While command lines are powerful, and ill admit that the little i know of Linux has taught me it versatile, far more then windows. some people just have a hard time remembering command lines; I am a visual person and remember pictures better then words, therefore, GUI's work best for me. There is nothing wrong with either, Linux has its advantage and M$ also has its advantages (i know, i disgust myself)
The right wing bringing guns everywhere, the hate towards anyone that is liberal etc...this kind of rhetoric is only harmless when someone unstable with a gun listens to it
Glen beck, rush, etc...the hate and the anger from the right is begging for this and more to happen.
Also, you got the right wing religious groups shooting doctors AND others encouraging stuff like that. Its the current pattern of the right wing extremist to shoot first and think never.
I will, this has no place in a democracy and anyone shooting a peacefully elected member is just twisted and should be shipped over to china where they have no elections.
However, pattern shows that it is the right wing that does this kind of stuff, i don't know of any lefty in recent times shooting down a member of our government. Still it is possible this is a left attack i suppose anything is possible.
well i take threat of violence to be a real threat and not trivialized the word violence.
To me the Chinese government enforces the rule of law under the threat of violence; USA laws tend to be more jail time and less death penalty's and beating people up.
It is true police get carried away, but that's not how the USA government wants it, the whole system is built to avoid those kinds of problems, so no, i dont think the regulations are enforced due to threat of violence.
Well violence, the word, is often used to describe something rather horrible, getting beat up or shot.
Fact is, most law enforcement dont go around shooting everyone, they simply subdue the best they can..taser guns are a good example.
You made it sound like if a wall street person doesn't follow the rules they will get hurt; when in fact they wont, NOBODY got hurt over this last calamity and im sure they broke rules for that one.
In fact, they where bailed out....
I think your arguing a anarchist approach, and that is so 80's
no insurrection is not refusal to obey federal government, that's simply a federal crime and depending on the law, is able to be argued in the third branch of government everyone seems to forget about.
The real definition of insurrection:
A violent uprising against an authority or government: "opposition to the new regime led to armed insurrection"
So if a banker gets mad, arms a bunch of other bankers in order to take over wall street, that might get the army involved, though most likely just the national guard assuming the size or scope.
I suppose its the same thing as saying i the government is violently making me not speed
And wait, the local law enforcement would get involved before the FBI, then the swat, then the state guard, then the national guard, and if all that fails we are probably at a civil war or a foreign invader.
I am not sure if your referring to a enemy that is taking over say NY, or that a banker that is refusing to comply with the law.
The exaggerations in your post is getting to big to follow
My point is, the government has never violently threatened the banks....sure individuals can become unruly and get charged with a crime, resist with violence and then violence will happen.
But the government using violence to regulate? that's a far cry from enforcing laws in a peaceful way, and china type government shooting people when they fuck up.
Despite what you think, USA army would never get involved.
and one more thing, its unconstitutional for the executive branch to order the military to go into a civilian USA city; the exception is bases, but that's federal property.
the supporting agency would fine them, if they didn't comply, then a lawsuit would be filed, it would go before a judge, the judge may say pay this amount, if they dont, the US government would have a court order to simply take it from there accounts.
I dont see a gun getting involved anywhere in the process.
Violently?
I am rather sure that wallstreet does not have the national guard threatening them to follow the rules, however, i cant say its not a bad idea.
funny how you didnt do your research and just listen to the media way of distorting what he said
if you listen to it in context he was referring to the way people vote and the way people are manipulated and how vulnerable people are when they live in fear and have no hope.
i will say that he could of worded it better, but you are saying something he did not mean, and anyone with a average intelligence and a open mind will understand that.
seriously, before you both defend and attack him, do a little bit of research.
o yes, we seem to forget that every time some church fanatic gets into power, bad shit happens
id like everyone who reads this to do a google search on some of the crazy shit these "morale" religions have done.
ya ok...times have changed, but times haven't..hence, the iraq war, but instead of its now democracy.
humanity hasn't changed, wont change until these people have destroyed most the planet and there stupid books they follow.
i have been old enough to be aware of two presidents, clinton and bush. Clinton pissed me off cause he raised taxes on smokes, and well thats about it.
bush pissed me off because he destroyed the very image of our country, somehow managed to make even the smartest person in this country seem dumber, started a war with out any foresight all the while lying out his ass about it. Refusing to admit that he fucked up, encouraging the country to be so afraid that terrorist have a nuclear arsenal and are waiting for a democrat in the office to set them all off.
