To get back to the point, you keep lying when you claim that your favorite congressional critters are proposing HIIBA replacements that somehow significantly differ from HIIBA.
Serious question: how do you argue one can "keep lying" when you haven't even defined "somehow significantly differ"?
To the extent that this is all politics, and it's really all one Progressive Party with Demmican and Republocrat wings, there is some basis to reject the noise and call for actual Federalist reform, stripping power from Leviathan.
As I have argued, and you seem to crave pretending it's all a 17th Amendment quibble.
I speculate that the need to say other people are "lying" is an effort to stir the adrenaline and preclude actual analysis, amIright?
...And you keep presenting it the same way. And it keeps falling apart the same way, for the same reasons. Funny how reality doesn't just bend to your will.
So, that was me. And then I say
Maybe your replies are feckless.
And then you say
I think there was a topic, but you again turned it to be about me. If I had more of an ego to me I'd probably be honored in how quickly you abandoned the topic to talk about me instead, but that's not how I roll.
So you make it about me, and I push back, and then you get all hair-shirt about the topic. Or your coolness, there just is no end. None.
But it's combined by the user at runtime, not by canocal. The GPL allows an end users to do this.
This is a way that people kid themselves about the GPL. If the user were really porting ZFS on their own, combining the work and never distributing it, that would work. But the user isn't combining it. The Ubuntu developer is creating instructions which explicitly load the driver into the kernel. These instructions are either a link script that references the kernel, or a pre-linked dynamic module. Creating those instructions and distributing them to the user is tantamount to performing the act on the user's system, under your control rather than the user's.
To show this with an analogy, suppose you placed a bomb in the user's system which would go off when they loaded the ZFS module. But Judge, you might say, I am innocent because the victim is actually the person who set off the bomb. All I did was distribute a harmless unexploded bomb.
So, it's clear that you can perform actions that have effects later in time and at a different place that are your action rather than the user's. That is what building a dynamic module or linking scripts does.
There is also the problem that the pieces, Linux and ZFS, are probably distributed together. There is specific language in the GPL to catch that.
A lot of people don't realize what they get charged with when they violate the GPL (or any license). They don't get charged with violating the license terms. They are charged with copyright infringement, and their defense is that they have a license. So, the defense has to prove that they were in conformance with every license term.
This is another situation where I would have a pretty easy time making the programmer look bad when they are deposed.
your rather malignant superstitions
Hey, that's not bigotry: that's freedom of speech!
What it offers to you is the power of distraction. You're still a political fanatic and idolator, or at least that is what you post, nothing but dogma, propaganda, and false gods.
What is a "political idolator"? I know what each word means distinctly, but you're in a fresh dimension trying to run them together.
Having personally supported and defended the Constitution in a non-theocratic sort of way, I sincerely can't figure out what you mean. Or is your #Derper full and in need of a change?
So I had the time line slightly off
In fairness, your argument is only as bollocky as the rest of your arguments, so, sure.
You are trying to lie about what you yourself have written about before. Don't be ridiculous. Your own JE some time ago linked to the Heritage Foundation saying that a mandate would be needed.
Wait: what, specifically, am I lying about? You say "your candidates" as though it were meaningful. I guess it is, if you're building another of your Towers of Babel of something. It's as though you may get the same sexual release from the word "lying" that the blow-dried nitwits in the newsroom seem to get out of saying "lockdown".
You have repeatedly shown admiration for proposed "alternatives" that are the same damned bill
Can you please be specific about what piece of legislation you're talking about? As long as I am "lying" about something, it would be kinda helpful to know what it is.
Or is the point of trotting out the "L" verb to rile me?
And we all thank dog that Social Security wasn't just handed off to Wall Street
There are those who'd prefer just to walk away. You know it's a scam when you can't, no?
Note, for example that Bush wanted to do *something* to un-jack Social Security, and was destroyed for the trouble
Really? Destroyed in what way? He was still "re-elected" in 2004, and you're here singing his praises. I could only be so lucky as to be "destroyed" in such a way at my own job.
Allow me to be sporting and just put this here.
Did the same level of willingness to heed the will of the people apply in the case of the Affordable Care Act?
You already showed with your own links that indeed the mandate was not only what your candidates wanted, but also what the Heritage Foundation wanted as well. Every "alternative" proposed so far by anyone with the ability to propose such a thing to congress has been the same bill with a different last name on it.
Now *there* is a lie you just can't seem to dislodge from your throat.
intellectual integrity demands one put it out there.
You might want to try finding and applying some of that yourself.
One does far more than "try" in that regard. But you know that, too.
Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau