the simple fact of the matter is that we do not have the resources necessary to prosecute to trial anywhere near the number of criminal cases that the justice system faces. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most important is that we have protections for citizens to ensure their rights are not encroached upon -- this is a major factor that makes criminal prosecution so complicated and expensive.
That's part of it, but far and away the single overriding cause of problems with our justice system (and society) is drug laws. Nothing else even is in the same league for creating problems. Not even close.
A thief by definition poses a threat to your property. It does not follow that the same thief poses a threat to your physical safety or your life. That's for one distinction.
It doesn't absolutely follow, but assuming that it does is the only sane course of action. If somebody has gone as far as to break into your house and steal your stuff, then it isn't much of a gap for them to hurt your family to avoid prosecution for their crimes.
Assuming that just because somebody's apparent purpose is limited to theft that they will strictly adhere to that purpose is idiotic in the extreme. Anybody who would break into your home must be assumed to be willing to murder you and your entire family. Assuming anything else is a course only a fool could take.
They found a problem and will now see what policy changes can be made to reduce the chances of it happening again. The system worked as designed.Massive government operation makes mistakes, film at 11. Hello! It's a massive inefficient government operation changed with the almost impossible task of doing both law enforcement AND anti terrorism/counter insurgency operations while Democtats insist they do it with both hands tied behind their backs and hopping on one foot./i.
Oh, right, of course it must alwayts be the fault of the evil Democrats. Clearly they only want to hurt poor innocent president Bush. Obviously all the laws that were put into place for the purpose of protecting the citizens of this nation from the government over the years should immediately be thrown out and we should all jump on the Fascist bandwagon because jmorris42 got scared of the largely made up threat of terrorism, wet his pants and sat on the curb crying his cowardly little eyes out while screaming for the big nanny state to protect him from the threat that they largely made up.
Here's a better idea. How about you grow a pair, grow up, and act like a man for once in your life instead of being a crying little pussy coward?
This is, after all, the land of the free and the home of the brave. That means since you're far too cowardly to live in a free country that this isn't your land and it ain't your home.
So either man up or get packing you whining little bitch.
I _know_ that this is not likely to be a popular opinion. I _know_ that this is decidedly unpatriotic, but I want to say it anyway:
It's quite a popular opinion, held by the vast majority of Americans. It's also a decidedly patriotic position that has been obvious to anyone with half a brain since before they even started trying to sell this bullshit war.
Are you seriously just pulling your head far enough out of your butt to have finally noticed this?
I'd still disagree. The truth is harsh. Reality is harsh. Expecting people to deal with the reality that is rather than pretending that it's something it is not and will never be is a pretty simple standard.
I'm not saying that there's a problem with you living your life in your own reality. Where there is a problem is when you're unable to recognize the difference when it matters, like...say... at the voting booth, or when politicians are speaking or situations like that.
Perhaps, my rose colored "perception" (optimism, if you will) is a defense mechanism against the cold hard truths of reality? Not sure it's "criminal", but I respect your opinion and experience.
Again, it depends on the situation. Thinking that there is such a thing as a good cop, for example, is both utterly insane and extremely dangerous. It's insane because it's an impossibility. Ask yourself what kind of person would become a cop and there are only two possibilities: 1) An asshole who wants power over others. 2) A good person who wants to help.
Now, 1 makes up the vast majority quite obviously. That's just reality. Anyone falling into 2 who gets far as actually signing up and making it through the academy still thinking that their goals are in any way aligned with the job is far too fucking naive to be a good cop. You have to look at the fact that *over half* of our prison population is there for non-violent drug offenses. Meaning there is no victim being avenged or protected. Given the further fact that drug laws are the direct cause of almost every single problem commonly associated with drugs and that they are also the sole cause of the massive increase in violent crime and incarceration since their inception, it's clear that the balance for any cop is necessarilly going to be negative because the laws they are choosing to enforce are bad.
So, taking that particular situation, failing to recognize the problem for what it is and going along with it makes one complicit in both massive amounts of murder, violent crime, and the police state we live in.
That's pretty damn criminal in my book.
I'm sure you'll call that "harsh" again, but if you do, please explain how pointing out a simple fact is harsher than either actively or tacitly supporting mass murder, rape, robbery, and a savage police state?
That's just a little harsh... don't you think?...You're not a jaded police officer are you? : P
No, it's not harsh. I just have standards. If I had a kid and he was still dumb enough at 10 not to realize that scum will always try to fuck people, and that relying on the "better nature" of people without one is idiotic, then his ass would be grounded for a long time.
I'm not a jaded police officer. I'm a person who has been badly beaten by cops and then thrown in prison for the "crime" of talking in a public park as well as several other interactions with cops including being present when they threatened to murder an acquaintance if he didn't leave town and then burning a big fucking hole in his arm with a cigarette. They might well have murdered him, as he disappeared not too long afterwards.
That kind of shit happens *every fucking day*. Failing to realize simple basic obvious facts like that is a criminal act for a citizen in my mind.
