100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
barry was born there,,,
Barry SENIOR...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think the kid was just telling the truth, even tho i feel it was in poor taste on his part. the British police are taking this to far, because they are saying people shouldn't have their own opinion. No wonder we kicked their ***** out and sent them packing. its not so much about having an opinion, so much as the manner and tone and PLACE in which the opinion is expressed I can , for instance, think a us president is dumb I can say to my friends I think he is dumb in the US , I can probably post on the internet that I think he is dumb I could not stand in the middle of a fourth of july white house celebration shouting 'the President is an idiot, why are you listening to him, if you listen to him you deserve,,,,etc,,etc,,etc,,' the expression of opinions sometimes imposes u[on other peoples space , time, safety, and obstruct the peace than they become much more serious than just an 'opinion' i would disagree with that... i hear of more and more people getting in trouble over facebook posting than anything else nowadays. To say our MIC is an idiot is an opinion, nothing else. and no one is saying you have to agree or disagree with the statement, same with facebook postings. just like i get upset with people bashing jews, it is just my opinion and that is where it ends. these British leaders are scared of losing control, so they try to edit out what they don't like. just like when bush was in office and he tried to control what people were saying about the iraqi war, he was scared of losing control then too. the government is for the people, not the other way around. Just like the article was saying, what freedoms in our home countries are they protecting in Afghanistan and Iraq? well, I dont consider our current president anything close to an idiot, but Im sure others do and thats their opinion I dont know of any trouble people can legally get in over facebook unless its a matter of libel or copyright an opinion becomes something more when it is expressed in a manner that 'incites' or encourages violence or disturbs the safe or peaceful environment of others its not having opinions thats the issue, it is how we carry ourself, how we impact upon the lives of others, (And where we carry ourself) while we express those opinions,,, "the expression of opinions sometimes imposes u[on other peoples space , time, safety, and obstruct the peace" that seems to be an opinion also... did this teen cause or do any of that? ID say, he could impact upon others safety by posting that all soldiers should die,,,, not saying he WILL, but I admire the attempts to use preventive measure as opposed to reactionary measures after the damage is done |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
white face, red hair.
|
|
I don't think everyone should smoke but I think it should be allowed for those that choose to. There are always people out there that will abuse it but that is their choice to make. this^^ seriously, everyone has their 'thing' to help them relax whether its meditating, eating, playing a sport, creating something, or smoking weed,,,,thats personal choice I choose not to use it, but I have people in my life who are brilliant and productive and choose to unwind with it occasionally and I think none the less of them for it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
How soon is too soon?
|
|
a hypothetical
if I unpack your lugguage, who will unpack mine and if I help you unpack yours and you help me unpack mine, how will either of us ever truly be sure whats in there or where it fits in? and if we have the energy to help unpack someone elses,, shouldnt we have the energy to unpack our own and then, full circle, if we unpacked our own, why cant they unpack their own too,,, or should we do twice the work?....lol I do love the sentiment though,,,of helping someone |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think the kid was just telling the truth, even tho i feel it was in poor taste on his part. the British police are taking this to far, because they are saying people shouldn't have their own opinion. No wonder we kicked their ***** out and sent them packing. its not so much about having an opinion, so much as the manner and tone and PLACE in which the opinion is expressed I can , for instance, think a us president is dumb I can say to my friends I think he is dumb in the US , I can probably post on the internet that I think he is dumb I could not stand in the middle of a fourth of july white house celebration shouting 'the President is an idiot, why are you listening to him, if you listen to him you deserve,,,,etc,,etc,,etc,,' the expression of opinions sometimes imposes u[on other peoples space , time, safety, and obstruct the peace than they become much more serious than just an 'opinion' i would disagree with that... i hear of more and more people getting in trouble over facebook posting than anything else nowadays. To say our MIC is an idiot is an opinion, nothing else. and no one is saying you have to agree or disagree with the statement, same with facebook postings. just like i get upset with people bashing jews, it is just my opinion and that is where it ends. these British leaders are scared of losing control, so they try to edit out what they don't like. just like when bush was in office and he tried to control what people were saying about the iraqi war, he was scared of losing control then too. the government is for the people, not the other way around. Just like the article was saying, what freedoms in our home countries are they protecting in Afghanistan and Iraq? well, I dont consider our current president anything close to an idiot, but Im sure others do and thats their opinion I dont know of any trouble people can legally get in over facebook unless its a matter of libel or copyright an opinion becomes something more when it is expressed in a manner that 'incites' or encourages violence or disturbs the safe or peaceful environment of others its not having opinions thats the issue, it is how we carry ourself, how we impact upon the lives of others, (And where we carry ourself) while we express those opinions,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
How soon is too soon?
