Does it count as irony when the people you depend on in a democratic country were not picked democratically?
Well I can't speak for the British but in the US the Supreme Court isn't elected. The Senate wasn't elected originally until some genius got the bright idea that we needed more "democracy". Checks and balances don't always have to be democratically elected. In fact if you are trying to check against the tyranny of the majority it's obviously better if they aren't.
Anyone who says there is little difference between Bush and Obama would surprise me if they could tie their own shoes
Of course I never claimed that, so I fail to see why you would make that statement. Unless you are one of those partisan hacks that thinks anyone who disagrees with Obama has to be right-wing neo-con who longs for the days when the Texan was in charge.
Go through life believing you have a clue. Believe that a guy who openly ignores his oath saying that he will do whatever he wants as long as his dog and his wife back him isn't fundamentally different from Obama.
Yep, you are one of those hacks. I do find it amusing that Bush has been gone for almost two months and the Democratic partisans still can't let him go. You guys have more in common with the Republicans than you think -- you remind me an awful lot of the GOP hacks who kept foaming at the mouth over Bill Clinton months after GWB replaced him.
BTW, not that you care, but I never voted for GWB and rarely agreed with any of the policies he sought to implement.
There is a reason why "off you go" is the sum total of intellectual exchange I care to have with you
I don't know if I'd call anything coming out of your keyboard an 'intellectual exchange' but it sure is amusing;) If you don't care to have it why do you keep coming back for more?
If I was in a jury, I'd be very interested in the relevant case law.
The problem is that as a member of the jury it isn't your job to look at the case law. You are supposed to be a finder of fact, i.e: did the defendant commit this act. It's up to the judge to review the case law and if he does a piss-poor job of it then the defendant has grounds for appeal.
you can't block people off from information any longer.
There are no requirements that they are literate or law abiding
Well I can't speak to the 'literate' requirement but it is generally understand that you need to be able to understand and communicate in the English language. You are dead wrong on the not needing to be law abiding too. A criminal record disqualifies you from jury service in every single state that I'm aware of.
do you really regard the people living anywhere in your county to be your "peers"?
I regard a randomly selected pool of 12 citizens more as my peers than I would some appointed judge or lawyer who may have a political agenda to advance. There are flaws in the jury system but I wouldn't trade it for anything.
allow informational sites and searches to be counted as admissable
That's a great idea! So, the next time I stand accused of murder, I'll simply edit my Wikipedia page to say "Shakrai did not commit this crime" and rest easy in the knowledge that my acquittal will follow soon thereafter. Think of all the money I can save on defense attorneys now;)
Beyond that, you are the moron for thinking that absolutes exist in the real world.
Where did I say that absolutes exist in the real world? All I said was that he failed to honor his promise not to support a bill containing telecom immunity.
Give me any person on the planet and I will show you someone who made a statement in good faith that they did not hold true to when more evidence became available and/or the situation changed.
The situation didn't change. He made a political calculation. In that respect he's no worse than most other politicians. It does go to show how empty his promises of a "new kind" of politics were though, doesn't it?
Also, you cited the promise but have yet to show me where he reversed.
I linked to his 'yea' vote for the FISA bill which contained telecom immunity. What more do you want?
You will get all of the benefits of his presidency
What benefits would those be? The increased national debt that my children's children will be paying off? A massive expansion of the entitlement system that's already on course to bankrupt this country in a few decades? More political games from the White House that promised to bring us a "new kind" of politics? Thanks, but no thanks.
Poor bat. Can we come up with a better name for him (or her) than 119V-0080?
120V-0090?;)
We're talking about the highest- and fastest-flying bat of all time, probably
I wonder how long he held on? Unless he was sheltered from the airflow I find it hard to believe that he could have held on once the shuttle reached any real speed. It's hard enough to hang on in a wind tunnel at subsonic speeds.
As an aside, 0 to 100 in 10 seconds? There are cars that accelerate faster than that. Of course, I suppose they don't weigh 4.5 million pounds.....
You are right. I am hopelessly naive and clueless. I didn't even know that the POTUS votes for bills! ROTFLMAO
I take it back. You aren't naive and clueless. You are a fucking moron. He voted for it while he was a member of the Senate. See where it says "Obama (D-IL), Yea" on that page? Since your memory apparently only goes back to Jan 20th 2009, here is one of the news stories that covered when he promised to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity.
