dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


factchecker

@cox.net

1 recommendation

reply to guitarzan

Re: I'm proud to be an American

said by guitarzan:

I'm suprised you suggested the U.S.A adopt foreign countries laws into the United States over our own current policy/law. We fought and won our God given independence from England a long time ago.

I'm shocked by your statement we should adopt laws in the U.K and France as our own. Have you completely lost your marbles? WTF Junkmail. Talk about a liberal stance, do not ever suggest the U.S.A adopt any foreign countries policy.
So, what if it was a good policy that had positive results (as opposed to this assinine policy)? Would you simply oppose it because it originated from a foreign country or would you be willing to examine it based on its merits ?

The reason I ask is because you seem to be rejecting the policy based entirely on the fact that it originated over seas, not at all based on its merit.


guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA

said by factchecker :

So, what if it was a good policy that had positive results (as opposed to this assinine policy)? Would you simply oppose it because it originated from a foreign country or would you be willing to examine it based on its merits ?

The reason I ask is because you seem to be rejecting the policy based entirely on the fact that it originated over seas, not at all based on its merit.
I reject it due to the fact it's foreign policy of another country. Yes I reject that very idea or notion outright, it's total foolishness. Its complete nitwittery magnified to the power of 1000.

I agree with Junkmail on a lot of issues. For TK to make a statement like that suggestion. IMO is over the line and told him/her so in no uncertain terms.

Being an American I want my country to be a leader not a follower. Nor should ANY foreign policy be adopted by America as its own and applied to American citizens.

Canada, would not adopt our foreign policy of how we deal with illegal aliens, to suggest they do so is assinine.

Perhaps we should adopt Iran's badmood Iminnajihad's idea of foreign policy as well? It works for them.

Examine China's censorship policy if you will.

Would you oppose the type of censorship China has, from being implemented in the States?

Forget the fact it it originated over seas in a communist country. Based upon its merits censorship works! Should it be adopted here because it has "positive results" for China's leadership?

Look at the out sourcing of jobs to India. Where they earn a lot less money than you or I. Yet, India's foreign policy works, people are earning a living. Should American base its workforce pay scale upon India's foreign policy? Hey, look on the bright side, it has positive results for India! Lets allow corporations to lobby politicians to implement it here in the U.S.A.

American policy should be based upon American policy alone. NOT some other frickin foreign country's policy. If you have trouble understanding and grasping the error of your thinking, which appears that America should adopt a foreign country's policy as our own is baseless & devoid of merit.

Then there is no possible way to reason logically with one who thinks so little of his/her own country that we should adopt a policy of a foreign country. Considering such an idea, I find it to be rash and very illogical form of thinking. Well, more like a solution looking for a non existent problem.

Perhaps Sweden con be convinced to adopt copyright laws the RIAA gestapo want imposed, sue them out of existence because of the piratebay! My my what a lesson our RIAA lawyers will teach them, we'll show "em" by George! Not only is form of thinking pure nitwittery, its also very assinine.

There is an old adage: If one invites or allows a camel to pokes its nose into your tent, before you realize it, the entire body connected to the camel will be inside the tent as well.

Hank

--
It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?
With out religion your are more suceptable to manipulation. Look at china, they banned religion. It's much easier to manipulate people who don't have any religious convictions.


factchecker

@cox.net

said by guitarzan:

I reject it due to the fact it's foreign policy of another country. Yes I reject that very idea or notion outright, it's total foolishness. Its complete nitwittery magnified to the power of 1000.
In other words, you refuse to examine policies based on their merits... Interesting, especially when you continue by saying...

Then there is no possible way to reason logically with one who thinks so little of his/her own country that we should adopt a policy of a foreign country. Considering such an idea, I find it to be rash and very illogical form of thinking. Well, more like a solution looking for a non existent problem.
Interesting that you speak of logic, when in fact your position is not based on logic.

Rejecting an idea based on who came up with it or where it originated from instead of its merits is as illogical and irrational as it gets. A rational person examines everything based on its merits, claims and the facts that support it and NEVER dismisses something off the cuff.

