EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 24, 2008 -> 05:56 PM) It just seems wrong that while radio stations make millions of dollars the musicians and the companies that market and manufacture CDs etc, are left out in the cold. Here is another example, I am a t-shirt manufacturer and I start making Radiohead T-shirts and sell them to "advertise the band". People buy my t-shirts and are then encouraged to buy the albums, so it doesn't really hurt the band, it helps them. Of course downloading the songs for free should also be allowed, so we get back to this, are the artists deserving of compensation for their music, or should anyone be allowed to profit from their work? And let's look at another group of dumb as dinosaur executives. If you want to slap a Chicago Bears logo on a hat and sell it to advertise the Bears, and this bringing in more fans, the NFL will sue you in a heart beat. How is that different then the RIAA protecting the intellectual rights of their members? You want the industry to give away free air play and free downloads. Movie theaters pay fees to play movies, why? After all it's advertsing as well. When the movie comes out for home DVD more people will buy it if they have seen it before. Those dumb as dinosaur executives will not allow people to buy the DVD then play it for paying customers. What the executives have to adjust to is downloading and sharing. There is no way for the artists and industry to make any money off that. So who is making money and who can they get it from? People balk at paying .99 to download a song. How would you make money for your artists? Tex, your logo vs song anology doesn't quite work. You can't look at the Bears logo and tell what kind of team you will see play on the field. Just because the shirt looks cool doesn't mean the running back will rush for 1400 yards. However, you hear a song on the radio, you know what it sounds like before you buy it. Stop with the downloads already, that doesn't really fit into general radio play. What station(s) are giving away free downloads? And I can't believe that if they are doing that, that somebody isn't getting paid for it. I don't go searching on the internet for what new songs are out, I don't get newsletters from bands letting me know they have new music for me to check out, I rely on radio, both regular and my XM, to find out what is out there. And when I hear something I like, I buy it. As I said, I have no problem with the radio stations paying royalties, it just isn't going to be this huge windfall that the RIAA makes it out to be. Most of the stations can't afford that much, and if they kill off the stations, they will die a quick and painfull death.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 24, 2008 -> 08:58 AM) I agree about the companies getting more, but when are we going to figure out how to be fair to the artists? Should their stuff be free once it is recorded and the only way they can make money is by touring? That just doesn't seem fair to me either. Next I'll have to pay a nickel every time I put a CD in my car stereo. Maybe they will take after the software people and start including ELUA's that say even though you purchased this CD, you don't really own it, you just purchased the right to listen to it at our pleasure. And if you decide to not listen to this CD again, you can't sell it, or make a copy of it, because we own it, not you. I am not saying the radio stations shouldn't pay some kind of royalties, but they are not extracting billions from them, it would kill (music) radio. While a few syndicates are making big bucks, most are not.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 24, 2008 -> 09:52 AM) That's what I was thinking when I read the article. It does seem fair to me. Jim's post makes a lot of sense until you start to think about people making millions off your work and you getting zero, that just doesn't make sense to me either. If the industry allows the free broadcast ~and~ the free downloading and sharing, how are the artist making a living? Don't let the companies fool you, Tex. The music companies will get those royalties, the artists will get pennies. Even less, when their crap doesn't get forced on us because the stations will fill more airtime with DJ talk. The music industry as it is needs to die. I don't have the solution, but it isn't working right now.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 10:54 PM) so rarely do i say this but: i agree with you. I think Satan just bought a parka.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 10:38 PM) Actually, I could have swore I read a ton of people saying that the residents shouldn't have been living there, they should have known better, the city should be dismantled, etc. You heard some columnists and a lot of people on talk radio, but you didn't hear CNN call them stupid for living below sea level and not being prepared for being under water.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 21, 2008 -> 11:53 PM) So on CNN, they are essentially trying to paint the residents of Iowa as dumb for not having flood insurance, and I'm guessing they're talking about the residents of CR. There's no reason for those people in the 500 year flood plain to have flood insurance for something that has a .2% chance of happening in any given year. I think any Iowans would agree with me that there's a much better chance of having your home f***ed up by a severe thunderstorm in any given year. To say that these people were unprepared because they didn't have flood insurance in the flood plains in Cedar Rapids, especially those outside the 100 year plain, is simply ludicrous. And yet they didn't slam the residents who were living BELOW SEA LEVEL for say, actually living below sea level after Katrina, now did they. I understand why the candidates are not there. But, when do the Hollywood telethons start for Iowa relief? Where is Sean penn and his little boat? When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines? Where are all the 24/7 lurid news tales of cannibalism and unnecessary drownings? Why are the Iowans not complaining more and demanding to be saved? Where are all the pics of looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets? When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a “vanilla” Iowa, because that’s the way God wants it? Just askin'.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 08:34 AM) People who complain about the Fairness Doctrine have no idea about how it actually works or rather worked. It doesn't matter how it used to work, but how the current crop of Dems want the renewed version to work. And they want it to silence conservative talk radio and Fox.

