You know the Kelo ruling (the government can seize your property under eminent domain to give it to someone else who will pay more taxes--or at least is better connected politically).
That's my favorite ruling to point out to liberals. It was the liberal wing of the court that gave us that wonderful ruling. Apparently I shouldn't have the right to keep a loaded handgun in my home for self-defense but Wal-Mart should have the right to raze my home if they need a bigger parking lot. Interesting logic, isn't it?
Fixed that for you. The laws surrounding self-defense generally don't say that you can only use deadly force when facing an armed assailant. They typically say that before you can use deadly force you must have a reasonable belief that your life is in mortal danger. A 90 pound 4'11" female facing a 300 pound 6'11" male attacker is under no obligation not to shoot him just because he isn't armed. If she reasonably believes that her life is in danger she is allowed to use deadly force to defend herself.
The police are not part of the Federal government at all
What makes you think the Federal government is the only form of government in the United States with an Executive Branch? Your State (Governor), County (County Executive), Town (Town Supervisor) and/or City (Mayor) all have them too.
He was deamed to have acted in self defence, as he had reasonable suspicion that the two entered the house with the intent to commit an act of burglary (it is an act of burglary to enter a property to commit a theft, an act of criminal damage, an assault, or a rape. There are other situations which qualify, too.
In New York State burglary is defined as illegally entering a building with the intent to commit a crime therein. Your drunk neighbor who breaks into your house and passes out on your couch is not committing burglary. The punk down the street who breaks into your house and takes your TV (larceny) is.
All those small print, multipage contracts written in legalese that everyone is supposed to read and understand are an absurdity. You need them to rent a house
Would you rent out your property to someone whom you've never met without some sort of contract outlying the expectations and responsibilities of both parties?
but I would think if they have "probable cause" they can do it
Umm no, probable cause only means that you can get a warrant. It doesn't mean you can barge into a private residence without one. The situations where agents of the government can come into your home without a warrant are extremely limited. They can do it if they hear someone inside screaming for help. They can do it if they see an escaped prisoner run into your house. They can do it if they see you kidnap a child and carry him inside.
Said information is not available anymore. It once was, but that was before the system was deregulated.
Strange then, because I was able to find it without much trouble......
There is nobody left to trust- the entire bloody market is a scam.
If you really feel that way keep all your money under the mattress. Let's get back together in ten years and see who did better:)
A limited number, chosen by the company, and if you want to invest in something outside of that number, you're SOL.
Yeah well, what do you want? I think it would be better if you could direct your 401(k) in the same manner as you can your IRA (you can invest in almost any type of stock or fund with an IRA) and maybe that's something that can be worked on.
All the ones I've ever seen all had 10%/year OR MORE management fees associated with them. Which meant if you didn't have enough money to diversify, they'd disappear.
Umm, care to provide a link to the 401(k) with a fund that has two digit management fees? I've never seen any fund with a 10% management fee, let alone one within a 401(k). 1% to 2% is more typical and if you do your homework you can find funds with fees that are even less than that.
Does no good- the banks own the judges and the lawyers.
You should change your nickname to Captain Pessimist.
Same place I got them to begin with- mining and building them myself.
What else can you call a pension fund that if you have less than $5000 in it will eventually disappear just due to management fees? And that you are encouraged to self-manage, but never given enough information to actually do so?
Again, I don't have any sympathy for those who are too lazy to seek out said information on their own. If you don't have the knowledge to make informed decisions about your retirement investments on your own then you'd damn well better acquire that knowledge or turn to someone you can trust for help. As far as management fees I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Most 401(k)s that I've seen have a number of different funds you can invest in. Some with high management fees, some with no management fees and some in the middle. It's up to you to do your homework and make good decisions.
Given the amount of lying the financial industry does, this is everybody.
