I'm disappointed with the number of people that fail to consider this as not only an option but an obligation as a consumer.
"Consumers" have no obligations except to gulp down whatever shit is shoveled into their mouths. The word you're looking for is "customer". That's why that word was phased out in favor of consumer.
I think that is the single most retarded response I have seen related to this story so far. You don't know me or my morals, yet you spew hatred like a religious extremist.
But I do know you. You're the person who said that an innocent person got what he deserved by being arrested, harassed, and robbed by the state for no reason.None of those facts are in question. The only question about the whole situation is that you seem to feel that legally exercising rights is a bad thing that should be punished.
That's all that I need to know about you to make that above statement of fact about you. You proved it to be true.
but the original fight was "should I show my receipt and the contents of my bag to the store employee?", and there is no way you can argue that is worth all the hassle he has been through
Wrong wrong wrong. That is completely insane. That fight was over as soon as he decided "no". That issue was dead as soon as he made that decision. After that happened, then the store started a completely new fight which they did not, under any circumstances, have the right to do.
Your insistence on trying to make the situation into one in which he would have some responsibility to comply with such a policy, is where you're failing. That isn't the case, and so your point is completely destroyed.
The problem is that I suspect the majority of Americans watch so damned much cable that it WOULD be hugely expensive - moreso than they're paying now in any case.
So I don't have to pay for them to sit around on their lazy asses getting dumber *and* they might actually find something worthwhile to do?
I still fail to see any sort of problem. Expect people to pay for their own crap instead of having me pay it for them? I can see how leeches could be upset by that, but nothing there seems to be any sort of a problem.
Ok, so you still lack people skills. I'm trying to figure out how being an absolute prick about this makes your point any more correct or intelligible?
Being a dick to you does nothing to my point. Given how wrong you are about something so clear, simple and obvious, how desperately you cling to your idiotic delusional nonsense, and how disgusting a country that ran under the absolutely unworkable system that you're proposing that we swap over to from the one that has worked pretty well for a couple hundred years, there is no point in trying to convince you of anything.
If you were suceptible to reason, then you could not have arrived at your current position which is unreachable by any rational manner.
So given that you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about, the fact that what you are talking about is the complete elimination of *any* constitutional limits on the government (you are saying that, yes, I know you do not understand that's what you're saying, but it's already been explained to you and you keep refusing to deal with reality) and that you do not have either the sense, the maturity, or the courage to be a citizen of a free society, I have nothing but contempt for you.
So I'm not trying to convince you of anything since if you were capable of actually thinking then the complete destruction of every point you've tried to make by multiple different people would have done so. Instead you keep putting your fingers in your ears and whining like a little bitch.
People like you disgust me so I want you to know how disgusted decent people are with you in the hope that one day you'll pull your head out of your ass and grow up. I have no real illusions that your brain will magically start working, but it's clearly badly broken now. So if you'd shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about the world would be a better place.
So contrary to your selective reading skills, it seems that indeed, MANY people in this thread have claimed the Constitution applies to non-citizens, and that I indeed didn't just fucking make it up off the top of my head.
Right, that was my point. Sane people who can read are well aware of the fact that the constitution applies to citizens and non citizens. You've demonstrated, once again, your inability to read. You're the one arguing against that point. Come on, Sparky, can't you even keep track of the stupid lies you tell?
What I'm saying is that the slashdotters who think all people of Earth should enjoy the liberties of the US, and that the US is constitutionally obliged to do so, are crazy.
Except you are the one saying that. That is not the claim you were refuting. You claimed if they aren't citizens, then none of the protections of the constitution apply. That's wrong and idiotic. It doesn't make your crazy strawman right either, but you were the one claiming that so you're wrong twice over.
Ok, dude, you win. US soldiers and agents are butchering prisoners by the thousands, right now, even as we speak. Happy?
No, why would I be happy to have you change one ignorant uninformed answer for another? My hope is for you to actually think. The fact is that we do not know whether or not that is happening and the people in charge are doing all in their power to prevent us from ever having the ability to determine if they are now or ever in the future are doing such things.
Those are the facts, so saying it isn't happening is an ignorant lie. Saying it is (on that scale, we know it is going on) is the same.
Also interesting that if you really think we have 80's Central American death squad action going on, you'd best keep your fucking mouth shut, too.
I didn't say that. You said that thinking something like that could happen was crazy talk. I pointed out that it has already happened very recently and the mass murderer in charge of the operation is back in a high profile position.
That is likewise a fact which *proves* your assertion to be entirely ignorant and delusional.
So all I want you to do is quit ignoring and denying very important relevant facts in order to pretend that there couldn't possibly be a problem. In short, all I want out of you is a little bit of honesty.
what kind of paranoid hysterical low iq twit mistakes fascism for a rent a cop asking for a receipt?
Look, you were dead wrong in the first place, the parent explained it to you in small words and then you repeat the idiotic nonsense he just proved to you was bullshit from the start.
the RAC *asking* for the receipt isn't fascist behavior.
Illegally detaining him for not *choosing* to do something which he was under no obligation to do is an entirely different thing.
Now, you knew you were lying in the first place, the parent proved it to you beyond any doubt and yet here you are retelling the same exact fucking lie.
Shut up you lying fool of a troll until you learn basic common sense and some ability to think.
what is wrong with the world today is self-involved hysterical twits who's delicatef lower nature is deeply affronted and go apeshit, because... drum roll please... are you ready for the massive assault on rights and personal liberties?: SOME RENT-A-COP JUST ASKS YOU FOR A RECEIPT
What a fucking idiotic lunatic you are. Are you even capable of dealing with reality?
You're not saying anything that indicates that you even understand anything about what happened and you're therefore coming across as a delusional lunatic.
Your sentence above has nothing to do with the situation. Let's take it nice and slow in the hopes that with a lot of effort you'll be capable of understanding a very very simple situation:
The RAC asked for his receipt. Fine, that's within his rights. The man refused. Fine that's well within his rights. He has no reason whatsoever to submit to any sort of search by said RAC.
OK, that is the extent of what you covered in that sentence except that you assume that somehow there is some reason for him to sumbit which there quite obviously is not. That is the first major delusion you're suffering from.
