You know, if you act polite, the chances of getting a "contempt of cop" arrest are a lot lower.
Not if you have an aggressive cop looking for a power trip, it doesn't.
Who cares if they are powertripping.
Um, we do. Since they aren't doing their jobs. And we pay their salaries.
Take it up by filing a formal complaint.
You must not have tried to file too many formal complaints then. Many police departments ask for ID - which they aren't supposed to do - or stonewall you, or even harass you out of the building.
See, this is your problem. Instead of going about things properly, you are instead giving the cop a hard time.
Hey, if you want to grovel instead of stand up for yourself, that's your prerogative.
you may want to re-read the link you posted, because it doesn't support your charge very well.
Only if you buy the lame PD spin.
but I can tell you right now that if you treat a cop like you were conducting any courteous business transaction, you keep out of trouble 99 times of 100.
Not if you have an aggressive cop on a power trip. The only way you avoid trouble in that case is with some enthusiastic groveling.
The whole problem with the 'abortion debate' is that the extreme participants argue under the assumption that if you are not universally pro-life, you must be pro-abortion, and if you are not universally pro-choice, you must be pro-government-control of bodies.
There are astronomically more people that believe life begins at conception than believe that abortions two minutes before birth are hunky dory. No one wants abortions - not NOW, not Planned Parenthood. They just want the option to be legally available.
One giant problem is how the anti-abortion movement is tied at the hip to the Republican party, which is equally dedicated to eliminating social programs. It is asinine in the extreme to use the power of the state to force women to carry a fetus to term and then do nothing to support that child once it's born. When Johnny is a fetus made up of a dozen cells, he is of sacrosanct importance. Once he's born, he can go screw himself.
6 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Abort if you want. 38 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Sorry, too late.
And what if it took said rape victim 38 weeks to save up money (because she has no insurance and we have no single payer health care) and make travel arrangements because the nearest abortion clinic is 300 miles away? And once she gets to the clinic, she has to go through a waiting period and being pressured into other options.
It is reasonable to say there should be limits on late term abortions, but it is not reasonable to put up roadblocks at the same time.
Not until we reach Matrix or at least Holodeck level, anyway. Because you can watch all the movies you want featuring death, but they aren't going to do a thing to prepare you for when you first lose a parent to cancer or diabetes. You can watch all the martial arts movies you want, but they wont do a thing to prepare you for a real fight and real pain when you are punched or kicked.
Real life has real consequences. Video games and movies don't.
Except what you'll see is 50 million computer users running Linux as root all the time because an OEM configured it that way rather then be annoyed with support calls asking how to install some new program.
Which is of course completely unnecessary if you have a decent security model. Which of course Linux has.
And you completely missed the point of his post which stated that it doesn't matter.
And you completely missed the point that the parent was completely wrong.
Care to qualify this?
Sure: there are no viruses for Macs or Linux.
and in large forums of OSX users I have seen reports of security breaches, and reports of OSX malware.
Where, on Symantic.com? If there actually was a virus for OS X it would be huge news, if only because Windows apologists such as yourself wouldn't stop crowing about it for years.
It's about percentages, not numbers. 1,610,000 is a tiny fraction of the total computers sold each quarter.
Of course it's about numbers. There are more Macs now than there were Windows PC's when the first viruses started coming out. And, more importantly, most of those Macs are going to be personal computers (with personal info on them) as opposed to business PC's, and a Mac botnet would be virgin territory - no anti-virus software or other botnets to worry about. If making a Mac botnet were remotely as easy as making one for Windows, it would have already happened by now.
Did the froth from your mouth get into your eyes and obscure his message?
More likely you were just washing some Santorum off your rear end and some stuck to your hands, which you then mistakenly attributed to sm.
I have seen ZERO, nothing, to back up the "ego" claims.
Then you ignore the obvious.
When he attempted to get 5% of the votes in order to get the party on the ballot, how is that not a movement for change?
In a 50-50 country, what's going to happen when you take 5% from one side? He's not going to take a single vote from the gawd warriors, the gun nuts, or the free market jihaddists. So until that block is broken up, the only thing Nader will accomplish with another presidential run is to throw the election to that block, again. Doing his best to keep Republicans in office isn't change.
