After they've served their time in jail or paid their fine, they should have to register as a spam offender and go to every house in their neighborhood and tell them they are a spam offender.
Miller also wrote Batman: Year One which I think is the basis of this film. So in effect, Miller recreated both the beginning and the ending of Batman's career.
On their whole channel Fox News has one so-called liberal (Alan Colmes). Everything else is neo-con spin. Their shows are not live and they edit out anything that does not support their point-of-view. The only way most of the current media conglomerates will complain is if a liberal buys out Rupert Murdoch and spins Fox News the other direction. Then they will be up in arms and support busting up the monopolies.
What has happened during the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 presidencies is that government agencies that were created to protect the public (FCC and the Dept. of Labor to name 2) are now being used to promote the private sector at the expense of the public. What kept news balanced in the past of the equal-time rule which was abolished during the Reagan administration. Since then journalism has been thrown out of the window in favor of entertainment.
Not that being liberal is a bad thing. I guess if marrying Jane Fonda makes Ted Turner a liberal, James Carville must be conservative because he married Mary Matlin.
They can imply it. In the beginning of "For Your Eyes Only", Bond dispatches a villian that resembles Blofeld (the head of S.P.E.C.T.R.E) even though they don't mention his name or the name of the organization.
James Bond has survived quite nicely without S.P.E.C.T.R.E. If it was up to me I would create an alien scurge that is so bad ass that their main claim to fame is that they completely wiped out the Daleks. This will do two things. It will create a greater challenge to Dr. Who and deny the Nation estate future revenue. It would serve them right.
I meant right not left. There was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and Hillary said that before the Monica Lewinsky affair became public. Read "The Hunting of the President" or see the film made from it. Farenheit 911 is very well documented so there is little that you can call into factual dispute. You may not agree with his conclusions but he didn't doctor the comments from Bush and the others. The main reasons for the war have been disproven and a lot of the intelligence they based their decision to invade on was known to be bogus by the administration because the CIA told them it was. Everything that Chilabi gave them was false and the CIA told the administration not to trust it. Yet they went before the U.N. and offered up this discredited evidence and said there was "NO DOUBT" it was true. No amount of spinning from the right is going dispute those facts.
Why does the right-wing fear Michael Moore? They have Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Oliver North, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel, etc. spreading their propaganda 24-7. When ONE guy comes up with a counter to them they go apeshit. There used to be civil discourse and some respect for the opinions of desenting voices in this country (Like Moore said, Dude, Where's My Country?). When Bill Clinton was in office they spewed their views and no one on the left really challenged them. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they attack anyone who doesn't agree with them. They are hypocrites of the worst magnitude and I agree when someone said that they are RINOS. They are "neocons" and radicals who are moving the Republican party so much to the left that it is going to backfire and they will all have to crawl into the holes they came out of.
It doesn't make sense to rely on just one method of identification. If the owner of the fingerprint is a white, 50 year old, 250 lb. bald man, it should raise alarm bells if a 25 year old 180 lb. Arab passes the fingerprint scan.
Very few policemen get prosecuted for violating people's rights. When was the last time you heard a police shooting was not ruled justified? Police testimony also gets more weight in court simply by the nature of their profession (except for predominantly black juries who know of or have seen the police abuse their authority).
I don't remember anyone voting to make driving a priviledge. I don't recall a grass-roots effort and a march on the state capital demanding driving be a priviledge. I'm pretty sure riding a horse or driving a horse and buggy was a right.
This deserves an amendment to the Constitution more than flag burning or gay marriage. In my opinion, the Constitution should not be used to limit the rights of citizens. It should only be used to limit the power of government over it's citizens.
I haven't heard anyone use the argument that the death penalty deters crime in years. Most people that are for the death penalty are in the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" camp. Or, they'll say, it is a deterant because that guy will never kill again. There is no way you can ever prove it's a deterant because you can't prove a negative. You would have to ask everyone, "Why haven't you ever killed anyone? Is it because of the death penalty?" Most people commit crimes because they think they can get away with it.
That makes no sense. How can giving up your gun obtain "temporary safety"? You have to remember too that guns back then were one-shot flint-locks and that pistols were designed for dueling, not personal protection. Had there been machine guns in his time he might have thought differently.
It's a slippery slope. You give a name. The officer says prove it. You refuse to give him your ID. He arrests you and searches your wallet. If you have no wallet he detains you until your identity can be verified.
If someone is compelled to give their name under the threat of arrest if they don't, isn't that duress and anything they use against you based on your name tainted and bound to be thrown out of court?
Last time I looked the government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and FOR the people. It's mighty nice of them to give us the "privilege" to drive.
Slashdot Mirror
That's Philips with one "l". The other company invented the screwdriver.
After they've served their time in jail or paid their fine, they should have to register as a spam offender and go to every house in their neighborhood and tell them they are a spam offender.
But Gary Oldman is!
