You'll never convince hoplophobes with logic. Their opinions are an emotional reaction derived primarily from fear of themselves.
I used to suffer from a benign form of this condition when I was in college. I had never tried to control my temper and saw no reason to. I viewed firearms as extending the range and destructive force of my temper. I assumed that everyone else was like me. They are not.
Both conditions were cured for me when I inherited my father's police service pistol and after educating myself on its safe and effective use, began shooting it. That led me to the conclusion that I had a lot more to learn about myself and about other people.
Now I carry daily, and only worry about the damage of ignorant and fearful politicians. I also try to take as many people as I can shooting. After some instruction in safe handling and proper technique, and about $20 worth of ammo, something changes and they begin to reassess their views.
Most completely change their views. Some never come around completely but understand more than they did. For the rest there's organized political action.
I can not see why anyone would want one for themselves.
Worse, It's a.22. I presume.22LR and not some more capable.22 like 5.7x24. The article didn't say, but called it a plinker.
I can barely understand my wife wanting a.380 auto (Ruger LCP) instead of a 9mm. But at least she'll carry it, and it's better than pepper spray or harsh language.
Wait, the battery is rechargeable? If this is an ADVERTISEMENT in a paper magazine, why would you want to recharge it beyond the novelty? What good is this...
Because if they didn't include a rechargeable battery then you would complain that "The damned thing doesn't even have a rechargeable battery! What good is this..."
...ballistically speaking. Depending on the angle, a shot taken might have traveled past the intended target and missed if it were for real.
Good point, but it would be fairly easy to account for this, as well as windage in software. The computer knows where the target is relative to you (give or take a bit) and can easily calculate where your bullet would have hit based on the load data.
That said, bullet drop isn't an issue until the zero point anyway.
You could also load rubber bullets and simulate any round that you wanted.
I recently looked into a (cybersquatted) domain for a client. The squatter wanted $3000.00. We said, "Take a hike." Over the next few weeks I received unsolicited offers, each one for less money. Eventually the price went below 1K, then to make-an-offer.
I was determined that my client not give these scumbags any money, so I advised against making any offers, and finally told the scumbag, "No, seriously, take hike!"
My client went with an alternative that turned out to be a better choice because he was able to trademark it. The one he originally wanted was pretty generic and was already being used in commerce in several states by several companies.
The ability to trademark is one of the reasons that so many companies have begun using made-up words in their names. Doing so also takes cybersquatters out of the picture.
No, for the same reason you do not have a right to keep and bear nuclear devices or chemical and/or biological weapons.
But I do have a right to those things. I simply choose to reserve that right in order to gain the benefits of living in an industrialized nation with a very high standard of living who will, for a small annual tax, defend me from others who own those same items. That, and the fact that I couldn't hope to afford, or to effectively deploy any of those items making them useless to me.
On a serious note, we call fallacious statements such as yours red herring arguments. The chances of an individual ever owning a nuke are so small as to be nearly zero. This makes your use of it in your particular argument a red herring. On the other hand, if you would have said that I don't have a right to own a machine gun, then you would have made an incorrect, but otherwise logically valid statement. I know dozens of people who own machine guns. It used to be more common than it is now, but it's gotten very expensive since the late '80s.
He can spoof ips yet he can't install software to detect unwanted outbound traffic?
You have to know of a threat to defend against it.
Non-intuitive threats are common and can be deadly. I would imagine that many of the people reading the article summary (who reads the articles?) would have made the same mistake.
It's a classic hacker move, and a common mental error. We think of spyware for tracking individuals, but not an individual. Oops!
To Slashdot at large, I promise that I will stop feeding the troll after this, but I've been working hard all week and need the amusement.
Mcgrew said that he was less productive, and offered some subjective metrics as the basis of his belief. I'm sorry that public school didn't cover the difference between opinion and fact, but his statement was about his own experience. If it was a lie, he was deceiving himself. I don't know him, so can't say. I suppose you do, so you win, he was lying.
