Ha ha ha! You are demonstrating the same mind-set that the author of the article was talking about.
"If the code (referred to in the article) were well written and commented, then the executive who took a programming course should have had no problem completing the task. Well written and structured code should be easy to modify and improve."
Only by somebody who is as good as the programmer who originally wrote it. In any other case, you're full of crap.
That's like saying "anybody should be able to properly tune up an old car, as long as they have the manual." Maybe that is true to a certain degree, but if they have only done a bit of car repair work before, or none, then in fact you cannot reasonably claim that they will perform as well as an experienced mechanic. They will fumble, they will make mistakes, and if they manage to get the job done at all, it will have taken a lot longer than if someone with more experience had done it.
"I personally always find resistance from IT people when trying to get them to do something."
This tells me something already, because in my experience this is NOT usually the case.
"Usually they are just too lazy and stubborn to complete tasks in a time efficient manner."
There you go again. Giving away your own mindset. You think most IT people are lazy and stubborn. And if you act toward them as you describe them, guess what? They are probably going to be lazy and stubborn... around YOU.
"When I remotely monitor their computer screens"
And my suspicions are confirmed even more. You are a tyrant. I, personally, would not work in a place where the boss had the ability to monitor my screen. Why? Not because I am lazy or stubborn, but because it demonstrates an abysmal lack of trust and respect for me as a person. It's a "guilty until proven innocent" situation. Treat me that way, and again, guess what? That's how I'm going to behave. When working for YOU.
"Many programmers in fact are socialists."
Really? How many? Funny, but I know or am acquainted with a great many programmers, and the socialists among them number MAYBE one.
I've noticed that many of them are against businesses and capitalism, as can be seen by their anti-SOPA, and pro-copyright-theft ideologies.
Wow. You're a real piece of work. Anti-SOPA is neither "anti-capitalism", or "pro-theft". It is anti-"so greedy you would damage other people's Constitutional rights and the internet itself in order to exploit those people for your own profit." Not the same thing at all. Greed isn't Capitalism. In fact they are mutually exclusive. Read Adam Smith.
"If programmers would be smart enough then they wouldn't be programmers, they would be a boss like me telling them what to do."
Well, I will agree with you on that! Smart programmers would indeed not be working for you.
"I guess since this is Slashdot I can expect to be moderated down because people just can't handle the truth."
Ha ha ha ha ha! It's late and I have to go to bed, but I have to thank you for giving me some comic relief before I go to sleep.
I'll grant you that sales and marketing can be hard work. But they're a different KIND of hard work. You mention a few aspects of that yourself. So it's pretty hard to compare the two.
And you give yourself away when you say "programmers suck at sales and marketing". Maybe that was just a Freudian slip, but it sure looks like you intend to include most programmers in that category, and really that's unjustified stereotyping.
Take myself for example. I'm a programmer. But I like people. I like to be around people. I don't get along with everybody, but I get along with most people just fine (even, amazingly, on Slashdot). Certainly there are some exceptions. Frankly I think anyone who claims to get along with everybody is either lying or has some serious issues.
I have done sales. I have gone out representing organizations and pressed the flesh. I have led organizations. And I have done a bit of public speaking. And I did at least okay at all these things.
But I don't like sales and marketing. It's just not something I enjoy doing, which is completely unrelated to my ability to do it. And I have demonstrated that I can be pretty good at manipulating people, if I have to be. But I don't like doing it. So I choose to do something else. It's that simple.
I would also like to add my support to those who have commented here, that often it is sales and marketing people who are the clueless ones in an organization, and cause everybody else a lot of grief. Not all of them, by any means, or even most. But a significant number of them.
Despite a ruling to the contrary by the Supreme Court, I don't believe Congress actually has Constitutional authority to do that.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe Amazon has a "physical presence" in the states that are now forcing it to pay sales taxes.
But the whole reason that every (or nearly every) state has a "use" tax in the first place is that Congress has no authority to collect state taxes, nor does one state have the power to tax transactions that take place in another.
