Pretty sure different people will define that differently, so no point in using that word at all.
How do you define "adequate" regulation? "Excessive"? I'm pretty sure different people will define those differently so there is no point in using those words either.:|
As long you apply in totality - so that would include all those libertarians screaming for no interference get exactly what they ask for - no interference (or 'help') from police, or fire rescue, or ambulances/ER. Not allowed to use public roads, pavements or other structures etc.
Basically what you're suggesting is that we just don't have public infrastructure anymore - or that we do have public infrastructure but that we accept massive infringments of our privacy on order to get it?
Is that still fair for you? Or were you just looking for a crappy excuse to rant?
You're confused twice. First you raged on somebody for what you thought were my beliefs. Second, you're confusing libertarian with anarchist. There is a difference between "minimal", and "no" interference. Get it?
I can't tell if it is a more strictly libertarian or liberal rant. I'll have to read some of his other comments to get the context.
You won't get much context from my other posts. Most are jokes. Of the rest, many are just opposing seemingly stupid comments.
Neither of those labels works for me. Perhaps "enlightened libertarian", but that sounds pretentious. Personal freedom should be, imo, the #1 priority of the government. It is why we have a government. I know people will make bad choices if given freedom. You can't ever stop that. But as Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". I'd have a 3-way with him and Mencken... and I'm not even slightly gay.
"Suicide, abortion, plastic surgery, drug use... none of that going on in my body due to my own decisions is any of your fucking business."
I'd let you have that, if you agreed the government should have no financial obligation over any of it either. Once you ask for my tax money, you have decided to make it my business.
So, go do drugs, I honestly don't care, and believe you have that right. But you are not getting a dime from me without pissing in a cup.
Get a cheap lipo job, or implants, or whatever. If you die from complications, I won't bother investigating the doctor's methods or sanitation.
Is that fair in your view?
As long as you're including prescription drugs, homeopathic remedies, alcohol, cigarettes, sky diving, driving, chiropractic care, pregnancy, religion, and absolutely every other personal choice that includes personal risk that I don't like as well, sure, sounds fair. If you're only including the choices that YOU disagree with, then no, it is quite obviously not fair.
There are far more self-harming personal choices that are covered by "your taxes" than drug use. Many of which *you* enjoy. Any choice you make carries some risk of harm. Choosing one option at random just because you yourself don't choose it, calling it evil, and excluding it from benefiting from "your" taxes (I pay sales tax on my pot, btw, and pay more income tax than most people make in a year as well), is something only bigots and tyrants do.
You'd better qualify that one, buddy boy, because your drug use becomes all of our business when you go on a PCP-induced homicidal rampage or when we end up taking care of your useless, inert body due to how addled your brain has become from years of substance abuse.
Not going to qualify shit. My body. My life. My choices. End of discussion. If some people want to use drugs stupidly and do stupid things, they'll be punished for those stupid things. Those stupid people should not and cannot dictate what *I* do with *my* body.
I think this needs to be investigated. Seriously. This is not normal. Now the lobbyist with power can now do what he was unable to do when he was powerless (but just placing bribes) lobbyist.
Some shit is going to happen following this and it is going to be bad.
They have already re-labeled his paychecks as "campaign contributions". What isn't normal?
in other news Dr. Kevorkian to head Department of Health and Human Services
Humor aside,
Dr. Kevorkian's belief in a person's ultimate control over their own lives & bodies from birth until death, regardless of the wishes or views of any other person on this planet, makes him the perfect candidate for such a position.
Suicide, abortion, plastic surgery, drug use... none of that going on in my body due to my own decisions is any of your fucking business.
as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.
You're confusing "minimal" with "no" regulation. Very different words.
Apples shares plummeted 14% in after hours trading today as the company continues to battle their network security problems. Details are still forthcoming, but it appears their main campus is still closed, with the employees milling about in the parking lot. It is believed to be related to their roll-out of a new Electroencephalographic (EEG) based security system. One anonymous executive said, "Ya, looks like the 'think different' campaign really backfired."
I'm more worried about them realizing I'm not human, from my brain waves.
Not your fault you were born a nigger. You still suck ass, but that's not your fault. Now go be a gangsta or get some welfare or abandon your kids to a single mother with a shitty attitude.
I don't want to go back to my homeworld!