Speak for yourself. I've managed to do pretty well in the downturn. Picked up some stocks on the way down that I'm going to hold for the mid (5 years or so) term. If history is any indication I'm going to make out pretty well on them. If I wanted to sell them today I could do so and would make almost 15% (not bad for an investment only owned for nine months) but I'm not inclined to do so. As far as my 401(k) goes I'm not real worried about it. I'm decades away from retirement and it will all work out in the end. The current market comes with an added bonus for people like me though -- picking up a lot more shares than I otherwise would.
I have a lot more confidence in all of these investments than I'll ever have in anything run by Uncle Sam. By the time I'm 65 I'll bet the social security retirement age is 80. I'm not counting on it for a single penny. If anything I wish I could take the money that is being stolen from me and manage it myself. I suspect that I could do a lot better with it.
Of which the brokers have also been repeatedly shown to have falsified. You can do all the due diligence you want, but if the other side is actively committing fraud, you're not being given the information needed to make a competent decision.
If the other side is actively committing fraud then I suggest you do the American thing and sue them once you discover said fraud.
Yeah, well, on that, I prefer sonic and energy based weaponry. I might run out of lead, sulfur, and saltpeter one day, but I can always recharge my batteries from my wave, wind, and solar generators
Where are you going to get the parts to repair those generators and refurbish your batteries when society breaks down?
Yeah, and freedom/self-determination has worked out so well for the thousands of newly homeless baby boomers who bought into the 401k/subprime mortgage scam.
I don't regard the 401(k) as a scam and have very little sympathy for those that didn't properly manage their investments or whom were too lazy to read their mortgage paperwork.
We've monkeyed too much with other people's cherished beliefs in the name of freedom
Hey, I don't think we need to go out and change their beliefs at gunpoint. I just don't think we need to excuse away repugnant behavior because of cultural differences.
I've got NO sympathy for them, but know that due to their greed, my money will likely be worthless by 2012, so I'm quickly socking it away into tangibles- like a permaculture garden, rain gathering devices, and ambient energy generators.
If you are that pessimistic I hope you are socking some of it away into firearms and ammunition;)
I think your message is more revealing of your own biases than whatever actual biases the so-called mainstream media may have. During the campaign it seemed to me that the media was going out of it's way to push the Democratic/Obama message. Don't attribute that observation to any bias on my part either because I had that observation going all the way back to the primaries when I took a week off work and campaigned for Obama. He was my man and I still felt like the media was giving him an undue advantage.
I also find it interesting that you can rant about Limbaugh and Hannity but conveniently fail to mention Olbermann. The left has it's fair share of partisan hacks whom are convinced that the other side represents nothing but pure evil. Again I think the fact that you can rant about one side while failing to comment on the other reveals a great deal about your own bias.
Personally I'm fed up with most varieties of the media, ranging from the partisan hacks (Hannity/Olbermann) to the nightly newscasts. The only ones I still respect are PBS (specifically the NewsHour) and NPR. Jim Lehrer is one of the few real newsmen left on television and NPR is at least willing to confront their own biases and attempt to portray both sides of controversial issues.
Then you're being an arrogant and placing your culture above theirs.
I have no problem doing so as long as my culture respects freedom and self determination and theirs does not. Ours is clearly superior and it's about time that we recognized that instead of rationalizing the bad behavior of others as some sort of cultural difference. African tribes routinely slice off the clitoris of young girls but we don't celebrate that behavior because of their culture. We condemn it and use what influence we have to change it.
China oppresses individual rights, is wiping out the Tibetan culture/way of life, practices female infanticide and forced abortions. I can think of nothing redeeming to say about the Chinese regime and earnestly hope their people will break free of it within our lifetimes.
You wouldn't say so if you had lived through the end of the 19th century in America.
It's all about perspective. From my perspective I would rather live in environment with no nanny state trying to micromanage my vices and behavior than the current environment where the state "looks out" for me in the manner of a parent with OCD.
In fact, I dare say you won't be singing the same song 3 years from now, as the tyranny of the greenback takes away your right to have food, clothing, and shelter.
