... but when what you stand for can shifted for convenience sake, the "debates" lose all meaning and devolve into the senseless rhetoric we have today that is less a debate and more a kindergarten shouting match.
Why aren't the Repubs impeaching Obama? Because he is doing what they would themselves do.
No, it's because they would be painted as racists by most of the media and all of Hollywood stardom for attempting to uphold the Constitution. And there is no chance the Senate would convict him, so what's the use of giving their opponents more ammunition in the next election.
How would you like it if today any of your family members were to be killed this way... is that funny?
They could accidentally kill my sister while targeting her neo-nazi ex-con boyfriend. I would be sad, but would agree that the world would be better without them.
It would still be against the Constitution.
That's the problem with this issue that people don't seem to get. I can see the benefit of a drastic action, while still not allowing it because it breaks the rules. However, what if the Constitution were amended to take out the "due process" or "secure in their persons, houses" clauses?
These issues should only be tangentially referred to as constitutional or unconstitutional, because the rules can be changed in the middle of the game. If an amendment is passed to make drone strikes permissible, then the arguments based solely on constitutionality are null and void.
Thanks for the clarification. That jumped out at me when I read the line, and it seemed like you were suddenly going in the other direction from your argument.
Any time the question begins with "does the government have the right to . .." the answer is yes.
No, the government has the power to do whatever it wants, and is given or denied the authority to do so by a majority of voters during each election. But that doesn't mean the government has the right to do whatever it wants.
Well, it's the way they pay for their government run TV channels. Kinda like if PBS could force you to make a donation each year during their telethon week. It's supposed to mean you don't have commercials, but I don't know if that's reality or not.
I've wondered for a few years why they didn't make multi-monitor games. But not like in the linked article, with perfect picture across three whole screens.
For FPS, have the central monitor like normal, high res, bullseye on target/in center, and so on. Have the side monitors blurry, like what your normal peripheral vision would be. You would see that something is there, but you would have to shift your focus to see it clearly. You would know soon enough what every blurry blob is in a game, and what is just scenery.
They could also move the on-screen controls, life indicators, radar-scan, etc onto the side monitors, so the main one is uncluttered.
For the side scrollers or more scenic games, I don't think this would add to the game experience much, since it may reveal too much, and take the fun surprise factor out of playing. Or make the designer just add that much more garbage to challange you, since you see it for longer as you move.
So what are you going to do, get sick till we "learn our lesson". What kind of braindead fucking moron actually thinks like that?
Please see my response after HornWumpus' response. But basically, by wife has been sick for years, we just haven't gotten treatment for her for a few years. We couldn't afford it. Now she's back in the system, and costing you a lot of money every month. You braindead fucking moron who can't see past the end of your nose.
Exactly. When we had health insurance last, which was about 10 years ago, I paid $600 per month in premiums, and my wife's medicines cost about $7000. Yes, seven thousand dollars a month. It will be cheaper now, that there are generic versions of the expensive ones, but now that my wife is covered again, we are already getting much more in medicine that what we pay into the system in a month.
This is why insurance companies deny people with "pre-existing conditions". Not because they are heartless organizations, but because there are a lot more people like me and my wife, who went without medicine for quite a while, who are now back in the system and getting the very expensive health care 51% decided we deserve.
I still haven't gotten back into the system for my own health needs, but if I decide to I can easily add a few hundred dollars worth of office visits and medicine for my own health problems. So, for all you Obamacare supporters, you are fools if you think it will somehow lower your premiums because everyone will be paying into the system. Many of the ones who were not paying into the system are the most expensive ones to cover, by orders of magnitude.
And, by the way, for those who think my wife or I just "live an unhealthy lifestyle" or some such garbage, we don't drink, smoke, get high, or eat sugary snacks all day long. Our health problems are completely unrelated to any lifestyle we can choose, other than if we stopped eating she would drop some of her 140 pounds, and I would drop some of my 220 pounds. Maybe she would get back down to the 85 pounds she weighed six years ago. That still wouldn't make her health condition any better, or her medicines less expensive.
So again, for the people who think Obamacare is going to lower your health care costs or insurance premiums, you have no clue what is going to happen within a couple years. We are not the only ones who simply went without, who are now going to do exactly what you wanted: get health care that was impossible for us to afford before.
