I've been saying that the NSA "scandal" (involving Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute and Paulbot Snowden) is another RW fake scandal. It's not about privacy. It's about undermining government, specifically the democrat in the White House, for political purposes.
"Assange's Emerging Politics: Rand Paul And Libertarian Wing of GOP Represent 'Only Hope'"
Forbes (Page 2): UPDATE: Wikileaks Party under fire in Australia for what some are describing its ?lurch to the right,? revealing in filings that ?they want the fascist Australia First Party, the pro-shooting-in-National-Parks Shooters and Fishers Party , and the ?mens rights activist? Non-Custodial Parents Party to win a seat instead of the Australian Greens. Maybe this really is an international conservative movement."
NOTE THIS: "What?s fascinating is that Paul (the father, less so the son, who still has aspirations to actual head up the vast government he says he despises) largely rejects a modern view of democracy, claiming that ?pure democracy is dangerous? and that the founders never intended actual democratic rule. ?Democracy is majority rule at the expense of the minority,? wrote Paul last year. ?Our system has certain democratic elements, but the founders never mentioned democracy in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of
Independence.?
READ IN FULL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2013/08/17/assanges-politics-rand-paul-and-libertarian-wing-of-gop-represent-only-hope-in-u-s/
Finally, somebody had the balls to say it.
Here's the Assange for Ron/Rand Paul video:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42405_Wikileaks_Founder_Assange-_Im_a_Big_Admirer_of_Ron_Paul_and_Rand_Paul#rss
Really, people? THIS is what we want to be supporting??????????????
Tea partying Rand Paul's premature 2016 ad sounds suspiciously like Glenn Greenwald, don't it?
http://www.dailypaul.com/285884/rand-paul-beyond-the-left-right-paradigm
Glenn Greenwald is not a liberal, he's a RW Libertarian associated with the brothers Koch and their Cato think tank: http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/
THIS Cato think tank:
The Nation: "John Yoo, author of the notorious ?torture memo,? served on the Cato editorial board for Cato Supreme Court Review during the Bush presidency. At the same time, Yoo was writing the Bush administration?s legal justifications for waterboarding, Guant?namo, warrantless wiretapping and more. Yoo also contributed articles to Cato Supreme Court Review and a chapter to a Cato book titled The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton criticizing President Clinton?s ?imperial presidency.?
The ?Cato Policy Report? attacked progressive critics of Bush?s ?War on Terror? as ?Terrorism?s Fellow Travelers? in its November/December 2001 issue. Former Vice President of Research Brink Lindsey wrote, ?Most of the America haters flushed out by September 11 are huddled on the left wing of the conventional political spectrum.?
Another Cato executive, Ted Galen Carpenter, former VP for defense and foreign policy studies, enthusiastically supported Bush?s ?war on terror? and called on Bush to invade Pakistan.
The Cato Institute advised the 2002?04 Republican-dominated Congress to commence military strikes in Pakistan in its Cato Handbook for Congress arguing, ?Ultimately, Afghanistan becomes less important as a place to conduct military operations in the war on terrorism and more important as a place from which to launch military operations. And those operations should be directed across the border into neighboring Pakistan.?
Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush?s attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato?s VP for legal affairs and founding director of the Cato Institute?s ?Center for Constitutional Studies,? supported expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008.
http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#
Greenwald's only purpose in life is getting Tea party lunatics elected:
"At a talk given the day after the 2010 election ? one that was a disaster for Democrats ? ?progressive? writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.
Greenwald?s speech mainly focused on civil liberties and terrorism policy ?in the age of Obama.? But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty ? a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event ? excited:
Paulites: "The speech was stellar with too many good points to touch on in a single blog post. I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00 Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians."
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/
P.S. Some of us are keeping up with Greenwald's lying - blow by blow:
http://thedailybanter.com/tag/glenn-greenwald/
In the real world, nobody "owns" an event or an experience.
Not to mention, people pay big bucks to attend - that's where the profit comes in. Turning the Olympics into a fascist rally doesn't bode well for them or for us.
