Or that it wasn't really important enough to prosecute.
Khmm... What happened to the "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" maxim?
After all, Zimmerman was acquitted, so whether evidence against him may have been faked didn't change the verdict.
Interesting logic... So, lying under oath is Ok sometimes?
Did she claim under oath that she had written it?
Yes. And it was not the first time she lied (under oath). But this time it was worse, because somebody else wrote that letter — and handed to her to pretend, it was hers. In other words, it was not a mere perjury, but a conspiracy to commit perjury (and malicious prosecution) — and no one was even investigated, much less prosecuted for it.
Are you sure beyond a reasonable doubt that she would necessarily have been able to read her own handwriting?
I am sure — but am not a juror at her trial, if only because no prosecutor had the guts to charge her.
But she has already admitted — under oath — that she has not, in fact, written it. So we don't need to prove, she lied...
So you can imagine a system where the government enforces a law that they didn't create ? Who creates the laws then ?
Either you are an immigrant, who hasn't been here as long as me, or a foreigner. In America, when one talks about "government" without qualifications, the Executive government is presumed. Laws here are passed by the Legislature, which is not involved in their enforcement. Though the Legislature is often referred to as a government branch, it is distinctly different. Indeed, it is not even permanent or full-time.
But, even without all of that, the Constitution was written before we had the first President and Congress. And even before that, the laws again murder, theft, and thievery existed — whether they were presented as "God-given" or just self-evident, they didn't need to be put on paper for people to all agree, these things are wrong.
Now, a law banning "overly large" soda-drinks — that is something, you need a government to invent. And an Illiberal one at that.
Any libertarian that actually thinks law enforcement is the only job of a government is an idiot.
Hans Christian Andersen called — suggesting, you read his book.
You cannot enforce laws if you cannot create them.
Huh?
Second, it is impossible to administer any government without some form of revenue and this means taxation.
Sure. And yet, the US managed without Federal Income Tax until 1914 (happy anniversary). And even when it was introduced, the rate was only 1% — and only on people whose income was in millions in today's dollars.
Third, there are numerous market failures [wikipedia.org]
That page describes a theoretical term — without offering actual examples except where something government-provided is involved. Because there aren't "market failures", that are solvable with more government. The road congestion is cited as an example of "market failure" — but, somehow, the solution of letting private interests build more roads and charge for their use is not suggested.
Military, certain bits of infrastructure, health care for certain at-risk groups, administration of certain public goods [wikipedia.org], etc. All of these go well beyond mere law enforcement
Military does not. The rest should be handled by competing private providers. Yes, including roads. If Tokyo can have competing subway lines, why can't New York?
But, seriously, you had me at the "idiot"...
Private companies should never get a free pass when acting in a governmental capacity.
Full agreement here. This rule, however, does not at all mean, police must always be government employees. The same way a mall may hire a security firm, a town may hire an entire police-department. After competitive bidding, having reviewed their references and past performance, and for a period of certain number of years, after which the contract may or may not be extended. Thus hired, they will be — by laws and their contract — subject to laws, including FOIA.
Just a reminder, that Massachusetts is among the most Illiberals states of the Union these days. Dukakis, Kerry — failed Democratic presidential nominees — hail from here. Ted Kennedy kept his Senate seat despite being responsible for a girl's death due to his drunk-driving (and leaving the scene of the accident). He abandoned his national ambitions after that, but remained popular in Massachusetts — and a shoe-in Senatorial candidate until his death.
Likewise, Barney Frank remained popular despite having patronized a (male) prostitute (nominally — a crime in Massachusetts). It was so pathetic, the man remained a prostitute even after moving-in with Barney... Only the most Illiberal State would forgive such scandals to Illiberal politicians.
And if anybody needed a reminder, that Illiberalism leads to outright tyranny, well, TFA is it. Flamebait by furry tail.
Libertarians should love this - government slashed to bare minimum (or below) and everything in private hands.
Except they aren't in private hands — they are paid for by the tax-payers.
And, BTW, most Libertarians do agree, that law-enforcement is the government's function — the sole one, perhaps. Oh, it may be provided by private companies, but those must be hired by and operate on the authority of the local governments.
If those borders still stood The USA wouldn't have much of an illegal immigrant problem but Mexico sure would.
Amazing naivete — unless you are joking... Illegal immigrant problems come to countries with relatively high standard of living — you don't have to be part of the much-despised Golden Billion, dirt-poor Thailand, for example, has this problem because their neighboring Myanmar (Burma) is even poorer.
Whether those borders still stood or not, I doubt rather strongly, we wouldn't have been substantially richer than Mexico anyway.