Do I feel guilty taking more out of the system than I put in? Yes. Do I give a damn about feeling guilty for that anymore? Nope. Do I think it's going to crash the system? Yes
So it sounds like you don't want government run health care, but you want other people to subsidize your butter gorging lifestyle?
I think he's like many of us in what is supposed to be "the land of the free". Leave me the hell alone. I don't want to force you or anyone else to pay for my lifestyle choices. It sounds to me like you are insisting on being forced to subsidize my choices. So be it, if you want that obligation to be forced on you, and you vote for the people who will demand that obligation be forced on you, I apparently have no say in the matter.
So, all those who wanted Obamacare, get ready to pay for a few million people who don't want your help, but will shove your over-reaching tyranny right back down your throats until you choke to death. Then, after we've reduced your desire to pay for us, maybe you'll understand the error of your ways.
They probably use Hulu, Netflix, and other pay-as-you-watch services. At least for the good stuff.
My wife and daughter download shows they like from the free sites. And as far as I can tell, it isn't worth the time except for a few shows they really like that aren't available in the US. My wife likes the British murder mystery shows, and my daughter watches animes. Other than that, when we had no TV service and piggybacked on our neighbor's wifi* (with permission), actually watching American shows was an ordeal of downloading hell.
. . *Note: Thank god I previewed this before posting. Instead of typing 'wifi' I accidentally typed 'wife'. Changes the whole meaning of the complaint.
Let me clear up my earlier comment about his use of "most" governments, and what they would have done "in the past".
past (pst) adj. 1. No longer current; gone by; over: His youth is past. 2. Having existed or occurred in an earlier time; bygone: past events; in years past.
schneidafunk plainly said that Manning "is being treated pretty lightly compared to what would have happened in the past." Notice those last three words. They mean he is not talking about what would happen today, or even yesterday. That phrase, "in the past", means in a time that is not current. You know, the past.
He then says what "Most governments would have" done, in the past, which would have been violent and lethal. The clear meaning is that now, in the present, as opposed to the past, most governments would not be so violent and lethal.
I get that you don't like his position, and wouldn't like mine if you knew it. But your argument is based on either a misreading of a comment, or a disregard of the rules of grammar. Your argument isn't actually based on what he said.
But don't you libs count the popular vote more important than Electoral College vote, because the popular vote is 'one man, one vote'? Check out this line from the article you linked:
40 (21%) maintain the death penalty in both law and practice. These countries make up approximately 66% of the world's population in 2012.
So the majority of citizens live in countries that have the death penalty and actively use it. The list of countries that have abolished it includes many small nations with low population numbers. It isn't fair that you use that number to support your stance on the death penalty, because those low-population states get extra representation in the results.
Refer instead to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
By all means.
The UCMJ requires trials within 120 days. Manning past that years ago.
If he had been tried 4 months after the documents were posted on Wikileaks, Manning would have been found guilty of every charge the governments made, and then sentenced to life in prison. A three year wait to get a much more lenient sentence works in his favor.
Personally, I still think he should be shot, and have his severed head mounted on a pike in front of the Pentagon, alongside the heads of his superiors who allowed him to bring a recording device with him as he viewed/downloaded/copied thousands of classified documents. The blame isn't his alone that it happened.
The UCMJ also forbids unlawful command influence - which Obama committed when he publicly pronounced Manning guilty, since as CiC is the boss of the prosecution and the judge. Funny how the "but Manning broke the laaaaaaaw" types don't care about that.
Well, yes, Obama is an idiot who can't keep his big mouth shut. Not the first time he chimed in where he shouldn't.
W Drop the temperature by ten Kelvins and I'll catch a nasty cold.
Seems to me that he most certainly blamed catching a cold on a pretty minor temperature drop.
Going from a nice day that's at 80 degrees Fahrenheit, to suddenly 62 degrees Fahrenheit (maybe due to a rain storm) is hardly a "pretty minor temperature drop."
It may not be enough for most people to catch a cold, but the OP seems to be in the unfortunate class of people who are more susceptible to them.
Get back on your meds. I misread what he said. Good grief.
It's still moronic to put functions on the button that turns the device off. Maybe that's why he has so much trouble turning the damn thing on and off, because the circuitry is tied to more than just the power function.
