Xan wrote:
I have to say, though, I'm a little confused and disappointed by the Aereo ruling. Doesn't seem to make any sense.
I didn't look very closely at that one so maybe I'm missing something. But from a very quick glance it seemed basically a case of copyright violation and theft of services.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
Xan wrote:
I have to say, though, I'm a little confused and disappointed by the Aereo ruling. Doesn't seem to make any sense.
I didn't look very closely at that one so maybe I'm missing something. But from a very quick glance it seemed basically a case of copyright violation and theft of services.
I have to say that I concur. As long as there is copyright, and some people claim it, and the government has promised to enforce it, then it seemed pretty obvious that what Aereo was doing was violating it.
The discussion about whether Aereo should in principle be able to do what they were doing is a separate matter from whether of not they broke the existing law, which is what the court was asked to rule on. They weren't asked to rule on the moral legitimacy of copyright as a concept--and if your goal was the elimination of copyright, you probably wouldn't want to them to rule on that, because the result would be pretty predictable.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Hang on, now. Aereo is a service that leases an individual antenna to each subscriber, and allows subscribers to access programs which broadcasters put out for free over the air, supported by advertising.
The court seems to have ruled that this constitutes a "public performance", even though each individual subscriber has his own antenna.
Actually I am not at all happy with the ruling overturning the Massachusetts no-protest zone law for abortion clinics. It seems the Court made a special exemption to what is standard policy in many other venues (including the Supreme Court itself!) to limit protesting to a certain distance, out of respect for people who need to enter and exit those venues, and have a right to do so without being harassed or threatened. The zone by the way is not so large that the women going into the clinics can't hear or see the protestors, so this had nothing to do with First Amendment rights.
Just one more example of how Republicans in general consider women to be second class citizens. Is it at all surprising that women tend to vote Democratic? And I don't get it...why does this type of socially misguided thinking have to be linked to economic conservatism? It really annoys me that I can't have the latter without accepting the former, which I absolutely refuse to do.
And btw yes...you can definitely make the case that some (not all) abortion clinic protestors are terrorists. I would say that killing people at clinics or threatening to do so pretty much meets the definition.
WiseOne wrote:
Just one more example of how Republicans in general consider women to be second class citizens. Is it at all surprising that women tend to vote Democratic? And I don't get it...why does this type of socially misguided thinking have to be linked to economic conservatism? It really annoys me that I can't have the latter without accepting the former, which I absolutely refuse to do.
Wasn't it a 9-0 decision, though? Seems the three women on the court approved. Doesn't seem to really fit the whole "war on women" narrative.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
WiseOne wrote:
Actually I am not at all happy with the ruling overturning the Massachusetts no-protest zone law for abortion clinics. It seems the Court made a special exemption to what is standard policy in many other venues (including the Supreme Court itself!) to limit protesting to a certain distance, out of respect for people who need to enter and exit those venues, and have a right to do so without being harassed or threatened. The zone by the way is not so large that the women going into the clinics can't hear or see the protestors, so this had nothing to do with First Amendment rights.
Just one more example of how Republicans in general consider women to be second class citizens. Is it at all surprising that women tend to vote Democratic? And I don't get it...why does this type of socially misguided thinking have to be linked to economic conservatism? It really annoys me that I can't have the latter without accepting the former, which I absolutely refuse to do.
WiseOne wrote:
And I don't get it...why does this type of socially misguided thinking have to be linked to economic conservatism? It really annoys me that I can't have the latter without accepting the former, which I absolutely refuse to do.
You aren't alone. Lot's of people like the idea of freedom. Since freedom is never on the ballot how does a freedom lover choose?
I think I said this in a prior thread that by and large when you ask republican voters if they liked Romney or McCain or Bush you usually get the impression they plugged their nose to vote and were truly just hoping for the lesser of two evils.
Oddly enough, a ruling that protestors had to stay 6 feet away from visitors within 18 feet of a clinic did survive a Supreme Court challenge, and the women on the court at that time were in the majority. Unfortunately there is no info about the women judge's votes, and definitely I would like to know about their rationale.
