You're kidding me! When I tried to have something copied at Kinko's, they said that they couldn't copy it because it looked professionally done. I said, no shit! Of course it is professionally done! I'm a professional, you dumb mother-fucker! Apparently, they won't copy anything that looks good enough to come from "approved channels". Fuck Kinkos! Anyone who can score a headshot on Brian D. Philips has my eternal gratitude.
It is still interesting that your link is filled with H.P. Lovecraft qoutes. It's one of those dichotomies I have. On the one hand, I think his stories are wonderful and fantastic. On the other hand, both his stories and his written opinions clearly show a definite racism and fear of miscegenation. He would likely have tried to kill me for merely existing.
Right wing republicans want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law - very much indistinguisable from the likes of the Taliban.
Can you give an actual example of a Conservative Republican who wants that?
He said "Right wing republicans" not "Conservative Republicans"! Believe it or not, there is a significant difference. As to examples of Right wing republicans would want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law:
1. Pat Robertson
2. James Dobson
3. Newt Gingrich
4. Rush Limbaugh
5. All the Bushes
6. Jimmy Swaggart
And so on...
Ahh there's that tolerance everyone on the left said was missing during the Bush years. I feel so accepted for my differing viewpoints. Really.
One thing your obviously feeble mind doesn't grasp is this: If you wanted to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that evolution was a load of bullocks, and so on, liberal minded people in general would not have a problem with this. Live and let live. The problem is you stupid fucknuts trying to force *everyone else* to either believe or at least publicly profess (on pain of imprisonment or death) your particular view of things.
You, on the other hand, will be bitterly eating crow and whining about how it all sucks and will be falling apart any day now.
I think you are too optimistic. He and other Repugs will still be thinking of ways to argue that everything sucks and we're all going to hell in a handbasket (the fact that Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of a handbasket manufacturer is, of course, a complete coincidence). No matter how much their neo-con ideology is shown to be complete garbage, they will still cling to it like a creationist clinging to the Piltdown Man.
Sure there's potential for abuse, but quite frankly that's what the checks and balances of the justice system are there for.
Well, therein lies the problem. I do actually agree with you in theory. However, the potential for abuse in a program like this is far too great, and there do not appear to be adequate checks and balances on this program. Yes, enlisting the community to crack down on crime can be very useful. In fact, it can even help cement community bonds in an age where people tend to live their isolated lives. The problems are (1) busy bodies trying to get rid of "undesirables" and (2) the vast proliferation of absurd laws. Instead of busting someone for assault, people will wind up busting someone for scratching their nuts in a public place.
If we have districts full of Americans that are stupid enough to elect a convicted felon or a deceased candidate
Well, in all fairness, the deceased candidate was running against John Ashcroft. Who do you elect, a corpse or John Ashcroft? Not much of a contest really.
I figure that, if this guy can somehow think that putting porn in a court filing is a good idea
It wasn't just porn, but gay porn. He was basically trying to shock the judge. Of course, considering that he actually took the time to collect and organize a collection of gay porn says a lot about the guy. Not that there's anything wrong with it, mind you. It's just that he really should come out of the closet.
Sometimes I think we should just revoke the right altogether for a few years.
Actually, this is more along the lines of my idea. Copyrights served a useful purpose before, but now they are seen by Corporations as actual property and something they should have forever. So, what we should do is:
1. Abolish copyright for 20 years - everything goes into the public domain
2. After 20 years, restore copyright to a 14 year term. It was good enough in the 18th century when it took months, if not years, to get your novel distributed widely. So, it should be good enough in this century when your books can be available to the whole world in print form in a matter of days.
3. Setting the copyright term to 14 years will be by Constitutional amendment. That way, it is really difficult to screw around with.
4. ???
5. Freedom!
If they fired off a nuke missile, it would get shot down before it even had a chance to blow up any neighboring country. It's not about having the most powerful weapon, it's about having the most powerful defense as it renders all offense useless during such times.
Actually, it's not even that. Let's say Libya has the only nuclear weapon left in the world and there is nothing we can do to stop them from using. They use it to blow up a city. Now, no one has nuke. Next, we carpet bomb the shit out of every city in Libya.
Before the U.S. developed the nuke, cities were still being routinely destroyed in WWII. The difference is that we were able to destroy a city with *one bomb* instead of having to use an entire raid, like at Dresden.
If only we could mount these on fast, nimble naval platforms...Sharks maybe?
Nah. Sharks are too predictable. It would be better to mount them on dolphins. Not only are they more intelligent, but they smile and let out a cute laugh before vaporizing their targets.
The new tactics of war are about guerrilla battles, and small nimble forces that can wear down the enemy overtime.
I would say that it is the latest effective tactic of war. It is certainly not new. The Spanish used insurgency tactics to keep Napolean unbalanced, and is one of the main causes of his ultimate downfall. He had to keep diverting troops and supplies to a country he thought he had already conquered instead of using them elsewhere.