Yes it is actually called the Third World. It is the very best blacks could do without being governed by whites. History proves it, just look at Haiti. Didn't go to shit until after control was handed to the darkies. Ah well. No welfare for you if you go there.
This has nothing to do with whether or not a cop gets fired for giving out 0 tickets month after month.
Your argument is unreasonable. There is an obvious correlation between # of tickets written and employment status, but that does not mean there is a quota. A cop would get fired for giving out 0 tickets month after month of traffic enforcement because there is no possible way a cop could spend 40 hours per week doing traffic enforcement and never see a single ticket worthy offense. People speed, make illegal turns, park illegally, get in car accidents and drive drunk all the time. Writing 0 tickets is cause for termination due to utter incompetence.
Since we're talking cars, how about a programming analogy? (See where I'm going yet?)
Has any programmer ever heard of a "# of lines of code" quota? Write 1,000 lines or you're fired? But you can sure as hell assume that if you check in 0 lines of code month after month you're going to get fired. Doesn't mean there is a quota, it just means that understanding the way the world is, you're probably going to check in about the same number of lines as everybody else. Too many more or less and it is cause for scrutiny. 0, month after month, is a pretty clear sign of a fuckup.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H. L. Mencken
Mencken is not quoted enough these days. The man was a genius. Social and political commentary that is still relevant 50 or 100 years later... scares me.
This is not a new thing. The US has a Bill of Rights for a reason -- direct experience of government without it. If only the citizens would keep that in mind...
What was that reason again? Abdulrahman al-Awlaki thinks (or, I think would have thought) the Bill of Rights is about as useful as an empty zigzag box.
If you didn't know, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is the son of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Both were US citizens executed via drone missile in Yemen on orders of Obama. Anwar was "the spokesperson" of Al-Qaeda.
Just to be clear, the 16 year old US citizen son of a man supposedly exercising his 1st amendment rights was executed on the orders of the President without a trial, charges, judge, jury, conviction, or indeed any judicial review whatsoever, away from any field of battle. What was the charge against the 16 year old child? Who knows. But according to Robert Gibbs, Abdulrahman "should have [had] a far more responsible father". Direct quote.
The Bill of Rights... If by bill you mean "I owe money"... maybe.
This is not a new thing. The US has a Bill of Rights for a reason -- direct experience of government without it. If only the citizens would keep that in mind...
What was that reason again? Abdulrahman al-Awlaki thinks (or, I think would have thought) the Bill of Rights is about as useful as an empty zigzag box.
If you didn't know, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is the son of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Both were US citizens executed via drone missile in Yemen on orders of Obama. Anwar was "the spokesperson" of Al-Qaeda.
Just to be clear, the 16 year old US citizen son of a man supposedly exercising his 1st amendment rights was executed on the orders of the President without a trial, charges, judge, jury, conviction, or indeed any judicial review whatsoever, away from any field of battle. What was the charge against the 16 year old child? Who knows. But according to Robert Gibbs, Abdulrahman "should have [had] a far more responsible father". Direct quote.
The Bill of Rights... If by bill you mean "I owe money"... maybe.
Americans never really even had slaves. Their addiction to cheap labour lead them to view Africans as not people and therefore where not considered slaves technically. This meant that American "slavery" was a completely different institution from actual slavery where slaves where people who just happened to be owned by other people at that time. Latter they might buy themselves out of slavery, and then sell themselves to someone else.
A black man was a black man regardless of if he was owned or not. He was considered analogous to cattle and had no rights or protections.
American slavery was simply inequality, and really had very little to do with owning people.
Sorry for laughing, but, lol. Now you're just running off into lala land. Have fun there.
Slashdot Mirror
OK. How do you define or find "minimum" then?
Pretty sure different people will define that differently, so no point in using that word at all.
How do you define "adequate" regulation? "Excessive"? I'm pretty sure different people will define those differently so there is no point in using those words either. :|
Is that fair in your view?
As long you apply in totality - so that would include all those libertarians screaming for no interference get exactly what they ask for - no interference (or 'help') from police, or fire rescue, or ambulances/ER. Not allowed to use public roads, pavements or other structures etc.
Basically what you're suggesting is that we just don't have public infrastructure anymore - or that we do have public infrastructure but that we accept massive infringments of our privacy on order to get it?
Is that still fair for you? Or were you just looking for a crappy excuse to rant?