Nader was spot on about the corruption in the establishment Dem leadership, personified by the Democratic Leadership Council. But he didn't challenge that corruption, he just ran around insisting there was no difference between Gore and Bush, one of the more profoundly stupid ideas advanced in the course of human civilization. No, it's Democrats cleaning up the Democratic Party. Howard Dean has pushed the DLC into irrelevancy with the 50-state strategy and spending money on local offices rather than on "battleground" states and high priced consultants. It's Democrats like Ned Lamont and Donna Edwards running primaries against craptacular Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Al Wynn.
If Nader actually wanted to have a positive influence on politics, he'd run against against a tool like Diane Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi. Or enter the Dem primary and challenge the other candidates on the issues, the way Dennis Kucinich did, or Ron Paul on the Republican side. But no, he just runs for office every four years, taking money from Republicans and votes from Democrats.
If Nader wanted to lead a movement, he would have spent the last few years building a party. But when he announced that he was getting in the 2008 race, he didn't have a party picked out yet. So yeah, Nader's run is about Nader's ego.
Their coal plant still emits greenhouse gases and eventually will have to be retrofitted anyways. There's no net savings. If not, then don't reply because you're clearly a dumbshit.
I'm sorry, I didn't know I was dealing with a complete fucking idiot. Under the above scenario, the coal company made the same overall reduction in emissions and saved $4,000,000 in the process. If you can't understand something that damned simple, please do not have children for the sake of the gene pool.
Just because they didn't spell it out for you, it doesn't mean they're not doing it.
So something Clinton possibly could have done is equal to things we not only know for a fact Bush has done, but has boasted about it and promised to continue doing? Interesting thought process you have there.
Doubt it very much, but there's no way of knowing.
Actually, we do know. Watch Sicko. Other nations spend half as much money or less for better care, care that you actually get as opposed to paying insurance companies high premiums only for them to turn around and deny you coverage. Nations where no one looses their house because of medical bills.
No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.
And the Republicans who disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters in Florida. And the Republicans on the Supreme Court that stopped the recount for petty partisan reasons. And on Nader and the people voting for him for throwing the election to a man opposed to the entire Green Party platform, as opposed to the Democrat most aligned with it.
(Notice how the balanced-budget guys the right never got any traction under Reagan and Bush? They might as well have been on vacation for twelve years.
Nah, they just never existed in the first place. "Fiscal responsibility", "small government" and "balanced budgets" mean cutting social spending and regulation, not prudent spending policies.
Nader's track record is that he actually believes what he says, fights for what he believes, etc.
If that were actually the case he wouldn't have risked throwing the election to a man who was the polar opposite to nearly everything he believed in, rather than insisting there was no difference between Gore and Bush.
This is as opposed to the Democrats, who are the alternative party of big business.
There's one person ultimately responsible for Al Gore's loss. That person is Al Gore.
There's also the slight matter of the vote suppression in Florida in 2000. And the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the recount and handed the state to Bush, when a statewide recount would have given Gore the lead.
It does not matter how many votes Gore got in Florida, and we'll never know, anyway, because the vote count was stopped.
Actually we do know: the press did a complete statewide recount, and Gore got more votes than Bush. Period. Then 911 happened and they sat on the results - can you imagine the same happening if Gore's and Bush's roles had been switched? Somehow I doubt it.
I'm saying that you see a difference between democrats and republicans that just doesn't exist.
Nonsense. Nader was a complete fucking idiot to have suggested such a think back in 2000, and that was before 8 years of Bushco's incompetent fascism. There are some rotten Democrats, but the party isn't 100% rotten like the Republicans. Pick your issue - the Iraq War, Military Commissions Act, telecom immunity - some sell out Dems voted for them, but many voted against - as opposed to Republicans who voted in lockstep on all those issues.
The problem with whining about the "two party system" is the fallacy that you only have two choices. You've had like 8 candidates to chose from in either party this year. You don't think there's a slight bit of difference between Hillary and Kucinich? Guiliani and Huckabee?
And Clinton wanted all that wiretapping ability before 9/11.
You do know that's a lie, right? Carnivore was not mass warrantless wiretapping. And it would have required warrants to use...unlike warrantless wiretapping.
And you do remember the Clipper chip, right?
Which again, required warrants.
Hillary's "health plan" which called for national IDs?
And it would have saved Americans a few hundred billion dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and prevented thousands of home foreclosures by eliminating medical bankruptcies.