"You've lost the context - the discussion was about the fact that people can post things on facebook ("tag") about people who aren't registered members and therefore haven't consented."
Thank you for that. If that is so, then I had indeed lost the context.
"can you tell me how long a story will take to code before you code it? add in to the mix it has to work seamlessly with the other stories that make up the same UI element that other people wrote and fit in to the same work-flows. Re-factoring the work done in the other stories as well so yours can fit."
That's why it's called an iterative process. Each time you have a standup or scrum, you make adjustments, until it works the way you want it to.
I don't know what to tell you, man. Other people make it work. It worked for us just fine, when I was in an agile shop. And I don't think we would have gotten nearly as much done using more "conventional" methods.
"2 week sprints is not enough time to build the large parts or a complex piece of software. The second 3 month development was mostly taken up re-writing the core of the first release to make it easier to enhance. The only place I see the "2 week sprint" agile working is for trivial enhancements to an already well written piece of software."
Then you don't understand how Agile is supposed to work.
Admittedly, there should be some amount of basic architecture roughly hashed out before a project starts. (No, I'm not talking waterfall, just a basic grasp of the big picture.)
Then management (if they know what they are doing), come up with "stories". So far, so good. But it appears that your stories were not conceived at the proper scale.
If a story is too large, then it needs to be broken down into smaller stories that CAN be performed in one iteration ("sprint" if you're doing Scrum). If they weren't, then your stories were not created properly.
Part of the purpose for your once-per-iteration meetings (or "standups", or whatever you call them), is to determine your velocity (stories the team completes in one iteration). If your velocity is too low, or even -- Grid forbid -- less than 1, then your stories are too big. It is as simple as that. It is then up to management to refactor their stories. Period.
Different groups do it different ways, but one good rule of thumb is to shoot for a velocity of at least one story per person per iteration.
It is ALWAYS possible to break a story into sub-stories if necessary, all the way down to individual lines of code. It doesn't matter whether your iteration is 2 weeks long or 2 days. If stories don't get completed, the stories are too big.
What you are telling us is not that there is anything wrong with Agile practices, but that somebody there did not know how to do it right.
"They have been following 2 week sprints developing stories they've put on post-its after time wasting planning sessions. When I say haven't delivered I mean to production. They have delivered many builds to test but its full of defects."
Delivering to production IS "delivery". Putting it on a staging or testing server isn't.
It's pretty safe to say that 15 months ain't Agile. On certain really huge projects, maybe. But rare.
Hah. I misread "something positive for a change" as part of your comment, rather than a tag. I thought you were referring to my own comment that Obama is out of there at year's end.
"The rushed Indefinite Detention act seems like they're gearing up for USA Spring."
Possibly even more disturbing -- if you can imagine -- is a new bill that has been introduced, that would let the government "expatriate" citizens (revoke their citizenship) against their will. And I'm not talking either legal or even illegal aliens... but anybody.
The government has NEVER claimed the right to revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen against his will. UNLIKE the suspension of Habeus Corpus (which Lincoln did prior to Bush) and other recent oppressive measures by the government, all of which have been done before, at one time or another.
But not this one.
In all honesty, I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing, but I thought that about the NDAA and Guantanamo, too.
Apologies, there were format errors in that reply. This is how it should have been:
"I said no such thing, I said 'Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US.'"
Yes, I know. Which is incorrect. (I fixed the quotes for you, by the way.) Your example was of a U.S. citizen acting on their own outside the borders of the U.S. But that is irrelevant to the issue. I was referring to government, which is a different matter. The Supreme Court can decide that it is illegal for the government to perform a certain act. Period. Wherever that act happens to take place. Agents of the government do not automatically lose all legal restrictions on their behavior when they set foot outside U.S. territory. We also have laws regarding military behavior, which are also overseen by the Supreme Court, and which are still in effect wherever that military happens to be. Outside U.S. "sovereignty" or not, it doesn't matter. So you are very clearly wrong.
"And yet you failed to produce a single one. Bullshit."
