"Fuck you baby boomer, you were the entitlement generation"
I see why you posted AC, you're a dumbass.
I was born in 1978, I'm fairly certain that makes me something other than a baby boomer. Any chance you'll reappear and admit you said something incredibly stupid? I'll wager money your loser AC ass doesn't show.
Right there. What the previous generation had is irrelevant, and expecting what they got just because they got it and you want it too is the definition of entitlement.
"3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges"
Like what "the previous generation" got, which you complain about not getting.
"People in my country have less these days, yet we are told the young are spoilt."
I see why you're having such a hard time understanding this.
You seem to think that "spoilt" = having stuff. If you'd bothered to ask, I suspect many of the people who think you're spoiled think that not because of the amount of stuff you have, but because of the sense of entitlement that is practically dripping off of your posts on the subject.
You see, it's not about the stuff, it's about the attitude that you think you deserve something you haven't yet earned. If your posts are any indication, that may be why people around you think you're spoiled.
You know, I find it interesting that after being wrong about the viability of a case based on breach of trust, the best response you have is "good luck with that".
It's almost like you're pissed off at me because you don't understand the legal system or your rights as a citizen (you don't or you'd have known about breach of trust being an exception and you didn't know that, so don't try to claim otherwise).
Good luck being ignorant, in the future try not to respond to topics which you aren't capable of discussing, like this one.
"The Supreme Court does not uphold ex post facto laws."
Wrong. Wrongity wrong wrong wrong.
"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.[2]
Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction)."
That's TWICE it has happened, which makes you demonstrably wrong.
So you're wrong. They DO uphold ex post fact laws, you're wrong.
Not correct, WRONG.
And you STILL gave no evidence.
More importantly, the discussion is specifically regarding ex post facto laws that legalize a previously illegal activity, so not only are you WRONG about YOUR point, you're wrong about the original point too.
You're wrong. In many ways, utterly, and totally wrong.
"If you want to call one of the clearest, least-subject-to-misinterpretation sentences in the whole Constitution a "cheap cop out", then go ahead. Apparently you don't understand clear language, and would rather rely on a court full of lawyers to interpret reality for you."
Only the US supreme court which says you're wrong. So you're wrong.
I'll take your total failure to provide any supporting evidence for your opinion to be your admission that you have no proof.
"But that does NOT mean that they are constitutional."
Wrong. The Supreme Court's job is to rule n Constitutionality. THAT'S THEIR FUCKING JOB Get it? THEIR interpretation is THE interpretation, and IS Constitutional until ruled otherwise. On this, you're simply ignorant.
"The distinction must be made: a standing law can still be unconstitutional."
Unless it's ruled NOT to be by the US Supreme Court, who is given the power to interpret such things. If they say it IS Constitutional, it IS. That is their power granted by the...wait for it...wait for it... CONSTITUTION.
"The point is, China isn't alone in acting stupidly towards other countries."
I think the real point is that you aren't personally able to discuss world politics without resorting to a specious comparison to the US. I don't see anywhere in this discussion where China was denounced for being "alone in acting stupidly toward other countries" so your "point" really is off topic.
"It doesn't excuse them, but lets keep a sense of proportion about this."
Ok, compared to what China is doing in Tibet, the US embargo against Cuba is NOTHING. INSIGNIFICANT.
There's your proportion, let's see how much you adhere to your own advice.
"Yes, and most of that skewing is in favour of the US..."
You might want to check that again, and as it's subjective, it is still useless. I think you assume my objection is with one thing when it's the total lack of validity of the measures used that I object to. I don't care if they make the US look like the greatest country ever to exist, and put our contributions 37 orders of magnitude above the total contribution from the rest of the earth. They're still subjective, and so still useless.
"Because it isn't aid. It's individuals keeping their money in the family."
That's semantics, and not an answer. It's money, from US citizens, that is going to foreign nationals. If it helps them, it's aid. If it doesn't meet your personal definition, that's fine, but saying "it isn't aid" as decisively as you did is just plain wrong.
