Anonymous picked very highly public targets and bragged about doing so for obvious reasons. The also came out claiming they don't exist and blah blah blah- hence the name. They were actively recruiting and doing a number of things like providing tools to participate in the public lashing of these companies.
So I guess people also shouldn't protest about the warrentless wiretapping and the companies which helped and the government which afterwards declared the whole thing legal and gave the companies involved amnesty?
in the real world "oh we were able to make lots of money doing that" doesn't make all the protesters go away.
It also doesn't make the protesters accurate or informed. The telco's already had immunity from prosecution as the government always presented them a valid authority for the taps. The amnesty came in when protesters were trying to hook a loophole to get rich off the telcos by saying that even though the government pretended to have the lawful right and authority for the wire taps, because they lied, the telcos don't get immunity any more. It wasn't the telco's responsibility or duty under the then existing law to do anything but comply with a government request if it was presented according to existing statute. And in case you are wondering, that means presented with papers stating a legal authority either by warrant or one of the various means a warrant wasn't necessary exists and they had a right to the information sought. It doesn't mean whether or not those papers or means were legal or illegal.
Companies answer to shareholders and have to do what they feel is best for the company. You don't know what kind of pressure they received from the government and what impact NOT blocking wikileak payments would have had on them.
Actually, we do know what impact it could have on these companies. It's illegal to do business with criminals or criminal organizations when your business with them enables or conceals the criminal activity. This has been part of the standard organized crime legislation for years. So as soon as government officials started claiming Wikileak's actions violated US law, Whether they prosecuted or not, those companies had to evaluate if their business with them was in violation of the law or not. And seeing how most of the business done with wikileaks is done to the extend of allowing them to continue to operate in the ways the illegality was claimed, they were exposed to prosecution too.
Seriously, why resort to guessing what people are thinking and trying to assume it's the worse when you can just look at the laws already on the books. In the least, the US could prosecute companies who's business allows the claimed criminal activity to continue and even if they didn't prosecute wikileaks, those companies would have to prove that either their business didn't allow the activity to continue or prove wikileaks wasn't repeatedly violating the law. Either way, it's a lose lose situation for them.
Try telling wikileaks that the government pressuring businesses to censor because it would be illegal for them to do it directly is fine and not a serious breach of the constitution.
Despite there being little to no evidence outside of innuendo wishful thinking of that ever happening, since when has it ever been a moral or legal right to commit a crime because someone that doesn't directly influence you committed one that didn't directly influence you?
Two wrongs don't make a Right. Three rights make a left however.
And yet none of them go after the real perpetrators, it would seem.
Maybe this is only perception and the level of stupidity associated with the crime. You see, most organized (or otherwise) criminals don't want their name associated with a crime nor do they want publicity about the crime. This is especially true if they want to repeat the offense.Some do, and they get caught. So they take steps to hide the entire fact that a crime has happened in the first place in order to be able to commit the crime again and again. What happened here is sort of a complete reversal. These idiots wanted the publicity because it served their purpose. So obviously, when you depart from the entire, I hope no one ever finds out about this line and go with the I hope everyone see this, you are going to attract more eyes to looking for who is behind it and hence more arrests and accusations to the more publicly known crimes.
You need to cite that "according to the most recent polls"
The majority of citizens want health care reform not obamacare. There is a difference. It's possible to want something and not like the choices you are given. People overwhelmingly rejected the Obama care and you should too. Of course it appears you already know that full well with the rest of your comment about single payer.
Right now, our health care system is simply a bunch of leaches. Now, real leaches have actual medical value, but I am talking about the3 paper pushing, money wasting kind. Too much of our GDP goes to health care. We pay more than any place else in the world, for very mediocre outcomes. Our health care is the most expensive, and amongst the least effective. That is what the free market does, in health care. Socialism just works better for some types of problems that the market can not handle.
And Obamacare does absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to change that except force people to aid the leaches by mandating they purchase health insurance from those leaches and limit health care options by creating essentially a death panel in every sense of the word Palin meant it to be.
This is why people who would have supported health care reform and indicate it by positions in the polls reject Obamacare. It either doesn't do enough or does too much of nothing.
You can't have a free market in health care, people simply do not make rational decisions about health......... Socialism just works better for some types of problems that the market can not handle.
If you really feel that way, then simply amend the US constitution and grant the US government the constitutional authority to get involved in that way. As it sits right now, it doesn't have that constitutional authority and no matter how you attempt to reinterpret the constitution, it will not have it.
