Anony Mous

Joined

• started 116 topics
• posted 3,394 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Anony Mous

• 
  9

  Oh What Is That Sound?

  by Simon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  o what is that sound which so thrills the eardown in the valley drumming, drumming?only the scarlet soldiers, dear,the soldiers coming.o what is that light i see flashing so clearover the distance brightly, brightly?only the sun on their weapons, dear,as they step lightly.o what are they doing with all that gear,what are they doing this morning, morning?only their usual manoeuvres, dear,or perhaps a warning.o why have they left the road down there,why are they suddenly wheeling, wheeling?perhaps a change in their orders, dear,why are you kneeling?o haven't they stopped for the doctor's care,haven't they reined their horses, horses?why, they are none of them wounded, dear,none of these forces.o is it the parson they want, with white hair,is it the parson, is it, is it?no, they are passing his gateway, dear,without a visit.o it must be the farmer that lives so near.it must be the farmer so cunning, so cunning?they have passed the farmyard already, dear,and now they are running.o where are you going?

  stay with me here!were the vows you swore deceiving, deceiving?no, i promised to love you, dear,but i must be leaving.o it's broken the lock and splintered the door,o it's the gate where they're turning, turning;their boots are heavy on the floorand their eyes are burning.. - w.h.auden.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anony Mous

  When they kick at your front door
  How you gonna come?
  With your hands on your head
  Or on the trigger of your gun

  When the law break in
  How you gonna go?
  Shot down on the pavement
  Or waiting on death row

  You can crush us
  You can bruise us
  But you'll have to answer to
  Oh, the guns of Brixton

  a bit later

  You know it means no mercy

  They caught him with a gun

  The Clash - The Guns of Brixton

  That song was written in the late 70's about the paranoia of living in an apocalyptic version of Brixton within the context of a Cold War while all sorts of rights were quickly eroded away by the government. The whole album is just chilling if you compare it to what policy makers have actually already done in London and the UK in general (the constant surveillance, the erasure of property, speech and gun rights)

  It seems those things have come so close to true, not just in the UK but across the 'western world' where democracy once reigned.
• 
  76

  Do You Support Trump Being Impeached Again?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. 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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anony Mous

  @TD: I did read the article. Just because the government or a government website has an opinion, does not mean it is legally interpreted as such.

  My interpretation is not just the layman's interpretation, it's according to most, an originalist interpretation. Impeachment was never SUPPOSED to be political, some of the Federalist papers obviously argue as much, but other writers wanted this to be an emergency power when elections weren't feasible. This was written when distributing information and organizing an election would feasibly take at least a year or so. Now we can literally organize an election in weeks and people would know about it in 24h or less.

  As I said, how it will be interpreted, depends largely on the Supreme Court, if it ever comes before the court, or if they will simply say "it's a political issue".
• 
  76

  Do You Support Trump Being Impeached Again?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. 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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. jw
  2. 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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.