As to my mental issues, are you saying that if I'm not bigoted, then it's OK to hate Windows? I'm glad to know that. I'll try not to be so bigoted and fearful in the future. I don't want anything to stand in the way of my hate, and I desprately need your approval for that.
Finally, I really don't care what you find hard to believe. I simply wrote that I hate Windows. I'm sorry that it causes you so much pain. would you like a cookie?
Putting aside the fact that you label someone's personal opinion a lie; I've had exactly the same experience.
I've been a professional SA for over 19 years. I've worked professionally (i.e. been paid) with Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, Irix, Windows (NT, 2k 2k3). My favorites have been Linux and Irix followed closely by HP-UX. I respect Solaris but it's not my style.
Windows, on the other hand, makes me want to scream and tear my hair out. In fact, I was once so frustrated with Windows that I engaged in an extended verbal outburst for about five minutes in a work environment.
I really want to like Windows, it's pervasive, it's pretty, and it's fairly responsive on a fast system. But I can't. I hate it. I don't normally hate "things." Attitudes, sure. People, sometimes. But things; only Windows. I really, really hate windows, and using it make me feel bad. I don't know exactly why.
Better than that; ARP spoof the gateway, hand out IPs to your neighbors (or just bridge the broadcast traffic and let comcast hand out IPs as usual), and watch the traffic flow. Then download warez to your hearts content and let someone else get blamed.
I don't know if Comcast has anyting in place to prevent that, but it works on a LAN.
If, for instance, the gigs are accumulating, and you disconnect your modem - pull it out of the wall -- and the gigs are still accumulating, then you can call in and notify.
This is almost exactly what happened to a friend of mine. He called me the after the first notice from Comcast. We assumed that Comcast was correct, and suspected his wireless router. I had him turn off the radio, and REMOVE the antennas. (yes, I know, removing the antennas will only reduce the range, but the radio was off as well. I was concerned about someone breaking into the router and reactivating the radio.) We then proceeded to resecure everything. (change passwords, keys, etc.)
Next month Comcast said his usage had increased over the previous month, and cut him off immediately. Then they refused to talk to him. When he called in, as soon as they identified the account, they would tell him there was nothing anyone could do and hung up on him. If I hadn't seen the whole thing myself, I would not have believed it. Unfortunately, he did not contact Comcast in writing, as he should have if he really wanted his service back. Instead he called up Verizon and got DSL which he's currently quite happy with. It has a lower peak, but is already proving more reliable.
Ironically, Comcast still has the high bandwidth user somewhere out there, and got rid of a long time customer whose usage was on the moderate to low side. Plus they have me telling ALL of my business customers to avoid Comcast if they don't want their business to be cut off one day without warning.
Remember, we could be sending robots everywhere for the price of this.
In the 19th century it was commonplace for gentlemen scientists to send their hirelings to gather scientific data, rather than be bothered with making the trip themselves. Some of the data gathered were valuable, others not so much. This had to do, in large part, with the scientific experience of the dispatched collector. Few people ever knew who these data collectors were or what they did. The explorers who went in person, however, are remembered for their contributions to science and discovery even today.
In light of this, I would not be so quick to dismiss the importance of sending a human being on a voyage of exploration. After all, the public at large was fairly excited that the Mars rovers made it to their destination intact, and dramatically exceeded their expected lifespan. Few members of the general public, however, are as excited about the pictures and data collected by these same rovers.
The point is that if people aren't enthusiastic about exploration, then even your budget for robotic expeditions will dry up, as people loose interest. Human space exploration is both expensive and dangerous, but it's also damned exciting. Also, it's not just about getting the budget funding. It's about getting the public interested in being a part of something greater than themsleves.
I mean, anyone who calls Customer Service a lot is just being difficult, right?
Anyone who calls customer service 25 times in a single month for a billing problem (assuming the above premise is correct for the people in the aricle) is not getting these people anywhere and is wasting everyone's time. Write a letter, hire a lawyer to write a letter, or go there in person. Regardless, start moving things through the various layers of crap deflection that companies put in place so they can avoid such problems.
