That's actually a pretty strong reason to say that it should be excessive force for the police to shoot you when it's not for a member of the general public. They are the ones with all that training in other methods, they should actually use it.
No, he didn't start the fight. I've provided exactly as much evidence as you have. However, if you actually go searching for evidence, the evidence strongly favors Trayvon starting the fight, not Zimmerman. Following someone is NOT the start of a fight.
Actually, plenty of people deserve it (any actual cold blooded murderer), but it's a bad idea for society to encourage it. Self defense is the most basic form of protecting your rights however, and the evidence suggest that Zimmerman was in fact defending himself.
Actually, his story is that he did stop following him after being told "you don't need to do that" and was approached by Trayvon as he returned to his vehicle.
I did not suggest that the left wing supports the baptists, only that the westboro baptists appear to be left wing overall (could be that the pastor is an exception, but I doubt it). Because the poster I originally replied to compared them to right wing individuals, i thought it worth pointing out that they belong on the opposite end of the spectrum. Cutting off an implication of his post was the only point. In response to you, I provided the actual reason I claimed they were left wing, since you ascribed a motive to me that I did not hold and implied I didn't have a rational reason for the claim.
I already responded to rcamera, but in case you didn't catch it, it was because of Fred Phelp's official party membership. nothing specific about the rest of the church, and I'm perfectly willing to back off on the "solid" but it would appear that the head of the church at least hates gay and supports left wing policies. Feelings about homosexuality are not inherently right or left, even though there is a weak correlation.
He served honoroably in the military, so wasn't a coward. Where, precisely, did he promote fascist ideas? The only semi-plausible one I'm aware of was Starship Troopers, and even that was an extraordinarily free society. No draft, no racism, mild sexism (not in a superiority but in asserting there were different areas of strengths) and the only war they were in was a reaction to an extremely agressive species that made no attempt whatsoever at peace. The only things it did do were require that public schools offer a class on morality, which student were required to take but which wasn't graded in any way, and restrict the vote to people who had entered public service, almost always the military. Considering how many left wingers seem to consider Castro's Cuba a benign dictatorship, a benign oligarchy doesn't seem like it should bother them so much. More to the point: it was fiction. He did not himself claim such a society was optimal, although certain characters within the book did.
Corporatism doesn't mean what you think it means in. Note that libertarians are not anarchists. Among other things, they tend to support strong private property and liability law. A good portion would object the government created limited liability corporations. US policy for the last 30 years has vastly increased government regulation in numerous areas. Always in ways Libertarians objected to. There are very few and limited ways in which government regulation has lessend, but it's always gain in one area but losing in two others.
Voluntarily aggreeing to pay my medical costs does not give you license to control my behavior through force. At most, you can decline to pay for my care unless I follow certain conditions.
Well, I guess I have to walk back the solid, but Fred Phelps is definitely a democrat. Not a lot of info on general policy preferences. Given that Obama has explicitly backed gay rights, I'm not exactly surprised that the westboro baptists despise him. I can't seem to easily find any actual policy preferences associated with the church except anti-gay.
Heinlein was never a fascist. It's an accusation that keeps getting thrown out occasionally by the same people who claim that libertarianism is fascist because they don't want to actually examine their own preferences for various forms of strong government.
Romney has a pretty good defense regarding Romneycare and Obamacare called the 10th amendment. As for obstructionaism, there's is little actual evidence of this. A cloture vote doesn't necessarily mean there was a filibuster. The wikipedia entry is interesting, because it notes that cloture is often called without a filibuster, but then goes on to accuse the republicans of setting records based on the count of cloture votes. At least some of the cloture votes have been used to shut down actual debate rather than filibusters.
Nah... it's just that we only like every other change. N is good, N+1 is just horrible, N+2 is good and fixes all the horrible things in N+1. This may only hold for windows versions...:p
Are you sure that works? I thought the x86 architecture used two's complement for signed values. It has a two's complement negation instruction at least.