And before you go off on how the constitution is just a piece of paper written by old dudes that doesn't have any relevance in today's times, reinterpreting it to allow the federal government to mandate health care coverage and set up a panel to approve and disapprove treatments will erode away other set in stone constitutional protections. Of the arguments I have heard, one of them is that the government has the power to tax. Well OK, if that is true, then a conservative government cold impose a 1 million dollar tax penalty on everyone and give them a deduction if they never have an abortion. The government could impost a 2 million dollar tax penalty on anyone and give them a deduction of they never take their fifth amendment rights against self incrimination. Even worse, they could do that to health care providers and simply penalize them for performing abortions with a prohibitive tax.
Another arguemnt I have heard was that the general welfare clause enables them. Well, again, the abortion argument causes that to fail completely without even getting into the entire concept of that being a perfunctory statement explaining to what end the powers of congress are to be used instead of some all power do anything if they can justify a benefit to the welfare. Roe V wade specifically addressed the point in which government does not have the ability to get involved in the way it tried to and how people are trying to justify the constitutionality of obamacare.
But seriously, I'm against it simply because the US government doesn't have the constitutional power to get involved in the first place. They either follow the constitution, even if that means getting it amended, or everything is up for grabs as it can be rationalized away for anything.
I was under the same impression too. However, the people he was supposedly pissed at where in Washington as the Wacko and Ruby ridge situations is what got his goat. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the OK city building was connected to either of those outside of having the same employer.
Where in the hell did you get anything remotely like that from what I wrote?
McVeigh picked a building based on the propaganda potential, not the victims being connected to his grief. This isn't saying that he was somehow justified or less bad, it's saying there he never attacked the people he was pissed at and instead killed a shit ton of innocents because of some remote connection to the people he was pissed at.
But isn't fusion and fission basically just that? I mean except that one is in use and considered dirty while the other is considered cost prohibitive because of the amount of energy investment we have to throw at it to maintain it safely.
The magic here isn't the same as setting paper on fire, it's that we can now do it for about the same costs of setting the paper on fire.
You see, it took a while to figure that out. Good job at playing the "I'm too fucking stupid" role. It's almost as if you weren't even acting.
And BTW, just in case you really are that fucking stupid, you weren't wrong for questioning the bravery of a white man, you were wrong for expecting either to be brave in the first place- when their acts are that of a coward by default.
And no, those government workers in that federal building had no control over McVeigh's beef with the government whatsoever at all. McVeigh picked the building to bomb because of it's open space around the building would provide better photo opportunities for propaganda purposes and a couple other things like the glass front and parking lots.
I mean seriously, Do you even remotely check into the shit you spew before attempting to troll? If there was even one grain of truth, you might have been taken seriously. Now, you just look like a complete idiot.
No, his argument is that the OK city bombing didn't fit the set criteria for the statement made.
And to your point about crazy terrorists, are you really going to assign a value of bravery to people who fucking kill innocents in order to effect some unrelated agenda? I mean seriously, at best, with a clear concious, you can say one is more effective then the other or that one is smarter then the other because they remain alive, but you can't say brave in any sense as they were all too chicken to take the fight to the people specifically behind their issues of redress. Instead, they attacked drones who have nothing to do with it and no way of effecting the issue except by the weight of their death laying on the conscious of someone who probably doesn't care in the first place.
People like you really should think before showing the world how ignorant you can be.
Yes, besides, if you do criticize Islam, they will kill you. Well, call for your death.. if they don't succeed, the first isn't necessarily not true, just not succesful.
He doesn't have to be black, that's just the way I originally heard the joke 20 some years ago when I was going to jail for a week at age 18 for public drunkenness.
If the police tell you to do something, it should be legal for you because the police officer is an authority figure relative to you.
This is only true insomuch as you know the person is the police at the time of the order and that they were working within their official capacity.
Everyone knows there are things the cops can't make you do. For instance, they can't pull you over for speeding and make you rape the next person that passes by. That's just obviously ludicrous. But here, we are expected to believe that someone entered a public forum as a disguised person and stirred the emotions in an attempt to promote illicit behavior.
This being the internet as the public forum, but in almost any other situation like a real live in person protest or when speaking to a crowd in the town square, if you did the same, you would be up on charges of inciting a riot (at least in the US) or the equivalent. You could possibly get conspiracy charges. These officers should be held accountable to the same standards as anyone else in that situation, and if it's found that it was ordered by their superiors, then they should face it too.
