So encouraging people to use their freedom of speech is now a crime?
No, but harassing a judge is. If you've got something to say in an ongoing trial, you need to file an amicus curiae brief with the court, so that what you have to say goes through official channels and is recorded in court. If you were to picket in front of a judge's house, or send tons of snail mail, you would be held in contempt as well.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech means. The content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method. "Free speech" does not give you the right to force your speech on others, and it does not give you the right to attempt to influence a judge through extra-judicial channels.
This was not 'lobbying the judicial branch.' I fact, there is no such thing. The judicial branch does not write the laws, you can not and should not lobby them to change anything. They can't. If you have something to say about an ongoing trial, file an amicus curiae brief. That is the only lawful channel for a third party to influence a trial.
Anyone can file an amicus curiae brief if they have something to say regarding a trial. That is the proper channel of communications. If I had a bunch of people protest outside a judge's house, or send tons of snail mail, that would also likely be judged as contempt. That's not how we conduct law in America. And before you scream 'free speech,' remember, the content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method. Free speech does not give you the right to force your speech on others. This is what Kevin the previously convicted felon did when he told his followers to fill the judge's personal email with unsolicited comments on a pending case. He tried to force his views on the judge, not the court, and therefore the judge is perfectly within the law to rule contempt.
Hmm, well, okay, I can see why you are a little jaded. Kudos on helping your daughter. Key being: you helped her, she didn't just do it on her own. Does everyone have a father like you? We wish...
Sometimes an ass kicking helps. Sometimes it's the worst thing in the world. Sometimes love and understanding helps, and yes, I will admit: sometimes it just provides an excuse to stay stagnant. Key here being: no on strategy works best in all situations. Sometimes, an injustice is external, and needs to be corrected before a person can move on and take charge of their life.
In the final analysis, I've got to agree with you that no one can change someone else, if the other person doesn't want to change. But sometimes, all it takes is one other person believing in you to give you the confidence to believe in yourself. Personal change and growth are hard, and take time and effort. Nobody wakes up one morning and says, "I'm going to be a different person" and POW! they just are. It takes years of commitment to change to actually build new and better habits. And it really helps to have someone who cares about you say "I believe you can do it." Having someone who cares about you say "I'm going to kick your ass if you don't change," well, that's not so effective.
Most importantly, nobody gets anywhere being judgmental, of themselves or others. Discerning is effective, judging is ineffective. Punishment does not work as a motivator of new behaviors, and it is only a shotgun in extinguishing old behaviors. The whole hierarchical mindset of good/bad is wrong and harmful to the human psyche. You won't see many world religions preaching that we should be more judgmental and vengeful. You'll see that most of them have a common message of love, understanding, and compassion.
Yes, I've met women like you described, and personally helped them overcome their addiction to harmful men. In the cases I've dealt with, these women all had abusive or absent fathers. I didn't just tell them to get the fuck over it and get on with their life. I listened. When was the last time you listened to someone else's problems?
You are responsible for your future, but not always for your past.
Just telling someone to take responsibility for their lives will not work. It is such an obvious and cliched thing to say, if you say it, what you are really saying is, "You are too dumb to figure out what you need to do is take responsibility for your life." It's insulting, not helpful. You think they don't know that? It's HOW TO DO IT that escapes them, and you don't know that because it isn't your life, it's theirs.
It is also insulting because it assumes that people's pain and trauma is meaningless, that anyone can get over any horrific thing just by ignoring it and focusing on the future. That isn't how the psyche works.
Why would you think those experts I pointed to are all screwed up? What evidence do you have, exactly, that psychologists, social workers, and so on are more likely to harm than to help? Any case studies? Personal anecdotes? Anything?
Maybe you think they are just coddling the crazy losers who come to them, and what those losers really need is an Archangel Michael style ass kicking to get them motivated?
Who have you helped to become a better person? Anyone? How's your strategy for helping people working out for you? Got a few success stories under your belt with your 'stop feeling sorry for yourself,' methodology?
Yes they were. Laughing at a man they had just mortally wounded, who was not an enemy combatant, just a reporter. You could argue it isn't murder until a court decides it is, but I'll still call it murder.
What mistake? I did not clearly see a weapon, and I still don't. Weapons were found at the scene, yes, but the investigators fatally compromised any investigation results by removing US bullets from the corpses. They could have planted weapons. From the video, those things could be sticks for all anyone knows. And I admitted that weapons were found, so what are you bitching about, princess?
Can't come up with a good argument as to why this was all okay? Stuck on "butbutbut there were weapons?" Enjoy war but don't want to admit it?
