well then thank god you aren't a cop. cops are trained to deal with and disarm suspects being arrested. and that training doesn't involve "shoot in the back".
and then you get idiots and like Sean Hannity saying "well the thing I always do when confronted by police is show them my gun so they know I'm carrying".
must be nice to be white and rich and that delusional.
What the 2nd does do, is keep things like police-state door-to-door roundups and executions from happening.
rofl
We've already seen in the middle east (and before) how a giant and well-armed military can be held back by a small and determined group of fighters.
they didn't "hold back" anything. that's not how insurgencies work. they blend into the local populace, they hit and fade. they don't stand and hold anything back.
Benghazi has been "resolved" 7 or 8 times, and the best they can come up with is "you're foresight should have been 20/20 just like our hindsight. and BTW, please ignore the disparity with the Bush administration's 90 odd dead at embassies".
she was branded a congenital liar, but that doesn't actually make it so. they've simply repeated it for so long people accept it as truth. the simple fact is she's probably the most honest politician to ever run for president, with the overwhelming majority of her statements being factual. compared to someone like Trump who mostly speaks falsehoods...yet somehow she's the "liar". that's not to say she isn't also very aloof; but then I'd somewhat expect that of someone who has withstood baseless attacks for 40+ years. after dealing with the same BS for that long you'd probably stop caring what they say and think about you too.
In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. He insisted (without any apparent evidence) that she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, “bamboozled” bank regulators, and was actively involved in criminal enterprises that defrauded the government of millions of dollars. He ended the piece by stating that, “She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”
I am no political historian, but as far as I can tell this short essay was the birth of the “Hillary is a Liar” meme. Now to be clear, most conservatives already strongly disliked her. They had been upset with her for some time because she had refused to play the traditional First Lady role. And they were horrified by her attempt to champion Universal Health coverage. But if you look for the actual reasons people didn’t like her back at that time, you won’t see ongoing accusations of her being “crooked” or a “liar”. Instead, the most common opinion seemed to be that she was a self-righteous leftist who considered anyone with other views to be morally inferior. In short, the prevailing anti-Hillary accusation was not that she was unrelentingly dishonest, but that she was just intolerably smug.
After the Safire piece however, this all changed. Republicans, who learned from Nixon never to let a good propaganda opportunity pass if they could help it, repeated the accusations of mendacity non-stop to anyone who would broadcast or print them. And if you doubt the staying power of Safire’s piece, type the phrase “congenital liar” into a Google search along with “Hillary Clinton” and see what happens. To this day, that exact phrase is still proudly used by many on the right. This, even though Safire was eventually proven wrong about everything he had written. And despite the fact that he stated himself that he would have to “eat crow” if she were ever cleared, Safire never apologized or even acknowledged his many errors once that happened. Because as we all know, swift-boating means never having to say you’re sorry.
You're a fool then. The founders were well aware of the star chamber....and its notorious abuses, and deliberately crafted a legal system to protect against them.
From your link:
Influence on the U.S. Constitution[edit]
The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[14] The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment – i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "plead the Fifth" to avoid self-incrimination – is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.[14]
As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed."[15]
I think I've found the problem. you don't actually know how to use google do you? I mean, cause if you did, you wouldn't be saying completely ignorant things like "failing in all government positions". tell me, in this fantasy land of yours, are there still unicorns and pixies?
if youre a libertarian then Johnson is an establishment sellout, a fake, who not only supports governments mere existence (the horror!) but its right to levy taxes (THE HORROR!!)
the government is exempt when it is performing government business. since much of that business is contracted out, it makes sense to also exempt those actually carrying it out. this should not be a hard concept, even for an AC.
There are many legitimate government functions where they may want to call you, and the robocall law was clearly/ not aimed at blocking things like the IRS calling because you owe taxes, or FBI calling because they want to speak to you.
Such things are hardly tyranny, though twits like you apparently think the governments mere existence is tyranny.
