Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the comment-is-king dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is John Roddy with a fairly straightforward reply to a tiresome complaint:
You keep getting flagged because you regularly openly lie about everything, make excuses when you’re proven wrong, and hurl baseless insults every time you get called out on it. You are welcome to start participating if you can prove that you’re able to behave.
In second place, we’ve got a response from kallethen to the idea that internet platforms don’t deserve perpetual licenses to user content because they aren’t paying:
I wouldn’t say without paying. Their payment of the created content is the provision of computer resources (hardware, software, internet, IT, etc) to allow the created message to be shared. It’s not a payment of money, but of service. You are specifically using “Internet Corporation” because you want your message to be shared, and they are providing the means of sharing it.
If you don’t want “Internet Corporation” to have a licence, then don’t use that corporation’s service and provide the computer hardware, software, and internet connection yourself to broadcast your message.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous response to the idea that there’s no good reason for such licenses to be perpetual:
Maintaining a historical record is a good enough reason for me. You might disagree, but claiming that “no justification exists” is blatantly false. You just don’t think said justifications are good enough.
Next, it’s a response from Iggy to the broadband industry labeling itself an engine of innovation:
An “engine of innovation”? HAHAHA, if these telecoms were anywhere near as innovative as Google, Amazon, or Apple, we’d have free gigabit connections by now.
It took lawsuits just to get third party phones to connect to the phone network. It took a DOJ breakup of Bell just to make low cost calls possible. In 1995, Bill Gates predicted TV over Internet, but its only in the last few years did speeds catch up and it took the 2015 Open Internet Order protect online TV from throttling.
The industry is all but anti progress. Comparing them to innovative companies is laughable.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Get off my cyber-lawn! with a response to the Association of Independent Music celebrating some pretty silly numbers in its supposed antipiracy victory:
US Navy successfully prevents over 2,000 Somali Piracy Actions!
Okay, not really but at least 2000 ships went into that part of the world and weren’t pirated so….WINNING!
In second place, it’s an anonymous comment about the NSA’s malware and exploits making it out to the public:
If only works by the Federal government were not public domain, the NSA could have had a copyright on this malware and then copyright law could have saved us from this horrible event. The hackers would be pirates for copying the software without approval, assuming they were brave enough to defy copyright law in the first place. Remember, violating copyright is the worst computer crime you can commit, so even elite hackers are wise to steer clear.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with Chris-Mouse offering one more thought on the Association of Independent Music’s antipiracy campaign:
Ready! Fire! AIM!
That sounds about right for the recording industry.
And last but not least, we’ve got an anonymous comment about the Spanish prosecution of a man who apparently insulted God and the Virgin Mary, according to offended religious lawyers:
Should be “attempting to insult”
If they’ve found evidence that God was insulted, they’re really burying the lede on that story.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
Oh.
Oh.
[Sorry for the dupe, I swear I don’t know why sometime stuff gets sent early]
Now this is certainly a case where I expected The Spanish Inquisition to obviously carry the torch of funny.
Alas, I was wrong.
Re: Oh.
Well, since nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, they obviously can’t appear if they are expected.
US Supreme Court: Political Appointments For Life?
So in the US you have one special set of political appointments that are made for life, without being subject to any kind of regular term review or reselection? It seems to me if that Supreme Court appoints are for life, they should not be political; if they are political, they should not be for life, but have terms just like all your other political appointments.
For example, diplomatic postings are considered to be political. So when a new Administration comes in, it chucks out all the old ambassadors and brings in new ones. Why should Supreme Court judges not be subject to the same thing? That would restore a lot of the fairness that seems to have gone missing here.
Re: US Supreme Court: Political Appointments For Life?
Nice idea, but then Trump would have gotten to appoint the WHOLE of the Supreme Court on day one. Not just the ones he can get past the too-stupidly-partisan-for-words Senate.
Re: Re: US Supreme Court: Political Appointments For Life?
There is a reason Republicans changed the vote requirement from 60% to 50%.
Re: Re: Re: US Supreme Court: Political Appointments For Life?
Sotero DemoSluts change the required percentage. They sought an advantage and like true Trotsky-bitchers got azzfucked for their trouble.
Re: Re: Re: US Supreme Court: Political Appointments For Life?
It was Democrats not Republicans who implemented and first used the “nuclear option” with regard to cabinet members and others. When they made the change Mitch McConnell famously said, “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.” The Republicans used the Democrat precedent and applied it to the SCOTUS.
Also, it’s not 50%, it’s 51 votes.
Re: Re: appoint the WHOLE of the Supreme Court on day one.
You think he would have had better luck than with his “repeal-and-replace” promise?
Re:
Ideally, a Supreme Court justice should remain politically neutral, favoring or disfavoring no specific party in a case because of any given ideology. This does not always bear out in practice, which is partly why we have multiple justices on the bench instead of just one.
SCOTUS justices retain lifetime appointments specifically because administrations change. A new president or a new class of Congress cannot clear the bench and appoint judges who will do the bidding of a new administration. The principles which hold together the United States, and the laws we make based on those principles, must stand a longer test of time than a handful of years.
Re: Re: laws we make based on those principles, must stand a longer
How well is that working out, then?
Re: Re: Re:
We do not live in a full-bore Christian theocracy, nor do we have a Constitution that froze in both meaning and length at the moment of its signing. Things have worked out well enough for the past two centuries, I would say.
Re: Re: Re:2 live in a full-bore Christian theocracy
Is that saying much?
Re: Re: Re:3 live in a full-bore Christian theocracy
Would you prefer we live in a country where slavery is legal, women have no civil rights, and religious minorities could be forced into hiding by the government?
Re: Re: Re:4 Would you prefer we live in a country
Not sure why that’s relevant. I was just pointing out that the first thing that came to your mind when I asked what the advantage of the US system was, was that you “do not live in a full-bore Christian theocracy”. Given that no other country on Earth, no matter how undemocratic or autocratic, has managed to achieve a “full-bore Christian theocracy”, means that it isn’t really very special of the US system to claim to have avoided the same fate.
Re: Re: Re:5
Among the many cases that SCOTUS could choose to hear this session, several are pertinent to this discussion:
Only the last two have the controversy and unsettled precedent necessary to warrant a SCOTUS hearing. But SCOTUS could still ask to hear them all regardless (something the 11th Circuit court all but begged for in its decision in Florida and 109 members of Congress want to happen with Maryland).
