For some things yes, however for plenty of others, only 'gross negligence' is required to convict her for multiple offenses under 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) based on what is publicly available months ago would have been easy even for a country prosecutor.
A friend of a friend works in a rather sensitive area in Washington, I asked him once his opinion of this whole thing and his answer was rather telling: "If I ever brought my work home... I'd be in prison"
since most modern cars I feel are less see to drive because visibility is impaired (giant thick pillars in all directions these days).
Not to mention the lighter materials used and the trend towards smaller, both of which decrease survivability
As a rather tall individual, car shopping for me is rather big chore as it's not just a Q of "what do I fit in?" but "which vehicle that I fit in will not see the dashboard shatter my knees should I hit something at 20 mph?" (in far too many vehicles, parts of my body which should not be touching anything do).
The main campuses yes, however Microsoft and google also have offices in Seattle as well for rather deliberate reasons... Nit to mention oodles if other companies who prefer to be there vs elsewhere.
Then get new employees. Ones who don't demand you spend more on building space while still paying them a high salary.
You realize that your salary is pretty much the same if you work on one side of Lake Washington or the other at a given company... right?
More so, I'm sure all have done the math, just as how many Silicon Valley or San Francisco based company has as to if they would be better off relocating to... Detroit (cheap land and homes, and a police force needing some subsidizing, etc).
All the more reason to avoid competition. Just imagine the potential for espionage.
That problem exists anywhere. All a tech reporter has to do is know where some employees from this company or that eat lunch and sit near... as alas far too many talk shop, even in public with each other.
nor people aged between 16 and eighteen, even when they were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum.
By sheer coincidence, these two groups would have voted for the Remain option.
And if the voting age had been lowered to 4... everyone would have cookies.
My pet theory is that Cameron et al wanted the Remain camp to succeed, though by a thin margin
So your theory is that Cameron is incredibly reckless in a way that would likely lead to his need to resign? I know he is unpopular with many, but I don't imagine many going that far.
That depends on if you have the law on your side, here is how you can actually make it lawful:
1) Go to small claims court and sue for damages 2) Win 3) Give Comcast reasonable time to pay 4) If they haven't paid, go back to court and seek order compelling them to pay 5) Take order to local Sheriff and ask them to assist you in collecting 6) Under the power of the state (and Sheriff), enter local Comcast facility and seize assets equal to the amount of the judgment.
Usually early in the execution of step 6 will most companies pull out their checkbook.
Most execs like that have a team of people monitoring their email for major customer service issues... these people tend to have a good line to the underlings who can get things done.
This route is often called 'executive customer service'... a method I try not to employ unless absolutely necessary, but when I have gotten &#% done a hell of a lot faster than the time I'd previously wasted with the normal front line support folks (who I still go through initially to be able to show that I am out of options).
So because republicans managed to pokes holes in sensible legislation
Because it's always the big bad Republicans fault...
Have you ever deployed software that wasn't perfect the first few rounds?
I tend to do a good bit of testing before deploying anything... and when doing the testing I validate if the required features are there. Nothing in the Democrat proposed bills/amendments will do what they say, so deployment is off for now until they meet the proposed spec as I'd prefer to avoid the legal issues which will come up should the poor SW/bill get deployed.
This reminds me of the arguments and complaints from republicans about the flaws in the ACA, WHICH THEY DEMANDED BE PUT IN THE BILL!
Because the Republicans had sooo much influance on the ACE... voting universally against it, hell, opposition to it in the end was bi-partisan... do you have a point again?
It's like punching your wife in the face and then telling her that black eye makes her ugly.
I'm sorry to hear about your abused wife, perhaps she could consult with a lawyer & the police.
Shorter AC: I'm just going to ignore what you said and pretend you said something simpler that I can understand.
Again unworthy.
Yet you keep replying.
would you have a problem with them following the process to fill the supreme court vacancy that exists _now_?
They are. Nothing in the Constitution requires an up or down vote, nor even a hearing for any nominee.
Article I, Section V is quite clear: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"
Ever hear of John M. Read? Edward A. Bradford? William C. Micou? They are just few of the men nominated to the supreme court and who never got a vote of any kind... all per the established process laid out in the Constitution & Senate rules.