There were weapons found at the scene. Admitted, and, unfortunately for the 'this was no massacre' folks, irrelevant. It was a massacre, even with the weapons found.
I am making it clear: there were weapons found. Not that the pilots could have clearly seen them, and not like anyone on the ground was attacking anyone, but yes, there were weapons.
And that is not important. You can try to keep making this argument about whether or not weapons were found, but for me, that was only one, small point.
My main point is this: this was a massacre of civilians, they shot up a vehicle trying to rescue an innocent reporter, and then they removed bullets and planted evidence to try to cover things up.
Go ahead and argue against THAT point if you feel like it, I'm done with the weapons/no weapons sideshow, okay?
Has been posted dozens of times by me and others. I find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with it. Judging by that, as well as other comments you've made, it's starting to become fairly obvious that you're just trolling.
Has it now? A believable and rational excuse for the van? I don't see it, why don't you be a dear and linky-linky for me, because I must be blind here.
Thank you for another content free, anger filled post. I'm not anti-soldier. I'm anti-massacre. Hell, it isn't even your military I'm complaining about. You Canadians wouldn't know how to throw a massacre if we gave you the manual and tied the civilians to posts.
My point is that this was a massacre. Even IF my first point is incorrect and there were obvious weapons and intent to use them by all in the initial group, we still have the unresolved issue of the rescue van.
You know damn well what the subject is here, and you can't dismiss the entire subject by dismissing one point.
It's nice that you can determine who can and can not be helped to become a better person. Obviously, all the people you label as trash are simply wastes of a human life and should just go ahead and die to make more room for the rest of us. And obviously, there is nothing anyone can do to make society better. Might as well not try, eh?
I agree that people's feelings of powerlessness to affect positive change leads them to adopt, as you say, disingenuous social frameworks. I like that phrase, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
So encouraging people to use their freedom of speech is now a crime?
No, but harassing a judge is. If you've got something to say in an ongoing trial, you need to file an amicus curiae brief with the court, so that what you have to say goes through official channels and is recorded in court. If you were to picket in front of a judge's house, or send tons of snail mail, you would be held in contempt as well.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech means. The content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method. "Free speech" does not give you the right to force your speech on others, and it does not give you the right to attempt to influence a judge through extra-judicial channels.
This was not 'lobbying the judicial branch.' I fact, there is no such thing. The judicial branch does not write the laws, you can not and should not lobby them to change anything. They can't. If you have something to say about an ongoing trial, file an amicus curiae brief. That is the only lawful channel for a third party to influence a trial.
Anyone can file an amicus curiae brief if they have something to say regarding a trial. That is the proper channel of communications. If I had a bunch of people protest outside a judge's house, or send tons of snail mail, that would also likely be judged as contempt. That's not how we conduct law in America. And before you scream 'free speech,' remember, the content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method. Free speech does not give you the right to force your speech on others. This is what Kevin the previously convicted felon did when he told his followers to fill the judge's personal email with unsolicited comments on a pending case. He tried to force his views on the judge, not the court, and therefore the judge is perfectly within the law to rule contempt.
Isn't that a tautology itself?
Snowy cold and the several dwarfs.
Another content free post. If you've got nothing to say, why not say nothing?
Hmm, well, okay, I can see why you are a little jaded. Kudos on helping your daughter. Key being: you helped her, she didn't just do it on her own. Does everyone have a father like you? We wish...
Sometimes an ass kicking helps. Sometimes it's the worst thing in the world. Sometimes love and understanding helps, and yes, I will admit: sometimes it just provides an excuse to stay stagnant. Key here being: no on strategy works best in all situations. Sometimes, an injustice is external, and needs to be corrected before a person can move on and take charge of their life.
In the final analysis, I've got to agree with you that no one can change someone else, if the other person doesn't want to change. But sometimes, all it takes is one other person believing in you to give you the confidence to believe in yourself. Personal change and growth are hard, and take time and effort. Nobody wakes up one morning and says, "I'm going to be a different person" and POW! they just are. It takes years of commitment to change to actually build new and better habits. And it really helps to have someone who cares about you say "I believe you can do it." Having someone who cares about you say "I'm going to kick your ass if you don't change," well, that's not so effective.
Most importantly, nobody gets anywhere being judgmental, of themselves or others. Discerning is effective, judging is ineffective. Punishment does not work as a motivator of new behaviors, and it is only a shotgun in extinguishing old behaviors. The whole hierarchical mindset of good/bad is wrong and harmful to the human psyche. You won't see many world religions preaching that we should be more judgmental and vengeful. You'll see that most of them have a common message of love, understanding, and compassion.
