Responding to this stupid kid, however, is well within reason
What are you talking about? Surely not about the events at hand. He didn't respond to the kid, he responded to his fans (= huge audience) ABOUT the kid, calling him an idiot.
Telling someone that their dead father is disappointed in them and then sending an (albeit empty) death threat is much worse than classless.
Did you even read the link? He said the first thing, then he told people to leave him alone, even apologized, and only THEN did he flip out. The way you put it, it sounds like he sent those two things in rapid succession, and that's just a heavily distorted fragment of the whole thing.
And yes, not everybody has the attention span or the heart to be someone worth talking with about this stuff. You didn't make the cut, have a nice day.
Flamebait? Don't fucking flatter yourselves. If this offends you, I positively don't want to hear a peep from your dumb fucking ass. And that is what really pisses you off, isn't it ^^
That kid has issues, sure, so what. Look at how the so called normal people treated him? Fucking despicable. Who's the bully here? Who is doing *actual* harm to whom? Compare the size of the audience, and how the athlete instantly called the guy an "idiot", while identifying himself as one.
What? Yes, the initial tweet was bullshit. But you know what? An athlete earns money by people caring about them, positively or negatively. And then this clown, with a HUGE audience. calls the 17 year old jerk an "idiot"?
After giving it my all...you get idiot's sending me this...
Even after giving your all to a completely irrelevant bullshit activity like being a professional athlete, still not EVERYBODY loves you for it?
Also, it's "idiots", not "idiot's". How classy, to be dumb as bread.
Did you miss that link, or were you looking for something more verbose?
Though I totally agree with the sentiment of your post where it does apply. And what a way to put it! In fact, I'm sticking that in my fav quotes collection, thanks ^^
Why would anyone hold a moment of silence now, 7 years later? Because it's just such a great opportunity to advertise for the police state? Seems cynical, and cutting to different, more local commercials elsewhere seems sensible. After all, americans cannot buy the product that is sold with that moment, they are buying their own brand from their own politicians.
The attack happened 24 hours after the city was selected to host the 2012 Summer Olympics.
That's kinda freaky, combined with that IMHO utterly fucking random "tribute" to the victims of those bombings. Unless of course the bombers stated that the London Olympics decision was their reason for the bombing, or something like that, you might as well say "the bombings took place 3 days after Edward Pillowtree of Southampton turned 87".
A very cynical person might point out that the decision to hold the Olympics there, as well as the attack, definitely facilitated a lot of new toys and powers for the (London) police, while it is unclear what they achieved for radical Islam, other than turning people away from it. But I'm not bothering with conspiracy theories anymore, none of the fuckers involved are worth it. I'm basically just saying "heh, so what." If they're riding the victims of those bombings that's bad enough, why should anyone else watch in on that? It's exactly like 9/11, in that unless you're caught in the hype, you can only shrug, and maybe get a flame-proof suit because you'll need it.
One thing is sure for me: The Olympics are a gigantic jerkfest; anyone involved, and anyone angry about any details of the broadcast is such a gigantic fuckwit, that any and all squabbles among you seem non-existant from this distance. It's just different stripes of the same bullshit.
You will have to search pretty far for any constitutional scholar that thinks the constitution applies on foreign soil, and only perhaps half the SCOTUS takes the view that one should do 'sprit of' vs traditional reading of the text.
Well yeah, I noticed something has to be off. Prolly a nest somewhere.
The thing about the "on US soil" stuff is that it was written in a time where you couldn't affect people across the globe easily. Since that changed, the respective bits have to be read with those special cases in mind. That's the spirit of it, as far as I can tell.
which is a foreign territory and hence again not subject to Constitutional consideration outside the agreements that our government makes with the foreign government.
As the pdf I posted points out, that's just a flat out incorrect, yet commonly held assumption. A lot of things in the constitution apply to all people regardless of nationality.
I'm going to quote a long chunk from that, but the point is at the end, so you may want to skip to that.
Are foreign nationals entitled only to reduced rights and freedoms? The difficulty of the question is reflected in the deeply ambivalent approach of the Supreme Court, an ambivalence matched only by the alternately xenophobic and xenophilic attitude of the American public toward immigrants. On the one hand, the Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.
On the other hand, the Court has permitted foreign nationals to be excluded and expelled because of their race. It has allowed them to be deported for political associations that were entirely lawful at the time they were engaged in? It has upheld laws barring foreign nationals from owning land, even where the laws were a transparent cover for anti-Japanese racism. It has permitted the indefinite detention of "arriving aliens" stopped at the border on the basis of secret evidence that they could not confront. And it has allowed states to bar otherwise qualified foreign nationals from employment as public school teachers and police officers, based solely on their status as foreigners.