But those bastards always melt away when push comes to Indictment, because they have _nothing_. If they did have anything, other than sound bites, they would seriously pursue Conspiracy charges
The review finds that CCTV has had a modest but significant impact on crime rates. In particular, CCTV has been most effective in reducing vehicle crimes in parking lots - crime has decreased by half in car parks with CCTV surveillance. CCTV surveillance also appears to have led to greater reductions in crime rates in the United Kingdom, compared to other countries. The findings also suggest that CCTV seems to work best when combined with other interventions, such as improved street lighting.
the key point of difference between all the examples you twits bring up is this: they were classified at the time that they were knowingly misused, rather than retroactively classified after the fact.
so basically your definition of "doing exactly the same thing as she did" is rather the opposite of the words used.
That paper isn't a research paper but a document describing the questions that need answered in future research studies.
It's a blueprint for how to proceed, not a research paper in it's own right.
The research agenda proposed in this report is intended as an initial—not a conclusive or all-encompassing—set of questions critical to developing the most effective policies to reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States. No single agency or research strategy can provide all the answers. This report focuses on the public health aspects of firearm violence; the committee expects that this research agenda will be integrated with research conducted from criminal justice and other perspectives to provide a much fuller knowledge base to underpin our nation’s approach to dealing with this very important set of societal issues.
So Guns and Ammo Magazine read an outline for a proposed line of questioning, and drew conclusions the outline itself doesn't even draw...because it doesn't even try.
Rather what it does is to point to other research efforts and their contradictory findings as a starting point for developing the questions that should be asked. And of the "research" quotes that G&A provides are cherry picked quotes from other studies referenced by the authors of the blueprint to illustrate previous, current, and ongoing research to illustrate which questions need asked.
Again: this is not a research paper. This group performed no research (yet, or as of the publishing of this paper).
Ergo, this is not the result of the CDC research. It's simply the first step, figuring out what questions to ask, in doing that research.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm about as far left as you can get
the hell you are.
now size is a measure of guilt and punishable by death
the scary black man trope
well then thank god you aren't a cop.
cops are trained to deal with and disarm suspects being arrested.
and that training doesn't involve "shoot in the back".
So in your world the penalty for that is death?
Bugger off.
Does not justify summary execution restrained on the ground.
Stop being ignorant.
and then you get idiots and like Sean Hannity saying "well the thing I always do when confronted by police is show them my gun so they know I'm carrying".
must be nice to be white and rich and that delusional.
What the 2nd does do, is keep things like police-state door-to-door roundups and executions from happening.
rofl
We've already seen in the middle east (and before) how a giant and well-armed military can be held back by a small and determined group of fighters.
they didn't "hold back" anything.
that's not how insurgencies work.
they blend into the local populace, they hit and fade.
they don't stand and hold anything back.
Benghazi has been "resolved" 7 or 8 times, and the best they can come up with is "you're foresight should have been 20/20 just like our hindsight. and BTW, please ignore the disparity with the Bush administration's 90 odd dead at embassies".
she was branded a congenital liar, but that doesn't actually make it so.
they've simply repeated it for so long people accept it as truth.
the simple fact is she's probably the most honest politician to ever run for president, with the overwhelming majority of her statements being factual.
compared to someone like Trump who mostly speaks falsehoods...yet somehow she's the "liar". that's not to say she isn't also very aloof; but then I'd somewhat expect that of someone who has withstood baseless attacks for 40+ years. after dealing with the same BS for that long you'd probably stop caring what they say and think about you too.
this guy states it rather more eloquently:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. He insisted ( without any apparent evidence ) that she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, “bamboozled” bank regulators, and was actively involved in criminal enterprises that defrauded the government of millions of dollars. He ended the piece by stating that, “She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”
I am no political historian, but as far as I can tell this short essay was the birth of the “Hillary is a Liar” meme. Now to be clear, most conservatives already strongly disliked her. They had been upset with her for some time because she had refused to play the traditional First Lady role. And they were horrified by her attempt to champion Universal Health coverage. But if you look for the actual reasons people didn’t like her back at that time, you won’t see ongoing accusations of her being “crooked” or a “liar”. Instead, the most common opinion seemed to be that she was a self-righteous leftist who considered anyone with other views to be morally inferior. In short, the prevailing anti-Hillary accusation was not that she was unrelentingly dishonest, but that she was just intolerably smug.