Now, then you go on to pretend that somehow his declining the search was in any way related to what followed. That is false. Once he refused the search, the interaction was over. He did everything that could be expected of him and was going on his way.
Now, those are the facts of the matter. They are not subject to debate. Your feelings about how he should have handled the situation are entirely irrelevant. The fact is that he was asked to do something he had no obligation or reason to do and so opted not to do it. Good luck trying to justify your insane whining about how he should have gone out of his way to promote somebody else's interest. There is no law requiring him to do anything of the sort, so that was the end of any *legal* actions the store or the police could take against him.
Now, given that this was the situation, at that time the store employee crossed over the line and began engaging in *illegal* activities. When the cop arrived, the man was perfectly cooperative but the cop wasn't happy with the man happily meeting *every* legal requirement so the cop opted to violate the law.
Now, I know you are a coward and believe that people should do whatever they're told as you made perfectly clear in your post, but a lot of people do not subscribe to your cowardly world view. As of today, it is still within my rights not to be the sort of weak willed pussy that you have chosen to be. Given that I do still have that right, your post is shown to be utterly ignorant worthless and quite a bit insane.
Perhaps you should pay attention once in a while rather than leaping to the defense of the criminals in this matter with idiotic, uninformed cowardly drivel?
Ok, I can understand wanting to fight for your rights, but come on. This whole thing could have been avoided had he just showed his receipt. He must have a lot of time on his hands if he can pick small fights like this just to make a statement.
The important, obvious lesson that you have through some deep failing of yourself failed to get is that standing up for even a small trivial *right* like this man did will be met with massive abuse of police power. The smaller and more trivial the right is that is being stood up for, the more important it is to deal with the insane over reaction done by that scumbag cop.
If doing *nothing at all illegal* is met with jail and robbery of $10K, then talking as if you had any rights at all is completely retarded. By defending these criminals you are willingly choosing to abdicate all of your rights. If you can't even just stay silent and instead actively choose to attack an innocent man who was acting perfectly within his rights and was abused by a bad cop then where do you get the fucking idea that *you* have the right to do anything. If a cop decides you don't have that right, then according to *you* you are a scumbag and deserve what you get.
Your failure to recognize that fact is a deep personal failure on your part.
Try growing up and actually learning to think before you spew any more of your freedom hating fascist bullshit. Keep in mind that since you're happy to see the rule of law tossed aside so easily that it will eventually turn on you. I'll laugh if you get beaten for doing nothing wrong because you are asking for exactly that to be the rule rather than the exception.
Otherwise, I think he picked the wrong battle to fight, and even so, fought it in the wrong way, probably because he doesn't have the experience.
No, he picked a perfectly fine battle and fought it the right way as far as it went.
He proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that by merely acting in a perfectly legal manner that he can be arrested and robbed of $10K merely because the cops don't approve of *perfectly legal behavior*.
That is the point of all this.It's pretty disgusting that you fail to see something so obvious and keep blaming the victim and lauding the criminals.
That says a lot about you while you've said nothing at all worthwhile about this incident or the innocent person who was jailed and robbed.
You have proven yourself absolutely to be a pathetic amoral monster. Deal with that before spewing any more of your ignorant idiotic hatred of free people.
Oh please, that kid was a dick who was asking to get tasered by his behavior and actions.
Ah so acting in a perfectly legal manner is asking to be tasered? That's your point?!? Wow.
It only seems outrageous when you look at it on the surface.
No, he was doing nothing in the least illegal. Therefore to have police taser him for doing nothing wrong is absolutely outrageous criminal behavior. The fact that you completely reject the concept of laws and have decided that being tortured by the police is a valid punishment for acting in a perfectly legal manner that you happen to disapprove of proves you to be a fucking monster.
Let's look at what the inevitable results of going with your blatantly retarded system are:
I don't apporove of weak willed cowards who think that innocent people should be tased for acting in a way that they disapprove of. Therefore, you *deserve* to be beaten to a bloody pulp and then kicked until you are dead.
According to you, you are asking for just such treatment and deserve exactly that.
I'm sure being the person of integrity you delusionaly think you are that you'll happily take your just deserts right? If not, shut the fuck up when you don't have clue what the hell you're talking about.
If you want the protection of the law then he gets it too. That's the only way these things can possibly work. The idiocy of your statement is beyond comprehension.
Son of gun, you're right, it says "persons" not "citizens!" So I guess every forty thousand persons -- anywhere on the planet, whether or not they're the subject of some other king, or citizen of some other republic -- have been entitled to a representative in the US Congress since 1789
Wow, just wow. If you were actually capable of thinking rather than idiotically defending a completely nonsensical position you'd have realised that the "persons" being referred to were already limited to the residents of the states. That language was to distinguish between "people" as in white men and blacks who were not to be considered people.
If you actually put any thought at all into the insane position you're feebly attempting to defend, then you'd have noticed that it is impossible to have anything approximating a free society by making up crazy artificial distinctions as to whom and how the law is applied. It's not possible for what you think the case is to be the case and not have had it all fall apart within a year. So, the idiocy of your position is clear and obvious to anyone who can read or think.
So it seems your superflame is without merit, your moderation skills lacking, and your fundamental understanding of English missing. So please explain again, how "persons" refers to ALL people of the world, and why don't Ugandans have representation in our government?
No, it appears I was more justified than even I thought. Your idiotic delusions are way out there.
Ugandans don't have representation in our government because they're not citizens. It's quite simple. Now here's the simple basic point that your idiocy and militant death grip on ignorance is causing you to ignore:
If a Ugandan citizen was walking down your street and you shot him in the head, then you would be arrested for murder. That's because of equal protection under the law which is what you are trying to deny exists.
Go ahead, rob and murder foreign nationals in America. According to you, you can't be punished in any way since the laws don't apply to them.
Pretty fucking stupid, huh?
That's why I keep calling you an idiot, because you keep proving beyond any possible doubt that you are.
I'm just not so zealous that I insist it is a constitutional right of all foreigners anywhere on Earth to have habeas corpus, when they clearly don't.
