,, Speak with our mouths? So it would be okay if we are forbidden from writing letters to each other, self-publishing newsletters, using sign language, or having blogs, because we speak with our mouths ? This bill had everything to do with freedom of speech. no, we write in place of speaking 'words' to communicate with people sharing music isnt about 'communicating' anything, its about sharing a product we have purchased from people who have invested time and money to CREATE it,,,, You are missing the point - as you have so often done on this topic. Giving the feds the ability to blacklist websites based on allege copyright violations is a free speech issue, plain as day. Music has nothing intrinsically to do with it. an 'alleged' copyright infringement is kind of like being 'kind' of pregnant one either has the permissions or they dont,,,, Do you acknowledge that SOPA was absolutely a free speech issue, seeing as how it gave the feds the power to blacklist websites? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why do people place EVERYTHING that they want to do or say under the umbrella of 'free speech' we speak from our mouths, this bill had nothing to do with being able to 'speak' freely,,,, Speak with our mouths? So it would be okay if we are forbidden from writing letters to each other, self-publishing newsletters, using sign language, or having blogs, because we speak with our mouths ? This bill had everything to do with freedom of speech. no, we write in place of speaking 'words' to communicate with people sharing music isnt about 'communicating' anything, its about sharing a product we have purchased from people who have invested time and money to CREATE it,,,, You are missing the point - as you have so often done on this topic. Giving the feds the ability to blacklist websites based on allege copyright violations is a free speech issue, plain as day. Music has nothing intrinsically to do with it. an 'alleged' copyright infringement is kind of like being 'kind' of pregnant one either has the permissions or they dont,,,, Do you acknowledge that SOPA was absolutely a free speech issue, seeing as how it gave the feds the power to blacklist websites? no more than I Think jail is a freedom to assemble issue once you break a rule or a law, you suffer consequences its illegal to claim someone elses work as your own or be compensated as if its your own,,, its not about 'your speech', its about protecting 'their speech' (the creators of the work) from unlawful distribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no more than I Think jail is a freedom to assemble issue Good. Jailing someone without requiring a timely trial (which SOPA lacked) is definitely an issue of 'freedom to assemble' (and a 'free speech', and...). A friend of mine, who was straight-edge, was detained by a racist police officer and put in jail over night on the unjustified accusation that he 'appeared to be on drugs'. He did nothing illegal. In my view, this was unconstitutional. its illegal to claim someone elses work as your own Yet that's exactly what you implied by not acknowledging your non-authorship in the OP. Oh, horrors! What punishment is there to fit your heinous crime?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no more than I Think jail is a freedom to assemble issue Good. Jailing someone without requiring a timely trial (which SOPA lacked) is definitely an issue of 'freedom to assemble' (and a 'free speech', and...). A friend of mine, who was straight-edge, was detained by a racist police officer and put in jail over night on the unjustified accusation that he 'appeared to be on drugs'. He did nothing illegal. In my view, this was unconstitutional. its illegal to claim someone elses work as your own Yet that's exactly what you implied by not acknowledging your non-authorship in the OP. Oh, horrors! What punishment is there to fit your heinous crime? well, whatever it would be, it would make me more careful in the future to use 'citations' (as is required in school) especialy if I had a HISTORY of consistently and regularly doing so,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why do people place EVERYTHING that they want to do or say under the umbrella of 'free speech' we speak from our mouths, this bill had nothing to do with being able to 'speak' freely,,,, Speak with our mouths? So it would be okay if we are forbidden from writing letters to each other, self-publishing newsletters, using sign language, or having blogs, because we speak with our mouths ? This bill had everything to do with freedom of speech. no, we write in place of speaking 'words' to communicate with people sharing music isnt about 'communicating' anything, its about sharing a product we have purchased from people who have invested time and money to CREATE it,,,, I do believe that those who actually created the music a not making as much of the income as all the 'clamping' shadows that surround such people. This law will be moot anyway. Most new artists are simply shipping their creative talents directly to the web... Bypassing the old motown like motown bypassed the Good Ole Boys in the 60's. Stepping into the Technology. There are some fantastic artists hidden in the many folds of the internet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do believe that those who actually created the music a not making as much of the income as all the 'clamping' shadows that surround such people. Exactly. This law will be moot anyway. Thanks to all the people who value free speech and fairness, the law was not passed. Most new artists are simply shipping their creative talents directly to the web... Bypassing the old motown like motown bypassed the Good Ole Boys in the 60's. Stepping into the Technology. There are some fantastic artists hidden in the many folds of the internet. Yes, we no longer need the big publishing companies. They realize that they are about to die, and they are doing what most large industries do when they are becoming obsolete - turn to legislation to strong arm people into continuing to support them. Buying off legislators is better than going out of business. Good bye and good riddance. I'm confident, based on the comments that I've seen in other threads, that most people reading this realize how wrong MsHarmony is in her arguments here - suggesting that ownership of copyright is always a simple cut and dry case, that violation is always clear, and that big media and the government can be 'trusted' without requiring a trial. For anyone who doesn't understand how these corrupt companies work, read this article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/judge-orders-failed-copyright-troll-to-forfeit-all-copyrights.ars The law permits 'fair use' of copyrighted material. This company extorted undeserved settlement fees by making wrong claims of copyright infringement, preying on the fears of individual bloggers with the threat of a lawsuit. They never won in court - they didn't need to. People could not afford to defend themselves in court, so they just paid the settlement fees. Fortunately, most of you have the good sense to recognize the evil intrinsic in SOPA. Even with the protection of the courts, people were caving before these false accusations and intimidation tactics. Consider how ****ed up the world would be with SOPA - which would not have required a trial in these matters. When one entity finally took the matter to court, the copyright troll lost. After all, the conduct of the accused was legal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that Obama has been selected by the powers that be to manage America into moving towards democratic socialism. Obama has been selected for his managerial skills as well as his diplomatic skills and lets face it he is one good looking f****r and Mr Cool Personified. Martin Luther King is one of my favourite men of all time. Democratic socialism?? a double negative if I ever heard one.....democracy cannot exist in conjunction with socialism.....an impossibilty Oh but it does exist right now in this country. Our police and fire departments, all of our social assistance programs, our tax assistance in the form of bankruptcy, etc... are all examples of socialism in a republic democracy. |
|
|
|
|