Miller also wrote Batman: Year One which I think is the basis of this film. So in effect, Miller recreated both the beginning and the ending of Batman's career.
On their whole channel Fox News has one so-called liberal (Alan Colmes). Everything else is neo-con spin. Their shows are not live and they edit out anything that does not support their point-of-view. The only way most of the current media conglomerates will complain is if a liberal buys out Rupert Murdoch and spins Fox News the other direction. Then they will be up in arms and support busting up the monopolies.
Not that being liberal is a bad thing.
What has happened during the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 presidencies is that government agencies that were created to protect the public (FCC and the Dept. of Labor to name 2) are now being used to promote the private sector at the expense of the public. What kept news balanced in the past of the equal-time rule which was abolished during the Reagan administration. Since then journalism has been thrown out of the window in favor of entertainment.
Not that being liberal is a bad thing. I guess if marrying Jane Fonda makes Ted Turner a liberal, James Carville must be conservative because he married Mary Matlin.
A large percentage of game sales go to rental locations. Last time I checked there was no place where I can rent PC games.
They can imply it. In the beginning of "For Your Eyes Only", Bond dispatches a villian that resembles Blofeld (the head of S.P.E.C.T.R.E) even though they don't mention his name or the name of the organization.
James Bond has survived quite nicely without S.P.E.C.T.R.E. If it was up to me I would create an alien scurge that is so bad ass that their main claim to fame is that they completely wiped out the Daleks. This will do two things. It will create a greater challenge to Dr. Who and deny the Nation estate future revenue. It would serve them right.
I meant right not left. There was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and Hillary said that before the Monica Lewinsky affair became public. Read "The Hunting of the President" or see the film made from it. Farenheit 911 is very well documented so there is little that you can call into factual dispute. You may not agree with his conclusions but he didn't doctor the comments from Bush and the others. The main reasons for the war have been disproven and a lot of the intelligence they based their decision to invade on was known to be bogus by the administration because the CIA told them it was. Everything that Chilabi gave them was false and the CIA told the administration not to trust it. Yet they went before the U.N. and offered up this discredited evidence and said there was "NO DOUBT" it was true. No amount of spinning from the right is going dispute those facts.
Why does the right-wing fear Michael Moore? They have Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Oliver North, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel, etc. spreading their propaganda 24-7. When ONE guy comes up with a counter to them they go apeshit. There used to be civil discourse and some respect for the opinions of desenting voices in this country (Like Moore said, Dude, Where's My Country?). When Bill Clinton was in office they spewed their views and no one on the left really challenged them. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they attack anyone who doesn't agree with them. They are hypocrites of the worst magnitude and I agree when someone said that they are RINOS. They are "neocons" and radicals who are moving the Republican party so much to the left that it is going to backfire and they will all have to crawl into the holes they came out of.
That's funny. When I think of broad band I think of the Go-Gos and The Bangles.
And just like the song, Timothy is a goat!!!
It doesn't make sense to rely on just one method of identification. If the owner of the fingerprint is a white, 50 year old, 250 lb. bald man, it should raise alarm bells if a 25 year old 180 lb. Arab passes the fingerprint scan.
Very few policemen get prosecuted for violating people's rights. When was the last time you heard a police shooting was not ruled justified? Police testimony also gets more weight in court simply by the nature of their profession (except for predominantly black juries who know of or have seen the police abuse their authority).
I don't remember anyone voting to make driving a priviledge. I don't recall a grass-roots effort and a march on the state capital demanding driving be a priviledge. I'm pretty sure riding a horse or driving a horse and buggy was a right.
This deserves an amendment to the Constitution more than flag burning or gay marriage. In my opinion, the Constitution should not be used to limit the rights of citizens. It should only be used to limit the power of government over it's citizens.
I haven't heard anyone use the argument that the death penalty deters crime in years. Most people that are for the death penalty are in the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" camp. Or, they'll say, it is a deterant because that guy will never kill again. There is no way you can ever prove it's a deterant because you can't prove a negative. You would have to ask everyone, "Why haven't you ever killed anyone? Is it because of the death penalty?" Most people commit crimes because they think they can get away with it.
That makes no sense. How can giving up your gun obtain "temporary safety"? You have to remember too that guns back then were one-shot flint-locks and that pistols were designed for dueling, not personal protection. Had there been machine guns in his time he might have thought differently.
It's a slippery slope. You give a name. The officer says prove it. You refuse to give him your ID. He arrests you and searches your wallet. If you have no wallet he detains you until your identity can be verified.
If someone is compelled to give their name under the threat of arrest if they don't, isn't that duress and anything they use against you based on your name tainted and bound to be thrown out of court?
Last time I looked the government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and FOR the people. It's mighty nice of them to give us the "privilege" to drive.
That's like saying if you having nothing to hide, you shouldn't care if the police search your car or your house anytime they feel like it.