By the way, I'll be paying attention to those "brands" - in fact, I'll be researching them and that will be the last time I spend a cent on any of them.
Not that I planned to attend the Olympics, but now I won't be watching on television nor reading articles nor viewing photos or participating in this corporate heist in any way, shape or form.
Screw 'em - they're managing to drain every single ounce of joy out of life and it's really pissing me off.
Has it dawned on you or the corporate brain trust that the reason people use Netflix or the Red Box or rent movies from Block Buster instead of buying them is because the corporate brain trust over in the financial sector just bankrupted half the country and consumers no longer have the purchasing power they did before?
Shorter version: people ain't got money to buy DVD's when millions don't even have money to feed themselves.
(Crap... I accidentally hit the report button thanks to the cat... didn't mean to... am so sorry)
I wanted to voice agreement, actually. I've never so much as downloaded a song from the Internet (except Makana's Occupy song offered for free), and I think that anyone who pays attention to how giant corporations operate these days that SOPA and PIPA and all of their other anti-consumer tactics are aimed at mopolizing in totality.
This isn't free enterprise and it isn't a free market. In fact, too many corporations/industries are turning themselves into crime sydicates, paying off politicians to allow them to abuse the populace mercilessly and it has gotten completely out of control.
Anyone who supports monopoly is either in the service of such a corporation, profiting from it or a complete moron.
Hmmm... I'm not sure that whis will work out so well even minus the piracy issue.
I haven't used Netflix in a long time (tried it and hated it), but usually when I notice a movie (or book) that I want to see, if I have to wait too long for it to become available I usually forget about it, literally. Not that I don't have patience, it just seems to escape my memory and that's that. And I never buy a movie without first having rented it. Our DVD collection is composed entirely of movies that we rented once, liked especially much, and will watch over and over again.
But then I'm not the sort who has to see a movie the minute it's out. I can wait.
Each and every innovator stands on the accumulated knowledge and experience of ?his? predecessors. None can claim exclusivity in this regard. It is our duty to the next generation to pay it forward and their right to expect it.
I no longer purchase music, period. Ever since the Napster crap (going after teens for sharing music)... the smae way every boo-hoo baby boomer on here crying "piracy" did with tape recordings when they were kids.
They allowed Napster to do it's thing and once unsuspecting kids got sucked into it, they decided to sue them. Their pettiness ended it for me.
Who needs a record label when you've got the Intertubes? Artists are promoting themselves; cutting out the middle men entirely. Their fans do the rest. Life goes on. Nobody dies (except too big to fail record labels that serve to pilfer from the artists just as they do consumers). Everybody wins.
Rhetorical question of the week: Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue?
It is illegal to "assume" copyright for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits... which is what Righthaven does.
I've noticed your comments in other threads and am beginning to wonder what ulterior motives you have in supporting every instance of corporate criminality you stumble across?
Your newspeak makes not a lick of sense and although it may work for you in Teabagistan, this is the wrong forum to attempt a Palinesque word salad.
Obviously, you're unfamiliar with copyright law. It is illegal to "assume" copyright for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits... which is what Righthaven does.
I've noticed you in other comment threads making similarly uninformed arguments for a variety of corporate criminal acts no matter what the topic... which leads me to wonder what ulterior motives you harber.
"people who buy counterfeits are not taking business away from the original company, but are doing it aspirationally, with the intention of buying the real product when they can."
I'm not so sure about that. People who buy counterfeit do so because they can't afford the brand name or designer label or whatever the case may be. So I would have to argue that these people aren't costing a brand name company anything because these people would never purchase its products in the first place - simply because they can't. Anyone who had a choice between a Rolex, for example, and a Rolex impersonation would chose the quality over the knock-off, hands down.
Personally, I think the copyright issue is being taken to the furthest extreme and then being pushed off a cliff. Anyone who has ever heard of Righthaven will agree to that, I think.
I've noticed, too, that the books I've purchased lately come with a notice which forbids copying of any kind, even for archiving purposes. How tight-arsed can you get? What is a publisher deprived of if a book is referenced in archive?