Above all be polite and persistant, and try to recuit an ally on the inside by being resonable and friendly. But calling the first level CSRs every day will not help. So yes, anyone who calls customer service a lot is just being difficult in the same way that someone pounding a nail with a cabbage is just being funny.
If these people are asking for help every day, or the number of minutes used and such, then I would get rid of them too. There are several cellular phone carriers, let them go bug someone else.
Many people who defended Clinton during his impeachment didn't do so because they believed perjury to be a non-crime...
You seem to be arguing that some perjury is acceptable. I would argue that perjury to deprive someone of civil justice is worse than perjury to cover up something that wasn't, as it turns out, a crime. However, since our system of justice depends on truthful testemony in all cases, both are equal in undermining our legal system.
Of course, my point is not that Libby doesn't deserve punishment, but that we've traveled down this road before, and the question is how are we going to get off of it before we go too far. If we keep playing turnabout is fair play we'll eventually turn our system of government into an excuse to do anything without consequense. I'm not saying stop the war (left vs. right) I'm saying let's remember that we all have to live in this house when it's over.
Regardless, both of them should have been punished (if that meant jail for Clinton, so be it) but Clinton didn't deserve impeachment for his crime.
Agreed.
I can't imagine how they're anything like cargo cults.
Only in the sense that the leader of each is treated to fanatical loyalty, even to the point of ignoring any foibles, flaws, or criminal tendancies, so long as things are going well. Going well defined as plenty of "cargo" and your cult in power. When things are not so good it's time to chuck the old leadership and find someone new to dieify.
Sort of a "he's the messia and he always was... No! wait! He's not the messia and never was. Here's the messia over here.
Are you kidding me? Outing a CIA agent isn't criminal?
That depends on what your definition of "is" is. Since neither Libby nor Cheney was the one who revealed her identy you will have to look to Mr. Armitage for that answer, as he's the one who did it. However, according to the Communist News Network (CNN) Armitage will not be prosocuted since he didn't violate any of the provisions of the relivant law.
Good point. However, the parallel I am making is that both comitted the same crime, perjury. In Clinton's case he avoided a conviction by the bar by making a deal to give up his law license and pay $25,000. That carries with it an implicit admission of guilt.
As for the lack of a Senate conviction; it was a matter of the nature of the punishment and not a question of guilt or innosence, that led to his acquittal. Most in the Senate wanted him censured, but not removed. In both cases politics intervened to deflect most of the punishment from two perjurers. It doesn't make it OK, rather it's a case of I told you so.
Yes... that's what Mr. Libby did - a conspiracy to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent is treason...
Had he done that I would agree with you. I would also argue that Nancy Pelosy also comited treason by criticizing the US Government while within the borders of a state sponsor of terrorism. In fact, many Democrats have done things that have historically been considered treasonous in recent years. But this is not the point.
The point is that Mr. Armitage revealed Ms. Plame's identity. There was no conspiracy, and Armitage has admitted his role in revealing what has been called the worst kept secret in Washington DC. Also, had there been a conspiracy, it would not have been criminal or treasonous because Ms. Plame was no longer undercover. According to The CIA she had not been deployed outside the US in any capacity for more than five years. The statute of limitations on her "undercover" status has run out for a while now.
By the way, the reason you're not hearing much about this aspect of the issue anymore is that Ms. Plame is herself guilty of perjury. She lied to congress when she claimed that she had no role in sending her husband "yellow cake" hunting.
Upon further research, I stand corrected. Bill Clinton cut a deal to avoid felony conviction. He paid 25K and gave up his law license to make the whole thing go away.
However, that doesn't change the fact that he perjured himeself. My point is still that the Democrats, in arguing that perjury for a non-crime is acceptable, have opened the door for this. It's disingenious to argue that some perjurers are less guilty than others because of the nature of their perjury.
Many [are] outraged over this because the people campaigning for and cheering Libby's pardon were...
