Indeed. I love this theory that someone who is mentally prepared to kill themselves is going to break out in a cold sweat beforehand and give themselves away.
How many people are going to be labeled as terrorists because their facial expressions show annoyance due to the screaming baby with the ear infection sitting directly behind them?
On the other hand, a $400,000 judgment against you with $100,000 liability insurance might lead to bankruptcy
Bankruptcy isn't that big of a deal -- trust me I've been through it. I filed less than three years ago and my credit score currently stands at 740 and I have $9,000 worth of revolving credit lines and an automobile loan at the same interest rate that everyone else gets. I haven't tried applying for a mortgage (I'm quite content renting) but I'm told that it's doable at this stage -- and that four years after the discharge you'll get the same mortgage terms as everyone else.
much higher personal liability insurance rates
Only for three to five years, depending on the insurance company and how large of a lookback period they have.
a far greater penalty than running a red light and being caught by the intersection robot.
I wasn't talking about traffic tickets -- those aren't crimes in most states. In New York they are termed 'violations' (as opposed to 'misdemeanors' or 'felonies') and don't contribute towards a criminal record. Even if they did I'd be hard pressed to think of many employers that would care about a few traffic infractions, unless driving is part of your day to day job duties.
People think that civil suits are somehow irrelevant or off-limits, but they're matters of public record in most cases.
They aren't 'off-limits' but how many employment applications have you filed out that asked about civil judgments? I've never seen one. Nearly every employment application that I've ever filled out asked about criminal convictions though.
I suppose they might find out about them if they pulled a credit report -- but how many employers actually do that for non-finance/executive positions? I've never had an employer pull my credit report, nor would I give them permission to do so (they can't do it without a signed release from you). I'm not saying that they aren't out there -- but you'd have to admit that a lot more employers are going to pull criminal background checks than will pull credit reports.
he new bankruptcy laws allow the courts to keep certain judgments even after you lose everything
The new bankruptcy laws didn't change anything in this regard -- they mainly made it harder to file for a straight liquidation (Chapter 7) and instead seek to force people into repayment plans (Chapter 13).
The typical exceptions to a bankruptcy discharge would include child support, taxes, criminal fines/restitution, Government backed student loans, civil judgments resulting from a DWI conviction (i.e: you maim someone while driving drunk and get sued) or debt incurred to pay any of the aforementioned obligations (i.e: you pay your tax bill on your credit card).
I've haven't seen anything to suggest that a RIAA civil judgment would be excluded from a bankruptcy discharge. RIAA could raise a stink with the bankruptcy judge and/or trustee but the bankruptcy courts usually wind up siding with the debtor in such cases. They could make it a PITA to get that far (you'd wind up paying a lot more in legal fees if you had contest their claim at an adversarial hearing), but in the end they'd probably lose.
not getting ANY bank loans for school
Most student loans don't have any relation to your credit worthiness. It might make it harder to obtain private student loans but it wouldn't make a dent in your ability to obtain Federally backed ones.
"Mere civil infraction" is likewise misleading. Many civil penalties are far harsher than criminal ones
How is a civil penalty harsher than any criminal one? A civil judgment isn't going to stop me from obtaining student loans (drug convictions will), getting a pistol permit, registering to vote or serving on a jury. A criminal conviction may do all of those things and then some.
The monetary impact of a civil penalty may be harsher than some criminal ones but criminal convictions have all sort of consequences beyond the actual penalty imposed by the court. A civil penalty/judgment might cost you some money -- then again it might not (ask this guy how much a civil judgment is actually worth)
The DEA guy had a ski mask on - in summer in Illinois! I don't know what pissed me off more, the violation of my Constitutional rights against warrantless search (there was no consent, apparently the fact that the ladies went into the house was "probable cause")
Yeah, I recall reading that story. It's a crock of bullshit -- not much more I can say besides that. They probably would have had to smash my car windows because I wouldn't have willingly unlocked it for them without a warrant and/or consulting with my attorney. The only time I've ever had a police officer ask me to get out of my vehicle I locked the doors behind me. That didn't make him very happy -- but oh well.