Notice how I didn't say instead? I'll get to why in a moment.
In a similar fashion, if a police captain orders an officer to kill someone illegally, then the captain should go to jail, not the officer (unless the officer should have had reason to reject the order).
No, it should be the officer_and_the Captain. You see, in free societies, you are typically responsible for your own actions no matter who made you do it. There are a couple of defenses surrounding necessity but for the most part, if you do something illegal, you could be charged with that crime unless some other rule of law preempts it (self defense, the defense of another life and so on are typically enough to get all charged dropped and they are a form of necessity).
Anyways, Lets say I'm next in line to be captain, if I wasn't responsible for my own actions, then I could just kill someone and say the captain told me to. Get a fellow officer to back me up by promising a promotion and raise and it's the word of two police officers who are apparently spilling their guts against his commander who is denying anything except for someone was killed. But if I'm still responsible for my own actions, then I can save a life by not killing the guy in the first place because I don't want to sit in the same prisons I put people in.
This is why someone who incited illegal behavior, be it a riot, any action that causes the death of someone or whatever, should not be the sole carrier of the punishment. The act, whatever it was, could only succeed if people are willing to participate and they will be a lot more willing to participate if what amounts to an "he made me do it, go after him instead" defense is set into law. Keep all parties responsible to their own actions. And take the police of any public authority that encourages, enables, promote, incites, or does anything outside of normal every day duties to aid or encourage illegal behavior, and make it a felony or worse crime.
There is no need for the people who are supposed to be making us safe, to attempt to make us unsafe in their line of work. They will argue that it's necessary to see who the trouble makers are and get them under control early before there is trouble. In the states, we call this behavior entrapment and it pretty much invalidates the arrests as well as leaves openings for civil suits.
TinBromide will be going to the back of D-wing into Bubba's cell all scare and uncertain. Bubba, a 6 foot 7 inch (2.01 meters) tall black man weighing in at about 310 pounds (140.61 kg) and all muscle with a 6th grade education, is going to smile at him allowing TinBromide to relax a little although in a creepy kind of way.
Then Bubba is gonna say, we's gonna play house. DO you want to be the husband or the wife? Well, Tinbromide starts thinking as shivers of nervousness and a scary feeling that seems like he just escaped death enters his psyche, if it's gotta be this way, I'm going to be the man so he says "I'll be the husband". Just about then, Bubba turned around, pulled his panties down, and said, "alright, now eats my pussy".
So you see, there are fates worse then sex with Bubba. BTW, Bubba is my cousin and writes about all the fun he's having in the slammer all the time.
lol.. Blah, blah, blah. So your measurement of content is saying the least. Well, that explains your intelligence problem. Now go cry about being modded down and act like you don't understand the obvious again.. Whah.....
Only two people know that post was modded "troll" me and the modder - slashdot doesn't show that moderation type to anyone else.
Actually, anyone following the thread would know it was modded because that's how it works. you see a score and if you want to know the mods, you click on it and it shows the mod history for the post. Anyways all that super secret asinine spy shit to see what your post was modded wasn't needed. You see, you cried about it right underneath it. Does "Hah. Hey dipshit who modded my post down" sound familiar? And if you had half the reading comprehension skills you think you do, you would also notice I never said it was modded troll, I said you were crying about being modded down after trolling.
My reply deliberately misrepresented it as an "overrated" mod, not "troll" as a dumbass trap. Look who it caught!
See above, then look in the mirror and then say "I will try not to be an idiot even though it's the most difficult thing to do in my life". Then repeat that ever fucking day you are alive.
So yes, you admitted to doing EXACTLY the same thing you are bitching about here - trying to bring someone else down in order to make yourself feel good.
lol.. I got you all worked up because of your own ignorance. Who's dancing now monkey? This is just so hilarious as your entire premise is based on your own ignorance of how mods work on slashdot. And now you are trying to make a statement that to anyone with half a clue knows is completely false.
What a sad little life you must live - so full of impotent rage, so easily made to dance for my amusement.
You just don't get it do you? lol.. do you really want to play? I mean seriously, think about this. Do you really want to play this game when you obviously don't know how it's played?
I command you: dance another dance of denial and shame-hiding, make me laugh some more!
So you laugh at your own mistakes huh.. That's good because I have been laughing at you too. Face it, you have been completely wrong about everything so far, this is so obvious that your mom should be able to point it out. Now you come on here and make a statement that is so unbelievable stupid that it makes you appear as if you just started surfing slashdot on the interweb last night. The funniest part is that you think you are winning.
