Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the definitions-and-nuances dept

This week, Keith Alexander made a strong argument in favor of continued ineffective surveillance, on the basis that this very inefficacy has ensured that the problem is undiminished and the efforts are still necessary. This prompted BentFranklin to deliver our most insightful comment of the week, reminding everyone of an important definition:

Terrorism is the use of fear to affect policy. General Alexander uses fear to affect policy.

Meanwhile, LG revealed its thirst for data this week when it told Smart TV customers that it would disable features if they refused to share their viewing and search history with third parties. Josh won second place for insightful by pointing out how much less palatable this kind of thing is with an expensive product:

Why are people complaining about Google is generally watching what you do with free stuff, but LG is watching very specific stuff with something you have bought.

If LG gave me the TV for free, I wouldn't have to much of an issue with it, but when you pay $1000 for a TV, I expect some privacy.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we'll start out with one more from that post, since an anonymous commenter offered the solution to these and other smart TV woes:

Just buy an 'dumb' TV, and get a dongle to make it smart. Much cheaper, can be swapped and less hassle.

Next, we've got Josh in CharlotteNC with some thoughts inspired by Ladar Levison's condemnation of the stacked US legal system:

What has happened to equality under the law? To me this shows a very clear imbalance among those with real access to the legal system (namely those with money or connections to lawyers), and those without.

Every other day I've got to "agree" to some type of legally binding contract to buy things, install basic software, or use basic services - and it all changes without any warning or objection I can raise. I have to sign 20 pages of dense legalese contracts to get a job, and to be expected to keep up with it when it changes without notice. I luckily rarely deal with the government, but the situation is the same there. If you don't want to be screwed by someone with their lawyer, you need multiple lawyers skilled in wildly disparate parts of the legal code available to you all the time.

I know there's a lot of lawyers that read Techdirt. I know most of you are both very good at what you do, and very well intentioned. You're just trying to help those of us without years of legal training navigate through a crazy byzantine system you had no part in creating. But there is something fundamentally *broken* about the legal system.

I'm a technical, engineer type person. When I see something that doesn't work well, or work fairly, or work efficiently I want to fix it. Rather than just working in the system with its faults, what can be done to make the legal system better? What can be done to simplify it for normal people so that we don't need a lawyer for every minor interaction we might have with the government, with other companies (or our own), or any random passerby on the street?

Over on the funny side the voting was pretty slow this week, but after we criticized Google for being a trademark bully, Michael took first place by sarcastically echoing a troll refrain:

Here you go - another Google is great and can do no wrong article. Don't you get tired of being the Google fanboy?

Next, when a German copyright lawsuit raised some extremely unanticipated questions about Jesus and authorship, an anonymous commenter took second place for funny with an appropriately adapted quote:

He who is without copyright violation among you, let him be the first to throw a lawsuit

Editor's choice for funny starts out on our post about publicity rights disputes between celebrities and the brands that (truthfully) boast about their patronage. An anonymous commenter suggested a workaround for the marketers:

The designers just have to be more careful about wording their ads:

"The Prop Master of The Blind Side thought our tacky watch was perfect for the character played by Sandra Bullock."

or

"Katherine Heigl won't let us say that she shops at Duane Reade. But if she doesn't, this picture shows that she had the good sense to mug someone who does!"

Finally, we've got Beta, who delivered a joke at the expense of the SF police who built a huge fiasco on a single license plate reader mistake:

Q: How many San Francisco police officers does it take to look at a license plate?
A: Huh?

That's all for this week, folks! We'll be off enjoying the (hopefully) nice weather tomorrow for Memorial Day in the US, but will be back to our regular posting schedule on Tuesday...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2014 @ 2:48pm

    in response to the 'terrorism that makes surveillance a necessity' comment, the surveillance isn't to stop the terrorists or even try to stop them, it's to keep tabs on all ordinary citizens, in case one or two dont pay their taxes!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2014 @ 3:16pm

    Re:

    More likely, it is to detect any organized political challenge to the status quo, so that it can be nipped in the bud. Unorganized opposition, like occupy, slows them down, because they can not find the leaders.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    CK20XX (profile), May 25th, 2014 @ 3:27pm

    Re:

    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

    - C. S. Lewis

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), May 25th, 2014 @ 11:09pm

    In response to Josh's question on how to fix it, or start to fix it, as someone who is outside the USA looking in I can see two main areas that have to be looked at

    Firstly Consumer law:
    * make warranties to be a minimum statutorily in both timeframe (12months at minimum.. reasonable life of product at best) and if warranty is required for the consumer to decide whether they want a Repair, replacement or refund at THEIR choice not manufacturers.