Republicans original ideas would have had me voting for them, i am for less goverment, fuck the goverment. But its only less goverment when it comes to rich people, people who do not make that much money have more goverment to deal with then with the democrats. (right to choose, drugs, getting help with food, DCFS, prison system, all this stuff is more government for the less fortunate) Republicans are slowly turning this country to a police state. FUCK that.
however sad this is, i will agree with you in this. The intelligence and the narrow mind of this country scares me to raise my child here, unfortunatly, with the economy the way it is, i have no choice but to live here
yes i would move to another country if i could. The reason is because i am starting to despise the culture that this country has become, I feel like its a bad example to my son.
land of the blind, home of the stupid should be our new modo.
The side effect to this is she is going to destroy her own name in the process and wont get it in 2012. her only real chance is to drop out, support obama and quietly hopes he loses.
doubtfull i would ever vote for her, and many people, if she continues down this road. Doubtfull the democratic party would support her if she costs this years election.
if she moves on this, the democrates lose, headlines will be "clinton causes democratic loss"
what about hillarys weakness with black voters, young voters, and intelligent voters?
are you saying that the primarys should only be held in key states? just because a supporter is in a state he cant win doesnt mean that they are less important, this is proved by the massive amount of money that was donated to him.
Your argument, her argument, is flawed in so many ways, The irony's of saying that every vote should count, and then throwing a argument to super delegates that they should ignore every state but these key states shows the hypocrisy she would bring to the white house.
her blind ambition even at the cost of her party shows a bush type arrogance that we cant afford for 4 more years.
Even if she DID manage to get the nomination at the convention, she would not win the election, no way in the world. Also if she does take this to convention she will be committing political suicide as she would become very unpopular in her own party.
she would never be able to run for president again, probably not anything, she made a good name during this nomination, moving further, she is destroying that name and not being any role model for future female want to be president.
I also find it funny that Clinton supporters are so obsessed with her that they cant realize she lost, period, by all the rules, even counting the rouge states, she lost the delegate count. Only the Clintons can claim that the rules count for everyone but them.
Slashdot Mirror
While command lines are powerful, and ill admit that the little i know of Linux has taught me it versatile, far more then windows. some people just have a hard time remembering command lines; I am a visual person and remember pictures better then words, therefore, GUI's work best for me. There is nothing wrong with either, Linux has its advantage and M$ also has its advantages (i know, i disgust myself)
The right wing bringing guns everywhere, the hate towards anyone that is liberal etc...this kind of rhetoric is only harmless when someone unstable with a gun listens to it Glen beck, rush, etc...the hate and the anger from the right is begging for this and more to happen. Also, you got the right wing religious groups shooting doctors AND others encouraging stuff like that. Its the current pattern of the right wing extremist to shoot first and think never.
I will, this has no place in a democracy and anyone shooting a peacefully elected member is just twisted and should be shipped over to china where they have no elections. However, pattern shows that it is the right wing that does this kind of stuff, i don't know of any lefty in recent times shooting down a member of our government. Still it is possible this is a left attack i suppose anything is possible.
Looks like it worked well for them How did that PC vrs MAC go, whats there share 10%? i dont know, its so small...
Either way, it hints that the US government deals with wall street in a tyrannical way, when the real tyrants are the bankers.
well i take threat of violence to be a real threat and not trivialized the word violence. To me the Chinese government enforces the rule of law under the threat of violence; USA laws tend to be more jail time and less death penalty's and beating people up. It is true police get carried away, but that's not how the USA government wants it, the whole system is built to avoid those kinds of problems, so no, i dont think the regulations are enforced due to threat of violence.
Well violence, the word, is often used to describe something rather horrible, getting beat up or shot. Fact is, most law enforcement dont go around shooting everyone, they simply subdue the best they can..taser guns are a good example. You made it sound like if a wall street person doesn't follow the rules they will get hurt; when in fact they wont, NOBODY got hurt over this last calamity and im sure they broke rules for that one. In fact, they where bailed out.... I think your arguing a anarchist approach, and that is so 80's
no insurrection is not refusal to obey federal government, that's simply a federal crime and depending on the law, is able to be argued in the third branch of government everyone seems to forget about. The real definition of insurrection: A violent uprising against an authority or government: "opposition to the new regime led to armed insurrection" So if a banker gets mad, arms a bunch of other bankers in order to take over wall street, that might get the army involved, though most likely just the national guard assuming the size or scope.
