No, I disagree with you calling pla an anti-semite.
I didn't call him an anti-semite. I called his stated views ignorant and anti-semitic. I called him a dumb hippie.
You know nothing of him. You are a jerk.
You think you know more of me than I know of him? Neat. Probably a great example of the logic you used to determine Israel stole land as well.
Look kid, history disagrees with his statements. The statements he has made are unoriginal, are often repeated, and have anti-semitic origins (Except for the "why middle easterners hate us" part, that is just hippie thinking that, again, ignores historical precedence). I'm sorry I upset him so much you had to defend him. I hope he recovers, blows you as thanks, and your bond is stronger for the entire experience.
Pla probably knows more about the situation in the middle east than you (and me, probably), and he's hardly a stormfront idiot.
I suggest you remove your head from your rectum.
--
BMO
So you disagree with me about the definition of anti-semite? You disagree with some other item I've mentioned? Please, share a source that agrees with you.
I have no idea who Pla is, but he has hardly demonstrated any respectable knowledge with his posts. Implying Jews have not lived in Israel since biblical times. Trying to say "anti-semite" applies to non-Jews. Lets see, and elsewhere claiming that Congress "broke the law" by restricting free speech? That was worthy of a laugh as well. But please, explain why his demonstrated ignorance of language, our government, and the history of the Jewish population in the region qualifies him as "knowing more about the situation in the middle east" than me.
If only your ignorant anti-semitic views were the truth.
Both sides of this dispute count as Semites. But don't let me stop you from an otherwise fine rant.
Oh, and "antisemitic/antisemitism" refers specifically to racism directed towards Jews. So you're apparently not even caught up on the language of the topic, much less the history.
If only your ignorant anti-semitic views were the truth.
Both sides of this dispute count as Semites. But don't let me stop you from an otherwise fine rant.
I'll take your pedantic argument as acceptance of the historical facts I've presented. Enjoy your enlightenment.
I would agree it is written by a 9 year old based on the sensationalism and redundancy. Because of redundancy in the summary, along with sensationalism, I agree that it was written by a 9 year old.
Oh we fucked it up big time by allowing this to start. That said, we know it was a stupid mistake but there's fuck all we can do about it while America keeps propping up the Israeli position for political reasons rather than do what is needed to bring about something a little bit closer to peace.
Ah, and what do you recommend as a viable peace process when one side declares openly, even in their founding charter, that they won't stop until the other side is dead?
Most of modern history in the Middle East results from the UN sticking its fingers where they don't belong, randomly stealing a big chunk of land considered sacred to the natives, and giving it to Israel. "Aww, those mean Germans tried to eradicate you? Here, let's throw a dart at this map and give you... Hmm, yeah, I think I have a call on the other line, good luck with that new home".
If only your ignorant anti-semitic views were the truth. Then it would be easy to dislike Israel. Unfortunately, its not. No land was "stolen" or "given". Jews have lived there since 1200 BCE. That is a very simple, historical, verifiable, fact. The Jews that lived elsewhere on the planet were doing so because they had been kicked out of their ancestral land. Since the time of the Roman Empire, Jews have been trying to return to Israel.
What the Brits/UN did was split up the Ottoman Empire. The Brits gave one piece of that region back to the natives. All the natives; Jews included. They split it into 1 Arab-only area, and 1 Arab/Jewish area. The Arabs have been trying to wipe out the Jews since before Israel even was a nation.
Gee, wonder why they all hate us. Oh, right, for our "freedoms" - Like the freedom to not have someone randomly kick us out of our homes and give them to our ancient enemies.
They do hate us for our freedoms you dumb hippie. Read the Hamas charter. ALL people must live under Sharia law, or die. Here, let me share their slogan. I'm sure you can find ample points of discussion in any peace process with this:
Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.
They fire rockets at you and your family and blow up [kids in] buses
Fixed that for you.
, and you fire tanks and bombs into [military installations built inside] fully built-up and barricaded ([rightfully] by you) [to stop the importation of weapons] residential areas (effectively an open-air prison or, if you will, a ghetto) [after dropping leaflets and warning people of the impending military strike on terrorists operating in the area, detailing "safe zones" the civilians can go to].