I'm not worried about that because I have a marketable skill and used the boon times to build up a healthy reserve of funds. While the rest of this country was out living beyond their means I was living in a 500 sq foot apartment and socking away 25% of my salary (more if you count my retirement investments) into savings. I have little sympathy for those that were greedy and bought houses they couldn't afford and SUVs that got 15 miles to the gallon when gasoline was above $4/gal.
When this was pointed out to me, I suggested cobalt warheads, with their 100 mile radius blast pattern, might be in order.
I find it interesting that a bleeding heart such as yourself is advocating nuclear warfare as a solution to terrorism. It seems to me that if we had just deployed our 100,000+ troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq we could have solved the problem without using any nuclear weapons. Oh well, at least we ensured friendly airspace for the Israeli's when they deal with Iran for us.....
If you are willing to judge people by their own rules instead of arrogantly judging them by YOUR rules, then yes, under the rules of Marxism, a protesting minority is a danger to orderly society, perhaps more so than an invading army.
I will judge them by my rules, because as far as I'm concerned Marxism/Communism/Mao'ism/what-have-you is at odds with the inalienable rights of man. I see no reason that an event such as Tiananmen deserves anything but scorn because of a different culture or political system.
Yep, one law for the rich and a totally different one for the poor.
I'll take the tyranny of the greenback over the tyranny of the enlightened majority any day of the week.
In fact, at one point I personally supported a 25% draft and scorched earth policy with respect to Islam- because I'm pretty sure that the United States, even in it's weakened state from years of non-manufacture- could finish the "War on Terror" in a couple of months, if given enough troops.
If you are advocating a scorched earth policy at odds with a hundred years of international law then I could point out that you wouldn't need large numbers of troops to implement it. Not since we learned how to split the atom anyway.
Sure does, when you think about it and realize that among a billion people, the million or so who were protesting were a MINORITY.
You sure live up to your Marxist handle if you think that the fact that they were a minority justifies the fact that they were brutally put down with violence.
Then why do they get by with harming millions without being lynched?
Because we have rule of law in this country and there are legal processes (both criminal and civil) that we resort to before we break out the pitchforks, torches and firearms.
they're people who have *NO* other option in our depressed economy.
Well I'd argue in favor of a military draft to ensure that our military represents all portions of society (including the best and brightest that the military so desperately needs) but I suspect that you leftists would have a problem with that. If we had a draft the kids of rich people would wind up being sent into harms way along side the kids of poor people. Think that might make it less likely that we engage in interventionist adventures and more likely that we reserve our use of the military for those situations wherein our national security is actually threatened?
Why are you limiting your criticism to right-wing news outlets? On at least a few issues the so-called "mainstream media" is biased in one direction or another. Gun rights in particular are rarely given a fair play in the mainstream media.
I stand corrected. That's surprising because it seems like most of the RIAA nonsense has flown under the radar of the major media outlets. Maybe something good will come out of this?
When blacks use the word "nigger" it implies a common bond, a shared experience of hardship as a result of slavery
Oh give me a fucking break. In my experience, most of the blacks who use the word nigger are spoiled teenagers and 20-somethings of the "me" generation who know absolutely nothing about hardship or history. Most of the older folks who actually grew up during the civil rights movement rarely use the word and don't look kindly upon those that do.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd get a funny mod out of me for that one if I had any mod points :)
You know the Kelo ruling (the government can seize your property under eminent domain to give it to someone else who will pay more taxes--or at least is better connected politically).
That's my favorite ruling to point out to liberals. It was the liberal wing of the court that gave us that wonderful ruling. Apparently I shouldn't have the right to keep a loaded handgun in my home for self-defense but Wal-Mart should have the right to raze my home if they need a bigger parking lot. Interesting logic, isn't it?
