Nice counter punch to all the points I made. It's like you totally negated everything I said by not even touching it. Now, that what I call damage control, you have effectivly not answered any of the question/critiques and in turn labeled me as someone who shouldn't be listened to. Your parents must really be proud of you.
BTW, I like your point about Obama's certificate being fair game after similar (but much more quiet and much more brief) points were raised about McCain. So, if the McCain naval base issue had never come up, we wouldn't be suffering this birther nonsense? Pull the other one, mate.
I didn't say that at all. The issue of his birth and naturalization question could have come up independent of this. However, they were connected when the point of their birth place because a legitimate political point which was done by the left.
In you post, you attempt to ridicule me for asking questions that have a legitimate concern. Not once did you address anything or refute anything that was mentioned. This sort of tells me that you are OK with an unconstitutional government as long as it suits your purposes. What you will find is that sooner or later, it will not suit your purposes and you will be on the losing side. People will then call you a nut, make names up like Birther (as if that really an intelligent insult), and they will ignore your concerns while your rights are trampled on.
Now either participate and tell me where the nonsense is, what is idiotic about wanting to make sure your government is constitutional, and how refusing to provide the real documents and the sealing of all records that could easily validate his natural citizenship does anything to show his legitimacy. I mean seriously, he either wants the criticism there or he isn't a legitimate natural citizen, otherwise he would have put this all to rest a long time ago. So tell me, which part is nonsense, the wanting to know for sure or the refusing to tell for sure and taking steps to ensure people can't find it out?
How is it brain dead to want to know if the president of the united states is constitutionally qualified to be in office?
Legitimate questions concerning his citizenship cam into play after they attacked McCain for being born on a naval base. Obama to this date has not produced a birth certificate to anyone who didn't show a vested interest in his election. To make things more suspicious, when the governor of Hawaii found that it was being questioned, he sealed the birth records surrounding Obama's so no one could validate his natural citizenship.
Now, what is brain dead about wanting to know for sure that the president isn't acting unconstitutionally. Or is it one of those things where the constitution only applies where you want it to and this possible violation isn't important enough to you?
Furthermore, the image seems to have sat their quite happily until a bunch of teabaggers took it and started vandalizing public property with it, shoving it into the media spotlight.
I hope you aren't inferring that the image was perfectly legit speech until it started being used as speech. I also hop you are not attempting to claim that the free speech was only valid until a cause you either support or do not support takes a hold of it.
Flickr is more then just a company. They have government contracts, host government sites and so on. To think it was fine and sitting their quite happily until opponents of the administration (teabaggers) who controls these contracts started using it to make their point, is well unacceptable. The image is an obvious parody and obviously within the rights of fair use which is particularly loose on political messages. As I see it, because it sat their quite happily for some time without any problems, the reasoning behind this is more to protect the administration then anything. That's fine as long as they sever any and all ties relating to providing government services. This action is well beyond "I support this guy" and into the "you cannot appose that guy" which is simply wrong for a company that benefits from government contracts.
Not really. Fox, even though you are retarded in making that accusation, doesn't host official government websites nor does it have contracts with the government. Flickr on the other hand does have those and it appears that their actions are to preserve the administration/party in power by removing content that criticizes them.
If flickr were to remove itself from hosting government services and negate their contracts with the government, I would support your assertion that they can support the party of their choice. But as long as they have the contracts, it is the government controlling the information for all intents and purposes just the same as the any government office banning all political paraphernalia by it's employees except only allowing one that express the "party in power"'s views..
I think the one that probably shows the most evidence of this is this one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bmj/5799991/ Notice the caption "it's true, photo's don't lie".
Yea, it's obvious that they are protecting Obama. Probably because Obama has decided to steer a bunch of government money/usage their way with making the government sites on Flickr.
Maybe, you have a new and amazing definition for "no power", but in my definition "absolutely no control over them" is equivalent to "no power over them". So yes someone did say we have no power over them and that someone was you.
And you do not have any control over them. As I said, at best, you can influence someone who does have control over them. You presented nothing that doesn't require convincing someone else who does have power over them to make them do something.
And no, power and control are not the same thing. Lets just stick with the commonly accepted definitions for them. Control is you having the power to direct or determine something over them. Power encompasses a lot more and is the process of controlling. It would be idiotic to claim I said you had no power because I specifically mentioned the vote.
And again in your last reply you state again that we have no power, only this time you add a bit of a qualifier. I guess my mistake was to paraphrase you. That must be what confused you.
I'm pretty sure you are the one that's confused. See above.
When I added the "elected/hired", it was a reference to the hiring that our elected officials do in our stead. You've apparently never seen a local community band together and demand the firing of an incompetent city employee. So yes, they do work for us and they can be canned bu actions of the citizens.
It doesn't matter how many people come together, the answer is still that they do no have to do a damn thing your demanding. The only thing that will bind them is your vote and what that vote means to the public officials who do have the control over them. My point still stands even though your refusing to see it.
And all the laws that you mentioned in responding to my psots. Not to mention specific things they are required to do because of laws. Also, the courts. It's certainly not perfect, but it's not as bleak as you paint it. It's not all tied directly to the vote for a person. There are also certainly plenty of cases were citizens have raised petitions to add or change or remove laws passed by local officials. There are also cases where citizens have struck down laws through court action. Removed sitting governors by petition. You're either intentionally ignoring all this and lumping it all as tied to a vote for or against an individual candidate. But there is so much more to it than your overly simplistic point of view. BTW, not all judges are elected, so they don't have to fear a vote against them.
Quit being retarded. In everything you brought up. it all points back to a vote or getting another city/government employee to take action on your behalf. A petition does nothing but show how many people believe in a certain way and indicates their vote next chance. Ad for using the courts or some specific law, that is convincing another government agency to control the government. There is no control by you.
You're talking in circles. So, I'll let you chase your tail now, since you obviously can't, or won't, grasp this advanced topic.
You are inflating it to more then what is there. It's probably because you erroneously believe control and power are the same thing. You have absolutely no control over government employees. You have power to influence people who do have control over them. That is not one and the same and it isn't as you are claiming. It's all does to the vote.