The “Religious Right” in the U.S. has tried harder and harder during my lifetime to impose their beliefs upon everyone in the country through the law. With SCOTUS now in the control of conservatives for a couple of decades (at minimum), long-established precedent for “separation of church and state” matters (among other issues) could be overruled with a simple 5-4 majority. If even one of those cases goes in favor of breaking down that wall between church and state, that would not be the instant creation of a “Christian theocracy”. But I would prefer not to see that wall broken down any more than conservative Christian lawmakers have already achieved.
Re: Re: Re:6 The “Religious Right” in the U.S. has tried harder and harde
Which is not something that seems to be happening anywhere else. So the benefits you are claiming for the US system seem to be mainly along the lines of “it could be worse”, not that it is an example for others to follow.
Re: Re: Re:7
With Christianity? Not really. With other religions? Absolutely. And lest you think there is no such thing as “Christian sharia”, remember that Dominionism is still a thing.
Re: Re: Re:8 With Christianity? Not really.
Well, that was the one you specifically brought up. Are you backing away from that now?
Re: Re: Re:9 With Christianity? Not really.
My point was to directly bring up “Christian theocracy” as an immediate reference to other theocracies around the world—specifically Islamic theocracies in the Middle East, which conservative Christians love to insult in spite of wanting to make a similar theocracy in the United States.
Re: Re: Re:10 With Christianity? Not really.
And you know what Christians want because ….?
Or are you just making shit up for fun?
Re: Re: Re:10 With Christianity? Not really.
You’re making things up. Christians do not want a theocracy. The founding fathers were mostly Christians and did not write the constitution in order to create a theocracy.
Re: Re: Re:11 With Christianity? Not really.
Confirmed correct. This is because there was already a multiplicity of Christian faiths and practices and the idea was that if you’re going to have the Church run the state, which church would that be?
Here and now in 2018, it appears the Roman Catholic Church is winning that particular battle. Due to mergers and acquisitions over the past 15 years, 14.5 percent of all acute care hospitals in the nation are now either owned by or affiliated with the Catholic church, according to the study. In 10 U.S. states, the number of Catholic hospitals is more than 30 percent.
This doesn’t bother people who aren’t women in crisis pregnancies. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/10/maternal-deaths-mothers-mortality-column/595818002/
They’re doing a lot of the education, too, though there’s a lot of competition from Charter schools.
The takeaway: do NOT let the church run the state, and do not let it run essential services such as healthcare if you care about the women in your lives.
– Christian here.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“remember that Dominionism is still a thing.”
And only about 1% of Christians even know or care what that is. Are you this hysterical always or only when it comes to Christians?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
I think that’s his point. Each religion has it’s bad apples.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Which is why you shouldn’t let the religious dictate social policy. You can never tell which ones will end up running it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Christians to the lions!
Re: Re: Re:4 live in a full-bore Christian theocracy
Does anyone on this forum consider the attack on Justice Kavanaugh disgusting, unfair and un-American?
Re: Re: Re:5
He got every benefit of the doubt from the people who were in the position to confirm him, up to and including softball questions and ass-kissing during his final testimonial hearing before his confirmation. Trump insulted Kavanaugh’s accusers to the point where Trump believes those insults are what got Kavanaugh the job. And the Senate that confirmed Kavanaugh is much the same Senate that held a SCOTUS seat open for nearly a year with no hearings whatsoever because they didn’t want a Black president to put another “liberal” justice on the bench.
If anything is disgusting, unfair, and un-American, it is the actions of Donald Trump, his presidential administration, and the Republican-controlled Congress in pushing Brett Kavanaugh through to the Supreme Court.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Ford was not credible.
Trump is winning.
We are all getting richer.
God Bless America.
And you can stick your opinion where the sun don’t shine.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I see you have full bought into the jingoism of the people that are busily turning you into a serf by decreasing personal rights and increasing corporate rights.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
That happened under Obama, not Trump.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Assume you’re right: Trump is doing sod all to reverse it while he owns both Houses.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
The removal of consumer and environment protections have happened under Trump, as they get in the way of corporate profits. You are allowing your tribalism to lead you into serfdom.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You sound desperate.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
"We are all getting richer."
Out of curiosity, roughly how much richer are you personally and why?
Re: Re: Re:5 live in a full-bore Christian theocracy
Do you consider the attacks in his victims the same?
No?
Go fuck yourself.
Re: Re: Re:5 live in a full-bore Christian theocracy
Counter-point: Do you consider Kavanaugh’s extremely partisan behavior to be appropriate for a Supreme Court that is supposed to be apolitical, non-partisan, and separate from and not influenced by the other branches of government?
Re: Re: Re:4 Wait for the new 5-to-4 rulings.
where slavery is legal, women have no civil rights, and religious minorities could be forced into hiding by the government?
I was going to ask is that not what the US is becoming? But that is what the US already is, and is growing more so.
Re: Re: Re:5 Wait for the new 5-to-4 rulings.
LOL. I have to think you were either trying to be funny or you are incredibly delusional. You can’t back up your statement with one fact.
Nonsense beliefs and posts like yours is why Trump got elected.
Re: Re: Re:6 Wait for the new 5-to-4 rulings.
That’s cute in a dog with a box on it’s heard kinda way.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
From a western European point of view, you’re pretty near a theocracy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-are-the-worlds-least-religious-countries/
Re: Re: Re:
This would be true if the Senate contained itself to ‘advise and consent’ rather than their fairly recent (last half century or so) litmus tests on ideology or party affiliations and affinity. Those tests change depending upon which party is dominate at the time, but those tests should not even be part of the curriculum.
They should be looking for ability and clear unbiased reasoning (most of which should be found in their body of work), only.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In that case, Kavanaugh should’ve been voted down based on the fact that a large part of his body of work was not available to most of the Senate for review.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No doubt. The reasons he should not have been confirmed have nothing to do with any unproven accusations, but because his appointment was political rather than qualified in nature. The same is similar for a number of recent appointments. Some of which worked out, to the consternation of their appointing entities, and others have not.
This is not limited to the Supreme Court, all Federal judges and Appellate judges face the same issue, and the same issue exists in the Senate for all of them. How many positions are currently open in those two slots?
When is the Senate going to get off their collective asses and do their duty (which is defined as advise and consent, not take political or ideological temperatures)? When will the Executive branch stop playing politics with judiciary appointments (probably never, but that is a different problem than the Senate problem, though there are some similarities)? The Senate’s responsibility should be the same whether the majority is the same party as the Executive or not. So should their behavior.