So what is it? Given that I don't know your party affiliation I have no idea what your interpretation would be.
What, exactly, it really is we'll probably never know. We do know that the earliest reason given in the 2000 paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was "to insure US economic domination in the coming century". So, while that could be a lie as well, it's by far the closest we're ever likely to get.
Dude! I would so hit that. And then argue that the current push to democratise the Middle East is naive and the US should avoid direct conflict but try to trigger a Sunni/Shiite split analogous to the Sino/Soviet one. And then hit that again. Fuck yeah.
Oh good lord, please tell me by "hit that" in this context you mean "punch repeatedly with my fist" and not that other thing. Yuck, the only analogous split I can think of is the one where her front teeth are supposed to be.
Hard to say if the vietnamese war promoted freedom or saved lives.
Bullshit. It's trivially easy to say that the Vietnam war in particular was our fucking fault and that nothing good came out of it.
Had we stood up to fucking *France* when Ho Chi Minh begged us to help him establish an American style society in Vietnam, then thetre ne3ver would have been a Vietnam war.
We refused to do the right thing repeatedly and left Ho Chi Minh with 2 choices: Go to Russia for help, or stay a slave.
As any decent person would do, he refused the second choice.
At that point we went to war because it's profitable.
So save your ignorant sad old excuses. We were at fault for driving Vietnam to the communists and we were then at fault for invading them for the sole reason of taking their only available choice.
Add in the Laos and Cambodian disasters, and it's quite clear and obvious that it was entirely and absolutely a bad thing from every angle.
Only massive ignorance of the basic historic situation could lead one to conclude that it's "hard to say". It's hard to say anything when you know nothing about it. When you actually pay attention, it's often quite easy.
Those who say its all America's fault - look what happened when America left.
What an idiotic statement. What happened after we left a situation we helped create and then fucked up pretty much as bad as we could is irrelevant. The situation was already there.
Your argument is identical to me sticking a knife in you and then claiming it's your fault it started shooting blood when I pulled it out.
Where to start? You obviously only read about communism. You never actually lived under it. But no matter, it would take aeons to explain to you just how evil it truly was.
How "evil" it was is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the points the parent made. The fact is that Ho Chi Minh *begged* the US repeatedly for help setting up a democracy and overthrowing the French. We told him repeatedly to go fuck himself. As an alternative to that he opted to go to the Russians for help.
The whole vietnam war (at least as far as US involvement) was caused by our *refusal* to help spread democracy when we were being begged to. Had we done the right thing, then not only would none of that have happened, but the Kmer Rouge most likely never would have taken over Cambodia in the first place.
So what about that has a damn thing to do with the relative moral merits of various political/economic systems? That's right. It has nothing to do with it.
The GP is correct. Aleph-null has no size when compared to aleph-1.
That sentence doesn't really make any sense.
As Cardinal numbers, aleph1 is *strictly larger* than aleph0. i.e. it's absolutely bigger no >= or anything. Aleph0 certainly has a "size". It's the first infinite cardinal. That's a freaking big "number".
However if you try to measure (well defined mathematical term) a set, than any finite or even countably infinite set (set of cardinality aleph0) has measure 0, meaning for all intents and purposes it has zero length, area, volume, or whatever the heck it is you're trying to measure.
So if you take the real line, it's infinitely long (aleph0 long) but its cardinality is c (which is aleph1 if you accept the continuum hypothesis and another larger cardinal if you don't. Either way it's a bigger cardinal number than aleph0). If you take all of the irrational numbers out of the line and "push" the rationals together, you will be left with essentially a point. It will have zero length. Not "really small". exactly equal to zero.
So, aleph0 is freaking huge. It's what most people mean when they say "infinity" even though it's the smallest possible infinity;-) A set of cardinality aleph0 has measure zero, essentially it's zero physical size.
I should say that in addition to the factors of youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included, to impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.
Heh, funny.
The truth is that those people are to blame for whatever problem requires living in mines so should be the last in line and then be shot if the line makes it that far.
However, if your argument is going to be "if they've got nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind", then you cannot complain when the police themselves turn that argument around on you. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, why should you mind them videotaping you whenever you're acting as a public citizen (i.e. whenever you're in the public space, or rather whenever you're not in private space)?
The argument is not symmetric. The cops are my *employees*. I pay their bills for them, I pay their rent, for their food and clothes. They *chose* to take that job in order to get power over their fellow citizens. With that power comes an expectation that they had damn well better be doing what I'm paying them for instead of what they spend the majority of their time doing: extorting income from the citizens and fucking people over.
Big fucking difference.
Just because the boss puts up a camera on the cash register does not mean that you get to sneak into his house and tape him fucking his wife.
Nope. Whacky but true. A common way to get out of a speeding ticket is to inquire if a traffic survey has been performed recently (by law, I think it needs to be done every 5 years) and if it hasn't been done within the required time then the speed limit is null and void (this does not apply to violating the absolute maximum).
