I have an idea... let's just make her Ambassador to Lybia and station her in Benghazi for a few years. If she does OK there, we'll see what difference it makes and if it improves her public image.
That will happen when the party in office reaches the capability to completely manipulate opponents, the media and citizens through intel gained via NSA surveillance tools like PRISM. At that point, the last party shift will occur at the presidency, then congress and the supreme court will align to whichever party holds that office.
Sad times are ahead if we cannot change this road before us.
Hmmm. What message are they giving here?
Parabellum, n
Definition: a type of semiautomatic pistol or machine-gun; also called Luger, also written parabellum
Etymology: Latin 'for war'
Wow... where to start...
Semi-auto machine gun. Semi-auto is one shot per trigger pull. Machine guns are capable of full-auto fire. Semi-autos are not.
No, Parabellum isn't a pistol of any sort. There's a pistol cartridge (9x19, 9mm Luger) that's also known as 9mm Parabellum. It's extremely common around the world.
Yes, parabellum is Latin. But the word pre-dated its use in ammunition. Obviously.
"bellum" is latin for war. Antebellum (as in after the war) and Parabellum (as in "with" or "in a war").
The connections that you so poorly tried to establish are as bad as the guys that are trying to say that because the Nazi's used 9mm Parabellum in WWII, that this is a link between the GOP and Nazis. Either way, it's just bad politics when people try to make up any type of a connection imaginable to discredit the other team. Before you try and guess, no, I'm not a fan of the GOP. I'm also not a fan of people adding mud to the murky waters of political debate.
Now, can't we drop the silly little kids games and the forget the my-team vs your-team while real issues get discussed?
To be fair, I think the guy should be removed from office. The problem as I see it is that Congress demands that every appointee be removed if they make any mistake, no matter how minor or (as in this case) serious. Meanwhile, some appointees can never get approved under any circumstances.
Given that environment, I can see why Obama won't fire the guy. There's a chance Obama would not get a replacement confirmed by the end of his term.
The whole process, and most everyone involved in it, sucks all around.
Really?
God forbid that the parties compromise to find a non-partisan appointee.
Dunno about CP but Paul Broun is my congress critter and he's currently giving away an AK-15 to promote gun rights. I entered the drawing. Not that I particularly want it, but I'd rather I have it where I know I can stick it in a gun safe than have someone else in my neighborhood have it.
Typical Authoritarian who self-labels as "Liberal".
"I can have it, but you can't be trusted with it" mentality is evident in your post.
Reference to an "AK-15": shows a lack of understanding the facts by inadvertently combining the AR-15 and AK-47 names into one.
Sounds like the California politician who says things like "30 Clip Magazines"
Not to mention even the term "gun control" is biased and is based on the false premise that prohibiting possession prevents crime.
No one promotes "pen control" measures to prevent accounting fraud.
No one promotes "spoon control" measures to combat obesity.
No one promotes "penis control" measures to prevent rape.
It's the same with the term "gun violence"
We don't have "pen fraud", "spoon calories", or "penis rape".
I agree, it's a technology issue and has strong parallels to other issues like rights to privacy, encryption, 3D printers, intellectual property and science. For those who don't see these parallels, then maybe you're not fully digesting the content that you're taking in from Slashdot.
Hold the phone here: The constitution says that we have the right to own and possess guns, yet makes no mention of the right to sell them. I'm actually 100% positive what Chicago did here was not illegal
That's akin to saying that the constitution allows for free speech, but not for the pre-requisite air.
The voracious supporters of democracy and freedom in the West are more radical and virulent than 20th century International Communists when it comes to spreading their ideology. China has every right to to be concerned, especially when bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to the rest of the world means bombing campaigns, land invasions, and subservience to Western central banks.
Wow, for a brief moment there, I thought that you weren't condoning censorship.
Good use of the halo-effect/devil-effect in making the East's censorship look justified by calling out the West's evils.
Uncensored corruption is of course bad, but censorship doesn't suddenly make the censors' intentions or methods a good thing.
Let me simplify: Censorship = still bad.
He did not hijack your meeting. It was always his. Get over yourself.
It's not his government. It never was his. It belongs to the citizens. The man that you're defending has gone against the constitution and the will of the people. Get over yourself.
Bush and Obama have made a mockery of the constitution. Both parties are trampling our rights and everyone seems to overlook their own party's evils while they're ready to attack the other with pitchforks and torches.
Does this mean that one may use this precedent as a defense when one publishes the campaign damaging phone records of the politically elite? If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then why not?
Republicans don't want free-market.
Democrats don't want free-market.
They both want different lobbys to pay them (in campaign donations) for the "privilege" of not being encumbered by regulations of the other party.