And guess who spoke the loudest against those things. That's right, McCain.
Because McCain is a pathetic political hack, that's why. Contrast his rhetoric on "cutting and running" and "stay in Iraq for 1000" years with his demands to pull out of Haiti and Somalia.
Gore won. There is no question that Gore won the popular vote.
He also would have won Florida if there had been a complete state-wide recount.
Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas. His own home state. Clinton's home state. 'Nuff said.
A horseshit argument if there ever was won. If you're a conservative it's not your "fault" if you can't win your blue home state, anymore than it is for a liberal to lose their home state if it's red. Bush didn't win his home state either: he's from Connecticut, not Texas.
Yah just like the DMCA, Defense of Marriage Act, Telecom Reform Act, and Communications Decency Act (Source) would never have been enacted had Bob Dole or Bush I been President?
Which are molehills next to the mountains of torture, extraordinary rendition, breaking half the Bill of Rights, warrantless wiretapping, and endless incompetence.
Let us also not forget that the Clinton Administration signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, which established "regime change" in Iraq as the official US position
Why don't you dig up those old lists of Democratic officials saying bad things about Saddam while you are at it? Democrats weren't saying we had to invade Iraq now, not later. Democrats weren't pushing non-existent ties between Saddam and Al Queda. Democrats weren't demonizing anyone who wasn't go ho on the war as being traitors.
The point of the story is that while the Democratic leadership deserves a good deal of blame, putting them in the same boat as the incompetent fascists is laughable.
It's not an ad hominem if it's true. Nader isn't building a movement for change, he only runs as a spoiler once every four years, and he's perfectly happy accepting support from Republicans wanting him to siphon votes from their Democratic opponents.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, if you act polite, the chances of getting a "contempt of cop" arrest are a lot lower.
Not if you have an aggressive cop looking for a power trip, it doesn't.
Who cares if they are powertripping.
Um, we do. Since they aren't doing their jobs. And we pay their salaries.
Take it up by filing a formal complaint.
You must not have tried to file too many formal complaints then. Many police departments ask for ID - which they aren't supposed to do - or stonewall you, or even harass you out of the building.
See, this is your problem. Instead of going about things properly, you are instead giving the cop a hard time.
Hey, if you want to grovel instead of stand up for yourself, that's your prerogative.
you may want to re-read the link you posted, because it doesn't support your charge very well.
Only if you buy the lame PD spin.
but I can tell you right now that if you treat a cop like you were conducting any courteous business transaction, you keep out of trouble 99 times of 100.
Not if you have an aggressive cop on a power trip. The only way you avoid trouble in that case is with some enthusiastic groveling.
The whole problem with the 'abortion debate' is that the extreme participants argue under the assumption that if you are not universally pro-life, you must be pro-abortion, and if you are not universally pro-choice, you must be pro-government-control of bodies.
There are astronomically more people that believe life begins at conception than believe that abortions two minutes before birth are hunky dory. No one wants abortions - not NOW, not Planned Parenthood. They just want the option to be legally available.
One giant problem is how the anti-abortion movement is tied at the hip to the Republican party, which is equally dedicated to eliminating social programs. It is asinine in the extreme to use the power of the state to force women to carry a fetus to term and then do nothing to support that child once it's born. When Johnny is a fetus made up of a dozen cells, he is of sacrosanct importance. Once he's born, he can go screw himself.
6 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Abort if you want.
38 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Sorry, too late.
And what if it took said rape victim 38 weeks to save up money (because she has no insurance and we have no single payer health care) and make travel arrangements because the nearest abortion clinic is 300 miles away? And once she gets to the clinic, she has to go through a waiting period and being pressured into other options.
It is reasonable to say there should be limits on late term abortions, but it is not reasonable to put up roadblocks at the same time.
Not until we reach Matrix or at least Holodeck level, anyway. Because you can watch all the movies you want featuring death, but they aren't going to do a thing to prepare you for when you first lose a parent to cancer or diabetes. You can watch all the martial arts movies you want, but they wont do a thing to prepare you for a real fight and real pain when you are punched or kicked.
Real life has real consequences. Video games and movies don't.
I find it rather interesting that this article's replies have all assumed that this is an American university.
I find it amusing when people find it amusing that readers assume news on an American website happened in America, unless stated otherwise.