And then, of course, you have the Jews during the Roman occupation that always kept them busy.
Yeah, but any idea what happened to Marie Antoinette after she adopted this very attitude?
Unfortunately, this is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we should try to patent a method of increasing democracy through the assassination of CEOs.
We're already knee deep in this shit in Canada. (Google "Richard Warman" and "human rights commission".)
Ye Gods! Richard Warman (talk about an appropriate name) is the biggest fucking wanker that ever lived in Canada. Oh yeah, and I hear he fucks freshly killed puppies on a regular basis. (yeah, sue me fucker! I fucking dare you!)
Fuck tha UK comin straight from the underground
A young indian got it bad 'cause I'm brown
I'm not the other color so police think
They have the authority to kill a minority"
Fuck, fuck, fuck the U.K.
Fuck, fuck, fuck the U.K.
Actually, an insult is not an ad hominem attack. He actually responded with facts to all the points OP made. The fact that he then called him an idiot does not change this.
I suppose if I said 2+2=4 you moron, you would then believe I was wrong because I called you a moron?
On the other hand, your title statement "Just like an environazi" is ad hominem since you are basically saying that, since he is an environmentalist, anything he says must be wrong.
Actually, that is a good analogy. Charging the girl who took naked pictures of herself is like charging a 15 year-old who masturbates with statutory rape.
Someone defined porn as "you know it when you see it"
That would be Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. I find it interesting that a Supreme Court Justice would openly admit to a desire to view porn, but then we do have Mr. Alien Pubic Hair, aka Long Dong Silver afficianado on the Supreme Court.
as I have not seen it I do not know if it is porn so could the prosecutors send me copies so that I can judge?
The girl yesterday was apart from her distribution charges was also charged with possession of child porn. So any child may not have pictures of themselves naked. Hope everyone has burned all their photo albums with the pictures of themselves or children in the tub as infants. Because if you have not, then you are next.
This is a good example of why arguments based on legislative intent are important. The whole purpose behind child porn laws is to prevent children from being sexually exploited by pervs bent on producing the child porn. Unfortunately, dipshits like Antonin "Look at me! I think I'm logical!" Scalia want to get rid of the whole idea of legislative intent, and instead argue that you should only look at the text of the law to determine intent. I think all the years of working on appeal cases has rotted his brain. Mmmm... Brains!
Is no one here reminded of the floating island of Laputa in Gulliver's Travels? You have a bunch of people on a magnetically floating island looking up and worrying about the state of the sun, and thinking that the world is just about to end.
2) On the flip side the 13 year old girl could have reasonably told them to 'fuck off' and left. If they tried to stop her then they would be dealing with harassment and assault charges
Unfortunately, someone who is 13 years old is usually used to submitting to authority figures, especially in our increasingly dictatorial school environment. Like in Tinker v. Des Moines, children do not give up their constitutional rights at the school house gate. But, you need to know your rights in order to exercise them. School officials generally want children to think that they have no rights and use their "authority" to bully them.
Personally, I think these school officials should be put on the sex offenders database. They probably get off on the idea that they can strip search a thirteen year-old. They shouldn't even be allowed near children, let alone allowed to teach them!
Slashdot Mirror
You're kidding me! When I tried to have something copied at Kinko's, they said that they couldn't copy it because it looked professionally done. I said, no shit! Of course it is professionally done! I'm a professional, you dumb mother-fucker! Apparently, they won't copy anything that looks good enough to come from "approved channels". Fuck Kinkos! Anyone who can score a headshot on Brian D. Philips has my eternal gratitude.
Indeed, it is Barrack, as in military barracks. Because he is going to fix all our housing problems.
It is still interesting that your link is filled with H.P. Lovecraft qoutes. It's one of those dichotomies I have. On the one hand, I think his stories are wonderful and fantastic. On the other hand, both his stories and his written opinions clearly show a definite racism and fear of miscegenation. He would likely have tried to kill me for merely existing.
Unitary Executive, not Unitarian! If Bush were a Unitarian executive, he would be far more open minded ^_^.
He said "Right wing republicans" not "Conservative Republicans"! Believe it or not, there is a significant difference. As to examples of Right wing republicans would want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law:
1. Pat Robertson
2. James Dobson
3. Newt Gingrich
4. Rush Limbaugh
5. All the Bushes
6. Jimmy Swaggart
And so on...
One thing your obviously feeble mind doesn't grasp is this: If you wanted to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that evolution was a load of bullocks, and so on, liberal minded people in general would not have a problem with this. Live and let live. The problem is you stupid fucknuts trying to force *everyone else* to either believe or at least publicly profess (on pain of imprisonment or death) your particular view of things.
I think you are too optimistic. He and other Repugs will still be thinking of ways to argue that everything sucks and we're all going to hell in a handbasket (the fact that Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of a handbasket manufacturer is, of course, a complete coincidence). No matter how much their neo-con ideology is shown to be complete garbage, they will still cling to it like a creationist clinging to the Piltdown Man.