"Do not kill, unless your life is in danger"
Fixed that for you. The laws surrounding self-defense generally don't say that you can only use deadly force when facing an armed assailant. They typically say that before you can use deadly force you must have a reasonable belief that your life is in mortal danger. A 90 pound 4'11" female facing a 300 pound 6'11" male attacker is under no obligation not to shoot him just because he isn't armed. If she reasonably believes that her life is in danger she is allowed to use deadly force to defend herself.
The police are not part of the Federal government at all
What makes you think the Federal government is the only form of government in the United States with an Executive Branch? Your State (Governor), County (County Executive), Town (Town Supervisor) and/or City (Mayor) all have them too.
He was deamed to have acted in self defence, as he had reasonable suspicion that the two entered the house with the intent to commit an act of burglary (it is an act of burglary to enter a property to commit a theft, an act of criminal damage, an assault, or a rape. There are other situations which qualify, too.
In New York State burglary is defined as illegally entering a building with the intent to commit a crime therein. Your drunk neighbor who breaks into your house and passes out on your couch is not committing burglary. The punk down the street who breaks into your house and takes your TV (larceny) is.
All those small print, multipage contracts written in legalese that everyone is supposed to read and understand are an absurdity. You need them to rent a house
Would you rent out your property to someone whom you've never met without some sort of contract outlying the expectations and responsibilities of both parties?
But hey, I'm from one of those silly European countries where "dignity" is ranked higher than "speech."
That is pretty silly, because invariably the "dignity of others" is used to suppress speech.
but I would think if they have "probable cause" they can do it
Umm no, probable cause only means that you can get a warrant. It doesn't mean you can barge into a private residence without one. The situations where agents of the government can come into your home without a warrant are extremely limited. They can do it if they hear someone inside screaming for help. They can do it if they see an escaped prisoner run into your house. They can do it if they see you kidnap a child and carry him inside.
Said information is not available anymore. It once was, but that was before the system was deregulated.
Strange then, because I was able to find it without much trouble......
There is nobody left to trust- the entire bloody market is a scam.
If you really feel that way keep all your money under the mattress. Let's get back together in ten years and see who did better :)
A limited number, chosen by the company, and if you want to invest in something outside of that number, you're SOL.
Yeah well, what do you want? I think it would be better if you could direct your 401(k) in the same manner as you can your IRA (you can invest in almost any type of stock or fund with an IRA) and maybe that's something that can be worked on.
All the ones I've ever seen all had 10%/year OR MORE management fees associated with them. Which meant if you didn't have enough money to diversify, they'd disappear.
Umm, care to provide a link to the 401(k) with a fund that has two digit management fees? I've never seen any fund with a 10% management fee, let alone one within a 401(k). 1% to 2% is more typical and if you do your homework you can find funds with fees that are even less than that.
Does no good- the banks own the judges and the lawyers.
You should change your nickname to Captain Pessimist.
Same place I got them to begin with- mining and building them myself.
Well, good luck with that :)
What else can you call a pension fund that if you have less than $5000 in it will eventually disappear just due to management fees? And that you are encouraged to self-manage, but never given enough information to actually do so?
Again, I don't have any sympathy for those who are too lazy to seek out said information on their own. If you don't have the knowledge to make informed decisions about your retirement investments on your own then you'd damn well better acquire that knowledge or turn to someone you can trust for help. As far as management fees I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Most 401(k)s that I've seen have a number of different funds you can invest in. Some with high management fees, some with no management fees and some in the middle. It's up to you to do your homework and make good decisions.
Given the amount of lying the financial industry does, this is everybody.
Speak for yourself. I've managed to do pretty well in the downturn. Picked up some stocks on the way down that I'm going to hold for the mid (5 years or so) term. If history is any indication I'm going to make out pretty well on them. If I wanted to sell them today I could do so and would make almost 15% (not bad for an investment only owned for nine months) but I'm not inclined to do so. As far as my 401(k) goes I'm not real worried about it. I'm decades away from retirement and it will all work out in the end. The current market comes with an added bonus for people like me though -- picking up a lot more shares than I otherwise would.