It's interesting that we are arguing with the same point. Perjury is a serious crime. And people, for political reasons, are minimizing its import when their particular cargo cult is involved. The issue is not that it's "no big deal." The issue is that it was no big deal under Clinton, and now it's supposed to be a big deal because a Republican is involved. I say again, perjury is a serious crime. Clinton should have gone to jail, and so should Libbie. However, if you're going to let one off, the other goes with him.
These double standards are destroying the rule of law. We need to punish criminals, and there's no shortage in either major party. It used to be that Democrats could pick-off Republicans by exposing their foibles and prompting their resignation. Republicans have learned to behave like Democrats and shed any sense of shame. Democrat outrage at this exposes the double standard.
I called them both cargo cults above. By promoting a double standard you help to illustrate my point.
The sentence was commuted. Libby is still a convicted criminal, and he still has something like two years of probation. The president is not questioning Mr. Libby's guilt. He is simply saying that he believes that the jail time was an excessive punishment for the given crime, and he has the power to do something about it.
In point of fact, Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for the same crime. He did not spend any time in jail, nor was he given probation or removed from office. In retrospect the situations seems to have worked itself out. It's also interesting to note that in both cases the perjury conviction resulted from trying to cover up an activity that was not even criminal. (unless there's some law against "smoking a Monica")
The Clinton situation opened the door to a near decriminalizing of perjury. The outrage over this Looks like another helping of the "good intentions" double standard. Either way the conviction still stands.
"I'd be interested to hear the NRA's response to this."
Unfortunately the NRA has been MIA on a lot of this type of stuff. It used to be that a member could ask them for help, and if you were in the right, they would give you a hand.
These days The NRA is more interested in what your political and marketing value it to them. For example, they've been actively opposing the case that recently led to an appeals court ruling in the DC Circuit that affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down part of the DC gun ban. The NRA's fear was the the case would make its way to The SCOTUS and be lost, thereby creating a bad precedent like US vs. Miller.
Grass roots organizations like GOA or, here in Virginia VCDL, are much more likely to help you, but they lack the deep pockets and legal muscle of The NRA. It seems that The NRA, or at least the NRA-ILA, has fallen victim to the same self-importance as the politicians they lobby. The sad thing is that the true mission of The NRA, and what they excel at, firearms education, is more important than ever, but no longer seems to be their focus.
No, but out of curiosity I wonder what kind of weapon and or training the person had. This is the highest body count any mass murder has had on a rampage in the states.
In all seriousness, all that's required for a high body count is a lot of people in one place and no one shooting back. No training required.
He can take his time. They're afraid to run because he might shoot them. They're afraid to attack him because he might shoot them. They've all been told to just cooperate, give him what he wants, and he'll go on the the next person. As long as he doesn't shoot me then everything's ok, right?
If you know what someone wants, you can reason with them. But what if they're insane?
To everyone who reads this: Are you mentally prepared to sacrifice yourself to protect those around you? Are you willing to protect the largely peaceful society that you live in with your own life? If not, then you don't love your life enough to keep it. Someone will try to take it from you, and you won't try to stop them.
We've been fighting this sick policy for more than two years in the VA legislature. VCDL (vcdl.org, and yes I'm a member) has lobbied to have bills introduced in the last two legislative sessions to force colleges and universities to allow students with CHPs to carry on campus. Both times the bills were defeated in commitee.
The sad fact is that it's not illegal for a CHP holder to carry concealed on the VA Tech campus, but if you are a student, and you are caught doing so, you will likely be expelled. Therefore no one wants to take the risk.
A few years ago, a lawfully armed citizen stopped a gunman on another campus. This didn't have to end this way. It's another example of dial 911 and die.
Ha! Got you beat. Mine typically varies between 97.4-97.6F. The last time I gave blood (double unit of red cells) it was 97.1F on a nice warm day. (Body temp measured before the blood draw.)
The thing is, I've never heard of anyone else having an average body temprature a full degree below the human average. Perhaps it's not that uncommon.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll never convince hoplophobes with logic. Their opinions are an emotional reaction derived primarily from fear of themselves.