I shouldn't have to. If you can't find information about it, you are clearly inept. It took me 5 seconds. I am not here to hold your hand.
Sigh. But since you insist, try Wikipedia. You just might find something there. How you could have missed it, I have no idea.
"Listen to a couple of those speeches. He's free to make them. That's not what caused him to get in trouble. It was the content of said speeches, in essence bearing witness against himself. If you go up and say "come, join me and my brothers in attacking 'x'", well, then you're admitting complicity at best. "
And we had all kinds of crazies try to take credit for bombing the Oklahoma City Federal Building, too. His words don't make him guilty. I repeat: speech is not a crime.
"If he didn't like the US, he could have turned himself in to Yemeni authorities. Oh, right, they wanted him dead too. Wonder why...."
Ahem. Maybe you should try that Wikipedia article after all. It was the Yemenis who arrested him. The, AFTER he had been interviewed by the FBI, spent some time in that Yemeni jail, U.S. authorities told the Yemenis that it was okay to let him go.
Seriously. And speaking of citations, you still haven't shown me ONE credible bit of evidence that he did anything other than spew hateful words (which, I repeat, is not a crime or at least sure as hell isn't treason under the law). Until you do, I still maintain that he was murdered. And here's a hint: things like "... such and such newspaper wrote that someone in the State Department reportedly said...", and "... he is thought to have met or talked to" are not evidence.
"I said no such thing, I said 'Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US.'"
Yes, I know. Which is incorrect. (I fixed the quotes for you, by the way.) Your example was of a U.S. citizen acting on their own outside the borders of the U.S. But that is irrelevant to the issue. I was referring to government, which is a different matter. The Supreme Court can decide that it is illegal for the government to perform a certain act. Period. Wherever that act happens to take place. Agents of the government do not automatically lose all legal restrictions on their behavior when they set foot outside U.S. territory. We also have laws regarding military behavior, which are also overseen by the Supreme Court, and which are still in effect wherever that military happens to be. Outside U.S. "sovereignty" or not, it doesn't matter. So you are very clearly wrong.
I shouldn't have to. If you can't find information about it, you are clearly inept. It took me 5 seconds. I am not here to hold your hand.
Sigh. But since you insist, try Wikipedia. You just might find something there. How you could have missed it, I have no idea.
"Listen to a couple of those speeches. He's free to make them. That's not what caused him to get in trouble. It was the content of said speeches, in essence bearing witness against himself. If you go up and say "come, join me and my brothers in attacking 'x'", well, then you're admitting complicity at best. "
And we had all kinds of crazies try to take credit for bombing the Oklahoma City Federal Building, too. His words don't make him guilty. I repeat: speech is not a crime.
"If he didn't like the US, he could have turned himself in to Yemeni authorities. Oh, right, they wanted him dead too. Wonder why...."
Ahem. Maybe you should try that Wikipedia article after all. It was the Yemenis who arrested him. The, AFTER he had been interviewed by the FBI, spent some time in that Yemeni jail, U.S. authorities told the Yemenis that it was okay to let him go.
Seriously. And speaking of citations, you still haven't shown me ONE credible bit of evidence that he did anything other than spew hateful words. Until you do, I still maintain that he was murdered. And here's a hint: things like "... such and such newspaper wrote that someone in the State Department reportedly said...", and "... he is thought to have met or talked to" are not evidence.
You made an obviously incorrect statement (the Supreme Court only decides on issues that take place within the United States), then blow it off with a smartass remark. Sure. You're a lawyer. I get it.
The Supreme Court can decide most matters that have to do with the behavior of our government, regardless of whether its actions take place at home or abroad. So you were very clearly wrong.
"... but there are no references anywhere I could find confirming it. Perhaps you should find something more reputable as a reference, like perhaps Fox News?"
Then you must have Fuck All for Googling skills, because I found dozens of them in a few seconds.
"Association isn't guilt. Active support is..."
And yet I have asked you for evidence of this supposed "active support", and you have failed to produce any.