Re: Re: Re:3 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
I felt it was rather disingenuous of Republicans to fall back on the old “innocent until proven guilty” excuse. That would apply if he was a private citizen facing criminal charges. But he was not (at least, not yet); this was a job interview. And the job is an immensely powerful one, with exacting demands on the candidates to be squeaky-clean, and to be seen to be squeaky-clean. Which is where I think Kavanaugh has fallen down and should have been rejected.
Re: Re: Re:4 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
Even if we assume Kavanaugh was telling the truth about Dr. Ford—and that’s a big if—his blatant display of partisanship, his anger and disrespect toward sitting senators, and his quick-to-snap anger in general during that Sept. 27 hearing should have disqualified him. He proved that he has neither the temperment nor even the appearance of non-partisanship that a SCOTUS judge should (ideally) possess.
Re: Re: Re:5 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
I keep having to explain to very excited relatives that, yes, this has happened before (Clarence Thomas). Kavanaugh’s behavior was awful.
And why couldn’t they have just gone onto one of the other 31 "throw a dart at the list" candidates? Why choose this particular rambling, drunkard, way too aggressive and angry hill to die on?
What? No, I actually wasted 4 hours of my life to listen to the actual testimony. No, I don’t really care which channel you get your soundbites from.
Re: Re: Re:6 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
What I find funny is your phrase “hill to die on”.
It’s the Demoncrats and their campaign of personal destruction that were defeated. Did you miss that part?
The Hill to DIe on was the American system of Values, which is still alive and well, with Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
Cool, right, Killercool?
Re: Re: Re:7 The hill the GOP will die on
Actually it was John Oliver who observed last week that there were plenty of options who would all toe the Federalist Society line and render people’s rights secondary to corporate rights — That, to me, seems to be the center of the Federalist Society’s agenda. Stripping women of their rights is only what they promise to the religious extremists.
Re: Re: Re:7 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
The values he chooses to represent are only "American" by dint of the fact that Kavanaugh is, himself, an American. Frankly, I can’t think of anything more American than the ability to say, "Sure, you’re qualified, but I don’t like your attitude. You don’t get the job."
The "campaign of personal destruction" was only waged by Kavanaugh, against Kavanaugh. It was stunning that he failed. Like Trump, it seemed that he was trying his damndest to get out of the job, without saying outright "I don’t want this." Any one of the many problems he had (mere suspicion of misconduct, his high temper, his dismissal of HALF OF THE SENATE for playing for the wrong team) would have normally made the committee move on, with no fuss.
Re: Re: Re:8 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
The campaign of personal destruction was only waged by Kavanaugh, against Kavanaugh.
You are you on drugs?
Kavanaugh accused himself of being a serial rapist? Of being “Evil”?
Another wacko Dacko, I see.
Re: Re: Re:9 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
Nope, not a "Dacko," if that’s your weird name for Democrats. The only thing that Kavanaugh wasn’t responsible for was the accusation. The number of people who were for and against him stayed the same throughout the whole process.
He chose to ramble.
He chose to wax poetic about his drinking.
He chose to demean the Senate for doing their job, which is to investigate his suitability for the position.
Re: Re: Re:4 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
But then again, you are not an American, are you, Mr. Lawrence D’Oliveiro. You might find American values strange and foreign.
Lots of other cultures think we’re strange.
We still lead the world in every way that matters.
Re: Re: Re:5 "still lead the world in every way that matters."
Wow, Anonymous Coward, I find that statement to be dubious at best, jingoistic at worst.
Perhaps you can be more specific, because right now, the United States — my nation — is one that needs a lot of setting right, if that is even possible without letting it fall apart first.
Our egregiously high military spending (even for what we get), our ridiculous medical prices, and our absurdly high incarceration rate are the first that come to mind in ways we’re number one that I’d really rather not.
So in what ways do you see that the US doesn’t suck?
Re: Re: Re:6
Don’t forget that, thanks to the 13th Amendment, slavery at the hands of the government is a wholly legal punishment for a convicted felon.
Re: Re: Re:5 We still lead the world in every way that matters.
Only if you count sucking off murderous (wannabe) dictators.
Who’s wearing the Fran Trump mask tonight?
Re: Re: Re:5
Hi, born-and-raised American here. American culture is entirely fucked up. We love violence but hate sex; we love saying “all men are equal” but proving otherwise; we love the rich for hoarding wealth but hate the poor for not having enough; and we love dumbshits like Kanye West but hate actual intelligent people like, say, the 97% of climate scientists who are trying (in vain) to warn us all about the extinction level event that is global climate change.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
It is common knowledge that American culture has many flaws.
And yet it still rises heads and shoulders above every other.
Re: Re: Re:7 "heads and shoulders above every other"
Again, can you elaborate? This really sounds like you’re just being jingoistic. In what specific ways is US culture better than other cultures?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Funnily enough, there are people in China, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy, South Africa, Japan, and Peru() who all say exactly the same about their own country.
( non-exclusive list chosen at random, for full list, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Complete_list_of_countries).
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Only if you believe in the absurd, jingoistic notion that the United States is inherently superior to all other countries in every way imaginable.
Re: Re: Re:5 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
"We still lead the world in every way that matters."
Please provide a of list of all the ways that matter.
Re: Re: Re:6 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
Exactly. I am proud to be a US citizen, but I am sorely ashamed of my government. The people I voted for are not in office, and even if they were it would not matter. The system put others in positions they should not have. I blame the system, and those that run it.
So far as leadership, we have been very successful in installing despot regimes around the world, we have been very successful in negotiating trade agreements that benefit the few rather than the many, we have taken positions that exacerbate situations we (and by we I mean likely most of us) do not want. All done by people I did not vote for.
So, I am a proud American (though that refers to the entire western hemisphere, of which the US is a part of the North American portion of America) but I am ashamed of my governments behavior, and have been for a few decades.
Re: Re: Re:7 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
Name a better country or a better government. A comparison with an imaginary friend is childish.
Re: Re: Re:8 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
That’s irrelevant. Even if the US was the “best” government/country on the planet, it still has major issues in need of addressing. “Least corrupt” is still corrupt, after all.
Re: Re: Re:9 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
It is relevant when you try to subvert and demolish the best country in history.
Obviously children.
Re: Re: Re:10
And what are we trying to subvert that you have a problem with us subverting: the tearing apart of immigrant families, the overpopulation of the U.S. prison system (and the overincarceration of Black people therein), the systems of oppression that have consistently held down (among other groups) people of color, the brick-by-brick dismantling of the wall between church and state, the conservative plan to outlaw abortion (and thus remove that choice from the hands of all women), the piss-poor treatment of LGBT Americans at the hands of conservative lawmakers, the lack of significant action on global climate change, or the massive gifts (read: tax breaks) given to people who have more wealth than they will ever need for five lifetimes but refuse to share any of it with the poorest people in this country?
