In this particular case, the freedom of civilization to live without states sponsoring radical terrorism.
That'd be us, right?
The trouble with people like you is that you focus ONLY on that, rather than all the myriad, complex factors of the thing.
What myriad complex factors led GWB to topple Iraq's fovernment and, in so doing, destabilize the region with no real exit strategy?
The average Iraqi citizen doesn't have the faintest clue what freedom means after so many years of not having to think about it, particularly in a country with such a religion that dictates so many things. That said, it's interesting how many people voted in the election.
Shows what you know. Iraq was a secular state, and that is why it was fairly stable - one brutal guy keeping everybody in line while not really taking sides in the religion thing. Of course, now the average IRaqi probably thinks freedom means having to worry about being blown up by some guys who think they worship Allah in the wrong way, or shot by some hired mercenaries for no reason. I very much doubt, though, that they distinguish between regular army and Blackwater.
What the hell does that mean? Set random bombs and go hide? We don't have a big target like they do, so it makes no sense to fight like them. Besides, while you're sneering down your nose at them, you should remember that they're fighting a resistance campaign against a foreign power that invaded them and toppled their government - they're more than justified in using all sorts of tactics that we're bound from, just like we would be in their situation. Face it: the Iraq you see on the news is a fantasy, and building policy based on it is sheer folly.
If there's a big fucking on fire car in your lane (and a cop within eyesight), what exactly do you do? Cop's already there, so you get out of the way and drive on, that's what you do.
no, by definition, pedos are after children. 17 year olds are almost all sexually mature, so they're illegal to me in the US (but not CA), but being attracted to one isn't abnormal. Just saying.
The tracking issue is pretty nasty - we're well past the point where we should be asking if something should be done just because it can be done.
Don't be a tool. The politicians that broadcast their lives in order to get the laws that strip your privacy will be replaced by politicians that don't do that and you'll still have no privacy. Better to keep your privacy and lose the politicians.
I understand what you're saying, but who gets to decide what the bad laws are?
Well, if you have to tell people that a substance will make the blacks go crazy and rape white women to get people to vote for it, then it's probably a bad law.
The illusion was that the secret police has dossiers (the dead tree kind) on anyone and everyone, and that it _will_ come back to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
In point of fact, the Stasi did have a truly staggering amount of paperwork on all sorts of people. Not everybody, but a lot.
Look, take for example idiots like Alex Jones and his 9/11 "truth" movement.
Alex Jones may be an idjit, but Bush's government certainly gives ample reason for fear, what with its utter lack of transparency, Orwellian lines (you're with us or against us), DHS, incompetence combined with raw power (dynamite monkey), and general dogmatic stubbornness.
A person that reacts with deadly violence when there is no physical threat to them is not in the realm of normal.
With a decent lawyer, they'd get an EED defense and walk.
Not at all. Two people, both have equal qualification except one is a convicted felon the other isn't
As I said before, lots of things are felonies. Be more specific.
So you spent five years in India? Where did you go? What did you do?
If someone is going to lie about something like that, it's fairly simple to come up with a backstory.
Did you celibate Diwali?
Even I know about that one and I've never been to India. You don't suppose these questions can be studied for? I know that if I were facing a crap future due to a felony on my record, I'd at least consider lying about it, especially if the alternative was $10/hr or less.
Two you are in idiot. Yes shooting a guy in bed with his wife is totally relevant to many if not every job. It shows that a person will act violently and with murderous intent if he feels that he is slighted.
Ooh, ad hominem. It's a textbook heat of the moment sort of thing. Most people would react badly to that sort of situation, some fatally so. Doesn't really make them a threat in the workplace.
Then you lied on the resume and that would disqualify you for employment.
The police don't do background checks for School Bus drivers.
If it's a criminal background check, they sure do. Who else has access to all the nitty gritty?
And I am not preventing someone from getting a job. They chose to commit a felony.
Leaving aside the fact that many ridiculous things are now felonies, yes you are: if you can find out about felonies unrelated to the job at hand and are willing to blackball someone for having them, then it's you. Save your breath, though: no single raindrop feels responsible for the flood.
The simple fact is committing a crime and going to jail will make getting a good job very hard.
You're coming awfully close to begging the question; my assertion is that limiting the information about past felonies will help ex cons reintegrate into society. That means you can't use the fact that it's hard due to your record being accessible as argument fodder.
Just as not finishing high school will make it hard
Tell me, how do you unfelony?
That is the way of the world.
And it sucks, and I want to change it. Ever hire someone that got time for possession of pot? Those people don't seem too dangerous to me.
