A very logical viewpoint, one that is ignored by most of the anti-gun zealots out there ...
Yea, except for that fact the your analogy totally fails in that while backpage.com can be used for all sorts of things, the only thing you can use a gun for is to kill stuff (or, in the case of target/skeet shooting, practicing to kill stuff)
Paragraph 4, sentence 2:
Paxtron isn't up for reelection...
Not yet, but he'd better watch out. I've heard Optimus Prime is considering running for that seat.
> The state is the only entity allowed to engage in racketeering, apparently.
That line reminds me of something I read some time ago:
Government is nothing more than a monopoly on the application of violence.
Whoooa! Damn! You are REALLY fucking out to lunch!
> Again, that does not appear to be the case with either of the two candidates, who (at best) might just be described as agnostic to/indifferent to new technologies and somewhat ignorant on what that might mean from a policy perspective.
> and, like Clinton, he often relies on staff to print news articles off the internet.
> These are two candidates who don't have their hands on the technology
"Samey same?" Yes. EXACTLY.
Fucking loon.
Techdirt ... will do or say anything to put Hillary in a good light and dump on Trump.
You are WAAAAAAAAY off the deep end if you think this article is somehow pro-Clinton and anti-Trump (well, it is anti-Trump but only in the sense that it's anti- both of them).
Marcy Wheeler again points out how absolutely ridiculous this is, including the idea that releasing such statements would "re-victimize" people. That makes absolutely no sense:This makes perfect sense in this SJW world where everyone needs to hide in their safe spaces from every-one/thing lest someone be "triggered" by some imaginary sleight.
Emergency services have immunity from "collateral damage"
Source: tried to get a township's insurance to pay for a motorbike their firetruck smashed. No dice. I suppose I could have sued, but cost/benefit probably wouldn't have gone my way.
I'm hoping someone can clarify this:
Apparently, Senator Chuck Grassley thinks so. And, hey, bad luck for, well, everyone, because Grassley just happens to be the guy in charge of moving the bill forward on the Senate side.
Here we go again. You have a bad habit of butting into conversations and spewing nonsense. No one asked you to be the Etiquette Police around here.
Meanwhile, the adults have already settled the matter. You can go back to being sanctimonious in your playpen now, ok?
My apologies. I thought you were being sarcastic. It was the same time I was reading the comment above that basically said, "Lewis was the other person DA Brockler was chatting with. Duh!" as if that explains anything.
Again, my apologies.
Funny that we still don't know who this Lewis is. I suppose I could Google it and find out, but should I really have to? I don't think so.
I guess you're trying to be a smartass. If so, you failed and just came off as a dumbass.
Tell me who Lewis is from this article. What role does (s)he play (other than someone who had a FB chat with Brockler ... but how is that relevant?!?)
It seems pretty clear that Lewis was one of "the two people he was chatting with" using the fake Facebook account.
And that still doesn't say anything about who Lewis is and how they're connected to the case.
Is it the Lewis of Lewis and Clark? No, not hardly. But it very well could be, as the first mention of a Lewis in this article is
... but did not disclose the circumstances or content of his conversations with Mossor or Lewis.
Shortly thereafter we get this mention of Lewis:
... both Mossor and Lewis had told him they would not support Dunn’s alibi ...
But that doesn't clear it up at all. And then the final mention:
... Brockler’s deceptions and misrepresentations in his contacts with Mossor and Lewis resulted in multiple violations ...
Which also doesn't shed any light. If I was forced to guess, mine would be that Lewis is the actual person that DA Brockler was imitating with his "Taisha Little" persona, but that's complete speculation
This is not the first time I've noticed names being dropped into stories on TD with no reference to who they are / what they have to do with the story. You can do better.
My favorite [lie] is Apple's claims that the FBI will force them to turn on microphones and cameras remotely without your permission.
Got a citation for that?
Furthermore, how do YOU know with ANY certainty that the FBI won't do exactly that? It would be very, very, very far from the first time the FBI pulled this sort of dirty trick.
How quickly you erase the MEANS of promoting the progress under the Constitution.
If you had ANY idea of what you're talking about, you would know that Mike and other TD writers frequently discuss how copyright is the means. This is almost always in reaction to those who claim that the purpose of copyright is to create income for creators. So right off the bat your whole premise is wrong.
Your incessant whining, and inability to give meaning to the entire Copyright Clause, is embarrassingly silly.
No, it's YOUR whining about a subject you are CLEARLY wrong about is what is utterly, amazingly, shockingly silly. It's especially silly that there isn't even anything in THIS article that "erases" the means (to put it in your absurd phrasing); just because he doesn't bend over backwards to frame the argument in the way YOU prefer doesn't mean he's "erasing" anything.
You clearly haven't done your homework, otherwise you would know that the means are a very, very common topic that Mike and TD address.
No need to go all gangsta on him, Mike. Geeeeesh.
I can't imagine the impotent rage Zuck must feel that while he's one of the richest people on the planet he still can't get everything his way.
Then I can't imagine desperately trying to accumulate even more wealth while being one of the richest people on the planet either.
Re: Re: Re:
Indicating your news source bias. Well, considering that Fox News viewers are less informed, I wouldn't really call that bias so much as being able to recognize horseshit.