I didn't mean to imply I thought Israel would parish, I meant it was a frightening scenario to abandon a democracy in an area that has little of them and the people face religious persecution among many other things most would consider a fundamental human right on a regular basis.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think Israel is a bastion of sainthood that can do no wrong, But I do think that they are better then many of the surrounding countries.
Being a NASCAR driver or in another related racing sport is very, very uncommon. Way less common than 3.5% even. In the same way that "ever heard of Linus Torvalds?" does not mean Linux is common on the desktop.
Guess what? I develop software UI for a living so I happen to know a few obscure companies related to that. Kind of like you have a hardcore car-modding hobby so you can name things that relate to your hobby.
Lol.. You must live in the middle of New York City or Boston or something. More likely, your not even an American or are one that doesn't even live in the US. I didn't say everyone was a NASCAR driver, I pointed to their fan base which is way more then 3.5% of Americans. OF that base, a lot of people do performance upgrades. Almost all diesel trucks produced after 2002 have after market upgraded components on them now. This is because they put a lot more powerful engine in them and then do things like restrict the air flow and tune the computer down in order to pass EPA guidelines. They are the cheapest dollar per horse power gain out there as you can easily see a 100 plus HP gain in many of them just by replacing the stock air induction system, exhaust stacks, and adding a programmer module to it. Hell, I even have a programmer module for my motorcycle.
And yes, I do believe that a bunch of companies and TV shows I've never heard of or seen would exist to service a niche market (seriously, I can't find half of them on wikipedia. That sort of thing happens all the time. Companies serving a niche market isn't uncommon. You know there are giant companies pouring money into products for blind people? That's 0.3% right there. Freedom Scientific, GW Micro, and Dolphin Computer Access come to mind quickly for the subset of that subset of companies to aid blind people in using computers.
So instead of looking into it a little, your standing by the logical fallacy that unless you see it, it doesn't exist. You're simply amazing. No wonder you are posting as AC. Dude, just get out of your big city crap yard and look around. All over the country people are adding aftermarket parts to express themselves, to distinguish their cars from others, to gain performance or fuel economy, or for what every reason. Maybe your state has Smog checks and it isn't as popular, but in the rest of the free country, it is very popular- especially with teens and older males. This has been emboldend in music (particularly country music and rap videos), Movies (like XXX and the Fast and the Furious), not to mention that older big name modifiers had been hired by car companies to produce a line of vehicles because of the success and popularity they had. Look at Carol Shelby for instance. I doubt that you have never heard of a Shelby Cobra or a Shelby charger. There was even a Mustang Shelby version. He owned a dealership in California and souped up cars then sold them off his lot.
Lol.. Where did you get your numbers from? I mean there are entire industries devoted to little more then performance tuning and souping up cars. Ever heard of Nascar or any of the other related racing sports? I mean hell, there are even blowers, turbos, and quite a few other line of products just for boats let along motorcycles, quads and so on.
Do you really think Jegs or Summit, elderbrock, Heddman, Holly, bully dog, Protune, or the multitude of TV shows like Horsepower, Trucks, offroad, and so on would exist without people tweaking shit on a regular basis? Just to capture less then 3.5% of the auto repair market? I mean seriously, there is a lot of money being pumped into making cars stronger, faster, more responsive, and so on. They've even got performance kits available for 2010 vehicles off the show room floor.
And where is this 3.5% number published at? I'm betting that the question was something like when replacing a broken part on your car, would you go after market if the OEM version was the same price. You see, a question like that already implies a stock equivalent replacement part- that is that the replacement is just to go back to stock. It wouldn't even start to consider a performance increase or anyone who is already souping a car up. If you are replacing the stock parts already with performance parts, you wouldn't even consider a stock part in your quest to replace a bad part.
So sure, there are a lot of cars that won't see anything above stock unless it's the fuel put in it. But there are a hell of a lot more cars getting performance upgrades they you are trying to let on.
While I wouldn't change the fuel injectors based on a seasonal change, I have changed them based around performance limitation of stock setups.
I have also changed out the breathing system to take advantage of less restrictive airflow. I have added performance spark plugs and ignition systems in some cases too.
The point is that it's not uncommon to modify the mechanics of a car to obtain some objective. Increased fuel injector size allows quicker/more responsive, and in some cases, more delivery of fuel. Of course you probably wouldn't see much of an improvement if you didn't alter other things too.
Perhaps the person who changes bios settings to tweak them out is the same type of person who would soup up a car to get the most performance possible from them.
Sorry, didn't mean to steal the Tea party's platform.
I didn't know that was their platform. But it makes sense now that you mentioned it. That is if the other side thinks they have all the answers even after demonstrating their solutions don't work. But hey, who am I to tell someone that knows everything something?
Yawn.. Go back to 1925 and see if that is true. Do you seriously think the world as we know it today was always like that? I mean we are talking about a historical figure and a time period in history aren't we?
Anyways, don't just focus on that, look into the Eugenics and Hitler himself.
"This is how the different species came about, therefore we must kill people"?