"The government can then commit any crime it likes (by proxy) and get away with it."
If I'm an individual, and I've been contracted to commit a crime by the "government", once I'm granted immunity why wouldn't I tell on everyone? Especially if I'm compelled by a court?
And before you answer, immunity means you can no longer take the 5th as it regards to the crimes you were granted immunity for. This is a standard tactic in mob trials, so the defendants can't plead he 5th. They're granted limited immunity (usually during the trial, or for specific crimes committed) and questioned. Failure to answer results in contempt charges, or perjury if they lie. Immunity doesn't protect you from telling what happened, and in fact makes it easier to find out.
Now, if these people, who have been granted immunity, HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT PRISON for the crimes they committed, why would they risk 1) committing new crimes (perjury, contempt) or 2) losing their immunity and being retroactively prosecuted (for example, immunity granted on the basis of total cooperation with an investigation).
Of course, in this case it's civil immunity, but the misunderstandings regarding criminal immunity prompted me to post, in order to clarify its value as a tool.
Keep this in mind, a large part of the successful prosecution of criminal enterprises is granting of immunity to key players in order to get information. It works.
"In the United States, ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws."
"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action."
"2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed."
"3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed."
"4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."
THOSE are the tests. You'll notice that nowhere in there is anything that makes a law which legalizes a previously illegal activity unconstitutional.
More importantly, just because it's an ex post facto law does not make it unconstitutional. Again, from Wiki.
"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006."
"Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction)."
Now, you say "retroactive laws ARE unconstitutional, no matter what they are doing... criminalizing or de-criminalizing." but give NO evidence to support your claim.
And please don't reply with "that may be what the court says, but the Constitution says...", that's a cheap cop out.
"Let me put it in terms that you would understand."
Well, all I saw were pathetic excuses for why you're a shitty parent, and I understood that before you posted.
"Oh, and this happens every single time you go to the store. Like clockwork."
Let me put this in terms YOU can understand, THAT MAKES YOU A SHITTY PARENT. It's YOUR FUCKING JOB to make sure that DOES NOT happen, not to give in and make stupid excuses when it does.
If your response to poor behavior on the part of your child is to resign yourself to the fact that it will happen ("You don't know you will, but trust me--and every other parent out there--you will cave, and buy it whatever it wants to just shut it up.") then YOU AREN'T DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB AS A PARENT.
Also "So Yeah. There is no 'Just don't buy it' crap with kids" is just fucking dumb. You don't buy it. PERIOD. It' snot hard guy, you just don't "cave in" like the weak sister you are.
The only thing your post made me understand is that you're not capable of raising children effectively and will resort to excuses in order to make it seem like your shitty parenting skills are normal.
"Someday, if you ever get out of your parents basement, you will know that."
Exactly the kind of argument I'd expect from a shitty parent, personal attacks to draw attention from the fact that you can't control your children's behavior because your will isn't up to it.
"Adjusting Aid Numbers to Factor Private Contributions, and more
David Roodman, from the CGD, attempts to adjust the aid numbers by including subjective factors PDF formatted document:
* Quality of recipient governance as well as poverty;
* Penalizing tying of aid;
* Handling reverse flows (debt service) in a consistent way;
* Penalizes project proliferation (overloading recipient governments with the administrative burden of many small aid projects);
* and rewards tax policies that encourage private charitable giving to developing countries.
In doing so, the results (using 2002 data, which was latest available at that time) produced:"
With all due respect, your link uses the above factors to skew the numbers. The fact that they openly admit the numbers are subjective destroys their usefulness. I could skew the numbers any way I liked if you let me pick the variables.
"but those studies invariably count things like immigrants sending money home to their family"
Why wouldn't that be counted? Dismissing that out of hand is just as irresponsible as using "subjective" numbers to skew the data.
"As far as real aid goes, 90% of the money genuinely donated by generous Americans never makes it out of the country"
I'd like to see your source for this, if one exists.
"This meme is simply not true"
Well, if that is so you haven't proven it. If you thought a "reassessment" using "subjective" numbers was enough to do that, you need to "reassess" your thought process.
