and have already too many bigger problems they don't have time to investigate.
Convicted violent felons violating the terms of their parole don't represent a sufficiently big enough problem to investigate? Hell, there wouldn't even be a long drawn out investigation. *keystrokes*, "Hmm, looks like he is at Sams Club, send a radio car to that location...."
Clippy: It looks like you are trying to wash semen stains out of your Y-fronts.Would you like me to order some rubber knickers instead?
Clippy: It looks like you are trying to wash blood stains and powder residue off your clothes. Would you like me to contact a criminal defense attorney?
Re:High School Was the Worst Years for Me as Well
on
The Star Wars Kid Is Back
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't think he's alone when they say that the worst years of my life were, in fact, high school. Cliques full of assholes and status seeking social climbing butterflies pretty much achieved status by picking on people like me.
"Do you know who Marcel Proust is? French writer. Total loser. Never had a real job. Unrequited love affairs. Gay. Spent 20 years writing a book almost no one reads. But he's also probably the greatest writer since Shakespeare. Anyway, he uh... he gets down to the end of his life, and he looks back and decides that all those years he suffered, Those were the best years of his life, 'cause they made him who he was. All those years he was happy? You know, total waste. Didn't learn a thing. So, if you sleep until you're 18... Ah, think of the suffering you're gonna miss. I mean high school? High school-those are your prime suffering years. You don't get better suffering than that." -Frank, Little Miss Sunshine
The 2nd amendment wasn't a mistake that opened the ability for a civil rebellion, it is there by design.
Agreed. I also agree that it supports the individual right to keep and bear arms. That individual right isn't of much value as a deterrent against encroachments on liberty unless large numbers of people exercise it.
But, in a SHTF scenario, no the lone soldier would never make it. Well organized groups would be the survivors. Those organizations will likely not even form until the scenario begins, but with the people armed for their own defense and proper leadership, they will be the survivors.
I guess that's why I liked Jericho, not because the plot was that great but because it showed a community coming together in a SHTF scenario. I guess that sort of ties into why I feel gun ownership is important. I don't own firearms just to defend myself -- I also own them to defend my community.
The most likely SHTF scenarios involve natural disasters. In such a scenario are you going to descend into "dog eats dog" or are you going to look out for your neighbors and friends? I know which option I would pick. We had a series of nasty floods here in 2006. Not quite a true SHTF (certainly nothing on the scale of Katrina) but it did manage to slice my community into several smaller pieces that were cut off from outside help for upwards of a week. When this happened the people in my neighborhood made a point of having a presence on the streets at all hours and of checking up on our more vulnerable neighbors. We weren't carrying weapons and didn't need them (thankfully) but we all had easy access to them and could have armed ourselves in short order if it had been required.
If that situation occurred, it would divide not only the enlisted men, but their officers as well. How many US citizens on US soil, following the laws as established by the US Constitution (et al), would be killed before a substantial number of troops refused their orders. Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect it would be significant numbers in the first days or even weeks, and that would be an actual civil war.
I hope I never live to see that happen. I would like to believe that a majority of our troops wouldn't carry out such an order (I believe 60% or so said as such on that survey?) but even a small minority willing to carry out such an order could do extensive damage before being brought under control.
So you'll oppose them on all the other rights because of a personal disagreement with what they say
I never said that I would "oppose them". In fact I believe the only thing I've said is that they have no right to claim to stand for civil liberties when they refuse to defend the 2nd most important one. If it makes you feel superior to me, feel free to keep believing that calling them on their hypocrisy equates to "opposing" them when they defend other civil liberties.
They make good fascists. A nice one-issue voter. All they have to do is find your button, gun control, abortion, health care, or whatever, and you'll vote on that one issue, to the exclusion of all others
My "one issue" is the Constitution, and I refuse to support any candidate that won't uphold it in it's entirety.
If not for you and your ilk of over-principled sellouts, the US could recover and become the greatest nation again. Instead, we will become like England. "There was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire, now we are irrelevant." And then we'll drift off to irrelevancy. And it's because of you.
Actually, it's because of people that think the Government needs to provide for all of their needs but that's rather beside the point of our original discussion, isn't it?
Now why don't you bugger off and play hide and go fuck yourself? This conservation might have been interesting, until you elected to put words in my mouth and bust out the 'F' word.