It doesn't really matter. Countries who signed onto the agreements are obligated to honor the copyrights and patents of other countries whether they recognize them or not. So even though they don't particularly deal with software patents, they will have to honor another country's complaint on them.
Actually, the patents will apply most everywhere in Europe. There are several agreements concerning this. You can find out more at the WIPO site which lists almost all the "IP" related treaties. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the case, the law of the land of the violation (Whatever European country) will most likely prevail which could be worse or better depending on the country.
For future reference, people on LSD do not act 'differently'. They act like loons who are obviously hallucinating. Someone who'd been dosed with LSD in a cafe would probably not even be able to make it out the door. The police would be called, he'd be determined to be drugged, and they'd drug test him, and the food he was served.
As I said before, it was just a short "fictional" story written for a class in the mid 90's. BTW, I have done LSD before and it isn't as you say. Not all doses of LSD will produce hallucinations. You get a speeder rush, and then sometimes some trails from smaller hits. Rarely have I went into a full blown trip but there has been times were I could see no defining lines, just colors. It also takes about 20-30 minutes after dosing for it to kick in so he would be out the door and driving by the time anything happened.
You want them to act weird, give them PCP or something. Hallucinating is not 'acting different', it is 'either drugged or has suddenly caught schizophrenia'. Stress and extreme guilt, outside of Poe stories, does not actually result in hallucinations. You might be able to convince people that hallucinating gunshots was brought on by stress, but not hallucinating dancing giraffes.
Ok, PCP then. It was the point i was attempting to get at. Whatever makes it work. Like I said before, it's just a fictional story I wrote 10-15 years ago. I'm not demanding that fiction is reality.
It's still not a very good plan. First of all, cop cars have cameras, and GPSs, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was before that.
Not all cop cars have them, but remember, this was back in the mid 1990's, even less had them back then.
More important, cops often, well, do things. What if he gets called somewhere right after pulling you over, and clearly doesn't have anyone in the car? Yes, you can assert she was in the trunk, but they will actually test the trunk, and discover she was not. (Lack of DNA from someone in the cab is reasonable. Lack of DNS from someone tied in a trunk, not really.)
That's sort of a risk that needs to be taken. It's why it was at the end of his shift- to minimize it. Anyways, you seem pretty good in analyzing it, why don't you correct the mistakes, update the thing for modern times and see if you can make something of it. I don't mind. Perhaps you can make a book or script and sell it or something.
What you did is make it literally where either you or the cop did the crime, and that means if he has any sort of alibi, you're busted.
That's kind of why you stalk his habits. if he goes shopping them home on saturday after his shift, there will be an hour or so when he isn't with anyone. You don't need a large window for the first encounter.
And I don't think you have a very good acoustic premise with your fake gunshots. First of all, if you're firing actual bullets, they will, indeed, be loud, even inside a box. Secondly, other people will hear them.
I was thinking of replacing the lead with wax and paper to retain the "pop" without the damage and with some batting to muffle the sound a bit. The box would provide somewhat of an echo making it appear to have bunched off of walls of buildings as if it came from an alley the next street over. It's probaby not possible but well within the real of belief Hollywood asks us to experience.
Third, to attempt to make sure they don't, you're going to have to rig a radio control, which means you actually have to be there, which means when someone else does hear the gunshots, and the police actually start investigating, someone will have noticed you, and hey, isn't that the guy who claims that cop took the girl?
First, it was just a fictional story but it isn't too hard to fathom something like that happening in real life. This was without designer DNA which would make it overly simple to accomplish.
In fact, most intelligent people try to overcomplicate crimes. Using LSD requires you to buy LSD, and LSD is easily testable. Gee, it sure is suspicious that someone is drugging a cop just as he kills someone.
LSD isn't easily detectable but even if it was, it would damage the cops credability. They aren't going to say "how was he tricked into taking it", they are going to say, he was out of his mind when he did it. Besides, you can substitute anything for the LSD, the point was to make him act differently in an obviously noticeable way. When the cops behavior changes, then other things that you would never expect from him become more believable.
Likewise the gunshots. You think the cops sent to investigate that wouldn't look at suspicious boxes? You think others would not hear the gunshots? I mean, if every day, at ten o'clock, everyone hears a gunshot in a certain area, the obvious reason isn't going to be 'The cop there is crazy'.
The idea would be to make them appear to be a block or two away while being loud enough for him to here. Then when he looks in the area and the other cops ask people doing normal things if they heard gun shots, the answer would be no. If it went right, they would have over looked the boxes entirely because it wouldn't have been the area of concern for them. The idea here is to make it look like he was replaying the night he shot the girl in his head out of a guilt trip sort of like in the Tell Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe. This was explained in the long version but again, it shows how manipulation of someone's actions can make unbelievable things believable by them.
The easiest way to frame someone for murder is to a) pick someone with a motive for them to murder, and you don't b) have a good alibi faked up for yourself, and c) commit the murder almost in front of them and have them walk up not two minutes later, d) steal the murder weapon from them beforehand.
In the story, the motive to frame the cop was revenge because he harassed and roughed him up during a normal traffic stop in which he asked the cop if you could just write the ticket, he was almost late for work in which the cop then took his time, order a drug dog to show up and basically help him there for two hours causing him to lose his job. The story wasn't about trying to frame someone, it was about trying to frame a certain person for payback. As for the alibi, well that sort of takes care of itself when you accuse the cop of taking the girl. It also puts you in a position to point to the cop as the killer which was needed for everything to come together.
Now I will admit, I was young when I wrote it, there probably are a bunch of problems and it isn't the perfect crime. But the concept and conflict was by design. You brought up some things that probably would have made it easier but who would believe that a cop who walked up on a murder actually killed the person when nothing else in his life indicates that he would have. The entire idea besides payback was to make people appear to see something was wrong with the officer so his history of of being a law abiding citizen couldn't be trusted.