There's no possible way for you to know this based on my post, and in fact, you are wrong. It's very sad that you have to resort to insults and trolling just because you're wrong.
"You seem to think the original poster was wrong and you are right "
No, actually, it has nothing to do with what I think, that's how it IS.
You can choose not to like it, I've chosen not to care about ignorant trolls like you.
"You cannot sue a lawmaker for introducing legislation"
No, but you CAN sue a lawmaker for breach of trust and misuse of public funds, WHICH IS WHAT I SUGGESTED. It's up to the court to decide whether that occurred.
If you're not even going to read what I wrote (you know the part where I said breach of trust is one exception that lawmakers CAN be sued for) why are you replying at all?
"I can't tell you how tired I am of people getting modded insightful for misunderstanding then regurgitating something that most people who discuss this subject should understand at a base level."
That's the part you should have been paying attention to, you totally missed my point.
"so I don't think you should be complaining."
I appreciate that you think that, but clearly others disagree, and they're right.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fuck you baby boomer, you were the entitlement generation"
I see why you posted AC, you're a dumbass.
I was born in 1978, I'm fairly certain that makes me something other than a baby boomer. Any chance you'll reappear and admit you said something incredibly stupid? I'll wager money your loser AC ass doesn't show.
"So who the fuck has the sense of entitlement?"
You do. The proof?
"The previous generation..."
Right there. What the previous generation had is irrelevant, and expecting what they got just because they got it and you want it too is the definition of entitlement.
"3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges"
Like what "the previous generation" got, which you complain about not getting.
"People in my country have less these days, yet we are told the young are spoilt."
I see why you're having such a hard time understanding this.
You seem to think that "spoilt" = having stuff. If you'd bothered to ask, I suspect many of the people who think you're spoiled think that not because of the amount of stuff you have, but because of the sense of entitlement that is practically dripping off of your posts on the subject.
You see, it's not about the stuff, it's about the attitude that you think you deserve something you haven't yet earned. If your posts are any indication, that may be why people around you think you're spoiled.
You know, I find it interesting that after being wrong about the viability of a case based on breach of trust, the best response you have is "good luck with that".
It's almost like you're pissed off at me because you don't understand the legal system or your rights as a citizen (you don't or you'd have known about breach of trust being an exception and you didn't know that, so don't try to claim otherwise).
Good luck being ignorant, in the future try not to respond to topics which you aren't capable of discussing, like this one.
"The Supreme Court does not uphold ex post facto laws."
Wrong. Wrongity wrong wrong wrong.
"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.[2]
Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction)."
That's TWICE it has happened, which makes you demonstrably wrong.
So you're wrong. They DO uphold ex post fact laws, you're wrong.
Not correct, WRONG.
And you STILL gave no evidence.
More importantly, the discussion is specifically regarding ex post facto laws that legalize a previously illegal activity, so not only are you WRONG about YOUR point, you're wrong about the original point too.
You're wrong. In many ways, utterly, and totally wrong.
"A reasonable conclusion to draw from this is..."
That you're not intelligent enough to understand the discussion you're replying to?
I agree, that is the only reasonable conclusion.
"Those are bad laws"
That's your opinion, and I don't care about your opinion.
I would like to point out that you've still only given your opinion, which I've proven wrong with evidence, and you've supported with nothing.
Not more of your worthless opinion.
"If you want to call one of the clearest, least-subject-to-misinterpretation sentences in the whole Constitution a "cheap cop out", then go ahead. Apparently you don't understand clear language, and would rather rely on a court full of lawyers to interpret reality for you."
Only the US supreme court which says you're wrong. So you're wrong.
I'll take your total failure to provide any supporting evidence for your opinion to be your admission that you have no proof.
"But that does NOT mean that they are constitutional."
Wrong. The Supreme Court's job is to rule n Constitutionality. THAT'S THEIR FUCKING JOB Get it? THEIR interpretation is THE interpretation, and IS Constitutional until ruled otherwise. On this, you're simply ignorant.