I used to suffer from a benign form of this condition when I was in college. I had never tried to control my temper and saw no reason to. I viewed firearms as extending the range and destructive force of my temper. I assumed that everyone else was like me. They are not.
Both conditions were cured for me when I inherited my father's police service pistol and after educating myself on its safe and effective use, began shooting it. That led me to the conclusion that I had a lot more to learn about myself and about other people.
Now I carry daily, and only worry about the damage of ignorant and fearful politicians. I also try to take as many people as I can shooting. After some instruction in safe handling and proper technique, and about $20 worth of ammo, something changes and they begin to reassess their views.
Most completely change their views. Some never come around completely but understand more than they did. For the rest there's organized political action.
I can not see why anyone would want one for themselves.
Worse, It's a .22. I presume .22LR and not some more capable .22 like 5.7x24. The article didn't say, but called it a plinker.
I can barely understand my wife wanting a .380 auto (Ruger LCP) instead of a 9mm. But at least she'll carry it, and it's better than pepper spray or harsh language.
This sounds like a novelty to me.
Wait, the battery is rechargeable? If this is an ADVERTISEMENT in a paper magazine, why would you want to recharge it beyond the novelty? What good is this...
Because if they didn't include a rechargeable battery then you would complain that "The damned thing doesn't even have a rechargeable battery! What good is this..."
...ballistically speaking. Depending on the angle, a shot taken might have traveled past the intended target and missed if it were for real.
Good point, but it would be fairly easy to account for this, as well as windage in software. The computer knows where the target is relative to you (give or take a bit) and can easily calculate where your bullet would have hit based on the load data.
That said, bullet drop isn't an issue until the zero point anyway.
You could also load rubber bullets and simulate any round that you wanted.
I recently looked into a (cybersquatted) domain for a client. The squatter wanted $3000.00. We said, "Take a hike." Over the next few weeks I received unsolicited offers, each one for less money. Eventually the price went below 1K, then to make-an-offer.
I was determined that my client not give these scumbags any money, so I advised against making any offers, and finally told the scumbag, "No, seriously, take hike!"
My client went with an alternative that turned out to be a better choice because he was able to trademark it. The one he originally wanted was pretty generic and was already being used in commerce in several states by several companies.
The ability to trademark is one of the reasons that so many companies have begun using made-up words in their names. Doing so also takes cybersquatters out of the picture.
No, for the same reason you do not have a right to keep and bear nuclear devices or chemical and/or biological weapons.
But I do have a right to those things. I simply choose to reserve that right in order to gain the benefits of living in an industrialized nation with a very high standard of living who will, for a small annual tax, defend me from others who own those same items. That, and the fact that I couldn't hope to afford, or to effectively deploy any of those items making them useless to me.
On a serious note, we call fallacious statements such as yours red herring arguments. The chances of an individual ever owning a nuke are so small as to be nearly zero. This makes your use of it in your particular argument a red herring. On the other hand, if you would have said that I don't have a right to own a machine gun, then you would have made an incorrect, but otherwise logically valid statement. I know dozens of people who own machine guns. It used to be more common than it is now, but it's gotten very expensive since the late '80s.
He can spoof ips yet he can't install software to detect unwanted outbound traffic?
You have to know of a threat to defend against it.
Non-intuitive threats are common and can be deadly. I would imagine that many of the people reading the article summary (who reads the articles?) would have made the same mistake.
It's a classic hacker move, and a common mental error. We think of spyware for tracking individuals, but not an individual. Oops!
Are you kidding? When I was a kid I had wood constantly. Now that I'm [much] older I can only dream...
I think that Pfizer took it all. I keep hearing people say that's where they get theirs.
To Slashdot at large, I promise that I will stop feeding the troll after this, but I've been working hard all week and need the amusement.
Mcgrew said that he was less productive, and offered some subjective metrics as the basis of his belief. I'm sorry that public school didn't cover the difference between opinion and fact, but his statement was about his own experience. If it was a lie, he was deceiving himself. I don't know him, so can't say. I suppose you do, so you win, he was lying.
