"The "statement" you quoted was part of a sentence, which you've lifted out of context"
First, no it wasn't. Save that nonsense.
Second, please, please stop, it was a lie in context, and it was a lie out of context. Add all the context you like, you were wrong and can't find enough integrity to admit it.
I only hope you grow up enough to realize how ridiculous you appear.
(who had volunteered to be used in such a fashion, unlike the civilians who had no such luxury).
They did not volunteer, they were drafted.
If you're going to comment on something like this as though your opinion should be considered, you'd better make sure you don't make an obvious and glaring mistake like that.
"Conscription was next used after the United States entered World War I in 1917. The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Service Act of 1940, which established the Selective Service System as an independent agency. The duration of service was originally twelve months. It was expanded to eighteen months in 1941. When the United States entered World War II, service was required until six months after the end of the war."
Learn about the subject before you pretend to knowledge you obviously don't have.
If you wonder what my problem is with celebrating veterans day, ask yourself "how much grief was caused by those being honored?"
Not nearly as much as was halted.
Which speaks to your real problem quite clearly.
I've lived in three different countries for a substantial amount of time (going on 4), and have never needed a gun in any of them.
Because others used them in your place. Which you'll never admit, but is completely true. At some point someone used force to secure your ability to choose not to use force.
And that, in a nutshell, is MY problem with people like you. You think the ridiculous, petty objections you've rationalized into being actually matter, while simultaneously refusing to honor those people who WERE willing to fight to secure your right to object at all.
It's takes a particularly callous individual to take advantage of freedoms won with life and blood while backhandedly denouncing the very same souls who secured your right to denounce them.
It's your right to do it, but it makes you seem very small and out of touch with reality.
I'm posting this so the AC gets heard, as many of you shamelessly ignore AC's.
Its interesting that the left, uses as its insult of choice, a word that is used to describe poor rural whites as if the very act of being poor, rural, white and labouring is somehow degrading
The use of the word 'redneck' as an insult shines considerable light on the current malaise of the american left and its seeming inability to attract votes from the very people its claiming to represent and help..the poor and working classes. Perhaps the left needs fewer urban techies and sociology professors and more miners and loggers.
But we don't care. You can thank being well adjusted for that.
And honestly, neither you nor "the rest of the world" has the slightest inkling what a redneck really is, which serves to emphasize why we don't care about your opinion.
"The Bush camp has done this kind of thing before"
It seems upon first reading that you're claiming the Bush camp faked the documents that Rather lost his career over.
Did I misread you?
And if not,could you please source that? Your link doesn't address it at all. I haven't heard that accusation before, and would like to see something to support it.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage trade activities between the states"
Declarations such as yours saying "In other words, if the Constitution is unclear and there is no relevant law then the Federal Govt. has no power whatsoever" ignore the reality that it is the job of the courts to interpret what is unclear and apply it, as in the case of the Commerce Clause.
Saying they have "no power whatsoever" is simply wrong, again, as demonstrated by the rampant use/abuse of the commerce clause.
Idealism is nice, but reality bends it over ever single time.
The feds have a clear constitutional right to ensure fair voting.
Not to nitpick (don't you love how people say not to _____ when they're just about to _____) but the feds don't have ANY rights.
They have powers, which are based on the rights of the people. So, the better way to say this is "the feds are empowered to protect the rights of citizens by ensuring fair voting".
Please be careful, because the distinction is not trivial, especially in the current political climate.
I'm sorry, but every single thing you wrote in your first paragraph is objectively, factually incorrect -- other than the fact that you're not so sure about some of it, but that just makes you wrong.
So was your post where you claimed
to gain any access at all requires creating an account, and that it is the concessions made when creating the account that is in question here
I don't see you complaining that your factually incorrect post was modded up.
Read the part that you have apparently missed, below.
"And having read your analogy, you're leaving out a crucial point. In your incredibly weak analogy, you would have to give the world self determination and will, so it could DECIDE to fall. Without it, your analogy is not at all applicable, as criminals DO have free will, and so will not automatically "fall" as the world does."
All you've done is insult people.
I'm sorry, but could you support that? I've made some pointed statements, but I don't recall insulting anyone directly. If you're going to toss around accusations, come with some evidence.
The criminals free will does not enter into it because their will has not changed.
So you're saying the actions of criminals aren't influenced by police presence?
When you remove the police, you remove their obstacle.
Wait, you just said that they were already committing crimes. So, apparently SOMETHING has to change about their free will, or else they would commit exactly the same amount of crime in both cases.
Your point fails again. And just so you're aware, there weren't any facts in your post, just your unsubstantiated opinion. Kind of makes it difficult to take this line
Slashdot Mirror
"The "statement" you quoted was part of a sentence, which you've lifted out of context"
First, no it wasn't. Save that nonsense.
Second, please, please stop, it was a lie in context, and it was a lie out of context. Add all the context you like, you were wrong and can't find enough integrity to admit it.
I only hope you grow up enough to realize how ridiculous you appear.
Touche, nicely done.
They did not volunteer, they were drafted.