Given this record, it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined. Upon examination, there is far less to the distinction than commonly thought. In particular, foreign nationals are generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and association, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake.
1. ALIENS, CITIZENS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens. All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."
The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens." For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of... nationality."
You're right, I mixed those two up. That's kind of a bummer:( I guess that means as long as the people go along with it, *everything* is fine.
But still... if you, for whatever reason, consider yourself worthy of, uhm, a certain dignity, then why not extend that to others, regardless of how their own government treats them? Fuck a legal mandate, I'm talking about being able to look into the mirror. If the constitution doesn't cover that, that just means it's mediocre -- so if it's based on the people, make a better one. Until then I'm bitching:P
Awww. Now isn't that mighty convenient. Then who is allowed to talk about it? Those who do the dirt, but and don't mind doing it? They will never speak up, by definition. And those who did the dirt, but then suddenly grew a conscience, will get fired for speaking out. So they will never be "qualified" according to your cute little rule either.
Unless the general somehow has some sort of secret contact in the NSA that is giving him information illegally. Is that what the general is saying? That he is getting insider information illegally?
So even if it's true, you would rather look the other way and see the guy punished for breaking a law that isn't worth shit with such abuses going on? Is that what you're saying? That you're a good little Nazi, just not brave enough to put your name to it? And in what kind of bizarro world does anything bootlickers think or say ever amount to shit? Nowhere, not even in fiction. Your post is another perfect example of that. Fuck outta here.
Furthermore, it's not a double standard â" if the Constitution applied, in a practical sense, to everyone on the globe, what is the purpose for national borders?
Because that makes the difference between values and hypocrisy. The constitution mentions god-given, inalienable rights. Those are by definition held by everybody, or nobody. You play "yes, but" games with it, you loose the whole thing.
Also, you say that like the purpose for national borders is holy and overrides anything else? Not that I'm against borders, to me they're like fire safety doors... don't put all eggs in one basket. But ideally, there'd be hundreds of souvereign nations, and each would afford more or less the same protections to their inhabitants. And yes, someone might then ask "why even consider them distinct", to which the answer is "why not?":P
What gets me every single time is how Americans seem to have no problem with the whole "foreigners are fair game" stuff.
I beg your fucking pardon? If you breed and keep institutions with that sort of double standard, don't be surprised when that double standard gets turned on you, is what I'm thinking.
I wasn't joking though, I was totally trying to call the people on the site I read since 2000 pussies. They are pussies, while I am just here to mock them, and of course to impress the ladies by seeming manly in comparison.
I am disappointed. I clicked the link out of sheer nostalgia , but it's 404. Then I actually typed goatse.cx into the address bar.. and someone is squatting on that domain alright, but not in the way I expected! So read up on wikipedia, and see that's very old news... FFS, what is the web coming to?
^ wouldn't work if it was too complex (may still not work as is for you, but works for me).
If you make it because you want to say something, or just hypnotize and/or enjoy yourself, anything you do is a Good Thing in my books. If music becomes more simple on average, that might also mean it becomes more accessible? By that I mean, every fucktard can make "music" these days -- I must know, I did it myself. And yes, it's super simple and shallow, I ain't a musician. But it's fun to do, and beats just singing the songs others wrote.
Also, I will always love the song "Doop". Sue me:P Actually, there are many simple songs I like... for example, how is The Blue Danube Waltz not simple, and how is that a problem? To me that is THE pop song of classical music, and I love it to bits.
Orwell said about writing that bloat and pretension come from dishonest aims. I think that's not entirely fair (when taken out of context at least), because maybe it also can come from the sheer joy of language and strange words, sometimes. And perhaps you can say the same for music... sometimes it's complex because someone got really lost into what they were doing, sometimes it's complex because it's over-engineered bullshit, sometimes it's simple because it came from the heart from untalented or unpracticed fingers, sometimes it's simple because it's a money-making scam. I'd say, play from and listen with your heart. The calculator cannot help you here.
Take this for example. Is it music? For me it's just a buildup to be able to say something in last part, only then the previous repetition takes on meaning by being chopped up... that's just a guess, I can't put the finger on why I adore this song.. maybe I'm just rationalizing it ^^ But for me the intro HAS to be simple and kinda boring, so the ending has a stage on which to do a very short and very powerful dance. Not complex by any means, and it would mean nothing, or anything, without the vocal sample. So what... ?
I can't count the times I touched soul anonymously with someone who was anonymous as well.
Kinda like it's nice to be among many people on a summer day, and everybody is treating each other nicely, even though they don't know the full name, usually not even the first name. It just doesn't matter.