Correct. One of my friends got a speeding ticket with me in the car. We went to court, the cop had the speed survey, but according to the survey the speed limit for the road was too *low* and the case was thrown out. Of course, they still haven't changed the speed limit to what is legal 15 years later, so they're knowingly robbing anyone who gets a ticket there and doesn't fight it. Typical of our "justice" system these days.
Most cops are just out there doing their jobs, no need to take it out on them.
Cowardly deceitful sycophantic bullshit and nothing more.
That argument was shown to be just that at Nuremberg, please quit spouting such utter crap.
When their job is to violate the rights of the citizens of this country then they are *exactly* the ones it should be taken out on. If there existed a cop with a scrap of honor, patriotism, or integrity, he wouldn't be a cop. Those qualities are completely incompatible with the career they chose. They chose, as a profession, to assault the rights of the citizens of this country in order to promote the profits of the prison industry, so they have decided that the only correct course of action when faced with them is to kill the treasonous motherfuckers where they stand. *every single one no exceptions under any circumstances*. Nothing else is consistent with a free society. That is a decision that they freely made.
Don't you fucking dare try and pretend that they aren't responsible for their criminal actions. That utter lack of personal responsibility by delusional cowards is probably the most dangerous problem we face as a nation, and having sycophantic cowards defending our nation's enemies isn't helping. Grow up. The best possible description of you is pathetically naive and that's if you're truly stupid enough to believe the idiotic lies you just spouted.
Couldn't agree more. In a more perfect world, competent and conscientious (read, honest) peace officers should not fear being filmed.
Except there is no such thing as an honest cop, so put your mind to rest. If there were such a thing, he would immediately quit, or start unloading his gun into the rest of the cops and politicians. As you don't really see anything of the sort, it's fair to conclude that there actually just is no such thing as an honest cop. Why the hell would a decent human being ever want such a sleazy, rotten and corrupt job? Clearly they wouldn't, hence there are no good cops at all.
All that aside, I still believe there should be a federal statute 100% sanctioning a civilian legal right to film police conduct (excepting situations where filming poses an obvious and immediate risk to officers or others).
All that means is that you do not believe *at all* that there should be a legal right to film police conduct. As soon as you leave a gap that big, then the slime will wriggle through. Given the inarguable fact that they are all slime, your proposed legislation does *nothing* That much should be obvious to a 10 year old.
The government cannot bestow rights upon an individual or a corporation. Rights either exist or they don't. Governments can choose whether or not to enforce rights, however.
You went from an incomplete but possibly correct argument to something that is absolutely positively false. The very existence of a corporation is due solely to the government *bestowing* that right. Avoidance of consequences for your actions through legal mumbo jumbo is not a natural right and can not exist without it being granted.
In this case the NCAA has a Copyright on broadcasting of their games.
Right. Now your homework is to go and look up what a copyright is. It's a right that did not exist in any way shape or form until the government granted it. It is not a natural right and without a government grant of it, it does not exist anywhere. Without that government granted right, it is your natural right to do whatever the hell you want with your description of the game.
That has nothing to do with the government bestowing any monopoly power upon them. It's THEIR game. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
And you contradict yourself yet again. It's only THEIR game *because* of a government granted monopoly.
This does not make someone a corporate shill, it simply allows them access that they otherwise would have to pay for (or even in some cases could NOT pay for, as evidenced by my experience w/ Press badges at GDC).
I never said that made them corporate shills. The unassailable fact is that all of the major media reporters are corporate shills. Claiming that anybody else who wants to report should emulate them is a very bad idea for that reason.
There's nothing that the NCAA can do to prevent him from writing about the game on his blog AFTER the game is over, but they can certainly restrict him from writing about it while he's AT the actual game. This isn't a first amendment issue. You have no first amendment rights on someone else's property. The NCAA is not the government, he's only AT the venue at their pleasure, and they own all rights to any live reporting on the game.
And what exactly is it that *gives* them that insane level of control over something that they do not and can not legitimately own? Oh, that would be the government. I'm not saying it absolutely is a first amendment issue, but you have failed to demonstrate that it isn't. The only reason they can even claim to have such far overreaching powers is due to the government granting them that monopoly power. If you're claiming it is not a first amendment issue, then you'll have to address that.
As the GP so rightfully pointed out, if bloggers want to be taken as legitimate journalists they're going to have to play by the same rules, ESPECIALLY if they're being given press passes.
But as he failed to point out, those who are currently playing by the rules aren't considered legitimate journalists by reasonable people any longer. They are, in fact, one of the biggest parts of the problem. They are corporate/government shills and nothing more. We need actual legitimate journalists who do not play by the rules more than just about anything at this point in time
So, there are points in your and the GPs posts, but they are not all that clear, complete, or anywhere near as obvious as you're trying to pretend that they are.
Yeah, I'm going to pack up and move to another city so I can get high-speed internet. Let me get right on that.
You might want to recheck what site you're on or add your own sarcasm tags before typing something like that here again;-) Hell, my girlfriend (wife now) moved from La Jolla to Pacific Beach to move in with me because I had cable and she had dial up:-)
This right here is proof as far as I'm concerned that anybody who seriously thinks that the US Government... faked the Apollo landings really needs to have their head examined.