I still think that you are wrong to be so pessimistic about efforts to get laws liberalized at the state level though. It's not a worthless cause by any means. The fact that a pot-smoker who is arrested in NY has nothing more to lose than $100 whereas one who is arrested in PA stands to lose his livelihood (criminal record == hard time finding a job) and his access to higher education (harder to get student loans with a drug conviction) would seem to dispel the idea that decriminalization on the state level is "worthless as long as the Feds outlaw it".
Three out of five officers were federal. As we had no drugs we were let go after being searched and forty five minutes of our time wasted.
There are only two things that I will ever say to a law enforcement officer: "I'd like to speak with my attorney before answering any questions" and "Am I free to go now?" I won't even talk to them over speeding tickets.
Decriminalizing it at the state level doesn't change anything so long as the DEA is after you
I've never heard of the DEA arresting people for possession after traffic stops. I've never heard of the DEA knocking on my door because the neighbor smelled some pot smoke and called the cops.
Your state's decriminalization is meaningless so long as there is a Federal law against it.
I think that's a very shortsighted way of looking at things. The overwhelming majority of citizen interaction with law enforcement happens on a local and state level. Most of us aren't running into DEA or FBI agents on a day to day basis. Marijuana prohibition isn't possible without the cooperation of state and local law enforcement -- why do you think Anslinger spent so much time trying to convince the states to get onboard with his plans?
Grassroots efforts to change anything rarely start at the Federal level. I honestly don't understand why you are so pessimistic/defeatist about this? Are we better served by complaining about the current situation or by working to change that situation from the ground up?
Go back and check who was in charge of the purse strings when Reagan was in office. As for GWB, the ass, again, check who was in charge of the purse strings. A bunch of so-called republicans who are no more republican than my foot. For the thousandth time, Presidents don't spend money. Congress does. Presidents propose budgets. That is all.
That's all they do? That's funny, I thought they had this other power proscribed by the Constitution. I can't think of what it's called but I think it's a four letter word that starts with 'v' and that said power could have been used at any time in the last seven years to try and rein in spending if Bush cared about such things. Of course he showed no interest in that at all until his party lost control of Congress. I guess pork is just fine and dandy if your party is the one doling it out.
And you can't support Obama and also complain about spending money
Actually I can support whomever I want and complain about whatever I want. That's one of the perks of being an American.
And that's not counting the things he'd like to do that have been tried before and failed.
You mean like trying to bring Democracy to another country at gunpoint?
The file is indeed Javascript and it's called "urchin.js" (nice name eh?). Personally, I use the hosts file because I don't care to even have my IP address showing up in their access logs
I guess that was my (badly phrased) question. Is blocking it in NoScript sufficient to stop Firefox from even downloading it (i.e: is it usually called with a javascript element as opposed to being an embedded image or some other method?) or should the truly paranoids also include it in the hosts file?
This is very similar to the purpose of the already-existing google-analytics.com. I block this site in my hosts file (among others) and I take other measures because I feel that if a corporation wants to take my data and profit from it
Do you actually have to block it in your hosts file in order to effectively deny them information? I have it blacklisted in NoScript -- is that sufficient? I'd always thought it was called via Javascript.
Even if it was allowable, the electorate wouldn't like it
I don't know, it worked for dipshit eight years ago, but he was "only" running for veep.
The probable outcome is you lose both.
Don't count on that either, the Republicans haven't managed to field a winning candidate for statewide office here in New York since 2002. I doubt they will in 2012 either. The only Republican I can think of with a shot of beating her probably pissed away all of his goodwill with New Yorkers by trying to tie his Presidential campaign to 9/11. That wasn't particularly appreciated around these parts.
The good thing is that it's unlikely that a sitting senator receives a challenge from his/her own party in the primary
If she did she could always just run against the Democratic nominee and form her own "New York for Hillary" party. It worked for the aforementioned dipshit;)
60-70% of Americans want an *immediate* withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, yet Obama wants no such thing
Obama's plan is as realistic as any -- one or two brigades a month. I'm as opposed to the war as anybody else but even I can see the folly and risk of pulling out tomorrow. Never mind the risk to our own forces with a hasty withdrawal -- I'm not willing to throw the Iraq people to the wolves without at least giving them a chance to get their house in order. We did create that mess, we have somewhat of an obligation to try and clean it up before we walk away.
Over 60% of Americans want single-payer health care, yet Obama is devoted to protecting the health insurance industry's hold over the system
If you think we can have an honest debate on single-payer health care and get it through the United States Congress then raise your hand, I'll be the first one to support you.