Except what you'll see is 50 million computer users running Linux as root all the time because an OEM configured it that way rather then be annoyed with support calls asking how to install some new program.
Which is of course completely unnecessary if you have a decent security model. Which of course Linux has.
And you completely missed the point of his post which stated that it doesn't matter.
And you completely missed the point that the parent was completely wrong.
Care to qualify this?
Sure: there are no viruses for Macs or Linux.
and in large forums of OSX users I have seen reports of security breaches, and reports of OSX malware.
Where, on Symantic.com? If there actually was a virus for OS X it would be huge news, if only because Windows apologists such as yourself wouldn't stop crowing about it for years.
It's about percentages, not numbers. 1,610,000 is a tiny fraction of the total computers sold each quarter.
Of course it's about numbers. There are more Macs now than there were Windows PC's when the first viruses started coming out. And, more importantly, most of those Macs are going to be personal computers (with personal info on them) as opposed to business PC's, and a Mac botnet would be virgin territory - no anti-virus software or other botnets to worry about. If making a Mac botnet were remotely as easy as making one for Windows, it would have already happened by now.
Did the froth from your mouth get into your eyes and obscure his message?
More likely you were just washing some Santorum off your rear end and some stuck to your hands, which you then mistakenly attributed to sm.
And this is probably one reason why so many company employees are forced to behave like inflexible jobsworths and give a rote answer.
That's what supervisors are for.
I have seen ZERO, nothing, to back up the "ego" claims.
Then you ignore the obvious.
When he attempted to get 5% of the votes in order to get the party on the ballot, how is that not a movement for change?
In a 50-50 country, what's going to happen when you take 5% from one side? He's not going to take a single vote from the gawd warriors, the gun nuts, or the free market jihaddists. So until that block is broken up, the only thing Nader will accomplish with another presidential run is to throw the election to that block, again. Doing his best to keep Republicans in office isn't change.
Nader was spot on about the corruption in the establishment Dem leadership, personified by the Democratic Leadership Council. But he didn't challenge that corruption, he just ran around insisting there was no difference between Gore and Bush, one of the more profoundly stupid ideas advanced in the course of human civilization. No, it's Democrats cleaning up the Democratic Party. Howard Dean has pushed the DLC into irrelevancy with the 50-state strategy and spending money on local offices rather than on "battleground" states and high priced consultants. It's Democrats like Ned Lamont and Donna Edwards running primaries against craptacular Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Al Wynn.
If Nader actually wanted to have a positive influence on politics, he'd run against against a tool like Diane Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi. Or enter the Dem primary and challenge the other candidates on the issues, the way Dennis Kucinich did, or Ron Paul on the Republican side. But no, he just runs for office every four years, taking money from Republicans and votes from Democrats.
If Nader wanted to lead a movement, he would have spent the last few years building a party. But when he announced that he was getting in the 2008 race, he didn't have a party picked out yet. So yeah, Nader's run is about Nader's ego.
Their coal plant still emits greenhouse gases and eventually will have to be retrofitted anyways. There's no net savings. If not, then don't reply because you're clearly a dumbshit.
I'm sorry, I didn't know I was dealing with a complete fucking idiot. Under the above scenario, the coal company made the same overall reduction in emissions and saved $4,000,000 in the process. If you can't understand something that damned simple, please do not have children for the sake of the gene pool.
Just because they didn't spell it out for you, it doesn't mean they're not doing it.
So something Clinton possibly could have done is equal to things we not only know for a fact Bush has done, but has boasted about it and promised to continue doing? Interesting thought process you have there.
Doubt it very much, but there's no way of knowing.
Actually, we do know. Watch Sicko. Other nations spend half as much money or less for better care, care that you actually get as opposed to paying insurance companies high premiums only for them to turn around and deny you coverage. Nations where no one looses their house because of medical bills.
No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.
And the Republicans who disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters in Florida. And the Republicans on the Supreme Court that stopped the recount for petty partisan reasons. And on Nader and the people voting for him for throwing the election to a man opposed to the entire Green Party platform, as opposed to the Democrat most aligned with it.
(Notice how the balanced-budget guys the right never got any traction under Reagan and Bush? They might as well have been on vacation for twelve years.
Nah, they just never existed in the first place. "Fiscal responsibility", "small government" and "balanced budgets" mean cutting social spending and regulation, not prudent spending policies.