Maybe you should read up on Eugenics a little and the role they play throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Hitler may have conflated them for rhetorical purposes. I don't know, I don't have the primary sources at hand.
Hitler plainly states in Mein Kampf that religion doesn't create a race of people, it unites them in a sense similar to a race of people by a common philosophy. He then goes on to claim that the principles of religion have corrupted the blood line of the races and allowed the imperfect weak to survive when they should have been removed from the gene pool. He reject the idea that God created people and instills the point that they evolved following a set of laws of nature that religion has corrupted.
His goal with exterminating the jews was not just a beef with the jews, it was to remove the corruption of the races and bring back the natural evolution of people by forced sterilization and euthanasia of the inferior species. This is a part of Eugenics which brought about a number of other things like forced institutionalization of insane or mentally ill or handicapped people (even if they were functional in society), the birth control league which later became planned parenthood and so on.
The basics of Eugenics is that as a principle of evolution, the weak would die out and only the strong would survive. The difference races of man have evolved differently over time and some were superior to others. The claim was that wars killed off the strong on the battlefield and left the weak at home to pollute the gene pool, that religions in their help and compassion for the weak have corrupted the blood lines of the superior beings.
To reestablish that superiority, the concepts were to isolate the weak, sterilize them (thinking that it would stop reproduction while not degrading their humanity), and in some extremes, euthanasia (or killing them off entirely). This is one of the reasons why Euthanasia is still such a taboo topic in some parts of the world today.
Hitler embraced all of that, he started with the jews, but eye witness reports say he claimed that it was just a first step.
You should really read Mein Kampf and do some research into the three staged of society as envisioned by hitler.
As I said before, read up on hitler a bit more. In Mein Kampf he pretty much dispels your delusions when speaking about how the ten commandments and the help your neighbor philosophy of the Judeo-Christian religions corrupted the races by allowing the weak to survive so I suggest you should read it. You will also find where he sheds light on this by saying that the jews and Christians are not a race in the sense that genetics create a race but in the sense that ideology or mindset unite a set of people for a common cause. He goes on to say this is a useful tool for the evolution of man until it's misused to allow the weak to survive. That's what he thought of religion- it was a tool used to manipulate a set or subset of people.
Atheist principles? There is one, only ONE atheist principle, and that is : There is no god.Contrary to what you want to believe, there is more then one principle of atheism. Last I checked, there was about 7. But that isn't really important as the no God or more precisely, No creator is the entire catalyst surrounding his involvement and deep belief in Eugenics. It's the basis of the Third Reich (or the third stage of evolution of society and the human race as he put it). HE specifically states that God is a made up idea designed to aid our survival in early stages of human evolution. This is also why he was emphatically concentrated on certain traits in humans and the master race. He was attempting to purify the blood line of the Germans.
There is no relation between atheism and WWII. Hitler was not an atheist. How do we know? Well here are some of his quotes:
Actually, as I said before, Hitler knew religion was a tool to unit people and explained that in his own book. Finding him saying quotes that can be interpreted as him being part of some religion or a religious movement does not mean he wasn't atheist, it means he was using the damn tools he claimed where there. You can quote me saying I believe in purple dinosaurs that sing songs to children. But I know that children like Barney so if I use Barney as a tool to encourage good behavior from them, it doesn't mean I really believe Barney is real. Especially when I tell you up front in a book that Barney is a fictional character used to entertain and manipulate children.
Why don't you look into it a bit more and this time, let go of your preconceived notions so you won't be suffering from selection bias and creating a false reality. Hitler and Eugenics said that Humans evolved, they weren't created, they evolved over a period of time at different rates which creates the different species of humans. That is not a religious principle that I know of.
Hmm, so if WWII was started by Hitler, and Hitler thought that killing Jews was what god wanted, that makes WWII a religiously started war because Hitler was doing what God told him to do.
You must be educated in the public school systems in America that continue to fail in international testing. Hitler was raised in a catholic environment and rejected that as he clearly states in his books. But something else he clearly states is that he thinks religion is a tool to control people so the most you can say is that he used that tool from time to time. And if you read those quote, you will find that he is either attempting to convince someone he is a certain- one of them, or to behave in a certain way. How can that not be attempting to use a tool? I mean seriously, If I was a famous christian and the leader of a nation that was primarily christian or jewish, would I need to go around proclaiming that I'm a christian? Would I need to go around claiming that your feverish defense of the home land is doing gods work? Or that by killing your enemy you are doing god's work? That's the point of your quotes 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Christ, he even negates teachings in the bible and claims that the laws of nature (evolution) is god's work and you should kill the lesser people to continue gods work. Quote 2 and 6 basically state, I'm one of you and don't judge me.
I'm not aware of any laws that allow the police to investigate your private claims.
Perhaps you know of something I do not. Defamation and libel are all typically only civil cases (at least in the US) and at least in the US, making fun of someone by stating something so absurd that no one around him would believe does not rise to either. The point is, even if you did say something untrue and defamatory on the top, other conditions can apply that can negate or disolve the entire defamatory claim.
That's not going to happen any time soon. Google's CEO campaigned for Obama and Google employees seem to give quite a bit to the democrats. They are typically the ones who go after monopolies.