Yet, you're the only one making that claim. The sane people who know what they're talking about are not saying that. We're pointing out the simple fact that since the constitution is the only thing that gives the US government any power or authority in the first place that the actions of the US government is bound by it no matter where they are engaging in those actions.
Simple, clear, and unarguable.
But you keep on setting up those strawmen and pretending that people are all saying things as insane as the idiocy spewing out of you. It's not true, but you're incapable of being reasoned with since no amount of reason could have led you to the nonsense you're babbling about.
You are sort of that wild-eyed, crazy reactionary aren't you?
No, just possessed of basic common sense. Assuming *under any conditions* that the government is acting in an appropriate legal manner is ignorant stupidity of the highest order. That's what "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" means. That absolutely has to be the default assumption at all times until absolutely proven otherwise or you're just being a naive fool who is actively working to get everyone fucked. That is reality.
I'm making that assumption because I don't think many of our soldiers or government agents are capable of such messy wet work.
\A hundred some odd thousand dead Iraqis prove that to be a completely delusional statement.
So when they outsource it, by shipping folks off to countries with real monsters, are they just as guilty?
What do you mean "as guilty"? There is no difference. You and I are still being robbed at gunpoint to pay to have these innocent people tortured and murdered.
That would be a more productive dialog than questioning my citizenship.
No, it's not in the least productive. It's a trivial meaningless distinction designed to create a new worthless point to have people argue about while ignoring the actual important point which is that the US government is in the business of torturing and murdering innocent people in direct violation of the Constitution.
When you encourage people to have ignorant misplaced faith in the government, you are not acting as a citizen. You are acting against the best interests of the citizenry including your own.
Ironic that you put me playing a position of defending the government, past and present, apparently. Take some responsibility for your own words. *You* chose to put yourself in the position of defending the government. I merely pointed out how stupid of a position that is for anybody to hold.
Any proof that we are directly doing previously mentioned heinous acts to those in Gitmo? Where's all this evidence you speak of?
Yep, you're far far outside the realms of reason. You *prove* that it's not happening. Once you manage to do that, then *and only then* will you have even managed to make any sense.
Now consider that even if what you have chosen to believe based solely on your faith in the humanity and decency of Bush and his cronies ( yes, that is exactly what you're basing your faith on whether or not you actually recognize what you're doing) that the very people you're putting this faith which has continually been proven to be completely misguided are the ones setting things up so you can never prove *or even gain any evidence* for your position. Now, I'm not given to delusional religious flights of fancy, so your misplaced faith in the humanity of sociopaths carries no weight with me.
So, the far out assertion you're believing in based on magical delusions is not only unproven, it's unprovable due to the intentional actions of the very people you're claiming aren't as bad as they've already proven themselves to be. That's insane.
But that doesn't mean automagically assuming there are hastily dug mass graves of charred and dismembered bodies of dissidents scattered around military bases.
Where did you get that insane idea? Given the number of times that we've found mass graves of charred and dismembered bodies of "dissidents" scattered around military bases, yes, it absolutely is a *necessary* default assumption.
You do know about Reagan's death squads in Central America, right? You do know that the guy who ran the death squads is Negroponte, right?
Assuming that people who made their careers through torturing and murdering innocents will continue to do what they do is just basic simple sanity.
Your position is that even though it's happened many times before *done by the exact same people* that magically it would be silly to assume that people act in the manner in which they regularly d
Apparently nobody realizes I was trying to make a joke.
It's tough to pull off as a joke, repeating the same exact thing people say in all seriousness without doing something to distinguish yourself from them.
No, just pointing out some facts about you which you chose to demonstrate.
Your example is flawed since you are in fact a US citizen, therefore by maintaining a citizenship of this country you are bound by it's laws which have been put into place by the citizens of this country to protect the citizens of this country.
Wrong, Sparky. My example works perfectly for its intended purpose which was demonstrating the insanity and idiocy of your statement. Your attempt at a counter point was meaningless and irrelevant.
I was assuming you were following the topic which was how our laws apply outside the US.
No, that's not the topic. The topic is how the Constitution (in theory) restricts the ability of the US government to engage in certain actions against people *regardless* of what country they are citizens of. You can't even follow that, so it's no wonder you come across looking like an idiot.
This one is actually your best argument, but you present it as fact instead of interpretation.
That's because it is a fact, not an interpretation. You are coming along hundreds of years after the fact and trying to rewrite the meaning which has always been crystal clear in that respect.
You are at a base level correct, "We the People" is the group writing the document.
I'm correct at every level. Read the whole sentence. Don't take the first half and then make up bullshit that you want it to say when it quite clearly doesn't.
But according to your previous comment against me, it would mean that it does not apply to us since we, in the present, did not write it.
That neither makes sense, nor is in any way relevant. "We the people" wrote the document and gave birth to the government. The fact that I wasn't there does not change the facts as to who did write it.
Now it could be argued that the Bill of Rights is not restricted to citizens since it never explicitly says so. It often interchanges "the people" with "a person", which is open to interpretation and some others have been discussing.
Ecxcept that is not open to interpretation. That's why it very carefully makes sure to use "citizen" where it means "citizen" and "person" where it means "person".
It quite explicitly declares who it's talking about.
Recently, vile monstrous scum have attempted to pretend that it isn't clear in order to get away with torturing and murdering innocents, but your choice to aid and abet the enemies of this nation does not make your insane lies any more reasoned.
Is that not why we are keeping "suspected" terrorists/insurgents at Guantánamo Bay and not within the country?
No, because that's still under our jurisdiction. It's officially US territory. So regardless of the lies of evil monsters which you seem happy to suck up, those people still have rights which the US government has no right to violate no matter how many cowardly fools like yourself so despise liberty.
No, your fantasy is that the word person refers to everyone in the world.
Good god, you mom should have killed herself before inflicting such a fucking idiot as yourself on the world.
"Person" does refer to all people. It's not at all ambiguous. The fact that you need to redefine such a clearly defined term in order to feebly attempt to make your "point" sound even remotely sane proves absolutely your ignorance and idiocy.
Had you ever actually read the constitution instead of picking out words at random in order to make up a point entirely contrary to the purpose of the document, then you'd be aware of that.
You've been called on it by many posters already yet you keep repeating the same tried old lies which only a fool could believe.