Meanwhile, artists are protesting inclusion in a Google archive... which to me seems ludicrous: " NO, you CAN'T post a thumbnail of my work - art history can survive without me. Asinine and entirely self-debilitating.
I'm sure many of us remember when we used to make mixed tapes and share them around with friends. If anything, doing so meant exposure, popularized an artist, and increased sales. I don't see what's different about sharing files online. Okay, so we don?t want a company mass producing, but sharing between friends is criminal? Let's get a grip - aim for the mean between extremes.
In any event, ever since the music industry started going after teenagers for fear of losing a cent and a half, I haven' purchased a CD or download since and don?t intend to in the future.
I mean, DO you want people to hear your music, see your art, and worship your brand even if they?ll never have a chance in hell of owning the real McCoy? (Museums or entire buildings that can?t be photographed are probably my worst pet peeve). I remember when art claimed to be universal. Now it just seems to want to become another product. It cheapens the experience and turns people off. You copyright Nazis aren't doing yourselves any favors.
...It's profit-churning - a simple scam by people who think they've got the money cards stacked in their favor. These weasels know well enough that their frivilous lawsuits qualify as fair use (which is more than legal). They're targeting individuals who they figure can't afford to defend themselves in court. Its called extortion. There's a far cry between "intellectual property theft" and "quoting a source" - particularly when that source invites online sharing with RSS feeds and other "share" buttons. I applaud the countersuits and the courage of those who are helping these individuals fight back. Thanks EFF for stepping in.
Greenwald's misreporting/ Wikileaks alterego
I've been saying that the NSA "scandal" (involving Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute and Paulbot Snowden) is another RW fake scandal. It's not about privacy. It's about undermining government, specifically the democrat in the White House, for political purposes.
"Assange's Emerging Politics: Rand Paul And Libertarian Wing of GOP Represent 'Only Hope'"
Forbes (Page 2): UPDATE: Wikileaks Party under fire in Australia for what some are describing its ?lurch to the right,? revealing in filings that ?they want the fascist Australia First Party, the pro-shooting-in-National-Parks Shooters and Fishers Party , and the ?mens rights activist? Non-Custodial Parents Party to win a seat instead of the Australian Greens. Maybe this really is an international conservative movement."
NOTE THIS: "What?s fascinating is that Paul (the father, less so the son, who still has aspirations to actual head up the vast government he says he despises) largely rejects a modern view of democracy, claiming that ?pure democracy is dangerous? and that the founders never intended actual democratic rule. ?Democracy is majority rule at the expense of the minority,? wrote Paul last year. ?Our system has certain democratic elements, but the founders never mentioned democracy in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of
Independence.?
READ IN FULL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2013/08/17/assanges-politics-rand-paul-and-libertarian-wing-of-gop-represent-only-hope-in-u-s/
Finally, somebody had the balls to say it.
Here's the Assange for Ron/Rand Paul video:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42405_Wikileaks_Founder_Assange-_Im_a_Big_Admirer_of_Ron_Paul_and_Rand_Paul#rss
Really, people? THIS is what we want to be supporting??????????????
Tea partying Rand Paul's premature 2016 ad sounds suspiciously like Glenn Greenwald, don't it?
http://www.dailypaul.com/285884/rand-paul-beyond-the-left-right-paradigm
Glenn Greenwald is not a liberal, he's a RW Libertarian associated with the brothers Koch and their Cato think tank: http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/
THIS Cato think tank:
The Nation: "John Yoo, author of the notorious ?torture memo,? served on the Cato editorial board for Cato Supreme Court Review during the Bush presidency. At the same time, Yoo was writing the Bush administration?s legal justifications for waterboarding, Guant?namo, warrantless wiretapping and more. Yoo also contributed articles to Cato Supreme Court Review and a chapter to a Cato book titled The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton criticizing President Clinton?s ?imperial presidency.?
The ?Cato Policy Report? attacked progressive critics of Bush?s ?War on Terror? as ?Terrorism?s Fellow Travelers? in its November/December 2001 issue. Former Vice President of Research Brink Lindsey wrote, ?Most of the America haters flushed out by September 11 are huddled on the left wing of the conventional political spectrum.?