""Appears" is synonymous with "alleged" in this case. I don't have the proof or references, since this is already taking up too much time for something irrelevant... "
Yes, apparently (another form of the word "appears"), actual guilt is not important to you. I think that I, and other readers, already got that.
"Yes he did. What do you think all those speeches he posted were about? He was in communication with them. Witnesses are easy to come by when there are videos."
Again, you demonstrate that (A) you have not been paying attention, and (B) you have no clue as to the law.
Videos of speeches are videos of speech. Which is a protected right under our Constitution, not an act of war.
I ask again: please provide examples of his aiding and giving comfort to the enemy, in a way that was more than just speech. Because so far, according to your arguments, anybody who speaks out against the United States government can be assassinated. This is a rather dangerous idea. So I am asking you to show me that it isn't what you actually think, because I would rather not view you as a complete asshole.
"Ah Ron Paul.. giving us solutions that didn't work before, but somehow because they failed during mythical better times (better for a few, crummy for many) people forget how badly they worked and assume that if they were implemented again it would be all gold and ice cream."
Ahhh... the clueless Slashdotter. Making incorrect arguments that have been made many times before. Among those who did not actually study their history, and so are doomed to repeat it.
"Ahhh NOW I see the difference between him and all the people before him.
Promising to try to change stuff is a truly novel idea. How did all the other assholes get elected?"
The "other assholes" got elected because they made promises based on the issues of the day. None of them... none of them ever, have, like Paul, been saying the same things for 30 years.
Your comment shows very clearly that you know nothing about it. So why did you pipe up? You know the old saying: better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
"If the code (referred to in the article) were well written and commented, then the executive who took a programming course should have had no problem completing the task. Well written and structured code should be easy to modify and improve."
Only by somebody who is as good as the programmer who originally wrote it. In any other case, you're full of crap.
That's like saying "anybody should be able to properly tune up an old car, as long as they have the manual." Maybe that is true to a certain degree, but if they have only done a bit of car repair work before, or none, then in fact you cannot reasonably claim that they will perform as well as an experienced mechanic. They will fumble, they will make mistakes, and if they manage to get the job done at all, it will have taken a lot longer than if someone with more experience had done it.
"I personally always find resistance from IT people when trying to get them to do something."
This tells me something already, because in my experience this is NOT usually the case.
"Usually they are just too lazy and stubborn to complete tasks in a time efficient manner."
There you go again. Giving away your own mindset. You think most IT people are lazy and stubborn. And if you act toward them as you describe them, guess what? They are probably going to be lazy and stubborn... around YOU.
"When I remotely monitor their computer screens"
And my suspicions are confirmed even more. You are a tyrant. I, personally, would not work in a place where the boss had the ability to monitor my screen. Why? Not because I am lazy or stubborn, but because it demonstrates an abysmal lack of trust and respect for me as a person. It's a "guilty until proven innocent" situation. Treat me that way, and again, guess what? That's how I'm going to behave. When working for YOU.
"Many programmers in fact are socialists."
Really? How many? Funny, but I know or am acquainted with a great many programmers, and the socialists among them number MAYBE one.
I've noticed that many of them are against businesses and capitalism, as can be seen by their anti-SOPA, and pro-copyright-theft ideologies.
Wow. You're a real piece of work. Anti-SOPA is neither "anti-capitalism", or "pro-theft". It is anti-"so greedy you would damage other people's Constitutional rights and the internet itself in order to exploit those people for your own profit." Not the same thing at all. Greed isn't Capitalism. In fact they are mutually exclusive. Read Adam Smith.
"If programmers would be smart enough then they wouldn't be programmers, they would be a boss like me telling them what to do."
Well, I will agree with you on that! Smart programmers would indeed not be working for you.
"I guess since this is Slashdot I can expect to be moderated down because people just can't handle the truth."
Ha ha ha ha ha! It's late and I have to go to bed, but I have to thank you for giving me some comic relief before I go to sleep.
I'll grant you that sales and marketing can be hard work. But they're a different KIND of hard work. You mention a few aspects of that yourself. So it's pretty hard to compare the two.