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 03/14/12 05:42 PM
|
|
It is one of those 'it depends' questions.
IF the person LEFT a relationship because they were ready to leave. THe baggage should be minimal. IF a person was the one to be left the baggage is probably a bit heavier. Either way, for me, at LEAST a year and a half on their/my own is required because I figure if they are the ones who left, they may just be more in need of being involved with someone than they are actually ready to be there with and for someone...and they probably should assess what caused them or influenced them to make a poor choice in partner.... and Im not interested if they are the ones to be left, they should take time to assess what influenced THEIR decision to make a poor choice in partner and they need to spend time feeling good about themself and their own company for a while, so they dont become 'needy' of companionship ,,,,,,my worst nightmare is becoming someones 'need',,,,,or a victim of the bruised ego/grass is greener on the other side mentality because Im no more perfect than the last one,, my flaws are just different.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cheating on his wife. WTF???   
"It is a man's worst nightmare but for Colombian farmer Luis Alfonso Sanchez it seemed the logical thing to do. The 40-year-old decided to castrate himself to avoid cheating on his wife who refused to have sex with him." - INNews if your eye offends you cut it out,,,, at least he didnt choose his eye,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think the kid was just telling the truth, even tho i feel it was in poor taste on his part. the British police are taking this to far, because they are saying people shouldn't have their own opinion. No wonder we kicked their ***** out and sent them packing. its not so much about having an opinion, so much as the manner and tone and PLACE in which the opinion is expressed I can , for instance, think a us president is dumb I can say to my friends I think he is dumb in the US , I can probably post on the internet that I think he is dumb I could not stand in the middle of a fourth of july white house celebration shouting 'the President is an idiot, why are you listening to him, if you listen to him you deserve,,,,etc,,etc,,etc,,' the expression of opinions sometimes imposes u[on other peoples space , time, safety, and obstruct the peace than they become much more serious than just an 'opinion' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
the theory of their being an 'intelligent' designer makes more sense to me than the theory that humans have come to be through a series of conicidences and accidents,,,, As always, I respect your "cup always 1/2 full" attitude towards most everything MsH, but I would have to ask on the creationism theory "which came 1st, the chicken or the egg?". If there was a "creator", who created them? It would seem they would be the one I would wish to acknowledge as the "supreme being". Of course, then who created them? Evolution is much more scientificly theorized as plausable to an intellegent, reasonable, and analytical mind. It is evident in present day as actual, you can see, feel, witness it, and therefore "believe" in it without a stretch of the imagination. It is arguable, and provable. Faith is a wonderful thing, but so are fairy tales, and wishes. They provide visions and a symbolence of hope for better things than exist in a present state. They are however, just that, a hope, a belief, not founded on fact or even reason. It is personal to a specific being, an opinion shared by teaching, adopted by many, but unprovable and not based on fact or evidence. I will not argue religious faith or principle. We see the results of such things in the world today, and witness the results of it. If I must bomb or invade a country because of a religious belief, or difference, or intolerance of it, I can not in good conscience think it a notable belief system, or teaching, to adhere to. jmo we agree I have never and dont plan to ever feel like I have to bomb or invade anyplace because of religious beliefs (my own or anyone elses) huh... i guess the reason don't really matter, as long as the bombs are let loose... thats a whole other thread, wars are about gaining or maintaining 'power',,, people disguise the motive with religion, or politics, or justice,,,etc,,, but that reason never changes,,,,,many humans want power, many humans want MORE than what they have,, by nature I heard they talked about our mamas.... lol, and we talked about their religion/political leader/system of government,,etc,,etc,,,etc,, it never ends,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
britain doesnt quite take 'freedom of speech' so far there are things like racism and bigotry which arent covered there like they are here,,,, Yes, democracies in Europe are quite different from USA. That is why so many American tourists get in trouble. I kind of admire that about Britain anyhow,, (the hate speech laws. etc...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 03/14/12 04:46 PM
