Just going off of his name, I'd guess either porn actor or pulp fiction author.
Oh, come on, Tim. This was the most honest response to a petition in the history of politics. I'd rather have them being wiseasses in response to a silly petition than giving a canned response that has little to nothing to do with the subject at hand in political speak.
I mean, come on, if they're going to waste my time reading their response, at least make it worth reading.
Pretty freaking awesome cyberbullying though.
I enjoy the parity. Group A calls for restrictions of the 2nd. Group B calls for restrictions on the 1st. Equal stupidity under the law.
And no, free speech is not more important than the right to bear arms. The 2nd exists so that the people will always have recourse if the government decides to shit on our other rights. It's not apples to apples, it's apples to apple cart.
Before you go thinking I'm some nutjob, consider that when penning the amendments they'd just finished using privately owned firearms to overthrow an oppressive government. I'm fairly certain they meant for the people to keep that ability.
You just enumerated exactly why the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment.
Some people say it's only meant for the militia and then declare that the militia means only the national guard. Some people think it protects their right to have weapons to protect themselves and their homes. They're both dead wrong.
History lesson: when the 2nd Amendment was written we'd just finished using quite a lot of privately owned weapons to violently overthrow an oppressive government. You can bet your ass that this was heavy on their minds at the time, so the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure we are able to do it again if necessary.
Keep that in mind next time you hear an argument about reducing us to bolt/lever action rifles, pump shotguns, and revolvers. Privately owned, people-killing, war-waging firearms are precisely why the 2nd Amendment exists.
That apology puts me in mind of Gandhi who said "Bitch, please."
Huggies, politicians, they're both full of shit.
I'm giving away free cups of STFU and praying you'll have one. I expect it'll work about as well as Mike has repeatedly said that model works.
You say this sarcastically but I offer Congress as evidence of its truth.
Now now, let's not forget the highly important spider sqooshing. Hardbacks are far superior due to the added mass and it's a much less expensive proposition to throw one at the ground several feet away for the really big, hairy buggers.
No point replying to him. That was a long post but not a very argument-worthy troll.
For such an experiment that seems pointless.
When you experiment, you do it to find out the results of a specific set of variables. They apparently want to know what the effect of mandating only commercial distribution will be. Makes perfect sense to me since there are already plenty of data points where the artists released work for remixing that allowed or even required non-commercial distribution.
In common law, corporations are granted the right to exist, therefore obviously whatever a corp says is subject to limits.
They're just pissed because they don't like the fundamental nature of A Job. Exchanging useful work for cash is how it's supposed to work, not receiving said cash for allowing others to profit from their work.
Have you tried tequila? Usually works on me.
Couldn't read the article. I couldn't see through the tears from laughing so hard every time I saw the headline. That'll happen shortly after we get off fossil fuels by switching to riding unicorns.
Personally, I think we should go with a flat tax. No deductions. No loopholes. That way everyone gets to be equally miserable come April 15th.
More importantly, everyone has an equal stake in how their taxes should be spent. Currently, people who pay zero in taxes number enough to outvote the top 25% of earners. That's a whole lot of incentive to vote for a handout party and no immediate consequences whatsoever.
I know rich people are the last minority it's still socially acceptable to hate but I can't bring myself to jump on that discrimination bandwagon.
[Insert Typical Troll Feeding]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Three quarters of a century? Life plus 70 can run twice that for someone's early works.