But what do I know?
As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse
Just because that's the price the FBI paid doesn't mean your girlfriend would have to pay the same price. The government has been known, from time to time, to overpay for things.
I was being a bit flippant, but I think this is just a quibble. Well regulated meant that they were trained, prepared, supplied and ready to fight. "Shoot straight" wouldn't have been the dictionary definition, but that's what it boils down to.
"[A citizenry that is ready and capable of using their own guns] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the only logical reading of the second amendment.
"[Citizens that are controlled, supervised, and follow all the rules imposed by the government] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [army] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is self-contradictory and nonsensical.
Yes, in the mid- to late- 1700s, "well regulated" meant they could shoot straight. The necessity of such a militia was NOT meant to protect our liberties from foreign attack (the government has a military and the idea of needing a constitutional amendment forbidding the government from taking it's OWN guns away is laughable). Rather the goal was to preserve the right to revolt.
In 1776, regulation most definitely did NOT mean "controlled by the government." You did not need a license to practice medicine, much less sell lemonade or pretty much any business activity. You didn't need to get a permit to burn your trash or permission ride a horse. Governments were not about setting prices, insuring safety, or controlling who could perform what job. In fact, the first modem government regulations didn't come until the "robber barons" started colluding on prices for railroad hauls. They had the audacity to charge a higher price based on demand for a route rather than just charging by the mile. The ICC was formed to bust this oligopoly. The first commissioner just so happened to have been a lawyer for the railroads (who else would know enough about their business), and his first act was to set uniform pricing (at the higher rate). The oligopoly finally had a way to enforce their pricing without the possibility of defectors or cheaters. And thus the modern era of regulation began.
And they DON'T serve ads on school accounts.
ummmm... you might actually try reading what he wrote. Mighty big of you to say that he agrees with what you are saying.
Thank you for so astutely reading that thread; I thought maybe I was losing my mind
What is right wing about filing a lawsuit to unmask a doe, suing that person, then settling for a much smaller amount. It seems this is used by many different trolls, and likely doesn't have any political ideology behind it. It is sleazy though. Filing a lawsuit with the intention of settling just to get a payout is wrong. It is short circuiting the justice system for personal profit.
Yeah that's neither right nor left, it's the universal language of greedy bloodsuckers.
What is right wing about that process? The Democrats support the movie industry, not the Republicans.
The fact that Democrats support something doesn't negate the possibility of something being right wing. The Democrats are not ideologically pure, or ideologically homogenous, and very few of them can be considered "left".
To me, pretending that copyright is only about property rights, and ignoring the fact that copyright was also supposed to be about free speech and about making material available for free to the public after a limited time, is definitely "right wing".
This has nothing to do with the DMCA, this is a straight out copyright infringement lawsuit being filed. The real problem is that the methods the copyright holders (or the copyright enforcement goons acting on their behalf) are using to identify torrent users aren't good enough and its good to see at least one judge willing to call these enforcers out on it.
Exactly. Would have been nice for judges to start doing this 11 years ago, but glad they've come around.
Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay