nothing prevents murder, humans have murdered since the beginning of their existence
but , sometimes, the possibility of more than a slap on the wrist, works to DETER people from committing crimes,,, |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 03/14/12 03:52 PM
|
|
Students signed a PROMISSARY note that said if the government loaned them the money they would have to pay it back. The government loaned them the money and now they are whining about paying it back? No one held a gun to their head and forced them to sign. They should keep their promises. They should pay back the loans and STFU! I think thats a bit simpler than the total picture do we want education to be just about the money or are we trying to invest in productive citizenship if all we want is money, we set up those students to be unproductive because the 'education' they pay for ends up in too many cases being useless to them when it doesnt result in a subsequent means of productivity (career, job) without a job, they dont gain experience, without experience noone hires them for a job continuing to throw money at kids just to occupy buildings we also throw money at isnt working too well in my opinion investing in the community and the kids by paying for productivity instead, makes more sense its not much different than paying them for a job, instead of receiving the money from them directly,, they contribute and 'earn' the money they were given so there is no need to pay it back and they get real experience from which potential employers can pool,,,, |
|
|
|
Support The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012
By Robert Applebaum (Contact) To be delivered to: Rep. John Kline (MN-2), The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama Since 1980, average tuition for a 4-year college education has increased an astounding 827%. Since 1999, average student loan debt has increased by a shameful 511%. In 2010, total outstanding student loan debt exceeded total outstanding credit card debt in America for the first time ever. In 2012, total outstanding student loan debt is expected to exceed $1 Trillion. In short, student loan debt has become the latest financial crisis in America and, if we do absolutely nothing, the entire economy will eventually come crashing down again, just as it did when the housing bubble popped. Reasonable minds can disagree as to the solutions, they cannot, however, disagree on the existence of this ever-growing crisis, as well as the unsustainable course we're on towards financial oblivion. As a result of more than 30 years of treating higher education as an individual commodity, rather than a public good and an investment in our collective future, those buried under the weight of their student loan debt are not buying homes or cars, not starting businesses or families, and they're not investing, inventing, innovating or otherwise engaged in any of the economically stimulative activities that we need all Americans to be engaged in if we're ever to dig ourselves out of the giant hole created by the greed of those at the very top. Now for the good news: there's finally hope on the horizon! Representative Hansen Clarke of Michigan has just introduced H.R. 4170, The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, in the House of Representatives - legislation designed to lend a helping hand to those struggling under massive amounts of student loan debt. For a brief summary of H.R. 4170's main provisions, please copy & paste this URL into your browser: http://tinyurl.com/7akydbk To read the full version of the actual bill itself, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/6txure8 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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,,,, |
|
|
|
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,,,, |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ha ha ha THIS obama cheerleader assists a professonal photographer/videographer and understands how easily and how often such videos are 'edited' to deceive people even the posting source cites that 'The video starts out with some content from obamasnippets.com, which, of course is contrived. ' ![]() ![]() ![]() and your proof of this is what? "could be" and "is" both mean different things... the posting source cites that 'The video starts out with some content from obamasnippets.com, which, of course is contrived. ' most of the video shows his mouth when he speaks, EXCEPT the controversial statements where his mouth coincidentally cant be seen...thats one clue,,,,(regarding editing), his movements also skip about unnaturally,,, another clue (regarding editing) |
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
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 ![]() |
|
|
|
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,,, |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ha ha ha THIS obama cheerleader assists a professonal photographer/videographer and understands how easily and how often such videos are 'edited' to deceive people even the posting source cites that 'The video starts out with some content from obamasnippets.com, which, of course is contrived. ' ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
|
|
..to me i can't see how recording music to disc is any different that if i were to turn on the radio and tape the music to cassette..in fact other than the new modes by which we have to record the songs there really isn't any difference..jmo.. ![]() ..in my opinion if its for ones own personal use and not mass produced for sale then i think its ridiculous..i can hardly think of one friend when cassettes came out that didn't record music to play in their cars.. damn pirates we were ..i guess when VCRs came out we were all pirates,and for that fact if we are to record any show we could be called pirates ,and if that being the case anyone who produces recording devices not to mention the manufacturers who enable us to record...the insanity of it all.. ![]() I think piracy is not about simple sharing with 'friends' that happened in casette days most people dont honestly have hundreds and THOUSANDS of friends that can access their purchases to 'share' them with them this makes the internet issue much more complex than mere 'why cant I buy it and share it like I always have' |
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
|
|
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,,, SOPA was designed to allow complete censorship of all POSSIBLE IP rights violations prior to a court ruling on the ACTUAL violation. The ramifications of such heavy handed preemptive censorship is more than chilling of the first amendment, and ignores all of the granularity of IP rights, fair use ect ect. So your argument is moot, tangential, and unrelated to the actual problems with SOPA. or not 5) RELIEF- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the foreign infringing site or a portion of such site, or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site. (2) RELIEF- Relief under this subsection shall be proper if the court finds that-- (A) the foreign Internet site subject to the order is no longer, or never was, a foreign infringing site; or (B) the interests of justice otherwise require that the order be modified, suspended, or vacated. these all mention 'courts',,,kind of like a legal ramification for those who might object to the order,,,,not at all a TOTAL Takeover of anything,,, |
|
|
|
Look!!
![]() ![]() ![]() ... a distraction,,,,, |
|
|
|
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,,,,
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Obama Spangled Banner
|
|
Obama and most liberals hate this country and believe the flag is just a piece of cloth and represents nothing. You're speaking for most liberals now? I speak for no o e but myself. Am I not entitled to an opinion? I seem to recall several threads about flags on this site where MOST LIBERALS posting referred to the flag as just a piece of cloth and it doesn't matter what people do to it. And if most didn't like how this country was pre Obama and want to CHANGE it then yes I would say in my opinion they hate it. I dont hate the country, I also dont idolize images and materials. IF that makes me anti patriotic,,so be it. strange to me , actually, that we fight for people to use 'intellectual property' any way they want even when someone else has created it for purposed of income but we DIE over people taking this one PRODUCT and using it in any way but as an idol to represent America,,, flying the other flags IN PLACE OF, or IN ADDITION TO official flags that are exhibited in places specifically to represent government, I can understand being objected to having the flags or selling the flags ,, I cant understand being an issue |
|
|
|
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,,, |
|
|