Posts by Anony Mous

76

Do You Support Trump Being Impeached Again?

by minimus in

jw
friends

it looks like it can happen again and i suspect if it does happen, the senate will not convict either because they can’t convict him since it’s after his presidency or simply because they don’t have sufficient votes..

Anony Mous

@TD: That is one opinion off course, none of which has been tested in court. High crimes and misdemeanors did have a meaning at the framing of the constitution. If you're an originalist, then you'd interpret it as such.

High crimes - activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons

Misdemeanors - a less serious offense than a felony

This was intended to show that the presidency was to be held above reproach from any criminal wrongdoing, including non-felonious conduct.

The question is whether the President did anything wrong, and it will be very hard to prove the President did so. He told people to "peacefully protest" which is legal. He's not responsible for the mob peacefully protesting within the building, as much as Bernie Sanders was not responsible for the guy trying to shoot people of congress a few years ago after he said "they're trying to kill your grandmother". If Trump is held responsible for this, so should Pelosi be responsible for it, she's the one that indicated her contempt for the plebes with the "let them eat ice cream" controversy, or the Squad is responsible for BLM protests this summer etc etc.

76

Do You Support Trump Being Impeached Again?

by minimus in

jw
friends

it looks like it can happen again and i suspect if it does happen, the senate will not convict either because they can’t convict him since it’s after his presidency or simply because they don’t have sufficient votes..

Anony Mous

This is the party of peace and unity! Just inflaming the tensions, their ultimate goal is for another insurrection so they can ban the second amendment (which Michigan’s left-wing governor just did) and declare an eternal state of emergency and government control over the public places (which is what the DC mayor just requested)

@Davros: that’s right, someone just told me “you’ll be getting that 1200 check soon, the Georgia Democrats ran on that platform” ... I laughed, the election is over, you won’t be getting anything for another 2 years.

55

Should Difference of Opinion Be Squelched On Sites Such As FB or Twitter?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.

one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.

when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.

Anony Mous

The right is already building these platforms. They will become invite only and they will host even more hostility, now competent hidden from view.

Twitter and FaceBook both already took a 5% nosedive today. That is a combined loss of $40B from these two companies in 24 hours. Amazon, Google and Apple all took a 2% hit when the market has been growing around them. That is billions erased over woke bullshit. And it serves them right.

And then the establishment will be surprised when the next revolution happens.

16

Hysteria & Final Thoughts

by Sea Breeze in

every republican president ever elected starting with reagan generated hysteria in the news media.

they belittled, cajoled, ridiculed, mocked and resisted the highest elected leader in the land in an attempt to overturn the will of the people.

reagan.

Anony Mous

Lenin also made sure the Mensheviks and others could not publish in the paper, printers wouldn’t take their pamphlets and businesses weren’t allowed to distribute their content... initially upon suggestion that they were causing instability for the country and a threat to democracy, then Lenin established enforcers of these rules that operated but were allowed outside the legal system, later these rules were enforced by law sounds familiar?

17

Suing The Music Industry

by Lost in the fog in

jehovah’s witnesses file copyright lawsuit in response to blundering christmas album - listen, obey, and be blessed.

.

https://www.toptutorials.co.uk/jehovahs-witnesses-file-copyright-lawsuit-in-response-to-blundering-christmas-album-torrentfreak/.

Anony Mous

@drearyweather: That is indeed correct. They own the rights to "the musical composition", not the song or its performance.

Sound recordings and musical compositions are considered two separate works for copyright purposes. Even though a sound recording is a derivative work of the underlying musical composition, a copyright in a sound recording is not the same as, or a substitute for, copyright in the underlying musical composition.

They have worded their argument very specifically. They want the singer to stop the distribution of the sound recording and public performance, by claiming they have the rights to the musical composition. This is so antithetical to copyright as it would mean that people that create sheet music of eg. Beethoven's fifth would suddenly own all the performances as well. It would also mean that the congregations could be liable for the few cents (51 cents I believe) per person it costs to license whenever they sing the song, actually, legally speaking, if they did not collect said license from their congregations, they may lose their rights to the work altogether.

You can buy the musical composition of many songs without buying the copyright on the further distribution and performance. You CAN buy public performance rights as well, but that is typically a ton more expensive and separate from the piece of sheet music from a composer. This is what makes the specific wording so suspicious, it points to a fact they do not own those rights, which means they did not write it themselves but purchased it from someone else. If you create a piece of music yourself, you can claim the performance rights, which they do not in the suit.

To give you an example, many (most) singers do not write their own songs, they buy them from someone, the bigger musicians will also buy the exclusive rights and the big labels will also pay out to get the exclusive rights on the public performance. Hence you cannot perform Beyonce's latest hit album and sell it, hell, they'll kick you off YouTube and fine you for just humming a snippet of it online. Same goes for Happy Birthday, licensed to I believe BMG or Warner Music, you can't perform it in public without paying them.

16

Hysteria & Final Thoughts

by Sea Breeze in

every republican president ever elected starting with reagan generated hysteria in the news media.

they belittled, cajoled, ridiculed, mocked and resisted the highest elected leader in the land in an attempt to overturn the will of the people.

reagan.