If you had two equally qualified people interviewing with you and one had a perfectly clean record.
Depends: what's the felony for? Aggravated assault in a barfight is different from rape is different from shooting the guy in bed with your wife. The first two would probably DQ the ex con, while the third isn't a factor. My point here is that getting a felony for shooting the guy in bed with your wife isn't really relevant to most jobs I can think of.
Oh, and the gap can always be explained as bumming around europe/india, especially if it falls into the hothead years
You know, I didn't dispute the restriction against holding some jobs. Positions of trust usually entail a criminal background check, and the police are justified in releasing info then. Everyone else can fuck off.
What better way to judge a person than by their actions. Every time you hire an employee, choose a friend, pick an enemy, go on a date, or choose a spouse you are judging that person.
And when you make it impossible for someone to get a decent job, what do you think they'll do?
There is no justification in my mind for a site like this to be allowed to exist, particularly not by a convicted criminal who has an axe to grind.
So are you against freedom of speech for eveyone, or just people that get convicted of selling pot?
But I'm equally outraged that this information is available to the general public in the first place.
You'd prefer the secret courts in Gitmo?
I would suggest that the information on informants in cases of violent crimes or drug dealing should be kept sealed.
Yeah, that'll never be abused...
In my humble opinion, there is too much stress these days on the rights of the criminal, and little or none on the rights of the innocent, law abiding person just trying to live a normal life doing the right thing.
Heh, how do you tell the difference? Most decent people have commited several misdemeanors and a good number have committed a felony these days.
Except that sometimes the slippery slope exists: allowing the government to censor some things (they can't even censor instructions on how to build a nuke) makes it easier to censor other things. This is called incrementalism, and is used to great effect by the Brady bunch and MADD.
Slashdot Mirror
In this particular case, the freedom of civilization to live without states sponsoring radical terrorism.
That'd be us, right?
The trouble with people like you is that you focus ONLY on that, rather than all the myriad, complex factors of the thing.
What myriad complex factors led GWB to topple Iraq's fovernment and, in so doing, destabilize the region with no real exit strategy?
The average Iraqi citizen doesn't have the faintest clue what freedom means after so many years of not having to think about it, particularly in a country with such a religion that dictates so many things. That said, it's interesting how many people voted in the election.
Shows what you know. Iraq was a secular state, and that is why it was fairly stable - one brutal guy keeping everybody in line while not really taking sides in the religion thing. Of course, now the average IRaqi probably thinks freedom means having to worry about being blown up by some guys who think they worship Allah in the wrong way, or shot by some hired mercenaries for no reason. I very much doubt, though, that they distinguish between regular army and Blackwater.
So, is your solution to genocide Iraq, or just not start that fight?
I'd put one in Afghanistan, too. Actually, Afghanistan should have been first.
Yeah, what exactly do you think that'll do, move the rocks around?
What the hell does that mean? Set random bombs and go hide? We don't have a big target like they do, so it makes no sense to fight like them. Besides, while you're sneering down your nose at them, you should remember that they're fighting a resistance campaign against a foreign power that invaded them and toppled their government - they're more than justified in using all sorts of tactics that we're bound from, just like we would be in their situation. Face it: the Iraq you see on the news is a fantasy, and building policy based on it is sheer folly.
If we had four fingers, there'd be a law of fours.
In all seriousness, how many buildings actually have to care about that? Probably half are owned by Boeing and the other half by NASA.
If there's a big fucking on fire car in your lane (and a cop within eyesight), what exactly do you do? Cop's already there, so you get out of the way and drive on, that's what you do.
no, by definition, pedos are after children. 17 year olds are almost all sexually mature, so they're illegal to me in the US (but not CA), but being attracted to one isn't abnormal. Just saying.
The tracking issue is pretty nasty - we're well past the point where we should be asking if something should be done just because it can be done.
um, hello - pedos don't go for 17 year olds. Normal people do, at least until they open their mouths.
If you're a bad guy, why not just switch tags with someone else?
What about the paedophile who wants to track that one kid...
What's he going to hang around a college for?
Hey, don't forget speedbump, or Grubor.
Maybe we should act before the secret police have the power to disappear random people, mkay?
Don't be a tool. The politicians that broadcast their lives in order to get the laws that strip your privacy will be replaced by politicians that don't do that and you'll still have no privacy. Better to keep your privacy and lose the politicians.
I understand what you're saying, but who gets to decide what the bad laws are?
Well, if you have to tell people that a substance will make the blacks go crazy and rape white women to get people to vote for it, then it's probably a bad law.
