Sure, but can we then stop protecting artificial economic entities as well? No more laws that protect them in any way? No possibility of any sort of military engagement to protect any of their assets?

Why should they get the benefits of our infrastructure and our military without having to pay for that? It does not make sense.

No, that son of a bitch drank all my beer and shit in my bathroom sink. We are most assuredly NOT friends.

Surprise!

Actually, they never could take a joke. Not with good grace and humor, at any rate. But that's okay, it's often hard for people to do that when they care passionately about the subject in question. That's kind of basic to the vast majority of humans, really. The rather unfortunate part of it is that people degenerate to such infantile gestures. These gestures, in turn, can probably be traced to back to being incapable of holding a rational, respectful conversation with someone of differing viewpoint, whether because of their own inability or the opposition's inability. Eventually it degenerates to a useless shouting and cockmongery that does not help the democratic process in the slightest. It's most unfortunate, but in a democracy, even the retards get their say. I suppose what's most unfortunate about it is that retards tend to be much louder than the thoughtful types, though your mileage may vary.

Bollocks.

Get cancer and you can win the Tour de France.

It's true, I saw it on the tee vee.

Actually, I'd say stalking a starlet or ex-girlfriend is worse. At least a police officer is trained in self-defense, firearms, et cetera.

I'm just saying, if shit did start to go down, I'd put my money on the police officer being able to protect themselves and their families, vs. the ex-girlfriend.

With that said, we're only talking about the danger inherent directly from the stalker. The scales shift back again the moment you start thinking "drug cartels endangering the families of undercover officers". Whether you approve or disapprove of the drug laws in this country, surely you can agree that targeting of innocents to provide leverage over anyone is pretty bad stuff.

No, just cancel. It's not a catch 22, there's a very simple out for you. They can't even charge you an ETF if they change the contract midway through its term.

Good question, make the fines steep enough that every time your cable company gets found out, their fine pays for the FCC workers who go through every complaint.

True, but that's sexist as well. And just because the GP is a woman, we can't necessarily conclude that she, too, holds the same generalizations (at least until she displays them, then we can yell at her for being hypocritical and whatnot.)

Why, pray tell, would they need to move if they want things to change? Why not attempt to change it? It's terribly difficult to effect change in the US from Venezuela.

Your argument basically ignores this entire concept, and instead you decide that they're hypocritical, and can't possibly conceive of why anybody who espouses their views would stay.

I don't know if you've noticed, but it's terribly hard to try to change America when you've emmigrated to another country.

And I'm so terribly sorry you can't make it past profanity; apparently telling Americans to leave if they don't like something (rather than try to change it) is far less bothersome to you than a fucking swear word. We must agree to disagree on this; I feel your attempts to disparage the individuals in question by claiming they should leave (as if they're not americans, have no right to say the things they're saying, and subsequently should not be listened to - whether that's your intent or not, that's the end result) are FAR more reprehensible than the word "fuck", but I suppose if that's what you want to fixate on, that's fine.

It's only legit if you tell them it's refurb. if you don't, you're implicitly selling used goods as new goods, and that isn't legal.

Simple: he's an American citizen, and he has every right to vote for whatever set of individuals he wants to mold this nation into the nation he wants it to be. If that means it turns into a socialistic paradise, that's certainly his perogative.

Note: I don't agree with him, but I'm fucking sick of self-righteous tool sheds, like yourself, who don't think he has the right to live here and want this country to be whatever the fuck he wants it to be, as long as he's following the democratic fucking process. If he can convince enough Americans to agree with him, and enough amendments get passed, that's all within the fucking framework of our political system. Just because it's different than what we have now doesn't mean he can't shoot for it, even if, in all reality, he has a better chance of jumping on a trampoline to the moon.

But seriously, snide requests concerning moving to another country just make you look like an entire bag of douche. They don't help your argument, they just make you look like a cunt. For your own sake, please stop. It's the adult equivalent of saying "I'M RUBBER AND YOU'RE GLUE AND WHATEVER YOU SAY BOUNCES OFF ME AND STICKS TO YOU LOLOLOL" as a child. It's a great cop-out for the rest of the argument, because you don't have the testicular fortitude or intellectual standing to continue the argument on its own merits.

That's not true in all cases - I get high def out of my components just fine, and for one of my TVs, it has less artifacts than the HDMI does (likely because of a bad connector on the TV).

It really depends on how locked down your boxes are. The ones our cable company provides are Scientific Atlanta(ic?). They really are atrocious in all other ways, but at least they spit out high def on component!

Very true. I did pretty much the precise opposite and now I'm fairly deep underwater in my vehicle. After another 4 years of this, I should be "okay", but I would have been far better off if I had gone the route you mentioned than the one I took. Far better off.

From Wikipedia:

The Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 together granted a performance right for sound recordings. As a result, copyright law now requires that users of music pay the copyright owner of the sound recording for the public performance of that music via certain kinds of digital transmissions.

From the Library of Congress, Section 3f2: ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c104:1:./temp/~c104dVWooD:e844: )

`(2) In the absence of license agreements negotiated under paragraph (1), during the 60-day period commencing 6 months after publication of the notice specified in paragraph (1), and upon the filing of a petition in accordance with section 803(a)(1), the Librarian of Congress shall, pursuant to chapter 8, convene a copyright arbitration royalty panel to determine and publish in the Federal Register a schedule of rates and terms which, subject to paragraph (3), shall be binding on all copyright owners of sound recordings and entities performing sound recordings . In addition to the objectives set forth in section 801(b)(1), in establishing such rates and terms, the copyright arbitration royalty panel may consider the rates and terms for comparable types of digital audio transmission services and comparable circumstances under voluntary license agreements negotiated as provided in paragraph (1). The Librarian of Congress shall also establish requirements by which copyright owners may receive reasonable notice of the use of their sound recordings under this section, and under which records of such use shall be kept and made available by entities performing sound recordings.

Emphasis mine.