Fixed again
In my outsiders' view, that makes you both pretty much equally shitty.
But you're not entitled to your own made-up "facts" about Apache pilots hovering over the streets of Baghdad shooting at anything that moves for shits and grins.
Private Joker: Any women or children? Door Gunner: Sometimes! Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children? Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?
So they can claim Chrome is the only browser that truly protects your privacy by pointing out that Safari & IE's privacy settings are ignored by the top search engine?
The bartender did not own the phone. 'Finders-keepers' is NOT the law.
It is sometimes.
the guy knowingly in possession of property not belonging to him (the lost vs. stolen line gets blurred quickly) could definitely have criminal charges filed against him.
Nope. If there are clues to the real owner, you must make a reasonable attempt to contact the owner and return the property (California penal code section 485). The bartender did. The investigator was a lying dick.
I simply do not believe in the heist. I do not believe that any culture, race, or other human group can so ably live up to their stereotypes! It MUST be a hoax.
Whats next? Columbian coke reserves damaged by mice? Chinese slave labor stolen? American military bankrupt?
from 27 CFR 478.41 "(a) Each person intending to engage in business as an importer or manufacturer of firearms or ammunition, or a dealer in firearms shall, before commencing such business, obtain the license required by this subpart for the business to be operated"
Note the word "business". As noted in numerous other posts, if you don't intend to engage in business, it is perfectly lawful to manufacture a firearm for personal use provided that weapon is not prohibited by the National Firearms Act (i.e. any weapon which fires more than 1 round per trigger pull, a grenade launcher or short barreled shotgun)
From 18 U.S.C. (l) : Except as provided in section 925 (d) of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to import or bring into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition;
So, I think you're wrong saying it only applies to businesses. Other parts of the law make it clear that the provisions apply to individuals. If you are not licensed to do what you do (in regards to firearms), you're breaking the law.
Voting 3rd party also greatly influences the positions of the 2 main parties who don't want to lose to each other. If you lose an election by 5%, but a 3rd party got 5% of the vote, it's very likely that taking up the 3rd party position will help the next time around.
You know what? If that is what actually fulfills the "No more business as usual" promise, I'm all for it. If that is what gets real campaign reform in, or stops the patriot act, or kills the tsa, or defunds our world wide military ventures... Im cool with it.
Well, it is debatable if the vote is 'wasted' or not since the concept is pretty subjective.
No, its not. There is a very real tangible goal of 5%, which Ross Perot proved is very possible to reach.
As another poster pointed out, significant turnout for a 3rd party can often cause one of the two parties to integrate those issues into its platform, but that really the main 'value' of such votes.
Not the only value. If the primary parties integrate the issues, awesome. Then in the next election, at the debates the 3rd party candidate can FORCE the issues to be debated.
Mathematically, our system will pretty much always stabilize on two parties, just like other countries that have similar voting laws.
Have a link or book or articles to that effect? I'm interested.
There will never be a 3rd party that is anything other then a sounding board for new planks. There will never be a critical mass that propels us into a 3 party system with a third of the nation (apx) voting for each one because our system just can not stabilize around that configuration.
Well, I know you're not speaking from experience since no 3rd party has been a contender in the modern age. So, how did you come to this conclusion?
I still have the same question as Elbart. There isn't anything that says why they declined to hear the case?
SCOTUS gets 1000s of cases every year. They can't review them all. So, they defer to the lower courts unless the lower courts can't figure it out for themselves (i.e., different circuits give conflicting rulings).
For SCOTUS to take this, most likely multiple suits need to be filed in different districts and at least 2 of them need to hear the case and rule differently.
The issue is effectively DOA in the courts. But lucky for us, November 6th is approaching fairly rapidly. Fix it there.
Since Obama clearly supports the Fed's illegal activities, and Romney no doubt does too, you're left with 1 option: vote 3rd party.
3rd party is not a wasted vote. Federal election laws revolve around a party gaining 5% of the popular vote in the previous election. We only recognize two parties because only those two parties have ever had 5% of the votes!
If you're curious, Ross Perot picked up 18% in 1992, but officially ran as an Independent, preventing his Reform party from benefiting in 1996.