    * Make the point of sale the ONLY requirement for customers to deal with. ie: if you buy an item at X store, X store has to do all the legwork etc for that item at the stores expense (recouped by the store from the distributor and/or manufacturer). The consumer should never have any call to deal with a distributor or manufacturer EVER.

    * if any of the above, including misleading practices, unenforceability, unconscionable behaviour and other fine points of contract law dealing with goods and/or services are allegedly breached by a seller/distributor/manufacturer then an UNBIASED authority (tribunal based works best) should decide what should be done.. Not some arbitrary arbrtation system that is payed for and beholden to the manufacturer. Transparency and Equity demand that the your Federal govt needs to do this only. If a breach is found the user is NOT payed money (though is just compensated for by either Refund, repair, replacement) and instead the corporation is FINED publicly.


    Secondly, TORT REFORM:
    This is normally a dirty evil blasphemous phrase for any attorneys in the USA who work for BigLaw and there are numerous ideas, theories, etc of what it involves etc. Though a good starting point is LOSER PAYS!
    In other words if someone(thing) gets taken to court and loses the winning party MUST pay all legal costs unless an appeal on the legalities of the case is granted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, May 26th, 2014 @ 1:12am

    Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Laugh it up boy. Tell us: does Google pay you (indirectly) or not ?

    Also rather cheap to call everyone who disagrees with your Google fanposts a troll. I'm not the only one who notices a complete reporting bias in favor of Google. Anyway, that is fine, just put a banner under each post: 'I am truly a great Google believer' then people will be able to read it the way they should. I am a total Google hater. They are making a useless commodity of the net and it hurts the ecosystem that one company is allowed to grow so large.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), May 26th, 2014 @ 2:08am

    Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Do the tinfoil hats interfere with your Conspiracy theorist meetings much? or do you all just debate maths without talking?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Whatever, May 26th, 2014 @ 2:40am

    great line, but not really true

    Terrorism is the use of fear to affect policy. General Alexander uses fear to affect policy.

    Actually, Terrorism uses fear to affect behavior, General Alexander uses fear to affect policy.

    Terrorism is ground up, shake the roots stuff. Politics no matter at what level is always top down stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 6:04am

    Re: great line, but not really true

    Policy is used to affect behavior.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 6:06am

    Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    and who are you that we may evaluate your conflicts of interest?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 6:14am

    Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 6:20am

    Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    What google fanposts would those be? Seriously, almost every google post here is something google did that was bad/stupid/should be called out on. Yet people like you keep coming in and saying that he's a /fan/? Seriously? The intellectual disconnect is astounding.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 6:26am

    Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    You shills have already been challenged to support your lies and you never do. In case you missed it (though you more likely just chose to ignore it since you feel that you never have to back up your lies)

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140520/12135027294/google-trademark-bullies-obvious-parody-s ite.shtml#c123

    I am still waiting for a response. Can you defend your claims or is everyone going to have to continue to conclude that you are a selfish lying shill. The later does nothing to advance your selfish pro-IP, pro-monopoly, agenda and only serves to turn people against it in which case your agenda is better served if you simply left.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 6:31am

    Re: great line, but not really true

    Except that no one believes you, troll boy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), May 26th, 2014 @ 7:21am

    Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Also rather cheap to call everyone who disagrees with your Google fanposts a troll.