"Citizen" refers to the *citizens* of this country. "People" refers to all people. It's what the word means, Sparky, perhaps you should shut your mouth when opening it proves you to be a fool?
The constitution specifically enumerates the powers that the US government has. It states specifically that "no person" by which it means "no person" can be deprived of their life or liberty without due process.
Now specifying "no person" means "no person" is only necessary due to the fact that you are a lying idiot who has already tried to pretend that it means something else entirely.
Grow up, pull your head out of your ass and think. Until you can learn to do that, shut the fuck up. You have proven yourself to be a liar and a fool. Anything more you say can only beat that horse.
Seriously, I have to assume that we aren't blowtorching, amputating, skin peeling, anal assaulting, eye gouging, etc.
Why would you ever assume anything so silly?
You do know that it's *your job* to make certain that you *know* whether or not that is the case and kill the people in charge if it is the case, right?
That's what being a citizen is.
You have stated your case that you are not a citizen, do not care to man up and take on the responsibilities of a citizen and would prefer the delusional feeling of safety granted subjects.
Seriously, "assuming" that our government isn't doing the wrong things as they've been repeatedly caught doing in increasingly treasonous ways over the years is pure unadulterated stupidity.
Pull your head out of your ass and think. Quit assuming that your delusional fantasies are somehow magically true in spite of all evidence being to the contrary.
While thats a nice principle and I agree, in principle, you missed some important points.
If he did, you're certainly not pointing it out. You are so incredibly wrong as to most likely be insane or a troll. A little very simple common sense and some third grade level reading comprehension would have prevented you from demonstrating yourself to be a liar or a fool (or both, of course).
So let's go over your idiotic attempt at making a point at which you failed so totally:
The constitution only applies to US citizens because it is only upheld by US Citizens.
If you spent ten seconds thinking about what you said you could have easily come up with a dozen examples demonstrating the totally lack of any sanity whatsoever to that completely idiotic statement. You could have actually read some of the otehr posts explaining at a third grade level (the highest you could possibly hope to understand given your demonstrated lack of anything approaching an ability to think rationally.) how exactly you're wrong.
But for a really really simple example of how stupid what you said is, think about this.
I don't uphold drug laws, nor support them in any form. According to you, Einstein, that means that those laws do not apply to me and therefore I can go smoke a joint in front of the police station with no fear?
Pretty fucking stupid, right? Well that was exactly what you said.
Not to mention that first part "We the People of the United States..." indicates we are only talking about citizens and people (legal aliens) of the US.
So you take one part of a sentence out of context, obviously fail to read the rest and then expect to be treated as anything but the lying fool you've *proven* yourself to be?
"We the People" are the ones *establishing* the Constitution. That isn't a list of the people to whom it applies, nor could a sane person with any intelligence possibly make a mistake like that. You lied about something really obvious there, Sparky. In fact what you lied about was the rest of the sentence you quoted. That's really really stupid to lie about something that obvious.
Also, if you want to assume your point correct, then the Constitution applies to everyone, therefore we should be able to enforce it for everyone, otherwise we are in fact a mockery of your point and we really only mean ourselves after all.
Again, you really shouldn't speak in public when you're as stupid as you continually prove yourself to be. The constitution applies to our government. Therefore it holds where our government has jurisdiction. It applies to people in this country. Do you see how actually reading the words and knowing what they means helps you make simple basic logical connections like that? You could learn to do that if you actually tried. But it certainly seems like you're happy to be known as a liar and a fool. You couldn't have posted anything that obviously retarded otherwise, now could you?
I do not see any "personal responsibility" here at all. I see a societal problem that keeps right on growing in cost to everyone except the drug user.
Yes, but that problem is caused almost 100% by drug *laws*, not by drug use. You really need to keep that basic simple fact in mind at every stage of any discussion of the issue otherwise you just end up looking silly.
You can't pass drug use off as a individual decision when all of the consequences fall to society in general.
But the consequences you speak of are created and passed onto society due to drug laws.
We already did this experiment with prohibition and with the exact same results, so there is no excuse for anybody to pretend that they are not aware of those facts. Bad laws are the cause of the problems associated with drugs. The cost of enforcing those purely evil laws far exceeds the costs of the actual drug use, but we're currently paying both costs.
So, your argument doesn't even make any sense because you're completely ignoring the actual problem.
Once you eliminate drug laws, the problem almost completely disappears. Once that's done, we can spend 5% or less of what we're currently spending on the obviously failed by design drug war to address any issues actually caused by drug use and we're still billions in the black.
I had a look at your games, they look pretty interesting. But there's no unix version so they're useless to me. You'd probably sell more games if they were cross-platform.
They don't even run under WINE, or at least not the one I tried a while ago.
As a fan of both Pratchett and Miles, I will add one more to the list - L.E. Modesitt, Jr.
Except for a few boring series, his books in the Recluce saga can be read as stand-alone books (for the most part) or in order.
Totally. The author recommends reading them in the order published which is different than the temporal order. Doing it that way you often get to see some great civilization destroyed before you read about it being built.
My explanation for atheists is that they have never been exposed to anything but the most simplistic religious thought, and are too anxious to feel intellectually superior to religious people to seriously investigate anything that isn't condoned by the scientific hierarchy and their peers.
All you show with that statement is your own deep ignorance. Everyone is born an atheist. Some of us aren't brainwashed by our parents into believing something so stupid and ridiculous. Others manage to throw off the brainwashing. The fact is that there is nothing nonsimplistic about religious thought.
It has nothing to do with feelings of intellectual superiority. It's just that there is nothing at all rational about believing in fairy tales. If there was anything the least bit rational about beleiving old silly superstitions, then it wouldn't have been necessary to spread it by torture and murder and it wouldn't be necessary today to keep spreading it by brainwashing innocent children with a screed of hatred.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm disappointed with the number of people that fail to consider this as not only an option but an obligation as a consumer.
"Consumers" have no obligations except to gulp down whatever shit is shoveled into their mouths.
The word you're looking for is "customer". That's why that word was phased out in favor of consumer.
I think that is the single most retarded response I have seen related to this story so far. You don't know me or my morals, yet you spew hatred like a religious extremist.
But I do know you.