He is setting up any criticism of him and his record as racism. He has learned well from his mentors at his (former) church.

Earlier I mantioned that Obama and his party would try to play the race card. I was mocked, that wouldn't happen, I was told. I said that they would do it and try to not be so obvious about it. I was wrong, they aren't even trying to hide it now. He's accusing republicans of racism before anythign even happens. Nice way to smear your opponent ahead of time. http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id...36-b4296f2553f1

You know, all this talk about various Obama 'gotchas' supposedly out there got me thinking. They should stop worrying about wheter Michells hates whitey or not, or if Obama is really an American. Instead, they should look for who really catapulted Obama into the political world, and why. Who leaked the sex info about Jack Ryan? Info from a sealed court case comes out, conveniently after the primaries when there really isn't time to get a serious challenger (C'mon, really. Alan keyes? Yeah, right.) so that Obama just walks right into the Senate without a challenge. And once there, the talks about 'President' start almost immediately. Then he gets tapped to give a speech, and the liberal white-guilt establishment goes gaga. The rest may be history. So, who leaked that info, and what, if any, reasoning was behind it? Hmmmm.... (Sorry guys, my tinfoil is a bit tight today, but that question has lingered on for me for a while now. It's been a long day.)

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 19, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) <!--quoteo(post=1667464:date=Jun 19, 2008 -> 09:33 AM:name=Alpha Dog)-->QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 19, 2008 -> 09:33 AM) <!--quotec-->Do you have a quote or anything other than the word of an Obama spokesman that McCain signaled anything to the 527's? John McCain: ’I can’t be a referee’ So, he says this in MARCH of this year, Now, well... I cant really do much, so I'm just gonna try. And he has also come out against some ads as well. That statement does not signal that it is open season. You have a very broad interpretation of certain statements, when it suits your argument. Has Obama come out against any of the lame attacks on McCain? Has he derided the people ridiculing McCain's service record? If so, he must be speaking softly.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 19, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) oh you opened the gates now buddy... Here's the problem Mr. McCain.... YOU opted in then out of public financing to help get you a bank loan to get you through the primaries?? hmmm.... at least Obama never actually opted in. He said he would CONSIDER it. You have done NOTHING to show you would work in good faith if they both took public financing. You have not tried to stop the Republican 527 groups. You are all but begging the Republican attack dogs to be let loose, while Obama has heavily urged his supporters to NOT support 527 attack groups. Did I mention McCain's "informal" (aka McCain doesnt want this guy linked to him, but he wants his help) adviser Karl Rove runs a 527? hmmm.... OH YOU CAUGHT HIM MCCAIN! He Flip-Flopped! Want to see the 27 times YOU flip-flopped on issues? I promise it'll hurt far worse than this hurts obama! This from MSNBC: But according to Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the Illinois senator never sat down with McCain. "In the past couple of weeks, our campaign counsels met and it was immediately clear that McCain's campaign had no interest in the possibility of an agreement. When asked about the RNC's months of raising and spending for the general election, McCain's campaign could only offer its expectation that the Obama campaign would probably, sooner or later, catch up," Burton said in an email to First Read. "And shortly thereafter, Senator McCain signaled to the 527s that they were free to run wild, without objection." The key line.... "McCain's campaign had no interest in the possibility of an agreement.... And shortly thereafter, Senator McCain signaled to the 527s that they were free to run wild, without objection." I have said my peace. McCain isnt exactly on the more high ground on this issue. Want me to show you the video of him saying he would fight the 527s? Only to now say they can run wild? You ARE aware that your supposed key line is a quote from an Obama spokesman, and NOT from McCain or one of his spokesmen, aren't you? Do you have a quote or anything other than the word of an Obama spokesman that McCain signaled anything to the 527's?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jun 18, 2008 -> 08:52 AM) Only one Marine left to be cleared in the Murtha Massacre Hoax. What a piece of S*** he is for smearing these Marines. Retire and suck the teat of the U.S taxpayers you old bag of S***. And will Jack Murtha ever say he is sorry for calling them murderers? Um, no.

With the near fanatical following Obama has, if he said to his people to stop it, they would. Bow to the Messiah!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 16, 2008 -> 11:10 AM) There is no way that Obama avoids McCain entirely. Just not happening. Also McCain knew full well that Obama would say no to 10 debates. It's all strategy and negotiation like you said. Yeah, but the one he wants, he wants to do on the 4th of July? C'mon.