I didn't admit to anything. I pointed out that your behavior is not very intelligent as others are telling you by the moderation you are getting. You can't see that and it appears to completely offend you because you start whining about it in threads under yourself.
I know you will continue to only consider what you can imagine in your mind no matter how fallacious it might be, but the dance is being done by you.. Perhaps you should examine the situation a little better.
You know it's interesting. I'm not the one crying about posts being modded down after trolling people. Perhaps you should examine your own life before attempting to tear someone else' down in order to prop your own up.
Oh damn.. did we just get back to what I originally said?
When they keep claiming to be trying to end the conversation than yes, that's exactly what I think.
It would appear then that you think wrong.
When faced with the same "attempt" you jump back in with yet another lame ass claim of some sort that doesn't even begin to touch the topic at hand..
See, above. and repeating what I said doesn't make it anywhere near relevant of accurate for you.
Why didn't you disappear like I commanded you to? Hypocrite.
Unlike me, you added a lot of content to your statement. As I said before, you cannot compare what you did with what I did without showing how utterly ignorant you are. When I ended the conversation, I left your last statement standing and even said let's leave it at that. When you did it, you rambled on about how your inferior mind somehow creates some logic that you believe to be the best thing since sliced bread and that someone makes me in the wrong. You see, that completely different from what I did.
What I did was acknowledge that we weren't going to agree, skipped replying to your comment and stated that we should end the thread. What you did is continue to troll, totally and completely failed to present any clear argument or even remotely relevant discussion to what I had said, then act even more stupid then you have already by intentionally ignoring the obvious. I never commanded you to do anything. You never commanded me to do anything. What I did was fail to continue to argue with you. What you did was completely the opposite.
But hey, it's not like we both can't play your game. How about I start doing the same shit you are. I mean seriously, there's nothing stopping me and your concept is so unoriginal that it was obvious from the second post. It's up to you- I don't really care as I have almost as much time available as you might. I can even save time by recycling your own posts and just pasting the nonsense into threads you are actively engaged in.
If that's what you want, then just tell me. I know words are hard for you to understand and articulate so I'll try to interpret as best I can.
To the simplistic, sufficiently advanced concepts appear as nonsense.
Are you thinking out loud or something? I mean that's a question you should be asking yourself.
You keep posting don't you? Loller, loller, get your lollers here.
You think everytime someone posts something it's because they were provoked? Wow.. Not only are you a troll, you're an idiot trying to troll.
Do motivations and ideas mean anything to you?
Well, they do. Buy you would be a damn liar if you claimed you expressed either.
See how this works, I will 'try' to end the conversation now, "let's just leave it at that and you can disappear like the tool that you are."
Ok, let's leave it at that then. BTW, when I said it, that was all I said. If you somehow think your troll here is remotely similar, you are foolishly wrong.
Maybe it's a native language difference combined with a note of differing legal systems.
It's not that I don't like the ruling, I really don't care about it outside an historical context. But I can hardly say the rule of law prevailed. Here you have a constitution that makes up the government and grants it all of the power the government hold, then a court comes by and says these unwritten rules supersede the document defining your existence as a country.
It has become the rule of law since then, but I wouldn't say the rules of law prevailed. I would attribute it more to the rules of law being ignored as all laws should be plain and obvious and the government should be limited to it also.
BTW, a constitutional amendment wouldn't change anything in regard to this. The US constitution already states they need probable cause and a warrant to search. The court said something outside the US constitution which also claims to be the supreme law of the land, is more important then the US constitution. So essentially, you could amend the constitution all year long as as long as the rights of sovereignty sit over top of it, it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
And why didn't we invade the North? Maybe because we didn't want another Korea . ..? There were limits imposed upon the USA that Johnson and Nixon had to recognize.
Lol.. Don't act like I don't know this. However, knowing this doesn't change the fact that we didn't prosecute the Vietnam war anything like WWII or any other war we have won.
Your suggestion that Russia and China were communist allies is also invalid. There was no communist monolith. Examine the Russo-Chinese border "incidents" of the 1960s.
I didn't say Russia and China were allies with each other. I said they were backing North Vietnam and did so over a period of years that caused the north to be split from Frend Indo China which caused the two nations. I was hoping you would read what I wrote and be clever enough not to add to it from your own biases. I must have been mistaken.
We got enmeshed in Vietnam and the Russians and the Chinese worked to make it worse and worse for us. It got to the point where we were fighting in Vietnam simply because we were fighting in Vietnam.