Ok, Mr Smart Guy. If the US government didn't fake the Apollo landings, then *who did* fake the Apollo landings, hmmmmmmmmmm?
You either do not know what you are talking about, or you yourself are lying. I already cited both the Iraq NIE and the Butler Report that prove you are wrong.
Cherry picking to get the predecided results is still lying. Cite all the bullshit you want, but The aluminum tube idea was publically refuted immediately by multiple experts as soon as it was put forward by Bush. He continued pushing known false information.
Coward? Shrug, if you say so. Not sure how you have demonstrated bravery beyond mine, but so be it.
I have the courage to deal with reality. You do not. You continue to push bogus bullshit knowing full well that it's been proven false. Whether it's because you're too cowardly to admit you were so easilly duped or because you're too cowardly to honestly deal with the issues is irrelevant really.
I hope so. Maybe people will stop believing the lies of the left and learn to evaluate the evidence with an objective mind.
So, you're the partisan hack defending a lying, mass murdering traitor and you still try to spin it as a plot of the evil left. Typical of the deep lack of integrity requisite for anybody to still support the Republicans. I'm hardly a leftist, Sparky. I actually do evaluate evidence objectively. You quite obviously don't since you're the only one in this dialog with a horse in the race. I despise lies theft and corruption. The Republicans have nothing else to offer at the moment. That is a purely objective assessment which sure as hell doesn't imply that the left has anything to do with it. You might want to look at the fact that you're part of a rapidly decreasing minority consisting solely of religious based believers in the Republican party, whereas my position is held by people on the right, the center and the left. From the John Birch Society to the Libertarian Party to the Democrats. So, when you continue to spew such tired old chestnuts like dislike of Bush makes one a believer in the lies of the left you make yourself look even more of a fool than you've proven yourself to be. The entire spectrum holds my view with the exception of extremist nutjobs.
Can you say with certainty that President Bush knew at the time that what he was saying was inaccurate? There's a difference between being wrong, and lying. Lying requires intent.
Well, you have a far more liberal definition of lying than I do. If I say you're wearing a red dress right now and you're not, then I am a liar. I'm damn near the same thing if you are wearing a red dress. The reason for that is that I would have stated something *as a fact* which I have no way of knowing the truth of. Some of the things Bush lied about he knew full well he was lying. Other times he presented either false or unknown information as if they were facts. Either one is a bald faced lie.
Can you say with certainty that President Bush knew at the time that what he was saying was inaccurate?
Yes and so can anyone else who pays any fucking attention at all. State of the Union speech selling the invasion of Iraq he presented as fact information that George Tenet told him flat out not to use because it was unverified speculation. That is a lie. As it turns out, the info was bogus so it's a lie twice over for different reasons.
Can you show how you know that on X date when Y statement was made, that the President knew what he was saying was untrue, and he said it for the purpose of deceiving the public?
Just did. Ditto for aluminum tubes. Ditto for Uranium. You can go look those up yourself. Try being a citizen instead of a subject.
Currently, the U.S. system amounts to a bunch of rich assholes I'll never meet and who don't care about me, making decisions that won't affect them in any way, with no possibility of consequences for their mammoth failures.
Ahhh, but even such collosal disasters have some positives. That statement, for example, is one of the best, most accurate descriptions of our system that I've heard;-)
You are what is wrong with politics today, left and right: sweeping overgeneralization, ad hominem attacks, irrational hatred from the fringes, and just being a dick in general.
Hardly. I'm neither a leftist or a rightist. I believe in individual liberty over the big government nanny state policies of the left (Republican and Democrat) and the bigger police state government of the right (Democrat and Republican). None of the things you accused me of are true. Your refusal to even attempt to defend you poor choices indicates that you are aware of that fact. You are the one who was idiotic enough to support these scum, not me, Sparky. I'm the one without a horse in the race. My judgement is based on facts, not inertia as yours clearly is.
My reasoning for my political stance is my own business
True enough. That doesn't change the fact that your reasons boil entirely down to cowardice, foolishness or treason. I've heard plenty of excuses and not one has ever stood up. Prove me wrong if you're so sure I'm full of it. You'd be the first in years to do anything of the sort on that topic.
and if you believe you are representative of the Democratic Party, that alone is reason enough to be a Republican.
Laughable. I hate them as well. The unassailable fact is that the Republicans are even worse. Good luck refuting that.
You have made the mistake of believing the founding fathers were a cohesive group. The founding fathers were many different people with many different opinions.
I made no such mistake, and I'm totally mystified as to how you could have come to that conclusion. They, as a group, did reject the idea of Democracy. Had they not done so, then we would have been formed as a Democracy instead of as a constitutional Republic.
I never claimed it was a trivial decision or that it was unanimous. Just that it happened.