I suppose its the same thing as saying i the government is violently making me not speed And wait, the local law enforcement would get involved before the FBI, then the swat, then the state guard, then the national guard, and if all that fails we are probably at a civil war or a foreign invader. I am not sure if your referring to a enemy that is taking over say NY, or that a banker that is refusing to comply with the law. The exaggerations in your post is getting to big to follow
My point is, the government has never violently threatened the banks....sure individuals can become unruly and get charged with a crime, resist with violence and then violence will happen. But the government using violence to regulate? that's a far cry from enforcing laws in a peaceful way, and china type government shooting people when they fuck up. Despite what you think, USA army would never get involved.
and one more thing, its unconstitutional for the executive branch to order the military to go into a civilian USA city; the exception is bases, but that's federal property.
the supporting agency would fine them, if they didn't comply, then a lawsuit would be filed, it would go before a judge, the judge may say pay this amount, if they dont, the US government would have a court order to simply take it from there accounts. I dont see a gun getting involved anywhere in the process.
Violently? I am rather sure that wallstreet does not have the national guard threatening them to follow the rules, however, i cant say its not a bad idea.
what would most likely happen is the public would rise up FOR the telcos, cause its not the government....lol, we like our masters making money
funny how you didnt do your research and just listen to the media way of distorting what he said if you listen to it in context he was referring to the way people vote and the way people are manipulated and how vulnerable people are when they live in fear and have no hope. i will say that he could of worded it better, but you are saying something he did not mean, and anyone with a average intelligence and a open mind will understand that. seriously, before you both defend and attack him, do a little bit of research.
o yes, we seem to forget that every time some church fanatic gets into power, bad shit happens id like everyone who reads this to do a google search on some of the crazy shit these "morale" religions have done. ya ok...times have changed, but times haven't..hence, the iraq war, but instead of its now democracy. humanity hasn't changed, wont change until these people have destroyed most the planet and there stupid books they follow.
i have been old enough to be aware of two presidents, clinton and bush. Clinton pissed me off cause he raised taxes on smokes, and well thats about it. bush pissed me off because he destroyed the very image of our country, somehow managed to make even the smartest person in this country seem dumber, started a war with out any foresight all the while lying out his ass about it. Refusing to admit that he fucked up, encouraging the country to be so afraid that terrorist have a nuclear arsenal and are waiting for a democrat in the office to set them all off. Republicans original ideas would have had me voting for them, i am for less goverment, fuck the goverment. But its only less goverment when it comes to rich people, people who do not make that much money have more goverment to deal with then with the democrats. (right to choose, drugs, getting help with food, DCFS, prison system, all this stuff is more government for the less fortunate) Republicans are slowly turning this country to a police state. FUCK that.
however sad this is, i will agree with you in this. The intelligence and the narrow mind of this country scares me to raise my child here, unfortunatly, with the economy the way it is, i have no choice but to live here yes i would move to another country if i could. The reason is because i am starting to despise the culture that this country has become, I feel like its a bad example to my son. land of the blind, home of the stupid should be our new modo.
The side effect to this is she is going to destroy her own name in the process and wont get it in 2012. her only real chance is to drop out, support obama and quietly hopes he loses. doubtfull i would ever vote for her, and many people, if she continues down this road. Doubtfull the democratic party would support her if she costs this years election. if she moves on this, the democrates lose, headlines will be "clinton causes democratic loss"
what about hillarys weakness with black voters, young voters, and intelligent voters? are you saying that the primarys should only be held in key states? just because a supporter is in a state he cant win doesnt mean that they are less important, this is proved by the massive amount of money that was donated to him. Your argument, her argument, is flawed in so many ways, The irony's of saying that every vote should count, and then throwing a argument to super delegates that they should ignore every state but these key states shows the hypocrisy she would bring to the white house. her blind ambition even at the cost of her party shows a bush type arrogance that we cant afford for 4 more years. Even if she DID manage to get the nomination at the convention, she would not win the election, no way in the world. Also if she does take this to convention she will be committing political suicide as she would become very unpopular in her own party. she would never be able to run for president again, probably not anything, she made a good name during this nomination, moving further, she is destroying that name and not being any role model for future female want to be president. I also find it funny that Clinton supporters are so obsessed with her that they cant realize she lost, period, by all the rules, even counting the rouge states, she lost the delegate count. Only the Clintons can claim that the rules count for everyone but them.