Sometimes abolishment is the best way to "fix" stupid laws.
Correct. But if there are only specific issues with the law that are cited as "stupid", i.e.: why aren't murderers required to notify their neighbors?, why not address those specific issues?
Why name specific issues that have obvious fixes if the full argument is that even with those fixes in place, the law is still "stupid". Why not state from the start that "this law is completely stupid and irreparable (and here's why:...)?
10 years sound like a lot. However, think about it: my wife is five years younger than me. Many see that as a very normal age difference. However, put that back to when I was 18. She was 13 for crying out loud!
The concept that the maturity between a 13 yr old and 18 yr old is different than that between a 28 and 33 year old, didn't occur to you?
Why don't the people have a right to know if a child molestor or rapist is in the neighborhood? You might want to try providing an argument for that, instead of just making a statement without any reasoning behind it.
we do not require this of thieves, murderers, embezzlers, muggers, pickpockets, con artists, alcoholics, drug abusers, wife beaters, or ANY OTHER CLASS OF CRIME.
So why isn't your conclusion that:
1) legislation should remove public urination as a "Sex offense", and
2) murderers and thieves should be added to the list of crimes requiring notification?
I agree that the law isn't completely correct, but whereas you think that that means it should be abolished, I think it should be fixed
I absolutely agree. While there has always been a certain level of expected privacy even while being in public, there are people now claiming that there was never any such thing.
So what I meant was, we need to use legislature to define that "public" doesn't mean everybody's business is completely open to everybody else. We need to reestablish and update the law to reaffirm in non-vague terms that certain aspects of one's life are private, even when out and about in public. Will people figure that out before it's too late, or does there need to be a major abuse displayed in order for it to finally be addressed?
That notion can go fuck itself in public; the issue is not that black and white, and you know it. Maybe what people are proposing is, get this: we need to redefine what 'public' is. Why should my right to privacy only exist within the square footage of real estate that I can afford to rent or own? Why should my right to privacy be limited if my private acts don't cause you any harm?
A search at dailykos for robocalls yields an example, or two.
As we did our best to document, the National Republican Congressional Committee was responsible for repetitive, often harrassing robo calls in more than two dozen districts across the country in the runup to the election.
Unless practitioners are criminally charged and exposed for this kind of behavior, any fines that are imposed will merely be written off as campaign expense.
And it is my responsibility how to help those 'unlucky' in the lottery of life?
It's called empathy for your fellow human.
But, I should under no circumstances be forced to support worthless assholes who fuck up themselves
Again, you're punishing the many for the sins of the few.
Well, in war, things get blown up. I am extremely disappointed in the mis-management of the war
And this is where I stop responding. The war was merely "mismanaged"? People's lives were ruined for a war that was launched under false pretenses, and you think it was just mismanaged? How about miswaged? Holy sweet fuck, your lack of basic human compassion is disturbing.
They want to raise your taxes and create an even better and more efficient wealth redistribution system
And that's "looting" how? Those taxes that are "taken" get back to you via public services. Some go towards helping those who struck out on the lottery of life. And just like any other system, there are people who abuse the system; some problems you just have to learn to accept, otherwise your argument is to punish everybody for the sins of the few. Is there a such thing as over-taxing, or frivolously spending? Of course there is, but that's a different issue than "I don't want to pay taxes, poor people are bad".
How can you claim that republicans are fiscally responsible when they've borrowed against Social Security? Yay! They're not taking money directly from our paychecks, just taking money that we already had ear-marked for specific use.
How can you claim that republicans are fiscally responsible when we're spending billions destroying and rebuilding Iraq? Are you ignoring that those billions are comprised of your tax dollars?
Republicans have framed and enforced the notion that the middle-class should blame the poor, meanwhile, the distribution of wealth in the US is as follows: 10% of the population own(s) 71% of the wealth, (with) the top 1% controll(ing) 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% own(s) less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
Yeah, working toward a "better and more efficient wealth distribution system" sure seems like a horrible idea.
"Believing that looting and class warfare are fundamentally wrong" != "screw the poor"
Democrats are pro-looting? What in the shit are you talking about? Repubs believe class warfare is wrong? They really ought to change their "poor people are lazy and have brown skin" rhetoric.
"Pandering to whatever some target demographic thinks" != "gays should be hung"
Target demographic? What part of "all men are created equal" don't you comprehend, you constitutional wizard?