Pro taxation.
A lie.
He is also pro spending
A straight up conservative then: against taxes but pro-deficit spending. Woot.
And anti-free speech (McCain/Fiengold anyone?)
Unlimited campaigns pending by lobbyists is what is anti free speech.
Nader's track record is that he actually believes what he says, fights for what he believes, etc.
If that were actually the case he wouldn't have risked throwing the election to a man who was the polar opposite to nearly everything he believed in, rather than insisting there was no difference between Gore and Bush.
This is as opposed to the Democrats, who are the alternative party of big business.
Some Democrats, as opposed to all Republicans.
There's one person ultimately responsible for Al Gore's loss. That person is Al Gore.
There's also the slight matter of the vote suppression in Florida in 2000. And the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the recount and handed the state to Bush, when a statewide recount would have given Gore the lead.
Conservatism: the rationalization of selfish elitism.
Low taxes have hight costs. You have more money and more freedom with taxes and government spending than you do without.
It does not matter how many votes Gore got in Florida, and we'll never know, anyway, because the vote count was stopped.
Actually we do know: the press did a complete statewide recount, and Gore got more votes than Bush. Period. Then 911 happened and they sat on the results - can you imagine the same happening if Gore's and Bush's roles had been switched? Somehow I doubt it.
I'm saying that you see a difference between democrats and republicans that just doesn't exist.
Nonsense. Nader was a complete fucking idiot to have suggested such a think back in 2000, and that was before 8 years of Bushco's incompetent fascism. There are some rotten Democrats, but the party isn't 100% rotten like the Republicans. Pick your issue - the Iraq War, Military Commissions Act, telecom immunity - some sell out Dems voted for them, but many voted against - as opposed to Republicans who voted in lockstep on all those issues.
The problem with whining about the "two party system" is the fallacy that you only have two choices. You've had like 8 candidates to chose from in either party this year. You don't think there's a slight bit of difference between Hillary and Kucinich? Guiliani and Huckabee?
And Clinton wanted all that wiretapping ability before 9/11.
You do know that's a lie, right? Carnivore was not mass warrantless wiretapping. And it would have required warrants to use...unlike warrantless wiretapping.
And you do remember the Clipper chip, right?
Which again, required warrants.
Hillary's "health plan" which called for national IDs?
And it would have saved Americans a few hundred billion dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and prevented thousands of home foreclosures by eliminating medical bankruptcies.
And guess who spoke the loudest against those things. That's right, McCain.
Because McCain is a pathetic political hack, that's why. Contrast his rhetoric on "cutting and running" and "stay in Iraq for 1000" years with his demands to pull out of Haiti and Somalia.
Gore won. There is no question that Gore won the popular vote.
He also would have won Florida if there had been a complete state-wide recount.
Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas. His own home state. Clinton's home state. 'Nuff said.
A horseshit argument if there ever was won. If you're a conservative it's not your "fault" if you can't win your blue home state, anymore than it is for a liberal to lose their home state if it's red. Bush didn't win his home state either: he's from Connecticut, not Texas.
Yah just like the DMCA, Defense of Marriage Act, Telecom Reform Act, and Communications Decency Act (Source) would never have been enacted had Bob Dole or Bush I been President?
Which are molehills next to the mountains of torture, extraordinary rendition, breaking half the Bill of Rights, warrantless wiretapping, and endless incompetence.
Let us also not forget that the Clinton Administration signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, which established "regime change" in Iraq as the official US position
Why don't you dig up those old lists of Democratic officials saying bad things about Saddam while you are at it? Democrats weren't saying we had to invade Iraq now, not later. Democrats weren't pushing non-existent ties between Saddam and Al Queda. Democrats weren't demonizing anyone who wasn't go ho on the war as being traitors.
The point of the story is that while the Democratic leadership deserves a good deal of blame, putting them in the same boat as the incompetent fascists is laughable.
It's not an ad hominem if it's true. Nader isn't building a movement for change, he only runs as a spoiler once every four years, and he's perfectly happy accepting support from Republicans wanting him to siphon votes from their Democratic opponents.
Or by being a cantankerous old crank... kinda like that Ron Paul guy.
Except Paul manages to challenge the status quo and stand up for his beliefs without fucking over the country. Nader should take tips from Ron Paul.