The valedictorian of the class of 1999 is a convicted terrorist member of al Qaeda. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/06/bush.plot.ap/index.html

Bug s*** into oil? Well, it is happening, albeit on a small scale, for now. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle4133668.ece

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 11:31 AM) There are several reasons why I might be willing to argue that the government can actually do a solid job of running a health care system. It's not something that will make sense for every industry, but in the case of health care I think there are useful points. 1. Economy of scale. Right now, something like 20-30% of the money this country spends on health care is spent on administrative costs, paying for different paperwork for different insurers, paying the salaries of all the people who's job it is to find excuses for the insurance companies not to cover specific procedures for people, etc. In a streamlined system where you can assume everyone is covered by 1 setup, the paperwork and administrative costs should drop dramatically because everyone can follow the same standardized procedures. 2. Direction of spending. Right now, the way our system is set up, positive health care results are returned as an externality to the system. The main thing our health care system is designed to do is to produce profit for the companies involved, not to produce positive health care results. This leads to clear inefficiencies within the system...easy, cost saving measures not being adopted because the companies involved don't have motivation to save money, over-purchasing and over-ordering of some of the most expensive exams and treatments regardless of need or effectiveness, and direction of research dollars (i.e. in the pharmaceutical industry) to treatments that are more profitable rather than more effective. You will lose something in efficiency if you go to a government based system, you always do when you lose competitiveness, but in many cases worldwide, we see that actually focusing on providing better health care rather than focusing on profits more than makes up for the difference. 3. Preventative care. It's long been shown that the most effective type of care is preventative care for many diseases. Hit things early and they go away. But if you're in a situation where you're uninsured, or you don't know if your insurance will cover a treatment, you're likely to not see a doctor until a condition has advanced more. And then, you often wind up going to the emergency room, which is dramatically more expensive for all sides, and is a major drag on the economy in that it keeps sending people in to bankruptcy and pulls large amounts of money from the government. If you know you're going to get non-banrkupting care, you're likely to seek treatment earlier and find it to be more effective. 4. Need to do something. At the current rates of growth, within a few decades, basically our entire economy will be made up of the energy sector which creates energy that is used to power the health care sector and the health care sector itself. The fact is, the semi-private system we've built in this country is failing rapidly. The private system has had its shot and despite all the "reforms" over the last 20 years, HMO's, the medicare insurance company bailout bill, etc., nothing has gotten better. It's time to try something creative and new. #2 can be explained in part by lawsuits and the CYA attitude most have adopted after multi-million dollar judgements get passed for missing something that you had no real chance of finding anyway until it was too late. Run every test you can think of, then you can't be blamed for 'missing' something. #3 is a good thing, but in practice could bankrupt whatever system you put in place as people go running to the doctor for every little sniffle or scrape. Yes, they do it now in the emergency room, which is also a huge problem. Those little clinics you see inside some Walmarts and Walgreens now can help with that particular problem, but they are being fought by the AMA. They should be encouraged. #1 How will the economy react to the huge amounts of people that will be out of work thru the economies of scale? And can our government afford anybody else on the government pension plan instead of social security? SOMEBODY has to keep paying into it. As for streamliing it, how about coming up with a system like ISO9000 but only for the medical field. A system of standards regarding coding and billing to ease the paperwork on all. Incent them to work together, and in the long run it will lower costs to the average person. #4 I'll admit that something needs to be done, but how about other things. Tort reform. Free/low cost clinics for preventative maintenance. Taxbreaks for docs to do work at previously mentioned clinics. But you can count on one thing. if you get government run healthcare, Congress and the rich will still have the best care available to them, and it won't be the one the rest of us are on.

"No teeth!"

And every parent that sends a kid there shouldbe heavily watched by our wonderful government.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 12:32 PM) all else fails... fire the judge that wont rule in your favor... http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/05/29/judge-khadr.html Well, you can't fire the people that DO rule in your favor.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) And then perhaps if there were FREE strippers involved. Are there sea men involved?

#16, if it is pre-hepatitus.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 11:39 AM) I really wish Obama would've chosen his words more carefully. I know what he wanted to say, but that's not what he said, and people trying to apologize for him isn't going to change that. I also haven't noted him saying that's not what he meant to say, that he's only having his words parsed and taken out of context (they're really not, I heard both the question and the full answer). That first part of what you said can go for just about everyone this election cycle. I changed it to fit what I have heard several times from the Obama camp so far this year. Next we will all be discussing the meaning of 'IS' again.