Libertarian666 wrote: And I don't get it...why does this type of socially misguided thinking have to be linked to economic conservatism? It really annoys me that I can't have the latter without accepting the former, which I absolutely refuse to do.
You can. It's called libertarianism.
[/quote]
I'm still waiting for a true libertarian candidate and/or party. Outside of rare shining lights like Harry Browne and John Anderson, such a thing does not seem to exist.
Thank you Kshartle and Libertarian666...you are restoring a bit of faith after I thought that such a thing wasn't possible even on this board.
How is whether or not it's legal to kill your baby or not a women's issue? I would think it's, at its most narrow, a parents' issue, and really is a societal issue.
Perhaps it should really be a men's issue, because this whole thing is entirely slanted towards women, at least until men can, on their own whim, either kill the baby or permanently terminate any requirement that they provide any sort of support.
Though obviously I oppose the concept of voting, from a strategy point of view I don't understand why the repubs keep trying to look like democrats when they should try to look like libertarians. If they really championed less government in people's lives I think they would net nearly all the libertarian votes and nab a lot of independants and maybe even some dems.
It looks like WWE up there to me.
When Romney had his great debate "victory" over Obama and the repubs were celebrating I knew he was going to lose hard. While he was talking up his love of social security, medicare and other welfare programs It was clear he was trying to out-democrat the democrat, a total loser strategy. Why would someone who loves the welfare programs vote for Romney over Obama? Why choose diet coke over real coke if you're not counting calories anyway?
Xan wrote:
How is whether or not it's legal to kill your baby or not a women's issue? I would think it's, at its most narrow, a parents' issue, and really is a societal issue.
Perhaps it should really be a men's issue, because this whole thing is entirely slanted towards women, at least until men can, on their own whim, either kill the baby or permanently terminate any requirement that they provide any sort of support.
The baby (zygote, fetus) is a part of the woman's body. Should a complete stranger have the right to imprison her or someone who has voluntary consent to help her end the pregnancy? This is a tough one if you beleive the "almost" baby is a human. Nobody likes abortion but using the state to outlaw will not result in the outcome we all want. The result will be a cascade of poor and unwanted children. Abortion is the symptom.
This is a toucy issue where people get heated up quickly but I would say that it seems wrong that she has total power to end the pregnancy, stick the guy with the bill or stick everyone through welfare. The problem comes from the laws that allow her to do the last two. If women couldn't force the father to pay or everyone else to pay they would be more discerning who they lay down with if at all and might even wait until they married a guy with a job and future!
A basic moral principal accepted almost universally, even among (most) libertarians, is that the right to life trumps most other rights. Obviously there are exceptions. People, both individually and collectively as a society, have the right to self defense. But no one has the right to kill another human being because they are inconvenient.
The question then boils down to when is a human being, human?
With respect to the legal case, I think we must note a couple of points...
* The no protest zones around some government buildings are not the same situation contrary to a lot of the huffing and puffing from certain quarters. This ruling applies to public sidewalks, not private or even government property. Sidewalks have always been considered free speech zones with regulation of speech related activities being tolerated in only very rare and unusual cases. No one is suggesting that protestors have any right to set foot on private property.
* The suggestion that the violent behavior of a handful of fanatics should be grounds for labeling roughly half the people in the United States (opinions on abortion are very closely divided here) as terrorists, and stripping them of basic rights, is frankly offensive.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
WiseOne wrote:
Oddly enough, a ruling that protestors had to stay 6 feet away from visitors within 18 feet of a clinic did survive a Supreme Court challenge, and the women on the court at that time were in the majority. Unfortunately there is no info about the women judge's votes, and definitely I would like to know about their rationale.
WiseOne wrote:
And I don't get it...why does this type of socially misguided thinking have to be linked to economic conservatism? It really annoys me that I can't have the latter without accepting the former, which I absolutely refuse to do.
Libertarian666 wrote:
You can. It's called libertarianism.