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
By “Immigrant Families” you mean those who openly attempt to break immigration law by illegally entering the US. Right? Foreigner lawbreakers in the US illegally are those that you care about first, right?
Go fuck yourself.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
The recent policy of family separation was introduced as a deterrent. It is not a criminal offence to illegally enter the US, it’s a misdemeanour. In any case, many of the broken up families merely applied for asylum, they didn’t actually break the law.
Give the farmer back his straw, nobody talked about putting foreigners first, we just want them to be treated fairly and humanely. If that’s too much for you to stomach, bear in mind that US foreign policy and the War on Drugs is probably what sent them North.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Your talking point facts are wrong. I won’t bother to correct them, because they are immaterial.
What happened in the US this week was probably reasonable viewed by a disaffected foreigner, like you.
However, to an American, it was an attack on every American. In America, we cherish our Constitution. We support it, we rely on it, we swear to it, we fight for it, we even kill for it. It’s that important.
We fight, together, as Americans, for basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to Americans, like the Presumption of Innocence, and Due Process. We fight the Angry Mob and their attempts to lynch anyone they deem as disagreeable. We fight for the Rule of Law. We fight to support each other under the Constitution.
What happened last week was an attack on American Ideals by the Angry Left Mob. Their thirst for power makes them ready to eradicate individual justice in favor of “group justice”. “Even if Kavanaugh didn’t rape anybody, other people got raped, so he can pay and that’s fine.” That’s their logic. And it is disgraceful and disgusting. No one deserves to go through what he went through.
It is not American to apply tribal rules and ruin individuals who have done no wrong. It is not American, under the Constitution . We respect Individual Rights in the USA, on both sides of a dispute. We fight for them BOTH, both sides of the conflict, using the Constitution as a guideline. We do this as a group, as a people, and as a nation, on both sides of the isle.
Not all of us, of course. But enough. And many more since the Kavanaugh debacle.
MAGA
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
When will you stop listening to rhetoric and look at what is actually happening?
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Said the guy who gleefully has wet dreams about the destruction of this site.
Don’t make me laugh, Hamilton.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
We fight, together, as Americans, for basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to Americans, like the Presumption of Innocence, and Due Process. We fight the Angry Mob and their attempts to lynch anyone they deem as disagreeable. We fight for the Rule of Law. We fight to support each other under the Constitution.
If that were true, why plump for an emphatically partisan justice to be added to the Supreme Court?
Due process applies to everyone, not just citizens.
Who is "each other?" They don’t appear to include anyone you view as a "disaffected foreigner" or "the left."
I’m conservative and believe in the rule of law. This includes integrity and non-partisanship. I don’t play the partisan game.
I’m not interested in Ford’s complaints unless she can get sworn affidavits to support her assertions — I care that the Right isn’t interested in either the rule of law or personal integrity. If they were, they’d have booted Kavanaugh for his partisan outbursts and for lying about his drinking, emails, etc.
Apparently there were many other options on the GOP table but only Kavanaugh believes you can’t impeach a sitting president. It’s why he got the job.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
You are a hallucinating foreigner.
You are an advocate of the Pirate Party. I can prove it.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
You are an advocate of the Pirate Party
Yes I am. It’s the only true thing you’ve ever said about me. So what? Do I have to get your approval for my belief that IPR law needs to be reformed in the public interest?
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Why, yes, I did feel attacked by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
That sounds more like religious-level reverence rather than the mere respect it deserves for being the foundation of our country’s laws. You, uh, you got a shrine in your closet that you ain’t tellin’ people about, Hammy?
…and conservatives fight together as conservatives to prevent “the wrong people” from having those rights. Why else do you think they supported gutting the Voting Rights Act, outlawing same-sex marriage, and gerrymandering state districts with clearly racist intent?
Pretty sure it was conservatives doing the lynchings of Black people way back when, honey.
All the protests were peaceful and Kavanaugh was confirmed. What the hell was the “attack”, and how could it have been any worse than the attacks on democratic norms that Trump and the GOP have been carrying out since January 2017?
…says the guy defending a political party that held open a SCOTUS seat for a year because the last president nominated someone in his last year, then said this past weekend that they only did it because that president was from the opposite party and they would totally do the confirmation process for a SCOTUS nominee named by their party in his last year. Hypocrisy gets you off, huh?
Two things.
When Al Franken was accused of sexual assault, what stopped Republicans from giving him the exact same benefit of the doubt that they gave (over and over again) to Brett Kavanaugh?
The Constitution says a lot. It says nothing about the social consequences for committing misdeeds, alleged or otherwise. And besides, it absolutely is American—just ask the family of Emmitt Till.
Conservative lawmakers try to enshrine Christian morals and traditions into the law, outlaw (or hamstring legal access to) abortion, and gut funding to programs that help the poor while giving massive tax breaks to the rich. What about those things, pray tell, comes off as fighting for “both sides”?
American was never great; that is a lie people tell themselves to whitewash centuries of racism, sexism, and general bigotry at the hands of the straight White men who have always held most, if not all, of the legal and social power in this country.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
And that is the fatal flaw in your understanding.
America is an idea that can be held by anyone, white or black, male or female, or anything in between.
It’s not about which tribe is dominant. It’s about which idea is dominant.
Ideas.
LIke due process.
The fact that you can’t comprehend this does not mean that American Patriots cannot comprehend it.
Americans have fought and died for these ideas.
Ideas. Not tribes. Not skin color. Not age. Not race.
Ideas. American Ideas.
MAGA
Re: Re: Re:16 "America is an idea"
What idea would that be?
American exceptionalism?
Americanism?
Manifest Destiny?
The problem is, if you talk about America! as some ephemeral ideal, then it becomes indistinguishable from every other ephemeral ideal that groups have grasped in efforts to make their own kin special (and by implication, everyone else, not).
Re: Re: Re:17 "America is an idea"
To wit: White supremacy.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
Not tribes. Not skin color. Not race.
Which is why Shiva based the entirety of his political campaign by focusing on how Indian he was! Oh, wait…
Re: Re: Re:16
I can comprehend it, sure. But my comprehension of your delusion does not make that delusion true.
You say “it’s about which idea is dominant”, but dominant ideas are often acted upon only when it is political suicide to not act upon them (e.g., the abolishment of slavery, the passage of the Civil Rights Act). Even then, that is no guarantee of universal “acceptance” or the notion that a “dominant idea” will never be fought against—a majority of people in the U.S. accept the idea that gay people should have the right to marry, sure, but a not-zero number of people who believe otherwise hold political offices around the country. (And that is to say nothing of all the racists who do their best to prevent people of color from voting/having their vote matter.)