You're confused twice. First you raged on somebody for what you thought were my beliefs. Second, you're confusing libertarian with anarchist. There is a difference between "minimal", and "no" interference. Get it?
I can't tell if it is a more strictly libertarian or liberal rant. I'll have to read some of his other comments to get the context.
You won't get much context from my other posts. Most are jokes. Of the rest, many are just opposing seemingly stupid comments.
Neither of those labels works for me. Perhaps "enlightened libertarian", but that sounds pretentious. Personal freedom should be, imo, the #1 priority of the government. It is why we have a government. I know people will make bad choices if given freedom. You can't ever stop that. But as Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". I'd have a 3-way with him and Mencken... and I'm not even slightly gay.
"Suicide, abortion, plastic surgery, drug use... none of that going on in my body due to my own decisions is any of your fucking business."
I'd let you have that, if you agreed the government should have no financial obligation over any of it either. Once you ask for my tax money, you have decided to make it my business.
So, go do drugs, I honestly don't care, and believe you have that right. But you are not getting a dime from me without pissing in a cup.
Get a cheap lipo job, or implants, or whatever. If you die from complications, I won't bother investigating the doctor's methods or sanitation.
Is that fair in your view?
As long as you're including prescription drugs, homeopathic remedies, alcohol, cigarettes, sky diving, driving, chiropractic care, pregnancy, religion, and absolutely every other personal choice that includes personal risk that I don't like as well, sure, sounds fair. If you're only including the choices that YOU disagree with, then no, it is quite obviously not fair.
There are far more self-harming personal choices that are covered by "your taxes" than drug use. Many of which *you* enjoy. Any choice you make carries some risk of harm. Choosing one option at random just because you yourself don't choose it, calling it evil, and excluding it from benefiting from "your" taxes (I pay sales tax on my pot, btw, and pay more income tax than most people make in a year as well), is something only bigots and tyrants do.
You'd better qualify that one, buddy boy, because your drug use becomes all of our business when you go on a PCP-induced homicidal rampage or when we end up taking care of your useless, inert body due to how addled your brain has become from years of substance abuse.
Not going to qualify shit. My body. My life. My choices. End of discussion. If some people want to use drugs stupidly and do stupid things, they'll be punished for those stupid things. Those stupid people should not and cannot dictate what *I* do with *my* body.
OK. How do you define or find "minimum" then?
Pretty sure different people will define that differently, so no point in using that word at all.
I think we can agree that "minimal" means more than "none", which is what I was disputing.
I think this needs to be investigated. Seriously. This is not normal. Now the lobbyist with power can now do what he was unable to do when he was powerless (but just placing bribes) lobbyist.
Some shit is going to happen following this and it is going to be bad.
They have already re-labeled his paychecks as "campaign contributions". What isn't normal?
in other news Dr. Kevorkian to head Department of Health and Human Services
Humor aside,
Dr. Kevorkian's belief in a person's ultimate control over their own lives & bodies from birth until death, regardless of the wishes or views of any other person on this planet, makes him the perfect candidate for such a position.
Suicide, abortion, plastic surgery, drug use... none of that going on in my body due to my own decisions is any of your fucking business.
as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.
You're confusing "minimal" with "no" regulation. Very different words.
You provided the per-capita murder rate. Can you also provide the per-capita for people beat up by police and for illegal searches?
According to publicly available police records, both rates have been at or below zero since 1776.
Do you disagree with their assessment... citizen?
BWAHAHAHAHA! what planet do you live on??
America you dip!
Sorry I can't get a proper hick accent here.
I really want to beat some
You already said what I wanted to say, so I'll just take a quote out of context and giggle a bit.
If the guy hates showering, dressing and leaving the house, chances are he likes screaming 12 year olds.
I like screaming 12 year olds.
But I have to leave the house to get them :(
Then use some actual random function. A coin toss should be fine. That will at least be fair.
Not if you get to choose how to place the coin on your finger...
Trying to make an unfair world fair is a fool's errand as long as people have opinions.
"Bob can't login must be high again..."
Apples shares plummeted 14% in after hours trading today as the company continues to battle their network security problems. Details are still forthcoming, but it appears their main campus is still closed, with the employees milling about in the parking lot. It is believed to be related to their roll-out of a new Electroencephalographic (EEG) based security system. One anonymous executive said, "Ya, looks like the 'think different' campaign really backfired."
comeing
But spelling crimes are already here.
jerk
I'm more worried about them realizing I'm not human, from my brain waves.