Actually, it got to the point we were fighting the Chinese in Vietnam. And yes, it happened because we didn't fight it like a real war. In fact, a lot of the same mistakes were made in early Iraq which was changed and became a lot more successful later in the operations.
Ho Chi Minh may have "forced a revolution," but he was no "outsider." He was home grown all the way and he was no puppet to the Chinese. Examine the China-Vietnamese border incidents.
Lol.. OK, revision history all you want. He had support from the same communist parties that caused the Chinese communist revolution. You brought up the Russo-Chinese border "incidents" of the 1960s, do you think they were completely separate from this?
You are just arguing that we had to destroy Vietnam in order to save it from evil Communism.
I am not arguing anything of the sort. Stop imagining things and attributing it to me.
We never should have "escalated" in the first place. Eisenhower never would have buried us there. A few advisors, and that should have been it. We never should have let ourselves get entangled propping up a South Vietnamese regime that never could sustain itself.
Actually, wasn't that Kennedy who started the escalation? Anyways, we should have been there, if nothing more but for our own experiences with communism and how they attempted to overthrow the US government and what it caused in Europe and Eurasia.
You act as if communism wasn't a threat at the time. I'm also dumbfounded on how anyone can call it a revolution or a good thing when a fraction of the people, supported by outside forces, end up over throwing the legitimate government and imprisoning the entire population to their pet ideology.
It was a stupid war.
This I can agree on. Probably not for the same reasons as you think so. I already stated why I didn't like it though.
Slashdot Mirror
lol.. I guess it could be both.
Anonymous picked very highly public targets and bragged about doing so for obvious reasons. The also came out claiming they don't exist and blah blah blah- hence the name. They were actively recruiting and doing a number of things like providing tools to participate in the public lashing of these companies.
It also doesn't make the protesters accurate or informed. The telco's already had immunity from prosecution as the government always presented them a valid authority for the taps. The amnesty came in when protesters were trying to hook a loophole to get rich off the telcos by saying that even though the government pretended to have the lawful right and authority for the wire taps, because they lied, the telcos don't get immunity any more. It wasn't the telco's responsibility or duty under the then existing law to do anything but comply with a government request if it was presented according to existing statute. And in case you are wondering, that means presented with papers stating a legal authority either by warrant or one of the various means a warrant wasn't necessary exists and they had a right to the information sought. It doesn't mean whether or not those papers or means were legal or illegal.
Actually, we do know what impact it could have on these companies. It's illegal to do business with criminals or criminal organizations when your business with them enables or conceals the criminal activity. This has been part of the standard organized crime legislation for years. So as soon as government officials started claiming Wikileak's actions violated US law, Whether they prosecuted or not, those companies had to evaluate if their business with them was in violation of the law or not. And seeing how most of the business done with wikileaks is done to the extend of allowing them to continue to operate in the ways the illegality was claimed, they were exposed to prosecution too.
Seriously, why resort to guessing what people are thinking and trying to assume it's the worse when you can just look at the laws already on the books. In the least, the US could prosecute companies who's business allows the claimed criminal activity to continue and even if they didn't prosecute wikileaks, those companies would have to prove that either their business didn't allow the activity to continue or prove wikileaks wasn't repeatedly violating the law. Either way, it's a lose lose situation for them.
Despite there being little to no evidence outside of innuendo wishful thinking of that ever happening, since when has it ever been a moral or legal right to commit a crime because someone that doesn't directly influence you committed one that didn't directly influence you?
Two wrongs don't make a Right. Three rights make a left however.
Maybe this is only perception and the level of stupidity associated with the crime. You see, most organized (or otherwise) criminals don't want their name associated with a crime nor do they want publicity about the crime. This is especially true if they want to repeat the offense.Some do, and they get caught. So they take steps to hide the entire fact that a crime has happened in the first place in order to be able to commit the crime again and again. What happened here is sort of a complete reversal. These idiots wanted the publicity because it served their purpose. So obviously, when you depart from the entire, I hope no one ever finds out about this line and go with the I hope everyone see this, you are going to attract more eyes to looking for who is behind it and hence more arrests and accusations to the more publicly known crimes.
You need to cite that "according to the most recent polls"
The majority of citizens want health care reform not obamacare. There is a difference. It's possible to want something and not like the choices you are given. People overwhelmingly rejected the Obama care and you should too. Of course it appears you already know that full well with the rest of your comment about single payer.