Another Cato executive, Ted Galen Carpenter, former VP for defense and foreign policy studies, enthusiastically supported Bush?s ?war on terror? and called on Bush to invade Pakistan.
The Cato Institute advised the 2002?04 Republican-dominated Congress to commence military strikes in Pakistan in its Cato Handbook for Congress arguing, ?Ultimately, Afghanistan becomes less important as a place to conduct military operations in the war on terrorism and more important as a place from which to launch military operations. And those operations should be directed across the border into neighboring Pakistan.?
Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush?s attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato?s VP for legal affairs and founding director of the Cato Institute?s ?Center for Constitutional Studies,? supported expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008.
http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#
Greenwald's only purpose in life is getting Tea party lunatics elected:
"At a talk given the day after the 2010 election ? one that was a disaster for Democrats ? ?progressive? writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.
Greenwald?s speech mainly focused on civil liberties and terrorism policy ?in the age of Obama.? But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty ? a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event ? excited:
Paulites: "The speech was stellar with too many good points to touch on in a single blog post. I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00 Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians."
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/
P.S. Some of us are keeping up with Greenwald's lying - blow by blow:
http://thedailybanter.com/tag/glenn-greenwald/
Re: Where this guy his his info?
So your response is simply "you lie"? Hardly convincing.
Try teh Google and check into it.
Re:
In the real world, nobody "owns" an event or an experience.
Not to mention, people pay big bucks to attend - that's where the profit comes in. Turning the Olympics into a fascist rally doesn't bode well for them or for us.
By the way, I'll be paying attention to those "brands" - in fact, I'll be researching them and that will be the last time I spend a cent on any of them.
Not attending... or viewing... to reading...
Not that I planned to attend the Olympics, but now I won't be watching on television nor reading articles nor viewing photos or participating in this corporate heist in any way, shape or form.
Screw 'em - they're managing to drain every single ounce of joy out of life and it's really pissing me off.
Re:
Has it dawned on you or the corporate brain trust that the reason people use Netflix or the Red Box or rent movies from Block Buster instead of buying them is because the corporate brain trust over in the financial sector just bankrupted half the country and consumers no longer have the purchasing power they did before?
Shorter version: people ain't got money to buy DVD's when millions don't even have money to feed themselves.
Re: I like to think they are, yes.
(Crap... I accidentally hit the report button thanks to the cat... didn't mean to... am so sorry)
I wanted to voice agreement, actually. I've never so much as downloaded a song from the Internet (except Makana's Occupy song offered for free), and I think that anyone who pays attention to how giant corporations operate these days that SOPA and PIPA and all of their other anti-consumer tactics are aimed at mopolizing in totality.
This isn't free enterprise and it isn't a free market. In fact, too many corporations/industries are turning themselves into crime sydicates, paying off politicians to allow them to abuse the populace mercilessly and it has gotten completely out of control.
Anyone who supports monopoly is either in the service of such a corporation, profiting from it or a complete moron.
Can Wait
Hmmm... I'm not sure that whis will work out so well even minus the piracy issue.
I haven't used Netflix in a long time (tried it and hated it), but usually when I notice a movie (or book) that I want to see, if I have to wait too long for it to become available I usually forget about it, literally. Not that I don't have patience, it just seems to escape my memory and that's that. And I never buy a movie without first having rented it. Our DVD collection is composed entirely of movies that we rented once, liked especially much, and will watch over and over again.
But then I'm not the sort who has to see a movie the minute it's out. I can wait.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?an world without I.P. wouldn't go far.?
Your comment makes it clear that you have zero understanding of the term "monopoly"
Monopoly and free enterprise are incompatable.
Paying it forward
Each and every innovator stands on the accumulated knowledge and experience of ?his? predecessors. None can claim exclusivity in this regard. It is our duty to the next generation to pay it forward and their right to expect it.
Screw 'em
I no longer purchase music, period. Ever since the Napster crap (going after teens for sharing music)... the smae way every boo-hoo baby boomer on here crying "piracy" did with tape recordings when they were kids.
They allowed Napster to do it's thing and once unsuspecting kids got sucked into it, they decided to sue them. Their pettiness ended it for me.