And you give yourself away when you say "programmers suck at sales and marketing". Maybe that was just a Freudian slip, but it sure looks like you intend to include most programmers in that category, and really that's unjustified stereotyping.
Take myself for example. I'm a programmer. But I like people. I like to be around people. I don't get along with everybody, but I get along with most people just fine (even, amazingly, on Slashdot). Certainly there are some exceptions. Frankly I think anyone who claims to get along with everybody is either lying or has some serious issues.
I have done sales. I have gone out representing organizations and pressed the flesh. I have led organizations. And I have done a bit of public speaking. And I did at least okay at all these things.
But I don't like sales and marketing. It's just not something I enjoy doing, which is completely unrelated to my ability to do it. And I have demonstrated that I can be pretty good at manipulating people, if I have to be. But I don't like doing it. So I choose to do something else. It's that simple.
I would also like to add my support to those who have commented here, that often it is sales and marketing people who are the clueless ones in an organization, and cause everybody else a lot of grief. Not all of them, by any means, or even most. But a significant number of them.
Despite a ruling to the contrary by the Supreme Court, I don't believe Congress actually has Constitutional authority to do that.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe Amazon has a "physical presence" in the states that are now forcing it to pay sales taxes.
But the whole reason that every (or nearly every) state has a "use" tax in the first place is that Congress has no authority to collect state taxes, nor does one state have the power to tax transactions that take place in another.
"You've lost the context - the discussion was about the fact that people can post things on facebook ("tag") about people who aren't registered members and therefore haven't consented."
Thank you for that. If that is so, then I had indeed lost the context.
"can you tell me how long a story will take to code before you code it? add in to the mix it has to work seamlessly with the other stories that make up the same UI element that other people wrote and fit in to the same work-flows. Re-factoring the work done in the other stories as well so yours can fit."
That's why it's called an iterative process. Each time you have a standup or scrum, you make adjustments, until it works the way you want it to.
I don't know what to tell you, man. Other people make it work. It worked for us just fine, when I was in an agile shop. And I don't think we would have gotten nearly as much done using more "conventional" methods.
Even worse.
Although I should qualify that: I do agree that "inheriting" an existing project can sometimes be much worse than just building one from scratch.
Um... TFA says "larger than usual". Not "larger than before".
I think the record still belongs to Bose condensates that have been created in the lab, essentially amounting to huge single quantum "particles".
"That aspect concerns me more than anything else. I haven't consented to them storing information about me..."
Yes, you did. If you signed up, then you consented (according to currently accepted definitions of "consent", with which I personally disagree).
I would debate even those.
"2 week sprints is not enough time to build the large parts or a complex piece of software. The second 3 month development was mostly taken up re-writing the core of the first release to make it easier to enhance. The only place I see the "2 week sprint" agile working is for trivial enhancements to an already well written piece of software."
Then you don't understand how Agile is supposed to work.
Admittedly, there should be some amount of basic architecture roughly hashed out before a project starts. (No, I'm not talking waterfall, just a basic grasp of the big picture.)
Then management (if they know what they are doing), come up with "stories". So far, so good. But it appears that your stories were not conceived at the proper scale.
If a story is too large, then it needs to be broken down into smaller stories that CAN be performed in one iteration ("sprint" if you're doing Scrum). If they weren't, then your stories were not created properly.
Part of the purpose for your once-per-iteration meetings (or "standups", or whatever you call them), is to determine your velocity (stories the team completes in one iteration). If your velocity is too low, or even -- Grid forbid -- less than 1, then your stories are too big. It is as simple as that. It is then up to management to refactor their stories. Period.
Different groups do it different ways, but one good rule of thumb is to shoot for a velocity of at least one story per person per iteration.
It is ALWAYS possible to break a story into sub-stories if necessary, all the way down to individual lines of code. It doesn't matter whether your iteration is 2 weeks long or 2 days. If stories don't get completed, the stories are too big.