If you're going to comment on something like this as though your opinion should be considered, you'd better make sure you don't make an obvious and glaring mistake like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#World_War_I_and_World_War_II
"Conscription was next used after the United States entered World War I in 1917. The first peacetime conscription came with the Selective Service Act of 1940, which established the Selective Service System as an independent agency. The duration of service was originally twelve months. It was expanded to eighteen months in 1941. When the United States entered World War II, service was required until six months after the end of the war."
Learn about the subject before you pretend to knowledge you obviously don't have.
Not nearly as much as was halted.
Which speaks to your real problem quite clearly.
Because others used them in your place. Which you'll never admit, but is completely true. At some point someone used force to secure your ability to choose not to use force.
And that, in a nutshell, is MY problem with people like you. You think the ridiculous, petty objections you've rationalized into being actually matter, while simultaneously refusing to honor those people who WERE willing to fight to secure your right to object at all.
It's takes a particularly callous individual to take advantage of freedoms won with life and blood while backhandedly denouncing the very same souls who secured your right to denounce them.
It's your right to do it, but it makes you seem very small and out of touch with reality.
The post makes a point many of you need to hear.
But we don't care. You can thank being well adjusted for that.
And honestly, neither you nor "the rest of the world" has the slightest inkling what a redneck really is, which serves to emphasize why we don't care about your opinion.
"the internet was a place where one could communicate intelligently with similarly erudite people"
First, BWAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Second, it's not 1978 anymore.
I'm sorry, I read your previous post and assumed you did the same in this one.
Now, do you have a source we can actually access? Or check?
And do you honestly think one source qualifies as proof? I don't and neither would the professionals in the industry.
Strange I thought it was a volunteer army, when did they draft you?
Do you have a source for this? It is useless otherwise.
This claim is useless without a source.
Can you source it?
Easy this statement is wrong:
I showed you how you were wrong about that, and you replied, so stop acting like you don't know.
And the backpedaling begins. Maybe you should have checked before posting wrong information.
"And you think..."
I think you're a lying troll who will never admit he's wrong.
I don't care to dialog with people who are only interested in browbeating others into submission with lies and insults like you do.
Good day.
"There are no facts there."
;)"
Criminals have free will. Fact (and please try to argue that, so I can quote your post that agrees)
So, now that it's obvious you're wrong, care to support your accusations of name calling?
Or admit you can't? You won't, your kind never does, you just lie and troll and run away when defeated.
"It's kind of hard to commit a crime when you've been thrown in jail after the first crime.
Crimes don't occur in jail? Wow, you're getting less and less coherent as you get more and more refuted.
Support your accusation or retract it. Step up and admit you were lying.
I like how you exposed your true colors there.
It just makes the weakness of your argument that much more obvious. I mean, "take Bush's cock out of your mouth"?
Seriously?
You might as well have just said "YOU WIN!" and get it over with.
Oh, wait, that's what you did...
"Some feeble implication that Google solves all the world's problems isn't an argument."
And making up lies about how the information isn't available is not an argument either.
You're a troll and you're not even any good at it.
It's telling that once proven wrong about your initial argument, you completely move the goalposts.
You were trolling and I caught you. Good day.
"The Bush camp has done this kind of thing before"
It seems upon first reading that you're claiming the Bush camp faked the documents that Rather lost his career over.
Did I misread you?
And if not,could you please source that? Your link doesn't address it at all. I haven't heard that accusation before, and would like to see something to support it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage trade activities between the states"
Declarations such as yours saying "In other words, if the Constitution is unclear and there is no relevant law then the Federal Govt. has no power whatsoever" ignore the reality that it is the job of the courts to interpret what is unclear and apply it, as in the case of the Commerce Clause.
Saying they have "no power whatsoever" is simply wrong, again, as demonstrated by the rampant use/abuse of the commerce clause.
Idealism is nice, but reality bends it over ever single time.
Not to nitpick (don't you love how people say not to _____ when they're just about to _____) but the feds don't have ANY rights.
They have powers, which are based on the rights of the people. So, the better way to say this is "the feds are empowered to protect the rights of citizens by ensuring fair voting".
Please be careful, because the distinction is not trivial, especially in the current political climate.
So was your post where you claimed
I don't see you complaining that your factually incorrect post was modded up.
Read the part that you have apparently missed, below.
"And having read your analogy, you're leaving out a crucial point. In your incredibly weak analogy, you would have to give the world self determination and will, so it could DECIDE to fall. Without it, your analogy is not at all applicable, as criminals DO have free will, and so will not automatically "fall" as the world does."
I'm sorry, but could you support that? I've made some pointed statements, but I don't recall insulting anyone directly. If you're going to toss around accusations, come with some evidence.
So you're saying the actions of criminals aren't influenced by police presence?
Wait, you just said that they were already committing crimes. So, apparently SOMETHING has to change about their free will, or else they would commit exactly the same amount of crime in both cases.
Your point fails again. And just so you're aware, there weren't any facts in your post, just your unsubstantiated opinion. Kind of makes it difficult to take this line
When you're not willing to do it yourself.
Do they have some equivalent of "Murine" for ill informed opinions?
That would help you tremendously.
http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
No account registration necessary.