    No as cheap as your use of straw men. OTOH, you don't have the facts on your side, so you must make up sh!t.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 8:03am

    Re: great line, but not really true

    Terrorism uses fear to affect both as does Alexander.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, May 26th, 2014 @ 8:49am

    Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Don't know. I don't were thinfoil hats. Nice ad-hominen though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, May 26th, 2014 @ 8:52am

    Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    I don't have a conflict of interest. I don't receive any money from the competition or anybody who might benefit from a negative view on Google. My opinions are my own. Who are you ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, May 26th, 2014 @ 8:54am

    Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    If what you assert were true, there wouldn't be ample opportunity to call him out on Google fanposts. I won't dig in techdirt history. That is something you can do yourself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, May 26th, 2014 @ 8:55am

    Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    I did not write that, so I cannot answer your questions. Nice attempt to put me in the bin of Google-trolls and expect me to answer someone else his post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, May 26th, 2014 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    What strawmen exactly ? You do call me a troll aren't you ? Or did I make that up ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 9:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    So then do you agree that Mike is not biased in favor of Google?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 9:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    You're the one criticizing Mike, alleging that he has a conflict of interest with no support whatsoever, who makes his identification public. I'm not the one making those allegations. So when you do so who are you? Why should I take what you say seriously over Mike when you refuse to identify yourself and provide no support for anything you say?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    "I won't dig in techdirt history. That is something you can do yourself."

    I've been following Techdirt for a long time and I say you are telling a lie. You can't reasonably expect me to prove a negative by saying that there is no evidence to support your assertion. But you can easily prove me wrong by providing support. You are a liar. Prove me wrong. Where is the support to your claims?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, May 26th, 2014 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    It was a question, which he didn't answer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, May 26th, 2014 @ 9:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Like I said: if what you assert were true, there wouldn't be ample opportunity to call him out on Google fanposts. Since you start insulting me I will start ignoring you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), May 26th, 2014 @ 9:36am

    Re: great line, but not really true

    According to the US definition, the intent to affect policy is a key part of what makes it terrorism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Mr. Oizo, May 26th, 2014 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    I said that I did not write that post you refer and that _I_ cannot answer it. That has nothing to do with the fact that I think mike is (wrongly) biased in favor of Google.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), May 26th, 2014 @ 9:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Nope you are a the pure definition of a troll with your trollish post and behaviour after the post, you didn't make that up

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), May 26th, 2014 @ 9:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Seeing as an ad-hominem is a specific statement of facts that the other side knows or thinks about an individual/group instead of a question asking if something is correct or not it means you are either conflating the issue since you have some psychological disposition, most likely to there being a grain of truth... or you are just another wannabee troll who wont stand by facts or any verifiable sources and just makes wild ass guesses and assumptions based on some perceived ideal that they (you) think is correct when instead they are just showing their ignorance, inability to be questioned, and lack of decorum.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    There's ample opportunity to call you out as a troll, therefore it's true by your own logic

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    CK20XX (profile), May 26th, 2014 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    If what you assert were true, there wouldn't be ample opportunity to call him out on Google fanposts.

    That... doesn't make sense though.

    See, here's the problem, dude. If Mike really is a Google shill, then you need to be able to explain all the posts he's written that criticize Google and call it out for bad behavior. The explanation I've seen for that is that he deliberately writes those posts to throw people off his trail so no one will suspect he's a Google shill, but that explanation doesn't resist the cut of Occam's Razor. He'd have to be running a pretty convoluted scheme that would take lots of effort to keep up, and for what purpose, ultimately? He's just a blogger, not a Fox News anchor under the command of Rupert Murdoch or something.

    That's not the only reason no one listens to you either. Your attitude makes it pretty obvious that you've put yourself in the center of a fantasy drama, where you gain a sense of personal power because it feels good to be the only one who's right on a website full of fools. If you were as honest as you think you are, you'd be a lot more humble. Even if you were right in your assertions, why should anyone trust you when you speak? Surely someone more knowledgeable and trustworthy than yourself should be able to corroborate your story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Why bother continuously taking a position here that you are never willing to defend. If you can't defend your position why should you be taken seriously?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    "there wouldn't be ample opportunity to call him out on Google fanposts."