It's one thing to dress up as Hitler in Illinois and declare yourself a hater of the various races, but, its quite another to create an instrument where like minded people can congregate and organize
What's wrong with said instrument as long as it's not being used to plan violations of the law? Like minded people congregating is not and should not be a crime merely because we disagree with the opinions that are causing them to congregate.
Even now, there is project underway on some sites where a bunch of Nazis are organizing to move to a small state in the USA so they can essentially cleanse it and hijack it
Hi, I'm just wondering what the hell can be a "clearance to watch child pornography" and who the hell is able to get or deliver one to another???
Well, if they are handed out by a Governmental agency that works in the same manner as DMV you'll need to stand in line for three hours, deal with someone who hates her job even though she is making three times what she would in the private sector and then get sent to the back of another line because you chose the wrong one even though nobody bothered to post any signs;)
but you wouldn't even accept that no guns would result in no gun crime
No, what I won't accept is that it's possible to have a society with no guns, hence the underlying premise is invalid. I do believe that I said "The statement might technically be true but the underlying premise would never happen in the real world". Yet you continue to harp on this claim that I refuse to accept it? Sounds like you are the one who is lying.
I'm confused. Are you accusing me of lying about receiving the refund or claiming that Obama never reversed himself on FISA? In the former you are an asshole and in the latter you are hopelessly naive -- he went from "I will filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity" to voting yey for said bill.
The response might have been a little different had they not had more money than they could spend.
Probably. My only wish is that I could have gotten a refund for the five days I took off work and spent campaigning for them during the primaries. Got caught up in the Obama-mania (and my own personal dislike of Hillary and wish to see her defeated) and couldn't see the forest for the trees. Live and learn I suppose.
Not stacking people on top of each other goes a long way to reducing violent crime on it's own.
Ultimately that's the point. Other factors drive crime and when you look at firearm ownership statistics across multiple US States and/or different countries it's tough to argue that gun control has any meaningful impact on crime.
But what about where you "summarized" by stating that I said that no guns = better?
My only intent was to point out the absurdity of using "if we had no guns there would be no gun violence" as a starting point to a debate about gun rights. I personally do not see the value in using arguing points that don't apply in the real world, as stated numerous times.
So where's my apology for the "yapping little dog" remark and various other insults that you've hurled my way?
The "roots" are really more about decentralization, and less about republicanism - if I remember correctly, the original U.S. constitution had very few limitations on the power of the States on their own territory.
So what's the problem? As far as I'm concerned the States can do whatever they want as long as they follow the US Constitution. I didn't advocate repealing the 14th amendment, so it's not like they'll be bringing back slavery or restricting on your right to free speech. If you want a social safety net then do it on the state level where it can be more responsible to the citizenry and tailored to solve local problems. This would seem to be better all around then trying to impose one-size-fits-all solutions from Washington that are invariably tied up with a grand political agenda that has little to do with solving local problems and everything to do with expanding Federal power.
So long as the general population has any say in politics of the country, even if it's indirect through their representatives, you will have some form of mob rule
Right, so you temper the power of the mob by removing some of the organs of Government from direct influence by the mob. The Senate should go back to being appointed by the State Legislatures. This would insulate part of Congress from the mob and make the Senate less apt to support the centralization of power. Both of those are good things, IMHO.
Of course, in the U.S. at least, any such proposal would be shot down on sight as "disenfranchising uneducated poor and minorities"...
Ugh, that story is another reason why I fucking hate spiders. I'm normally not one to kill for no reason (going so far as to try and capture moths that make it into my house and release them) but I terminate spiders with extreme prejudice, inside or outside. They all deserve to die horrible deaths.
Well, not really, but how can it be that a member of the most powerful species ever to walk the planet is so utterly horrified of a lower species that (in most cases) poses zero threat to us?
Slashdot Mirror
You assumed that all people who are not law abiding are excluded from jury service because they would have a criminal record
Did I miss the part where we changed our legal system to assume that people are guilty until proven innocent?
Does it count as irony when the people you depend on in a democratic country were not picked democratically?