All that would change in my car analogy is rather than the radio wired idiotically, it is the rear window defroster.
I might be reading a bit into his post, but I don't think I'm overboard on what his intent was.
As for rebuilding all roads every 50 years, we rebuild many roads every year. Why would we plan to rebuild all of them in the next few years? That is what he said. Some of them are brand new, some are less than a decade old. Some are ancient and still perfectly serviceable. He didn't didn't say rebuild the worst condition roads, he said all roads.
Same for the bridges across the country. Yes, many of them are bad and need to be rebuilt. With methods that resist corrosion and weathering a lot more than in the past. But that still is not all of them. And at that, we wouldn't be able to replace more than a fraction of them at any one time anyhow, because there aren't enough crews and supplies to do more than that at once.
High speed rail has been a pipe dream for this country for a long time. It falls into one of two categories: A. Won't work for the country as a whole, for many reasons - physical, political, and financial; B. Would only work for highly populated areas, so why should it be a federal job?
I don't know why you think I am working on no information. Other than I don't like these pet projects, which is exactly what they are, I agreed with your earlier post. But since I'm not in lockstep on every detail, I must be a clueless idiot who wants "Places without functional road and rail" so America resembles "3rd world countries."
" I did discover that holding the power button down takes a screenshot. WTF?"
Indeed. Who the fuck thought to put the camera control on the power button? That's kinda like having your car radio only play when the ignition is in the ACC position.
Slashdot Mirror
... but when what you stand for can shifted for convenience sake, the "debates" lose all meaning and devolve into the senseless rhetoric we have today that is less a debate and more a kindergarten shouting match.
You forgot the "monkeys flinging poo" aspect. :)
Why aren't the Repubs impeaching Obama? Because he is doing what they would themselves do.
No, it's because they would be painted as racists by most of the media and all of Hollywood stardom for attempting to uphold the Constitution. And there is no chance the Senate would convict him, so what's the use of giving their opponents more ammunition in the next election.
It's simple really. The president is of their own party.
How would you like it if today any of your family members were to be killed this way... is that funny?
They could accidentally kill my sister while targeting her neo-nazi ex-con boyfriend. I would be sad, but would agree that the world would be better without them.
It would still be against the Constitution.
That's the problem with this issue that people don't seem to get. I can see the benefit of a drastic action, while still not allowing it because it breaks the rules. However, what if the Constitution were amended to take out the "due process" or "secure in their persons, houses" clauses?
These issues should only be tangentially referred to as constitutional or unconstitutional, because the rules can be changed in the middle of the game. If an amendment is passed to make drone strikes permissible, then the arguments based solely on constitutionality are null and void.
Thanks for the clarification. That jumped out at me when I read the line, and it seemed like you were suddenly going in the other direction from your argument.
Any time the question begins with "does the government have the right to . . ." the answer is yes .
No, the government has the power to do whatever it wants, and is given or denied the authority to do so by a majority of voters during each election. But that doesn't mean the government has the right to do whatever it wants.
That's for ghosts and demons, he specified street urchins.
Well, it's the way they pay for their government run TV channels. Kinda like if PBS could force you to make a donation each year during their telethon week. It's supposed to mean you don't have commercials, but I don't know if that's reality or not.
I've wondered for a few years why they didn't make multi-monitor games. But not like in the linked article, with perfect picture across three whole screens.
For FPS, have the central monitor like normal, high res, bullseye on target/in center, and so on. Have the side monitors blurry, like what your normal peripheral vision would be. You would see that something is there, but you would have to shift your focus to see it clearly. You would know soon enough what every blurry blob is in a game, and what is just scenery.
They could also move the on-screen controls, life indicators, radar-scan, etc onto the side monitors, so the main one is uncluttered.
For the side scrollers or more scenic games, I don't think this would add to the game experience much, since it may reveal too much, and take the fun surprise factor out of playing. Or make the designer just add that much more garbage to challange you, since you see it for longer as you move.
You poor thing. I feel so sorry for you. ;^)
Well, what application did you have before that needed Java to start with?
I know everyone says Open Office, but that can't be the main reason so many people have Java installed.
As for the annoying update, I turned that feature off right away. I'll keep track of what I need to update, thank you very much oracle.