They never took away the right to bear arms - we never had that right to begin with. The laws of the UK have been in flux for almost a thousand years, but we didn't have a right to bear arms that was subsequently taken away.
And here is the mental breakdown of the differences between the US and UK.
You see, you most certain did have the right in the first place. The government doesn't give you rights, it takes them away. The US constitution doesn't give anyone rights in the US, it specifically prohibits the US government from taking the right away. It specifically states that you already have the right to keep an bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
But I can see your argument. That is if you think the government gives you the rights it deems important (hopefully you and the government see eye to eye on a lot of things). You would be absolutely correct in that you never had the right in the first place. However, on this side of the pond, we enjoy having the right independent of government, and the limitations on government being able to remove it.
I don't think that means what you think it means. Certain people can hate others for various reasons and not act in a violent way to express that hate. What's interesting is that you list out occupation of Afghanistan which didn't even occur until after 9/11 and Afghanistan refused to expel Al Qeada or hand over Bin Laden.
So perhaps in the report, hate is used more like the term strongly dislike and not so much as in hate enough to kill myself while trying to kill innocent civilians.
But on another note, Bin Laden did claim responsibility for 9/11 and said it was in response to our support of Israel. I've even heard people claim we should give up supporting Israel and let the Muslims run them out of the middle east altogether or completely destroy them as some have expressed desire to do. I find that scenario more frightening then anything else.
Well, I'm not entirley sure about the exact accuracy of the email you quoted but I do know that Thomas Jefferson created the Marine Forces under the department of the Navy, increased the size of the navy and made it a permanent standing navy as one of the first things he did in office. This was in response to the ottoman empire attacking ships (private, commercial, passenger, fishing and everything else) off the Atlantic coast of the US.
I also know that Thomas Jefferson attempted to deal with this when he was an ambassador to France and the delegation from the ottoman empire responded that Allah gave them the right to pirate and pillage ships in the Atlantic. And of course most of Europe dealt with it by paying royalties for the privilege of not being attacked by the ottoman empire (Muslims).
But even back then, it's true that it wasn't a wide spread thing that everyone was involved with. Kuwait was part of the Ottoman empire and they gave us Safe Harbor to allow our ships to resupply and coordinate attacks in Tripoli. Of course Kuwait has long been an ally of the US since before we were even a country. A major trade route was established from China to the Atlantic that went through Kuwait and it favored ships transporting to what became the US since the early 1700's We have remained friendly with the even as air travel replaced the need for trade routes across land. And contrary to popular belief, this is why Kuwait specifically asked the US for help when Iraq invaded and why the US jumped at the chance to render them assistance. Most people who blame it on oil have absolutely no clue about our existing relationship with Kuwait or that it started long before we needed any oil.
There is a communist party of America right now that practices in America right now. It hasn't been illegal to be a communist or a member of the communist party in the US for quite a while. It was only illegal for a short period of time (1950-1993 with various stages of degradations in scope after 1975).
What made it illegal to be communist in America in the first place was the attempted overthrow of the US government with the intent of installing a dictator following Stalinist principles by the communist party in the early 1900's.
However, it is illegal to specifically be a member or remain a member of the original communist party that attempted the coup. The same laws also make it illegal to be a member of any organization that has the desire, will, actions or anything else designed to topple the country or any government entity within it's jurisdiction. It also removed any constitutional right and any rights granted or protected by law to anyone who is a member of those groups. This is in title 50 somewhere. But the point is, you shouldn't confuse the "communist party" as mentioned in the law, with the communist party of the USA which is a peaceful organization not connected with international communist supposedly.
You obviously don't know much about WWII, Eugenics, or how it played an important role in the final solution for the jews.
Here's a cliff notes version. Hitler (and no, this isn't godwining anything because it's both key and to the point of the comment in reply while not comparing anyone to hitler or nazis) among others, developed an opinion based around the atheist argument of evolution that involve different races of people evolving differently over different point of history. They saw it as their duty to eliminate the dirty- less evolved- people from the world gene pool. They went from forced sterilizations, forced abortions, to euthanasia and genocide.
That's right, most of the horrors of WWII was due to atheist principles. But WWII and the hitler wasn't the start of that. The entire concept existed long before and Margret Sanger and company were proud supported of the Forced abortions and birth control parts when they started planned parenthood (or the precursor- the birth control league).
Oh, and BTW, before you claim Hilter was a catholic jew (he was supposedly the bastard child of a jew and schooled at a catholic school while being raised catholic) as some sort of counter argument, look into Mein Kampf a little bit. He rejected those ideas and focus quite a bit on the Jewish ten commandments- notably the sanctity of life. He argued that protecting and helping the weak corrupted the gene pool and we needed to purify not only the Jewish people, but the ideas they expelled.
And while your quite right about people not alive right now, it all did happen less then 100 years ago.
This terrorist is not in the US, he is in hiding in Yemen or Afghanistan and there are US warrants for his arrest. He is a US citizen by birth right to a Yemen tribal leader who was residing in Nevada at the time of his birth. He was raised for most of his childhood in the US. There is a trial in abstention currently taking place in Yemen right now attempting to convict this guy (strengthening the charges against him).
