And it did nothing to answer my basic statement -your assertation that paramedics, who are not investigators, are scanning car black boxes and using that information for some nefarious purpose. I suppose it would be conceivably possible for a medic to scan one of these to find out how fast a vehicle was going during an accident, that information is marginally useful; but I completely reject what you are saying, and you have given me no reason to think otherwise. I worked for years as a medic - your job on the scene is to take care of the patients. A medic has not the time nor the training to check 'black boxes,' and even if he was doing so, the information would not be too useful. A lawyer in a deposition or trial would simply ask the medic how much training he has in accident investigation, and since the answer is "None," his usefulness to prosecution or plantiff is essentially over (as regards the accident). Plus, why have medics do this, when the cops are on the scene of every single auto accident involving injury? These are the guys who go to classes on investigation.
Sorry, but your messages, while lengthy and containing plenty of information that is probably quite accurate, shows you might be prone to exagerating causal relationships. You sound like a Linda Thompson accolyte; I half expect you to start in on black helicopters next.
car accident companies and paramedics tap them for their own purposes AGAINST you.
You can go on and on about FBI 'shills' if you want; but I have a hard time believing anything when you say something as outrageous as the above quote.
Tell me, AC, while a paramedic - who is a medical person, not an auto mechanic - is on the scene, pulling your busted ass out of your FUBAR car, and hauling you to the hospital, at what point is he able to 'tap' your car's super-secret Way-back-machine?
Must be that blood pressure cuff - I've always been suspicious of those damn things. Anything you can't say fast three times (sphygmomanometer) isn't to be trusted.
No, it doesn't. There is not one bit of credible data to suggest this; plus, the book Silent Spring was a load of horse hooey, and has been shown time and again to be full of inaccuracies.
Just make sure not to use Genetically Modified seeds; if you do, you'll have to deal with environmental activists. On your wind farm. Holding signs made of trees. Arriving in their petrochemical burning cars.
But, having said that, I would be suprised if any of the muslim countries (the ones that allow movies, that is, some don't - any performing arts are 'haram,' and banned, in Saudi Arabia, for example) will allow this movie, for one reason: The name Zion. Fanatics link that name with nation-building in Israel, and we all know how popular *that* is among the Mohommedans, now, don't we?
Ok, just my theory. If its a choice between buying my theory, or a cup of coffee, stick with the coffee.....
That's the class envy that the socialists have been sowing for so long. It appears to be working for some of the less cerebrally developed primates, but I'm not buying it.
I am a worker bee. If I invest years of my live, tons of my money and more risk than you can conceive of to build a business, and it does well, why should you get a piece of my hard labor just because you think you deserve it?
The USA needs to recognise that it is just one country out of hundreds and each country has certain soverign rights
Agreed. I'm tired of being the 'New Rome.' I'd like to see us paid back for the past 70 years of getting Europe out of its own messes, and keeping the Red Bear from swallowing Europe whole, but hey, lets let by-gones be by-gones, ok?
Until you do even the Dutch can scare the pants off your chicken-shit gangster government.
I'm not convinced, but nice try. Mass murder, indeed. Tell me, sparky, when the US and UK were bombing France to dislodge those pesky Krauts, was that mass murder? Holland, which collaberated with the Nazis to deport to their deaths hundreds of thousands of 'undesirable' people, can hardly make such a claim.
The UN was castrated by its own failings long before this situation came to a head. They put their 'peacekeepers' in harms way with no arms, they allow Saddam to get away with murder (literally) for 12 years and keep waffling on doing something about it, they have Libya as a member of the Human Rights commission....
No, sorry, the UN is an irrelevent has-been and the US should just throw up its hands and get out.
Iraq has finally been gang-raped after a decade of abuse?
Which Saddam caused. He knew what he needed to do to lift those santions; he chose not to do so. Those sanctions allowed enough money to be had for food and medicine. He instead built palace after palace, bought car after car (hey, at least the Germans were getting paid). No one disagrees that Iraq spent years being abused; but for to assert it was due to anyone other than Saddam and Co., is ridiculous.
Look, basically, it all boils down to this ideology: You have what I want, so I am going to get everyone together who has less, and we're going to take what you have by force or threat of force.
Its immoral. You can bitch all you want about 'the rich,' but socialism is a greater evil. I can't stand Ted Turner, but I don't think I deserve a piece of his pie; he's worked for years to build it, f-d up colorized movies and all. To think that a person who works hard should be penalized to pay for those who don't, well, that's just idiotic.
I have read Marx, and socialism is a parasitic worm that eats the character of the people from the inside out. Sounds good on paper, doesn't work well when you put in the human element.