Or maybe those countries don't have idiots shooting each other over sneakers like we have in every damn city in the US.
Maybe those other countries don't have a culture celebrating the morbidly obese.
Maybe the US counts every birth no matter how premature or short-lived the baby, rather than ignoring those that die too soon.
Maybe there is a lot more going into the useless statistic of "life expectancy" than simple health care.
So what are you going to do, get sick till we "learn our lesson". What kind of braindead fucking moron actually thinks like that?
Please see my response after HornWumpus' response. But basically, by wife has been sick for years, we just haven't gotten treatment for her for a few years. We couldn't afford it. Now she's back in the system, and costing you a lot of money every month. You braindead fucking moron who can't see past the end of your nose.
Exactly. When we had health insurance last, which was about 10 years ago, I paid $600 per month in premiums, and my wife's medicines cost about $7000. Yes, seven thousand dollars a month. It will be cheaper now, that there are generic versions of the expensive ones, but now that my wife is covered again, we are already getting much more in medicine that what we pay into the system in a month.
This is why insurance companies deny people with "pre-existing conditions". Not because they are heartless organizations, but because there are a lot more people like me and my wife, who went without medicine for quite a while, who are now back in the system and getting the very expensive health care 51% decided we deserve.
I still haven't gotten back into the system for my own health needs, but if I decide to I can easily add a few hundred dollars worth of office visits and medicine for my own health problems. So, for all you Obamacare supporters, you are fools if you think it will somehow lower your premiums because everyone will be paying into the system. Many of the ones who were not paying into the system are the most expensive ones to cover, by orders of magnitude.
And, by the way, for those who think my wife or I just "live an unhealthy lifestyle" or some such garbage, we don't drink, smoke, get high, or eat sugary snacks all day long. Our health problems are completely unrelated to any lifestyle we can choose, other than if we stopped eating she would drop some of her 140 pounds, and I would drop some of my 220 pounds. Maybe she would get back down to the 85 pounds she weighed six years ago. That still wouldn't make her health condition any better, or her medicines less expensive.
So again, for the people who think Obamacare is going to lower your health care costs or insurance premiums, you have no clue what is going to happen within a couple years. We are not the only ones who simply went without, who are now going to do exactly what you wanted: get health care that was impossible for us to afford before.
Do I feel guilty taking more out of the system than I put in? Yes.
Do I give a damn about feeling guilty for that anymore? Nope.
Do I think it's going to crash the system? Yes
Any more questions?
So it sounds like you don't want government run health care, but you want other people to subsidize your butter gorging lifestyle?
I think he's like many of us in what is supposed to be "the land of the free". Leave me the hell alone. I don't want to force you or anyone else to pay for my lifestyle choices. It sounds to me like you are insisting on being forced to subsidize my choices. So be it, if you want that obligation to be forced on you, and you vote for the people who will demand that obligation be forced on you, I apparently have no say in the matter.
So, all those who wanted Obamacare, get ready to pay for a few million people who don't want your help, but will shove your over-reaching tyranny right back down your throats until you choke to death. Then, after we've reduced your desire to pay for us, maybe you'll understand the error of your ways.
They probably use Hulu, Netflix, and other pay-as-you-watch services. At least for the good stuff.
My wife and daughter download shows they like from the free sites. And as far as I can tell, it isn't worth the time except for a few shows they really like that aren't available in the US. My wife likes the British murder mystery shows, and my daughter watches animes. Other than that, when we had no TV service and piggybacked on our neighbor's wifi* (with permission), actually watching American shows was an ordeal of downloading hell.
.
.
*Note: Thank god I previewed this before posting. Instead of typing 'wifi' I accidentally typed 'wife'. Changes the whole meaning of the complaint.
Let me clear up my earlier comment about his use of "most" governments, and what they would have done "in the past".
past (pst)
adj.
1. No longer current; gone by; over: His youth is past.
2. Having existed or occurred in an earlier time; bygone: past events; in years past.
schneidafunk plainly said that Manning "is being treated pretty lightly compared to what would have happened in the past." Notice those last three words. They mean he is not talking about what would happen today, or even yesterday. That phrase, "in the past", means in a time that is not current. You know, the past.