As for the rest of your post. I see your point. However, most of that has already been hashed out in various movies and other books. I needed originality. The point of sharing it is that since the inception of DNA being used as a smoking gun, people have thought of ways to use it to frame people. It's just like taking their gun a week before the shooting or their golf club and bashing someone's head in. Except it's a lot harder to claim you DNA was stolen the day before the murder happened. With this article, that just got a lot easier. Now imagine the cop having th
The public defender doesn't need to say he understands or not, he just needs to advise the person when the questions are asked. If the guy is incompetent, and truly doesn't understand, then chances are any information gained from him will be erroneous and or misleading. If charges are filed against him, the public defender's notion of his incompetence will become evidence.
Or are you think that the Public defender can just say he (the public defender himself) doesn't understand the rights either? In that case, he will lose his law license and likely cause an action to be brought against him (lawsuit). A lawyer is duty bound to know the laws and rights a person possesses. That's why you see specialty lawyers refusing cases outside their specialty. IF a PD doesn't know his client's basic rights, he doesn't deserve to be on the bar in the first place.
I created a fictional story when in college in the 90's where the protagonist sought revenge on a cop by framing him with murder. This was around the time of the OJ trial and DNA was all over the TV because of the trial. The cliff notes version went something like this.
The villian watched the officer and learned his personal habbits, then while on vacation, he broke into his home and stole hair from a comb/brush and sacked it into a plastic bag. He then waited for the flue season and rooted through the trash looking for used tissues and so on. On the night of the murder, he arranged to be driving on the cops patrol route and to get pulled over for a traffic violation near the end of his shift. He had the murder victim in the car so the cop would run her name and license like they normally do in my area. This is where the fun starts, the woman was taken to a remote location, shot and raped using a condom, then hair from the officer was placed around her with close attention to a few strands placed under the fingernails. A couple tissues were dropped close by and the car had tires of the same make and model as the cop's cruiser as well as spares that were switched off to match his personal car. This was an attempt to place both the cruiser and personal vehicle of the cops at the scene.
That same night, while the officer was sleeping, drops of LSD was placed around the rim of his travel mug so he would have a half ass trip and act goofy. Boxes were made to discharge blank gunshot rounds placed near a curb at locations he frequented like the donuts shop and the stores he stopped in for coffee refills. He would hear the gun shots (precisely the same amount as the girl got shot with) then a new dose of the LSD on the coffee rim. After a couple of days of this, the women would most likely be reported missing, the protagonist would have reported an anonymous tip to a news agency that the body was at a certain place and when the cops found her dead, he would be arrested. Now here is where the plan falls into place, when they ask where she was because he was the last person seen with her (the traffic incident), the protagonist insists that the cop said she had a warrant for her arrest and took her with him. She was some random bar whore he picked up so he didn't care enough to worry about her being in jail.
The detectives investigating the murder finds the hairs, the tissues, link the DNA to the cop, then take a look at his erratic behavior (caused by the LSD and the fake gunshots), find the tire tracks in the soft grass area close to where the body was dumped that match both the cruiser's and the cops personal vehicle's tires (more then one trip), and then arrest the cop with what pretty much seems like a slam dunk case because of the DNA evidence.
OF course my story had a twist in the ending, the cop was sentenced to life in prison and killed by an inmate but the villain ended up turning to drugs and while high one night, mentions to someone who was talking ill about the officer in question what he had done. It turned out to be the girls younger brother who violently and painfully killed him with his own hands.
In most cases, they don't even have to say it in the first place. It's just a formality from a case where someone who actually didn't know their rights was railroaded. A good thorough law enforcement agent will read them as a matter of avoiding a technicality that could jeopardize evidence gained by your interview. In some jurisdictions, it's an automatic as a matter of policy.
However, if they do read it, and you do claim not to understand it, they can just place a public defender beside you during questioning and he can advise you on when to and when not to and how to answer. Outside of that, they should limit their questioning to what wasn't already known from outside entities (witnesses, evidence at the scene and so on). They do not have to limit the questioning to that though, it just means a possible challenge to anything gained that may or may not invalidate that portion of the evidence. The test would be a judge with some professional help determining if you actually did understand it or not. Very few people will not actually understand it unless the cops actually treat you like you do not have the rights as was the case in Miranda which lends it's name.
I think it is you that is beyond reason. Many of the rules would hold true today, I never said all of them. I did however, say most of them but that still does not include all of them. In fact, I believe my original statement was about once you get away from the crazy shit like the animal sacrifices most of them are best practices today. Well the crazy shit would include the treatment of non-jews too.
But hey, you can't even see the logic in the rules so why would I expect you to follow the logic in my posts.
Ah but Lincoln didn't declare independence or use "the people" first, the Founding Fathers did while they were still alive.
Sure, I don't disagree with that, but the Founding fathers also didn't use the term "the people" in the way you are attempting to ascribe Lincoln's phrase either.
It all disagrees with what you said, which was "That of, by and for, doesn't mean what you think it means. Never did and was never brought up until 100 years after the founding of the country." I realize now that because I did not include that in my reply to that post of yours you may of been confused, and I apologize, but you were in fact wrong when you said the above quote. "The People" was used before Lincoln was even born.
"The people" is not "Of, by and for the people". You see, when you put words with other words, there are specific meanings implied. This is called C O M U N I C A T I O N. Communication is the way we use words to convey thoughts to each other and is a primary separation between us and lesser beings like animals. When you add OF, By, and For to the phrase "the people" as Lincoln did, then it belongs to the way I described and does not indicate any direct responsibility to them. In fact, when you look at the term "the people", as used by the founders, It's true that the benefit of the citizens over that of citizens of other countries or foreign corporations or foreign governments was meant but it is rare for them to mean to more then that. It never meant what you attempted to claim it means.
Failed you, in addition/subtraction, history, and vocabulary.
No, actually, I didn't fail in anything. I pulled a rounded number out of the air to show the point that the founding fathers were dead by the time Lincoln was around. When I actually did do the math, 13 was the difference in the actual number which is correct and again, did not subtract from my point. As for the history and vocabulary, this is your failing. You presented nothing to detract from my statement and appear to be intent on thinking the term "the people" is equivalent to "Of the people, By the people, and For the people" which is what you said (even though it was a condensed form). That is wrong and you have not addresses it in any meaningful way the removes my point about them.