If such a situation were to arise, and I don't have a lot of faith other than the humor value that 2012 will be the end of the world, I wouldn't be alone, and our camp would have a well guarded defensive perimeter.
I'm not one of the gun owners that's preparing for the day the shit hits the fan and I've always found the image of the lone wolf defending his castle to be somewhat laughable. My impression of the 2nd amendment is that it exists to arm the militia, i.e: the whole body of the citizenry. I've always imagined that in a true SHTF scenario it would be up to individual communities to fend for themselves, not individual citizens.
Ever see the TV series Jericho? That's kind of how I would picture it going down.
The US didn't do it, the international community did via the United Nations. Take it up with them.
Your analogy also falls flat because there was already a large Jewish population in the area before the partition plan went into effect. AFAIK there is no sizable Native American community in France.
So if that was gone, you'd be for nationalized health care?
No, I would still be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be on constitutional grounds. I don't happen to believe that putting the Government in charge of health care is the solution to any problem. But that's irrelevant. We don't have "nationalized health care". We have (or will have in 2014) an unconstitutional mandate that the whole of the citizenry do business with for-profit enterprise. The health care reform legislation was nothing more than a gift to the insurance industry.
But because they keep out of firearms (previously, they said they supported the 2nd Amendment but stayed out of it because the NRA predates them and does a better job of it, but now it looks like they are actually stating that they are as you say)
They don't "keep out of it" and defer to the NRA. They are actively hostile to the idea that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Don't take my word for it though, they spell it out plainly enough on their own website.
"The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
The pompous ass... you'll abandon defense of your rights out of principle.
Go fuck yourself. I didn't say I would "abandon" the defense of my rights. I simply stated that the ACLU has no right to claim to be a civil liberties organization while they remain opposed to the notion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. The ACLU reads the Constitution as broadly as possible on every other issue except this one. They can discover rights that aren't even spelled out in the document (the right to privacy) but refuse to defend the notion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. They cherry pick the rights that they deem worthy of defending and have no right to claim the moral high ground when it comes to protecting our civil liberties.
I don't see it as a problem either. Was just pointing it out as a truth. Free speech != speech that you agree with or speech that the government deems worthy of publication.
Except that the blockade is perfectly legal and we as a nation are supportive of Israel. It's one of the few bipartisan issues remaining that a sizable number of Democrats and Republicans agree on.
Congress and the American people disagree with you, but regardless, isolating Israel is not a sound foreign policy move even if you disagree with their actions. The last time they were isolated they ran to other pariah nations (South Africa) and traded weapons and technology with them. They are even rumored to have engaged in a nuclear test with them.
Again, the Palestinians are the one that are displaced, without a military, and without any representation to the outside world. They're not using their military to oppress a body of people. Their chosen methods are frequently despicable, to be certain, but if we hope to end the conflict with anything short of genocide, we're going to have to allow some degree of violent dissent to the oppression.
Sorry, but you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on this. I do not see the Palestinians as an "oppressed" people, nor do I buy the line that they have no representation to the outside world.
There needs to be a limit. If anyone, anywhere can do 'what they have to do' as a practical matter, then there is no longer any such thing as 'good and evil'. I'm not going to elect to live in that world.
Your "election" is irrelevant, as nation-states will take whatever steps they deem necessary to defend themselves. As long as rockets continue to land on Israeli soil, the Israelis aren't likely to end the economic blockade of Gaza.
Slashdot Mirror
It served the purpose of making the voters think something was being done which is all that is important in electoral politics.
FTFY
It's criminal tracking, not moron tracking. If they were tracking morons they'd just set up shop in Sacramento and/or Washington ;)
and have already too many bigger problems they don't have time to investigate.
Convicted violent felons violating the terms of their parole don't represent a sufficiently big enough problem to investigate? Hell, there wouldn't even be a long drawn out investigation. *keystrokes*, "Hmm, looks like he is at Sams Club, send a radio car to that location...."
Clippy: It looks like you are trying to wash semen stains out of your Y-fronts.Would you like me to order some rubber knickers instead?
Clippy: It looks like you are trying to wash blood stains and powder residue off your clothes. Would you like me to contact a criminal defense attorney?
I'm not the one throwing a hissy fit over a movie quote, Mr. Sand-in-the-Vagina ;)
Wow, somebody has some sand in his vagina.
