Spacey is on.
Printable View
Spacey is on.
Fucking hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
yea, the issue actually is money. Led Zeppelin made a shitload of money covering those old songs, so a system was put into place to pay songwriters for covers.
Nobody is going to go after Joe Schmo in his garage covering Over the Hills and Far Away. Now or ever. Put a video on YT and get a bunch of views and some ad revenue and yea people are going to be pissed.
So instead of turning people into felons, figure out a system whereby the people who own the copyrights get paid. Just like it is now for covers in other forms. This isn't that hard.
it really has nothing to do with Led Zeppelin making a lot of money and not paying royalties. Those old blues guys didn't band together to create a system to get royalties. Big labels got together and did it to get extra revenue. Tiny Bradshaw and Johnny Burnette and the like didn't start that shit. And I'd be impressed if their families ever saw a dime from the system we have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
And you're doing it again. Saying "this is a thing that happened" doesn't make it ok. And it doesn't make a similiar situation happening in the future ok.
Is this climate, you don't know this. We have mother fuckers being shot for playing poker in their house with friends. What makes you think that the same won't happen for a kid playing a cover in a garage? Or at least see it abused and used as a way for police to knock on garage doors and harass kids? "Hey, hey, I thought I heard "don't fear the reaper" in there" "better cut that shit out before I take you all in for not paying your licensing fees!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I can promise you that will happen if this passes. In a country as big as the US, and as backwards as some parts of it are, some cop WILL use it to harass and intimidate someone after it becomes law.
How about fuck them? They need to get over it and find another way to make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I know you guys are debating with The Professor, but this is all I hear.Quote:
I'm going to swing my cock around until it hits someone in the face.
*PLURP* *PLARP* !SMACK!
The last thing you want is MORE power in the private sectors hand.
If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about, after all.
I'm anxiously awaiting the series of posts explaining how Syria is different than Iraq as soon as Obama decides to take military action without Congressional sign off.
They have totally different names. Totally different. Iraq doesn't even have a single S or Y in it anywhere. You can't find them. It's impossible.
Why can't we just not be at war for a few years? Do we not have enough problems here that need our attention? Someone else play world police and throw your own young men at other countries problems. No one is even going to be happy were doing this.
I don't know if you're going to get them. Though I know that Assad is killing his own people just like Saddam was I think Iraq has hardened me against the idea of intervening. And this President lost my defense with the wiretapping and whatnot. I can't speak for other liberals, though, so we shall see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Syria used to be the same country as Iraq when everything was Mesopotamia! YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
The problem with Yoshi is that he thinks in terms of teams, if you are a liberal Bush is on the "bad team" so you opposed Iraq but Obama is on the "good team" so OBVIOUSLY you support Syria.
But in the real world...
Nobody supports this BS. Approval ratings are shockingly low. Liberals don't want this war. Conservatives don't either. Anybody who is realistic about what can happen in the Middle East and Syria in particular don't want this. The only people who support it are bloodthirsty lunatics like Bill Kristol, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain, guys that never met a war they didn't like.
As bad as Assad is - and he is really bad - if he falls, the guys who will replace him will be worse. This is going to be a disaster.
I think in terms of teams? I want to issue an open challenge to everyone to find me a single link on the internet over the period of however long this engagement lasts that says that Obama did this for oil. Those who said that about Bush are the assholes who think in terms of teams. I think going into Syria is the right thing to do, assuming we actually know for sure who the bad guys are, though the timing sucks, and I don't trust the Commander in Chief at all on anything.
The federal government does not solve problems. Other than the financial and human capital that will be spent, we're better off with them pointing their attention away from everything else so that the problems won't be made worse by their intervention, a la Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
You're so weird.
I'm sure them spending more money on wars in foreign countries is exactly what this country needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It seems like all the people who said that Iraq under Bush was horrible are also saying Syria under Obama is horrible.
GO RED TEAMQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
BOO BLUE TEAM
Seriously, though. I opposed military intervention in Iraq. I oppose military intervention in Syria. I do believe that the Bush Administration used the AUMF to justify the Iraq War, so I'm not sure what your point is other than to play red team blue team once again.
The US obviously went into Iraq over oil. It wasn't over WMDs, because they had none and Bush/Cheney knew they didn't. It wasn't because Hussein gassed a bunch of people in the 1980s, because the US knew about that and was cool with it. It wasn't to stop terrorists, because there were no terrorists in Iraq until we got there too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
As soon as we got there we started locking down supply and tried to set up sweetheart deals with western oil firms while the country burned. Okay it wasn't just oil, it was also ideology.
