URL Source: [None] Post Date: 2015-01-05 22:01:50 by tpaine
L.A. Times v. Free Republic
Source: The Washington Post.
I can see it now: The Washington Post v. Liberty Post courtesy of tpaine.
How much did the lawsuit cost Free Republic?
Sys Admin - I suggest you remove the article and include tpaine in your ping since he posted it. Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine KNOWS this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
Not good.
Palmdale posted on 2015-01-06 20:35:13 ET ReplyTrace
Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
Not good.
Not good at all!!!
Gatlin posted on 2015-01-06 20:38:20 ET ReplyTrace
Are you guys saying that tpaine deliberately posted copyrighted material and attempted to hide that it was coming from such a source? That is a serious charge.
Tpaine, I'm giving you the opportunity to explain whether or not this is the case. In the meantime I am going to redact the original article until the truth of this can be determined.
I'd say we should wait and see if the washpost sends us another infringement notice. -- I'd bet that since we no longer have an 'owner' (subject to finding Goldies will), that they simply won't bother, and so will no one else.
Yes, I now "own" the virtual server LP is running on as I am the one one paying the bill. Very soon LP will be running on my own server. I am the one who will be held responsible for any violations.
I'm very sorry, but I will not tolerate illegal actions of any kind here. NO WARNINGS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. You're gone.
Since the offending material has been removed I will leave this thread here as a warning. I'll leave it open for now but may lock it after hearing what the community has to say.
sysadmin posted on 2015-01-06 20:53:31 ET ReplyTrace
Poster Comment:
Shot down by nanny state community organizers, tater and palmjob.
The bloviating gasbag also known a tpaine was removed from the site for knowing violating posting rules and putting any and all owners of this site in legal and fiscal peril.
The registration information shows eNom, Inc (R39-LROR), and "Raw Registrar Data December 28, 2014" indicates registrar info in Panama, with the name of the contact information listed as "WhoisGuard Protected."
The "Old Registrar Info" shows shows Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR), and "Old Raw Registrar Data February 17, 2010" with a location of 12 Carroll St., Suite 6022, Westminster, MD 32256 with the administrative contact information listed as Goldi Lox at the same address. The technical contact information lists Goldi Lox at the same address except the zip code is listed as 21157.
32256 is Jacksonville, FL. 21157 is Westminster, MD.
The legal owner of the site would appear to be the estate of Goldi-Lox. The site registration was changed post-mortem. If the domain ownership was released for non-payment, it could have been purchased by a new owner of the domain name. If someone just paid the bill, then the domain name remains with the estate of Goldi. Any equipment owned by Goldi, such as a server, would be part of her estate. I recall LP having a fund raiser to buy a new server some time back.
Assuming Goldi was truly intestate (no will), if the State does not find a living relative, estate property goes to the State of Florida. Unless someone at LP is a living relative, they are not going to inherit any property such as a server.
Things such as insurance policies designated to some person or organization go as designated.
Jeb Bush -- mebbe he can buy the GOPe nomination. I can see the primary campaign issue now -- would you rather have another George W. Bush term or another Bill Clinton term?
Under Clinton, the economy soared and we had a budget surplus.
Under Bush, the economy fell apart and our budget fell into massive deficits again, thanks to excessive tax cuts for the rich.
If the country is given the straight up choice between Clinton or Bush, they will choose Clinton, hands down.
I won't vote for Hillary, because Democrats are baby murderers. But then, so are Republicans. So, both are too evil to assent to.
Given the choice between two sets of murderers, it's easy to see who to prefer: the Clintonites led the country to private prosperity AND fiscal surplus. The Bushes - both of them - favored private prosperity of rich crony capitalists to the exclusion of everybody and everything else, and left the economy in shambles.
That's what Republicans do. The short-term burst of profiteering benefits the crony capitalists, but it's paid for by running up the nation's credit card.
Bill Clinton was FAR more responsible at handling the economy, and more successful at it than any President in our lifetimes.
Therefore, if it were a choice between BILL Clinton and ANY Bush, you'd want Bill Clinton back in office.
Of course, it's not Bill we'll be seeing. It's Hillary. Still, you're very likely to see Team Clinton reconstituted, and they were very good at economic matters.
So, if that's the choice: a Clinton and team Clinton, or a Bush and team Bush, it's easy: Clintons again, hands down.
Under Clinton, the economy soared and we had a budget surplus.
Under Bush, the economy fell apart and our budget fell into massive deficits again, thanks to excessive tax cuts for the rich.
You can't be serious. You will pick a murdering pro abort, who inherited the good of the Reagan economy.
Bush got stuck with what Clinton did.
Tax cuts for the rich? Everyone got tax cuts. Everyone pays to much taxes. If there are tax cuts of say 5 percent across the board. Of course the rich are going to get more of a tax rebate.
Half the people pay no federal taxes.
Where is the Biblical standard that says soak the rich. I thought the word of God said you keep the fruits of your labor.
Under Clinton, the economy soared and we had a budget surplus.
I disagree that Clinton actually ran a surplus, but he came closer than anyone since Eisenhower to balancing the budget. See Debt to the Penny. By my reckoning, the last time the debt went down was 1950 to 1951.
That minor quibble aside, Clinton was a stupendous economic success compared to his contemporaries - Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Obama.
If the country is given the straight up choice between Clinton or Bush, they will choose Clinton, hands down.
I agree. I think a Jeb Bush nomination would be political suicide. Such a consideration did not stop the nominations of Dole, McCain or Romney. The establishment would rather lose an election and lose control of the party.
Of course, it's not Bill we'll be seeing. It's Hillary.
That's true and it's very unlikely I could find a reason to vote for Hillary or Jeb.
At least the campaign could keep us awake if it were between liberals and conservatives, for example Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or whoever.
But I'm not voting for babykillers either way.
That pretty much rules out the any Democratic or GOPe candidate. I doubt any actual pro-life, no exceptions, candidate can win the primaries and get a major party nomination.