I don't think he's alone when they say that the worst years of my life were, in fact, high school. Cliques full of assholes and status seeking social climbing butterflies pretty much achieved status by picking on people like me.
"Do you know who Marcel Proust is? French writer. Total loser. Never had a real job. Unrequited love affairs. Gay. Spent 20 years writing a book almost no one reads. But he's also probably the greatest writer since Shakespeare. Anyway, he uh... he gets down to the end of his life, and he looks back and decides that all those years he suffered, Those were the best years of his life, 'cause they made him who he was. All those years he was happy? You know, total waste. Didn't learn a thing. So, if you sleep until you're 18... Ah, think of the suffering you're gonna miss. I mean high school? High school-those are your prime suffering years. You don't get better suffering than that." -Frank, Little Miss Sunshine
Why not? Another /.'er does ;)
Yep, they're all evil until YOU need one to help you navigate the law, or until the EFF uses them to fight for your rights.
Speaking as someone who got charged with a crime he didn't commit, my lawyer saved my ass.
There's also NewYorkCountryLawyer to consider. Not all lawyers are evil ambulance chasers you know.....
The 2nd amendment wasn't a mistake that opened the ability for a civil rebellion, it is there by design.
Agreed. I also agree that it supports the individual right to keep and bear arms. That individual right isn't of much value as a deterrent against encroachments on liberty unless large numbers of people exercise it.
But, in a SHTF scenario, no the lone soldier would never make it. Well organized groups would be the survivors. Those organizations will likely not even form until the scenario begins, but with the people armed for their own defense and proper leadership, they will be the survivors.
I guess that's why I liked Jericho, not because the plot was that great but because it showed a community coming together in a SHTF scenario. I guess that sort of ties into why I feel gun ownership is important. I don't own firearms just to defend myself -- I also own them to defend my community.
The most likely SHTF scenarios involve natural disasters. In such a scenario are you going to descend into "dog eats dog" or are you going to look out for your neighbors and friends? I know which option I would pick. We had a series of nasty floods here in 2006. Not quite a true SHTF (certainly nothing on the scale of Katrina) but it did manage to slice my community into several smaller pieces that were cut off from outside help for upwards of a week. When this happened the people in my neighborhood made a point of having a presence on the streets at all hours and of checking up on our more vulnerable neighbors. We weren't carrying weapons and didn't need them (thankfully) but we all had easy access to them and could have armed ourselves in short order if it had been required.
If that situation occurred, it would divide not only the enlisted men, but their officers as well. How many US citizens on US soil, following the laws as established by the US Constitution (et al), would be killed before a substantial number of troops refused their orders. Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect it would be significant numbers in the first days or even weeks, and that would be an actual civil war.
I hope I never live to see that happen. I would like to believe that a majority of our troops wouldn't carry out such an order (I believe 60% or so said as such on that survey?) but even a small minority willing to carry out such an order could do extensive damage before being brought under control.
So you'll oppose them on all the other rights because of a personal disagreement with what they say
I never said that I would "oppose them". In fact I believe the only thing I've said is that they have no right to claim to stand for civil liberties when they refuse to defend the 2nd most important one. If it makes you feel superior to me, feel free to keep believing that calling them on their hypocrisy equates to "opposing" them when they defend other civil liberties.
They make good fascists. A nice one-issue voter. All they have to do is find your button, gun control, abortion, health care, or whatever, and you'll vote on that one issue, to the exclusion of all others
My "one issue" is the Constitution, and I refuse to support any candidate that won't uphold it in it's entirety.
If not for you and your ilk of over-principled sellouts, the US could recover and become the greatest nation again. Instead, we will become like England. "There was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire, now we are irrelevant." And then we'll drift off to irrelevancy. And it's because of you.
Actually, it's because of people that think the Government needs to provide for all of their needs but that's rather beside the point of our original discussion, isn't it?
Now why don't you bugger off and play hide and go fuck yourself? This conservation might have been interesting, until you elected to put words in my mouth and bust out the 'F' word.
If such a situation were to arise, and I don't have a lot of faith other than the humor value that 2012 will be the end of the world, I wouldn't be alone, and our camp would have a well guarded defensive perimeter.