What is in America right now is the servers and companies hosting the videos. The US constitution places severe restrictions on the US government in the areas of speech. This is for various reasons that are ancillary to the point, but the US government's hands are tied. But make no mistake, the US is not harboring this guy at all. He is wanted on charges connected to terrorism in the US and several other countries that US has extradition treaties with.
Actually, it does have something to do with whether or not anyone believes it. Minister Fallwell or something like that attempted to sue hustler and lost because the libel wasn't believable by anyone so the judge considered it satire. It's like saying that someone always wears boots because they are so full of shit, they drop it everywhere when they open their mouth to speak.
So suppose you said the point about the 5 year old boys, coke habit and gay lovers. Now what if it wasn't true, but your intention was to participate in a roast of countertrolling on his birthday. BTW, in the US,a roast is typically were people assemble to honor a person by exaggerating qualities of a person or situations they have been in to blow them out of portion in a comedic way.
I love it when idiots pretend to know it all but fail to do the slightest bit of research at all in their asertaitions. They then post as ACs because they are unsure of their own statements. It's fucking awesome.
Anyways, there are no laws concerning serial killers. At least no federal laws and no laws in any state that I can find. Serial killers are little more then a classification used internally in criminal investigation that alerts investigators to the depth of the crimes. Sometimes this kicks in policies (not laws) that allow the request of help from federal agencies or allows extra territorial jurisdiction in a limited aspect of statutorily bound LEOs. You will never find someone on trial for being a serial killer, you will find people on trial for killing person X, Y, or Z, and maybe the mention of it being a serial murder, but the term serial will never be listed as an official charge.
I love when people are this arrogant. Yes sir, you are surely the incarnation of fiat knowledge. Oh please, will you speak and let us be enlightened?
well, the question was just supposed to get you to think about what hate crime laws miss. Obviously, it didn't work on you at all. But the real reason I said it didn't matter was because existing law already account for those people who do it over and over again.
So please do not mistake your ignorance for my arrogance.
Why would I bother reading the rest of your post when you're so arrogant that you actually think your reasoning in a complex issue is foolproof? I'm a pretty arrogant asshole, and even I'm not stupid enough to think my reasoning is perfect.
Look, if you want to be an idiot, that's your fault, not mine. You can remain a stupid as you wish for all I care. If the very first sentence of the next paragraph, you know, the only you only quoted part of, it listed why it wasn't important. I mean hell, you wasted more time and effort quoting and replying then it would have taken to finish reading the fucking sentence and spending a minute to understand it. I'm sorry that my regular use of the English language was not dumbed down enough for you to understand that repeat offenders already get dealt with more harshly. I'm sorry that me bringing up a point about the idea that repeat offenders need to be stopped with special laws that do not capture all repeat offenders is already covered by existing laws and the special laws aren't needed is too difficult for you to understand. But hey, this is the internet, lets start a campaign to create a special law to protect you.
Motive shouldn't matter at all. The state of mind and how calculated the act was should. You can't say that a person who sneezes and looses control of their car, riding up into the sidewalk and killing a person in the process is any different whether the person who died was black, white, gay, straight, or anywhere in between. Even if it was a white supremacist driving and a black man who died or a black panther racist driving and a white man who dies. Now what you can do is use the racial element and investigate further to determine if it was an accident or intentional killing which would demonstrate a different state of mind. However, that is not determined by default due to a law. It has to be looked at, considered with the evidence, and judged in the normal process of law. In other words, making it a hate crime does nothing more then proving it to be intentional would do which is one step below proving why it was intentional.
Motive should not mean anything except if the court is going to be lenient on a person or not. And to that point, it can all end up going back to the state of mind. Suppose you waiting in the corner of the house for your spouse to come home with a loaded gun, the shot and killed him or her. This shows intent along with premeditation. Not suppose that your spouse was mentally and physically abusing your and your kids, made you scared to death (fear of losing your life) if you reported it to anyone. Now this also shows motive, it either shows revenge or self defense. Necessity is a valid defense in most situations so self defense might not even make it to the court. Where it would/might, you would only be judged on the amount of force over the minimum needed to escape the harm to it's more of a mind game between you and the judge/jury.
Cops get the special protection of extra penalties only because they are enforcing the law or apprehending suspects after the law has been broken. If you look, you will find that all government officials get extra protections from assaults, threats, and other violent acts in connection to their duty.
And no, even if it was a gay cop in a sports jersey sitting at the end of the bar that two guys pounded the crap out of because their team got beaten by the team on the sports jersy, those special or more protection doesn't kick in unless the cop a: makes it known he is a cop, and B: is acting within his official duties. If an off duty cop starts a fight with you over a parking place and you end up winning the fight, you are not facing more charges for hitting an officer of the law then you would be if it was me.
The problem with your concept is that laws don't stop murders from happening. They only prescribe penalties for committing the murder and that's only if you are caught. If someone is caught after committing a murder, they are already up for life in prison or the death penalty. We can't really make them serve two life sentences or send them through the gas chamber twice.