I have a lot more confidence in all of these investments than I'll ever have in anything run by Uncle Sam. By the time I'm 65 I'll bet the social security retirement age is 80. I'm not counting on it for a single penny. If anything I wish I could take the money that is being stolen from me and manage it myself. I suspect that I could do a lot better with it.
Of which the brokers have also been repeatedly shown to have falsified. You can do all the due diligence you want, but if the other side is actively committing fraud, you're not being given the information needed to make a competent decision.
If the other side is actively committing fraud then I suggest you do the American thing and sue them once you discover said fraud.
Yeah, well, on that, I prefer sonic and energy based weaponry. I might run out of lead, sulfur, and saltpeter one day, but I can always recharge my batteries from my wave, wind, and solar generators
Where are you going to get the parts to repair those generators and refurbish your batteries when society breaks down?
Yeah, and freedom/self-determination has worked out so well for the thousands of newly homeless baby boomers who bought into the 401k/subprime mortgage scam.
I don't regard the 401(k) as a scam and have very little sympathy for those that didn't properly manage their investments or whom were too lazy to read their mortgage paperwork.
We've monkeyed too much with other people's cherished beliefs in the name of freedom
Hey, I don't think we need to go out and change their beliefs at gunpoint. I just don't think we need to excuse away repugnant behavior because of cultural differences.
I've got NO sympathy for them, but know that due to their greed, my money will likely be worthless by 2012, so I'm quickly socking it away into tangibles- like a permaculture garden, rain gathering devices, and ambient energy generators.
If you are that pessimistic I hope you are socking some of it away into firearms and ammunition ;)
until Voyager returns from the edge as Vyger and terminates the carbon unit infestation that's preventing contact with the creator
Fixed that for you.
If someone takes a piss in the vat
What does Budweiser have to do with the ISS?
The rest? Compost. Fertilizer. Eventually, back around to food.
That works fine for those of us out in the country but doesn't scale real well when you start talking about an urban area......
I think your message is more revealing of your own biases than whatever actual biases the so-called mainstream media may have. During the campaign it seemed to me that the media was going out of it's way to push the Democratic/Obama message. Don't attribute that observation to any bias on my part either because I had that observation going all the way back to the primaries when I took a week off work and campaigned for Obama. He was my man and I still felt like the media was giving him an undue advantage.
I also find it interesting that you can rant about Limbaugh and Hannity but conveniently fail to mention Olbermann. The left has it's fair share of partisan hacks whom are convinced that the other side represents nothing but pure evil. Again I think the fact that you can rant about one side while failing to comment on the other reveals a great deal about your own bias.
Personally I'm fed up with most varieties of the media, ranging from the partisan hacks (Hannity/Olbermann) to the nightly newscasts. The only ones I still respect are PBS (specifically the NewsHour) and NPR. Jim Lehrer is one of the few real newsmen left on television and NPR is at least willing to confront their own biases and attempt to portray both sides of controversial issues.
Then you're being an arrogant and placing your culture above theirs.
I have no problem doing so as long as my culture respects freedom and self determination and theirs does not. Ours is clearly superior and it's about time that we recognized that instead of rationalizing the bad behavior of others as some sort of cultural difference. African tribes routinely slice off the clitoris of young girls but we don't celebrate that behavior because of their culture. We condemn it and use what influence we have to change it.
China oppresses individual rights, is wiping out the Tibetan culture/way of life, practices female infanticide and forced abortions. I can think of nothing redeeming to say about the Chinese regime and earnestly hope their people will break free of it within our lifetimes.
You wouldn't say so if you had lived through the end of the 19th century in America.
It's all about perspective. From my perspective I would rather live in environment with no nanny state trying to micromanage my vices and behavior than the current environment where the state "looks out" for me in the manner of a parent with OCD.
In fact, I dare say you won't be singing the same song 3 years from now, as the tyranny of the greenback takes away your right to have food, clothing, and shelter.