What you are telling us is not that there is anything wrong with Agile practices, but that somebody there did not know how to do it right.
"They have been following 2 week sprints developing stories they've put on post-its after time wasting planning sessions. When I say haven't delivered I mean to production. They have delivered many builds to test but its full of defects."
Delivering to production IS "delivery". Putting it on a staging or testing server isn't.
It's pretty safe to say that 15 months ain't Agile. On certain really huge projects, maybe. But rare.
It *IS* a convincing validation of Agile software development.
It probably would be celebrated, if it weren't the FBI.
Hah. I misread "something positive for a change" as part of your comment, rather than a tag. I thought you were referring to my own comment that Obama is out of there at year's end.
"The rushed Indefinite Detention act seems like they're gearing up for USA Spring."
Possibly even more disturbing -- if you can imagine -- is a new bill that has been introduced, that would let the government "expatriate" citizens (revoke their citizenship) against their will. And I'm not talking either legal or even illegal aliens... but anybody.
The government has NEVER claimed the right to revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen against his will. UNLIKE the suspension of Habeus Corpus (which Lincoln did prior to Bush) and other recent oppressive measures by the government, all of which have been done before, at one time or another.
But not this one.
In all honesty, I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing, but I thought that about the NDAA and Guantanamo, too.
"I said no such thing, I said 'Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US.'"
Yes, I know. Which is incorrect. (I fixed the quotes for you, by the way.) Your example was of a U.S. citizen acting on their own outside the borders of the U.S. But that is irrelevant to the issue. I was referring to government, which is a different matter. The Supreme Court can decide that it is illegal for the government to perform a certain act. Period. Wherever that act happens to take place. Agents of the government do not automatically lose all legal restrictions on their behavior when they set foot outside U.S. territory. We also have laws regarding military behavior, which are also overseen by the Supreme Court, and which are still in effect wherever that military happens to be. Outside U.S. "sovereignty" or not, it doesn't matter. So you are very clearly wrong.
"And yet you failed to produce a single one. Bullshit."
I shouldn't have to. If you can't find information about it, you are clearly inept. It took me 5 seconds. I am not here to hold your hand.
Sigh. But since you insist, try Wikipedia. You just might find something there. How you could have missed it, I have no idea.
"Listen to a couple of those speeches. He's free to make them. That's not what caused him to get in trouble. It was the content of said speeches, in essence bearing witness against himself. If you go up and say "come, join me and my brothers in attacking 'x'", well, then you're admitting complicity at best. "
And we had all kinds of crazies try to take credit for bombing the Oklahoma City Federal Building, too. His words don't make him guilty. I repeat: speech is not a crime.
"If he didn't like the US, he could have turned himself in to Yemeni authorities. Oh, right, they wanted him dead too. Wonder why...."
Ahem. Maybe you should try that Wikipedia article after all. It was the Yemenis who arrested him. The, AFTER he had been interviewed by the FBI, spent some time in that Yemeni jail, U.S. authorities told the Yemenis that it was okay to let him go.
Seriously. And speaking of citations, you still haven't shown me ONE credible bit of evidence that he did anything other than spew hateful words (which, I repeat, is not a crime or at least sure as hell isn't treason under the law). Until you do, I still maintain that he was murdered. And here's a hint: things like "... such and such newspaper wrote that someone in the State Department reportedly said...", and "... he is thought to have met or talked to" are not evidence.
"I said no such thing, I said 'Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US.'"
Yes, I know. Which is incorrect. (I fixed the quotes for you, by the way.) Your example was of a U.S. citizen acting on their own outside the borders of the U.S. But that is irrelevant to the issue. I was referring to government, which is a different matter. The Supreme Court can decide that it is illegal for the government to perform a certain act. Period. Wherever that act happens to take place. Agents of the government do not automatically lose all legal restrictions on their behavior when they set foot outside U.S. territory. We also have laws regarding military behavior, which are also overseen by the Supreme Court, and which are still in effect wherever that military happens to be. Outside U.S. "sovereignty" or not, it doesn't matter. So you are very clearly wrong.
