So, I guess now is as good as a time as any: Where were you on that issue? Afraid of showing your hypocrisy much?
Not to mention you intentionally dropped the "by" from the phrase "securing for limited Times ..." in a feeble attempt to paint that action as the goal rather than the method. It's obvious, when viewing the entire phrase that securing the monopoly is simply the technique, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ..." which is to benefit ... I don't know, let's see ... the public! This feeble attempt at distortion is intellectually dishonest and destroys your credibility (as if you had any in the first place! ha!)
And in response to this gem ...
It's you and Mike who haven't read it. Nothing explicit about the public.
... I think this quote from Neal Stephenson says it best:
“The difference between stupid and intelligent people – and this is true whether or not they are well-educated – is that intelligent people can handle subtlety.”
It's pretty clear on which side of that line you fall.
what about educational materials like textbooks and such?
And therein lies a HUGE problem. Students are a captive market who are required to purchase these books, often (usually?) at hundreds of dollars each. Then every year they're "updated" with no meaningful change in content just so the used book market is destroyed, eliminating that option for a student as well.
For myself, I flat out refused in to purchase textbooks in my last several semesters, choosing to pirate them (when available, going without when not) instead and feeling absolutely zero guilt about it. I even encouraged other students to do the same.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but closing sentence stands out as being very much wrong.
Masnich just hates it when lawyers enforce law enforcement.
First, how is anyone supposed to enforce law enforcement? Maybe you meant to just say "enforce [the] law." But the bigger problem is that lawyers are in no way obliged or expected to enforce laws. That's the job of the police, aka Law Enforcement Officers.
The property is presumed to be not forfeitable, and the government has the burden of proving that it is before it is ultimately forfeited.
That is SO stupid it is almost funny. Haven't you been paying attention to the numerous cases where property has been seized with absolutely ZERO proof being given, much less an accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the owner of said property?
Go ahead, ask me to cite cases of this happening. I dare you. I double dare you.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You think the legalese you throw around makes you look smart/well-informed, but your intellectual dishonesty stills shines through bright and clear.
Due process means a hearing and a right to be heard, and in many instances, such opportunities are there.
And in *this* case there is NO such opportunity. The Constitution clearly states that everyone is always entitled to due process in every case. Your weasel words of "in many instances" betray the truth of the situation.
That you refuse to acknowledge that these actions are clearly unconstitutional shows how intellectually dishonest you really are. You hide behind a court ruling and use its rhetoric to deny the reality that the DOJ is acting unconstitutionally.
Seriously. Did you ever wonder why this troll's comments have a really long subject/title? Here's a pretty good possibility:
He knows his ramblings are gonna get flagged. I mean, they never make any sense, so why wouldn't they? But (and I gotta give him credit here) he knows enough to put whichever dead horse he wants to beat that day in the subject. That way he knows that despite being flagged he's gonna get "his message" out because people can't help themselves and reply to him and keep his title intact.
McCain: So, we're now -- and I've heard my colleagues, with all due respect talking about attacks on privacy and our Constitutional rights etcetera -- but it seems to me that our first obligation is the protection of our citizenry against attack.
No, Sen McCain, you've got that wrong. "Protection of our citizenry against attack" is not your first obligation. In fact, is not an obligation at all.
Perhaps, Mr. McCain, you should study the Oath of Office you swore to:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
And yet the judges split virtually 50/50 on the vote
So ...? There's a reason there's always an odd number of Justices: so there can never be a tie. Saying that there was "almost a tie" is utterly meaningless. *Many* Supreme Court decisions are 5-4.
they were both very liberal
So they're not allowed to have an opinion? Or just an opinion that doesn't agree with yours?
Besides, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has no right to make the law
Well, thank goodness they didn't then! What they did do, however, is making a ruling that making laws discriminating against gay marriage is unconstitutional. There's a BIG difference.
[Congress] can still nullify this decision if they choose to.
Yes, I suppose they could, but that would be a hugely uphill battle, considering only troglodytes consider this an issue worth arguing about.
Just 10 years ago it was common to hear nitwits saying things like, "[Y]ou would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can." (Bill O'Reilly, one of my favorites). We've come a long way in such a short time. Even O'Reilly himself is now saying things like, "All right, the gay marriage thing, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other."
What boggles my mind is that some gov't agencies require you to submit documents in particular proprietary formats, such as .doc[x] for MS Word. How is it that a gov't agency is allowed to support -- by forcing you to buy the product of -- a private company? It makes no sense to me.
I just wish M$ shoots its feet hard with the next Windows iterations so Linux can gain even more ground.
I've often felt the same way, but from early indications it doesn't sound to me like they are. It sounds like they're actually trying to improve their products in a way that make them more useful to customers. (I know ... shocking!) Two examples that spring to mind: 1) recent versions of Windows Server don't require a GUI. 2) I've heard that Win10 is going to come with Virtual Desktops by default.
Both of those concepts that have been default (or at least common) in the *nix world for decades. If MS is finally getting its head out of its ass and at least trying to do things the right way, that's a win, imo.
Way to go everyone! The article's comments have been completely (with one exception) taken over by the troll ... with, of course, your complicity. Way to go!
Does he have any response to your nuanced arguments? Any counterpoints? Does he ever? Answer: no. His entire purpose is to disrupt and derail any reasonable conversation/debate, and you guys not just let him, but enthusiastically help him.
That's just great! For your efforts, have a Report click!