So you would rather we sell guns to people on the terrorist watch list because you are afraid of what the democrats might propose in the future.
So much fun people trying to put words in my mouth, or did you miss the part of me agreeing to discount for the time being the views of those actually wishing to prohibit private ownership?
Yes, I am ok with people selling guns to people on the terrorist watch list for the same reason I am against prior restraint against the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church: No matter how vile I may personally think such people are, they still have their rights not having been convicted of a crime which would prevent their actions.
It's the same reason you should be against secret lists being used for such purposes... or would you be ok with a President Trump adding you two a secret list or two which denies you some of your civil rights without due process? Don't worry, you can go to court to try to challenge your status... assuming you have the time/money for such a challenge.
Do you think paranoid people should own guns?
I think all law abiding citizens (a status changed only via due process) who have not been adjudicated a threat to themselves or others (ie due process) should be able to own & buy firearms, yes.
the reps did,/actually/ impeach a democrat for a marital affair
False, he was impeached for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice.
He was even disbarred for contempt of court... but yeah, it was all over a marital affair.
The W administration started a war by lying to the American people.
Nice talking point you've got there... shame it's been long debunked... or do you have proof that W knew for certain there were no WMDs and opted to say otherwise? Alas foreign intelligence and even Clinton in 1988 dissagree.
A war that ended up with the death of over a million people
Alas people die in war, and the kind of insurgency not before seen was not previously seen as likely.
the birth of isis,
So the whole Syria & Libya thing are Bush's fault as well?
If anyone deserved impeachment, it was W.
... because?
Read your own links.
Which part? Anyone can make accuisations, I've yet to see anything substantive regarding bush that rises to the levels of 'high crimes and misdemeanours'... as unlike Obama, Bush had congressional support for his wars.
You mean the mere existence of an amendment to the constitution itself -- on its face -- shuts down the legitimacy of debating a subject?
It can't be debated? I don't think that's how it works.
An AC using a straw-man & trying to play the victim? Who would have thunk it?
Should women have the vote? Should we be able to own slaves? Absent a constitutional amendment, all three of these issues are moot, doubly so when Democrats are proposing a statute (ie not a constitutional amendment) to that effect which would quickly be shot down in court.
Had you couched your argument in the form of proposing an amendment for this purpose... then yes, it might be worthy of debate, only that is not what was said above, nor what is happening in Washington... so why waste time on an abstract that will never be?
How about you stay on subject and not try to move the goal posts?
Constitutions are amended. Even yours. All the time.
27 amendments over 227 years isn't exactly what I would call 'all the time'.
None of it is sacred if there is the required agreement to change it.
So why don't we follow the process? It's almost as if the Democrats know they can't do so and are more interested in political theater while acting like cry babies than actually doing anything to reduce 'gun violence'.
Captcha sums up your argument: unworthy
Yet you opted to reply, so there must have at least been a quantum of worthiness.
If this means I'm too old to be in the militia that I can be theoretically denied the right to own an assault rifle
Hey slow-poke! 'assault rifles' have been rather heavily regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act... and despite that you can still legally purchase one today... though it's going to cost you a pretty penny and about 9 months of waiting for your tax stamp to show up.
How about you reference a type of weapon that is a bit more common?
They were not god given, especially considering many of these rights were denied in most major countries at the time.
You should look up the meaning of the term 'inalienable rights' aka natural rights... it starts from the premise of the natural rights being pre-existing.
Even if someone denies/infringes upon your natural rights, does not change whether or not you actually have them/are entitled to them.
They are not advocating the ban of all privately held weapons.
Nice straw-man you've got there. They aren't doing so in legislative form at present... but I guess for the moment we could ignore the wishes to do just that of some of those pushing the latest wave of bills.
All civil rights will remain intact.
Q: Is buying/owning a firearm a civil rights? A: Yes.
Q: If the democrats are successful in passing their latest wet dream, will that deny some civil rights and due process of law? A: Yes.
Q: How can 'all civil rights' remain intact if in fact, some are being stripped of their civil rights? A: Plan only works in Imaginationland.
We already have limits on all other rights, free speech is not absolute for instance and neither is freedom of religious activity.
Wait... so you mean me shooting my rifle into the air in a crowded city square is actually a valid prohibition on my right to carry/use a firearm? *gasp*!!!! Who knew?!?!?