This isn't about oil because Syria doesn't produce much. A quick look at Wiki says that at their peak they were exporting ~150k barrels per day, which is a drop in the bucket. US consumes like 18m barrels per day.
It took some coaxing, but diff delivered the first load of bullshit.
Feel free to counter it with any information you have.
I'd say the guy accusing the President and Vice President of what would constitute high crimes bears all of the burden of proof, and there's no damn way you can prove what you just claimed.
That's pretty convenient.
It's a lot harder to prove who knew what when if you don't have the Secretary of State and rep to the UN blaming a YouTube video.
edit: And even there, if someone raised the "but couldn't Obama just be incompetent" question, I'd have to capitulate in terms of what he knew when, even if it's obvious that Hillary was deliberately misleading the public.
Regardless, everyone on the board is against the war in Syria. Which was the original point no?
In context, this is one of the strangest posts I've ever read on TNL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
This is one of those things where if the roles were reversed Yoshi would say something about "moving the goalposts" and I get a serious douche chill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Pull yourself up by the goalposts.
1. Move the goalpostsQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
2. Bring up Benghazi
CHECKMATE
Nope:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
Diff did absolutely exactly what I said people would do, and he won't be the last one.
So saying that Iraq and Syria are different situations is some great error in judgement how, exactly? I didn't realize that all Middle East wars are the same.
Particularly when there is no logical inconsistency in saying "Iraq was a mistake and Syria will be a mistake."
There isn't, and I am frankly pleasantly surprised at the consistency. I have a lot less issue with liberals than Democrats, and I've been saying for months now that it's all of us against Washington, despite sleeve's red vs. blue bullshit. Nothing good comes out of Washington no matter who is in charge.
If it was executed by the highest powers in the land it stands to reason that no, you most likely won't be able to find evidence. But I mean, come on: it's so glaringly obvious and it isn't an unreasonable theory. It's like when you're reading a mediocre book and you can see the setup for character [x] dying chapters ahead of time. Or the same with a moderately written television show. The pieces are there... at least for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It's not "my" bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
There is a whole economy to war which is very prosperous for the people and companies involved, which is why the west has been in a near constant state of war for many decades. This has nothing to do with bipartisan politics, as both sides benefit from it greatly. It has nothing to do with right or wrong or left or right, its about money and it will always be about money.
^Pretty much this. If we aren't at perpetual war, there'll be no demand from the government for missiles and AKs and humvees. If the government stops buying missiles and AKs and humvees, the companies that make missiles and AKs and humvees will have to severely downsize. If the companies that make missiles and AKs and humvees downsize, A LOT of voters will be out of work. If A LOT of voters go out of of work, they'll have their senators' heads on a pike.
Don't end up with your head on some munitions lineworker's pike. Switch to Perpetual Warfare today!
That's luddite theory though. Plenty of times people are put out of work and forced into new fields because they are no longer necessary. You are misjudging rather the effect of the money those companies are putting forwards into influencing the government, rather than that works themselves who have comparatively little power (Well, they HAVE power to an extent, they just don't really use it to address their problems, so in practice they have very little)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gas
Culturally speaking, Americans typically love wars and battles. For Europe and Asia, World War 2 was a scorched-earth nightmare that must never be replicated. For the US, it was our finest hour and highest glory. We're still riding off the fumes. Even after Vietnam people chose to buy into some nonsensical "politicians didn't let us win" narrative instead of facing reality.
These war profiteers and politicians are just giving Americans what they want.
I wonder if Iraq really marked the beginning of a cultural change though. Clinton lost in 2008 thanks to her Iraq vote. Lybia was never popular and this Syria incursion is about as popular as syphilis.
I have a fear its going to have to be something bigger than Iraq.
While I don't agree or disagree with your post. This bothered me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I don't know if there will ever be anything big enough. We have too many people that work hard to distort anything like that in the newsQuote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
I knew it looked wrong when I typed it. ^_^
I'm not ruling out something like China many years down the road.
I just got spontaneously angry that this country doesn't have public healthcare. Out of nowhere, was listening to random standup and thought, man, we suck.
My stance on Syria is evolving. Based on what I've read, there are no good guys. Amazingly, it's the guys using chemical weapons vs. the terrorists. There isn't even an enemy of my enemy in there. Fuck getting involved in that mess.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
If Assad falls, the guys who step up are even worse. We'd be looking at approximately a 100% chance of genocide against the Alawite minority. What would we do then? I think Hamid Karzai is going to be looking for work soon?