Slashdot Mirror
the simple fact of the matter is that we do not have the resources necessary to prosecute to trial anywhere near the number of criminal cases that the justice system faces. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most important is that we have protections for citizens to ensure their rights are not encroached upon -- this is a major factor that makes criminal prosecution so complicated and expensive.
That's part of it, but far and away the single overriding cause of problems with our justice system (and society) is drug laws. Nothing else even is in the same league for creating problems. Not even close.
A thief by definition poses a threat to your property. It does not follow that the same thief poses a threat to your physical safety or your life. That's for one distinction.
It doesn't absolutely follow, but assuming that it does is the only sane course of action.
If somebody has gone as far as to break into your house and steal your stuff, then it isn't much of a gap for them to hurt your family to avoid prosecution for their crimes.
Assuming that just because somebody's apparent purpose is limited to theft that they will strictly adhere to that purpose is idiotic in the extreme.
Anybody who would break into your home must be assumed to be willing to murder you and your entire family. Assuming anything else is a course only a fool could take.
They found a problem and will now see what policy changes can be made to reduce the chances of it happening again. The system worked as designed.Massive government operation makes mistakes, film at 11. Hello! It's a massive inefficient government operation changed with the almost impossible task of doing both law enforcement AND anti terrorism/counter insurgency operations while Democtats insist they do it with both hands tied behind their backs and hopping on one foot./i.
Oh, right, of course it must alwayts be the fault of the evil Democrats. Clearly they only want to hurt poor innocent president Bush.
Obviously all the laws that were put into place for the purpose of protecting the citizens of this nation from the government over the years should immediately be thrown out and we should all jump on the Fascist bandwagon because jmorris42 got scared of the largely made up threat of terrorism, wet his pants and sat on the curb crying his cowardly little eyes out while screaming for the big nanny state to protect him from the threat that they largely made up.
Here's a better idea.
How about you grow a pair, grow up, and act like a man for once in your life instead of being a crying little pussy coward?
This is, after all, the land of the free and the home of the brave.
That means since you're far too cowardly to live in a free country that this isn't your land and it ain't your home.
So either man up or get packing you whining little bitch.
I _know_ that this is not likely to be a popular opinion. I _know_ that this is decidedly unpatriotic, but I want to say it anyway:
It's quite a popular opinion, held by the vast majority of Americans.
It's also a decidedly patriotic position that has been obvious to anyone with half a brain since before they even started trying to sell this bullshit war.
Are you seriously just pulling your head far enough out of your butt to have finally noticed this?
Yikes. I'd still say it's harsh.
I'd still disagree. The truth is harsh. Reality is harsh. Expecting people to deal with the reality that is rather than pretending that it's something it is not and will never be is a pretty simple standard.
I'm not saying that there's a problem with you living your life in your own reality. Where there is a problem is when you're unable to recognize the difference when it matters, like...say... at the voting booth, or when politicians are speaking or situations like that.
Perhaps, my rose colored "perception" (optimism, if you will) is a defense mechanism against the cold hard truths of reality? Not sure it's "criminal", but I respect your opinion and experience.
Again, it depends on the situation. Thinking that there is such a thing as a good cop, for example, is both utterly insane and extremely dangerous.
It's insane because it's an impossibility.
Ask yourself what kind of person would become a cop and there are only two possibilities:
1) An asshole who wants power over others.
2) A good person who wants to help.
Now, 1 makes up the vast majority quite obviously. That's just reality. Anyone falling into 2 who gets far as actually signing up and making it through the academy still thinking that their goals are in any way aligned with the job is far too fucking naive to be a good cop. You have to look at the fact that *over half* of our prison population is there for non-violent drug offenses. Meaning there is no victim being avenged or protected. Given the further fact that drug laws are the direct cause of almost every single problem commonly associated with drugs and that they are also the sole cause of the massive increase in violent crime and incarceration since their inception, it's clear that the balance for any cop is necessarilly going to be negative because the laws they are choosing to enforce are bad.
So, taking that particular situation, failing to recognize the problem for what it is and going along with it makes one complicit in both massive amounts of murder, violent crime, and the police state we live in.
That's pretty damn criminal in my book.
I'm sure you'll call that "harsh" again, but if you do, please explain how pointing out a simple fact is harsher than either actively or tacitly supporting mass murder, rape, robbery, and a savage police state?
That's just reality.
That's just a little harsh... don't you think?
No, it's not harsh. I just have standards. If I had a kid and he was still dumb enough at 10 not to realize that scum will always try to fuck people, and that relying on the "better nature" of people without one is idiotic, then his ass would be grounded for a long time.
I'm not a jaded police officer. I'm a person who has been badly beaten by cops and then thrown in prison for the "crime" of talking in a public park as well as several other interactions with cops including being present when they threatened to murder an acquaintance if he didn't leave town and then burning a big fucking hole in his arm with a cigarette. They might well have murdered him, as he disappeared not too long afterwards.
That kind of shit happens *every fucking day*. Failing to realize simple basic obvious facts like that is a criminal act for a citizen in my mind.
So what is it? Given that I don't know your party affiliation I have no idea what your interpretation would be.