And Obamacare does absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to change that except force people to aid the leaches by mandating they purchase health insurance from those leaches and limit health care options by creating essentially a death panel in every sense of the word Palin meant it to be.
This is why people who would have supported health care reform and indicate it by positions in the polls reject Obamacare. It either doesn't do enough or does too much of nothing.
If you really feel that way, then simply amend the US constitution and grant the US government the constitutional authority to get involved in that way. As it sits right now, it doesn't have that constitutional authority and no matter how you attempt to reinterpret the constitution, it will not have it.
And before you go off on how the constitution is just a piece of paper written by old dudes that doesn't have any relevance in today's times, reinterpreting it to allow the federal government to mandate health care coverage and set up a panel to approve and disapprove treatments will erode away other set in stone constitutional protections. Of the arguments I have heard, one of them is that the government has the power to tax. Well OK, if that is true, then a conservative government cold impose a 1 million dollar tax penalty on everyone and give them a deduction if they never have an abortion. The government could impost a 2 million dollar tax penalty on anyone and give them a deduction of they never take their fifth amendment rights against self incrimination. Even worse, they could do that to health care providers and simply penalize them for performing abortions with a prohibitive tax.
Another arguemnt I have heard was that the general welfare clause enables them. Well, again, the abortion argument causes that to fail completely without even getting into the entire concept of that being a perfunctory statement explaining to what end the powers of congress are to be used instead of some all power do anything if they can justify a benefit to the welfare. Roe V wade specifically addressed the point in which government does not have the ability to get involved in the way it tried to and how people are trying to justify the constitutionality of obamacare.
But seriously, I'm against it simply because the US government doesn't have the constitutional power to get involved in the first place. They either follow the constitution, even if that means getting it amended, or everything is up for grabs as it can be rationalized away for anything.
I was under the same impression too. However, the people he was supposedly pissed at where in Washington as the Wacko and Ruby ridge situations is what got his goat. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the OK city building was connected to either of those outside of having the same employer.
Where in the hell did you get anything remotely like that from what I wrote?
McVeigh picked a building based on the propaganda potential, not the victims being connected to his grief. This isn't saying that he was somehow justified or less bad, it's saying there he never attacked the people he was pissed at and instead killed a shit ton of innocents because of some remote connection to the people he was pissed at.
But isn't fusion and fission basically just that? I mean except that one is in use and considered dirty while the other is considered cost prohibitive because of the amount of energy investment we have to throw at it to maintain it safely.
The magic here isn't the same as setting paper on fire, it's that we can now do it for about the same costs of setting the paper on fire.
Oh, I get it now. You are just trolling..
You see, it took a while to figure that out. Good job at playing the "I'm too fucking stupid" role. It's almost as if you weren't even acting.
And BTW, just in case you really are that fucking stupid, you weren't wrong for questioning the bravery of a white man, you were wrong for expecting either to be brave in the first place- when their acts are that of a coward by default.
And no, those government workers in that federal building had no control over McVeigh's beef with the government whatsoever at all. McVeigh picked the building to bomb because of it's open space around the building would provide better photo opportunities for propaganda purposes and a couple other things like the glass front and parking lots.
I mean seriously, Do you even remotely check into the shit you spew before attempting to troll? If there was even one grain of truth, you might have been taken seriously. Now, you just look like a complete idiot.
No, his argument is that the OK city bombing didn't fit the set criteria for the statement made.
And to your point about crazy terrorists, are you really going to assign a value of bravery to people who fucking kill innocents in order to effect some unrelated agenda? I mean seriously, at best, with a clear concious, you can say one is more effective then the other or that one is smarter then the other because they remain alive, but you can't say brave in any sense as they were all too chicken to take the fight to the people specifically behind their issues of redress. Instead, they attacked drones who have nothing to do with it and no way of effecting the issue except by the weight of their death laying on the conscious of someone who probably doesn't care in the first place.
People like you really should think before showing the world how ignorant you can be.
Yes, besides, if you do criticize Islam, they will kill you. Well, call for your death.. if they don't succeed, the first isn't necessarily not true, just not succesful.
lol.. I almost forgot all about that. I guess it was happening in more then one area too.
He doesn't have to be black, that's just the way I originally heard the joke 20 some years ago when I was going to jail for a week at age 18 for public drunkenness.
You would be right.. At least in any legitimate jurisdiction I am aware of.
This is only true insomuch as you know the person is the police at the time of the order and that they were working within their official capacity.