|
|
he does correct it here:
Whatever one’s views are on this ruling, it is now binding law. To advocate on behalf of a designated Terrorist group constitutes the felony of “providing material support” if that advocacy is coordinated with the group. how is this different than the 'guilt by association' that occurs with any other crimes,,,, people are guilty by association when caught cavorting with anyone who has drugs I see this as not very different, because without a formal register of members (which I doubt most terrorist groups hold publicly), who is to say that someone involved in/with a terrorist group isnt also a MEMBER of that group,,,,? I do think the law should allow for (and probably does) a suspect to present a case to explain the 'reasonable' explanation for such an association/meeting,,,whatever,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm, not the first time I have read 'professional' editorials which either didnt follow logic or werent proofread for errors
this is a case of the former in the first paragraph (which, without reading, Im going to guess will set up the following argument posed throughout the piece) The five-judge conservative bloc (along with Justice Stevens) held that pure political speech could be permissibly criminalized as “material support for Terrorism” consistent with the First Amendment if the “advocacy [is] performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (emphasis added). In other words, pure political advocacy in support of a designated Terrorist group could be prosecuted as a felony includes a false conclusion it is a felony with SPECIFIC conditions (as opposed to pure political advocacy) condition ONE: involves COORDINATING WITH a 'foreign' terrorist organization OR condition TWO: involves being DIRECTED BY a 'foreign' terrorist organization both conditions imply a more DIRECT association/cooperation with the 'foreign' terrorist group to advocate and not just the run of the mill personal opinion that may support what the group does,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that why Santorum comes across as--well--stupid? Santorum may be fudging a bit, or he may actually speak 'off the whim' Its doubtful that works well for a 'speech' that lasts more than five or ten minuntes unless one has an iadectic memory though people who give speeches make notes, refer to written references,, etc,,, to keep track of the points they want to make there is no need to outlaw it, unless we also outlaw people speaking more than ten minutes at a time,,, You would think someone who has graduated Magna Cum Laude wouldn't need a teleprompter........ unless he is speaking for more than thirty to forty five minutes straight,,,,,,about multiple topics,,,, Doesn't matter. I agree. Teleprompters dont make anyone smart of stupid. They just help with their memory. They also allow someone in the shadows to control the converstation. true, if the speaker wants or allows it.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
britain doesnt quite take 'freedom of speech' so far
there are things like racism and bigotry which arent covered there like they are here,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Obama Spangled Banner
|
|
When I see things like what's in the original post I see Obama slowly becoming a dictator! People have put this dude on a pedestal and worship him like an idol and this scares me. To put his or any other politician on the flag is an insult to America, I know some people lack the ability to see why the flag is important and that is their issue. so, worshipping a FLAG is less scary to you than worshipping a PERSON? I at least understand the potential (Traits, characteristics, accomplishments) that might cause a person to be worshipped I Will never understand what is so precious about a FLAG.....that the object itself should be WORSHIPPED the flag has meaning behind it, the MIC (muslim in chief) means nothing... people have fought and died for what the flag represents, not what obama is.... yes, Im all for what the flag 'represents' which is ACTUAL Human lives and freedoms not so much a groupie of the object ITSELF though,,,, No one is talking about worshiping the flag. We are talking about respecting it. You contradict yourself when you say you are for what it represents but not the object itself. If you agree with what it reperesents then then how can you agree with people desicrating it? Are they not disrespecting human lives and freedom by doing that? no, because I dont demand that it represents the same thing for everyone' case in point, the confederate flag, some revere it because of what it represents FOR THEM,,,, and others find it offensive by that very same logic (what it represents for THEM) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 03/14/12 04:01 PM
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic.