"The distinction must be made: a standing law can still be unconstitutional."
Unless it's ruled NOT to be by the US Supreme Court, who is given the power to interpret such things. If they say it IS Constitutional, it IS. That is their power granted by the...wait for it...wait for it... CONSTITUTION.
You fail at civics.
"The point is, China isn't alone in acting stupidly towards other countries."
I think the real point is that you aren't personally able to discuss world politics without resorting to a specious comparison to the US. I don't see anywhere in this discussion where China was denounced for being "alone in acting stupidly toward other countries" so your "point" really is off topic.
"It doesn't excuse them, but lets keep a sense of proportion about this."
Ok, compared to what China is doing in Tibet, the US embargo against Cuba is NOTHING. INSIGNIFICANT.
There's your proportion, let's see how much you adhere to your own advice.
"Yes, and most of that skewing is in favour of the US..."
You might want to check that again, and as it's subjective, it is still useless. I think you assume my objection is with one thing when it's the total lack of validity of the measures used that I object to. I don't care if they make the US look like the greatest country ever to exist, and put our contributions 37 orders of magnitude above the total contribution from the rest of the earth. They're still subjective, and so still useless.
"Because it isn't aid. It's individuals keeping their money in the family."
That's semantics, and not an answer. It's money, from US citizens, that is going to foreign nationals. If it helps them, it's aid. If it doesn't meet your personal definition, that's fine, but saying "it isn't aid" as decisively as you did is just plain wrong.
"The government can then commit any crime it likes (by proxy) and get away with it."
If I'm an individual, and I've been contracted to commit a crime by the "government", once I'm granted immunity why wouldn't I tell on everyone? Especially if I'm compelled by a court?
And before you answer, immunity means you can no longer take the 5th as it regards to the crimes you were granted immunity for. This is a standard tactic in mob trials, so the defendants can't plead he 5th. They're granted limited immunity (usually during the trial, or for specific crimes committed) and questioned. Failure to answer results in contempt charges, or perjury if they lie. Immunity doesn't protect you from telling what happened, and in fact makes it easier to find out.
Now, if these people, who have been granted immunity, HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT PRISON for the crimes they committed, why would they risk 1) committing new crimes (perjury, contempt) or 2) losing their immunity and being retroactively prosecuted (for example, immunity granted on the basis of total cooperation with an investigation).
Of course, in this case it's civil immunity, but the misunderstandings regarding criminal immunity prompted me to post, in order to clarify its value as a tool.
Keep this in mind, a large part of the successful prosecution of criminal enterprises is granting of immunity to key players in order to get information. It works.
"The evidence suggests you're just being an arrogant idiot. Slinging insults is for the weak minded..."
Thanks, I enjoyed that.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html
THOSE are the tests. You'll notice that nowhere in there is anything that makes a law which legalizes a previously illegal activity unconstitutional.
More importantly, just because it's an ex post facto law does not make it unconstitutional. Again, from Wiki.
Now, you say "retroactive laws ARE unconstitutional, no matter what they are doing... criminalizing or de-criminalizing." but give NO evidence to support your claim.
And please don't reply with "that may be what the court says, but the Constitution says...", that's a cheap cop out.
"Let me put it in terms that you would understand."
Well, all I saw were pathetic excuses for why you're a shitty parent, and I understood that before you posted.
"Oh, and this happens every single time you go to the store. Like clockwork."
Let me put this in terms YOU can understand, THAT MAKES YOU A SHITTY PARENT. It's YOUR FUCKING JOB to make sure that DOES NOT happen, not to give in and make stupid excuses when it does.
If your response to poor behavior on the part of your child is to resign yourself to the fact that it will happen ("You don't know you will, but trust me--and every other parent out there--you will cave, and buy it whatever it wants to just shut it up.") then YOU AREN'T DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB AS A PARENT.
Also "So Yeah. There is no 'Just don't buy it' crap with kids" is just fucking dumb. You don't buy it. PERIOD. It' snot hard guy, you just don't "cave in" like the weak sister you are.