So lets take this to the next logical level with assault. You say the need is because they do it over and over again. Well, what if someone is just antisocial and had problems interacting with others, they are likely to assault people over and over, shouldn't those random strangers receive the extra protection too? Or is there some benefit that should only extend to the classes defined by hate crimes?
Well, it doesn't particularly matter what you replied with because almost all states have laws that elevate the severity of one offense to the next level if not higher with repeated convictions. In my state, if I just walked over to you and punched you in the face, it would be a misdemeanor by itself carrying 6 months and a $1000 fine (even if I continued doing it repeatedly). If I assaulted you with a weapon, it would be aggravated- a minor felony offense (4th degree or class D as some jurisdictions name it). If I assaulted you in any way that would have caused serious harm, I would get the with aggravated classification added on too. IF I did any of that within two years of each offense, the misdemeanor would automatically become a felony, the felony 4 would become a felony 3, and if it happened again within 2 years of that, they would both become a felony 1. So repeat offenders are already punished with extra penalties in a practical way.
With this knowledge, I'm not sure why we need hate crimes at all. Nothing I have seen about the justifications to date has offered anything that there wasn't already a law covering as the excuse. Maybe it's only to gain federal jurisdiction to seek the death penalty in areas that don't have one or do not enforce it? Maybe it's because some people think the protected classes are actually special or something? either way, both are wrong.
If it's not reasonable that you can escape an assault without further harm, then you return the assault until you are about to escape the harm.
In other words, while you can't really be shooting someone who threw a wadded up piece of paper at you, you can move them out of the way when they are also blocking the only exist from the room in order to exist yourself. The throwing of the paper showed an intent of aggressions, the blocking of the exist showed intent of continuing the assault. Your moving them may actually be an assault in and of itself (if you push them down and leave).
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean to imply I thought Israel would parish, I meant it was a frightening scenario to abandon a democracy in an area that has little of them and the people face religious persecution among many other things most would consider a fundamental human right on a regular basis.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think Israel is a bastion of sainthood that can do no wrong, But I do think that they are better then many of the surrounding countries.
Lol.. You must live in the middle of New York City or Boston or something. More likely, your not even an American or are one that doesn't even live in the US. I didn't say everyone was a NASCAR driver, I pointed to their fan base which is way more then 3.5% of Americans. OF that base, a lot of people do performance upgrades. Almost all diesel trucks produced after 2002 have after market upgraded components on them now. This is because they put a lot more powerful engine in them and then do things like restrict the air flow and tune the computer down in order to pass EPA guidelines. They are the cheapest dollar per horse power gain out there as you can easily see a 100 plus HP gain in many of them just by replacing the stock air induction system, exhaust stacks, and adding a programmer module to it. Hell, I even have a programmer module for my motorcycle.
So instead of looking into it a little, your standing by the logical fallacy that unless you see it, it doesn't exist. You're simply amazing. No wonder you are posting as AC. Dude, just get out of your big city crap yard and look around. All over the country people are adding aftermarket parts to express themselves, to distinguish their cars from others, to gain performance or fuel economy, or for what every reason. Maybe your state has Smog checks and it isn't as popular, but in the rest of the free country, it is very popular- especially with teens and older males. This has been emboldend in music (particularly country music and rap videos), Movies (like XXX and the Fast and the Furious), not to mention that older big name modifiers had been hired by car companies to produce a line of vehicles because of the success and popularity they had. Look at Carol Shelby for instance. I doubt that you have never heard of a Shelby Cobra or a Shelby charger. There was even a Mustang Shelby version. He owned a dealership in California and souped up cars then sold them off his lot.
Lol.. Where did you get your numbers from? I mean there are entire industries devoted to little more then performance tuning and souping up cars. Ever heard of Nascar or any of the other related racing sports? I mean hell, there are even blowers, turbos, and quite a few other line of products just for boats let along motorcycles, quads and so on.
Do you really think Jegs or Summit, elderbrock, Heddman, Holly, bully dog, Protune, or the multitude of TV shows like Horsepower, Trucks, offroad, and so on would exist without people tweaking shit on a regular basis? Just to capture less then 3.5% of the auto repair market? I mean seriously, there is a lot of money being pumped into making cars stronger, faster, more responsive, and so on. They've even got performance kits available for 2010 vehicles off the show room floor.
And where is this 3.5% number published at? I'm betting that the question was something like when replacing a broken part on your car, would you go after market if the OEM version was the same price. You see, a question like that already implies a stock equivalent replacement part- that is that the replacement is just to go back to stock. It wouldn't even start to consider a performance increase or anyone who is already souping a car up. If you are replacing the stock parts already with performance parts, you wouldn't even consider a stock part in your quest to replace a bad part.
So sure, there are a lot of cars that won't see anything above stock unless it's the fuel put in it. But there are a hell of a lot more cars getting performance upgrades they you are trying to let on.
Not really.
While I wouldn't change the fuel injectors based on a seasonal change, I have changed them based around performance limitation of stock setups.
I have also changed out the breathing system to take advantage of less restrictive airflow. I have added performance spark plugs and ignition systems in some cases too.