Yes, I've met women like you described, and personally helped them overcome their addiction to harmful men. In the cases I've dealt with, these women all had abusive or absent fathers. I didn't just tell them to get the fuck over it and get on with their life. I listened. When was the last time you listened to someone else's problems?
You are responsible for your future, but not always for your past.
Just telling someone to take responsibility for their lives will not work. It is such an obvious and cliched thing to say, if you say it, what you are really saying is, "You are too dumb to figure out what you need to do is take responsibility for your life." It's insulting, not helpful. You think they don't know that? It's HOW TO DO IT that escapes them, and you don't know that because it isn't your life, it's theirs.
It is also insulting because it assumes that people's pain and trauma is meaningless, that anyone can get over any horrific thing just by ignoring it and focusing on the future. That isn't how the psyche works.
Why would you think those experts I pointed to are all screwed up? What evidence do you have, exactly, that psychologists, social workers, and so on are more likely to harm than to help? Any case studies? Personal anecdotes? Anything?
Maybe you think they are just coddling the crazy losers who come to them, and what those losers really need is an Archangel Michael style ass kicking to get them motivated?
Who have you helped to become a better person? Anyone? How's your strategy for helping people working out for you? Got a few success stories under your belt with your 'stop feeling sorry for yourself,' methodology?
Yes they were. Laughing at a man they had just mortally wounded, who was not an enemy combatant, just a reporter. You could argue it isn't murder until a court decides it is, but I'll still call it murder.
Sure. But the argument that some vets become deranged and homeless is not a myth.
What mistake? I did not clearly see a weapon, and I still don't. Weapons were found at the scene, yes, but the investigators fatally compromised any investigation results by removing US bullets from the corpses. They could have planted weapons. From the video, those things could be sticks for all anyone knows. And I admitted that weapons were found, so what are you bitching about, princess?
Can't come up with a good argument as to why this was all okay? Stuck on "butbutbut there were weapons?" Enjoy war but don't want to admit it?
Man up and address the real point, babycakes.
There were weapons found at the scene. Admitted, and, unfortunately for the 'this was no massacre' folks, irrelevant. It was a massacre, even with the weapons found.
I am making it clear: there were weapons found. Not that the pilots could have clearly seen them, and not like anyone on the ground was attacking anyone, but yes, there were weapons.
And that is not important. You can try to keep making this argument about whether or not weapons were found, but for me, that was only one, small point.
My main point is this: this was a massacre of civilians, they shot up a vehicle trying to rescue an innocent reporter, and then they removed bullets and planted evidence to try to cover things up.
Go ahead and argue against THAT point if you feel like it, I'm done with the weapons/no weapons sideshow, okay?
You sound German, circa 1939.
Sometimes. You know, when I've had my frog pills...
And your excuse for the attack on the van...
Has been posted dozens of times by me and others. I find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with it. Judging by that, as well as other comments you've made, it's starting to become fairly obvious that you're just trolling.
Has it now? A believable and rational excuse for the van? I don't see it, why don't you be a dear and linky-linky for me, because I must be blind here.
Thank you for another content free, anger filled post. I'm not anti-soldier. I'm anti-massacre. Hell, it isn't even your military I'm complaining about. You Canadians wouldn't know how to throw a massacre if we gave you the manual and tied the civilians to posts.
My point is that this was a massacre. Even IF my first point is incorrect and there were obvious weapons and intent to use them by all in the initial group, we still have the unresolved issue of the rescue van.
You know damn well what the subject is here, and you can't dismiss the entire subject by dismissing one point.
Well, I apologize for the fact that I don't like war and the effect it has on people. Sheesh.
But it isn't true. Many vets suffer from PTSD and have trouble fitting back into society.
And the van? What's your excuse for the attack on the van trying to rescue the wounded?
Okay, you've convinced me enough that I feel I should offer a retraction and apology: I'm sorry I assumed you were a bigot.
And your excuse for the attack on the van is what, exactly?
What about the attack on the van, then?
It's nice that you can determine who can and can not be helped to become a better person. Obviously, all the people you label as trash are simply wastes of a human life and should just go ahead and die to make more room for the rest of us. And obviously, there is nothing anyone can do to make society better. Might as well not try, eh?
I agree that people's feelings of powerlessness to affect positive change leads them to adopt, as you say, disingenuous social frameworks. I like that phrase, by the way.