Libertarians (both big "L" and little "l") generally want free-markets.
Industry has been pouring billions into research. How is $120 million over five years going to do anything?
Anyone who invents a technology ( and production process to keep it cheap ) to get a 5x improvement will be a billionaire over night. If you are going to do this, do it right and spend some real money. How about 250 million a year over 5 years? btw. The if the US government pays for it, the US government should patent everything and get a 5x return for the taxpayers.
The consumer/taxpayer gets money taken out of their paycheck for federal income taxes for R&D. The government would spend the money on research and development. Once developed and patented, the government would collect royalties on the patent from the corporations who would pass the cost on to the consumer in the cost of products and services.
Once again, the consumer takes it in the rear. I say let industry continue to pour money into research and leave out the government middle-man.
What about deprivation of rights under color of law? They've already confirmed that 4th amendment protected rights were violated. Now, we're just talking about how to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.
18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law:
That's asinine. Gasoline has beneficial uses while guns are a "tool" with a single purpose: killing. The only useful purpose for a gun is sustenance hunting, and even that is completely unnecessary in our society.
I shoot 3-gun competitions. I've yet to see anything get killed at one. Actually, any unsafe behavior will get you DQ'd and kicked out. It's a very fun and social sport. It improves hand-eye coordination, memory and awareness.
I also help farmers with pest control. Since January, we've eliminated over 150 of this invasive, non-native species. We use semi-auto AR-15s. Sometimes, we take the meat, but the main purpose is to protect the farmland to keep food costs as low as possible.
I also carry concealed. I've had friends who have been raped and mugged with no ability to defend themselves. I carry a pistol to protect my life and my family. The purpose is protection, not killing. Killing may be a side-effect, but the choice is not mine at that point, it's the choice of the aggressor that's willing to put me into a position where I feel that my family's life is in danger.
I shoot long range precision rifle. It's a great competitive challenge in many ways. From loading the ammo, to adjusting to environmental conditions and researching to reduce the variables, it's a very rewarding hobby that improves focus, math and concentration skills.
Guns can kill. They can be both a tool of first aggression and a tool of defense. That's the nature of a tool. If you ban one because of its potential uses, then you may as well bad the 3D printer because of its potential uses. Banning something because of what someone considers its "primary" uses is just as asinine. A criminal bent on killing 100s of people isn't going to stop his plans to burn down a library with molotov cocktails just because gasoline's main purpose isn't destruction.
I don't expect you to admit it here AC. But you need to do some research. Go look at the other uses of guns instead of regurgitating an argument posited by someone else who doesn't know any better. The point about gasoline is that there are many other items that can cause death and destruction.
The facts of the G.Zimmerman case are impossible to know (unless you're one of the two involved, it's hearsay). Had he not owned, he may have died with his head bashed in on the pavement or he may have decided to stay home.
What about the 71 year old "self-defender & concealed carrier" in FL a few weeks ago. Had he not owned a gun, that could have been much harder and uglier.
The gun store owners informed the ATF that these large purchases seemed suspicious. The ATF told them to complete the sale.
Question: While it is not uncommon in law enforcement to let the item "walk" usually, there's a mechanism in place in advance to track the item. What was the mechanism that the ATF operation was going to use? I've not heard anyone state how they were going to track these weapons (no transmitters, they stopped agents from following them). How was it ever supposed to work?
Step 1: Push gun dealers to complete sales to suspicious individuals
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Intercept and arrest the big shots
My position that libertarians are laughable to claim the title 'reason' exclusively for themselves?
I make no claim to the title 'reason' and I'm a libertarian. Maybe you're using inductive reasoning. Perhaps, just the libertarians that you know are unreasonable, emotion-driven and all of the other negatives that your stereotype describes.
Its as based as much on data as it possible could be, seeing as its my opinion. Again, your cargo-cult imitation of rationality does not impress.
As for that crap you posted. Murder rates in the US a Soviet conspiracy? Please, that is conspiracy nut bullshit.
I don't know of any conspiracy nuts at Harvard, but it's possible that they could be there and publishing papers. The paper doesn't claim that the Soviets skewed murder rates in the US. Read it closer. It's very reasonable to think that the Soviet Union did suppress homicide data without it being conspiracy nut bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
I have an idea... let's just make her Ambassador to Lybia and station her in Benghazi for a few years. If she does OK there, we'll see what difference it makes and if it improves her public image.
I predict the "Surveillance Singularity" is near.
That will happen when the party in office reaches the capability to completely manipulate opponents, the media and citizens through intel gained via NSA surveillance tools like PRISM. At that point, the last party shift will occur at the presidency, then congress and the supreme court will align to whichever party holds that office.