He then says what "Most governments would have" done, in the past, which would have been violent and lethal. The clear meaning is that now, in the present, as opposed to the past, most governments would not be so violent and lethal.
I get that you don't like his position, and wouldn't like mine if you knew it. But your argument is based on either a misreading of a comment, or a disregard of the rules of grammar. Your argument isn't actually based on what he said.
> Most governments would have either shot him in the head or hanged him by now.
Do tell, what is your definition of 'most'?
I would think his definition of 'most' is as sensible as his definition of the phrase 'in the past'.
Looks like most countries don't practice the death penalty, and over half have abolished it completely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country#Capital_punishment_in_the_world
But don't you libs count the popular vote more important than Electoral College vote, because the popular vote is 'one man, one vote'? Check out this line from the article you linked:
40 (21%) maintain the death penalty in both law and practice. These countries make up approximately 66% of the world's population in 2012.
So the majority of citizens live in countries that have the death penalty and actively use it. The list of countries that have abolished it includes many small nations with low population numbers. It isn't fair that you use that number to support your stance on the death penalty, because those low-population states get extra representation in the results.
By all means.
The UCMJ requires trials within 120 days. Manning past that years ago.
If he had been tried 4 months after the documents were posted on Wikileaks, Manning would have been found guilty of every charge the governments made, and then sentenced to life in prison. A three year wait to get a much more lenient sentence works in his favor.
Personally, I still think he should be shot, and have his severed head mounted on a pike in front of the Pentagon, alongside the heads of his superiors who allowed him to bring a recording device with him as he viewed/downloaded/copied thousands of classified documents. The blame isn't his alone that it happened.
The UCMJ also forbids unlawful command influence - which Obama committed when he publicly pronounced Manning guilty, since as CiC is the boss of the prosecution and the judge. Funny how the "but Manning broke the laaaaaaaw" types don't care about that.
Well, yes, Obama is an idiot who can't keep his big mouth shut. Not the first time he chimed in where he shouldn't.
But it's a hell of a lot closer to being a country than it is to being a continent.
W Drop the temperature by ten Kelvins and I'll catch a nasty cold.
Seems to me that he most certainly blamed catching a cold on a pretty minor temperature drop.
Going from a nice day that's at 80 degrees Fahrenheit, to suddenly 62 degrees Fahrenheit (maybe due to a rain storm) is hardly a "pretty minor temperature drop."
It may not be enough for most people to catch a cold, but the OP seems to be in the unfortunate class of people who are more susceptible to them.
, basics like bras,
You know nothing about womens undergarments and how complicated they are to fit and take off do you?
Are you calling him a virgin?
Get back on your meds. I misread what he said. Good grief.
It's still moronic to put functions on the button that turns the device off. Maybe that's why he has so much trouble turning the damn thing on and off, because the circuitry is tied to more than just the power function.
All that would change in my car analogy is rather than the radio wired idiotically, it is the rear window defroster.
I might be reading a bit into his post, but I don't think I'm overboard on what his intent was.
As for rebuilding all roads every 50 years, we rebuild many roads every year. Why would we plan to rebuild all of them in the next few years? That is what he said. Some of them are brand new, some are less than a decade old. Some are ancient and still perfectly serviceable. He didn't didn't say rebuild the worst condition roads, he said all roads.
Same for the bridges across the country. Yes, many of them are bad and need to be rebuilt. With methods that resist corrosion and weathering a lot more than in the past. But that still is not all of them. And at that, we wouldn't be able to replace more than a fraction of them at any one time anyhow, because there aren't enough crews and supplies to do more than that at once.
High speed rail has been a pipe dream for this country for a long time. It falls into one of two categories:
A. Won't work for the country as a whole, for many reasons - physical, political, and financial;
B. Would only work for highly populated areas, so why should it be a federal job?
I don't know why you think I am working on no information. Other than I don't like these pet projects, which is exactly what they are, I agreed with your earlier post. But since I'm not in lockstep on every detail, I must be a clueless idiot who wants "Places without functional road and rail" so America resembles "3rd world countries."
Great talking to you.
" I did discover that holding the power button down takes a screenshot. WTF?"
Indeed. Who the fuck thought to put the camera control on the power button? That's kinda like having your car radio only play when the ignition is in the ACC position.
Time to buy a better phone.