As to my mental issues, are you saying that if I'm not bigoted, then it's OK to hate Windows? I'm glad to know that. I'll try not to be so bigoted and fearful in the future. I don't want anything to stand in the way of my hate, and I desprately need your approval for that.
Finally, I really don't care what you find hard to believe. I simply wrote that I hate Windows. I'm sorry that it causes you so much pain. would you like a cookie?
Putting aside the fact that you label someone's personal opinion a lie; I've had exactly the same experience.
I've been a professional SA for over 19 years. I've worked professionally (i.e. been paid) with Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, Irix, Windows (NT, 2k 2k3). My favorites have been Linux and Irix followed closely by HP-UX. I respect Solaris but it's not my style.
Windows, on the other hand, makes me want to scream and tear my hair out. In fact, I was once so frustrated with Windows that I engaged in an extended verbal outburst for about five minutes in a work environment.
I really want to like Windows, it's pervasive, it's pretty, and it's fairly responsive on a fast system. But I can't. I hate it. I don't normally hate "things." Attitudes, sure. People, sometimes. But things; only Windows. I really, really hate windows, and using it make me feel bad. I don't know exactly why.
Better than that; ARP spoof the gateway, hand out IPs to your neighbors (or just bridge the broadcast traffic and let comcast hand out IPs as usual), and watch the traffic flow. Then download warez to your hearts content and let someone else get blamed.
I don't know if Comcast has anyting in place to prevent that, but it works on a LAN.
If, for instance, the gigs are accumulating, and you disconnect your modem - pull it out of the wall -- and the gigs are still accumulating, then you can call in and notify.
This is almost exactly what happened to a friend of mine. He called me the after the first notice from Comcast. We assumed that Comcast was correct, and suspected his wireless router. I had him turn off the radio, and REMOVE the antennas. (yes, I know, removing the antennas will only reduce the range, but the radio was off as well. I was concerned about someone breaking into the router and reactivating the radio.) We then proceeded to resecure everything. (change passwords, keys, etc.)
Next month Comcast said his usage had increased over the previous month, and cut him off immediately. Then they refused to talk to him. When he called in, as soon as they identified the account, they would tell him there was nothing anyone could do and hung up on him. If I hadn't seen the whole thing myself, I would not have believed it. Unfortunately, he did not contact Comcast in writing, as he should have if he really wanted his service back. Instead he called up Verizon and got DSL which he's currently quite happy with. It has a lower peak, but is already proving more reliable.
Ironically, Comcast still has the high bandwidth user somewhere out there, and got rid of a long time customer whose usage was on the moderate to low side. Plus they have me telling ALL of my business customers to avoid Comcast if they don't want their business to be cut off one day without warning.
Thank you great Inquisitor for setting us all straight.
The dogma of the Holy Climate Models(tm) is unassailable, and must never be questioned.
Remember, we could be sending robots everywhere for the price of this.
In the 19th century it was commonplace for gentlemen scientists to send their hirelings to gather scientific data, rather than be bothered with making the trip themselves. Some of the data gathered were valuable, others not so much. This had to do, in large part, with the scientific experience of the dispatched collector. Few people ever knew who these data collectors were or what they did. The explorers who went in person, however, are remembered for their contributions to science and discovery even today.
In light of this, I would not be so quick to dismiss the importance of sending a human being on a voyage of exploration. After all, the public at large was fairly excited that the Mars rovers made it to their destination intact, and dramatically exceeded their expected lifespan. Few members of the general public, however, are as excited about the pictures and data collected by these same rovers.
The point is that if people aren't enthusiastic about exploration, then even your budget for robotic expeditions will dry up, as people loose interest. Human space exploration is both expensive and dangerous, but it's also damned exciting. Also, it's not just about getting the budget funding. It's about getting the public interested in being a part of something greater than themsleves.
I mean, anyone who calls Customer Service a lot is just being difficult, right?
Anyone who calls customer service 25 times in a single month for a billing problem (assuming the above premise is correct for the people in the aricle) is not getting these people anywhere and is wasting everyone's time. Write a letter, hire a lawyer to write a letter, or go there in person. Regardless, start moving things through the various layers of crap deflection that companies put in place so they can avoid such problems.