You mention “due process” in an obvious allusion to Brett Kavanaugh, but due process is for the legal system—and while Kavanaugh (and the GOP) would love you to believe otherwise, he was not on trial. The hearings he participated in were a job interview; his guilt or innocence in the matter of the sexual assault of Dr. Ford was never going to be decided in those hearings. What mattered, then, was whether Kavanaugh was more believable than Ford. Given how often Kavanaugh dodged questions compared to Ford, the credibility issue falls on him.
You say that “Americans have fought and died for these ideas”. Americans also fought and died for the right to own men as slaves; we need not bring back because a bunch of secessionist traitors fought and died for that shit. Fighting and dying for ideas makes for romantic notions of fighting for something bigger than one’s own self, but rare is the day when this country fights a war for the actual protection of its citizens and their way of life. The second Iraq War didn’t make our speech any more free; Vietnam didn’t make our legal system any more fair; staying in Afghanistan for as long as we have has yet to make anything any better for anyone (other than the rich people who profit from war).
And besides, I doubt you would consider the “fighting and dying” done by those who you deem “lesser” than you. When slaves fought and died against the “dominant idea” of the day, were they heroes or fools? When women fought for the right to vote in spite of the “dominant idea” that they should not have that right, were they heroic women or a bunch of dumb bitches who should’ve stayed in the kitched? When LGBT people fought for their civil rights against the “dominant idea” that they deserve none of them, were they an oppressed minority trying to earn the kind of citizenship the Constitution says they deserve by birth (“all men are created equal”) or a group of fags trying to force their queerness down everyone’s throats?
You talk a great deal about the U.S. as a “great” country, about how it is practically flawless and perfect and The Best Thing Ever™. You fail to talk about every last flaw and misdeed and fuck-up that this country has ever made, from the Trail of Tears to the bombing of “Black Wall Street” to the widescale government surveillance of U.S. citizens. You sidestep such discussion because you believe saying the U.S. has flaws is unpatriotic—that such talk is the talk of traitors. I say that dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism. “My country, right or wrong” is not patriotism; “if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right” absolutely is. The true patriots are the men and women who fought for the civil rights of Black people and LGBT people when those ideas were unpopular. Where is your celebration of their sacrifices, of their lives?
You have only bland marketing tripe on which to hang your hat. Your words make for fine political taglines and would work well in a jingoistic speech about American exceptionalism—but like “Make America Great Again”, they have no substance behind them. When you want an honest discussion about America, I will gladly have one. But all you want is to kiss America’s ass—something I will not do even with a gun to my head.
And I’m sure you would love to have your finger on that trigger.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Any idiot can criticize.
The American Constitution is full of ideas.
When you can write a better one, let us all know.
Re: Re: Re:18
“Does no one remember me? Has no one been taught our history? Look at these lies. Goblets and garden parties? Peace treaties? Odin. Proud to have it, ashamed of how he got it.” — Hela, Thor: Ragnarok
You’re gonna want to remember the last sentence of that quote.
Are you proud of the knowledge that the United States was built on the backs of dead indigenous peoples by men who were kept as slaves? Are you proud of the Founding Fathers for that whole “slaves count as three-fifths of a person” thing? Are you proud of the Confederacy for standing up to the federal government (over the right to keep slaves)?
Proud to have it, ashamed of how they got it.
What about the centuries of enslavement of Black people taken from their home countries, and everything from rape to murder to torture that were done to the enslaved by their slavers? What about the lynchings that took place with either the implicit or explicit approval of local and state governments? What about the bombing of Black Wall Street, the overincarceration of Black men, the unpunished murders of Black people at the hands of police trained to see those people as implicit threats for the fact that they exist?
Proud to have it, ashamed of how they got it.
How proud are you of the slaughter of Indigenous Americans at the hands of both European colonizers and the United States government? How proud do you feel of Ronald Reagan laughing at gay people dying of AIDS? How much pride do you hold in the internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II? And how do you reconcile your precious “American dream” with the fact that “the dream” is limited near-exclusively to straight White men with absurd wealth?
Proud to have it, ashamed of how they got it.
You are proud of the United States. As a fellow American, I can understand that. Hell, on some level, I could possibly even feel that same pride. But the luck of the birthplace draw does not give me pride; the circumstances of where I was born are not an accomplishment, merely a statement of fact. And I do not take pride in the fact that my home country has, for centuries, regularly oppressed what the leaders of this country—the straight White men who have sat in power for practically all of U.S. history—considered the “repugnant cultural other”. Indigenous Americans, Black people, Italian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Muslims both American and not, gay people, trans people, atheists, non-Christian religious people, even White women…all of them have been subjected to oppression both legal and cultural, all at the hands of the people in power.
This country has a long, dirty history that you conveniently ignore for the sake of metaphorically kissing its star-spangled asscheeks because…I guess thinking about how the racism that built this country is just too disturbing for you, I guess? But you cannot ignore history forever. When the realization of this truth finally crashes down upon you and sends you into an existential crisis that makes you question your allegiance to this country, I hope you remember a single sentence:
Proud to have it, ashamed of how they got it.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
“Any idiot can criticise”
You should put that on your family’s coat of arms.
“The American Constitutiin is full of ideas”
None of which you are apparently aware of.
When you can write a coherent logical arguement, let us all know.
Maybe you should take up a healthier hobby than embarrassing yourself every couple of days.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
I remember when I posted excerpts from the Federalist Papers here.
No one recognized them.
By the way, you spell like a Brit.
Re: Re: Re:20 Reading the Federalist Papers
Those were optional reading in middle school. 7th or 8th grade.
I read them and found them fascinating, but when I read them today, I find ideas I had forgotten.
If you post stuff from the Federalist Papers today, I might not recognize them still, though I’m sure I read them.
Re: Re: Re:21 Reading the Federalist Papers
You might recognize them if you read them before, that could be. But the long time posters here (like ThatOneGuy) laughed at them and called them “word salad”. Loud (tens of thousands of posts) and ignorant, a typical configuration for a Techdirt supporter.
Now that the left has publicly and obviously tried to eradicate due process and the presumption of innocence (“I believe Ford” before they even HEAR from Kavanaugh) Americans has seen how nakedly Demoncrats crave power, even at the expense of the basic liberties guaranteed to and cherished by Americans.
The Presumptions of Innocence is a Societal Value. An American Societal Value. Due process is an American Societal Value. Really. No kidding.