Re: What about their stake holders
Who needs a record label when you've got the Intertubes? Artists are promoting themselves; cutting out the middle men entirely. Their fans do the rest. Life goes on. Nobody dies (except too big to fail record labels that serve to pilfer from the artists just as they do consumers). Everybody wins.
Re: Re: Willful ignorance?
My reply was intended for Anonymous Coward (apt) re: "disagreement" with Judge Kane's ruling.
P.S. I hate the way comments are sequenced on this site, but that's just me.
Re: Willful ignorance?
Rhetorical question of the week: Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue?
It is illegal to "assume" copyright for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits... which is what Righthaven does.
I've noticed your comments in other threads and am beginning to wonder what ulterior motives you have in supporting every instance of corporate criminality you stumble across?
Your newspeak makes not a lick of sense and although it may work for you in Teabagistan, this is the wrong forum to attempt a Palinesque word salad.
Re: Trolling for Sympathy?
Obviously, you're unfamiliar with copyright law. It is illegal to "assume" copyright for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits... which is what Righthaven does.
I've noticed you in other comment threads making similarly uninformed arguments for a variety of corporate criminal acts no matter what the topic... which leads me to wonder what ulterior motives you harber.
Maybe you should quit while you're behind.
Re:
and let's not forget AT&T's blatant ripoff of artists Cristo and Jean Claude... to hawk cell phones on T.V.
Re:
Not to mention stealing Sleeping Beauty and Snow White from the brothers Grimm...
Re: Re: Re:
Concensus is building? If you consider a aorporation and a politician fondling each other, then okay.
Buying Counterfeit
"people who buy counterfeits are not taking business away from the original company, but are doing it aspirationally, with the intention of buying the real product when they can."
I'm not so sure about that. People who buy counterfeit do so because they can't afford the brand name or designer label or whatever the case may be. So I would have to argue that these people aren't costing a brand name company anything because these people would never purchase its products in the first place - simply because they can't. Anyone who had a choice between a Rolex, for example, and a Rolex impersonation would chose the quality over the knock-off, hands down.
Personally, I think the copyright issue is being taken to the furthest extreme and then being pushed off a cliff. Anyone who has ever heard of Righthaven will agree to that, I think.
I've noticed, too, that the books I've purchased lately come with a notice which forbids copying of any kind, even for archiving purposes. How tight-arsed can you get? What is a publisher deprived of if a book is referenced in archive?
Meanwhile, artists are protesting inclusion in a Google archive... which to me seems ludicrous: " NO, you CAN'T post a thumbnail of my work - art history can survive without me. Asinine and entirely self-debilitating.
I'm sure many of us remember when we used to make mixed tapes and share them around with friends. If anything, doing so meant exposure, popularized an artist, and increased sales. I don't see what's different about sharing files online. Okay, so we don?t want a company mass producing, but sharing between friends is criminal? Let's get a grip - aim for the mean between extremes.
In any event, ever since the music industry started going after teenagers for fear of losing a cent and a half, I haven' purchased a CD or download since and don?t intend to in the future.
I mean, DO you want people to hear your music, see your art, and worship your brand even if they?ll never have a chance in hell of owning the real McCoy? (Museums or entire buildings that can?t be photographed are probably my worst pet peeve). I remember when art claimed to be universal. Now it just seems to want to become another product. It cheapens the experience and turns people off. You copyright Nazis aren't doing yourselves any favors.
How'd we get to be such greedy buggers anyway?
Spell Check - correction to previous comment
That's to read "frivolous"
Righthaven isn't about copyright protection
...It's profit-churning - a simple scam by people who think they've got the money cards stacked in their favor. These weasels know well enough that their frivilous lawsuits qualify as fair use (which is more than legal). They're targeting individuals who they figure can't afford to defend themselves in court. Its called extortion. There's a far cry between "intellectual property theft" and "quoting a source" - particularly when that source invites online sharing with RSS feeds and other "share" buttons. I applaud the countersuits and the courage of those who are helping these individuals fight back. Thanks EFF for stepping in.