Well I can't speak for the British but in the US the Supreme Court isn't elected. The Senate wasn't elected originally until some genius got the bright idea that we needed more "democracy". Checks and balances don't always have to be democratically elected. In fact if you are trying to check against the tyranny of the majority it's obviously better if they aren't.
Anyone who says there is little difference between Bush and Obama would surprise me if they could tie their own shoes
Of course I never claimed that, so I fail to see why you would make that statement. Unless you are one of those partisan hacks that thinks anyone who disagrees with Obama has to be right-wing neo-con who longs for the days when the Texan was in charge.
Go through life believing you have a clue. Believe that a guy who openly ignores his oath saying that he will do whatever he wants as long as his dog and his wife back him isn't fundamentally different from Obama.
Yep, you are one of those hacks. I do find it amusing that Bush has been gone for almost two months and the Democratic partisans still can't let him go. You guys have more in common with the Republicans than you think -- you remind me an awful lot of the GOP hacks who kept foaming at the mouth over Bill Clinton months after GWB replaced him.
BTW, not that you care, but I never voted for GWB and rarely agreed with any of the policies he sought to implement.
There is a reason why "off you go" is the sum total of intellectual exchange I care to have with you
I don't know if I'd call anything coming out of your keyboard an 'intellectual exchange' but it sure is amusing ;) If you don't care to have it why do you keep coming back for more?
Only if you were sitting on a jury judging a RIAA trial or Hans Reiser ;)
If I was in a jury, I'd be very interested in the relevant case law.
The problem is that as a member of the jury it isn't your job to look at the case law. You are supposed to be a finder of fact, i.e: did the defendant commit this act. It's up to the judge to review the case law and if he does a piss-poor job of it then the defendant has grounds for appeal.
you can't block people off from information any longer.
Actually if they wanted to they could.
Apparently so is an in depth examination of politics to you, since you apparently weren't aware of Obama's prior service as a United States Senator.
There are no requirements that they are literate or law abiding
Well I can't speak to the 'literate' requirement but it is generally understand that you need to be able to understand and communicate in the English language. You are dead wrong on the not needing to be law abiding too. A criminal record disqualifies you from jury service in every single state that I'm aware of.
do you really regard the people living anywhere in your county to be your "peers"?
I regard a randomly selected pool of 12 citizens more as my peers than I would some appointed judge or lawyer who may have a political agenda to advance. There are flaws in the jury system but I wouldn't trade it for anything.
I dunno. Jury of our peers > the alternatives.
allow informational sites and searches to be counted as admissable
That's a great idea! So, the next time I stand accused of murder, I'll simply edit my Wikipedia page to say "Shakrai did not commit this crime" and rest easy in the knowledge that my acquittal will follow soon thereafter. Think of all the money I can save on defense attorneys now ;)
That was my thought as well. How do you blame technology for some jackass failing to take his civic responsibility seriously?
Beyond that, you are the moron for thinking that absolutes exist in the real world.
Where did I say that absolutes exist in the real world? All I said was that he failed to honor his promise not to support a bill containing telecom immunity.
Give me any person on the planet and I will show you someone who made a statement in good faith that they did not hold true to when more evidence became available and/or the situation changed.
The situation didn't change. He made a political calculation. In that respect he's no worse than most other politicians. It does go to show how empty his promises of a "new kind" of politics were though, doesn't it?
Also, you cited the promise but have yet to show me where he reversed.
I linked to his 'yea' vote for the FISA bill which contained telecom immunity. What more do you want?
You will get all of the benefits of his presidency
What benefits would those be? The increased national debt that my children's children will be paying off? A massive expansion of the entitlement system that's already on course to bankrupt this country in a few decades? More political games from the White House that promised to bring us a "new kind" of politics? Thanks, but no thanks.
Poor bat. Can we come up with a better name for him (or her) than 119V-0080?
120V-0090? ;)
We're talking about the highest- and fastest-flying bat of all time, probably
I wonder how long he held on? Unless he was sheltered from the airflow I find it hard to believe that he could have held on once the shuttle reached any real speed. It's hard enough to hang on in a wind tunnel at subsonic speeds.
As an aside, 0 to 100 in 10 seconds? There are cars that accelerate faster than that. Of course, I suppose they don't weigh 4.5 million pounds.....