What, exactly, it really is we'll probably never know.
We do know that the earliest reason given in the 2000 paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was "to insure US economic domination in the coming century".
So, while that could be a lie as well, it's by far the closest we're ever likely to get.
Dude! I would so hit that. And then argue that the current push to democratise the Middle East is naive and the US should avoid direct conflict but try to trigger a Sunni/Shiite split analogous to the Sino/Soviet one. And then hit that again. Fuck yeah.
Oh good lord, please tell me by "hit that" in this context you mean "punch repeatedly with my fist" and not that other thing. Yuck, the only analogous split I can think of is the one where her front teeth are supposed to be.
Hard to say if the vietnamese war promoted freedom or saved lives.
Bullshit.
It's trivially easy to say that the Vietnam war in particular was our fucking fault and that nothing good came out of it.
Had we stood up to fucking *France* when Ho Chi Minh begged us to help him establish an American style society in Vietnam, then thetre ne3ver would have been a Vietnam war.
We refused to do the right thing repeatedly and left Ho Chi Minh with 2 choices:
Go to Russia for help, or stay a slave.
As any decent person would do, he refused the second choice.
At that point we went to war because it's profitable.
So save your ignorant sad old excuses. We were at fault for driving Vietnam to the communists and we were then at fault for invading them for the sole reason of taking their only available choice.
Add in the Laos and Cambodian disasters, and it's quite clear and obvious that it was entirely and absolutely a bad thing from every angle.
Only massive ignorance of the basic historic situation could lead one to conclude that it's "hard to say".
It's hard to say anything when you know nothing about it.
When you actually pay attention, it's often quite easy.
Those who say its all America's fault - look what happened when America left.
What an idiotic statement.
What happened after we left a situation we helped create and then fucked up pretty much as bad as we could is irrelevant.
The situation was already there.
Your argument is identical to me sticking a knife in you and then claiming it's your fault it started shooting blood when I pulled it out.
Where to start? You obviously only read about communism. You never actually lived under it. But no matter, it would take aeons to explain to you just how evil it truly was.
How "evil" it was is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the points the parent made.
The fact is that Ho Chi Minh *begged* the US repeatedly for help setting up a democracy and overthrowing the French.
We told him repeatedly to go fuck himself.
As an alternative to that he opted to go to the Russians for help.
The whole vietnam war (at least as far as US involvement) was caused by our *refusal* to help spread democracy when we were being begged to.
Had we done the right thing, then not only would none of that have happened, but the Kmer Rouge most likely never would have taken over Cambodia in the first place.
So what about that has a damn thing to do with the relative moral merits of various political/economic systems?
That's right. It has nothing to do with it.
The GP is correct. Aleph-null has no size when compared to aleph-1.
;-)
That sentence doesn't really make any sense.
As Cardinal numbers, aleph1 is *strictly larger* than aleph0. i.e. it's absolutely bigger no >= or anything.
Aleph0 certainly has a "size". It's the first infinite cardinal. That's a freaking big "number".
However if you try to measure (well defined mathematical term) a set, than any finite or even countably infinite set (set of cardinality aleph0) has measure 0, meaning for all intents and purposes it has zero length, area, volume, or whatever the heck it is you're trying to measure.
So if you take the real line, it's infinitely long (aleph0 long) but its cardinality is c (which is aleph1 if you accept the continuum hypothesis and another larger cardinal if you don't. Either way it's a bigger cardinal number than aleph0).
If you take all of the irrational numbers out of the line and "push" the rationals together, you will be left with essentially a point. It will have zero length. Not "really small". exactly equal to zero.
So, aleph0 is freaking huge. It's what most people mean when they say "infinity" even though it's the smallest possible infinity
A set of cardinality aleph0 has measure zero, essentially it's zero physical size.
Two different things.
I should say that in addition to the factors of youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included, to impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.
Heh, funny.
The truth is that those people are to blame for whatever problem requires living in mines so should be the last in line and then be shot if the line makes it that far.
However, if your argument is going to be "if they've got nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind", then you cannot complain when the police themselves turn that argument around on you. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, why should you mind them videotaping you whenever you're acting as a public citizen (i.e. whenever you're in the public space, or rather whenever you're not in private space)?
The argument is not symmetric.
The cops are my *employees*. I pay their bills for them, I pay their rent, for their food and clothes. They *chose* to take that job in order to get power over their fellow citizens. With that power comes an expectation that they had damn well better be doing what I'm paying them for instead of what they spend the majority of their time doing: extorting income from the citizens and fucking people over.
Big fucking difference.
Just because the boss puts up a camera on the cash register does not mean that you get to sneak into his house and tape him fucking his wife.
Nope. Whacky but true. A common way to get out of a speeding ticket is to inquire if a traffic survey has been performed recently (by law, I think it needs to be done every 5 years) and if it hasn't been done within the required time then the speed limit is null and void (this does not apply to violating the absolute maximum).
Correct.