I'm not worried about that because I have a marketable skill and used the boon times to build up a healthy reserve of funds. While the rest of this country was out living beyond their means I was living in a 500 sq foot apartment and socking away 25% of my salary (more if you count my retirement investments) into savings. I have little sympathy for those that were greedy and bought houses they couldn't afford and SUVs that got 15 miles to the gallon when gasoline was above $4/gal.
When this was pointed out to me, I suggested cobalt warheads, with their 100 mile radius blast pattern, might be in order.
I find it interesting that a bleeding heart such as yourself is advocating nuclear warfare as a solution to terrorism. It seems to me that if we had just deployed our 100,000+ troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq we could have solved the problem without using any nuclear weapons. Oh well, at least we ensured friendly airspace for the Israeli's when they deal with Iran for us.....
If you are willing to judge people by their own rules instead of arrogantly judging them by YOUR rules, then yes, under the rules of Marxism, a protesting minority is a danger to orderly society, perhaps more so than an invading army.
I will judge them by my rules, because as far as I'm concerned Marxism/Communism/Mao'ism/what-have-you is at odds with the inalienable rights of man. I see no reason that an event such as Tiananmen deserves anything but scorn because of a different culture or political system.
Yep, one law for the rich and a totally different one for the poor.
I'll take the tyranny of the greenback over the tyranny of the enlightened majority any day of the week.
In fact, at one point I personally supported a 25% draft and scorched earth policy with respect to Islam- because I'm pretty sure that the United States, even in it's weakened state from years of non-manufacture- could finish the "War on Terror" in a couple of months, if given enough troops.
If you are advocating a scorched earth policy at odds with a hundred years of international law then I could point out that you wouldn't need large numbers of troops to implement it. Not since we learned how to split the atom anyway.
Sure does, when you think about it and realize that among a billion people, the million or so who were protesting were a MINORITY.
You sure live up to your Marxist handle if you think that the fact that they were a minority justifies the fact that they were brutally put down with violence.
Then why do they get by with harming millions without being lynched?
Because we have rule of law in this country and there are legal processes (both criminal and civil) that we resort to before we break out the pitchforks, torches and firearms.
they're people who have *NO* other option in our depressed economy.
Well I'd argue in favor of a military draft to ensure that our military represents all portions of society (including the best and brightest that the military so desperately needs) but I suspect that you leftists would have a problem with that. If we had a draft the kids of rich people would wind up being sent into harms way along side the kids of poor people. Think that might make it less likely that we engage in interventionist adventures and more likely that we reserve our use of the military for those situations wherein our national security is actually threatened?
Why are you limiting your criticism to right-wing news outlets? On at least a few issues the so-called "mainstream media" is biased in one direction or another. Gun rights in particular are rarely given a fair play in the mainstream media.
I stand corrected. That's surprising because it seems like most of the RIAA nonsense has flown under the radar of the major media outlets. Maybe something good will come out of this?
separating actual news from opinion
Is such a thing possible on the internets?
When blacks use the word "nigger" it implies a common bond, a shared experience of hardship as a result of slavery
Oh give me a fucking break. In my experience, most of the blacks who use the word nigger are spoiled teenagers and 20-somethings of the "me" generation who know absolutely nothing about hardship or history. Most of the older folks who actually grew up during the civil rights movement rarely use the word and don't look kindly upon those that do.
If I were a young, smart, talented lawyer like him I would try and get some experience and boost my career with a hard high-profile case like this too
What makes you think this is a high-profile case in any circle besides slashdot?
Maybe he is actually smart enough to know there's more to life than money.
The only problem with that is that you need money to buy all of the stuff that goes along with "more" ;)
As for the film overall, it was like Star Trek meets Star Wars Ep 1-3, minus Jar Jar.
They didn't have Jar Jar but they managed to have a fucking Ewok of sorts working with Scotty..... had to roll my eyes at that stupidity.