So many straw-men... so little time.
So having reasonable checks on gun ownership can be allowed without it being a removal of a civil right.
You may want to try to find similar comparisons then.
Do we today prevent you from purchasing a typewriter or religious text because you are on a no-fly/no-buy list... the very same thing that is being proposed for firearms?
No... false equivalency then.
Care to try again?
Name a 'reasonable' law you think they should enact and enforce*... and why it would do anything substantive to reduce 'gun violence'.
*Enforcement is key. Here in Washington state a few years back they passed a universal background check law. Know how many convictions there have been under it in 2 years? 0. It's a near impossible to enforce, feel good law which creates red tape for lawful firearm buyers/sellers and doesn't do a thing to stop those who skip the tape.
The nuclear option during the Obama Administration wasn't used until 2011.
Anyone paying attention is aware... that you just admitted how cowardly the Democrats were to use it when it mattered (ie during the time-frame referenced above (when they viewed themselves as having a mandate)).
All the political capital got spent on ObamaCare, which required the reconciliation process to pass through the Senate on a majority vote (56-43).
Water is also wet and the sun is a mass of incandescent gas. Your point? Oh right... The Democrats picked the wrong thing to railroad through and now cry like children that the mean republicans won't bend over backwards for them.
The Republicans can't govern because they're stuck between the Tea Party extremists in the House and Donald Trump running for president.
So fun hearing an outsider view which is shaped by... DailyKos I assume?
A lot of votes will be going to the Democrats in the November. The Republicans can say good-bye to their majorities in the Congress just like they did in 1929 (the last time they had a House majority this large).
I remember hearing that in 2010, 2012 & 2014... how did that turn out again?
In two of the three GOP picked up seats in the house & senate, and in 2012 more of them stayed home (I seem to recall Obama getting fewer votes than 08). This time around given the choice between Clinton and Trump... I'd expect fewer to stay home... of course that assumes you can motivate the Sanders supporters to hold their noses and vote for Clinton (good luck!).
During Bush's time the Democrats fought a lot of things, but never went full retard.
How how short some memories are, here is just one list of examples of how 'full retard' they went: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I even seem to recall a mock impeachment trial in the basement of the capitol for Bush, yet still nothing similar for Obama: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...... and that despite the fact Obama has done far more egregious and impeachable things... things that Democrats are ok with now, but will be screaming bloody murder over President Trump using the precedent of and riding even further.
There is an even bigger difference: Most of us are at-will employees and can be let go for just about any reason and at any time, Senators however are on a 6-year contract (Congressmen 2-year) during which time, little short of an expulsion, resignation or death can remove them from their position.
More so, unlike those of us who work for someone else... Article I, Section V gives both bodies of congress pretty wide latitude with regards to setting their own rules and agendas.
Of course, I doubt creimer would be complaining of his party was in control of the house/senate and wasn't the most cooperative with a Republican President.
Slashdot Mirror
But BOOOOOOOSH!
Pointing to perceived bad behavior to excuse rather over the top bad behavior is usually not a good way to win an argument.
For some things yes, however for plenty of others, only 'gross negligence' is required to convict her for multiple offenses under 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) based on what is publicly available months ago would have been easy even for a country prosecutor.
A friend of a friend works in a rather sensitive area in Washington, I asked him once his opinion of this whole thing and his answer was rather telling: "If I ever brought my work home... I'd be in prison"
How about Kristian Saucier? http://www.navytimes.com/story...
Not to mention the lighter materials used and the trend towards smaller, both of which decrease survivability
As a rather tall individual, car shopping for me is rather big chore as it's not just a Q of "what do I fit in?" but "which vehicle that I fit in will not see the dashboard shatter my knees should I hit something at 20 mph?" (in far too many vehicles, parts of my body which should not be touching anything do).
The main campuses yes, however Microsoft and google also have offices in Seattle as well for rather deliberate reasons... Nit to mention oodles if other companies who prefer to be there vs elsewhere.
You realize that your salary is pretty much the same if you work on one side of Lake Washington or the other at a given company... right?
More so, I'm sure all have done the math, just as how many Silicon Valley or San Francisco based company has as to if they would be better off relocating to... Detroit (cheap land and homes, and a police force needing some subsidizing, etc).