Everyone knows there are things the cops can't make you do. For instance, they can't pull you over for speeding and make you rape the next person that passes by. That's just obviously ludicrous. But here, we are expected to believe that someone entered a public forum as a disguised person and stirred the emotions in an attempt to promote illicit behavior.
This being the internet as the public forum, but in almost any other situation like a real live in person protest or when speaking to a crowd in the town square, if you did the same, you would be up on charges of inciting a riot (at least in the US) or the equivalent. You could possibly get conspiracy charges. These officers should be held accountable to the same standards as anyone else in that situation, and if it's found that it was ordered by their superiors, then they should face it too.
Notice how I didn't say instead? I'll get to why in a moment.
No, it should be the officer_and_the Captain. You see, in free societies, you are typically responsible for your own actions no matter who made you do it. There are a couple of defenses surrounding necessity but for the most part, if you do something illegal, you could be charged with that crime unless some other rule of law preempts it (self defense, the defense of another life and so on are typically enough to get all charged dropped and they are a form of necessity).
Anyways, Lets say I'm next in line to be captain, if I wasn't responsible for my own actions, then I could just kill someone and say the captain told me to. Get a fellow officer to back me up by promising a promotion and raise and it's the word of two police officers who are apparently spilling their guts against his commander who is denying anything except for someone was killed. But if I'm still responsible for my own actions, then I can save a life by not killing the guy in the first place because I don't want to sit in the same prisons I put people in.
This is why someone who incited illegal behavior, be it a riot, any action that causes the death of someone or whatever, should not be the sole carrier of the punishment. The act, whatever it was, could only succeed if people are willing to participate and they will be a lot more willing to participate if what amounts to an "he made me do it, go after him instead" defense is set into law. Keep all parties responsible to their own actions. And take the police of any public authority that encourages, enables, promote, incites, or does anything outside of normal every day duties to aid or encourage illegal behavior, and make it a felony or worse crime.
There is no need for the people who are supposed to be making us safe, to attempt to make us unsafe in their line of work. They will argue that it's necessary to see who the trouble makers are and get them under control early before there is trouble. In the states, we call this behavior entrapment and it pretty much invalidates the arrests as well as leaves openings for civil suits.
It's not sex.. They will be playing house.
TinBromide will be going to the back of D-wing into Bubba's cell all scare and uncertain. Bubba, a 6 foot 7 inch (2.01 meters) tall black man weighing in at about 310 pounds (140.61 kg) and all muscle with a 6th grade education, is going to smile at him allowing TinBromide to relax a little although in a creepy kind of way.
Then Bubba is gonna say, we's gonna play house. DO you want to be the husband or the wife? Well, Tinbromide starts thinking as shivers of nervousness and a scary feeling that seems like he just escaped death enters his psyche, if it's gotta be this way, I'm going to be the man so he says "I'll be the husband". Just about then, Bubba turned around, pulled his panties down, and said, "alright, now eats my pussy".
So you see, there are fates worse then sex with Bubba. BTW, Bubba is my cousin and writes about all the fun he's having in the slammer all the time.
lol..
Blah, blah, blah.
So your measurement of content is saying the least. Well, that explains your intelligence problem. Now go cry about being modded down and act like you don't understand the obvious again.. Whah.....
Actually, anyone following the thread would know it was modded because that's how it works. you see a score and if you want to know the mods, you click on it and it shows the mod history for the post. Anyways all that super secret asinine spy shit to see what your post was modded wasn't needed. You see, you cried about it right underneath it. Does "Hah. Hey dipshit who modded my post down" sound familiar? And if you had half the reading comprehension skills you think you do, you would also notice I never said it was modded troll, I said you were crying about being modded down after trolling.
See above, then look in the mirror and then say "I will try not to be an idiot even though it's the most difficult thing to do in my life". Then repeat that ever fucking day you are alive.
lol.. I got you all worked up because of your own ignorance. Who's dancing now monkey? This is just so hilarious as your entire premise is based on your own ignorance of how mods work on slashdot. And now you are trying to make a statement that to anyone with half a clue knows is completely false.
You just don't get it do you? lol.. do you really want to play? I mean seriously, think about this. Do you really want to play this game when you obviously don't know how it's played?
So you laugh at your own mistakes huh.. That's good because I have been laughing at you too. Face it, you have been completely wrong about everything so far, this is so obvious that your mom should be able to point it out. Now you come on here and make a statement that is so unbelievable stupid that it makes you appear as if you just started surfing slashdot on the interweb last night. The funniest part is that you think you are winning.