Not your fault you were born a nigger. You still suck ass, but that's not your fault. Now go be a gangsta or get some welfare or abandon your kids to a single mother with a shitty attitude.
I don't want to go back to my homeworld!
Yes it is actually called the Third World. It is the very best blacks could do without being governed by whites. History proves it, just look at Haiti. Didn't go to shit until after control was handed to the darkies. Ah well. No welfare for you if you go there.
w
t
f
Gary Busey?
Oops, I hit copy again instead of paste. Just ignore my post as I lost what I was going to say and don't want to retype it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not a cop gets fired for giving out 0 tickets month after month.
Your argument is unreasonable. There is an obvious correlation between # of tickets written and employment status, but that does not mean there is a quota. A cop would get fired for giving out 0 tickets month after month of traffic enforcement because there is no possible way a cop could spend 40 hours per week doing traffic enforcement and never see a single ticket worthy offense. People speed, make illegal turns, park illegally, get in car accidents and drive drunk all the time. Writing 0 tickets is cause for termination due to utter incompetence.
Since we're talking cars, how about a programming analogy? (See where I'm going yet?)
Has any programmer ever heard of a "# of lines of code" quota? Write 1,000 lines or you're fired? But you can sure as hell assume that if you check in 0 lines of code month after month you're going to get fired. Doesn't mean there is a quota, it just means that understanding the way the world is, you're probably going to check in about the same number of lines as everybody else. Too many more or less and it is cause for scrutiny. 0, month after month, is a pretty clear sign of a fuckup.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H. L. Mencken
Mencken is not quoted enough these days. The man was a genius. Social and political commentary that is still relevant 50 or 100 years later... scares me.
This is not a new thing. The US has a Bill of Rights for a reason -- direct experience of government without it. If only the citizens would keep that in mind...
What was that reason again? Abdulrahman al-Awlaki thinks (or, I think would have thought) the Bill of Rights is about as useful as an empty zigzag box.
If you didn't know, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is the son of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Both were US citizens executed via drone missile in Yemen on orders of Obama. Anwar was "the spokesperson" of Al-Qaeda.
Just to be clear, the 16 year old US citizen son of a man supposedly exercising his 1st amendment rights was executed on the orders of the President without a trial, charges, judge, jury, conviction, or indeed any judicial review whatsoever, away from any field of battle. What was the charge against the 16 year old child? Who knows. But according to Robert Gibbs, Abdulrahman "should have [had] a far more responsible father". Direct quote.
The Bill of Rights... If by bill you mean "I owe money"... maybe.
Indirect quote, sorry. I didn't personally hear it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html did.
This is not a new thing. The US has a Bill of Rights for a reason -- direct experience of government without it. If only the citizens would keep that in mind...
What was that reason again? Abdulrahman al-Awlaki thinks (or, I think would have thought) the Bill of Rights is about as useful as an empty zigzag box.
If you didn't know, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is the son of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Both were US citizens executed via drone missile in Yemen on orders of Obama. Anwar was "the spokesperson" of Al-Qaeda.
Just to be clear, the 16 year old US citizen son of a man supposedly exercising his 1st amendment rights was executed on the orders of the President without a trial, charges, judge, jury, conviction, or indeed any judicial review whatsoever, away from any field of battle. What was the charge against the 16 year old child? Who knows. But according to Robert Gibbs, Abdulrahman "should have [had] a far more responsible father". Direct quote.
The Bill of Rights... If by bill you mean "I owe money"... maybe.
why not zoidberg?
Ack I was too busy making Red Lobster jokes to remember Zoidberg!
Nobody remembers Zoidberg.
Americans never really even had slaves. Their addiction to cheap labour lead them to view Africans as not people and therefore where not considered slaves technically. This meant that American "slavery" was a completely different institution from actual slavery where slaves where people who just happened to be owned by other people at that time. Latter they might buy themselves out of slavery, and then sell themselves to someone else.
A black man was a black man regardless of if he was owned or not. He was considered analogous to cattle and had no rights or protections.
American slavery was simply inequality, and really had very little to do with owning people.
Sorry for laughing, but, lol. Now you're just running off into lala land. Have fun there.