No one owns the movie beyond copies.....that's the only form of "property" in play. Beyond that, it's just the expression of an idea that someone holds (not "owns") the copyright on. That isn't property.
I don't care if there are 10,000 more terrorist attacks; our rights are not negotiable. Only a coward would sell out his principles for the sake of safety.
It definitely proves he has no valid concept of the Constitution. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are said to be recognized as inalienable...it's the American view that all people all over the world have those rights, not just Americans or people on American soil.
Oh, brother. I guess you run up to anyone who says X-Files, stomp your feet, and say "It's THE X-Files, you black-oil infested member of the Consortium!"
You don't see European blogs writing "The US, where the silly imperial system is still standard." in every article, do you?
Yes. Yes you do. Brits in particular take pot-shots at the US over every little thing.
Furthermore, simply stating that freedom of the press is more codified in law in the US than the UK isn't just empty jingoism or xenophobic bashing, it's basically established as fact, and relevant to the article at hand.
There's no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Those are bullshit creationist terms.
The actual terms are "evolution" and "speciation," respectively. And, if you understand how taxonomy works, the former always eventually leads to the latter.
Personally, I find sanctimonious, politically-correct grandstanding to be about as annoying as bald-faced racism.
The American Indians don't need white people to tell them what's offensive to their race. If a clear majority aren't offended, what exactly is the problem?
(untitled comment)
This Keurig shit is whack. Folgers Crystals 4 lyfe, f00l.
Re:
...bad parody gone wrong.
As opposed to a bad parody gone right?
(untitled comment)
Chaka mad! Chaka REAL mad.
Re:
I'd prefer it if some shooter gangbangs them.
Re:
No one owns the movie beyond copies.....that's the only form of "property" in play. Beyond that, it's just the expression of an idea that someone holds (not "owns") the copyright on. That isn't property.
(untitled comment)
I can't help but notice that in comment totals, nasch got "leet" comments.
(untitled comment)
I'm guessing this was sent in as a joke.
(untitled comment)
I don't care if there are 10,000 more terrorist attacks; our rights are not negotiable. Only a coward would sell out his principles for the sake of safety.
Re:
It definitely proves he has no valid concept of the Constitution. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are said to be recognized as inalienable...it's the American view that all people all over the world have those rights, not just Americans or people on American soil.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's the incentive?
You wrote the plot to a Holmes book? I hope you paid the estate the licensing fees!
(untitled comment)
"You see these fists? They are getting ready to fuck you up."
You know, no matter how many times I read that, I'm not reading a *conditional* threat. That's an *imminent* threat.
Re:
Oh, brother. I guess you run up to anyone who says X-Files, stomp your feet, and say "It's THE X-Files, you black-oil infested member of the Consortium!"
Re:
....
BUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!!!
Re:
He's probably always been one. That sort of doucheness doesn't just happen overnight.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
Says the guy who just said that belief in evolution "requires" a belief in abiogenesis? You're contradicting yourself.
Re:
You don't see European blogs writing "The US, where the silly imperial system is still standard." in every article, do you?
Yes. Yes you do. Brits in particular take pot-shots at the US over every little thing.
Furthermore, simply stating that freedom of the press is more codified in law in the US than the UK isn't just empty jingoism or xenophobic bashing, it's basically established as fact, and relevant to the article at hand.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
And finally, yes, evolution absolutely requires abiogenesis in order for it to work, otherwise the entire theory is aimless.
In what way? Why exactly can't a person believe that the world was created by an intelligence, but not also believe that organisms evolve over time?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
There's no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Those are bullshit creationist terms.
The actual terms are "evolution" and "speciation," respectively. And, if you understand how taxonomy works, the former always eventually leads to the latter.
(untitled comment)
Personally, I find sanctimonious, politically-correct grandstanding to be about as annoying as bald-faced racism.
The American Indians don't need white people to tell them what's offensive to their race. If a clear majority aren't offended, what exactly is the problem?
(untitled comment)
Honestly, I'd like to see this myself. It sounds like solid frigging gold...