"Bush halving the budget deficit" != "we don't need fiscal responsibility"
HAHAHahaHAHA! You're not even trying to make shit up.
"Hmm, they have nukes" != "let's invate Iran."
and you surely don't keep up with the news at all, do you?
Since our intelligence resources are still struggling to infiltrate al-qaida and similar groups perhaps you can give some constructive advice on what exactly Bush should have done in the 5 months between that vague memo and the 9/11 attack?
Also, would you care to comment on Clinton's limp-wristed response to FOUR attacks by al-qaida while he was president?
What a nice re-writing of history in which you ignore that not only did Clinton respond to those attacks, but he was met by opposition from a Republican-controlled congress the entire time.
Even if your claim had a hint of truth, wasn't it the Bush administration's duty to correct for Clinton's alleged errors in judgment? You state yourself that Al-qaeda was known to be a threat for years, yet Bush still didn't acknowledge their threat until the towers fell.
What could have been done in 5 months? How about an analysis of weaknesses in airline security? How about hardened cockpits? How about the use of air marshalls? How about anything?
You should try reading. I assure you it's more fun than purchasing a patriotic bumper sticker!
for weaking america and making all of more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, hope you are proud of the work you are doing.
I wonder if they're as proud as Bush was for ignoring memos titled Bin Laden determined to attack in US, not taking heed (and improving airline security), and successfully making us vulnerable to an attack.
Cause that's totally comparable to someone releasing the SOP manuals of a prison.
You see, friend, it's people like you who "weaken" and make America "more vulnerable to terrorist attacks". Instead of targeting your anger toward an administration that has let its incompetence actually harm American interests, you'd rather cry about some hypothetical weakening.
and that's your perfect answer "Oops I'm sorry, I wanted to make sure my virus had gone.
That's the polar opposite of the perfect answer. This is a government computer we're talking about. End-users aren't to be performing maintenance, contracting out maintenance, or any other such notion. The idea of "oops, I must've got a virus" complete bullshit: any IT department worth its paycheck has ensured their systems are virus-proof. In the event that a virus did manage to make its way through, mandatory SOP would be for the in-house shop to determine how security was compromise, the extent of the damage, and ensure that the issue has been resolved properly. Now take that up a notch for government systems, and "oops!" is far from a perfect excuse.
Ditto for abortion. I am pro-choice, but I don't think that's a constitutional issue.
The Supreme Court has stated that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional:
"The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
The argument that "The Constitution just doesn't talk about anything related to it" is invalid. The Founding Fathers are intentions are clear regarding whether rights not explicitly detailed in the Constitution exist "(A Bill of Rights) would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
i.e.: although the Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, the government is not allowed to claim those as our only rights.
It's not disrespectful to give a fake version of history to children.
If the truth is too much for children to handle, then don't give it to them. Comparing the tooth fairy to murder, rape, and occupation is a stretch, and you know it.
Not to mention that you seemed to miss (or willfully ignored) that my post was addressing a grown adult who was oh so offended by having to deal with having to hear about "native american heritage". What a sad state it is when people become angry if someone has the gall to point out that their nation's history wasn't all hugs and kisses.
Sorry, but the last month I have had a bunch of "native American heritage".
Oh, you poor thing -- you had to be exposed to the notion that European settlers were an invading force? The horror! No shit that Native American's weren't living in perfect harmony, but we all weren't holding hands around a big turkey, either. Despite that, that's the history we teach our children and it's the imagery that we're told to associate with the holiday. Do you not see how fucking disrespectful it is to have some fairy-tale retelling of our nation's history? Do you really not see why American's need to be re-educated about the events they're celebrating? But instead, people like you throw a fuss cause that anyone has the gall to say "the story of Native American's and European colonists isn't so rosey".
How awesome is it that a company's reputation and income has to suffer (potentially unrecoverably) in order to comply with a court order, all in the name of The War on Drugs. Yay America: putting business out of business and restricting citizen's rights to their bodies, all at the same time!
The telemarketers would just do a simple voice-to-text conversion. So telemarketing calls would be down for maybe a week or 2, but once they got their system updated, they'd be fine and we'd all be stuck with now having to enter in digits every time we place a call. Yay!
Not to mention that legitimate automated call services would be affected
Not to mention that we already have laws on the books to stop unwanted telemarketing calls -- we should just start enforcing them, instead of adding temporary hurdles.