First, the constitution has been bastardized many times by judges who want to be legislators. Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean shit. Second, you read Miller completely wrong. The judicial 'finding' said that sawed off shotguns may be disallowed for private use because they have no military use; that is, since the army can't use it, a private citizen can't own it. Third, the courts have said, time and time and time again, that "the people" mentioned in the 2nd amendment is the same "the people" mentioned in so many of the other 10 bills of rights. That is, the common man. Just think, how stupid it would be, for that one amendment to mean 'state rights,' when buried in a section limiting state powers.
You still didn't refute his arguments, for the simple reason that you CAN'T. Face it, tyrants and tinpot dictators like having unarmed opposition; just like rapists and so on down the line. Who does the schoolyard bully pick on? The kid he can beat. Not the kid 5 years older, 50lbs heavier, and a damn sight meaner. Tyrants are the same, they just get to wear cool hats.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look on the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-Mahatma Gandhi
Source here. I particularly like what the Dalai Lama says.
I wish 2 things: that you had not done this AC, so I could friend list you, and that I had mod points to give. That was well put. Sometimes its hard to argue with the stupid, but you did a good job.
It is not required to have a guarantee on a piece of paper to have natural born rights. Its nice to see it codified, but not necessary. However, you are ignorant of recent (last 20-30 years) history if you think that an armed populace doesn't do any good. And, where in the constitution does it give a sunset clause? "The rights of the people, until such time as the military is really kick-ass with laser guided bombs and shit, shall not be infringed." Nope, just checked, it doesn't say that. So, until there is another amendmend appealing the 2nd, I guess it means what I and the NRA and GOA say it mean!
What part of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" do you not understand?
Looks like someone who is just pissing away that $36,000 per year on college if he can't get the concept of 'subordinate clause' into his head.....
Luckily, the guys who wrote the 2nd amendment didn't work/live in a vaccuum... they left tons of writings on why they believed the things they fought for. Read up on it a bit; I've got a standard $100 bet with acquaintances who are anti-2nd amendment that they can't find one instance of a constitution framer arguing for collective rights in firearms ownership, as opposed to individual rights, which it most certainly is.
Most definately. Just because some dufus puts up a website saying otherwise, or fat-ass moron Michael Moore puts out a book/movie saying otherwise, don't make it so.
Face it. Bush won. Narrowly, embarrassingly (for the country, not just for Repubs), but he won. The ballot in question was approved by the Democrats, the largest number of ballots 'thrown out' came from military voters overseas, who vote more Repub than Dem...... Geez, dude, it just goes on and on.
I tend to agree with that. Plus, once I move back to the US, I plan on purchasing a big-ass diesel pick-em-up-truck, and fueling with biodiesel. I don't think a person who is using precious petroleum should be dinged for that, do you?
Ok, lets say that you and I both buy 20 gallons of unleaded, you for your miserly Honda, me for my gas-guzzling Expedition (or whatever is the biggest baddest these days). We both pay the same amount of tax on this purchase. We both have equal driving patterns and mileage; but because I have to fill up again in, oh, about 15 minutes, I'll pay more tax than you will, right?
Ok, I think that's fair. But if we are charged by the mile we drive, which is equal, then you get no bonus for a more eco-friendly car (or I get no penalty for a guzzler, depending on how you look at it).
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's quite the list there.
And it did nothing to answer my basic statement -your assertation that paramedics, who are not investigators, are scanning car black boxes and using that information for some nefarious purpose. I suppose it would be conceivably possible for a medic to scan one of these to find out how fast a vehicle was going during an accident, that information is marginally useful; but I completely reject what you are saying, and you have given me no reason to think otherwise. I worked for years as a medic - your job on the scene is to take care of the patients. A medic has not the time nor the training to check 'black boxes,' and even if he was doing so, the information would not be too useful. A lawyer in a deposition or trial would simply ask the medic how much training he has in accident investigation, and since the answer is "None," his usefulness to prosecution or plantiff is essentially over (as regards the accident).
Plus, why have medics do this, when the cops are on the scene of every single auto accident involving injury? These are the guys who go to classes on investigation.
Sorry, but your messages, while lengthy and containing plenty of information that is probably quite accurate, shows you might be prone to exagerating causal relationships. You sound like a Linda Thompson accolyte; I half expect you to start in on black helicopters next.
Tell me, AC, while a paramedic - who is a medical person, not an auto mechanic - is on the scene, pulling your busted ass out of your FUBAR car, and hauling you to the hospital, at what point is he able to 'tap' your car's super-secret Way-back-machine?
Must be that blood pressure cuff - I've always been suspicious of those damn things. Anything you can't say fast three times (sphygmomanometer) isn't to be trusted.
No, it doesn't. There is not one bit of credible data to suggest this; plus, the book Silent Spring was a load of horse hooey, and has been shown time and again to be full of inaccuracies.
Not trying to troll here, no, really....
But, having said that, I would be suprised if any of the muslim countries (the ones that allow movies, that is, some don't - any performing arts are 'haram,' and banned, in Saudi Arabia, for example) will allow this movie, for one reason: The name Zion. Fanatics link that name with nation-building in Israel, and we all know how popular *that* is among the Mohommedans, now, don't we?