One of my friends got a speeding ticket with me in the car. We went to court, the cop had the speed survey, but according to the survey the speed limit for the road was too *low* and the case was thrown out.
Of course, they still haven't changed the speed limit to what is legal 15 years later, so they're knowingly robbing anyone who gets a ticket there and doesn't fight it. Typical of our "justice" system these days.
Most cops are just out there doing their jobs, no need to take it out on them.
Cowardly deceitful sycophantic bullshit and nothing more.
That argument was shown to be just that at Nuremberg, please quit spouting such utter crap.
When their job is to violate the rights of the citizens of this country then they are *exactly* the ones it should be taken out on.
If there existed a cop with a scrap of honor, patriotism, or integrity, he wouldn't be a cop. Those qualities are completely incompatible with the career they chose.
They chose, as a profession, to assault the rights of the citizens of this country in order to promote the profits of the prison industry, so they have decided that the only correct course of action when faced with them is to kill the treasonous motherfuckers where they stand. *every single one no exceptions under any circumstances*. Nothing else is consistent with a free society.
That is a decision that they freely made.
Don't you fucking dare try and pretend that they aren't responsible for their criminal actions.
That utter lack of personal responsibility by delusional cowards is probably the most dangerous problem we face as a nation, and having sycophantic cowards defending our nation's enemies isn't helping. Grow up. The best possible description of you is pathetically naive and that's if you're truly stupid enough to believe the idiotic lies you just spouted.
Couldn't agree more. In a more perfect world, competent and conscientious (read, honest) peace officers should not fear being filmed.
Except there is no such thing as an honest cop, so put your mind to rest.
If there were such a thing, he would immediately quit, or start unloading his gun into the rest of the cops and politicians. As you don't really see anything of the sort, it's fair to conclude that there actually just is no such thing as an honest cop. Why the hell would a decent human being ever want such a sleazy, rotten and corrupt job? Clearly they wouldn't, hence there are no good cops at all.
All that aside, I still believe there should be a federal statute 100% sanctioning a civilian legal right to film police conduct (excepting situations where filming poses an obvious and immediate risk to officers or others).
All that means is that you do not believe *at all* that there should be a legal right to film police conduct. As soon as you leave a gap that big, then the slime will wriggle through. Given the inarguable fact that they are all slime, your proposed legislation does *nothing* That much should be obvious to a 10 year old.
The government cannot bestow rights upon an individual or a corporation. Rights either exist or they don't. Governments can choose whether or not to enforce rights, however.
You went from an incomplete but possibly correct argument to something that is absolutely positively false.
The very existence of a corporation is due solely to the government *bestowing* that right. Avoidance of consequences for your actions through legal mumbo jumbo is not a natural right and can not exist without it being granted.
In this case the NCAA has a Copyright on broadcasting of their games.
Right. Now your homework is to go and look up what a copyright is. It's a right that did not exist in any way shape or form until the government granted it. It is not a natural right and without a government grant of it, it does not exist anywhere. Without that government granted right, it is your natural right to do whatever the hell you want with your description of the game.
That has nothing to do with the government bestowing any monopoly power upon them. It's THEIR game. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
And you contradict yourself yet again. It's only THEIR game *because* of a government granted monopoly.
This does not make someone a corporate shill, it simply allows them access that they otherwise would have to pay for (or even in some cases could NOT pay for, as evidenced by my experience w/ Press badges at GDC).
I never said that made them corporate shills. The unassailable fact is that all of the major media reporters are corporate shills. Claiming that anybody else who wants to report should emulate them is a very bad idea for that reason.
There's nothing that the NCAA can do to prevent him from writing about the game on his blog AFTER the game is over, but they can certainly restrict him from writing about it while he's AT the actual game. This isn't a first amendment issue. You have no first amendment rights on someone else's property. The NCAA is not the government, he's only AT the venue at their pleasure, and they own all rights to any live reporting on the game.
And what exactly is it that *gives* them that insane level of control over something that they do not and can not legitimately own?
Oh, that would be the government.
I'm not saying it absolutely is a first amendment issue, but you have failed to demonstrate that it isn't. The only reason they can even claim to have such far overreaching powers is due to the government granting them that monopoly power. If you're claiming it is not a first amendment issue, then you'll have to address that.
As the GP so rightfully pointed out, if bloggers want to be taken as legitimate journalists they're going to have to play by the same rules, ESPECIALLY if they're being given press passes.
But as he failed to point out, those who are currently playing by the rules aren't considered legitimate journalists by reasonable people any longer. They are, in fact, one of the biggest parts of the problem. They are corporate/government shills and nothing more. We need actual legitimate journalists who do not play by the rules more than just about anything at this point in time
So, there are points in your and the GPs posts, but they are not all that clear, complete, or anywhere near as obvious as you're trying to pretend that they are.
Yeah, I'm going to pack up and move to another city so I can get high-speed internet. Let me get right on that.
;-) :-)
You might want to recheck what site you're on or add your own sarcasm tags before typing something like that here again
Hell, my girlfriend (wife now) moved from La Jolla to Pacific Beach to move in with me because I had cable and she had dial up
This right here is proof as far as I'm concerned that anybody who seriously thinks that the US Government ... faked the Apollo landings really needs to have their head examined.