Seriously, if mankind operated like that, we would still believe the sun revolved the flat earth, still be performing exorcisms for the flu and dunking women in rivers for witchcraft.

To toss the red herring of patriotism and anti-Americanism in there only serves to further errode you argument.

Yes, I disagree with adopting this policy of forcing ISPs to be copyright police, but purely because the merits of such an idea suck wind, not just because some foreigner came up with them. And that's the only rational/logical way to reject the idea.

And just so you know... The idea for ISPs to play copyright police is an American idea, bred by American companies and organizations. The RIAA has been pushing for it for years. The UK just jumped on board before the US ISPs did...


guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA

said by factchecker :

A rational person examines everything based on its merits, claims and the facts that support it and NEVER dismisses something off the cuff.
Any RIAA/MPAA, lies concerning piracy using the same tired old excuse of, we're going to the poor house, can be dismissed off the cuff.

RIAA/MPAA does not disclose information to support the claims they make. The bravo sierra these mega corps are blowing, MUST be dismissed off the cuff.

This breed of terrorists has yet to produce one shred of evidence to back up their claims of losing $$$$. Yeah poor old millionaires losing millions by leaching off the success of musicians.

One does not have to experience communism first hand to easily dismiss something off the cuff, same goes for Islam, satanism, liberalism, socialism, Scientology, fascism, bigger more intrusive government involvement to micro manage every aspect of ones life from cradle to grave.

quote:
To toss the red herring of patriotism and anti-Americanism in there only serves/snip.
For a person who is carrying Bush's tune in a bucket,(Junkmail) wants more NSA spying to protect Americans or rather corporate America's interests, claims to be conservative, wants MORE intrusive bigger government. Also claims Americans are not loosing any of our liberty or privacy rights to more intrusive, government activities conducted in secretive questionable methods.

It's ironic for one to say we are not losing our freedoms. Then acting as the main cheerleader for the U.S. to adopt policies of foreign countries. Perhaps the government is floating trial balloons here to see how it flies.

What it will boil down to is this: US Gov to ISPs: Stop Privacy By 2009, Or else. Suppose this becomes law. Then what does Or ELSE mean? Water boarding? Labeled internet music terrorists? Or else, OR ELSE F'N WHAT ?

A rational person, could see the fallacy of such faulty logic and where it is headed. Will one be subject to additional or amended foreign policy laws as well? If adopted we will have to play by a new set of rules?

Due to the patriot and national security act. Its now secretive what laws we must abide by. No one knows what they are until the government decides someone broke the law defined under those acts. Then to cheer lead, the U.S should adopt foreign policy of another country. Should send shivers down ones spine, because when adopted we will not be America anymore.

All it is is a power grab for power and control, until we the people are not citizens, but subjects. IMO, this has absolutely very little to do with music traders. Just a absolutely corrupt power grab. Compare it to a dog on a leash, who is at the mercy of the people holding its leash.

I couldn't give a rats azz if some foreigner in his own country had a brain fart of an idea. As an American. My first concern is America and fellow Americans, not some idiotic policy of a foreign country or some numbnuts farting out rational, logical enlightened brain farts of ideas. UNLESS some dimwit in Congress tries to make it an official policy here in the U.S.A

There are plenty of talented smart people right here in the U.S.A, screw some smart imbecile in another country.

FROCK this thread and topic, especially when the suggestion America implement a foreign countries policies as our own. That is a disgrace and shameful insult to members of the Armed Services who gave their life for the freedom American once offered. I can see it now before Bush leaves office.

Bush: due to the epidemic of illegal music trading. I declare a state of emergency, because file trading over the internet tube thangys caused a national disaster. Clearly its a threat to nationalwide security of epidemical proportions. I now declared marshalls law until farther notice. Congress has been disbanded. All these music swapping terrorists, must be dealth with swiftly.
--
It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?
With out religion your are more suceptable to manipulation. Look at china, they banned religion. It's much easier to manipulate people who don't have any religious convictions.