No, they are best practices. Lets take the ones you mentioned and put them into perspective.
I agree it's a best practice to send menstruating women away so you won't have to deal with her psychosis.
Women don't seem to agree. Hence I fish.
lets see what else is says about this, Leviticus 15:19 - 30 says that the menstrual blood is unclean and everything it touched needs to be cleaned bathed with water including her bed and chair and whoever else contacted it when it was unclean. Seems like a good practice whether you fish or not. Keep in mind, they didn't have soap and sanitary napkins like we so today but never the less, it's still wise to wash the crap before contacting it.
Not cooking meat and milk in the same container is a perfect example of the 'long con small bite of bullshit'
Why don't you try it for a while and see what happens. Keep in mind, they didn't have soap like we do so just use water to clean your pot. It's actually a very good idea if you look at it. The two foods have natural bacteria that will feed on each other and make you sick.
As is not eating fish unless they have scales and fins.
And yes, that is still a best practice today when you do no have refrigeration. Dead fish will last longer and be safer in the heat then shrimp, clams or oysters. Of course your a fisherman and knew that right?
As is mutilating boys genitals.
Oh, the circumcision. First of all, it fixed a very real problem with disease. I don't know if I would say it is still best practice today, but I do know that non-circumcised boys have to watch for infections and it is a problem not present in most circumcised boys.
Granting there are many good rules (thou shalt dig a latrine) but those could have been reasoned by the human authors simply observing patterns of disease.
They could have been. But there were enshrined into a religion as laws to live by so you didn't have to figure it out on your own.
Saying that 'most' are best practices is a bit of a stretch.
No, not really. Things like cleaning yourself after touching a lepers, treating the vagina in certain ways to avoid very real diseases after child birth and during menstruation, not eating foods that go bad easily and can kill you, all of that stuff is pretty much a best practice. There are quite a but more rules too.
My long winded response was to your statement that outside of our vote we "have no power over them". Which is simply not true at the local level. we can use other people within the government to force them to do what we want. Provided what we want is appropriate. If you don't think that is power to make them do what we want, I'm not sure I can make you understand why the sky looks blue in the daytime, let alone anything else.
Just because you go to someone else who is afraid of the vote doesn't mean you made them do anything. It means that the government did because they are the employer. No one said there wasn't any power, it just all runs back to the vote. Everything you mentioned was either directly tied to the vote, or directed by the government.
And it seem that you are the one attempting to redefine things.
The fact is "we the people" is all about getting people together and doing something, when the person "we the people" have elected/hired to do it doesn't do it. You seem to have some misunderstanding of what "we the people" is all about. And no I don't agree with you, or I wouldn't have wasted the time to respond. You're stating I do based on your misinterpretation of my words doesn't make it so.
Actually, it is you that has the misunderstanding on what "we the people" means. BTW, we elect, we don't hire anyone. Their jobs are to their office they hold, not the people. The people sometimes fall into that category but not always.
And yes, you do agree with me, your just attempting to put labels onto everything and pretend it is separate when it is not. Every thing you mentioned was either directly related to the vote or by convincing another government employee to make it happen. It all comes back to the vote.
The reason we have elected officials is so we are left free to do other things. The reason for our government structure is so we can use one against the other when needed. Hence using the courts against the executive is a totally valid way of telling one branch of government what to do. That is what it was designed for, and until you understand that you won't understand diddly about government. This approach is frequently used by people in the various branches of government. It's just sad that the average American has no grasp of this.
I understand plenty about government. But where your failing is the going to the courts is nothing more then getting the government to direct it's employees. You have no power to do that unless you convince someone in the government to do it. Everything that gives you any power over the government is either a law, or directly tied to the vote.
Before independence, which was 87 years, "Four score and seven year", before Lincoln's address.
13 years off, so, the point still remains. It was well after the founders were dead.
All of those "people" existed in 1789. Thomas Jefferson wrote of the right of the people to overthrow government in the "Declaration Of Independence" which was signed in 1776. I can understand if you're not American but if you are then education failed you.
Actually, if you read the Declaration of Independence, it says that when government becomes so bad, there becomes a time to overthrow it.
It's all besides the point. Nothing you have presented disagrees with what I said. At best, there was a 13 year difference in the 100 years which does not disprove anything I said in context.
I can understand how public education has failed you. I can understand how your unwilling to open a history book and instead want to attribute fallacious attributes to something you only think you understand. But if your going to claim I am wrong about something, stick to the point and not a generic number I used to show that the founders weren't even alive when that phrase was uttered.
The problem you present is their problem. However, you are sold a certain speed and they shouldn't be able to limit anything to below that speed. Or are you happy paying for more then what you actually get? I mean you would be pretty pissed if McDonald's left you sandwich out of your order because they were too busy and under capacity at the time wouldn't you?
It's not just the medical software that doesn't seem to care. I recently was trouble shooting a credit card app that wouldn't go through the proxy. When capturing the packets, I noticed that all of the account information and card numbers were transmitted in clear text. Their support staff had no idea what I was talking about and swore their app was PCI compliant (even after it broke with a simple proxy server that is actually recommended in the PCI spec. I ended up having to email the packets to the programmer which was only an option after I suggested we talked to MasterCard directly on what PCI standards meant.
The link has been encrypted but no proxy support to date. Ended up having to make the network less secure in order to make it work.
Consent of the governed doesn't even mean what you think it means. Obviously is 49% or the people voted for candidate A and 51% voted for candidate B, 49% of the governed would not have given consent. But where consent is given is in the government in which we have and in the system that binds us to the results.
Please open up a history book and get an idea of what the founding fathers were working for.
That opinion has a legally binding effect that makes the second amendment mean a certain thing. You can disagree with it all you want, but that doesn't make your opinion right. Now, the court did point to several facts, perhaps more facts and relevance to empirical evidence then evolution currently has. It's pretty much a fact.