Above all be polite and persistant, and try to recuit an ally on the inside by being resonable and friendly. But calling the first level CSRs every day will not help. So yes, anyone who calls customer service a lot is just being difficult in the same way that someone pounding a nail with a cabbage is just being funny.
If these people are asking for help every day, or the number of minutes used and such, then I would get rid of them too. There are several cellular phone carriers, let them go bug someone else.
Many people who defended Clinton during his impeachment didn't do so because they believed perjury to be a non-crime...
You seem to be arguing that some perjury is acceptable. I would argue that perjury to deprive someone of civil justice is worse than perjury to cover up something that wasn't, as it turns out, a crime. However, since our system of justice depends on truthful testemony in all cases, both are equal in undermining our legal system.
Of course, my point is not that Libby doesn't deserve punishment, but that we've traveled down this road before, and the question is how are we going to get off of it before we go too far. If we keep playing turnabout is fair play we'll eventually turn our system of government into an excuse to do anything without consequense. I'm not saying stop the war (left vs. right) I'm saying let's remember that we all have to live in this house when it's over.
Regardless, both of them should have been punished (if that meant jail for Clinton, so be it) but Clinton didn't deserve impeachment for his crime.
Agreed.
I can't imagine how they're anything like cargo cults.
Only in the sense that the leader of each is treated to fanatical loyalty, even to the point of ignoring any foibles, flaws, or criminal tendancies, so long as things are going well. Going well defined as plenty of "cargo" and your cult in power. When things are not so good it's time to chuck the old leadership and find someone new to dieify.
Sort of a "he's the messia and he always was... No! wait! He's not the messia and never was. Here's the messia over here.
Are you kidding me? Outing a CIA agent isn't criminal?
That depends on what your definition of "is" is. Since neither Libby nor Cheney was the one who revealed her identy you will have to look to Mr. Armitage for that answer, as he's the one who did it. However, according to the Communist News Network (CNN) Armitage will not be prosocuted since he didn't violate any of the provisions of the relivant law.
Good point. However, the parallel I am making is that both comitted the same crime, perjury. In Clinton's case he avoided a conviction by the bar by making a deal to give up his law license and pay $25,000. That carries with it an implicit admission of guilt.
As for the lack of a Senate conviction; it was a matter of the nature of the punishment and not a question of guilt or innosence, that led to his acquittal. Most in the Senate wanted him censured, but not removed. In both cases politics intervened to deflect most of the punishment from two perjurers. It doesn't make it OK, rather it's a case of I told you so.
Yes... that's what Mr. Libby did - a conspiracy to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent is treason...
Had he done that I would agree with you. I would also argue that Nancy Pelosy also comited treason by criticizing the US Government while within the borders of a state sponsor of terrorism. In fact, many Democrats have done things that have historically been considered treasonous in recent years. But this is not the point.
The point is that Mr. Armitage revealed Ms. Plame's identity. There was no conspiracy, and Armitage has admitted his role in revealing what has been called the worst kept secret in Washington DC. Also, had there been a conspiracy, it would not have been criminal or treasonous because Ms. Plame was no longer undercover. According to The CIA she had not been deployed outside the US in any capacity for more than five years. The statute of limitations on her "undercover" status has run out for a while now.
By the way, the reason you're not hearing much about this aspect of the issue anymore is that Ms. Plame is herself guilty of perjury. She lied to congress when she claimed that she had no role in sending her husband "yellow cake" hunting.
Upon further research, I stand corrected. Bill Clinton cut a deal to avoid felony conviction. He paid 25K and gave up his law license to make the whole thing go away.
However, that doesn't change the fact that he perjured himeself. My point is still that the Democrats, in arguing that perjury for a non-crime is acceptable, have opened the door for this. It's disingenious to argue that some perjurers are less guilty than others because of the nature of their perjury.
Many [are] outraged over this because the people campaigning for and cheering Libby's pardon were...