We have the best country in the world because we have he best ideas in the world. Now that the Demoncrats have publicly abandoned those ideals, the thin ice that they have been skating on is above to give way, suddenly, swallowing them into the dark icy waters of regrettable history.
It’s over. Watch and see.
You lefties can wail at the moon, scratch at the walls of SCOTUS, howl in the wind, whatever, and power will still elude you. Don’t give matches to an arsonist, and don’t give the Demoncratic Mob power. The modern day era of Social Media has given you away, striped your veneer of civility, and allowed the whole world to understand who you really are. Howling blood thirsty well financed Mobs willing to crush anyone who gets in their way while they seek power over the rest of us.
Let them howl. It’s kind of entertaining, actually. Modern art. Chortle.
Re: Re: Re:22 Reading the Federalist Papers
And the inventor of email remains undefined.
Now that’s hilarious.
Re: Re: Re:23 Reading the Federalist Papers
Oh it’s been defined all right. It’s a bunch of people, none of who are named Shiva.
Re: Re: Re:22
A court of law is not a court of public opinion. Kavanaugh was not on trial for a crime; he was interviewing for a government job. We can think Dr. Ford more credible than the question-dodging partisan who yells at sitting senators without our thoughts substituting for a guilty verdict in a court of law.
The GOP helped gut the Voting Rights Act, then gleefully enacted new laws that made registering to vote harder for the poorest Americans and re-drew district maps to make votes cast by people of color worth less than those of majority-White districts. The GOP is the party of “pro-life”, which means “force women to have children regardless of whether they want to give birth”. The GOP is the party of Second Amendment absolutism, which means they care more about whether people can own a firearm than whether those same people have clean drinking water. Before you turn your criticisms to the Democrats—and believe me, there are plenty of those to go around—perhaps look at your favored party without having your lips pressed against its metaphorical asshole.
Again: Ask the family of Emmitt Till whether they agree with you on that one.
Ideas like slavery, treating the poor like lepers, giving the rich more wealth than they can ever use in their lives, treating LGBT people like second class citizens, and killing off the indigenous population to make room for all the White colonizers and enslaved Africans. Maybe those are not uniquely American, sure—but they were (and possibly still are) American ideas.
Which party is the party of Second Amendment absolutism, Koch Brothers funding, and whining about being poor oppressed victims of “incivility” despite being in power with one of the most stacked conservative governments in a long damn while and doing everything they can to let an imbecillic narcissist asshole destroy every democratic norm connected to the Presidency? Because that does not sound like the do-nothing Democrats I know and despise.
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
Wow, you’re motivated. I kind of like your writing.
Don’t like your ideas much, though. You seem to change the subject a lot and avoid addressing the core issues.
The left just embarrassed themselves with the Kavanaugh nomination. Random single-person sexual accusations from the mentally unbalanced with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL are not enough.
You hate America, I get it. You will say or do anything to destroy it if you can’t control it.
The rest of us live here and want to live well and under the Rule of Law. The majority of Americans don’t give a rats ass about your stupid talking points.
Re: Re: Re:24
I could give you another long reply, but let’s face it, you would rather hump the flag than even once admit America—regardless of who is in charge—has had, and still has, serious flaws and issues. So I’mma just give you what you deserved from the start, Frankie: a good ol’ American fuck you. ????
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
America has serious flaws and serious issues. And it will continue to have serious flaws and serious issues.
Forever, God Willing.
We accept those flaws and issues right alongside the Constitutional guarantees to Individuals. We work, as Individuals, to improve those flaws and issues right alongside the Constitutional guarantees that we depend on.
We do not abandon the Constitution, as the left tried to do with the Kavanaugh debacle.
Real Americans are standing their ground. First POTUS, then Graham, then Collins, then another, then another, and now more and more. The constitution stands. The Court is Ours. POTUS is ours. The House is ours. The Senate is ours.
And the left are the LOSERS. Go howl in the wind, like your brethren.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
Look, this is just boring now.
I really don’t want to deal with you any more.
Can we call it a day already?
And seriously, stop kissing America’s ass.
That ain’t a good look for you.
Anywho: have a shitty night, Frankie!
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
“And the left are the LOSERS. Go howl in the wind, like your brethren.”
Sooooo much projection in one sentence.
It’s fun watching you spray your insecurities all over the place.
Re: Re: Re:22 Presumption of innocence
You haven’t been around the US legal system much have you?
Presumption of innocence is a joke to most of us beneath the law, that is those of us who don’t have a considerable legal war-chest in case we’re arrested or sued.
Prosecutors are known to compound crimes (and offer to lie in court to make them stick) just to secure a plea deal, and about 94% of all cases (roughly, it varies year to year) are resolved with a plea deal.
Of those that remain we have a 100.00% indictment rate, a 90% conviction rate. Mandatory minimums often assure that sentences are disproportionate to the crime. Public defenders run on a tiny budget, and are all overworked and underpaid.
And then there’s our grossly impacted prison system, and an incarceration rate that is the highest in the world.
And that’s before we get to extrajudicial detention and interrogation by the CIA which is beyond the reach of even the illusion of due process. Our officials are terrified to put these people in a public court of law, despite that our wrongful conviction rate must be ridiculously high.
And curiously no-one outside of alarmist groups like Techdirt gave a flying fuck about due process or presumption of innocence until Kavanaugh’s past threatened to catch up to him.
The thing is that was never a court of law. There’s no due process or presumption of innocence for job interviews (though maybe there should be?) People without friends in high places usually have to live with being unemployable if there’s a mere rumor of sexual impropriety or — god forbid — someone is on the Sex Offender list for peeing in an alley or sexting a girlfriend when he was sixteen.
And it’s not like an actual investigation was launched. All we, the public have to go on is the word of some officials (with known biases) telling us that an FBI investigation of nine people was thorough enough. So it follows that some of us find the whole thing suspect.
It also means that Kavanaugh isn’t really a person placed on a bench. He’s a pawn in a game of thrones, objectified by his benefactors as much as Trump objectifies his conquests. Kavanaugh is interchangeable part that would make Whitney proud.
But yeah, let’s actually see some due process for Kavanaugh. Let’s see an unrestricted investigation by the FBI regarding what happened between Kavanaugh and Ford, Regarding what happened between Kavanaugh and Ramirez Let’s see if there is any evidence of (or enough witnesses to) the gang-rape culture around Georgetown Prep, circa 1983 — it certainly sounds comparable to my own high school and its letterman culture — Let’s see if Kavanaugh really did stand up for woman and say no! This is wrong or if he got in line with the rest of his team under the belief that drugged consent is still consent, or that consent doesn’t matter.