Government, at least of the USA, is supposed to be of, by, and for the people so yes we the people are their employer.
That of, by and for, doesn't mean what you think it means. Never did and was never brought up until 100 years after the founding of the country.
Lincoln, when he did his Gettysburg address, he was reflecting on the foundation of the country and what brought us together. The "of the people" refers to being constituted of citizens and not kings or corporations across the ocean or dictators of foreign lands as was the case in the US before our independence. The "by the people" means that we as citizens elect our leaders, they are not instituted by some other government as was the case before our independence. The "for the people" is that we give our representatives the power to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. It is not some obligation for every city employee to do what you demand or in anyway something that makes you their employer.
I'm sorry that you heard a buzz word and were lead to believe something that wasn't true.
Sure we can't directly order this that or the other thing. But it is also possible to get involved in the local government. You can go to the city council meetings and use you 1st amendment right to speak out about things. You can talk directly to these people and suggest action. You can get a petition going with registered voters. You can become friends with the local politicians. There must be at least fifty ways to interact with your local government, and get action. Will it always work? Hell NO! But then, I don't have that level of control over my own family. But we certainly have more control than just our vote.
And that is all directly related to the vote. It's either you expressing your intent or attempting to influence others with their vote. The threat of the vote is the same as the vote.
If you do your duty and go and vote and then leave it at that, you get exactly what you deserve. If you get active in your local government and still don't get the things you want, then that's another thing. Run for office, and become a council member.
And once that happens, you are no longer a private citizen as in the people and are an employee of the city. My point still stands.
Even an average nut job like Palin was able to figure this out. I expect better from so-called Nerds. Local elections are the only ones that you can really do something about correcting mistakes. The amount of effort required, depends on the size of your locale obviously. For my locality it would probably only take 501 people to vote for anyone to get a seat on the council, in an off year.
And your back to my point of the vote. Nice how you attempt to claim "How is this crazy comment insightful?" when you just agreed with it. Perhaps if you would listen to yourself, Palin wouldn't be as much of a nut job as you think she is.
Furthermore citizens can direct police investigations, to some degree. There is the power of arrest that all citizens retain, except in one state where that right is a bit more restricted (you can arrest, but not move the prisoner, you need to call a local agency to come and pick up). That of course, open the private citizen arresting to possible civil suit should the person get off.
You are limited to do what they decide to do or what the law dictates. Citizens arrest is something that you do, not the police, I'm not sure what makes you think that your acting like a police in lieu of their actions is telling them what to do.
There is also the ability to get a Writ of Mandemus from a local court ordering the police to investigate.
And that would be the court telling the police what to do, still not quite We the people.
You can talk directly to the local prosecutor.
And that would be the prosecutor telling the police what to do. Still not we the people but another city branch.
Listen, no one has said there wasn't other people within the city that you can convince, but in the end, you are not telling anyone to do anything, at best, you are convincing someone that it needs done and they tell them to do it.
But if you aren't willing to get involved, then you really shouldn't expect them to do what you want them to do. Unless you elect and employ only those with telepathic powers who can, and do, read the minds of their constituents. Not something I want, but to each their own.
Alternatively, if you "know" that involvement is useless in your case due to every official being corrupt, and you don't move away to some better place, then Darwin principles will take care you and you have no more need to worry.
I'm not sure anyone said do not get involved. In fact, all that you have mentioned either is directly tied to the vote or
Slashdot Mirror
Nice counter punch to all the points I made. It's like you totally negated everything I said by not even touching it. Now, that what I call damage control, you have effectivly not answered any of the question/critiques and in turn labeled me as someone who shouldn't be listened to. Your parents must really be proud of you.
I didn't say that at all. The issue of his birth and naturalization question could have come up independent of this. However, they were connected when the point of their birth place because a legitimate political point which was done by the left.
In you post, you attempt to ridicule me for asking questions that have a legitimate concern. Not once did you address anything or refute anything that was mentioned. This sort of tells me that you are OK with an unconstitutional government as long as it suits your purposes. What you will find is that sooner or later, it will not suit your purposes and you will be on the losing side. People will then call you a nut, make names up like Birther (as if that really an intelligent insult), and they will ignore your concerns while your rights are trampled on.
Now either participate and tell me where the nonsense is, what is idiotic about wanting to make sure your government is constitutional, and how refusing to provide the real documents and the sealing of all records that could easily validate his natural citizenship does anything to show his legitimacy. I mean seriously, he either wants the criticism there or he isn't a legitimate natural citizen, otherwise he would have put this all to rest a long time ago. So tell me, which part is nonsense, the wanting to know for sure or the refusing to tell for sure and taking steps to ensure people can't find it out?
How is it brain dead to want to know if the president of the united states is constitutionally qualified to be in office?
Legitimate questions concerning his citizenship cam into play after they attacked McCain for being born on a naval base. Obama to this date has not produced a birth certificate to anyone who didn't show a vested interest in his election. To make things more suspicious, when the governor of Hawaii found that it was being questioned, he sealed the birth records surrounding Obama's so no one could validate his natural citizenship.
Now, what is brain dead about wanting to know for sure that the president isn't acting unconstitutionally. Or is it one of those things where the constitution only applies where you want it to and this possible violation isn't important enough to you?
I hope you aren't inferring that the image was perfectly legit speech until it started being used as speech. I also hop you are not attempting to claim that the free speech was only valid until a cause you either support or do not support takes a hold of it.
Flickr is more then just a company. They have government contracts, host government sites and so on. To think it was fine and sitting their quite happily until opponents of the administration (teabaggers) who controls these contracts started using it to make their point, is well unacceptable. The image is an obvious parody and obviously within the rights of fair use which is particularly loose on political messages. As I see it, because it sat their quite happily for some time without any problems, the reasoning behind this is more to protect the administration then anything. That's fine as long as they sever any and all ties relating to providing government services. This action is well beyond "I support this guy" and into the "you cannot appose that guy" which is simply wrong for a company that benefits from government contracts.