But, as things are currently progressing, we may lose those lands anyway — if they get saturated with Latinos the way Crimea is saturated with Russians (result of Stalin's ethnic cleansing of 1944), they may one day vote to leave the US and join Mexico. Whatever their true feelings might be, polite Mexican special forces (with our own border guards and military under orders not to shoot) will ensure, the referendum's tally is "correct".
The rest of the world will be as indiffirent as it is today to Russia's war on Ukraine. Thanks to Obama's today's help Mexico will finally have finally accomplished, what Santa Anna and Pancho Villa failed to do centuries ago.
German subs had already started unrestricted attacks on US shipping. The Zimmerman telegram was not necessary to get the US into WWI.
The American public opinion remained split — plenty of people thought, it was the victims' own fault, that they chose to, despite Germany's fair warnings, to travel to UK or ship goods over there.
The telegram — and other, less famous, bits of intelligence obtained the same way — provided very important insights to the British and our own governments.
The announcement comes after reports this week that Verizon and British company Colt provide Internet services to the German parliament and other official entities.
Rachel Jeantel, star witness in the Trayvon Martin murder trial, was asked in Seminole Circuit Court in Sanford, Florida this week to read from a letter that she allegedly "wrote" to Mr. Martin's mother. The letter detailed what Ms. Jeantel allegedly heard while on the phone with the late Mr. Martin moments before he was fatally shot by 29-year-old defendant George Zimmerman.
However, when prompted in court, Ms. Jeantel couldn't read that letter.
Possibly, after being caught lying, she admitted, that it was not, in fact, written by her. But that is how the prosecution originally presented that "evidence" — and, strangely enough, nobody got prosecuted for perjury.
Only because the Executive government granted you their permission, whereas the Second Amendment explicitly says that both keeping (which you do), and bearing (which you do not mention) a weapon is a right, which only the Judiciary can suspend (upon a guilty verdict). That it is treated as a mere privilege, which the Executive can grant or withdraw on a whim, is a violation of the Second Amendment. Hence my "whining".
Or, maybe, he was just trying to create a precedent for the rest of us, huh? Some people are willing to die for the freedom of others, whereas this guy merely risked legal troubles... Neah, nobody but an idiot would do such a thing...
You can make a better "gun" than the Liberator using a piece of wood and a drill, faster and cheaper than a 3D print.
My usage of the term "liberator" to refer to a new 3D-printing machine capable of working metal has — mistakenly — lead you to assume, I'm talking about a plastic gun model named "Liberator" made on a 3D-printer working on plastic...
The US doesn't suffer from a shortage of guns or the ability to make guns.
Certain Illiberal parts of the US — such as New Jersey — do suffer major Bill of Rights violations — it is the proverbial giant elephant in the room, that what the Second Amendment explicitly lists as a right (which could only be suspended by the Judiciary) has been gradually reduced by our benevolent betters to mere privilege (which the Executive may grant or deny on a whim).
Not only to carry, but even to purchase a gun one needs the government's permission — a personal one first, and then a separate one for each weapon purchased.
The only reason to 3D print a gun is because you really like guns
I don't really like them, but, in my opinion, no home should be without one (or two) — if only on principle (rights not exercised are rights lost). Unfortunately, the only way to purchase them — legally — is to submit so much personal information to the government, that the NSA wouldn't dream of collecting, and pay them hundreds of dollars in fees. Oh, and they may still deny your application — without explanation. Yet, making the gun at home is still legal — hence my point.
Re:It should be dead
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You can write C-code obscurely too. But, somehow, Perl seems to encourage this sort of thing... 20 years ago my CS-professor dismissed Perl as a "write-only" language — since then my conviction of him being right has only grown.
Whatever the gender, whatever the race, any program, any effort aiming to advance a certain sex (or a certain race) only is sexist (or racist).
Some of this sexism (or racism) might be justified by the past injustices — to straighten a bent stick, goes the analogy, you need to bend it in the other direction somewhat — but I don't buy it. Certainly not in this case.
Only if you know, what you are doing. I, for one, am a software guy and would not know arse from snout of most sorts of hardware problems.
The cost of 3D "printing" in metal is immense
That may not be a barrier to some people — it may be expensive, but it is still possible, whereas doing the "traditional" way is an outright non-starter for many.
but I believe that wealthy governments have a duty to provide education and healthcare for everyone who wants it.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."- James Madison
Governments have no wealth of their own — their source of income is the taxes collected from their constituents. At gun-point, I might add... Spending those taxes on what even some of the taxpayers consider wrong — whether it is certain teachings or abortions — is oppressive.
Now, wealthy people, who think everybody is entitled to this and that are free to pay for it on their own. But forcing others to participate in whatever program you deem wonderful is tyranny...