The point is that it's not uncommon to modify the mechanics of a car to obtain some objective. Increased fuel injector size allows quicker/more responsive, and in some cases, more delivery of fuel. Of course you probably wouldn't see much of an improvement if you didn't alter other things too.
Perhaps the person who changes bios settings to tweak them out is the same type of person who would soup up a car to get the most performance possible from them.
I didn't know that was their platform. But it makes sense now that you mentioned it. That is if the other side thinks they have all the answers even after demonstrating their solutions don't work. But hey, who am I to tell someone that knows everything something?
Yawn.. Go back to 1925 and see if that is true. Do you seriously think the world as we know it today was always like that? I mean we are talking about a historical figure and a time period in history aren't we?
Anyways, don't just focus on that, look into the Eugenics and Hitler himself.
Maybe you should read up on Eugenics a little and the role they play throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Hitler plainly states in Mein Kampf that religion doesn't create a race of people, it unites them in a sense similar to a race of people by a common philosophy. He then goes on to claim that the principles of religion have corrupted the blood line of the races and allowed the imperfect weak to survive when they should have been removed from the gene pool. He reject the idea that God created people and instills the point that they evolved following a set of laws of nature that religion has corrupted.
His goal with exterminating the jews was not just a beef with the jews, it was to remove the corruption of the races and bring back the natural evolution of people by forced sterilization and euthanasia of the inferior species. This is a part of Eugenics which brought about a number of other things like forced institutionalization of insane or mentally ill or handicapped people (even if they were functional in society), the birth control league which later became planned parenthood and so on.
The basics of Eugenics is that as a principle of evolution, the weak would die out and only the strong would survive. The difference races of man have evolved differently over time and some were superior to others. The claim was that wars killed off the strong on the battlefield and left the weak at home to pollute the gene pool, that religions in their help and compassion for the weak have corrupted the blood lines of the superior beings.
To reestablish that superiority, the concepts were to isolate the weak, sterilize them (thinking that it would stop reproduction while not degrading their humanity), and in some extremes, euthanasia (or killing them off entirely). This is one of the reasons why Euthanasia is still such a taboo topic in some parts of the world today.
Hitler embraced all of that, he started with the jews, but eye witness reports say he claimed that it was just a first step.
You should really read Mein Kampf and do some research into the three staged of society as envisioned by hitler.
As I said before, read up on hitler a bit more. In Mein Kampf he pretty much dispels your delusions when speaking about how the ten commandments and the help your neighbor philosophy of the Judeo-Christian religions corrupted the races by allowing the weak to survive so I suggest you should read it. You will also find where he sheds light on this by saying that the jews and Christians are not a race in the sense that genetics create a race but in the sense that ideology or mindset unite a set of people for a common cause. He goes on to say this is a useful tool for the evolution of man until it's misused to allow the weak to survive. That's what he thought of religion- it was a tool used to manipulate a set or subset of people.
Well, Safe is sort of a matter of interpretation as he is safe from the US, but he is wanted and facing charges in Yemen.
Your right about the extradition treaty. It appears that Yemen cannot constitutionally extradite it's people to other countries.
I'm not aware of any laws that allow the police to investigate your private claims.
Perhaps you know of something I do not. Defamation and libel are all typically only civil cases (at least in the US) and at least in the US, making fun of someone by stating something so absurd that no one around him would believe does not rise to either. The point is, even if you did say something untrue and defamatory on the top, other conditions can apply that can negate or disolve the entire defamatory claim.
That's not going to happen any time soon. Google's CEO campaigned for Obama and Google employees seem to give quite a bit to the democrats. They are typically the ones who go after monopolies.
And here is the mental breakdown of the differences between the US and UK.
You see, you most certain did have the right in the first place. The government doesn't give you rights, it takes them away. The US constitution doesn't give anyone rights in the US, it specifically prohibits the US government from taking the right away. It specifically states that you already have the right to keep an bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
But I can see your argument. That is if you think the government gives you the rights it deems important (hopefully you and the government see eye to eye on a lot of things). You would be absolutely correct in that you never had the right in the first place. However, on this side of the pond, we enjoy having the right independent of government, and the limitations on government being able to remove it.
Look around a tad bit more.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/
HOwever, you would need to fit some criteria before they are in your home specifically.
I don't think that means what you think it means. Certain people can hate others for various reasons and not act in a violent way to express that hate. What's interesting is that you list out occupation of Afghanistan which didn't even occur until after 9/11 and Afghanistan refused to expel Al Qeada or hand over Bin Laden.
So perhaps in the report, hate is used more like the term strongly dislike and not so much as in hate enough to kill myself while trying to kill innocent civilians.
But on another note, Bin Laden did claim responsibility for 9/11 and said it was in response to our support of Israel. I've even heard people claim we should give up supporting Israel and let the Muslims run them out of the middle east altogether or completely destroy them as some have expressed desire to do. I find that scenario more frightening then anything else.