A campaign is not a movement.
Neither is whining on/. without taking any steps to affect meaningful change or progress. Obama is the most progressive candidate to have a shot in my lifetime. He's also one of the few people that I think will actually be able to accomplish his progressive agenda -- if he can keep people engaged in the progress and get them to hold Washington accountable.
And unlike the US, enforcement is pretty low, so unless you're doing something stupid you're not likely to get tossed in jail for smoking a joint (even in public it's most likely to just get confiscated).
Enforcement is pretty damn low in parts of the United States too. Here in New York the most you are going to get is an appearance ticket and a $100 fine. Most of the time they will just confiscate it -- or outright ignore you if you aren't pissing anyone off.
As to the state laws, I could move to a less restrictive state, but the Feds won't even let Californian doctors prescribe it for terminal cancer patients! Now that's just plain retarded - you can prescribe a powerful, dangerous, addictive narcotic but you can't prescribe an herb (unless a drug company can get a patent). No state can legalize marijuana while the Federal laws criminalizing it are on the books.
Dude, your preaching to the choir here. I don't disagree with a thing you've said. The Federal actions against terminally ill cancer patients will likely go down as one of our darkest marks on history. Future generations will be appalled by our behavior here.
All I was trying to say was that on a day to day level we'd see more success at liberalizing pot in this country if we focused on the states. Putting a pro-marijuana party in DC wouldn't change the day to day lives for the pot smokers who live in the 38 states that haven't decriminalized it.
The one thing that I've learned about politics is that meaningful progress of any kind (even if it's something as trivial as a pothole in a village board meeting) takes time. The system is setup to resist change in either direction. Building a grassroots effort at the state level and working to liberalize the law in those 38 states previously mentioned would be a good start. Getting an administration elected that isn't openly hostile to the idea of decriminalization (to say nothing of legalization) and which would end the war on cancer patients would be a good start.
We've had 60 years of propaganda shoved down our throats on this subject. In spite of the fact that something like 40% of American's have smoked pot I could introduce you to people that still buy into the gateway drug theory or whom think marijuana belongs in the same category as heroin. You aren't going to change those attitudes overnight.
It's my belief that the drug companies (you know, the dope pushers pushing drugs on TV commercials when you watch the evening news) are the ones behind the continued criminalization of illegal drugs
They definitely have an interest in it, that's for sure. I've always thought the liquor industry has a lot to gain from marijuana prohibition too.
Obama isn't going to do a single progressive thing unless a mass movement gives him no other choice.
I don't know if you've been paying attention or not but he has a mass movement and part of his message to that movement is that real change won't happen unless the people start holding the Government accountable.
Although, on the bright side they do have a few products in their inventory that aren't bad, like Rolling Rock and a couple of non-AB stouts and pale ales
I've never heard the words "aren't bad" and "Rolling Rock" in the same sentence before;)
Am I the only one that thinks he got burned over that? It was a combination of a loud crowd (that was completely filtered out by his unidirectional microphone) and his own excitement. Then the media ran it over and over and over again until it was reduced to a punchline.
I've been to these events -- there's a lot of energy in the air. It's contagious. Anyone who has ever been to a political rally can understand him shouting like that. Anyone who has ever been to a political rally knows that it was completely unfair to filter out the noise of the crowd and just amplify what he was saying.
Please don't tell me you believe the "I never heard that" excuse--you don't attend a church for twenty years without something rubbing off on you.
Please don't tell me that you believe that a handful of video snippets provides the complete story behind either Rev. Wright (who has ministered for more than 35 years) or even the Trinity Church?
A trillion dollars of extra government spending is one of them
The only thing with the potential to cost a trillion dollars in the War in Iraq. The War that will continue unless Senator Obama wins.
I'm curious if that idea would be acceptable to either candidate.
I don't agree with a damn thing you say and you'd be on my foes list if I kept one but I actually think that's a halfway decent idea.
One of my problems with Hillary suggesting a windfall profits tax on oil to replace the gasoline excise tax is the basic fact that the oil companies would just raise their prices to makeup the tax. At least when Obama suggests using a windfall profits tax to invest in alternative energy that's something worth the impact to society (of higher oil prices) -- not a three month "holiday" that saves people a whooping $30 if they are lucky.