They're fighting this on the grounds that it should never have been granted because it was disparaging at the time it was granted
Life was very different in 1932, when the team was founded. Buying "Looney Tunes" cartoons of that era today, you get a video of Whoopi Goldberg apologizing — on behalf of Warner Brothers — for the "racism" of some episodes.
It was not an "oversight", that the trademark was granted — it really does mean, the term was considered quite acceptable back then.
In general I agree, but when it comes to science I'm a little more relaxed about that, assuming that they stick to actual science without politicizing it.
Ever head of Lysenko? The greater the share of research, that is funded by the governments (as opposite to private entities), the easier it is to portray one's scientific opponents as not merely stupid, but as "enemies of the people" and "saboteurs".
Slashdot Mirror
Khmm... What happened to the "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" maxim?
Interesting logic... So, lying under oath is Ok sometimes?
Yes. And it was not the first time she lied (under oath). But this time it was worse, because somebody else wrote that letter — and handed to her to pretend, it was hers. In other words, it was not a mere perjury, but a conspiracy to commit perjury (and malicious prosecution) — and no one was even investigated, much less prosecuted for it.
I am sure — but am not a juror at her trial, if only because no prosecutor had the guts to charge her.
But she has already admitted — under oath — that she has not, in fact, written it. So we don't need to prove, she lied...
Either you are an immigrant, who hasn't been here as long as me, or a foreigner. In America, when one talks about "government" without qualifications, the Executive government is presumed. Laws here are passed by the Legislature, which is not involved in their enforcement. Though the Legislature is often referred to as a government branch, it is distinctly different. Indeed, it is not even permanent or full-time.
But, even without all of that, the Constitution was written before we had the first President and Congress. And even before that, the laws again murder, theft, and thievery existed — whether they were presented as "God-given" or just self-evident, they didn't need to be put on paper for people to all agree, these things are wrong.
Now, a law banning "overly large" soda-drinks — that is something, you need a government to invent. And an Illiberal one at that.
Hans Christian Andersen called — suggesting, you read his book.
Huh?
Sure. And yet, the US managed without Federal Income Tax until 1914 (happy anniversary). And even when it was introduced, the rate was only 1% — and only on people whose income was in millions in today's dollars.
That page describes a theoretical term — without offering actual examples except where something government-provided is involved. Because there aren't "market failures", that are solvable with more government . The road congestion is cited as an example of "market failure" — but, somehow, the solution of letting private interests build more roads and charge for their use is not suggested.
You have the page opened, why don't read the "Objections" section?
Military does not. The rest should be handled by competing private providers. Yes, including roads. If Tokyo can have competing subway lines, why can't New York?
But, seriously, you had me at the "idiot"...
Full agreement here. This rule, however, does not at all mean, police must always be government employees. The same way a mall may hire a security firm, a town may hire an entire police-department. After competitive bidding, having reviewed their references and past performance, and for a period of certain number of years, after which the contract may or may not be extended. Thus hired, they will be — by laws and their contract — subject to laws, including FOIA.
Just a reminder, that Massachusetts is among the most Illiberals states of the Union these days. Dukakis, Kerry — failed Democratic presidential nominees — hail from here. Ted Kennedy kept his Senate seat despite being responsible for a girl's death due to his drunk-driving (and leaving the scene of the accident). He abandoned his national ambitions after that, but remained popular in Massachusetts — and a shoe-in Senatorial candidate until his death.
Likewise, Barney Frank remained popular despite having patronized a (male) prostitute (nominally — a crime in Massachusetts). It was so pathetic, the man remained a prostitute even after moving-in with Barney... Only the most Illiberal State would forgive such scandals to Illiberal politicians.
And if anybody needed a reminder, that Illiberalism leads to outright tyranny, well, TFA is it. Flamebait by furry tail.
Except they aren't in private hands — they are paid for by the tax-payers.
And, BTW, most Libertarians do agree, that law-enforcement is the government's function — the sole one, perhaps. Oh, it may be provided by private companies, but those must be hired by and operate on the authority of the local governments.
http://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
Except:
Amazing naivete — unless you are joking... Illegal immigrant problems come to countries with relatively high standard of living — you don't have to be part of the much-despised Golden Billion, dirt-poor Thailand, for example, has this problem because their neighboring Myanmar (Burma) is even poorer.
Whether those borders still stood or not, I doubt rather strongly, we wouldn't have been substantially richer than Mexico anyway.
But, as things are currently progressing, we may lose those lands anyway — if they get saturated with Latinos the way Crimea is saturated with Russians (result of Stalin's ethnic cleansing of 1944), they may one day vote to leave the US and join Mexico. Whatever their true feelings might be, polite Mexican special forces (with our own border guards and military under orders not to shoot) will ensure, the referendum's tally is "correct".