Well, I'm not entirley sure about the exact accuracy of the email you quoted but I do know that Thomas Jefferson created the Marine Forces under the department of the Navy, increased the size of the navy and made it a permanent standing navy as one of the first things he did in office. This was in response to the ottoman empire attacking ships (private, commercial, passenger, fishing and everything else) off the Atlantic coast of the US.
I also know that Thomas Jefferson attempted to deal with this when he was an ambassador to France and the delegation from the ottoman empire responded that Allah gave them the right to pirate and pillage ships in the Atlantic. And of course most of Europe dealt with it by paying royalties for the privilege of not being attacked by the ottoman empire (Muslims).
But even back then, it's true that it wasn't a wide spread thing that everyone was involved with. Kuwait was part of the Ottoman empire and they gave us Safe Harbor to allow our ships to resupply and coordinate attacks in Tripoli. Of course Kuwait has long been an ally of the US since before we were even a country. A major trade route was established from China to the Atlantic that went through Kuwait and it favored ships transporting to what became the US since the early 1700's We have remained friendly with the even as air travel replaced the need for trade routes across land. And contrary to popular belief, this is why Kuwait specifically asked the US for help when Iraq invaded and why the US jumped at the chance to render them assistance. Most people who blame it on oil have absolutely no clue about our existing relationship with Kuwait or that it started long before we needed any oil.
There is a communist party of America right now that practices in America right now. It hasn't been illegal to be a communist or a member of the communist party in the US for quite a while. It was only illegal for a short period of time (1950-1993 with various stages of degradations in scope after 1975).
What made it illegal to be communist in America in the first place was the attempted overthrow of the US government with the intent of installing a dictator following Stalinist principles by the communist party in the early 1900's.
However, it is illegal to specifically be a member or remain a member of the original communist party that attempted the coup. The same laws also make it illegal to be a member of any organization that has the desire, will, actions or anything else designed to topple the country or any government entity within it's jurisdiction. It also removed any constitutional right and any rights granted or protected by law to anyone who is a member of those groups. This is in title 50 somewhere. But the point is, you shouldn't confuse the "communist party" as mentioned in the law, with the communist party of the USA which is a peaceful organization not connected with international communist supposedly.
Wow, Just Wow.
You obviously don't know much about WWII, Eugenics, or how it played an important role in the final solution for the jews.
Here's a cliff notes version. Hitler (and no, this isn't godwining anything because it's both key and to the point of the comment in reply while not comparing anyone to hitler or nazis) among others, developed an opinion based around the atheist argument of evolution that involve different races of people evolving differently over different point of history. They saw it as their duty to eliminate the dirty- less evolved- people from the world gene pool. They went from forced sterilizations, forced abortions, to euthanasia and genocide.
That's right, most of the horrors of WWII was due to atheist principles. But WWII and the hitler wasn't the start of that. The entire concept existed long before and Margret Sanger and company were proud supported of the Forced abortions and birth control parts when they started planned parenthood (or the precursor- the birth control league).
Oh, and BTW, before you claim Hilter was a catholic jew (he was supposedly the bastard child of a jew and schooled at a catholic school while being raised catholic) as some sort of counter argument, look into Mein Kampf a little bit. He rejected those ideas and focus quite a bit on the Jewish ten commandments- notably the sanctity of life. He argued that protecting and helping the weak corrupted the gene pool and we needed to purify not only the Jewish people, but the ideas they expelled.
And while your quite right about people not alive right now, it all did happen less then 100 years ago.
You need a point of clarification:
This terrorist is not in the US, he is in hiding in Yemen or Afghanistan and there are US warrants for his arrest. He is a US citizen by birth right to a Yemen tribal leader who was residing in Nevada at the time of his birth. He was raised for most of his childhood in the US. There is a trial in abstention currently taking place in Yemen right now attempting to convict this guy (strengthening the charges against him).
What is in America right now is the servers and companies hosting the videos. The US constitution places severe restrictions on the US government in the areas of speech. This is for various reasons that are ancillary to the point, but the US government's hands are tied. But make no mistake, the US is not harboring this guy at all. He is wanted on charges connected to terrorism in the US and several other countries that US has extradition treaties with.
Actually, it does have something to do with whether or not anyone believes it. Minister Fallwell or something like that attempted to sue hustler and lost because the libel wasn't believable by anyone so the judge considered it satire. It's like saying that someone always wears boots because they are so full of shit, they drop it everywhere when they open their mouth to speak.
So suppose you said the point about the 5 year old boys, coke habit and gay lovers. Now what if it wasn't true, but your intention was to participate in a roast of countertrolling on his birthday. BTW, in the US,a roast is typically were people assemble to honor a person by exaggerating qualities of a person or situations they have been in to blow them out of portion in a comedic way.
I love it when idiots pretend to know it all but fail to do the slightest bit of research at all in their asertaitions. They then post as ACs because they are unsure of their own statements. It's fucking awesome.