The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I am sure that you recall the days of radios with tape players that allowed you to copy songs being played over the air. If you had a dual tape deck you could buy a tape and copy it as many times as you wanted.. Again.. I don't recall anyone being sued to stop producing radios with dual tape decks.. I go and buy a car.. Can I be sued if I let someone borrow it because the rights of the technology always belong to the manufacturer? I think not.. This is a power grab by the entertainment and media conglomerates pure and simple. They want a monopoly on distribution of information. Period. the problem with that analoty is, even in copying a tape, you need a physical medium to do so (other tapes)) and I doubt anyone would have the resources to buy hundreds and thousands of 'tapes' just to give away music to complete strangers cyber media allows one to truly pay for a thing once and then pass it out at no cost to themself or anyone else hundreds,thousands, and even millions of times,,, if you let someone use your car, that is again ONE driver per car, the driver may switch but the use was paid for once because it is ONE car being driven(whomever the driver is) duplicating a car by chrysler and passing it out randomly to hundreds and thousands of users,, would cause an issue with Chrysler for sure,,, The analogy I used is perfect. I can buy a car and I can loan the car and I can sell the car without being considered a pirate. I can buy a DVD and if I loan it or sell it I am considered a pirate. That is their interpretation of copyright infringement.. Their entire argument is based on the idea that someone offering something to someone else takes away earning potential.Instead of a free copy they would have to go out and buy it.. I can give my car to a charity am I a pirate since my giving it for free takes away the possibility that the charity would otherwise have to go out and purchase the car from the manufacturer? Your argument of its only one person or one car doesn't fit because they can sue for downloading 1 song or movie without paying for it. no,, loaning and even selling (trading of ownership) of a product is not the same as REPRODUCTION of a product you can buy a car and RESELL it (transfer the ownership) you can buy a cd and sell it (transfer the ownership) you can even buy a movie and sell it (transfer the ownership) in all those cases, you bought the product and then you use that ONE product that you own the way you wish to use it, or let someone else use it if you REPRODUCE the product though, you are now using the product you own and allowing others to have a product they DONT own and have no permission to have,,,,while you continue to own and use the copy you paid for,,,, ,,,thats the difference Here is why you are wrong.. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUPAP KIRTSAENG, doing business as BLUECHRISTINE99, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 34 August Term, 2010 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Donald C. Pogue, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation), following a jury trial, awarding statutory damages to plaintiff publisher for copyright infringement. Defendant claims on appeal that the District Court denied him a defense under the “first sale doctrine,” 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), and erred in evidentiary rulings which, he alleges, led to the award of unduly high damages. In a case of first impression in our Court, we hold (1) that the first sale doctrine,which allows a person who buys a legally produced copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of the work as he sees fit, does not apply to works manufactured outside of the United States, and (2) that the District Court did not err in its evidentiary rulings. Affirmed. https://www.eff.org/files/Wiley-v-Kirtsaeng_2ndCir_8-15-11.pdf/ Based on this ruling.. Anything made outside the United States CANNOT be resold by using the first sale doctrine.. Therefore, since my car was made outside of the United States I could be sued for illegally selling the car. a car is not a 'copyrighted' product, so thats an irrelevant comparison people sale their NOT MADE IN AMERICA cars all the time, Im sure you wont find a case of anyone being sued for it,, we also have SOME countries which we have copyright agreements with and others we dont, which would make the issue of an INTERNATIONAL type situation become something that was case by case and country by country |
|
|
|
|
Previous