Diff knows his way around the Lybia.
There are no winners in Syria, unfortunately. :(
Your mom is a winner in Syria, unfortunately.
Whoever wins we lose.
Unless you're a sweet defense contractor drowning in pork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
Why are they called defense contractors anyway? And why is it called the defense budget? We do very little defense in comparison to the amount of "police work" we do. It's kinda' all offense these days...
Branding, PR. They borrowed the word from industry. And use it to whitewash and cover what they are really doing.
A real contractor is just an outside company you pay to come in and do the same job you'd have your own guys do, But if it is cheaper to not have your guys do it or you just don't have the people, you hire a contractor instead.
Its misleading because half of our 'defense contractors' do things that would never be ok for our own armed forces or government to do. A lot of them are pretty much just mercenaries or worse. Its pretty much the worlds worst bit of bad cop, good cop you've ever seen.
It was the War Department up through World War 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Dude, don't you know that the best defense is a police style imperial offense!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Always amazing what subtle marketing changes can do for shit. We don't need a War Department when there's no war, but DoD? Always gotta be defended brah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
No need to worry about it unless you've done something wrong.
Please stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
No way dude, you only swag once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Incoming ban.
Obama seeking Congressional authorization for Syria military actions.
On one hand, this is unquestionably good; the fact that the President doesn't need it is pretty scandalous by itself, but the people deserve a voice here. That's the way the framers set it up and Congress has clearly shirked its responsibilities over the decades.
On the other hand it's a clear signal that this is a disaster in the making, clearly the President doesn't want to be holding the bag when it inevitably goes pear-shaped.
I would say it's mostly the latter. I don't see a resolution here and we basically gave the regime a couple weeks to prepare for our "attack".
Definitely mostly the latter. Still, if they do this and it turns into a disaster, we can have a whole bunch of these clowns get killed on it in the next election, similar to what happened in 2006. I'm fine with that. That's how the system should work.
Plus just as a basic principle Congress should be authorizing the executive branch every time the executive branch wants to go to war. It's just, you know, the Constitution - the real one, not the imaginary one the teabags have been pushing the past few years.
Don't we have a history of Congress only approving wars we actually want to win, while putting everything else on the president, then classifying it as a conflict later?
Didn't we do that with Vietnam? Thats why it is called a conflict in history books?
I'm not sure, but I don't think this is an Obama thing, as much as I don't like him. It just seems to be how our government does business. Blame one guy when things go to shit, praise for everyone when the public likes it.
Congress has a long and shameful history of passing the buck to the executive branch, which is all too eager to wage war since, as I noted above, Americans really like war.
The Obama Admin has been embarrassing itself lately. I've heard the same exact crap I heard from Bush and friends going into Iraq. Limited strike, weapons could get in the hands of terrorists (o rly, what happens when the terrorists take over the government?), war is paid for, etc. Don't believe the lies.
Good editorial on power distribution in today's world: http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/want...ngelhardt.html
I am 100% anti Obama administration now. As far as I am concerned we are living in "Bush 2, now with gays". Syria, war, expanded patriot act surveillance, Guantanamo.
Whatever, I don't even care anymore, I'm just going to keep voting green. It actually doesn't matter a huge amount to my life if we do go war.
Since you don't live in the south, you might get attacked
Don't really care if I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Who, Anthony? I doubt it.
I'm curious - what's your FB feed look like? Nobody in my social network feed is rebutting anti-Syria-war posts. I'm interested to know what a pro-Syria-war post looks like.
Everyone is anti-Syria-war post as well. Which will make me all the happier when we likely still go to war with Syria in spite of everything. Why is this even being debated, there is like a 9% of American's that want to get involved. 9%. That's an amazing number for a poll.
Syria intervention is about as popular as gonorrhea. Nobody wants to do it.
Whats really dissapointing is that this may be all about energy too.
I read about that the other day. I, for one, am shocked.
More gun control? Maybe not. I hope I am not proven wrong, but I am not sure how this bozo's foreign policy could be a bigger disaster. I'm honestly starting to question whether giving the UN or Putin the lead might not actually be preferable to the trifecta of Obama, Clinton, and Kerry.
It'll pass. Gun manufactures love anything that keeps out foreign competition
Weren't you against military strikes in Syria? Now that they were averted through diplomacy, the UN and Putin is in charge? Stay classy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Were averted? So the chemical weapons have been confirmed secured? And if it is successful, wouldn't that just be a feather in Putin's cap?