The only thing your post made me understand is that you're not capable of raising children effectively and will resort to excuses in order to make it seem like your shitty parenting skills are normal.
"Someday, if you ever get out of your parents basement, you will know that."
Exactly the kind of argument I'd expect from a shitty parent, personal attacks to draw attention from the fact that you can't control your children's behavior because your will isn't up to it.
Thanks for helping me understand.
"Adjusting Aid Numbers to Factor Private Contributions, and more
David Roodman, from the CGD, attempts to adjust the aid numbers by including subjective factors PDF formatted document:
* Quality of recipient governance as well as poverty;
* Penalizing tying of aid;
* Handling reverse flows (debt service) in a consistent way;
* Penalizes project proliferation (overloading recipient governments with the administrative burden of many small aid projects);
* and rewards tax policies that encourage private charitable giving to developing countries.
In doing so, the results (using 2002 data, which was latest available at that time) produced:"
With all due respect, your link uses the above factors to skew the numbers. The fact that they openly admit the numbers are subjective destroys their usefulness. I could skew the numbers any way I liked if you let me pick the variables.
"but those studies invariably count things like immigrants sending money home to their family"
Why wouldn't that be counted? Dismissing that out of hand is just as irresponsible as using "subjective" numbers to skew the data.
"As far as real aid goes, 90% of the money genuinely donated by generous Americans never makes it out of the country"
I'd like to see your source for this, if one exists.
"This meme is simply not true"
Well, if that is so you haven't proven it. If you thought a "reassessment" using "subjective" numbers was enough to do that, you need to "reassess" your thought process.
"From the parent comment "Speaks the guy with no kids. I see, you prefer to comment without reading or thinking first."
Oh, how funny. He was talking to me, he was wrong, but that was addressed to me. Perhaps you could take your own advice...
"And we wonder where all the ignorance comes from..."
Not after your last post I don't.
"and you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue."
I see, you prefer to pay them off instead of parenting them. And we wonder where all the consumerism comes from...
"Ah, yes, everyone's lying to and about poor little keineobachtubersie."
No guy, just you.
I proved you were a liar here in public, you have no credibility.
"Well, I'm not particularly know for just making things up."
Except that I proved you did just that repeatedly.
"Relevant headers:"
Sad, just sad that you resort to that kind of nonsense just because I proved you were lying.
If you choose to be the "Banker" in Baccarat, you actually have a slight advantage (you are 50.68% to win)
http://www.fastodds.com/game_odds/baccarat.htm
The problem is the casinos charge a commission to play as the Banker, so even though your odds are positive, you still end up losing money.
"Personally, as the parent of a 3-year-old technophile, I'm dreading the animated cereal boxes
Ok, then don't buy them.
"but not on a level that is sufficient"
There's no possible way for you to know this based on my post, and in fact, you are wrong. It's very sad that you have to resort to insults and trolling just because you're wrong.
"You seem to think the original poster was wrong and you are right "
No, actually, it has nothing to do with what I think, that's how it IS.
You can choose not to like it, I've chosen not to care about ignorant trolls like you.
"It guarantees summary dismissal"
No, it doesn't, you're wrong.
"You cannot sue a lawmaker for introducing legislation"
No, but you CAN sue a lawmaker for breach of trust and misuse of public funds, WHICH IS WHAT I SUGGESTED. It's up to the court to decide whether that occurred.
If you're not even going to read what I wrote (you know the part where I said breach of trust is one exception that lawmakers CAN be sued for) why are you replying at all?
Dude, you're a proven liar, no one cares what you think.
If you expcet people to believe that nonsense after I proved you're a liar repeatedly, then you're as dumb as you act.
"I can't tell you how tired I am of people getting modded insightful for misunderstanding then regurgitating something that most people who discuss this subject should understand at a base level."
That's the part you should have been paying attention to, you totally missed my point.
"so I don't think you should be complaining."
I appreciate that you think that, but clearly others disagree, and they're right.