I didn't admit to anything. I pointed out that your behavior is not very intelligent as others are telling you by the moderation you are getting. You can't see that and it appears to completely offend you because you start whining about it in threads under yourself.
I know you will continue to only consider what you can imagine in your mind no matter how fallacious it might be, but the dance is being done by you.. Perhaps you should examine the situation a little better.
You know it's interesting. I'm not the one crying about posts being modded down after trolling people. Perhaps you should examine your own life before attempting to tear someone else' down in order to prop your own up.
Oh damn.. did we just get back to what I originally said?
It would appear then that you think wrong.
See, above. and repeating what I said doesn't make it anywhere near relevant of accurate for you.
Unlike me, you added a lot of content to your statement. As I said before, you cannot compare what you did with what I did without showing how utterly ignorant you are. When I ended the conversation, I left your last statement standing and even said let's leave it at that. When you did it, you rambled on about how your inferior mind somehow creates some logic that you believe to be the best thing since sliced bread and that someone makes me in the wrong. You see, that completely different from what I did.
What I did was acknowledge that we weren't going to agree, skipped replying to your comment and stated that we should end the thread. What you did is continue to troll, totally and completely failed to present any clear argument or even remotely relevant discussion to what I had said, then act even more stupid then you have already by intentionally ignoring the obvious. I never commanded you to do anything. You never commanded me to do anything. What I did was fail to continue to argue with you. What you did was completely the opposite.
But hey, it's not like we both can't play your game. How about I start doing the same shit you are. I mean seriously, there's nothing stopping me and your concept is so unoriginal that it was obvious from the second post. It's up to you- I don't really care as I have almost as much time available as you might. I can even save time by recycling your own posts and just pasting the nonsense into threads you are actively engaged in.
If that's what you want, then just tell me. I know words are hard for you to understand and articulate so I'll try to interpret as best I can.
Are you thinking out loud or something? I mean that's a question you should be asking yourself.
You think everytime someone posts something it's because they were provoked? Wow.. Not only are you a troll, you're an idiot trying to troll.
Well, they do. Buy you would be a damn liar if you claimed you expressed either.
Ok, let's leave it at that then. BTW, when I said it, that was all I said. If you somehow think your troll here is remotely similar, you are foolishly wrong.
That's a little selfish of you isn't it?
Maybe it's a native language difference combined with a note of differing legal systems.
It's not that I don't like the ruling, I really don't care about it outside an historical context. But I can hardly say the rule of law prevailed. Here you have a constitution that makes up the government and grants it all of the power the government hold, then a court comes by and says these unwritten rules supersede the document defining your existence as a country.
It has become the rule of law since then, but I wouldn't say the rules of law prevailed. I would attribute it more to the rules of law being ignored as all laws should be plain and obvious and the government should be limited to it also.
BTW, a constitutional amendment wouldn't change anything in regard to this. The US constitution already states they need probable cause and a warrant to search. The court said something outside the US constitution which also claims to be the supreme law of the land, is more important then the US constitution. So essentially, you could amend the constitution all year long as as long as the rights of sovereignty sit over top of it, it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
Lol.. Don't act like I don't know this. However, knowing this doesn't change the fact that we didn't prosecute the Vietnam war anything like WWII or any other war we have won.
I didn't say Russia and China were allies with each other. I said they were backing North Vietnam and did so over a period of years that caused the north to be split from Frend Indo China which caused the two nations. I was hoping you would read what I wrote and be clever enough not to add to it from your own biases. I must have been mistaken.
Actually, it got to the point we were fighting the Chinese in Vietnam. And yes, it happened because we didn't fight it like a real war. In fact, a lot of the same mistakes were made in early Iraq which was changed and became a lot more successful later in the operations.
Lol.. OK, revision history all you want. He had support from the same communist parties that caused the Chinese communist revolution. You brought up the Russo-Chinese border "incidents" of the 1960s, do you think they were completely separate from this?
I am not arguing anything of the sort. Stop imagining things and attributing it to me.
Actually, wasn't that Kennedy who started the escalation? Anyways, we should have been there, if nothing more but for our own experiences with communism and how they attempted to overthrow the US government and what it caused in Europe and Eurasia.
You act as if communism wasn't a threat at the time. I'm also dumbfounded on how anyone can call it a revolution or a good thing when a fraction of the people, supported by outside forces, end up over throwing the legitimate government and imprisoning the entire population to their pet ideology.
This I can agree on. Probably not for the same reasons as you think so. I already stated why I didn't like it though.