Not really. Fox, even though you are retarded in making that accusation, doesn't host official government websites nor does it have contracts with the government. Flickr on the other hand does have those and it appears that their actions are to preserve the administration/party in power by removing content that criticizes them.
If flickr were to remove itself from hosting government services and negate their contracts with the government, I would support your assertion that they can support the party of their choice. But as long as they have the contracts, it is the government controlling the information for all intents and purposes just the same as the any government office banning all political paraphernalia by it's employees except only allowing one that express the "party in power"'s views..
Well, lets take a look really quick.
on the home page for flickr, I simply types Bush in the search box and found these results in the first few replies.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/1549247793/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkvision/43028237/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrwaldo/309309512/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eduardo_dacosta/511117225/
I think the one that probably shows the most evidence of this is this one.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bmj/5799991/
Notice the caption "it's true, photo's don't lie".
Yea, it's obvious that they are protecting Obama. Probably because Obama has decided to steer a bunch of government money/usage their way with making the government sites on Flickr.
BTW, when I searched for Obama, it was about 10 pages in before I found the first photo criticizing him.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3834570613/
It's nothing more then a re-posting of the pulled photo with a story under it about the action. I wonder how long it will stay there?
And you do not have any control over them. As I said, at best, you can influence someone who does have control over them. You presented nothing that doesn't require convincing someone else who does have power over them to make them do something.
And no, power and control are not the same thing. Lets just stick with the commonly accepted definitions for them. Control is you having the power to direct or determine something over them. Power encompasses a lot more and is the process of controlling. It would be idiotic to claim I said you had no power because I specifically mentioned the vote.
I'm pretty sure you are the one that's confused. See above.
It doesn't matter how many people come together, the answer is still that they do no have to do a damn thing your demanding. The only thing that will bind them is your vote and what that vote means to the public officials who do have the control over them. My point still stands even though your refusing to see it.
Quit being retarded. In everything you brought up. it all points back to a vote or getting another city/government employee to take action on your behalf. A petition does nothing but show how many people believe in a certain way and indicates their vote next chance. Ad for using the courts or some specific law, that is convincing another government agency to control the government. There is no control by you.
You are inflating it to more then what is there. It's probably because you erroneously believe control and power are the same thing. You have absolutely no control over government employees. You have power to influence people who do have control over them. That is not one and the same and it isn't as you are claiming. It's all does to the vote.
It doesn't really matter. Countries who signed onto the agreements are obligated to honor the copyrights and patents of other countries whether they recognize them or not. So even though they don't particularly deal with software patents, they will have to honor another country's complaint on them.
Actually, the patents will apply most everywhere in Europe. There are several agreements concerning this. You can find out more at the WIPO site which lists almost all the "IP" related treaties. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the case, the law of the land of the violation (Whatever European country) will most likely prevail which could be worse or better depending on the country.
As I said before, it was just a short "fictional" story written for a class in the mid 90's. BTW, I have done LSD before and it isn't as you say. Not all doses of LSD will produce hallucinations. You get a speeder rush, and then sometimes some trails from smaller hits. Rarely have I went into a full blown trip but there has been times were I could see no defining lines, just colors. It also takes about 20-30 minutes after dosing for it to kick in so he would be out the door and driving by the time anything happened.
Ok, PCP then. It was the point i was attempting to get at. Whatever makes it work. Like I said before, it's just a fictional story I wrote 10-15 years ago. I'm not demanding that fiction is reality.
Not all cop cars have them, but remember, this was back in the mid 1990's, even less had them back then.
That's sort of a risk that needs to be taken. It's why it was at the end of his shift- to minimize it. Anyways, you seem pretty good in analyzing it, why don't you correct the mistakes, update the thing for modern times and see if you can make something of it. I don't mind. Perhaps you can make a book or script and sell it or something.
That's kind of why you stalk his habits. if he goes shopping them home on saturday after his shift, there will be an hour or so when he isn't with anyone. You don't need a large window for the first encounter.
I was thinking of replacing the lead with wax and paper to retain the "pop" without the damage and with some batting to muffle the sound a bit. The box would provide somewhat of an echo making it appear to have bunched off of walls of buildings as if it came from an alley the next street over. It's probaby not possible but well within the real of belief Hollywood asks us to experience.
There is that possibil
First, it was just a fictional story but it isn't too hard to fathom something like that happening in real life. This was without designer DNA which would make it overly simple to accomplish.
LSD isn't easily detectable but even if it was, it would damage the cops credability. They aren't going to say "how was he tricked into taking it", they are going to say, he was out of his mind when he did it. Besides, you can substitute anything for the LSD, the point was to make him act differently in an obviously noticeable way. When the cops behavior changes, then other things that you would never expect from him become more believable.
The idea would be to make them appear to be a block or two away while being loud enough for him to here. Then when he looks in the area and the other cops ask people doing normal things if they heard gun shots, the answer would be no. If it went right, they would have over looked the boxes entirely because it wouldn't have been the area of concern for them. The idea here is to make it look like he was replaying the night he shot the girl in his head out of a guilt trip sort of like in the Tell Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe. This was explained in the long version but again, it shows how manipulation of someone's actions can make unbelievable things believable by them.
In the story, the motive to frame the cop was revenge because he harassed and roughed him up during a normal traffic stop in which he asked the cop if you could just write the ticket, he was almost late for work in which the cop then took his time, order a drug dog to show up and basically help him there for two hours causing him to lose his job. The story wasn't about trying to frame someone, it was about trying to frame a certain person for payback. As for the alibi, well that sort of takes care of itself when you accuse the cop of taking the girl. It also puts you in a position to point to the cop as the killer which was needed for everything to come together.
Now I will admit, I was young when I wrote it, there probably are a bunch of problems and it isn't the perfect crime. But the concept and conflict was by design. You brought up some things that probably would have made it easier but who would believe that a cop who walked up on a murder actually killed the person when nothing else in his life indicates that he would have. The entire idea besides payback was to make people appear to see something was wrong with the officer so his history of of being a law abiding citizen couldn't be trusted.