Call it macaroni.
Having a feather in Putin's cap and the result being good because of it should cause mass questioning as to HOW THE FUCK THAT HAPPENED. Hopefully the next go around like this the American side will learn.
Americans don't get that this isn't a zero sum game. Something can benefit both Putin AND the US. That's the point of diplomacy really. The fact that we aren't out there blowing up yet another series of brown people and creating the next generation of jihadists is unquestionably a good thing. It shows that we can work within a diplomatic framework to solve problems in the Middle East. Let's follow up on Syria and do more of it please!
We didn't do anything. That's the problem. Obama and Kerry's lack of decisiveness led to Putin gaining global clout, which is anything but a win. And then McCain exacerbated the problem by acknowledging him in that op ed piece. It's interesting how no one took Romney seriously when he said Russia was a serious threat. Too bad the clown that theoretically has all the information wasn't that savvy.
lol okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You do realize that Russia is the only country with any influence in Syria, right? You can't do anything WRT Syria without going through Russia. That's how diplomacy works.
Also: what do you mean ,exactly, by "lack of decisiveness"?
No one went through Russia. We had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. We were too busy dicking around.
What is "dicking around" in this context?
Shit like waiting until September 11 to engage Congress so that Obama's symbolism over substance guarantee could be fulfilled for example.
I... this post makes me sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
We didn't go to war in Syria. That is far an away the most important outcome of that scenario. Even if Putin gets 5 move pounds of caviar for it, I don't care.
Edit: This thread moves fast, and perhaps not doing anything was the best thing for us to do in this situation?
Dude put down the Fox News, it's addling your brain. The right often complains about Obama administration is circumventing Congress, now it's complaining that it is engaging Congress, what a joke.
Congress being engaged was clearly the right thing to do, even if it slowed down the process. The whole process from late August to mid September (before the deal was set up regarding the chemical weapons) is called a political debate and it's a good thing to have before a military strike.
LAWL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It wasn't involving Congress. It was waiting until September 11 because of some symbolic bullshit that I am questioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Yeah, because the previous administration never milked 9/11 for personal gain.
You'd make a good cabinet member. They'd rather talk about five years ago than take ownership of their mountain of mistakes as well.
GUYS SERIOUSLY
This would be one of those times when it would have been better if Romney won.
Just so we could see the waiter-leaked-footage of Romney's dinner with Assad where he states "you can gas the rebels, I mean it's not like they're going to vote you anyway?"
. China and Iran too. Just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Obama: Hey don't pass this redline!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Everyone else: or what?
Obama: Just don't cross it!
That's every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Seriously. Is Putin going to bail his dumbass out with Iran too? They don't have a shred of respect for him, and who can blame them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
maybe we should stop giving other countries red lines?
Why exactly are you disappointed? Because we didn't follow through on a reckless threat with reckless action? Because Obama/America/we were somehow emasculated by another country's success?
You were quick to criticize Obama for overvaluing symbolism, but you're doing exactly that with this ultramasculine Putin showed 'im up talk.
First, I in no way am saying Obama is a terrible dad. His kids seem to be well adjusted and have good behavior.
BUT His leadership qualities are like the Bad Parent who wants to be "friends" with their child. So, he makes red lines and veiled threats, but everyone knows if you cross that redline. Nothing will happen. So, what if I'm not supposed to be out past 10pm. What's dad gonna do? Put me in Timeout? Punish me and keep me in my room? Ohhh but I can still use my smartphone, computer, and TV? OKAY!
What he should have done is if he's going to make this RedLine. He should have pre-planned this. Hey if Syria ever does cross the redline. Will you pass a resolution to use force and knock out the chemical storage faculties?
Yet, what he seems like is he making shit up as he goes.
Obama: THEY CROSSED THE RED LINE! SEND IN THE HOUNDS!
Everyone: We don't want to go to war.
Obama: They crossed the line. But okay ... let me keep the ships stationed off the coast, while I consult Congress. HEY SYRIA FEAR THE SHIPS!
Russia: What if we talk to them?
Obama: uh ... REALLY? You can do this?
Russia: Yup.
Everyone: Why didn't you think of this first, Obama?
Obama: .... HerpaDerp?
Are you guys seriously upset that you aren't killing Syrians right now?
You have no idea how badly we're dying for the next season of CNN's Green Nighttime Explosion Hour over hurr.