Let’s see the potential of an actual indictment of Kavanaugh, let’s see a jury trial, and if enough evidence is determined, a proper sentence. Then we’ll see if Justices at the top of the US legal system are treated with the same respect for due process as marginalized minorities at the bottom.
But we’re not going to get that, because Kavanaugh comes from US aristocracy, and as such has enough friends in high places to be above the law.
We have a lot of people above the law, another place where due process has failed in the United States.
Re: Re: Re:23 Presumption of innocence
The whole thing about Kavanaugh was ridiculous on it’s face.
Consider any of the accusations in the context in which they occurred. When the occurred. Why they occurred. Completely ridiculous.
Did the Demoncrats want TRUTH?
Of course not. They wanted to SMEAR.
I suggest a new law against SMEARING. That would be good.
How about we have an election and PUT AN END to SCOTUS SMEARING and TECHDIRT SMEARING with a LAW AGAINST SMEARING.
Face the music of American Justice, baby.
MAGA
Re: Re: Re:24 Smearing
You mean like Swiftboating? Yeah, we have a name for that now.
Both sides knew that the truth would be awkward for Kavanaugh. That’s why the Democrats wanted a full investigation. That’s why the Republicans didn’t at all, and when they conceded to having one they narrowed to conspicuously tight constraints.
I’m pretty sure you don’t give a fuck about rules being applied consistently so long as your side wins. You’re entirely okay with cheating so long as it’s your side who benefits.
Which means you’re playing a different game than the rest of us. You’re not interested in governance, you’re interested in reveling in the suffering of your (arbitrarily designated) enemies, as if governing a society was a video game.
Re: Re: Re:24 Presumption of innocence
It’s called defamation you numpty.
Honestly it’s like you get off on your betters embarrassing you.
Re: Re: Re:22 Reading the Federalist Papers
But the long time posters here (like ThatOneGuy) laughed at them and called them “word salad”. Loud (tens of thousands of posts) and ignorant, a typical configuration for a Techdirt supporter.
[Citation needed] or Hitchen’s Razor and an admission to lying again.
Aww, I have a fan. A sleazy, dishonest fan. Thanks for the laugh though, having you accuse someone else of being ‘loud’ for posting a lot and ‘ignorant’ is like being accused of gluttony by someone stuffing their face with food as they make the accusation.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
I remember when you cried about your boy gettin his shit pushed in by Mike.
Maybe you should stop letting Mr S. T. Stone dunk on you like you’re a drunk cheerleader.
Why thank you. It’s nice of you to recognise the proper spelling of things you filthy colonist.
Seriously dude, your insults are weaker than your plethora of logical fallacies you hand out like candy canes from a mall Santa.
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
Come on, that’s YOU, Wendy Cockcroft, behind the Anonymous Coward mask, right? Right?
Re: Re: Re:22 Sorry bro she doesn’t give a fetid rats piss-trail about you.
I’m the goddamn Batman.
Re: Re: Re:23 Sorry bro she doesn’t give a fetid rats piss-trail about you.
LOL! I use my real name, I’m not anonymous and I’m no coward.
Re: Re: Re:18 Ideas for the Constitution
~ Get rid of first-past-the-post voting and the two-party system. We have a dozen or more alternatives that allow for choosing by preference.
~ Get rid of the electoral college. It didn’t work anyway and we elected idiots at least twice. Make all voting based on popular vote. If we really feel the need to give a faction an edge, do that with an after-count factor (e.g. votes by parents of children are multiplied by 1.1)
~ Change the Senate so that representation is according to population, or abolish it entirely. If we keep it, make it another house, or if we want a smaller group, create large senatorial districts that might cross state lines.
~ Assure that rights apply to everyone, that no cause is one to discriminate.
~ Abolish religious rights and redefine them in secular terms (e.g. to assemble, to participate in pageants, to share and celebrate narratives, etc.) Religious abuse should still be abuse. Religious discrimination should still be discrimination.
~ Assure that due process applies to everyone.
~ Make IP untransferable and unextendable.
These are off the top of my head.
Re: Re: Re:19 Ideas for the Constitution
Yeah, I tried it once too and my result was not much better than yours.
But then again, I was 9 years old.
Re: Re: Re:20 Trying to improve the US Constitution
Wow. You have something of a mean streak. Now I’m going to find it hard to take you seriously.
Most of those aren’t mine, but are long discussed problems and solutions that are concurred would be better (the debate is what out of many version might be the most effective or least exploitable). Our constitutional framers were new at this stuff and not very good at it. Napoleonic law as was better and inspired by the US Constitution, but they included even more rights (buggery being a well-known one).
But this all is only to point out the Constitution, even as it is amended today, is far from perfect, and in fact is deteriorating like an old Windows installment. And yet, while it’d be nice to tighten it up a bit and fix some of the often-exploited bugs, we’d be exposing ourselves to authoritarian interests. Interests that have always been there from the beginning.
Eventually, though, we’ll have no choice.
Re: Re: Re:21 Trying to improve the US Constitution
He’s just mad because he has an unrequited crush on one of the posters here and is too much of a closet case to process it properly.
Re: Re: Re:22 Trying to improve the US Constitution
I think he gets a thrill from saying my name. Why I’ve become a boogeyman figure to him is a mystery. Mommy issues?
Re: Re: Re:23 Trying to improve the US Constitution
Or the likelier explanation: Hamilton’s supposed two girlfriends are his left hand and right hand…
Re: Re: Re:14 "the Angry Left Mob"
By that, of course, you mean we proles who don’t want the court of the land interpreting the Constitution in accordance to Federalist Society doctrine so that corporations and aristocrats have rights where the rest of us do not.
Something tells me you are more than eager to decide the commoners like me, like sexual violence survivors in the US are insufficiently American to be worth rights.
Incidentally MAGA is at this point a call-back to separationism and Jim Crow laws. If you mean it to be something different, you may want to specify. Otherwise I’m going to assume that you’ll be one of the many eager to pack the cattle trains with undesirables.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Methinks the ladyboi doth protest too much.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Your rhetorical gimmick will not work on me.
Re: Re: Re:12 "Breaking immigration law"
I would absolutely rather these people breaking US immigration law in efforts to become workers in the US economy then for them to become slave labor or sex slaves to our enemies.
The alternatives to migrants coming to the US seems to elude so many. Or they don’t give a flying fuck.
Re: Re: Re:8 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, for a start.
Speaking of imaginary friends. How’s that senate campaign going?