You're the person who said that an innocent person got what he deserved by being arrested, harassed, and robbed by the state for no reason.None of those facts are in question.
The only question about the whole situation is that you seem to feel that legally exercising rights is a bad thing that should be punished.
That's all that I need to know about you to make that above statement of fact about you. You proved it to be true.
but the original fight was "should I show my receipt and the contents of my bag to the store employee?", and there is no way you can argue that is worth all the hassle he has been through
Wrong wrong wrong. That is completely insane.
That fight was over as soon as he decided "no". That issue was dead as soon as he made that decision.
After that happened, then the store started a completely new fight which they did not, under any circumstances, have the right to do.
Your insistence on trying to make the situation into one in which he would have some responsibility to comply with such a policy, is where you're failing. That isn't the case, and so your point is completely destroyed.
The problem is that I suspect the majority of Americans watch so damned much cable that it WOULD be hugely expensive - moreso than they're paying now in any case.
So I don't have to pay for them to sit around on their lazy asses getting dumber *and* they might actually find something worthwhile to do?
I still fail to see any sort of problem. Expect people to pay for their own crap instead of having me pay it for them? I can see how leeches could be upset by that, but nothing there seems to be any sort of a problem.
Ok, so you still lack people skills. I'm trying to figure out how being an absolute prick about this makes your point any more correct or intelligible?
Being a dick to you does nothing to my point. Given how wrong you are about something so clear, simple and obvious, how desperately you cling to your idiotic delusional nonsense, and how disgusting a country that ran under the absolutely unworkable system that you're proposing that we swap over to from the one that has worked pretty well for a couple hundred years, there is no point in trying to convince you of anything.
If you were suceptible to reason, then you could not have arrived at your current position which is unreachable by any rational manner.
So given that you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about, the fact that what you are talking about is the complete elimination of *any* constitutional limits on the government (you are saying that, yes, I know you do not understand that's what you're saying, but it's already been explained to you and you keep refusing to deal with reality) and that you do not have either the sense, the maturity, or the courage to be a citizen of a free society, I have nothing but contempt for you.
So I'm not trying to convince you of anything since if you were capable of actually thinking then the complete destruction of every point you've tried to make by multiple different people would have done so. Instead you keep putting your fingers in your ears and whining like a little bitch.
People like you disgust me so I want you to know how disgusted decent people are with you in the hope that one day you'll pull your head out of your ass and grow up. I have no real illusions that your brain will magically start working, but it's clearly badly broken now. So if you'd shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about the world would be a better place.
So contrary to your selective reading skills, it seems that indeed, MANY people in this thread have claimed the Constitution applies to non-citizens, and that I indeed didn't just fucking make it up off the top of my head.
Right, that was my point. Sane people who can read are well aware of the fact that the constitution applies to citizens and non citizens. You've demonstrated, once again, your inability to read. You're the one arguing against that point. Come on, Sparky, can't you even keep track of the stupid lies you tell?
What I'm saying is that the slashdotters who think all people of Earth should enjoy the liberties of the US, and that the US is constitutionally obliged to do so, are crazy.
Except you are the one saying that. That is not the claim you were refuting. You claimed if they aren't citizens, then none of the protections of the constitution apply. That's wrong and idiotic. It doesn't make your crazy strawman right either, but you were the one claiming that so you're wrong twice over.
Ok, dude, you win. US soldiers and agents are butchering prisoners by the thousands, right now, even as we speak. Happy?
No, why would I be happy to have you change one ignorant uninformed answer for another? My hope is for you to actually think.
The fact is that we do not know whether or not that is happening and the people in charge are doing all in their power to prevent us from ever having the ability to determine if they are now or ever in the future are doing such things.
Those are the facts, so saying it isn't happening is an ignorant lie. Saying it is (on that scale, we know it is going on) is the same.
Also interesting that if you really think we have 80's Central American death squad action going on, you'd best keep your fucking mouth shut, too.
I didn't say that. You said that thinking something like that could happen was crazy talk. I pointed out that it has already happened very recently and the mass murderer in charge of the operation is back in a high profile position.
That is likewise a fact which *proves* your assertion to be entirely ignorant and delusional.
So all I want you to do is quit ignoring and denying very important relevant facts in order to pretend that there couldn't possibly be a problem.
In short, all I want out of you is a little bit of honesty.
Why is that so extremely difficult for you?
For people who only follow 2-3 shows (total of 15 episodes a month-ish) this is still affordable, for many others it becomes prohibitively expensive.
So if you use less of the service you pay less and if you use more you pay more?
I'm really failing to see where the problem is.
do you know what fascism is?
what kind of paranoid hysterical low iq twit mistakes fascism for a rent a cop asking for a receipt?
Look, you were dead wrong in the first place, the parent explained it to you in small words and then you repeat the idiotic nonsense he just proved to you was bullshit from the start.
the RAC *asking* for the receipt isn't fascist behavior.
Illegally detaining him for not *choosing* to do something which he was under no obligation to do is an entirely different thing.
Now, you knew you were lying in the first place, the parent proved it to you beyond any doubt and yet here you are retelling the same exact fucking lie.
Shut up you lying fool of a troll until you learn basic common sense and some ability to think.
what is wrong with the world today is self-involved hysterical twits who's delicatef lower nature is deeply affronted and go apeshit, because... drum roll please... are you ready for the massive assault on rights and personal liberties?: SOME RENT-A-COP JUST ASKS YOU FOR A RECEIPT
What a fucking idiotic lunatic you are. Are you even capable of dealing with reality?
You're not saying anything that indicates that you even understand anything about what happened and you're therefore coming across as a delusional lunatic.
Your sentence above has nothing to do with the situation. Let's take it nice and slow in the hopes that with a lot of effort you'll be capable of understanding a very very simple situation:
The RAC asked for his receipt. Fine, that's within his rights. The man refused. Fine that's well within his rights. He has no reason whatsoever to submit to any sort of search by said RAC.
OK, that is the extent of what you covered in that sentence except that you assume that somehow there is some reason for him to sumbit which there quite obviously is not. That is the first major delusion you're suffering from.
Now, then you go on to pretend that somehow his declining the search was in any way related to what followed. That is false.