Ok, just my theory. If its a choice between buying my theory, or a cup of coffee, stick with the coffee.....
That's the class envy that the socialists have been sowing for so long. It appears to be working for some of the less cerebrally developed primates, but I'm not buying it. I am a worker bee. If I invest years of my live, tons of my money and more risk than you can conceive of to build a business, and it does well, why should you get a piece of my hard labor just because you think you deserve it?
Period.
No, sorry, the UN is an irrelevent has-been and the US should just throw up its hands and get out.
Which Saddam caused. He knew what he needed to do to lift those santions; he chose not to do so. Those sanctions allowed enough money to be had for food and medicine. He instead built palace after palace, bought car after car (hey, at least the Germans were getting paid). No one disagrees that Iraq spent years being abused; but for to assert it was due to anyone other than Saddam and Co., is ridiculous.Look, basically, it all boils down to this ideology: You have what I want, so I am going to get everyone together who has less, and we're going to take what you have by force or threat of force.
Its immoral. You can bitch all you want about 'the rich,' but socialism is a greater evil. I can't stand Ted Turner, but I don't think I deserve a piece of his pie; he's worked for years to build it, f-d up colorized movies and all. To think that a person who works hard should be penalized to pay for those who don't, well, that's just idiotic.
I have read Marx, and socialism is a parasitic worm that eats the character of the people from the inside out. Sounds good on paper, doesn't work well when you put in the human element.
First, the constitution has been bastardized many times by judges who want to be legislators. Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean shit.
Second, you read Miller completely wrong. The judicial 'finding' said that sawed off shotguns may be disallowed for private use because they have no military use; that is, since the army can't use it, a private citizen can't own it.
Third, the courts have said, time and time and time again, that "the people" mentioned in the 2nd amendment is the same "the people" mentioned in so many of the other 10 bills of rights. That is, the common man. Just think, how stupid it would be, for that one amendment to mean 'state rights,' when buried in a section limiting state powers.
Nice try, thanks for playing.
You still didn't refute his arguments, for the simple reason that you CAN'T. Face it, tyrants and tinpot dictators like having unarmed opposition; just like rapists and so on down the line. Who does the schoolyard bully pick on? The kid he can beat. Not the kid 5 years older, 50lbs heavier, and a damn sight meaner. Tyrants are the same, they just get to wear cool hats.
Source here. I particularly like what the Dalai Lama says.
I wish 2 things: that you had not done this AC, so I could friend list you, and that I had mod points to give. That was well put. Sometimes its hard to argue with the stupid, but you did a good job.
It is not required to have a guarantee on a piece of paper to have natural born rights. Its nice to see it codified, but not necessary.
However, you are ignorant of recent (last 20-30 years) history if you think that an armed populace doesn't do any good. And, where in the constitution does it give a sunset clause? "The rights of the people, until such time as the military is really kick-ass with laser guided bombs and shit, shall not be infringed."
Nope, just checked, it doesn't say that. So, until there is another amendmend appealing the 2nd, I guess it means what I and the NRA and GOA say it mean!
Luckily, the guys who wrote the 2nd amendment didn't work/live in a vaccuum... they left tons of writings on why they believed the things they fought for. Read up on it a bit; I've got a standard $100 bet with acquaintances who are anti-2nd amendment that they can't find one instance of a constitution framer arguing for collective rights in firearms ownership, as opposed to individual rights, which it most certainly is.
Well.... not to pick nits, but...
Bill Clinton was not convicted by the Senate. He still was impeached.
You don't even know what the word 'disenfranchisement' means. What, that they didn't get their bread and circuses?
Face it. Bush won. Narrowly, embarrassingly (for the country, not just for Repubs), but he won. The ballot in question was approved by the Democrats, the largest number of ballots 'thrown out' came from military voters overseas, who vote more Repub than Dem...... Geez, dude, it just goes on and on.
I tend to agree with that. Plus, once I move back to the US, I plan on purchasing a big-ass diesel pick-em-up-truck, and fueling with biodiesel. I don't think a person who is using precious petroleum should be dinged for that, do you?
Uhm.... (scratching head)
I honestly don't get this.....
Ok, lets say that you and I both buy 20 gallons of unleaded, you for your miserly Honda, me for my gas-guzzling Expedition (or whatever is the biggest baddest these days). We both pay the same amount of tax on this purchase. We both have equal driving patterns and mileage; but because I have to fill up again in, oh, about 15 minutes, I'll pay more tax than you will, right?
Ok, I think that's fair. But if we are charged by the mile we drive, which is equal, then you get no bonus for a more eco-friendly car (or I get no penalty for a guzzler, depending on how you look at it).
How is that fair?
Or maybe I should RFTA?