I agree -- there's a major problem with our country's current minimum wage. You would think that in one of the most industrialized countries, the federal minimum wage would allow people to afford a minimum standard of living.
And why does your sister get to act as Exhibit A in your argument for what a typical welfare recipient's life situation is. The fact is, you want to deny help for everyone because a few people take advantage of the system. Hell, why isn't your issue that the system just needs to be fixed? Do we just halt all programs that aren't working to optimal level instead of fixing them? Society and social progress isn't binary.
Live in a big city in some of the shadier parts of town. Your opinion of welfare will change. Happened to me. I used to be a bleeding heart liberal until I was immersed in the lazy filth for 4 years.
So we'll punish everybody for the acts of a few? What you describe isn't a problem with welfare, it's a problem with some people who abuse the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. But if there are only specific issues with the law that are cited as "stupid", i.e.: why aren't murderers required to notify their neighbors?, why not address those specific issues?
Why name specific issues that have obvious fixes if the full argument is that even with those fixes in place, the law is still "stupid". Why not state from the start that "this law is completely stupid and irreparable (and here's why:...)?
You're comparing adultery to rape, molestation, and murder. Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?
The concept that the maturity between a 13 yr old and 18 yr old is different than that between a 28 and 33 year old, didn't occur to you?
Seriously? This concept confuses you?
So why isn't your conclusion that:
1) legislation should remove public urination as a "Sex offense", and
2) murderers and thieves should be added to the list of crimes requiring notification?
I agree that the law isn't completely correct, but whereas you think that that means it should be abolished, I think it should be fixed
I absolutely agree. While there has always been a certain level of expected privacy even while being in public, there are people now claiming that there was never any such thing. So what I meant was, we need to use legislature to define that "public" doesn't mean everybody's business is completely open to everybody else. We need to reestablish and update the law to reaffirm in non-vague terms that certain aspects of one's life are private, even when out and about in public. Will people figure that out before it's too late, or does there need to be a major abuse displayed in order for it to finally be addressed?
That notion can go fuck itself in public; the issue is not that black and white, and you know it. Maybe what people are proposing is, get this: we need to redefine what 'public' is. Why should my right to privacy only exist within the square footage of real estate that I can afford to rent or own? Why should my right to privacy be limited if my private acts don't cause you any harm?
As we did our best to document, the National Republican Congressional Committee was responsible for repetitive, often harrassing robo calls in more than two dozen districts across the country in the runup to the election.
Unless practitioners are criminally charged and exposed for this kind of behavior, any fines that are imposed will merely be written off as campaign expense.
It's called empathy for your fellow human.
But, I should under no circumstances be forced to support worthless assholes who fuck up themselves
Again, you're punishing the many for the sins of the few.
Well, in war, things get blown up. I am extremely disappointed in the mis-management of the war
And this is where I stop responding. The war was merely "mismanaged"? People's lives were ruined for a war that was launched under false pretenses, and you think it was just mismanaged? How about miswaged? Holy sweet fuck, your lack of basic human compassion is disturbing.
And that's "looting" how? Those taxes that are "taken" get back to you via public services. Some go towards helping those who struck out on the lottery of life. And just like any other system, there are people who abuse the system; some problems you just have to learn to accept, otherwise your argument is to punish everybody for the sins of the few. Is there a such thing as over-taxing, or frivolously spending? Of course there is, but that's a different issue than "I don't want to pay taxes, poor people are bad".
How can you claim that republicans are fiscally responsible when they've borrowed against Social Security? Yay! They're not taking money directly from our paychecks, just taking money that we already had ear-marked for specific use.
How can you claim that republicans are fiscally responsible when we're spending billions destroying and rebuilding Iraq? Are you ignoring that those billions are comprised of your tax dollars?
Republicans have framed and enforced the notion that the middle-class should blame the poor, meanwhile, the distribution of wealth in the US is as follows: 10% of the population own(s) 71% of the wealth, (with) the top 1% controll(ing) 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% own(s) less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
Yeah, working toward a "better and more efficient wealth distribution system" sure seems like a horrible idea.
Democrats are pro-looting? What in the shit are you talking about? Repubs believe class warfare is wrong? They really ought to change their "poor people are lazy and have brown skin" rhetoric.
"Pandering to whatever some target demographic thinks" != "gays should be hung"
Target demographic? What part of "all men are created equal" don't you comprehend, you constitutional wizard?