    So where is our proof?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    your *

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    It have everything to do with the fact that you think Mike is biased against Google. When asked for proof you are never able to provide any.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    anti Mike trolls are just kickin' it Goebbels style.

    repeat the lie often enough...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    So the claim that you can't defend your position is a lie? Then prove it. Defend your position.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    This entire site is proof

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), May 26th, 2014 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Then explain all the Google articles Mike writes that criticise the company. Yes, there are articles that are in favour of what Google does, but there are also articles that chastise it.
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140520/12135027294/google-trademark-bullies-obvious-parody-site.s html

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140424/15565627021/big-tech-companies-agree-to-pay-up-over-hi ring-collusion.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140406/07212626819/sony-youtube-take-down-sin tel-blenders-open-source-creative-commons-crowdfunded-masterpiece.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/artic les/20140331/11022126751/telemundo-univision-copyright-claim-youtube-takes-down-us-congressional-app ropriations-hearing.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140329/07454426727/apple-google-adobe-in tel-have-to-face-music-over-collusive-hiring-practices.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2014032 6/08003126688/youtube-finally-admits-it-totally-screwed-up-rolling-out-contentid-to-multi-channel-ne tworks-trying-to-improve-tools.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140102/17424525757/dan-bull-t akes-youtubes-contentid-changes-stolen-revenue-with-diss-track.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles /20131224/11361425686/youtubes-merry-christmas-letting-large-music-publishers-steal-money-guy-singin g-public-domain-christmas-carol.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131215/23475125574/disappoin ting-google-removes-great-privacy-feature-android.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131211/173 65325537/youtube-fails-explaining-flood-takedowns-lets-play-videos.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/blog /innovation/articles/20130428/15442222865/googles-attempt-to-bully-microsoft-back-with-patents-not-g oing-too-well.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/01191322589/youtube-wont-put-your-video -back-up-even-if-its-fair-use-if-it-contains-content-universal-music.shtml

    Every single one of those articles is pretty damning for Google and simply could not be written by someone being paid by Google. Like I say to Christian theists who espouse a caring and loving God "If that were true, then how come your holy book contains so many references to an angry, wrathful, bloodthirsty god?"
    Same thing applies here. You espouse a Mike Masnick who is being paid by Google to write pro-Google articles. The problem with your hypothesis is that there are anti-Google articles as well. Thus, given the data at hand, I come to the conclusion that your hypothesis is incorrect and Mike Masnick is not being paid by Google.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Hello there, kettle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 2:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Mike has defended his position numerous times and has addressed his critics numerous times. Just because he didn't personally pull you aside, hold your hand and answer every variation of the same leading question doesn't mean he hasn't defended his position. When you're willfully blind to the answer, you'll never be satisfied.
    Defending against the same accusation every day is a lesson in futility and I'm sure Mike and the staff of Techdirt have more important things to do than to humor you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 2:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    I was defending Mike and didn't realize Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 11:51am was doing the same right away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    has *

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), May 26th, 2014 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    "Also rather cheap to call everyone who disagrees with your Google fanposts a troll."

    Not everyone, just a few making ridiculous, unfounded claims and behaving in an entirely trollish manner. People with genuine criticism and mature attitudes don't get called trolls.

    "I'm not the only one who notices a complete reporting bias in favor of Google."

    Correction: "I'm not the only one who completely missed all the Techdirt articles criticizing Google over many years."

    The fact is you can't and won't provide a rational explanation for these articles because they completely undermine your claims. And the fact that there's more than one person with your willful blindness doesn't strengthen your argument much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2014 @ 10:56pm

    Change

    Hasn't it been said that if we change the way we do things then the terrorists have won? If that's the case, the terrorists won about 12 years ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), May 27th, 2014 @ 2:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    Bullshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), May 27th, 2014 @ 2:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased

    So you want others to prove your point for you? Yeah, that's gonna work (and also hints strongly at the validity of your claims)!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Andypandy, May 27th, 2014 @ 2:45am

    ohhh dear

    s one person said the DOJ is a mess, nobody can get justice unless they have huge amounts of money and this is a crime in itself.

    Why is the DOJ making it harder to get justice and not resolving the issues of unfairness in the courts post haste.

    "The system is broken, we all know that so why is the DOJ not fixing it."
    This is rightly compared to an engineer ignoring failures in his construction....the end result is that the building collapses, maybe the DOJ should notice this and understand if they do not fix the problems post haste that they will eventually collapse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), May 27th, 2014 @ 11:55am

    Re: Change

    I don't think that's in doubt at all. The terrorists won the moment that Bush said "if you're not with us, you're against us."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.