The illusion was that the secret police has dossiers (the dead tree kind) on anyone and everyone, and that it _will_ come back to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
In point of fact, the Stasi did have a truly staggering amount of paperwork on all sorts of people. Not everybody, but a lot.
Look, take for example idiots like Alex Jones and his 9/11 "truth" movement.
Alex Jones may be an idjit, but Bush's government certainly gives ample reason for fear, what with its utter lack of transparency, Orwellian lines (you're with us or against us), DHS, incompetence combined with raw power (dynamite monkey), and general dogmatic stubbornness.
A person that reacts with deadly violence when there is no physical threat to them is not in the realm of normal.
With a decent lawyer, they'd get an EED defense and walk.
Not at all. Two people, both have equal qualification except one is a convicted felon the other isn't
As I said before, lots of things are felonies. Be more specific.
So you spent five years in India? Where did you go? What did you do?
If someone is going to lie about something like that, it's fairly simple to come up with a backstory.
Did you celibate Diwali?
Even I know about that one and I've never been to India. You don't suppose these questions can be studied for? I know that if I were facing a crap future due to a felony on my record, I'd at least consider lying about it, especially if the alternative was $10/hr or less.
One you didn't answer the question.
The question is too vague.
Two you are in idiot. Yes shooting a guy in bed with his wife is totally relevant to many if not every job. It shows that a person will act violently and with murderous intent if he feels that he is slighted.
Ooh, ad hominem. It's a textbook heat of the moment sort of thing. Most people would react badly to that sort of situation, some fatally so. Doesn't really make them a threat in the workplace.
Then you lied on the resume and that would disqualify you for employment.
Sure, if you find out about it.
The police don't do background checks for School Bus drivers.
If it's a criminal background check, they sure do. Who else has access to all the nitty gritty?
And I am not preventing someone from getting a job. They chose to commit a felony.
Leaving aside the fact that many ridiculous things are now felonies, yes you are: if you can find out about felonies unrelated to the job at hand and are willing to blackball someone for having them, then it's you. Save your breath, though: no single raindrop feels responsible for the flood.
The simple fact is committing a crime and going to jail will make getting a good job very hard.
You're coming awfully close to begging the question; my assertion is that limiting the information about past felonies will help ex cons reintegrate into society. That means you can't use the fact that it's hard due to your record being accessible as argument fodder.
Just as not finishing high school will make it hard
Tell me, how do you unfelony?
That is the way of the world.
And it sucks, and I want to change it. Ever hire someone that got time for possession of pot? Those people don't seem too dangerous to me.
If you had two equally qualified people interviewing with you and one had a perfectly clean record.
Depends: what's the felony for? Aggravated assault in a barfight is different from rape is different from shooting the guy in bed with your wife. The first two would probably DQ the ex con, while the third isn't a factor. My point here is that getting a felony for shooting the guy in bed with your wife isn't really relevant to most jobs I can think of.
Oh, and the gap can always be explained as bumming around europe/india, especially if it falls into the hothead years
You know, I didn't dispute the restriction against holding some jobs. Positions of trust usually entail a criminal background check, and the police are justified in releasing info then. Everyone else can fuck off.
What better way to judge a person than by their actions. Every time you hire an employee, choose a friend, pick an enemy, go on a date, or choose a spouse you are judging that person.
And when you make it impossible for someone to get a decent job, what do you think they'll do?
There is no justification in my mind for a site like this to be allowed to exist, particularly not by a convicted criminal who has an axe to grind.
So are you against freedom of speech for eveyone, or just people that get convicted of selling pot?
But I'm equally outraged that this information is available to the general public in the first place.
You'd prefer the secret courts in Gitmo?
I would suggest that the information on informants in cases of violent crimes or drug dealing should be kept sealed.
Yeah, that'll never be abused...
In my humble opinion, there is too much stress these days on the rights of the criminal, and little or none on the rights of the innocent, law abiding person just trying to live a normal life doing the right thing.
Heh, how do you tell the difference? Most decent people have commited several misdemeanors and a good number have committed a felony these days.
Except that sometimes the slippery slope exists: allowing the government to censor some things (they can't even censor instructions on how to build a nuke) makes it easier to censor other things. This is called incrementalism, and is used to great effect by the Brady bunch and MADD.
tell the police in your district to start spending those resources on getting rid of handguns (for civillians and police)
Why? Handguns don't cause crime.
Then they move to florida, where they're taken off the voting rolls due to a change Jeb made shortly before 2000.