ID is the most noble part of a human. But then again it doesn't come into being as easily as a human. The human can come to be anywhere, in the most reckless way and without good reason, but never ID. That is why it is recognized, if it is good, while a human can be as good as they want, and will never be recognized.
You could say, the human is only the mechanical holding appliance for the ID. The ID gets put into his breast pocket, just like stocks get put into a safe, which isn't valuble in and of itself, but contains things of value.
But still, one could say the human is necessary for the ID in some ways. The ID is the most important bit, I tip my hat to ID, but without the human that belongs to it, it wouldn't be possible, or at least not quite.
-- Berthold Brech, "Der Pass", in a shitty ad-hoc translation by me, because I couldn't find one.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? Surely not about the events at hand. He didn't respond to the kid, he responded to his fans (= huge audience) ABOUT the kid, calling him an idiot.
Did you even read the link? He said the first thing, then he told people to leave him alone, even apologized, and only THEN did he flip out. The way you put it, it sounds like he sent those two things in rapid succession, and that's just a heavily distorted fragment of the whole thing.
And yes, not everybody has the attention span or the heart to be someone worth talking with about this stuff. You didn't make the cut, have a nice day.
Flamebait? Don't fucking flatter yourselves. If this offends you, I positively don't want to hear a peep from your dumb fucking ass. And that is what really pisses you off, isn't it ^^
Taken in context, I'd say no.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/rileyy69-aka-reece-of-weymouth-and.html
That kid has issues, sure, so what. Look at how the so called normal people treated him? Fucking despicable. Who's the bully here? Who is doing *actual* harm to whom? Compare the size of the audience, and how the athlete instantly called the guy an "idiot", while identifying himself as one.
Bah.
What? Yes, the initial tweet was bullshit. But you know what? An athlete earns money by people caring about them, positively or negatively. And then this clown, with a HUGE audience. calls the 17 year old jerk an "idiot"?
Even after giving your all to a completely irrelevant bullshit activity like being a professional athlete, still not EVERYBODY loves you for it?
Also, it's "idiots", not "idiot's". How classy, to be dumb as bread.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/rileyy69-aka-reece-of-weymouth-and.html
Read through what actually went down.
Yes, the teenager was "classless", and the reaction of that athlete, his fans and twitter is EXTREMELY classless.
Because you noticed one, but not the other, I hope a bird poops on your head, hah! But not in the eye, and I hope your clothes don't get dirty etc. :P
This article claims otherwise, saying it was *not* a violation of their terms of service:
http://mashable.com/2012/07/30/twitter-journalist-suspended/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/scummvm/files/scummvm/1.5.0/ReleaseNotes/view
Did you miss that link, or were you looking for something more verbose?
Though I totally agree with the sentiment of your post where it does apply. And what a way to put it! In fact, I'm sticking that in my fav quotes collection, thanks ^^
Why would anyone hold a moment of silence now, 7 years later? Because it's just such a great opportunity to advertise for the police state? Seems cynical, and cutting to different, more local commercials elsewhere seems sensible. After all, americans cannot buy the product that is sold with that moment, they are buying their own brand from their own politicians.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why this sentence is in the WP article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
That's kinda freaky, combined with that IMHO utterly fucking random "tribute" to the victims of those bombings. Unless of course the bombers stated that the London Olympics decision was their reason for the bombing, or something like that, you might as well say "the bombings took place 3 days after Edward Pillowtree of Southampton turned 87".
A very cynical person might point out that the decision to hold the Olympics there, as well as the attack, definitely facilitated a lot of new toys and powers for the (London) police, while it is unclear what they achieved for radical Islam, other than turning people away from it. But I'm not bothering with conspiracy theories anymore, none of the fuckers involved are worth it. I'm basically just saying "heh, so what." If they're riding the victims of those bombings that's bad enough, why should anyone else watch in on that? It's exactly like 9/11, in that unless you're caught in the hype, you can only shrug, and maybe get a flame-proof suit because you'll need it.
One thing is sure for me: The Olympics are a gigantic jerkfest; anyone involved, and anyone angry about any details of the broadcast is such a gigantic fuckwit, that any and all squabbles among you seem non-existant from this distance. It's just different stripes of the same bullshit.
Well yeah, I noticed something has to be off. Prolly a nest somewhere.
The thing about the "on US soil" stuff is that it was written in a time where you couldn't affect people across the globe easily. Since that changed, the respective bits have to be read with those special cases in mind. That's the spirit of it, as far as I can tell.
As the pdf I posted points out, that's just a flat out incorrect, yet commonly held assumption. A lot of things in the constitution apply to all people regardless of nationality.
Hey wait, I found something.. what doth thou say to this?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3012981&cid=40819945
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub (PDF)
I'm going to quote a long chunk from that, but the point is at the end, so you may want to skip to that.