I shouldn't have to. If you can't find information about it, you are clearly inept. It took me 5 seconds. I am not here to hold your hand.
Sigh. But since you insist, try Wikipedia. You just might find something there. How you could have missed it, I have no idea.
"Listen to a couple of those speeches. He's free to make them. That's not what caused him to get in trouble. It was the content of said speeches, in essence bearing witness against himself. If you go up and say "come, join me and my brothers in attacking 'x'", well, then you're admitting complicity at best. "
And we had all kinds of crazies try to take credit for bombing the Oklahoma City Federal Building, too. His words don't make him guilty. I repeat: speech is not a crime.
"If he didn't like the US, he could have turned himself in to Yemeni authorities. Oh, right, they wanted him dead too. Wonder why...."
Ahem. Maybe you should try that Wikipedia article after all. It was the Yemenis who arrested him. The, AFTER he had been interviewed by the FBI, spent some time in that Yemeni jail, U.S. authorities told the Yemenis that it was okay to let him go.
Seriously. And speaking of citations, you still haven't shown me ONE credible bit of evidence that he did anything other than spew hateful words. Until you do, I still maintain that he was murdered. And here's a hint: things like "... such and such newspaper wrote that someone in the State Department reportedly said...", and "... he is thought to have met or talked to" are not evidence.
You made an obviously incorrect statement (the Supreme Court only decides on issues that take place within the United States), then blow it off with a smartass remark. Sure. You're a lawyer. I get it.
The Supreme Court can decide most matters that have to do with the behavior of our government, regardless of whether its actions take place at home or abroad. So you were very clearly wrong.
"... but there are no references anywhere I could find confirming it. Perhaps you should find something more reputable as a reference, like perhaps Fox News?"
Then you must have Fuck All for Googling skills, because I found dozens of them in a few seconds.
"Association isn't guilt. Active support is..."
And yet I have asked you for evidence of this supposed "active support", and you have failed to produce any.
""Appears" is synonymous with "alleged" in this case. I don't have the proof or references, since this is already taking up too much time for something irrelevant... "
Yes, apparently (another form of the word "appears"), actual guilt is not important to you. I think that I, and other readers, already got that.
"Yes he did. What do you think all those speeches he posted were about? He was in communication with them. Witnesses are easy to come by when there are videos."
Again, you demonstrate that (A) you have not been paying attention, and (B) you have no clue as to the law.
Videos of speeches are videos of speech. Which is a protected right under our Constitution, not an act of war.
I ask again: please provide examples of his aiding and giving comfort to the enemy, in a way that was more than just speech. Because so far, according to your arguments, anybody who speaks out against the United States government can be assassinated. This is a rather dangerous idea. So I am asking you to show me that it isn't what you actually think, because I would rather not view you as a complete asshole.
"TFA?"
Um, no. TFB.
"That old saying is true, but it is you, Jane about whom we had our doubts."
Hahaha! That is one of my favorite things from SNL, ever. Go Dan!
"Ah Ron Paul.. giving us solutions that didn't work before, but somehow because they failed during mythical better times (better for a few, crummy for many) people forget how badly they worked and assume that if they were implemented again it would be all gold and ice cream."
Ahhh... the clueless Slashdotter. Making incorrect arguments that have been made many times before. Among those who did not actually study their history, and so are doomed to repeat it.
Haha! Good one. I like them both, but I think only one of them is much of a Government representative.
I'd invite them both to a party.
Mod up for "ROFL".
"Ahhh NOW I see the difference between him and all the people before him.
Promising to try to change stuff is a truly novel idea. How did all the other assholes get elected?"
The "other assholes" got elected because they made promises based on the issues of the day. None of them... none of them ever, have, like Paul, been saying the same things for 30 years.
Your comment shows very clearly that you know nothing about it. So why did you pipe up? You know the old saying: better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.
By "last year" I meant 2010. Give me a few days to get the new year straight.
He's the only one who is even promising to go in and TRY to change anything! So what the hell is your point???