I'm still waiting for a true libertarian candidate and/or party. Outside of rare shining lights like Harry Browne and John Anderson, such a thing does not seem to exist.
Rand Paul is very close to being a consistent libertarian, as far as I can tell. He's certainly miles above the usual suspects.
WiseOne wrote:
Thank you Kshartle and Libertarian666...you are restoring a bit of faith after I thought that such a thing wasn't possible even on this board.
Kshartle wrote:
Though obviously I oppose the concept of voting, from a strategy point of view I don't understand why the repubs keep trying to look like democrats when they should try to look like libertarians. If they really championed less government in people's lives I think they would net nearly all the libertarian votes and nab a lot of independants and maybe even some dems.
It looks like WWE up there to me.
When Romney had his great debate "victory" over Obama and the repubs were celebrating I knew he was going to lose hard. While he was talking up his love of social security, medicare and other welfare programs It was clear he was trying to out-democrat the democrat, a total loser strategy. Why would someone who loves the welfare programs vote for Romney over Obama? Why choose diet coke over real coke if you're not counting calories anyway?
The democrats would lose their base if they actually tried to start reducing the size of government. Unfortunately, those dependent on the government are most of their base.
The republicans are the ones who supposedly are in favor of smaller government, but that's not what happened the last time they had control of the government.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.
Good rulings in both the Hobby Lobby case (which was not a blanket pass for companies) and very importantly the court limited the power of unions to collect dues from non-members.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
Pointedstick wrote:
Speaking of court cases and birth control…
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.
Terrible ruling. I'm an athiest. if I don't want to compensate my employees with birth control and would rather just pay them more $$$s, do I now need to convert to a religion?
Either the government needs to be honest and declare that employers don't have rights at all or let them all have rights. Setting aside freedom only for the religious is pure hypocrisy and theorcracy.
This is a big loss for freedom. It's like saying "yes you have the right to bear arms......if you're a hunter". Ummm.....no.....I have the right to bear arms because I was born with the right to defend myself. The government doesn't exist to grant me the right based on this or that, it exists to simply protect my right that I already have.
Of course in practice it never does that nor can it.
This ruling is a complete disaster for freedom. It's like the bully who shakes you down for your $5 lunch money everyday and you fight with him. Eventually to avoid the fight he says you can keep $1. You take the deal and declare how you're no longer getting robbed. Ahahahahaha. Big win for the government. The tyrannical go big or go home. They are content to concede $1 to get you to stop fighting for the other $4.
Last edited by Kshartle on Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pointedstick wrote:
Speaking of court cases and birth control…
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.
Terrible ruling. I'm an athiest. if I don't want to compensate my employees with birth control and would rather just pay them more $$$s, do I now need to convert to a religion?
Either the government needs to be honest and declare that employers don't have rights at all or let them all have rights. Setting aside freedom only for the religious is pure hypocrisy and theorcracy.
This is a big loss for freedom. It's like saying "yes you have the right to bear arms......if you're a hunter". Ummm.....no.....I have the right to bear arms because I was born with the right to defend myself. The government doesn't exist to grant me the right based on this or that, it exists to simply protect my right that I already have.
Of course in practice it never does that nor can it.
I agree with you in principal here. Though I think in reality I'm not "concerned" as this cherry-picking has been going on for decades and is just woven into our society at this point. But you have more of an attachment to freedom than I do.
If I truly own a business, I should be able to hire/fire/serve whoever I want, whether it is for religious purposes, or just because I'm a bigoted prick (a lot of times one is a guise for the other).
A MUCH more efficient method of supplying people birth control would be to just make it free. Of all the areas to accept an ounce of socialism, this should be an easy one... preventing young people from un-wittingly becoming awful parents!! I know this won't rub you well, but for me it is about the most palatable form of socialism there is. An ounce of socialist prevention is worth a pound of socialist cure. Just mail the stuff to people for free, and the marginal benefit will be far-greater than the marginal cost... not to mention we don't have to have some silly debate on why "religious" preferences somehow get a free pass, and other preferences do not.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