Once he refused the search, the interaction was over. He did everything that could be expected of him and was going on his way.
Now, those are the facts of the matter. They are not subject to debate. Your feelings about how he should have handled the situation are entirely irrelevant. The fact is that he was asked to do something he had no obligation or reason to do and so opted not to do it. Good luck trying to justify your insane whining about how he should have gone out of his way to promote somebody else's interest. There is no law requiring him to do anything of the sort, so that was the end of any *legal* actions the store or the police could take against him.
Now, given that this was the situation, at that time the store employee crossed over the line and began engaging in *illegal* activities. When the cop arrived, the man was perfectly cooperative but the cop wasn't happy with the man happily meeting *every* legal requirement so the cop opted to violate the law.
Now, I know you are a coward and believe that people should do whatever they're told as you made perfectly clear in your post, but a lot of people do not subscribe to your cowardly world view. As of today, it is still within my rights not to be the sort of weak willed pussy that you have chosen to be. Given that I do still have that right, your post is shown to be utterly ignorant worthless and quite a bit insane.
Perhaps you should pay attention once in a while rather than leaping to the defense of the criminals in this matter with idiotic, uninformed cowardly drivel?
Ok, I can understand wanting to fight for your rights, but come on. This whole thing could have been avoided had he just showed his receipt. He must have a lot of time on his hands if he can pick small fights like this just to make a statement.
The important, obvious lesson that you have through some deep failing of yourself failed to get is that standing up for even a small trivial *right* like this man did will be met with massive abuse of police power. The smaller and more trivial the right is that is being stood up for, the more important it is to deal with the insane over reaction done by that scumbag cop.
If doing *nothing at all illegal* is met with jail and robbery of $10K, then talking as if you had any rights at all is completely retarded. By defending these criminals you are willingly choosing to abdicate all of your rights. If you can't even just stay silent and instead actively choose to attack an innocent man who was acting perfectly within his rights and was abused by a bad cop then where do you get the fucking idea that *you* have the right to do anything. If a cop decides you don't have that right, then according to *you* you are a scumbag and deserve what you get.
Your failure to recognize that fact is a deep personal failure on your part.
Try growing up and actually learning to think before you spew any more of your freedom hating fascist bullshit. Keep in mind that since you're happy to see the rule of law tossed aside so easily that it will eventually turn on you. I'll laugh if you get beaten for doing nothing wrong because you are asking for exactly that to be the rule rather than the exception.
Otherwise, I think he picked the wrong battle to fight, and even so, fought it in the wrong way, probably because he doesn't have the experience.
No, he picked a perfectly fine battle and fought it the right way as far as it went.
He proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that by merely acting in a perfectly legal manner that he can be arrested and robbed of $10K merely because the cops don't approve of *perfectly legal behavior*.
That is the point of all this
That says a lot about you while you've said nothing at all worthwhile about this incident or the innocent person who was jailed and robbed.
You have proven yourself absolutely to be a pathetic amoral monster. Deal with that before spewing any more of your ignorant idiotic hatred of free people.
Oh please, that kid was a dick who was asking to get tasered by his behavior and actions.
Ah so acting in a perfectly legal manner is asking to be tasered? That's your point?!? Wow.
It only seems outrageous when you look at it on the surface.
No, he was doing nothing in the least illegal. Therefore to have police taser him for doing nothing wrong is absolutely outrageous criminal behavior.
The fact that you completely reject the concept of laws and have decided that being tortured by the police is a valid punishment for acting in a perfectly legal manner that you happen to disapprove of proves you to be a fucking monster.
Let's look at what the inevitable results of going with your blatantly retarded system are:
I don't apporove of weak willed cowards who think that innocent people should be tased for acting in a way that they disapprove of. Therefore, you *deserve* to be beaten to a bloody pulp and then kicked until you are dead.
According to you, you are asking for just such treatment and deserve exactly that.
I'm sure being the person of integrity you delusionaly think you are that you'll happily take your just deserts right?
If not, shut the fuck up when you don't have clue what the hell you're talking about.
If you want the protection of the law then he gets it too. That's the only way these things can possibly work. The idiocy of your statement is beyond comprehension.
Son of gun, you're right, it says "persons" not "citizens!" So I guess every forty thousand persons -- anywhere on the planet, whether or not they're the subject of some other king, or citizen of some other republic -- have been entitled to a representative in the US Congress since 1789
Wow, just wow. If you were actually capable of thinking rather than idiotically defending a completely nonsensical position you'd have realised that the "persons" being referred to were already limited to the residents of the states. That language was to distinguish between "people" as in white men and blacks who were not to be considered people.
If you actually put any thought at all into the insane position you're feebly attempting to defend, then you'd have noticed that it is impossible to have anything approximating a free society by making up crazy artificial distinctions as to whom and how the law is applied. It's not possible for what you think the case is to be the case and not have had it all fall apart within a year. So, the idiocy of your position is clear and obvious to anyone who can read or think.
So it seems your superflame is without merit, your moderation skills lacking, and your fundamental understanding of English missing. So please explain again, how "persons" refers to ALL people of the world, and why don't Ugandans have representation in our government?
No, it appears I was more justified than even I thought. Your idiotic delusions are way out there.
Ugandans don't have representation in our government because they're not citizens. It's quite simple. Now here's the simple basic point that your idiocy and militant death grip on ignorance is causing you to ignore:
If a Ugandan citizen was walking down your street and you shot him in the head, then you would be arrested for murder. That's because of equal protection under the law which is what you are trying to deny exists.
Go ahead, rob and murder foreign nationals in America. According to you, you can't be punished in any way since the laws don't apply to them.
Pretty fucking stupid, huh?
That's why I keep calling you an idiot, because you keep proving beyond any possible doubt that you are.
I'm just not so zealous that I insist it is a constitutional right of all foreigners anywhere on Earth to have habeas corpus, when they clearly don't.
Yet, you're the only one making that claim. The sane people who know what they're talking about are not saying that. We're pointing out the simple fact that since the constitution is the only thing that gives the US government any power or authority in the first place that the actions of the US government is bound by it no matter where they are engaging in those actions.
Simple, clear, and unarguable.