Anony Mous

@FFGhost, what do you take objection to? Soviet Russia had 1 free election, candidates from the Mensheviks, Socialists and Bolsheviks (Lenin) were on the ballot. After Lenin took power he consolidated his power by replacing people in government with his own and killing those that resisted, there were protests, even violent ones from the Mensheviks, Trotsky being the most prominent, he fled the country and was eventually murdered with an ice pick on orders of Lenin.

16

Hysteria & Final Thoughts

by Sea Breeze in

every republican president ever elected starting with reagan generated hysteria in the news media.

they belittled, cajoled, ridiculed, mocked and resisted the highest elected leader in the land in an attempt to overturn the will of the people.

reagan.

Anony Mous

Biden will end the filibuster, add 2 states, 4 senators and 10 house representatives, add 2 judges to the Supreme Court, end the first through the sixth amendment as we know it.

Welcome to communism. I’m sure many Russians thought free elections would come back after electing Lenin. They were in the same boat, in very similar circumstances, they too protested, they eventually all ended up at Lubyanka.

55

Should Difference of Opinion Be Squelched On Sites Such As FB or Twitter?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.

one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.

when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.

Anony Mous

@slimboyfat: this summer, BLM stormed the Capitol of Washington, Arizona, Florida and other states as well, chained themselves to the doors and forced Senators to step over them in the hallways.

They actually grafitti'd (they call them murals, but whatever), encouraged by the mayor of Washington DC, in front of the White House, on several Federal buildings, on the walls of the SAME Capitol building and this went on for WEEKS. DC and Capitol Police, did nothing until late at night when they had to vacate the buildings, and then there were fires set at these same buildings. Yet some Trump protest gets a bit rowdy, and immediately police get cleared to start shooting.

The BLM protestors actually attempted to firebomb Washington DC, Portland, Seattle federal court houses with actual Molotov cocktails. They blinded cops with lasers, they organized an ambush on Twitter and Facebook and killed 5 cops. They killed 17 innocent people during these 'peaceful protests' with the attempted murder of many more simply because they were white or in the wrong place, all videotaped, from Kenosha to NYC.

Yet, now you are supposed to be upset about the same things happening from the right? Are the regular citizens and whites somehow just supposed to sit around and let the left destroy our lives, and we can't protest, we can't vote? When we have to defend ourselves, because the cops won't show up, like that couple, like Kyle Rittenhouse, a person in NYC that shot an attacker, the truck driver that accidentally got stuck in a protest, the cars that were suddenly swarmed on the highway - and then you want to PROSECUTE those people for self defense.

In a few days there will be another, now properly armed "protest" in DC and across the nation from the ones that are fed up by the people cramming down their swamp.

55

Should Difference of Opinion Be Squelched On Sites Such As FB or Twitter?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.

one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.

when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.

Anony Mous

@rules: the rules for monopolies are different purely legally speaking. The government also has rules around Internet forums that gives FaceBook and Twitter protection for what their users do if they do not edit or censor the content.

I’m all for companies being able to decide for themselves but they should not be able to use their power to ban others from society. To give you the comparison with the baker, if one baker does not want certain customers, fine, but what if all bakers colluded on one day to not give bread to black people. That would be an illegal cartel.

It has been very clear that Silicon Valley has internal, politically oriented coordination as Twitter and FaceBook and Instagram and Apple and Google, companies that supposedly compete with each other, coordinated their bans to be within minutes of each other. That is the definition of an illegal cartel.

There is nothing ironic about that, everyone has free speech and enjoy the free exchange of labor, nobody has the right to censor other people or pressure others to stop their freedom of exchange.

If FaceBook wants to censor, then they should get their protections taken away and we should be able to sue them for what anyone posted on their site. To give you the analogy, the baker you mentioned promised to bake for everyone, regardless of their personal conviction, only if the baker could never be sued for the occasionally poisoned cake. The baker in this case now refuses to bake for gays and is still baking poisoned cakes and still expects legal protection.

Whether you’re on the left or the right, swap the parties in your stories and if you defend the actions then, you are a partisan hack. Either the protests this summer and the protest at the capitols across the country are the same, or they are all violent insurrections. There is a difference in nuance you can argue about (public vs private destruction during an insurrection)

17

Suing The Music Industry

by Lost in the fog in

jehovah’s witnesses file copyright lawsuit in response to blundering christmas album - listen, obey, and be blessed.

.

https://www.toptutorials.co.uk/jehovahs-witnesses-file-copyright-lawsuit-in-response-to-blundering-christmas-album-torrentfreak/.

Anony Mous

Interesting, after reading up on the case, it seems Jones’ album writers did get permission to use the song from a German rights holder.

According to the WTBTS that rights holder does not have permission to sublicense it. It will be interesting to see where the WTBTS got the license to use the song from then, they likely purchased some exclusive rights from a ‘wordly’ Christian songwriter but didn’t purchase full exclusivity.

Even in the lawsuit they only claim copyright on the “song book” and not individual songs https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-20-cv-10844-watchtower-v-BMG-complaint-201222.pdf

And if anyone had a bigger purse than the WTBTS to fund endless copyright lawsuits, that is BMG and the music industry.