The SCOTUS has opinions. They are legally binding. Those opinions may nonetheless disagree with unambiguous wording in the constitution, making their decision factually unconstitutional. I'm not noting any particular decisions here, because I'm trying to prevent you from putting words in my mouth. I may have an opinion on specific decisions but it's irrelevant. I'm not trying to disprove your claim by counterexample. I'm basing my argument on actual definitions of words. I would argue society does not define constitutional the same way the legal system does. It's hardly the only word where common understanding is at odds with legal defintions. Are you sure I'm not using the primary defintion used in society?
Avoiding the SCOTUS in particular, the law says that possession of a sufficient amount of drugs is possession with intent to sell. That's not factually true even if it's legally true, because there is no provable link between amount possessed and intent. I'm trying to highlight the difference between legal rulings and existential fact. The use of the word "IS" with emphasis in the original post implies existential fact.
Above should be reworded for clarity, but I lack the time or inclination to edit further. If my point hasn't been made my now, there's some underlying disagreement that is probably unresolveable.
Disparate impact is not actually proof of racism or sexism. It may be partial evidence for it, but you still need to prove intent and probably that the policy in question has no rational basis.
That is not what I said. Let me be clear: If the SCOTUS says that PI is equal to 3 when deciding some case, they remain wrong. They would also be wrong if they said the government could quarter troops in your house under some cirumstances. Constitutional is not synonymous with the opinion of the SCOTUS. The definition of the word has a distinct meaning, and the constitution doesn't grant them sole right to judge what is or is not constitutional. There's a reason legislators and the president also swear to uphold the constitution. Even if you accept the decision in Marbury vs Madison, that doesn't make them automatically correct in whatever they decide the constitution says in any given case.
Slashdot Mirror
Martin didn't know he had a gun until during the fight.
That's actually a pretty strong reason to say that it should be excessive force for the police to shoot you when it's not for a member of the general public. They are the ones with all that training in other methods, they should actually use it.
No, he didn't start the fight. I've provided exactly as much evidence as you have. However, if you actually go searching for evidence, the evidence strongly favors Trayvon starting the fight, not Zimmerman. Following someone is NOT the start of a fight.
Actually, plenty of people deserve it (any actual cold blooded murderer), but it's a bad idea for society to encourage it. Self defense is the most basic form of protecting your rights however, and the evidence suggest that Zimmerman was in fact defending himself.
Actually, his story is that he did stop following him after being told "you don't need to do that" and was approached by Trayvon as he returned to his vehicle.
I did not suggest that the left wing supports the baptists, only that the westboro baptists appear to be left wing overall (could be that the pastor is an exception, but I doubt it). Because the poster I originally replied to compared them to right wing individuals, i thought it worth pointing out that they belong on the opposite end of the spectrum. Cutting off an implication of his post was the only point. In response to you, I provided the actual reason I claimed they were left wing, since you ascribed a motive to me that I did not hold and implied I didn't have a rational reason for the claim.
See my above responses to others. I really should have included a link in the original post.
I already responded to rcamera, but in case you didn't catch it, it was because of Fred Phelp's official party membership. nothing specific about the rest of the church, and I'm perfectly willing to back off on the "solid" but it would appear that the head of the church at least hates gay and supports left wing policies. Feelings about homosexuality are not inherently right or left, even though there is a weak correlation.
He served honoroably in the military, so wasn't a coward. Where, precisely, did he promote fascist ideas? The only semi-plausible one I'm aware of was Starship Troopers, and even that was an extraordinarily free society. No draft, no racism, mild sexism (not in a superiority but in asserting there were different areas of strengths) and the only war they were in was a reaction to an extremely agressive species that made no attempt whatsoever at peace. The only things it did do were require that public schools offer a class on morality, which student were required to take but which wasn't graded in any way, and restrict the vote to people who had entered public service, almost always the military. Considering how many left wingers seem to consider Castro's Cuba a benign dictatorship, a benign oligarchy doesn't seem like it should bother them so much. More to the point: it was fiction. He did not himself claim such a society was optimal, although certain characters within the book did.