Ok, Mr Smart Guy.
If the US government didn't fake the Apollo landings, then *who did* fake the Apollo landings, hmmmmmmmmmm?
You either do not know what you are talking about, or you yourself are lying. I already cited both the Iraq NIE and the Butler Report that prove you are wrong.
Cherry picking to get the predecided results is still lying. Cite all the bullshit you want, but The aluminum tube idea was publically refuted immediately by multiple experts as soon as it was put forward by Bush. He continued pushing known false information.
Coward? Shrug, if you say so. Not sure how you have demonstrated bravery beyond mine, but so be it.
I have the courage to deal with reality. You do not. You continue to push bogus bullshit knowing full well that it's been proven false. Whether it's because you're too cowardly to admit you were so easilly duped or because you're too cowardly to honestly deal with the issues is irrelevant really.
I hope so. Maybe people will stop believing the lies of the left and learn to evaluate the evidence with an objective mind.
So, you're the partisan hack defending a lying, mass murdering traitor and you still try to spin it as a plot of the evil left. Typical of the deep lack of integrity requisite for anybody to still support the Republicans. I'm hardly a leftist, Sparky. I actually do evaluate evidence objectively. You quite obviously don't since you're the only one in this dialog with a horse in the race.
I despise lies theft and corruption. The Republicans have nothing else to offer at the moment. That is a purely objective assessment which sure as hell doesn't imply that the left has anything to do with it.
You might want to look at the fact that you're part of a rapidly decreasing minority consisting solely of religious based believers in the Republican party, whereas my position is held by people on the right, the center and the left. From the John Birch Society to the Libertarian Party to the Democrats.
So, when you continue to spew such tired old chestnuts like dislike of Bush makes one a believer in the lies of the left you make yourself look even more of a fool than you've proven yourself to be. The entire spectrum holds my view with the exception of extremist nutjobs.
Can you say with certainty that President Bush knew at the time that what he was saying was inaccurate? There's a difference between being wrong, and lying. Lying requires intent.
Well, you have a far more liberal definition of lying than I do.
If I say you're wearing a red dress right now and you're not, then I am a liar. I'm damn near the same thing if you are wearing a red dress. The reason for that is that I would have stated something *as a fact* which I have no way of knowing the truth of. Some of the things Bush lied about he knew full well he was lying. Other times he presented either false or unknown information as if they were facts. Either one is a bald faced lie.
Can you say with certainty that President Bush knew at the time that what he was saying was inaccurate?
Yes and so can anyone else who pays any fucking attention at all.
State of the Union speech selling the invasion of Iraq he presented as fact information that George Tenet told him flat out not to use because it was unverified speculation. That is a lie. As it turns out, the info was bogus so it's a lie twice over for different reasons.
Can you show how you know that on X date when Y statement was made, that the President knew what he was saying was untrue, and he said it for the purpose of deceiving the public?
Just did.
Ditto for aluminum tubes. Ditto for Uranium.
You can go look those up yourself. Try being a citizen instead of a subject.
Currently, the U.S. system amounts to a bunch of rich assholes I'll never meet and who don't care about me, making decisions that won't affect them in any way, with no possibility of consequences for their mammoth failures.
;-)
Ahhh, but even such collosal disasters have some positives.
That statement, for example, is one of the best, most accurate descriptions of our system that I've heard
Bite me Darby.
I'll pass on diseased flesh, thanks.
You are what is wrong with politics today, left and right: sweeping overgeneralization, ad hominem attacks, irrational hatred from the fringes, and just being a dick in general.
Hardly. I'm neither a leftist or a rightist. I believe in individual liberty over the big government nanny state policies of the left (Republican and Democrat) and the bigger police state government of the right (Democrat and Republican).
None of the things you accused me of are true. Your refusal to even attempt to defend you poor choices indicates that you are aware of that fact. You are the one who was idiotic enough to support these scum, not me, Sparky. I'm the one without a horse in the race. My judgement is based on facts, not inertia as yours clearly is.
My reasoning for my political stance is my own business
True enough. That doesn't change the fact that your reasons boil entirely down to cowardice, foolishness or treason. I've heard plenty of excuses and not one has ever stood up. Prove me wrong if you're so sure I'm full of it. You'd be the first in years to do anything of the sort on that topic.
and if you believe you are representative of the Democratic Party, that alone is reason enough to be a Republican.
Laughable. I hate them as well. The unassailable fact is that the Republicans are even worse. Good luck refuting that.
You have made the mistake of believing the founding fathers were a cohesive group. The founding fathers were many different people with many different opinions.
I made no such mistake, and I'm totally mystified as to how you could have come to that conclusion.
They, as a group, did reject the idea of Democracy. Had they not done so, then we would have been formed as a Democracy instead of as a constitutional Republic.
I never claimed it was a trivial decision or that it was unanimous. Just that it happened.