I'd get behind opening up ANWR tomorrow if we were going to invest the profits into alternative energy. Of course you and I know that no "free market" Republican would get behind that -- just as no "environmentalist" Democrat would.
The Florida GOP doesn't set the National DNC's primary rules though. The DNC could have simply said "The Florida Republicans moved up the primary against our wishes. We don't want our voters to be disenfranchised, so we'll count their votes anyway" prior to the first primary ever happening. The DNC decided to flex their muscle without using their brain and once again, shot themselves in the foot.
You seem to be forgetting that the RNC also penalized the states. They went about it in a less stupid way but they did it nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you hear me now?
And just think, if he can aim his ejaculation properly then the camera won't be much of a problem any more ;)
(Yeah, I'm going to hell)
Indeed. I love this theory that someone who is mentally prepared to kill themselves is going to break out in a cold sweat beforehand and give themselves away.
How many people are going to be labeled as terrorists because their facial expressions show annoyance due to the screaming baby with the ear infection sitting directly behind them?
Bankruptcy isn't that big of a deal -- trust me I've been through it. I filed less than three years ago and my credit score currently stands at 740 and I have $9,000 worth of revolving credit lines and an automobile loan at the same interest rate that everyone else gets. I haven't tried applying for a mortgage (I'm quite content renting) but I'm told that it's doable at this stage -- and that four years after the discharge you'll get the same mortgage terms as everyone else.
much higher personal liability insurance ratesOnly for three to five years, depending on the insurance company and how large of a lookback period they have.
a far greater penalty than running a red light and being caught by the intersection robot.I wasn't talking about traffic tickets -- those aren't crimes in most states. In New York they are termed 'violations' (as opposed to 'misdemeanors' or 'felonies') and don't contribute towards a criminal record. Even if they did I'd be hard pressed to think of many employers that would care about a few traffic infractions, unless driving is part of your day to day job duties.
People think that civil suits are somehow irrelevant or off-limits, but they're matters of public record in most cases.They aren't 'off-limits' but how many employment applications have you filed out that asked about civil judgments? I've never seen one. Nearly every employment application that I've ever filled out asked about criminal convictions though.
I suppose they might find out about them if they pulled a credit report -- but how many employers actually do that for non-finance/executive positions? I've never had an employer pull my credit report, nor would I give them permission to do so (they can't do it without a signed release from you). I'm not saying that they aren't out there -- but you'd have to admit that a lot more employers are going to pull criminal background checks than will pull credit reports.
The new bankruptcy laws didn't change anything in this regard -- they mainly made it harder to file for a straight liquidation (Chapter 7) and instead seek to force people into repayment plans (Chapter 13).
The typical exceptions to a bankruptcy discharge would include child support, taxes, criminal fines/restitution, Government backed student loans, civil judgments resulting from a DWI conviction (i.e: you maim someone while driving drunk and get sued) or debt incurred to pay any of the aforementioned obligations (i.e: you pay your tax bill on your credit card).
I've haven't seen anything to suggest that a RIAA civil judgment would be excluded from a bankruptcy discharge. RIAA could raise a stink with the bankruptcy judge and/or trustee but the bankruptcy courts usually wind up siding with the debtor in such cases. They could make it a PITA to get that far (you'd wind up paying a lot more in legal fees if you had contest their claim at an adversarial hearing), but in the end they'd probably lose.
not getting ANY bank loans for schoolMost student loans don't have any relation to your credit worthiness. It might make it harder to obtain private student loans but it wouldn't make a dent in your ability to obtain Federally backed ones.
How is a civil penalty harsher than any criminal one? A civil judgment isn't going to stop me from obtaining student loans (drug convictions will), getting a pistol permit, registering to vote or serving on a jury. A criminal conviction may do all of those things and then some.
The monetary impact of a civil penalty may be harsher than some criminal ones but criminal convictions have all sort of consequences beyond the actual penalty imposed by the court. A civil penalty/judgment might cost you some money -- then again it might not (ask this guy how much a civil judgment is actually worth)
Yeah, I recall reading that story. It's a crock of bullshit -- not much more I can say besides that. They probably would have had to smash my car windows because I wouldn't have willingly unlocked it for them without a warrant and/or consulting with my attorney. The only time I've ever had a police officer ask me to get out of my vehicle I locked the doors behind me. That didn't make him very happy -- but oh well.