Corporatism doesn't mean what you think it means in. Note that libertarians are not anarchists. Among other things, they tend to support strong private property and liability law. A good portion would object the government created limited liability corporations. US policy for the last 30 years has vastly increased government regulation in numerous areas. Always in ways Libertarians objected to. There are very few and limited ways in which government regulation has lessend, but it's always gain in one area but losing in two others.
Voluntarily aggreeing to pay my medical costs does not give you license to control my behavior through force. At most, you can decline to pay for my care unless I follow certain conditions.
Does that mean it's ok to forcibly separate members of the opposite sex until marriage, just like it's ok to restrict people to small sugary drinks?
Well, I guess I have to walk back the solid, but Fred Phelps is definitely a democrat. Not a lot of info on general policy preferences. Given that Obama has explicitly backed gay rights, I'm not exactly surprised that the westboro baptists despise him. I can't seem to easily find any actual policy preferences associated with the church except anti-gay.
You've never actually examined Ron Paul's beliefs, have you?
Remember that the Westboro Baptists are left wing fringe (hate gays, but otherwise solid democrats).
It's not true that money is speech. It is true that restricting you abitily to purchase air time to make speech is a restriction on speech though.
Those didn't originate with Bush. The phrase is strongly associated with campus speech codes.
Heinlein was never a fascist. It's an accusation that keeps getting thrown out occasionally by the same people who claim that libertarianism is fascist because they don't want to actually examine their own preferences for various forms of strong government.
Romney has a pretty good defense regarding Romneycare and Obamacare called the 10th amendment. As for obstructionaism, there's is little actual evidence of this. A cloture vote doesn't necessarily mean there was a filibuster. The wikipedia entry is interesting, because it notes that cloture is often called without a filibuster, but then goes on to accuse the republicans of setting records based on the count of cloture votes. At least some of the cloture votes have been used to shut down actual debate rather than filibusters.
Nah... it's just that we only like every other change. N is good, N+1 is just horrible, N+2 is good and fixes all the horrible things in N+1. This may only hold for windows versions... :p
Are you sure that works? I thought the x86 architecture used two's complement for signed values. It has a two's complement negation instruction at least.
The SCOTUS has opinions. They are legally binding. Those opinions may nonetheless disagree with unambiguous wording in the constitution, making their decision factually unconstitutional. I'm not noting any particular decisions here, because I'm trying to prevent you from putting words in my mouth. I may have an opinion on specific decisions but it's irrelevant. I'm not trying to disprove your claim by counterexample. I'm basing my argument on actual definitions of words. I would argue society does not define constitutional the same way the legal system does. It's hardly the only word where common understanding is at odds with legal defintions. Are you sure I'm not using the primary defintion used in society?
Avoiding the SCOTUS in particular, the law says that possession of a sufficient amount of drugs is possession with intent to sell. That's not factually true even if it's legally true, because there is no provable link between amount possessed and intent. I'm trying to highlight the difference between legal rulings and existential fact. The use of the word "IS" with emphasis in the original post implies existential fact.
Above should be reworded for clarity, but I lack the time or inclination to edit further. If my point hasn't been made my now, there's some underlying disagreement that is probably unresolveable.
Actually, I've encountered some complaints about absentee ballots as well. The issue is military members, which pretty much has to vote absentee.
Disparate impact is not actually proof of racism or sexism. It may be partial evidence for it, but you still need to prove intent and probably that the policy in question has no rational basis.
That is not what I said. Let me be clear: If the SCOTUS says that PI is equal to 3 when deciding some case, they remain wrong. They would also be wrong if they said the government could quarter troops in your house under some cirumstances. Constitutional is not synonymous with the opinion of the SCOTUS. The definition of the word has a distinct meaning, and the constitution doesn't grant them sole right to judge what is or is not constitutional. There's a reason legislators and the president also swear to uphold the constitution. Even if you accept the decision in Marbury vs Madison, that doesn't make them automatically correct in whatever they decide the constitution says in any given case.