Anyways, there are no laws concerning serial killers. At least no federal laws and no laws in any state that I can find. Serial killers are little more then a classification used internally in criminal investigation that alerts investigators to the depth of the crimes. Sometimes this kicks in policies (not laws) that allow the request of help from federal agencies or allows extra territorial jurisdiction in a limited aspect of statutorily bound LEOs. You will never find someone on trial for being a serial killer, you will find people on trial for killing person X, Y, or Z, and maybe the mention of it being a serial murder, but the term serial will never be listed as an official charge.
well, the question was just supposed to get you to think about what hate crime laws miss. Obviously, it didn't work on you at all. But the real reason I said it didn't matter was because existing law already account for those people who do it over and over again.
So please do not mistake your ignorance for my arrogance.
Look, if you want to be an idiot, that's your fault, not mine. You can remain a stupid as you wish for all I care. If the very first sentence of the next paragraph, you know, the only you only quoted part of, it listed why it wasn't important. I mean hell, you wasted more time and effort quoting and replying then it would have taken to finish reading the fucking sentence and spending a minute to understand it. I'm sorry that my regular use of the English language was not dumbed down enough for you to understand that repeat offenders already get dealt with more harshly. I'm sorry that me bringing up a point about the idea that repeat offenders need to be stopped with special laws that do not capture all repeat offenders is already covered by existing laws and the special laws aren't needed is too difficult for you to understand. But hey, this is the internet, lets start a campaign to create a special law to protect you.
Motive shouldn't matter at all. The state of mind and how calculated the act was should. You can't say that a person who sneezes and looses control of their car, riding up into the sidewalk and killing a person in the process is any different whether the person who died was black, white, gay, straight, or anywhere in between. Even if it was a white supremacist driving and a black man who died or a black panther racist driving and a white man who dies. Now what you can do is use the racial element and investigate further to determine if it was an accident or intentional killing which would demonstrate a different state of mind. However, that is not determined by default due to a law. It has to be looked at, considered with the evidence, and judged in the normal process of law. In other words, making it a hate crime does nothing more then proving it to be intentional would do which is one step below proving why it was intentional.
Motive should not mean anything except if the court is going to be lenient on a person or not. And to that point, it can all end up going back to the state of mind. Suppose you waiting in the corner of the house for your spouse to come home with a loaded gun, the shot and killed him or her. This shows intent along with premeditation. Not suppose that your spouse was mentally and physically abusing your and your kids, made you scared to death (fear of losing your life) if you reported it to anyone. Now this also shows motive, it either shows revenge or self defense. Necessity is a valid defense in most situations so self defense might not even make it to the court. Where it would/might, you would only be judged on the amount of force over the minimum needed to escape the harm to it's more of a mind game between you and the judge/jury.
So then you support the special treatment?
Cops get the special protection of extra penalties only because they are enforcing the law or apprehending suspects after the law has been broken. If you look, you will find that all government officials get extra protections from assaults, threats, and other violent acts in connection to their duty.
And no, even if it was a gay cop in a sports jersey sitting at the end of the bar that two guys pounded the crap out of because their team got beaten by the team on the sports jersy, those special or more protection doesn't kick in unless the cop a: makes it known he is a cop, and B: is acting within his official duties. If an off duty cop starts a fight with you over a parking place and you end up winning the fight, you are not facing more charges for hitting an officer of the law then you would be if it was me.
The problem with your concept is that laws don't stop murders from happening. They only prescribe penalties for committing the murder and that's only if you are caught. If someone is caught after committing a murder, they are already up for life in prison or the death penalty. We can't really make them serve two life sentences or send them through the gas chamber twice.
So lets take this to the next logical level with assault. You say the need is because they do it over and over again. Well, what if someone is just antisocial and had problems interacting with others, they are likely to assault people over and over, shouldn't those random strangers receive the extra protection too? Or is there some benefit that should only extend to the classes defined by hate crimes?
Well, it doesn't particularly matter what you replied with because almost all states have laws that elevate the severity of one offense to the next level if not higher with repeated convictions. In my state, if I just walked over to you and punched you in the face, it would be a misdemeanor by itself carrying 6 months and a $1000 fine (even if I continued doing it repeatedly). If I assaulted you with a weapon, it would be aggravated- a minor felony offense (4th degree or class D as some jurisdictions name it). If I assaulted you in any way that would have caused serious harm, I would get the with aggravated classification added on too. IF I did any of that within two years of each offense, the misdemeanor would automatically become a felony, the felony 4 would become a felony 3, and if it happened again within 2 years of that, they would both become a felony 1. So repeat offenders are already punished with extra penalties in a practical way.
With this knowledge, I'm not sure why we need hate crimes at all. Nothing I have seen about the justifications to date has offered anything that there wasn't already a law covering as the excuse. Maybe it's only to gain federal jurisdiction to seek the death penalty in areas that don't have one or do not enforce it? Maybe it's because some people think the protected classes are actually special or something? either way, both are wrong.
If it's not reasonable that you can escape an assault without further harm, then you return the assault until you are about to escape the harm.
In other words, while you can't really be shooting someone who threw a wadded up piece of paper at you, you can move them out of the way when they are also blocking the only exist from the room in order to exist yourself. The throwing of the paper showed an intent of aggressions, the blocking of the exist showed intent of continuing the assault. Your moving them may actually be an assault in and of itself (if you push them down and leave).