You are right. I am hopelessly naive and clueless. I didn't even know that the POTUS votes for bills! ROTFLMAO
I take it back. You aren't naive and clueless. You are a fucking moron. He voted for it while he was a member of the Senate. See where it says "Obama (D-IL), Yea" on that page? Since your memory apparently only goes back to Jan 20th 2009, here is one of the news stories that covered when he promised to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity.
It's one thing to dress up as Hitler in Illinois and declare yourself a hater of the various races, but, its quite another to create an instrument where like minded people can congregate and organize
What's wrong with said instrument as long as it's not being used to plan violations of the law? Like minded people congregating is not and should not be a crime merely because we disagree with the opinions that are causing them to congregate.
Even now, there is project underway on some sites where a bunch of Nazis are organizing to move to a small state in the USA so they can essentially cleanse it and hijack it
Citation?
Hi, I'm just wondering what the hell can be a "clearance to watch child pornography" and who the hell is able to get or deliver one to another???
Well, if they are handed out by a Governmental agency that works in the same manner as DMV you'll need to stand in line for three hours, deal with someone who hates her job even though she is making three times what she would in the private sector and then get sent to the back of another line because you chose the wrong one even though nobody bothered to post any signs ;)
but you wouldn't even accept that no guns would result in no gun crime
No, what I won't accept is that it's possible to have a society with no guns, hence the underlying premise is invalid. I do believe that I said "The statement might technically be true but the underlying premise would never happen in the real world". Yet you continue to harp on this claim that I refuse to accept it? Sounds like you are the one who is lying.
I'm confused. Are you accusing me of lying about receiving the refund or claiming that Obama never reversed himself on FISA? In the former you are an asshole and in the latter you are hopelessly naive -- he went from "I will filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity" to voting yey for said bill.
The response might have been a little different had they not had more money than they could spend.
Probably. My only wish is that I could have gotten a refund for the five days I took off work and spent campaigning for them during the primaries. Got caught up in the Obama-mania (and my own personal dislike of Hillary and wish to see her defeated) and couldn't see the forest for the trees. Live and learn I suppose.
Not stacking people on top of each other goes a long way to reducing violent crime on it's own.
Ultimately that's the point. Other factors drive crime and when you look at firearm ownership statistics across multiple US States and/or different countries it's tough to argue that gun control has any meaningful impact on crime.
What a bitch ;)
But what about where you "summarized" by stating that I said that no guns = better?
My only intent was to point out the absurdity of using "if we had no guns there would be no gun violence" as a starting point to a debate about gun rights. I personally do not see the value in using arguing points that don't apply in the real world, as stated numerous times.
So where's my apology for the "yapping little dog" remark and various other insults that you've hurled my way?
Yeah, Hollywood has always ripped off its writers
Fixed that for you.
The "roots" are really more about decentralization, and less about republicanism - if I remember correctly, the original U.S. constitution had very few limitations on the power of the States on their own territory.
So what's the problem? As far as I'm concerned the States can do whatever they want as long as they follow the US Constitution. I didn't advocate repealing the 14th amendment, so it's not like they'll be bringing back slavery or restricting on your right to free speech. If you want a social safety net then do it on the state level where it can be more responsible to the citizenry and tailored to solve local problems. This would seem to be better all around then trying to impose one-size-fits-all solutions from Washington that are invariably tied up with a grand political agenda that has little to do with solving local problems and everything to do with expanding Federal power.
So long as the general population has any say in politics of the country, even if it's indirect through their representatives, you will have some form of mob rule
Right, so you temper the power of the mob by removing some of the organs of Government from direct influence by the mob. The Senate should go back to being appointed by the State Legislatures. This would insulate part of Congress from the mob and make the Senate less apt to support the centralization of power. Both of those are good things, IMHO.
Of course, in the U.S. at least, any such proposal would be shot down on sight as "disenfranchising uneducated poor and minorities"...
So would my proposals. *sigh*
Tell us what you really think dude ;)
Ugh, that story is another reason why I fucking hate spiders. I'm normally not one to kill for no reason (going so far as to try and capture moths that make it into my house and release them) but I terminate spiders with extreme prejudice, inside or outside. They all deserve to die horrible deaths.
Well, not really, but how can it be that a member of the most powerful species ever to walk the planet is so utterly horrified of a lower species that (in most cases) poses zero threat to us?