That problem exists anywhere. All a tech reporter has to do is know where some employees from this company or that eat lunch and sit near... as alas far too many talk shop, even in public with each other.
Such requirements can also come from government, take the protected views in London: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's been something called for in Seattle for years, but isn't official as yet.
Because plenty of their employees want to live/work in Seattle.
Same reason Google, Microsoft and plenty of others have offices in Seattle.
And if the voting age had been lowered to 4... everyone would have cookies.
So your theory is that Cameron is incredibly reckless in a way that would likely lead to his need to resign? I know he is unpopular with many, but I don't imagine many going that far.
That depends on if you have the law on your side, here is how you can actually make it lawful:
1) Go to small claims court and sue for damages
2) Win
3) Give Comcast reasonable time to pay
4) If they haven't paid, go back to court and seek order compelling them to pay
5) Take order to local Sheriff and ask them to assist you in collecting
6) Under the power of the state (and Sheriff), enter local Comcast facility and seize assets equal to the amount of the judgment.
Usually early in the execution of step 6 will most companies pull out their checkbook.
You'd be surprised.
Most execs like that have a team of people monitoring their email for major customer service issues... these people tend to have a good line to the underlings who can get things done.
This route is often called 'executive customer service'... a method I try not to employ unless absolutely necessary, but when I have gotten &#% done a hell of a lot faster than the time I'd previously wasted with the normal front line support folks (who I still go through initially to be able to show that I am out of options).
What % of iPhone users would you call 'hipsters'? What % of 'hipsters' are on Android?
Speaking as a Windows Phone user (yes, the elite .7%) I can report that there are no hipsters here, just the foolish who haven't jumped ship yet.
Because it's always the big bad Republicans fault...
I tend to do a good bit of testing before deploying anything... and when doing the testing I validate if the required features are there. Nothing in the Democrat proposed bills/amendments will do what they say, so deployment is off for now until they meet the proposed spec as I'd prefer to avoid the legal issues which will come up should the poor SW/bill get deployed.
Because the Republicans had sooo much influance on the ACE... voting universally against it, hell, opposition to it in the end was bi-partisan... do you have a point again?
I'm sorry to hear about your abused wife, perhaps she could consult with a lawyer & the police.
Shorter AC: I'm just going to ignore what you said and pretend you said something simpler that I can understand.
Yet you keep replying.
They are. Nothing in the Constitution requires an up or down vote, nor even a hearing for any nominee.
Article I, Section V is quite clear: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"
Ever hear of John M. Read? Edward A. Bradford? William C. Micou? They are just few of the men nominated to the supreme court and who never got a vote of any kind... all per the established process laid out in the Constitution & Senate rules.
So much fun people trying to put words in my mouth, or did you miss the part of me agreeing to discount for the time being the views of those actually wishing to prohibit private ownership?
Yes, I am ok with people selling guns to people on the terrorist watch list for the same reason I am against prior restraint against the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church: No matter how vile I may personally think such people are, they still have their rights not having been convicted of a crime which would prevent their actions.
It's the same reason you should be against secret lists being used for such purposes... or would you be ok with a President Trump adding you two a secret list or two which denies you some of your civil rights without due process? Don't worry, you can go to court to try to challenge your status... assuming you have the time/money for such a challenge.
I think all law abiding citizens (a status changed only via due process) who have not been adjudicated a threat to themselves or others (ie due process) should be able to own & buy firearms, yes.
False, he was impeached for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice.
He was even disbarred for contempt of court... but yeah, it was all over a marital affair.
Nice talking point you've got there... shame it's been long debunked... or do you have proof that W knew for certain there were no WMDs and opted to say otherwise? Alas foreign intelligence and even Clinton in 1988 dissagree.
Alas people die in war, and the kind of insurgency not before seen was not previously seen as likely.
So the whole Syria & Libya thing are Bush's fault as well?
Which part? Anyone can make accuisations, I've yet to see anything substantive regarding bush that rises to the levels of 'high crimes and misdemeanours'... as unlike Obama, Bush had congressional support for his wars.
An AC using a straw-man & trying to play the victim? Who would have thunk it?