"Bush halving the budget deficit" != "we don't need fiscal responsibility"
HAHAHahaHAHA! You're not even trying to make shit up.
"Hmm, they have nukes" != "let's invate Iran."
and you surely don't keep up with the news at all, do you?
What a nice re-writing of history in which you ignore that not only did Clinton respond to those attacks, but he was met by opposition from a Republican-controlled congress the entire time.
Even if your claim had a hint of truth, wasn't it the Bush administration's duty to correct for Clinton's alleged errors in judgment? You state yourself that Al-qaeda was known to be a threat for years, yet Bush still didn't acknowledge their threat until the towers fell.
What could have been done in 5 months? How about an analysis of weaknesses in airline security? How about hardened cockpits? How about the use of air marshalls? How about anything?
You should try reading. I assure you it's more fun than purchasing a patriotic bumper sticker!
I wonder if they're as proud as Bush was for ignoring memos titled Bin Laden determined to attack in US, not taking heed (and improving airline security), and successfully making us vulnerable to an attack.
Cause that's totally comparable to someone releasing the SOP manuals of a prison.
You see, friend, it's people like you who "weaken" and make America "more vulnerable to terrorist attacks". Instead of targeting your anger toward an administration that has let its incompetence actually harm American interests, you'd rather cry about some hypothetical weakening.
That's the polar opposite of the perfect answer. This is a government computer we're talking about. End-users aren't to be performing maintenance, contracting out maintenance, or any other such notion. The idea of "oops, I must've got a virus" complete bullshit: any IT department worth its paycheck has ensured their systems are virus-proof. In the event that a virus did manage to make its way through, mandatory SOP would be for the in-house shop to determine how security was compromise, the extent of the damage, and ensure that the issue has been resolved properly. Now take that up a notch for government systems, and "oops!" is far from a perfect excuse.
This fucker needs to be investigated.
The Supreme Court has stated that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional:
"The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
The argument that "The Constitution just doesn't talk about anything related to it" is invalid. The Founding Fathers are intentions are clear regarding whether rights not explicitly detailed in the Constitution exist "(A Bill of Rights) would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
i.e.: although the Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, the government is not allowed to claim those as our only rights.
If the truth is too much for children to handle, then don't give it to them. Comparing the tooth fairy to murder, rape, and occupation is a stretch, and you know it.
Not to mention that you seemed to miss (or willfully ignored) that my post was addressing a grown adult who was oh so offended by having to deal with having to hear about "native american heritage". What a sad state it is when people become angry if someone has the gall to point out that their nation's history wasn't all hugs and kisses.
Oh, you poor thing -- you had to be exposed to the notion that European settlers were an invading force? The horror! No shit that Native American's weren't living in perfect harmony, but we all weren't holding hands around a big turkey, either. Despite that, that's the history we teach our children and it's the imagery that we're told to associate with the holiday. Do you not see how fucking disrespectful it is to have some fairy-tale retelling of our nation's history? Do you really not see why American's need to be re-educated about the events they're celebrating? But instead, people like you throw a fuss cause that anyone has the gall to say "the story of Native American's and European colonists isn't so rosey".
How awesome is it that a company's reputation and income has to suffer (potentially unrecoverably) in order to comply with a court order, all in the name of The War on Drugs. Yay America: putting business out of business and restricting citizen's rights to their bodies, all at the same time!
Not to mention that legitimate automated call services would be affected
Not to mention that we already have laws on the books to stop unwanted telemarketing calls -- we should just start enforcing them, instead of adding temporary hurdles.
Man, I wish I was making that up.
I agree -- there's a major problem with our country's current minimum wage. You would think that in one of the most industrialized countries, the federal minimum wage would allow people to afford a minimum standard of living.
And why does your sister get to act as Exhibit A in your argument for what a typical welfare recipient's life situation is. The fact is, you want to deny help for everyone because a few people take advantage of the system. Hell, why isn't your issue that the system just needs to be fixed? Do we just halt all programs that aren't working to optimal level instead of fixing them? Society and social progress isn't binary.
So we'll punish everybody for the acts of a few? What you describe isn't a problem with welfare, it's a problem with some people who abuse the system.
Yes, taking care of citizens surely is the antithesis of "forward" progress. Oh, that silly congress!
There's nothing preventing the free market from developing this tech now, Trolly McTrollTroll.
I don't know which is more appropriate:
+5 Batshit Insane
or
+5 Awesome Satire