I'm not one of the gun owners that's preparing for the day the shit hits the fan and I've always found the image of the lone wolf defending his castle to be somewhat laughable. My impression of the 2nd amendment is that it exists to arm the militia, i.e: the whole body of the citizenry. I've always imagined that in a true SHTF scenario it would be up to individual communities to fend for themselves, not individual citizens.
Ever see the TV series Jericho? That's kind of how I would picture it going down.
The US didn't do it, the international community did via the United Nations. Take it up with them.
Your analogy also falls flat because there was already a large Jewish population in the area before the partition plan went into effect. AFAIK there is no sizable Native American community in France.
So if that was gone, you'd be for nationalized health care?
No, I would still be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be on constitutional grounds. I don't happen to believe that putting the Government in charge of health care is the solution to any problem. But that's irrelevant. We don't have "nationalized health care". We have (or will have in 2014) an unconstitutional mandate that the whole of the citizenry do business with for-profit enterprise. The health care reform legislation was nothing more than a gift to the insurance industry.
But because they keep out of firearms (previously, they said they supported the 2nd Amendment but stayed out of it because the NRA predates them and does a better job of it, but now it looks like they are actually stating that they are as you say)
They don't "keep out of it" and defer to the NRA. They are actively hostile to the idea that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Don't take my word for it though, they spell it out plainly enough on their own website.
"The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
The pompous ass ... you'll abandon defense of your rights out of principle.
Go fuck yourself. I didn't say I would "abandon" the defense of my rights. I simply stated that the ACLU has no right to claim to be a civil liberties organization while they remain opposed to the notion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. The ACLU reads the Constitution as broadly as possible on every other issue except this one. They can discover rights that aren't even spelled out in the document (the right to privacy) but refuse to defend the notion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. They cherry pick the rights that they deem worthy of defending and have no right to claim the moral high ground when it comes to protecting our civil liberties.
I don't see it as a problem either. Was just pointing it out as a truth. Free speech != speech that you agree with or speech that the government deems worthy of publication.
I think both are dangerous roads to go down.
Which has exactly zero to do with Israel, but nice try.....
It feminizes, IIRC.
That must explain why the current crop of political leaders consists of Chickenhawks on the right and pussies on the left ;)
I can see the bumper sticker now: Ban plastic bottles! It's cheaper than injecting testosterone into our politicians.
Except that the blockade is perfectly legal and we as a nation are supportive of Israel. It's one of the few bipartisan issues remaining that a sizable number of Democrats and Republicans agree on.
If freedom of speech is prohibited in the US, I haven't seen it.
If you take the current nominee to SCOTUS at her word, it's only free speech if the value of the speech exceeds the "societal cost" of that speech.
It also means being able to call minorities racial epithets and sharing the knowledge required to build bombs and other destructive devices.
bring it up with Don Bluth, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, three people with a combined death toll easily in the thousands.
Don't you mean billions?
But the time for this has passed.
Congress and the American people disagree with you, but regardless, isolating Israel is not a sound foreign policy move even if you disagree with their actions. The last time they were isolated they ran to other pariah nations (South Africa) and traded weapons and technology with them. They are even rumored to have engaged in a nuclear test with them.
Again, the Palestinians are the one that are displaced, without a military, and without any representation to the outside world. They're not using their military to oppress a body of people. Their chosen methods are frequently despicable, to be certain, but if we hope to end the conflict with anything short of genocide, we're going to have to allow some degree of violent dissent to the oppression.
Sorry, but you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on this. I do not see the Palestinians as an "oppressed" people, nor do I buy the line that they have no representation to the outside world.
There needs to be a limit. If anyone, anywhere can do 'what they have to do' as a practical matter, then there is no longer any such thing as 'good and evil'. I'm not going to elect to live in that world.
Your "election" is irrelevant, as nation-states will take whatever steps they deem necessary to defend themselves. As long as rockets continue to land on Israeli soil, the Israelis aren't likely to end the economic blockade of Gaza.
The problem is the disparity between 'Israel really wants peace' and their actual behavior.
As opposed to the behavior of the Palestinians?
If Israel believed that Hamas had a right to exist, and viewed them as a political adversary, the blockade would stop.
Political adversaries wage war at the ballot box. Hamas launches rockets into Israel. That's not the action of a political adversary.
However the mere possibility doesn't obviate the fact that what they are actually doing is relatively evil.
I don't see it that way. I see them as doing what they have to do to defend their people.