Should women have the vote? Should we be able to own slaves? Absent a constitutional amendment, all three of these issues are moot, doubly so when Democrats are proposing a statute (ie not a constitutional amendment) to that effect which would quickly be shot down in court.
Had you couched your argument in the form of proposing an amendment for this purpose... then yes, it might be worthy of debate, only that is not what was said above, nor what is happening in Washington... so why waste time on an abstract that will never be?
How about you stay on subject and not try to move the goal posts?
27 amendments over 227 years isn't exactly what I would call 'all the time'.
So why don't we follow the process? It's almost as if the Democrats know they can't do so and are more interested in political theater while acting like cry babies than actually doing anything to reduce 'gun violence'.
Yet you opted to reply, so there must have at least been a quantum of worthiness.
Hey slow-poke! 'assault rifles' have been rather heavily regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act... and despite that you can still legally purchase one today... though it's going to cost you a pretty penny and about 9 months of waiting for your tax stamp to show up.
How about you reference a type of weapon that is a bit more common?
'Assault weapon' maybe? Clearly there too, you don't know what you are talking about: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Legal rights, not natural ones.
You should look up the meaning of the term 'inalienable rights' aka natural rights... it starts from the premise of the natural rights being pre-existing.
Even if someone denies/infringes upon your natural rights, does not change whether or not you actually have them/are entitled to them.
Nice straw-man you've got there. They aren't doing so in legislative form at present... but I guess for the moment we could ignore the wishes to do just that of some of those pushing the latest wave of bills.
Q: Is buying/owning a firearm a civil rights?
A: Yes.
Q: If the democrats are successful in passing their latest wet dream, will that deny some civil rights and due process of law?
A: Yes.
Q: How can 'all civil rights' remain intact if in fact, some are being stripped of their civil rights?
A: Plan only works in Imaginationland.
Wait... so you mean me shooting my rifle into the air in a crowded city square is actually a valid prohibition on my right to carry/use a firearm? *gasp*!!!! Who knew?!?!?
So many straw-men... so little time.
You may want to try to find similar comparisons then.
Do we today prevent you from purchasing a typewriter or religious text because you are on a no-fly/no-buy list... the very same thing that is being proposed for firearms?
No... false equivalency then.
Care to try again?
Name a 'reasonable' law you think they should enact and enforce*... and why it would do anything substantive to reduce 'gun violence'.
*Enforcement is key. Here in Washington state a few years back they passed a universal background check law. Know how many convictions there have been under it in 2 years? 0. It's a near impossible to enforce, feel good law which creates red tape for lawful firearm buyers/sellers and doesn't do a thing to stop those who skip the tape.
That's why they are the first to run to the courts and demand redress there, even the creation of rights there.
Anyone paying attention is aware... that you just admitted how cowardly the Democrats were to use it when it mattered (ie during the time-frame referenced above (when they viewed themselves as having a mandate)).
Water is also wet and the sun is a mass of incandescent gas. Your point? Oh right... The Democrats picked the wrong thing to railroad through and now cry like children that the mean republicans won't bend over backwards for them.
So fun hearing an outsider view which is shaped by... DailyKos I assume?
I remember hearing that in 2010, 2012 & 2014... how did that turn out again?
In two of the three GOP picked up seats in the house & senate, and in 2012 more of them stayed home (I seem to recall Obama getting fewer votes than 08). This time around given the choice between Clinton and Trump... I'd expect fewer to stay home... of course that assumes you can motivate the Sanders supporters to hold their noses and vote for Clinton (good luck!).
How how short some memories are, here is just one list of examples of how 'full retard' they went: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I even seem to recall a mock impeachment trial in the basement of the capitol for Bush, yet still nothing similar for Obama: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ... and that despite the fact Obama has done far more egregious and impeachable things... things that Democrats are ok with now, but will be screaming bloody murder over President Trump using the precedent of and riding even further.
There is an even bigger difference: Most of us are at-will employees and can be let go for just about any reason and at any time, Senators however are on a 6-year contract (Congressmen 2-year) during which time, little short of an expulsion, resignation or death can remove them from their position.
More so, unlike those of us who work for someone else... Article I, Section V gives both bodies of congress pretty wide latitude with regards to setting their own rules and agendas.
Of course, I doubt creimer would be complaining of his party was in control of the house/senate and wasn't the most cooperative with a Republican President.