But you keep on setting up those strawmen and pretending that people are all saying things as insane as the idiocy spewing out of you. It's not true, but you're incapable of being reasoned with since no amount of reason could have led you to the nonsense you're babbling about.
You are sort of that wild-eyed, crazy reactionary aren't you?
No, just possessed of basic common sense. Assuming *under any conditions* that the government is acting in an appropriate legal manner is ignorant stupidity of the highest order. That's what "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" means. That absolutely has to be the default assumption at all times until absolutely proven otherwise or you're just being a naive fool who is actively working to get everyone fucked. That is reality.
I'm making that assumption because I don't think many of our soldiers or government agents are capable of such messy wet work.
\A hundred some odd thousand dead Iraqis prove that to be a completely delusional statement.
So when they outsource it, by shipping folks off to countries with real monsters, are they just as guilty?
What do you mean "as guilty"? There is no difference. You and I are still being robbed at gunpoint to pay to have these innocent people tortured and murdered.
That would be a more productive dialog than questioning my citizenship.
No, it's not in the least productive. It's a trivial meaningless distinction designed to create a new worthless point to have people argue about while ignoring the actual important point which is that the US government is in the business of torturing and murdering innocent people in direct violation of the Constitution.
When you encourage people to have ignorant misplaced faith in the government, you are not acting as a citizen. You are acting against the best interests of the citizenry including your own.
Ironic that you put me playing a position of defending the government, past and present, apparently.
Take some responsibility for your own words. *You* chose to put yourself in the position of defending the government. I merely pointed out how stupid of a position that is for anybody to hold.
Any proof that we are directly doing previously mentioned heinous acts to those in Gitmo? Where's all this evidence you speak of?
Yep, you're far far outside the realms of reason.
You *prove* that it's not happening. Once you manage to do that, then *and only then* will you have even managed to make any sense.
Now consider that even if what you have chosen to believe based solely on your faith in the humanity and decency of Bush and his cronies ( yes, that is exactly what you're basing your faith on whether or not you actually recognize what you're doing) that the very people you're putting this faith which has continually been proven to be completely misguided are the ones setting things up so you can never prove *or even gain any evidence* for your position. Now, I'm not given to delusional religious flights of fancy, so your misplaced faith in the humanity of sociopaths carries no weight with me.
So, the far out assertion you're believing in based on magical delusions is not only unproven, it's unprovable due to the intentional actions
of the very people you're claiming aren't as bad as they've already proven themselves to be.
That's insane.
But that doesn't mean automagically assuming there are hastily dug mass graves of charred and dismembered bodies of dissidents scattered around military bases.
Where did you get that insane idea? Given the number of times that we've found mass graves of charred and dismembered bodies of "dissidents" scattered around military bases, yes, it absolutely is a *necessary* default assumption.
You do know about Reagan's death squads in Central America, right? You do know that the guy who ran the death squads is Negroponte, right?
Assuming that people who made their careers through torturing and murdering innocents will continue to do what they do is just basic simple sanity.
Your position is that even though it's happened many times before *done by the exact same people* that magically it would be silly to assume that people act in the manner in which they regularly d
Apparently nobody realizes I was trying to make a joke.
It's tough to pull off as a joke, repeating the same exact thing people say in all seriousness without doing something to distinguish yourself from them.
Tad insulting now aren't we.
No, just pointing out some facts about you which you chose to demonstrate.
Your example is flawed since you are in fact a US citizen, therefore by maintaining a citizenship of this country you are bound by it's laws which have been put into place by the citizens of this country to protect the citizens of this country.
Wrong, Sparky. My example works perfectly for its intended purpose which was demonstrating the insanity and idiocy of your statement. Your attempt at a counter point was meaningless and irrelevant.
I was assuming you were following the topic which was how our laws apply outside the US.
No, that's not the topic. The topic is how the Constitution (in theory) restricts the ability of the US government to engage in certain actions against people *regardless* of what country they are citizens of.
You can't even follow that, so it's no wonder you come across looking like an idiot.
This one is actually your best argument, but you present it as fact instead of interpretation.
That's because it is a fact, not an interpretation. You are coming along hundreds of years after the fact and trying to rewrite the meaning which has always been crystal clear in that respect.
You are at a base level correct, "We the People" is the group writing the document.
I'm correct at every level. Read the whole sentence. Don't take the first half and then make up bullshit that you want it to say when it quite clearly doesn't.
But according to your previous comment against me, it would mean that it does not apply to us since we, in the present, did not write it.
That neither makes sense, nor is in any way relevant.
"We the people" wrote the document and gave birth to the government. The fact that I wasn't there does not change the facts as to who did write it.
Now it could be argued that the Bill of Rights is not restricted to citizens since it never explicitly says so. It often interchanges "the people" with "a person", which is open to interpretation and some others have been discussing.
Ecxcept that is not open to interpretation. That's why it very carefully makes sure to use "citizen" where it means "citizen" and "person" where it means "person".
It quite explicitly declares who it's talking about.
Recently, vile monstrous scum have attempted to pretend that it isn't clear in order to get away with torturing and murdering innocents, but your choice to aid and abet the enemies of this nation does not make your insane lies any more reasoned.
Is that not why we are keeping "suspected" terrorists/insurgents at Guantánamo Bay and not within the country?
No, because that's still under our jurisdiction. It's officially US territory. So regardless of the lies of evil monsters which you seem happy to suck up, those people still have rights which the US government has no right to violate no matter how many cowardly fools like yourself so despise liberty.
America includes all of North America and South America, including Canada, the US, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, etc..
What do you know, you're wrong.
"The Americas" is what you described.
"America" is an informal term referring to the United States of America.
Seriously, that's a tired old nonsense pile of poop you're spreading around.
No, your fantasy is that the word person refers to everyone in the world.
Good god, you mom should have killed herself before inflicting such a fucking idiot as yourself on the world.
"Person" does refer to all people. It's not at all ambiguous. The fact that you need to redefine such a clearly defined term in order to feebly attempt to make your "point" sound even remotely sane proves absolutely your ignorance and idiocy.
Had you ever actually read the constitution instead of picking out words at random in order to make up a point entirely contrary to the purpose of the document, then you'd be aware of that.