The rest of the world will be as indiffirent as it is today to Russia's war on Ukraine. Thanks to Obama's today's help Mexico will finally have finally accomplished, what Santa Anna and Pancho Villa failed to do centuries ago.
The American public opinion remained split — plenty of people thought, it was the victims' own fault, that they chose to, despite Germany's fair warnings, to travel to UK or ship goods over there.
The telegram — and other, less famous, bits of intelligence obtained the same way — provided very important insights to the British and our own governments.
Germany should've learned their lesson, when a telegram sent to their Ambassador in Mexico was intercepted by the British — and shared with the US-government.
Had we not obtained that piece of intelligence, the history of the world could've been quite different...
From the article (emphasis mine):
Possibly, after being caught lying, she admitted, that it was not, in fact, written by her. But that is how the prosecution originally presented that "evidence" — and, strangely enough, nobody got prosecuted for perjury.
Only because the Executive government granted you their permission, whereas the Second Amendment explicitly says that both keeping (which you do), and bearing (which you do not mention) a weapon is a right, which only the Judiciary can suspend (upon a guilty verdict). That it is treated as a mere privilege, which the Executive can grant or withdraw on a whim, is a violation of the Second Amendment. Hence my "whining".
Well, the Second stopped applying decades ago as well.
Or, maybe, he was just trying to create a precedent for the rest of us, huh? Some people are willing to die for the freedom of others, whereas this guy merely risked legal troubles... Neah, nobody but an idiot would do such a thing...
Not if you claim you "can't read cursive" — not even (supposedly) your very own.
My usage of the term "liberator" to refer to a new 3D-printing machine capable of working metal has — mistakenly — lead you to assume, I'm talking about a plastic gun model named "Liberator" made on a 3D-printer working on plastic...
Certain Illiberal parts of the US — such as New Jersey — do suffer major Bill of Rights violations — it is the proverbial giant elephant in the room, that what the Second Amendment explicitly lists as a right (which could only be suspended by the Judiciary) has been gradually reduced by our benevolent betters to mere privilege (which the Executive may grant or deny on a whim).
Not only to carry, but even to purchase a gun one needs the government's permission — a personal one first, and then a separate one for each weapon purchased.
I don't really like them, but, in my opinion, no home should be without one (or two) — if only on principle (rights not exercised are rights lost). Unfortunately, the only way to purchase them — legally — is to submit so much personal information to the government, that the NSA wouldn't dream of collecting, and pay them hundreds of dollars in fees. Oh, and they may still deny your application — without explanation. Yet, making the gun at home is still legal — hence my point.
You can write C-code obscurely too. But, somehow, Perl seems to encourage this sort of thing... 20 years ago my CS-professor dismissed Perl as a "write-only" language — since then my conviction of him being right has only grown.
- Thomas Jefferson
Indeed... The big cities are the most Illiberal...
Whatever the gender, whatever the race, any program, any effort aiming to advance a certain sex (or a certain race) only is sexist (or racist).
Some of this sexism (or racism) might be justified by the past injustices — to straighten a bent stick, goes the analogy, you need to bend it in the other direction somewhat — but I don't buy it. Certainly not in this case.
Only if you know, what you are doing. I, for one, am a software guy and would not know arse from snout of most sorts of hardware problems.
That may not be a barrier to some people — it may be expensive, but it is still possible, whereas doing the "traditional" way is an outright non-starter for many.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
Governments have no wealth of their own — their source of income is the taxes collected from their constituents. At gun-point, I might add... Spending those taxes on what even some of the taxpayers consider wrong — whether it is certain teachings or abortions — is oppressive.
Now, wealthy people, who think everybody is entitled to this and that are free to pay for it on their own. But forcing others to participate in whatever program you deem wonderful is tyranny...
Life was very different in 1932, when the team was founded. Buying "Looney Tunes" cartoons of that era today, you get a video of Whoopi Goldberg apologizing — on behalf of Warner Brothers — for the "racism" of some episodes.
It was not an "oversight", that the trademark was granted — it really does mean, the term was considered quite acceptable back then.
It was not disparaging in 1932, when the trademark was granted. If it became disparaging now, we must've slowly changed the meaning of some words.
Legal, but hard. 3D printing makes (or would make) it easy — extending the liberty to more people.
Ever head of Lysenko? The greater the share of research, that is funded by the governments (as opposite to private entities), the easier it is to portray one's scientific opponents as not merely stupid, but as "enemies of the people" and "saboteurs".
And that share does need to reach 100% (as it was in the USSR), for "politicizing" to begin. Heck, the climate science is a fine example already — while actual climatologists are still discussing, there are already calls to arrest "climate change deniers"... Still feeling relaxed?