Sad times are ahead if we cannot change this road before us.
Hmmm. What message are they giving here? Parabellum, n Definition: a type of semiautomatic pistol or machine-gun; also called Luger, also written parabellum Etymology: Latin 'for war'
Wow... where to start...
Semi-auto machine gun. Semi-auto is one shot per trigger pull. Machine guns are capable of full-auto fire. Semi-autos are not.
No, Parabellum isn't a pistol of any sort. There's a pistol cartridge (9x19, 9mm Luger) that's also known as 9mm Parabellum. It's extremely common around the world.
Yes, parabellum is Latin. But the word pre-dated its use in ammunition. Obviously.
"bellum" is latin for war.
Antebellum (as in after the war) and Parabellum (as in "with" or "in a war").
The connections that you so poorly tried to establish are as bad as the guys that are trying to say that because the Nazi's used 9mm Parabellum in WWII, that this is a link between the GOP and Nazis. Either way, it's just bad politics when people try to make up any type of a connection imaginable to discredit the other team.
Before you try and guess, no, I'm not a fan of the GOP. I'm also not a fan of people adding mud to the murky waters of political debate.
Now, can't we drop the silly little kids games and the forget the my-team vs your-team while real issues get discussed?
...Because the president has never decided to ignore legally passed congressional legislation before?
3 Important attributes of a law that lawmakers want you to confuse:
Its facade (what they want you to think it does).
Its goal (what they wanted it to do).
Its consequences (what it actually does).
Evaluate for all 3, determine their deltas and vote accordingly.
To be fair, I think the guy should be removed from office. The problem as I see it is that Congress demands that every appointee be removed if they make any mistake, no matter how minor or (as in this case) serious. Meanwhile, some appointees can never get approved under any circumstances.
Given that environment, I can see why Obama won't fire the guy. There's a chance Obama would not get a replacement confirmed by the end of his term.
The whole process, and most everyone involved in it, sucks all around.
Really?
God forbid that the parties compromise to find a non-partisan appointee.
Dunno about CP but Paul Broun is my congress critter and he's currently giving away an AK-15 to promote gun rights. I entered the drawing. Not that I particularly want it, but I'd rather I have it where I know I can stick it in a gun safe than have someone else in my neighborhood have it.
Typical Authoritarian who self-labels as "Liberal".
"I can have it, but you can't be trusted with it" mentality is evident in your post.
Reference to an "AK-15": shows a lack of understanding the facts by inadvertently combining the AR-15 and AK-47 names into one.
Sounds like the California politician who says things like "30 Clip Magazines"
Not to mention even the term "gun control" is biased and is based on the false premise that prohibiting possession prevents crime.
No one promotes "pen control" measures to prevent accounting fraud.
No one promotes "spoon control" measures to combat obesity.
No one promotes "penis control" measures to prevent rape.
It's the same with the term "gun violence"
We don't have "pen fraud", "spoon calories", or "penis rape".
I agree, it's a technology issue and has strong parallels to other issues like rights to privacy, encryption, 3D printers, intellectual property and science. For those who don't see these parallels, then maybe you're not fully digesting the content that you're taking in from Slashdot.
Hold the phone here: The constitution says that we have the right to own and possess guns, yet makes no mention of the right to sell them. I'm actually 100% positive what Chicago did here was not illegal
That's akin to saying that the constitution allows for free speech, but not for the pre-requisite air.
The voracious supporters of democracy and freedom in the West are more radical and virulent than 20th century International Communists when it comes to spreading their ideology. China has every right to to be concerned, especially when bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to the rest of the world means bombing campaigns, land invasions, and subservience to Western central banks.
Wow, for a brief moment there, I thought that you weren't condoning censorship. Good use of the halo-effect/devil-effect in making the East's censorship look justified by calling out the West's evils. Uncensored corruption is of course bad, but censorship doesn't suddenly make the censors' intentions or methods a good thing. Let me simplify: Censorship = still bad.
This story is so Tinfoil hat.
He did not hijack your meeting. It was always his. Get over yourself.
It's not his government. It never was his. It belongs to the citizens. The man that you're defending has gone against the constitution and the will of the people. Get over yourself. Bush and Obama have made a mockery of the constitution. Both parties are trampling our rights and everyone seems to overlook their own party's evils while they're ready to attack the other with pitchforks and torches.
So, this video now becomes either a comedy sketch, or a sad commentary about crony capitalism... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUIP9NGsH9o
viola = raped, the word you are thinking about is voila.
I knew there was a good reason that I prefer cellos over violas for some reason.
Does this mean that one may use this precedent as a defense when one publishes the campaign damaging phone records of the politically elite? If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then why not?
Republicans don't want free-market.