After the Safire piece however, this all changed. Republicans, who learned from Nixon never to let a good propaganda opportunity pass if they could help it, repeated the accusations of mendacity non-stop to anyone who would broadcast or print them. And if you doubt the staying power of Safire’s piece, type the phrase “congenital liar” into a Google search along with “Hillary Clinton” and see what happens. To this day, that exact phrase is still proudly used by many on the right. This, even though Safire was eventually proven wrong about everything he had written. And despite the fact that he stated himself that he would have to “eat crow” if she were ever cleared, Safire never apologized or even acknowledged his many errors once that happened. Because as we all know, swift-boating means never having to say you’re sorry.
in short: the butthurt is strong today.
Only if your name is Apocalypse.
You're a fool then.
The founders were well aware of the star chamber....and its notorious abuses, and deliberately crafted a legal system to protect against them.
From your link:
Influence on the U.S. Constitution[edit]
The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[14] The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment – i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "plead the Fifth" to avoid self-incrimination – is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.[14]
As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, " the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed."[15]
I think I've found the problem.
you don't actually know how to use google do you?
I mean, cause if you did, you wouldn't be saying completely ignorant things like "failing in all government positions".
tell me, in this fantasy land of yours, are there still unicorns and pixies?
QFTMFT
if youre a libertarian then Johnson is an establishment sellout, a fake, who not only supports governments mere existence (the horror!) but its right to levy taxes (THE HORROR!!)
They could put up an actual physical turd with an orange toupee, and I'd still vote for it over Trump.
the government is exempt when it is performing government business.
since much of that business is contracted out, it makes sense to also exempt those actually carrying it out.
this should not be a hard concept, even for an AC.
again you prove your ignorance.
There are many legitimate government functions where they may want to call you, and the robocall law was clearly/ not aimed at blocking things like the IRS calling because you owe taxes, or FBI calling because they want to speak to you.
Such things are hardly tyranny, though twits like you apparently think the governments mere existence is tyranny.
But those bastards always melt away when push comes to Indictment, because they have _nothing_. If they did have anything, other than sound bites, they would seriously pursue Conspiracy charges
QFTMFT
one of many reviews on the subject, just a google click away
http://www.campbellcollaborati...
Review findings
The review finds that CCTV has had a modest but significant impact on crime rates. In particular, CCTV has been most effective in reducing vehicle crimes in parking lots - crime has decreased by half in car parks with CCTV surveillance. CCTV surveillance also appears to have led to greater reductions in crime rates in the United Kingdom, compared to other countries. The findings also suggest that CCTV seems to work best when combined with other interventions, such as improved street lighting.
Doctor Jones: I afraid .. ...*sobs*
Jane: No...
D: its HDS.
J:
D: And there is no cure.
J: You mean?
D: Yes. He's terminal.
J: *sobs louder*
since when do facts matter to those with ODS or HDS?
yes.
specifically, it also happened to be after she left office as well.
the key point of difference between all the examples you twits bring up is this: they were classified at the time that they were knowingly misused, rather than retroactively classified after the fact.
so basically your definition of "doing exactly the same thing as she did" is rather the opposite of the words used.
*cookie*
That paper isn't a research paper but a document describing the questions that need answered in future research studies.
It's a blueprint for how to proceed, not a research paper in it's own right.
The research agenda proposed in this report is intended as an initial—not a conclusive or all-encompassing—set of questions critical to developing the most effective policies to reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States. No single agency or research strategy can provide all the answers. This report focuses on the public health aspects of firearm violence; the committee expects that this research agenda will be integrated with research conducted from criminal justice and other perspectives to provide a much fuller knowledge base to underpin our nation’s approach to dealing with this very important set of societal issues.
So Guns and Ammo Magazine read an outline for a proposed line of questioning, and drew conclusions the outline itself doesn't even draw...because it doesn't even try.
Rather what it does is to point to other research efforts and their contradictory findings as a starting point for developing the questions that should be asked. And of the "research" quotes that G&A provides are cherry picked quotes from other studies referenced by the authors of the blueprint to illustrate previous, current, and ongoing research to illustrate which questions need asked.
Again: this is not a research paper.
This group performed no research (yet, or as of the publishing of this paper).
Ergo, this is not the result of the CDC research.
It's simply the first step, figuring out what questions to ask, in doing that research.
Nice try genius.