As for the rest of your post. I see your point. However, most of that has already been hashed out in various movies and other books. I needed originality. The point of sharing it is that since the inception of DNA being used as a smoking gun, people have thought of ways to use it to frame people. It's just like taking their gun a week before the shooting or their golf club and bashing someone's head in. Except it's a lot harder to claim you DNA was stolen the day before the murder happened. With this article, that just got a lot easier. Now imagine the cop having th
The public defender doesn't need to say he understands or not, he just needs to advise the person when the questions are asked. If the guy is incompetent, and truly doesn't understand, then chances are any information gained from him will be erroneous and or misleading. If charges are filed against him, the public defender's notion of his incompetence will become evidence.
Or are you think that the Public defender can just say he (the public defender himself) doesn't understand the rights either? In that case, he will lose his law license and likely cause an action to be brought against him (lawsuit). A lawyer is duty bound to know the laws and rights a person possesses. That's why you see specialty lawyers refusing cases outside their specialty. IF a PD doesn't know his client's basic rights, he doesn't deserve to be on the bar in the first place.
I created a fictional story when in college in the 90's where the protagonist sought revenge on a cop by framing him with murder. This was around the time of the OJ trial and DNA was all over the TV because of the trial. The cliff notes version went something like this.
The villian watched the officer and learned his personal habbits, then while on vacation, he broke into his home and stole hair from a comb/brush and sacked it into a plastic bag. He then waited for the flue season and rooted through the trash looking for used tissues and so on. On the night of the murder, he arranged to be driving on the cops patrol route and to get pulled over for a traffic violation near the end of his shift. He had the murder victim in the car so the cop would run her name and license like they normally do in my area. This is where the fun starts, the woman was taken to a remote location, shot and raped using a condom, then hair from the officer was placed around her with close attention to a few strands placed under the fingernails. A couple tissues were dropped close by and the car had tires of the same make and model as the cop's cruiser as well as spares that were switched off to match his personal car. This was an attempt to place both the cruiser and personal vehicle of the cops at the scene.
That same night, while the officer was sleeping, drops of LSD was placed around the rim of his travel mug so he would have a half ass trip and act goofy. Boxes were made to discharge blank gunshot rounds placed near a curb at locations he frequented like the donuts shop and the stores he stopped in for coffee refills. He would hear the gun shots (precisely the same amount as the girl got shot with) then a new dose of the LSD on the coffee rim. After a couple of days of this, the women would most likely be reported missing, the protagonist would have reported an anonymous tip to a news agency that the body was at a certain place and when the cops found her dead, he would be arrested. Now here is where the plan falls into place, when they ask where she was because he was the last person seen with her (the traffic incident), the protagonist insists that the cop said she had a warrant for her arrest and took her with him. She was some random bar whore he picked up so he didn't care enough to worry about her being in jail.
The detectives investigating the murder finds the hairs, the tissues, link the DNA to the cop, then take a look at his erratic behavior (caused by the LSD and the fake gunshots), find the tire tracks in the soft grass area close to where the body was dumped that match both the cruiser's and the cops personal vehicle's tires (more then one trip), and then arrest the cop with what pretty much seems like a slam dunk case because of the DNA evidence.
OF course my story had a twist in the ending, the cop was sentenced to life in prison and killed by an inmate but the villain ended up turning to drugs and while high one night, mentions to someone who was talking ill about the officer in question what he had done. It turned out to be the girls younger brother who violently and painfully killed him with his own hands.
In most cases, they don't even have to say it in the first place. It's just a formality from a case where someone who actually didn't know their rights was railroaded. A good thorough law enforcement agent will read them as a matter of avoiding a technicality that could jeopardize evidence gained by your interview. In some jurisdictions, it's an automatic as a matter of policy.
However, if they do read it, and you do claim not to understand it, they can just place a public defender beside you during questioning and he can advise you on when to and when not to and how to answer. Outside of that, they should limit their questioning to what wasn't already known from outside entities (witnesses, evidence at the scene and so on). They do not have to limit the questioning to that though, it just means a possible challenge to anything gained that may or may not invalidate that portion of the evidence. The test would be a judge with some professional help determining if you actually did understand it or not. Very few people will not actually understand it unless the cops actually treat you like you do not have the rights as was the case in Miranda which lends it's name.
I think it is you that is beyond reason. Many of the rules would hold true today, I never said all of them. I did however, say most of them but that still does not include all of them. In fact, I believe my original statement was about once you get away from the crazy shit like the animal sacrifices most of them are best practices today. Well the crazy shit would include the treatment of non-jews too.
But hey, you can't even see the logic in the rules so why would I expect you to follow the logic in my posts.
Sure, I don't disagree with that, but the Founding fathers also didn't use the term "the people" in the way you are attempting to ascribe Lincoln's phrase either.
"The people" is not "Of, by and for the people". You see, when you put words with other words, there are specific meanings implied. This is called C O M U N I C A T I O N. Communication is the way we use words to convey thoughts to each other and is a primary separation between us and lesser beings like animals. When you add OF, By, and For to the phrase "the people" as Lincoln did, then it belongs to the way I described and does not indicate any direct responsibility to them. In fact, when you look at the term "the people", as used by the founders, It's true that the benefit of the citizens over that of citizens of other countries or foreign corporations or foreign governments was meant but it is rare for them to mean to more then that. It never meant what you attempted to claim it means.
No, actually, I didn't fail in anything. I pulled a rounded number out of the air to show the point that the founding fathers were dead by the time Lincoln was around. When I actually did do the math, 13 was the difference in the actual number which is correct and again, did not subtract from my point. As for the history and vocabulary, this is your failing. You presented nothing to detract from my statement and appear to be intent on thinking the term "the people" is equivalent to "Of the people, By the people, and For the people" which is what you said (even though it was a condensed form). That is wrong and you have not addresses it in any meaningful way the removes my point about them.
No, they are best practices. Lets take the ones you mentioned and put them into perspective.
lets see what else is says about this, Leviticus 15:19 - 30 says that the menstrual blood is unclean and everything it touched needs to be cleaned bathed with water including her bed and chair and whoever else contacted it when it was unclean. Seems like a good practice whether you fish or not. Keep in mind, they didn't have soap and sanitary napkins like we so today but never the less, it's still wise to wash the crap before contacting it.