You've been called on it by many posters already yet you keep repeating the same tried old lies which only a fool could believe.
"Citizen" refers to the *citizens* of this country. "People" refers to all people. It's what the word means, Sparky, perhaps you should shut your mouth when opening it proves you to be a fool?
The constitution specifically enumerates the powers that the US government has. It states specifically that "no person" by which it means "no person" can be deprived of their life or liberty without due process.
Now specifying "no person" means "no person" is only necessary due to the fact that you are a lying idiot who has already tried to pretend that it means something else entirely.
Grow up, pull your head out of your ass and think. Until you can learn to do that, shut the fuck up.
You have proven yourself to be a liar and a fool. Anything more you say can only beat that horse.
Seriously, I have to assume that we aren't blowtorching, amputating, skin peeling, anal assaulting, eye gouging, etc.
Why would you ever assume anything so silly?
You do know that it's *your job* to make certain that you *know* whether or not that is the case and kill the people in charge if it is the case, right?
That's what being a citizen is.
You have stated your case that you are not a citizen, do not care to man up and take on the responsibilities of a citizen and would prefer the delusional feeling of safety granted subjects.
Seriously, "assuming" that our government isn't doing the wrong things as they've been repeatedly caught doing in increasingly treasonous ways over the years is pure unadulterated stupidity.
Pull your head out of your ass and think. Quit assuming that your delusional fantasies are somehow magically true in spite of all evidence being to the contrary.
What the fuck has happened that have made people forget this?
Cowardice and utter contempt and hatred for liberty and the founding principles of this nation.
While thats a nice principle and I agree, in principle, you missed some important points.
If he did, you're certainly not pointing it out. You are so incredibly wrong as to most likely be insane or a troll. A little very simple common sense and some third grade level reading comprehension would have prevented you from demonstrating yourself to be a liar or a fool (or both, of course).
So let's go over your idiotic attempt at making a point at which you failed so totally:
The constitution only applies to US citizens because it is only upheld by US Citizens.
If you spent ten seconds thinking about what you said you could have easily come up with a dozen examples demonstrating the totally lack of any sanity whatsoever to that completely idiotic statement.
You could have actually read some of the otehr posts explaining at a third grade level (the highest you could possibly hope to understand given your demonstrated lack of anything approaching an ability to think rationally.) how exactly you're wrong.
But for a really really simple example of how stupid what you said is, think about this.
I don't uphold drug laws, nor support them in any form. According to you, Einstein, that means that those laws do not apply to me and therefore I can go smoke a joint in front of the police station with no fear?
Pretty fucking stupid, right? Well that was exactly what you said.
Not to mention that first part "We the People of the United States..." indicates we are only talking about citizens and people (legal aliens) of the US.
So you take one part of a sentence out of context, obviously fail to read the rest and then expect to be treated as anything but the lying fool you've *proven* yourself to be?
"We the People" are the ones *establishing* the Constitution. That isn't a list of the people to whom it applies, nor could a sane person with any intelligence possibly make a mistake like that. You lied about something really obvious there, Sparky. In fact what you lied about was the rest of the sentence you quoted. That's really really stupid to lie about something that obvious.
Also, if you want to assume your point correct, then the Constitution applies to everyone, therefore we should be able to enforce it for everyone, otherwise we are in fact a mockery of your point and we really only mean ourselves after all.
Again, you really shouldn't speak in public when you're as stupid as you continually prove yourself to be.
The constitution applies to our government. Therefore it holds where our government has jurisdiction. It applies to people in this country.
Do you see how actually reading the words and knowing what they means helps you make simple basic logical connections like that?
You could learn to do that if you actually tried. But it certainly seems like you're happy to be known as a liar and a fool. You couldn't have posted anything that obviously retarded otherwise, now could you?
I do not see any "personal responsibility" here at all. I see a societal problem that keeps right on growing in cost to everyone except the drug user.
Yes, but that problem is caused almost 100% by drug *laws*, not by drug use. You really need to keep that basic simple fact in mind at every stage of any discussion of the issue otherwise you just end up looking silly.
You can't pass drug use off as a individual decision when all of the consequences fall to society in general.
But the consequences you speak of are created and passed onto society due to drug laws.
We already did this experiment with prohibition and with the exact same results, so there is no excuse for anybody to pretend that they are not aware of those facts. Bad laws are the cause of the problems associated with drugs. The cost of enforcing those purely evil laws far exceeds the costs of the actual drug use, but we're currently paying both costs.
So, your argument doesn't even make any sense because you're completely ignoring the actual problem.
Once you eliminate drug laws, the problem almost completely disappears. Once that's done, we can spend 5% or less of what we're currently spending on the obviously failed by design drug war to address any issues actually caused by drug use and we're still billions in the black.
I had a look at your games, they look pretty interesting. But there's no unix version so they're useless to me. You'd probably sell more games if they were cross-platform.
They don't even run under WINE, or at least not the one I tried a while ago.
Finally, Dexter would show up and end Tom's pain.
You were doing so well before you ruined the ending
As a fan of both Pratchett and Miles, I will add one more to the list - L.E. Modesitt, Jr.
;-)
Except for a few boring series, his books in the Recluce saga can be read as stand-alone books (for the most part) or in order.
Totally. The author recommends reading them in the order published which is different than the temporal order. Doing it that way you often get to see some great civilization destroyed before you read about it being built.
Can you guess which ones are my favorite
My explanation for atheists is that they have never been exposed to anything but the most simplistic religious thought, and are too anxious to feel intellectually superior to religious people to seriously investigate anything that isn't condoned by the scientific hierarchy and their peers.
All you show with that statement is your own deep ignorance.
Everyone is born an atheist. Some of us aren't brainwashed by our parents into believing something so stupid and ridiculous. Others manage to throw off the brainwashing.
The fact is that there is nothing nonsimplistic about religious thought.
It has nothing to do with feelings of intellectual superiority. It's just that there is nothing at all rational about believing in fairy tales. If there was anything the least bit rational about beleiving old silly superstitions, then it wouldn't have been necessary to spread it by torture and murder and it wouldn't be necessary today to keep spreading it by brainwashing innocent children with a screed of hatred.