It's always funny when you tell proponents of the death penalty that it costs a huge amount more.
Because most people don't understand the costs, or how they're calculated incorrectly.
Take this one, from Washington State for example, which is pretty typical.
It calculates the average cost of housing the DP inmate at $43,352 per year, and a "non-DP" inmate at $35,897 per year.
My main problem with that calculation: The "non-DP" average cost includes all the low-level, non-violent, low-security inmates... which potential DP candidates are NOT. They would almost definitely get the same cell and the same guards as they do now... with the other LWOP inmates. So the cost of the LWOP should be the same: $43,352. Even if you want to say 20, 50 or 80% of them would be transferred to lower security facilities, the cost per year will be $35,897 + 20, 50, or 80% of the difference.
Second, the average cost of housing an inmate assumes a younger, healthier inmate. DP inmates rarely reach the golden years (55+) of their lives where health care costs increase the cost of housing an inmate substantially. The CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, sorry can't find a link for this one) estimate the cost of housing an inmate aged 55+ is double that of younger inmates. Age 80+ means triple the costs. I doubt the DP per year costs figures that in. I don't think the average per year non-DP cost figures it either.
Lastly, none of these figures count for inflation. Killing somebody in 14 years (or 20 for California) stops the inflation game early. If right now it costs $35k/year to house the former DP inmates, 20 years from now it will cost $80k/year. While a DP inmate would be dead then, a LWOP still has another 20 years of $80k/year to go (neverminding that by the end of the 2nd 20 year stint the per year cost is $190k/year)
Slashdot Mirror
Title match tonight, RIM vs. Nokia.
No, I disagree with you calling pla an anti-semite.
I didn't call him an anti-semite. I called his stated views ignorant and anti-semitic. I called him a dumb hippie.
You know nothing of him. You are a jerk.
You think you know more of me than I know of him? Neat. Probably a great example of the logic you used to determine Israel stole land as well.
Look kid, history disagrees with his statements. The statements he has made are unoriginal, are often repeated, and have anti-semitic origins (Except for the "why middle easterners hate us" part, that is just hippie thinking that, again, ignores historical precedence). I'm sorry I upset him so much you had to defend him. I hope he recovers, blows you as thanks, and your bond is stronger for the entire experience.
Pla probably knows more about the situation in the middle east than you (and me, probably), and he's hardly a stormfront idiot.
I suggest you remove your head from your rectum.
-- BMO
So you disagree with me about the definition of anti-semite? You disagree with some other item I've mentioned? Please, share a source that agrees with you.
I have no idea who Pla is, but he has hardly demonstrated any respectable knowledge with his posts. Implying Jews have not lived in Israel since biblical times. Trying to say "anti-semite" applies to non-Jews. Lets see, and elsewhere claiming that Congress "broke the law" by restricting free speech? That was worthy of a laugh as well. But please, explain why his demonstrated ignorance of language, our government, and the history of the Jewish population in the region qualifies him as "knowing more about the situation in the middle east" than me.
If only your ignorant anti-semitic views were the truth. Both sides of this dispute count as Semites. But don't let me stop you from an otherwise fine rant.
Oh, and "antisemitic/antisemitism" refers specifically to racism directed towards Jews. So you're apparently not even caught up on the language of the topic, much less the history.
If only your ignorant anti-semitic views were the truth. Both sides of this dispute count as Semites. But don't let me stop you from an otherwise fine rant.
I'll take your pedantic argument as acceptance of the historical facts I've presented. Enjoy your enlightenment.
I would agree it is written by a 9 year old based on the sensationalism and redundancy. Because of redundancy in the summary, along with sensationalism, I agree that it was written by a 9 year old.
Mojo-Jojo?
Oh we fucked it up big time by allowing this to start. That said, we know it was a stupid mistake but there's fuck all we can do about it while America keeps propping up the Israeli position for political reasons rather than do what is needed to bring about something a little bit closer to peace.
Ah, and what do you recommend as a viable peace process when one side declares openly, even in their founding charter, that they won't stop until the other side is dead?