It's interesting that we are arguing with the same point. Perjury is a serious crime. And people, for political reasons, are minimizing its import when their particular cargo cult is involved. The issue is not that it's "no big deal." The issue is that it was no big deal under Clinton, and now it's supposed to be a big deal because a Republican is involved. I say again, perjury is a serious crime. Clinton should have gone to jail, and so should Libbie. However, if you're going to let one off, the other goes with him.
These double standards are destroying the rule of law. We need to punish criminals, and there's no shortage in either major party. It used to be that Democrats could pick-off Republicans by exposing their foibles and prompting their resignation. Republicans have learned to behave like Democrats and shed any sense of shame. Democrat outrage at this exposes the double standard.
I called them both cargo cults above. By promoting a double standard you help to illustrate my point.
The sentence was commuted. Libby is still a convicted criminal, and he still has something like two years of probation. The president is not questioning Mr. Libby's guilt. He is simply saying that he believes that the jail time was an excessive punishment for the given crime, and he has the power to do something about it.
In point of fact, Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for the same crime. He did not spend any time in jail, nor was he given probation or removed from office. In retrospect the situations seems to have worked itself out. It's also interesting to note that in both cases the perjury conviction resulted from trying to cover up an activity that was not even criminal. (unless there's some law against "smoking a Monica")
The Clinton situation opened the door to a near decriminalizing of perjury. The outrage over this Looks like another helping of the "good intentions" double standard. Either way the conviction still stands.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
"I'd be interested to hear the NRA's response to this."
Unfortunately the NRA has been MIA on a lot of this type of stuff. It used to be that a member could ask them for help, and if you were in the right, they would give you a hand.
These days The NRA is more interested in what your political and marketing value it to them. For example, they've been actively opposing the case that recently led to an appeals court ruling in the DC Circuit that affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down part of the DC gun ban. The NRA's fear was the the case would make its way to The SCOTUS and be lost, thereby creating a bad precedent like US vs. Miller.
Grass roots organizations like GOA or, here in Virginia VCDL, are much more likely to help you, but they lack the deep pockets and legal muscle of The NRA. It seems that The NRA, or at least the NRA-ILA, has fallen victim to the same self-importance as the politicians they lobby. The sad thing is that the true mission of The NRA, and what they excel at, firearms education, is more important than ever, but no longer seems to be their focus.
No, but out of curiosity I wonder what kind of weapon and or training the person had. This is the highest body count any mass murder has had on a rampage in the states.
In all seriousness, all that's required for a high body count is a lot of people in one place and no one shooting back. No training required.
He can take his time. They're afraid to run because he might shoot them. They're afraid to attack him because he might shoot them. They've all been told to just cooperate, give him what he wants, and he'll go on the the next person. As long as he doesn't shoot me then everything's ok, right?
If you know what someone wants, you can reason with them. But what if they're insane?
To everyone who reads this: Are you mentally prepared to sacrifice yourself to protect those around you? Are you willing to protect the largely peaceful society that you live in with your own life? If not, then you don't love your life enough to keep it. Someone will try to take it from you, and you won't try to stop them.
We've been fighting this sick policy for more than two years in the VA legislature. VCDL (vcdl.org, and yes I'm a member) has lobbied to have bills introduced in the last two legislative sessions to force colleges and universities to allow students with CHPs to carry on campus. Both times the bills were defeated in commitee.
The sad fact is that it's not illegal for a CHP holder to carry concealed on the VA Tech campus, but if you are a student, and you are caught doing so, you will likely be expelled. Therefore no one wants to take the risk.
A few years ago, a lawfully armed citizen stopped a gunman on another campus. This didn't have to end this way. It's another example of dial 911 and die.
Ha! Got you beat. Mine typically varies between 97.4-97.6F. The last time I gave blood (double unit of red cells) it was 97.1F on a nice warm day. (Body temp measured before the blood draw.)
The thing is, I've never heard of anyone else having an average body temprature a full degree below the human average. Perhaps it's not that uncommon.