Democrats don't want free-market.
They both want different lobbys to pay them (in campaign donations) for the "privilege" of not being encumbered by regulations of the other party.
Libertarians (both big "L" and little "l") generally want free-markets.
Were these black boys left loose once they claimed a "stand your ground" defense? No? Thought so.
You do know that "stand your ground" wasn't applied on the Zimmerman case, right?
In all seriousness, shouldn't we use it to tag the politicians who use drone attacks?
Do you imply that it would be better if only the wealthy (and criminals who steal their guns) could afford them?
Industry has been pouring billions into research. How is $120 million over five years going to do anything?
Anyone who invents a technology ( and production process to keep it cheap ) to get a 5x improvement will be a billionaire over night. If you are going to do this, do it right and spend some real money. How about 250 million a year over 5 years? btw. The if the US government pays for it, the US government should patent everything and get a 5x return for the taxpayers.
The consumer/taxpayer gets money taken out of their paycheck for federal income taxes for R&D. The government would spend the money on research and development. Once developed and patented, the government would collect royalties on the patent from the corporations who would pass the cost on to the consumer in the cost of products and services.
Once again, the consumer takes it in the rear. I say let industry continue to pour money into research and leave out the government middle-man.
What about deprivation of rights under color of law? They've already confirmed that 4th amendment protected rights were violated. Now, we're just talking about how to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.
18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
That's asinine. Gasoline has beneficial uses while guns are a "tool" with a single purpose: killing. The only useful purpose for a gun is sustenance hunting, and even that is completely unnecessary in our society.
I shoot 3-gun competitions. I've yet to see anything get killed at one. Actually, any unsafe behavior will get you DQ'd and kicked out. It's a very fun and social sport. It improves hand-eye coordination, memory and awareness.
I also help farmers with pest control. Since January, we've eliminated over 150 of this invasive, non-native species. We use semi-auto AR-15s. Sometimes, we take the meat, but the main purpose is to protect the farmland to keep food costs as low as possible.
I also carry concealed. I've had friends who have been raped and mugged with no ability to defend themselves. I carry a pistol to protect my life and my family. The purpose is protection, not killing. Killing may be a side-effect, but the choice is not mine at that point, it's the choice of the aggressor that's willing to put me into a position where I feel that my family's life is in danger.
I shoot long range precision rifle. It's a great competitive challenge in many ways. From loading the ammo, to adjusting to environmental conditions and researching to reduce the variables, it's a very rewarding hobby that improves focus, math and concentration skills.
Guns can kill. They can be both a tool of first aggression and a tool of defense. That's the nature of a tool. If you ban one because of its potential uses, then you may as well bad the 3D printer because of its potential uses. Banning something because of what someone considers its "primary" uses is just as asinine. A criminal bent on killing 100s of people isn't going to stop his plans to burn down a library with molotov cocktails just because gasoline's main purpose isn't destruction.
I don't expect you to admit it here AC. But you need to do some research. Go look at the other uses of guns instead of regurgitating an argument posited by someone else who doesn't know any better. The point about gasoline is that there are many other items that can cause death and destruction.
The facts of the G.Zimmerman case are impossible to know (unless you're one of the two involved, it's hearsay). Had he not owned, he may have died with his head bashed in on the pavement or he may have decided to stay home. What about the 71 year old "self-defender & concealed carrier" in FL a few weeks ago. Had he not owned a gun, that could have been much harder and uglier.
The gun store owners informed the ATF that these large purchases seemed suspicious. The ATF told them to complete the sale.
Question: While it is not uncommon in law enforcement to let the item "walk" usually, there's a mechanism in place in advance to track the item. What was the mechanism that the ATF operation was going to use? I've not heard anyone state how they were going to track these weapons (no transmitters, they stopped agents from following them). How was it ever supposed to work?
Step 1: Push gun dealers to complete sales to suspicious individuals
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Intercept and arrest the big shots
My position that libertarians are laughable to claim the title 'reason' exclusively for themselves?
I make no claim to the title 'reason' and I'm a libertarian. Maybe you're using inductive reasoning. Perhaps, just the libertarians that you know are unreasonable, emotion-driven and all of the other negatives that your stereotype describes.
Its as based as much on data as it possible could be, seeing as its my opinion. Again, your cargo-cult imitation of rationality does not impress.
As for that crap you posted. Murder rates in the US a Soviet conspiracy? Please, that is conspiracy nut bullshit.
I don't know of any conspiracy nuts at Harvard, but it's possible that they could be there and publishing papers. The paper doesn't claim that the Soviets skewed murder rates in the US. Read it closer. It's very reasonable to think that the Soviet Union did suppress homicide data without it being conspiracy nut bullshit.