Most of modern history in the Middle East results from the UN sticking its fingers where they don't belong, randomly stealing a big chunk of land considered sacred to the natives, and giving it to Israel. "Aww, those mean Germans tried to eradicate you? Here, let's throw a dart at this map and give you... Hmm, yeah, I think I have a call on the other line, good luck with that new home".
If only your ignorant anti-semitic views were the truth. Then it would be easy to dislike Israel. Unfortunately, its not. No land was "stolen" or "given". Jews have lived there since 1200 BCE. That is a very simple, historical, verifiable, fact. The Jews that lived elsewhere on the planet were doing so because they had been kicked out of their ancestral land. Since the time of the Roman Empire, Jews have been trying to return to Israel.
What the Brits/UN did was split up the Ottoman Empire. The Brits gave one piece of that region back to the natives. All the natives; Jews included. They split it into 1 Arab-only area, and 1 Arab/Jewish area. The Arabs have been trying to wipe out the Jews since before Israel even was a nation.
Gee, wonder why they all hate us. Oh, right, for our "freedoms" - Like the freedom to not have someone randomly kick us out of our homes and give them to our ancient enemies.
They do hate us for our freedoms you dumb hippie. Read the Hamas charter. ALL people must live under Sharia law, or die. Here, let me share their slogan. I'm sure you can find ample points of discussion in any peace process with this:
Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.
They fire rockets at you and your family and blow up [kids in] buses
Fixed that for you.
, and you fire tanks and bombs into [military installations built inside] fully built-up and barricaded ([rightfully] by you) [to stop the importation of weapons] residential areas (effectively an open-air prison or, if you will, a ghetto) [after dropping leaflets and warning people of the impending military strike on terrorists operating in the area, detailing "safe zones" the civilians can go to].
Fixed again
In my outsiders' view, that makes you both pretty much equally shitty.
And you look like the elephant man.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hostess-Twinkies-1-Box-of-10-Individually-Packaged-Sponge-Cakes-/121021624569?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c2d7370f9
My Asian children have become lazy Americans, so I have had them diagnosed with temporary learning disabilities.
I haven't seen anybody get "diagnosed" as white since In Living Color.
Reliable statistics brings reliable odds brings legal betting.
I'm watching the next election from the floor at the Wynn! See ya there!
But you're not entitled to your own made-up "facts" about Apache pilots hovering over the streets of Baghdad shooting at anything that moves for shits and grins.
Private Joker: Any women or children?
Door Gunner: Sometimes!
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?
So they can claim Chrome is the only browser that truly protects your privacy by pointing out that Safari & IE's privacy settings are ignored by the top search engine?
Actually, I suffer from CDOP. It's like OCPD but the letters are in the RIGHT DAMN ORDER!
OCPD and dyslexia are a dangerous combination apparently.
Here's the thing...
The bartender did not own the phone. 'Finders-keepers' is NOT the law.
It is sometimes.
the guy knowingly in possession of property not belonging to him (the lost vs. stolen line gets blurred quickly) could definitely have criminal charges filed against him.
Nope. If there are clues to the real owner, you must make a reasonable attempt to contact the owner and return the property (California penal code section 485). The bartender did. The investigator was a lying dick.
after watching the red-necks breed where i live, i also think they should also be put on leashes
1. Why are they breeding where you live? Did you invite them in, or are you visiting them?
2. Why did you watch?
If the hunt isn't challenging, the kill isn't satisfying.
Whats next? Columbian coke reserves damaged by mice? Chinese slave labor stolen? American military bankrupt?
from 27 CFR 478.41 "(a) Each person intending to engage in business as an importer or manufacturer of firearms or ammunition, or a dealer in firearms shall, before commencing such business, obtain the license required by this subpart for the business to be operated"
Note the word "business". As noted in numerous other posts, if you don't intend to engage in business, it is perfectly lawful to manufacture a firearm for personal use provided that weapon is not prohibited by the National Firearms Act (i.e. any weapon which fires more than 1 round per trigger pull, a grenade launcher or short barreled shotgun)
From 18 U.S.C. (l) : Except as provided in section 925 (d) of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to import or bring into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition;
So, I think you're wrong saying it only applies to businesses. Other parts of the law make it clear that the provisions apply to individuals. If you are not licensed to do what you do (in regards to firearms), you're breaking the law.