Why don't you try it for a while and see what happens. Keep in mind, they didn't have soap like we do so just use water to clean your pot. It's actually a very good idea if you look at it. The two foods have natural bacteria that will feed on each other and make you sick.
And yes, that is still a best practice today when you do no have refrigeration. Dead fish will last longer and be safer in the heat then shrimp, clams or oysters. Of course your a fisherman and knew that right?
Oh, the circumcision. First of all, it fixed a very real problem with disease. I don't know if I would say it is still best practice today, but I do know that non-circumcised boys have to watch for infections and it is a problem not present in most circumcised boys.
They could have been. But there were enshrined into a religion as laws to live by so you didn't have to figure it out on your own.
No, not really. Things like cleaning yourself after touching a lepers, treating the vagina in certain ways to avoid very real diseases after child birth and during menstruation, not eating foods that go bad easily and can kill you, all of that stuff is pretty much a best practice. There are quite a but more rules too.
Why don't you read them and find out. It appears that getting our copyrights and patents honored in other countries is what we got in return.
Here is a list of some of the more recent ones and who has signed onto them.
The DMCA was a direct result of the WCT and WPPT. The Sonny Bono copyright extensions was from the Uruguay round table agreements and was in response to an EU directive (Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights).
Now we most likely did negotiate so I'm not saying it was all their fault. But I am saying it is much worse then just in the US.
Just because you go to someone else who is afraid of the vote doesn't mean you made them do anything. It means that the government did because they are the employer. No one said there wasn't any power, it just all runs back to the vote. Everything you mentioned was either directly tied to the vote, or directed by the government.
And it seem that you are the one attempting to redefine things.
Actually, it is you that has the misunderstanding on what "we the people" means. BTW, we elect, we don't hire anyone. Their jobs are to their office they hold, not the people. The people sometimes fall into that category but not always.
And yes, you do agree with me, your just attempting to put labels onto everything and pretend it is separate when it is not. Every thing you mentioned was either directly related to the vote or by convincing another government employee to make it happen. It all comes back to the vote.
I understand plenty about government. But where your failing is the going to the courts is nothing more then getting the government to direct it's employees. You have no power to do that unless you convince someone in the government to do it. Everything that gives you any power over the government is either a law, or directly tied to the vote.
13 years off, so, the point still remains. It was well after the founders were dead.
Actually, if you read the Declaration of Independence, it says that when government becomes so bad, there becomes a time to overthrow it.
It's all besides the point. Nothing you have presented disagrees with what I said. At best, there was a 13 year difference in the 100 years which does not disprove anything I said in context.
I can understand how public education has failed you. I can understand how your unwilling to open a history book and instead want to attribute fallacious attributes to something you only think you understand. But if your going to claim I am wrong about something, stick to the point and not a generic number I used to show that the founders weren't even alive when that phrase was uttered.
The problem you present is their problem. However, you are sold a certain speed and they shouldn't be able to limit anything to below that speed. Or are you happy paying for more then what you actually get? I mean you would be pretty pissed if McDonald's left you sandwich out of your order because they were too busy and under capacity at the time wouldn't you?
It's not just the medical software that doesn't seem to care. I recently was trouble shooting a credit card app that wouldn't go through the proxy. When capturing the packets, I noticed that all of the account information and card numbers were transmitted in clear text. Their support staff had no idea what I was talking about and swore their app was PCI compliant (even after it broke with a simple proxy server that is actually recommended in the PCI spec. I ended up having to email the packets to the programmer which was only an option after I suggested we talked to MasterCard directly on what PCI standards meant.
The link has been encrypted but no proxy support to date. Ended up having to make the network less secure in order to make it work.
Come back to reality. It isn't that hard to do.
Consent of the governed doesn't even mean what you think it means. Obviously is 49% or the people voted for candidate A and 51% voted for candidate B, 49% of the governed would not have given consent. But where consent is given is in the government in which we have and in the system that binds us to the results.
Please open up a history book and get an idea of what the founding fathers were working for.
That opinion has a legally binding effect that makes the second amendment mean a certain thing. You can disagree with it all you want, but that doesn't make your opinion right. Now, the court did point to several facts, perhaps more facts and relevance to empirical evidence then evolution currently has. It's pretty much a fact.
That of, by and for, doesn't mean what you think it means. Never did and was never brought up until 100 years after the founding of the country.
Lincoln, when he did his Gettysburg address, he was reflecting on the foundation of the country and what brought us together. The "of the people" refers to being constituted of citizens and not kings or corporations across the ocean or dictators of foreign lands as was the case in the US before our independence. The "by the people" means that we as citizens elect our leaders, they are not instituted by some other government as was the case before our independence. The "for the people" is that we give our representatives the power to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. It is not some obligation for every city employee to do what you demand or in anyway something that makes you their employer.
I'm sorry that you heard a buzz word and were lead to believe something that wasn't true.
And that is all directly related to the vote. It's either you expressing your intent or attempting to influence others with their vote. The threat of the vote is the same as the vote.
And once that happens, you are no longer a private citizen as in the people and are an employee of the city. My point still stands.
And your back to my point of the vote. Nice how you attempt to claim "How is this crazy comment insightful?" when you just agreed with it. Perhaps if you would listen to yourself, Palin wouldn't be as much of a nut job as you think she is.
You are limited to do what they decide to do or what the law dictates. Citizens arrest is something that you do, not the police, I'm not sure what makes you think that your acting like a police in lieu of their actions is telling them what to do.
And that would be the court telling the police what to do, still not quite We the people.
And that would be the prosecutor telling the police what to do. Still not we the people but another city branch.
Listen, no one has said there wasn't other people within the city that you can convince, but in the end, you are not telling anyone to do anything, at best, you are convincing someone that it needs done and they tell them to do it.
I'm not sure anyone said do not get involved. In fact, all that you have mentioned either is directly tied to the vote or