I still think that you are wrong to be so pessimistic about efforts to get laws liberalized at the state level though. It's not a worthless cause by any means. The fact that a pot-smoker who is arrested in NY has nothing more to lose than $100 whereas one who is arrested in PA stands to lose his livelihood (criminal record == hard time finding a job) and his access to higher education (harder to get student loans with a drug conviction) would seem to dispel the idea that decriminalization on the state level is "worthless as long as the Feds outlaw it".
Three out of five officers were federal. As we had no drugs we were let go after being searched and forty five minutes of our time wasted.There are only two things that I will ever say to a law enforcement officer: "I'd like to speak with my attorney before answering any questions" and "Am I free to go now?" I won't even talk to them over speeding tickets.
I've never heard of the DEA arresting people for possession after traffic stops. I've never heard of the DEA knocking on my door because the neighbor smelled some pot smoke and called the cops.
Your state's decriminalization is meaningless so long as there is a Federal law against it.I think that's a very shortsighted way of looking at things. The overwhelming majority of citizen interaction with law enforcement happens on a local and state level. Most of us aren't running into DEA or FBI agents on a day to day basis. Marijuana prohibition isn't possible without the cooperation of state and local law enforcement -- why do you think Anslinger spent so much time trying to convince the states to get onboard with his plans?
Grassroots efforts to change anything rarely start at the Federal level. I honestly don't understand why you are so pessimistic/defeatist about this? Are we better served by complaining about the current situation or by working to change that situation from the ground up?
That's all they do? That's funny, I thought they had this other power proscribed by the Constitution. I can't think of what it's called but I think it's a four letter word that starts with 'v' and that said power could have been used at any time in the last seven years to try and rein in spending if Bush cared about such things. Of course he showed no interest in that at all until his party lost control of Congress. I guess pork is just fine and dandy if your party is the one doling it out.
And you can't support Obama and also complain about spending moneyActually I can support whomever I want and complain about whatever I want. That's one of the perks of being an American.
And that's not counting the things he'd like to do that have been tried before and failed.You mean like trying to bring Democracy to another country at gunpoint?
I guess that was my (badly phrased) question. Is blocking it in NoScript sufficient to stop Firefox from even downloading it (i.e: is it usually called with a javascript element as opposed to being an embedded image or some other method?) or should the truly paranoids also include it in the hosts file?
Do you actually have to block it in your hosts file in order to effectively deny them information? I have it blacklisted in NoScript -- is that sufficient? I'd always thought it was called via Javascript.
I don't know, it worked for dipshit eight years ago, but he was "only" running for veep.
The probable outcome is you lose both.Don't count on that either, the Republicans haven't managed to field a winning candidate for statewide office here in New York since 2002. I doubt they will in 2012 either. The only Republican I can think of with a shot of beating her probably pissed away all of his goodwill with New Yorkers by trying to tie his Presidential campaign to 9/11. That wasn't particularly appreciated around these parts.
The good thing is that it's unlikely that a sitting senator receives a challenge from his/her own party in the primaryIf she did she could always just run against the Democratic nominee and form her own "New York for Hillary" party. It worked for the aforementioned dipshit ;)
But seriously, I don't understand this concept of outlawing a completely harmless activity that I happen to enjoy.
Pot smokers seem to be missing the concept of a representative democracyPot-prohibitionists seem to be missing the concept of inalienable rights, among them being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
and in our society the minority does not make the rulesAnd in our society the majority does not to get take away the rights of the minority.
That way leads to further and further weakening of the rule of law until it's pretty much Crowley's "Do what they wilt."I agree. Let's legalize it. Didn't we learn anything the first time?
Obama's plan is as realistic as any -- one or two brigades a month. I'm as opposed to the war as anybody else but even I can see the folly and risk of pulling out tomorrow. Never mind the risk to our own forces with a hasty withdrawal -- I'm not willing to throw the Iraq people to the wolves without at least giving them a chance to get their house in order. We did create that mess, we have somewhat of an obligation to try and clean it up before we walk away.
Over 60% of Americans want single-payer health care, yet Obama is devoted to protecting the health insurance industry's hold over the systemIf you think we can have an honest debate on single-payer health care and get it through the United States Congress then raise your hand, I'll be the first one to support you.