I hear they're the experts on gun laws in the US.
Some useful links garnered from their FAQ:
p.s., I am not a lawyer. I'm just giving google advice, not legal advice.
Voting 3rd party also greatly influences the positions of the 2 main parties who don't want to lose to each other. If you lose an election by 5%, but a 3rd party got 5% of the vote, it's very likely that taking up the 3rd party position will help the next time around.
You know what? If that is what actually fulfills the "No more business as usual" promise, I'm all for it. If that is what gets real campaign reform in, or stops the patriot act, or kills the tsa, or defunds our world wide military ventures... Im cool with it.
Well, it is debatable if the vote is 'wasted' or not since the concept is pretty subjective.
No, its not. There is a very real tangible goal of 5%, which Ross Perot proved is very possible to reach.
As another poster pointed out, significant turnout for a 3rd party can often cause one of the two parties to integrate those issues into its platform, but that really the main 'value' of such votes.
Not the only value. If the primary parties integrate the issues, awesome. Then in the next election, at the debates the 3rd party candidate can FORCE the issues to be debated.
Mathematically, our system will pretty much always stabilize on two parties, just like other countries that have similar voting laws.
Have a link or book or articles to that effect? I'm interested.
There will never be a 3rd party that is anything other then a sounding board for new planks. There will never be a critical mass that propels us into a 3 party system with a third of the nation (apx) voting for each one because our system just can not stabilize around that configuration.
Well, I know you're not speaking from experience since no 3rd party has been a contender in the modern age. So, how did you come to this conclusion?
I still have the same question as Elbart. There isn't anything that says why they declined to hear the case?
SCOTUS gets 1000s of cases every year. They can't review them all. So, they defer to the lower courts unless the lower courts can't figure it out for themselves (i.e., different circuits give conflicting rulings).
For SCOTUS to take this, most likely multiple suits need to be filed in different districts and at least 2 of them need to hear the case and rule differently.
The issue is effectively DOA in the courts. But lucky for us, November 6th is approaching fairly rapidly. Fix it there.
Since Obama clearly supports the Fed's illegal activities, and Romney no doubt does too, you're left with 1 option: vote 3rd party.
3rd party is not a wasted vote. Federal election laws revolve around a party gaining 5% of the popular vote in the previous election. We only recognize two parties because only those two parties have ever had 5% of the votes!
If you're curious, Ross Perot picked up 18% in 1992, but officially ran as an Independent, preventing his Reform party from benefiting in 1996.
It's always funny when you tell proponents of the death penalty that it costs a huge amount more.
Because most people don't understand the costs, or how they're calculated incorrectly.
Take this one, from Washington State for example, which is pretty typical.
It calculates the average cost of housing the DP inmate at $43,352 per year, and a "non-DP" inmate at $35,897 per year.
My main problem with that calculation: The "non-DP" average cost includes all the low-level, non-violent, low-security inmates... which potential DP candidates are NOT. They would almost definitely get the same cell and the same guards as they do now... with the other LWOP inmates. So the cost of the LWOP should be the same: $43,352. Even if you want to say 20, 50 or 80% of them would be transferred to lower security facilities, the cost per year will be $35,897 + 20, 50, or 80% of the difference.
Second, the average cost of housing an inmate assumes a younger, healthier inmate. DP inmates rarely reach the golden years (55+) of their lives where health care costs increase the cost of housing an inmate substantially.
The CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, sorry can't find a link for this one) estimate the cost of housing an inmate aged 55+ is double that of younger inmates. Age 80+ means triple the costs. I doubt the DP per year costs figures that in. I don't think the average per year non-DP cost figures it either.
Lastly, none of these figures count for inflation. Killing somebody in 14 years (or 20 for California) stops the inflation game early. If right now it costs $35k/year to house the former DP inmates, 20 years from now it will cost $80k/year. While a DP inmate would be dead then, a LWOP still has another 20 years of $80k/year to go (neverminding that by the end of the 2nd 20 year stint the per year cost is $190k/year)