Remember Cointelpro? But that's different, right? That was then, this is now, right?
You're right, I mixed those two up. That's kind of a bummer :( I guess that means as long as the people go along with it, *everything* is fine.
But still... if you, for whatever reason, consider yourself worthy of, uhm, a certain dignity, then why not extend that to others, regardless of how their own government treats them? Fuck a legal mandate, I'm talking about being able to look into the mirror. If the constitution doesn't cover that, that just means it's mediocre -- so if it's based on the people, make a better one. Until then I'm bitching :P
Awww. Now isn't that mighty convenient. Then who is allowed to talk about it? Those who do the dirt, but and don't mind doing it? They will never speak up, by definition. And those who did the dirt, but then suddenly grew a conscience, will get fired for speaking out. So they will never be "qualified" according to your cute little rule either.
So even if it's true, you would rather look the other way and see the guy punished for breaking a law that isn't worth shit with such abuses going on? Is that what you're saying? That you're a good little Nazi, just not brave enough to put your name to it? And in what kind of bizarro world does anything bootlickers think or say ever amount to shit? Nowhere, not even in fiction. Your post is another perfect example of that. Fuck outta here.
So?
Because that makes the difference between values and hypocrisy. The constitution mentions god-given, inalienable rights. Those are by definition held by everybody, or nobody. You play "yes, but" games with it, you loose the whole thing.
Also, you say that like the purpose for national borders is holy and overrides anything else? Not that I'm against borders, to me they're like fire safety doors... don't put all eggs in one basket. But ideally, there'd be hundreds of souvereign nations, and each would afford more or less the same protections to their inhabitants. And yes, someone might then ask "why even consider them distinct", to which the answer is "why not?" :P
What gets me every single time is how Americans seem to have no problem with the whole "foreigners are fair game" stuff.
I beg your fucking pardon? If you breed and keep institutions with that sort of double standard, don't be surprised when that double standard gets turned on you, is what I'm thinking.
Yeah, but until it's released in the US, nobody should hear about it! >:[
I wasn't joking though, I was totally trying to call the people on the site I read since 2000 pussies. They are pussies, while I am just here to mock them, and of course to impress the ladies by seeming manly in comparison.
^_^
I am disappointed. I clicked the link out of sheer nostalgia , but it's 404. Then I actually typed goatse.cx into the address bar.. and someone is squatting on that domain alright, but not in the way I expected! So read up on wikipedia, and see that's very old news... FFS, what is the web coming to?
Nah, people are just lost.. who isn't, right? But at least fucking acknowledge it, that's a start and something to work with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAylogfO7Hs
^ wouldn't work if it was too complex (may still not work as is for you, but works for me).
If you make it because you want to say something, or just hypnotize and/or enjoy yourself, anything you do is a Good Thing in my books. If music becomes more simple on average, that might also mean it becomes more accessible? By that I mean, every fucktard can make "music" these days -- I must know, I did it myself. And yes, it's super simple and shallow, I ain't a musician. But it's fun to do, and beats just singing the songs others wrote.
Also, I will always love the song "Doop". Sue me :P Actually, there are many simple songs I like... for example, how is The Blue Danube Waltz not simple, and how is that a problem? To me that is THE pop song of classical music, and I love it to bits.
Orwell said about writing that bloat and pretension come from dishonest aims. I think that's not entirely fair (when taken out of context at least), because maybe it also can come from the sheer joy of language and strange words, sometimes. And perhaps you can say the same for music... sometimes it's complex because someone got really lost into what they were doing, sometimes it's complex because it's over-engineered bullshit, sometimes it's simple because it came from the heart from untalented or unpracticed fingers, sometimes it's simple because it's a money-making scam. I'd say, play from and listen with your heart. The calculator cannot help you here.
Take this for example. Is it music? For me it's just a buildup to be able to say something in last part, only then the previous repetition takes on meaning by being chopped up... that's just a guess, I can't put the finger on why I adore this song.. maybe I'm just rationalizing it ^^ But for me the intro HAS to be simple and kinda boring, so the ending has a stage on which to do a very short and very powerful dance. Not complex by any means, and it would mean nothing, or anything, without the vocal sample. So what... ?
Wow. I listen to way too little hip hop worth shit, so thanks for that. The video is pure genius, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDb5BOage8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKwgCGIQxf8
Because I enjoy intelligent and sexy company, duh!
I can't count the times I touched soul anonymously with someone who was anonymous as well.
Kinda like it's nice to be among many people on a summer day, and everybody is treating each other nicely, even though they don't know the full name, usually not even the first name. It just doesn't matter.
-- Berthold Brech, "Der Pass", in a shitty ad-hoc translation by me, because I couldn't find one.