Re: Re: Re:8 The reasons he should not have been confirmed
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
^This.
I won’t contribute to the funny/insightful sham anymore.
Re: Re:
_I won’t contribute to the funny/insightful sham anymore._
Thanks for contributing! And… Lying since you just did?
Re: Re: Re:
Since you didn’t understand my comment, I have to clarify it: I won’t click Techdirt’s insightul/funny/flag buttons anymore because it’s not the “community” who rates comments; it’s a handful of people. So, yeah, it’s a sham.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you’re not part of the community? And the people who click the funny/insightful buttons aren’t either? Just because most/all of the community may or may not rank comments(and I’d be curious to know your evidence for that) does not meant that the community isn’t the one doing so, it just means that only the ones involved are.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I never vote for any of my own comments but when I hopped in here this morning I found three of them voted Insightful. Thanks, guys.
Re: Re: Re: Evidence
Oooh, evidence – I’ve heard of that!
Complaints with no substance are often seen as disingenuous. I’d ask for some proof but obviously that won’t be forthcoming.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s not? I could have sworn that you get to vote whether or not you have an account, and the top two (by vote) insightful and/or funny comments get featured at the end of the week.
Are you complaining about the "editor’s choice" comments? Well, I can’t help you there. Those are picked by the writer that does the "Top Comments" list, and are (traditionally, at least) from the top 10. By their very nature, they are picked by a handful of people (only so many editors/writers). Otherwise, it would be a "Top 4" list.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I know, I know. It’s a troll. But some people might not know that, so I felt I should explain for their benefit.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, someone’s an asshurt little snowflake. A site that trolls regularly say nobody reads has its own popularity contest. Big whoop, get over yourself. Take pride in the fact that you don’t get reported.
Myself, I get reported for responding to knuckleheads like blue boy and Hamilton, because the Internet has a few rules against animal abuse.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I got fed up with that ridiculous anti-OOTB limerick that gets repeated several times a week ages ago, and flag it every time.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I stopped reading at “A site that trolls”.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
How telling. Looks like someone’s easily triggered…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I rate comments and I usually flag your most egregiously trollish comments.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No, you don’t.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
How would you know?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Because I don’t make “trollish” comments.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Nice job making a claim in the same location as multiple pieces of evidence that completely disprove it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Please report the evidence to the authorities.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
We commenters are “the authorities” and we sanction trolls by voting to hide their comments.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
You sanction trolls by feeding them? Good to know.
Re: Re:
None of my comments got any votes, either.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s why I stopped making funny and insightful comments.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We’re just geniuses ahead of our time. At least, that’s the only explanation I can think of.
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps practice by playing cards against humanity?
Would say you’re in it for the wrong reasons, but that implies I would know what the right ones are.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I swear, if TD ever broadens their weekly Sunday post to “Funniest/Most Insightful/Most Flagged Comments of the Week”, I’ll be trollin’ with everything I got.
Re: Re: Re:2 'I'm supposed to compete with THAT?!'
Given some of the lunatics that infest the site you would have some serious competition in that category.
Re: Re: Re:3 'I'm supposed to compete with THAT?!'
I heard that!
Re: Re: Re:3 'I'm supposed to compete with THAT?!'
I feel personally attacked right now.
Re: Re: Re:4 'I'm supposed to compete with THAT?!'
No no, I was talking about the other lunatics, the ones without a sense of humor who are jokes rather than make them.
Re: Re: Re:3 'I'm supposed to compete with THAT?!'
I love a challenge. I’d give it my all, and troll ’til I was blue in the face.
Re: Not contributing.
Earned a funny vote from me, albeit it was a Boaty McBoatface kind of funny vote.
Re: Re: Not contributing.
I see you like shams. Good for you.
Re: Re: Re: Not contributing.
You should go with the handle “Butthurty McButthurtface”. It fits.
Re: Re: Re:2 Not contributing.
Hello, fellow Anonymous Coward. I won’t flag you for trolling.
Re: Re:
“This comment has been deemed funny by Mike.”
Re: Re: Re:
Except, fool, Mike doesn’t vote for funny, neither do any of the other staff. The rest of us do. Have a flag vote.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you very much.
The British are Coming (here) on Techdirt
Reading the comments above, and listening to the national news (and sitting in on confidential briefings), a lot of things about Techdirt are becoming clear to me.
Actually, Techdirt is supported by a combination of foreigners, self-described mental patients, and the Globalist Koch Brothers (check their bank records). You can see the foreigners and mental patients above, and you might notice (if you paid attention) they are never censored.
The new information I got today was about the Russian dossier, and the “former” British agent Christopher Steele. Former? Not. British agent.
It was the British, through Steele, who provided information from Russia in the form of the selacious dossier in an attempt to remove Donald J. Trump. It is the British now calling Trump to ask that the records documenting this not be released. It was the British there, and it is the British here. The British, and their Lesbian Separatist Leaders. (Just kidding Wendy).
Re:
We get it, you hate Jews…
…and queer people.
Re: Re: Re:
Not true. I like Jews, at least the ones I have met. I don’t like the violent queers. The quiet ones are fine with me.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For someone who claims to hate defamiation you sure do a lot of it. It’s almost like you’re a liar and a fraud.
Re: Re: Re:
And women. Needless to say, anyone who disagrees with him is nuts. And he whines about us flagging him! Not kidding, troll boy.
Re: The British are Coming (here) on Techdirt
How’s the senate campaign going bro?
Re: Globalist
The leader of my country is an unabashed globalist. As are the people (like myself) who helped put her in power.
Do you have a problem with that?
Re: Re: Globalist
Be happy.
Re: Re: Globalist
Actually, I mostly have problems with anti-globalists, like those guys building walls on borders, or the ones doing market segregation. And of course, the ones exporting their shitty protectionist monopoly-laws (anti-globalist and illiberal in nature, of course, like patent-systems and copyrights) all over the world.
No, globalism is a good thing. And it certainly doesn’t mean “fascist Koch Brothers enact global surveillance state”.
Re: The British are Coming (here) on Techdirt
“(And sitting in confindential briefings)”
Hey bro, manning the glory hole at the local Kmart doesn’t exactly qualify as a “confindential briefing” unless you count the married guys who’d rather keep the fact that they “briefed” in some random guys mouth “confidential.”
US democracy works like this: the Supreme Arbiters are politically appointed; the Supreme Politician is Electoral College appointed; The Electoral College is partly appointed by politicians, partly appointed by a complex formula justifying taking votes away from individuals. Then we tell the world about the great glory in having one person, one vote.