Well, therein lies the problem. I do actually agree with you in theory. However, the potential for abuse in a program like this is far too great, and there do not appear to be adequate checks and balances on this program. Yes, enlisting the community to crack down on crime can be very useful. In fact, it can even help cement community bonds in an age where people tend to live their isolated lives. The problems are (1) busy bodies trying to get rid of "undesirables" and (2) the vast proliferation of absurd laws. Instead of busting someone for assault, people will wind up busting someone for scratching their nuts in a public place.
In this dire times the heads of the aristocracy should be used as ammunition for trebuchets.
A priest, a rabbi and a pastor walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What, is this some kind of joke?"
Well, in all fairness, the deceased candidate was running against John Ashcroft. Who do you elect, a corpse or John Ashcroft? Not much of a contest really.
Probably one that writes checks its body can't cash.
It wasn't just porn, but gay porn. He was basically trying to shock the judge. Of course, considering that he actually took the time to collect and organize a collection of gay porn says a lot about the guy. Not that there's anything wrong with it, mind you. It's just that he really should come out of the closet.
Actually, this is more along the lines of my idea. Copyrights served a useful purpose before, but now they are seen by Corporations as actual property and something they should have forever. So, what we should do is:
1. Abolish copyright for 20 years - everything goes into the public domain
2. After 20 years, restore copyright to a 14 year term. It was good enough in the 18th century when it took months, if not years, to get your novel distributed widely. So, it should be good enough in this century when your books can be available to the whole world in print form in a matter of days.
3. Setting the copyright term to 14 years will be by Constitutional amendment. That way, it is really difficult to screw around with.
4. ???
5. Freedom!
Actually, it's not even that. Let's say Libya has the only nuclear weapon left in the world and there is nothing we can do to stop them from using. They use it to blow up a city. Now, no one has nuke. Next, we carpet bomb the shit out of every city in Libya.
Before the U.S. developed the nuke, cities were still being routinely destroyed in WWII. The difference is that we were able to destroy a city with *one bomb* instead of having to use an entire raid, like at Dresden.
Nah. Sharks are too predictable. It would be better to mount them on dolphins. Not only are they more intelligent, but they smile and let out a cute laugh before vaporizing their targets.
I would say that it is the latest effective tactic of war. It is certainly not new. The Spanish used insurgency tactics to keep Napolean unbalanced, and is one of the main causes of his ultimate downfall. He had to keep diverting troops and supplies to a country he thought he had already conquered instead of using them elsewhere.
And then, of course, you have the Jews during the Roman occupation that always kept them busy.
Unfortunately, this is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we should try to patent a method of increasing democracy through the assassination of CEOs.
Ye Gods! Richard Warman (talk about an appropriate name) is the biggest fucking wanker that ever lived in Canada. Oh yeah, and I hear he fucks freshly killed puppies on a regular basis. (yeah, sue me fucker! I fucking dare you!)
A young indian got it bad 'cause I'm brown
I'm not the other color so police think
They have the authority to kill a minority"
Fuck, fuck, fuck the U.K.
Fuck, fuck, fuck the U.K.
Actually, an insult is not an ad hominem attack. He actually responded with facts to all the points OP made. The fact that he then called him an idiot does not change this.
I suppose if I said 2+2=4 you moron, you would then believe I was wrong because I called you a moron?
On the other hand, your title statement "Just like an environazi" is ad hominem since you are basically saying that, since he is an environmentalist, anything he says must be wrong.
Actually, that is a good analogy. Charging the girl who took naked pictures of herself is like charging a 15 year-old who masturbates with statutory rape.
That would be Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. I find it interesting that a Supreme Court Justice would openly admit to a desire to view porn, but then we do have Mr. Alien Pubic Hair, aka Long Dong Silver afficianado on the Supreme Court.
I see you are thinking of the children.
This is a good example of why arguments based on legislative intent are important. The whole purpose behind child porn laws is to prevent children from being sexually exploited by pervs bent on producing the child porn. Unfortunately, dipshits like Antonin "Look at me! I think I'm logical!" Scalia want to get rid of the whole idea of legislative intent, and instead argue that you should only look at the text of the law to determine intent. I think all the years of working on appeal cases has rotted his brain. Mmmm... Brains!
Is no one here reminded of the floating island of Laputa in Gulliver's Travels? You have a bunch of people on a magnetically floating island looking up and worrying about the state of the sun, and thinking that the world is just about to end.
Unfortunately, someone who is 13 years old is usually used to submitting to authority figures, especially in our increasingly dictatorial school environment. Like in Tinker v. Des Moines, children do not give up their constitutional rights at the school house gate. But, you need to know your rights in order to exercise them. School officials generally want children to think that they have no rights and use their "authority" to bully them.
Personally, I think these school officials should be put on the sex offenders database. They probably get off on the idea that they can strip search a thirteen year-old. They shouldn't even be allowed near children, let alone allowed to teach them!