A campaign is not a movement.Neither is whining on /. without taking any steps to affect meaningful change or progress. Obama is the most progressive candidate to have a shot in my lifetime. He's also one of the few people that I think will actually be able to accomplish his progressive agenda -- if he can keep people engaged in the progress and get them to hold Washington accountable.
Enforcement is pretty damn low in parts of the United States too. Here in New York the most you are going to get is an appearance ticket and a $100 fine. Most of the time they will just confiscate it -- or outright ignore you if you aren't pissing anyone off.
Dude, your preaching to the choir here. I don't disagree with a thing you've said. The Federal actions against terminally ill cancer patients will likely go down as one of our darkest marks on history. Future generations will be appalled by our behavior here.
All I was trying to say was that on a day to day level we'd see more success at liberalizing pot in this country if we focused on the states. Putting a pro-marijuana party in DC wouldn't change the day to day lives for the pot smokers who live in the 38 states that haven't decriminalized it.
The one thing that I've learned about politics is that meaningful progress of any kind (even if it's something as trivial as a pothole in a village board meeting) takes time. The system is setup to resist change in either direction. Building a grassroots effort at the state level and working to liberalize the law in those 38 states previously mentioned would be a good start. Getting an administration elected that isn't openly hostile to the idea of decriminalization (to say nothing of legalization) and which would end the war on cancer patients would be a good start.
We've had 60 years of propaganda shoved down our throats on this subject. In spite of the fact that something like 40% of American's have smoked pot I could introduce you to people that still buy into the gateway drug theory or whom think marijuana belongs in the same category as heroin. You aren't going to change those attitudes overnight.
It's my belief that the drug companies (you know, the dope pushers pushing drugs on TV commercials when you watch the evening news) are the ones behind the continued criminalization of illegal drugsThey definitely have an interest in it, that's for sure. I've always thought the liquor industry has a lot to gain from marijuana prohibition too.
I don't know if you've been paying attention or not but he has a mass movement and part of his message to that movement is that real change won't happen unless the people start holding the Government accountable.
I've never heard the words "aren't bad" and "Rolling Rock" in the same sentence before ;)
Am I the only one that thinks he got burned over that? It was a combination of a loud crowd (that was completely filtered out by his unidirectional microphone) and his own excitement. Then the media ran it over and over and over again until it was reduced to a punchline.
I've been to these events -- there's a lot of energy in the air. It's contagious. Anyone who has ever been to a political rally can understand him shouting like that. Anyone who has ever been to a political rally knows that it was completely unfair to filter out the noise of the crowd and just amplify what he was saying.
That remark isn't that hard to understand for anyone who has bothered to read a history book.
Please don't tell me that you believe that a handful of video snippets provides the complete story behind either Rev. Wright (who has ministered for more than 35 years) or even the Trinity Church?
A trillion dollars of extra government spending is one of themThe only thing with the potential to cost a trillion dollars in the War in Iraq. The War that will continue unless Senator Obama wins.
I don't agree with a damn thing you say and you'd be on my foes list if I kept one but I actually think that's a halfway decent idea.
One of my problems with Hillary suggesting a windfall profits tax on oil to replace the gasoline excise tax is the basic fact that the oil companies would just raise their prices to makeup the tax. At least when Obama suggests using a windfall profits tax to invest in alternative energy that's something worth the impact to society (of higher oil prices) -- not a three month "holiday" that saves people a whooping $30 if they are lucky.
I'd get behind opening up ANWR tomorrow if we were going to invest the profits into alternative energy. Of course you and I know that no "free market" Republican would get behind that -- just as no "environmentalist" Democrat would.
If you have a better idea write a letter to Howard Dean and suggest it for 2012.
If you ditched that rule then we would have had primaries in July (of last year).
Hey, fuck you buddy
and they all subsist entirely on PizzaWell, ya got me there ;)
Your post is utterly preposterousYour post however is sheer brilliance. I'm tired of people trying to dismiss parts of the country that they don't like. All it does is divide us.
since anyone who has already knows that the old people here don't even use their turn signals.I'll attest to this, both in Florida and New York ;)
You seem to be forgetting that the RNC also penalized the states. They went about it in a less stupid way but they did it nonetheless.