Oh, and how I did forget to mention that some of his buddies could have faced conspiracy charges, since they apparently knew what he was planning well in advance of the election?
You have got to be kidding. Weaver was not "deprived" of anything; he was given a choice, and he made it.
He was given a choice between
1. Say X to the judge now, and the the judge will give you Y now (and Y is considerably less than 750 stolen identities * whatever the sentence is for ID theft, and you do realise that judges are generally free to order that multiple sentences be served consecutively rather than concurrently, right?).
2. Take your chances with the jury, and you'll get who knows what (but very likely much worse than Y), after who knows how long.
The case was a slam-dunk. He was caught red-handed, and he (and his attorneys) knew that no jury in the country was going to let him off from that.
For the first and possibly only time in this whole episode, the kid actually made a smart choice.
Weaver apparently wished to exercise his right to a *speedy* (and fair) trial and resolution, and that's exactly what he got.
Writing about "the Shaw of Iran" is like writing about "the Linux Colonel". It's not merely a typo; it's a neon sign that the author has zero fucking clue about the subject.
A-fucking-Men. Wish I had some mod points this morning for ya.
Leadership means leading not sitting there like some pussy while every country on the planet was taking pot shots at us on every front.
I always thought "leadership" meant things like "making rational decisions for the benefit of society" and "providing a positive example for others to follow", not "living up to Virtucon's ideal of cowboy masculinity".
I also forgot the fact that, had we not been dicks, Uncle Ho would have been one of "ours" and the last 20 years of the war might not even have been fought.
Vietnam was a political firestorm, bring in the nukes and suddenly the problem is solved. However, that wasn't allowed for various reasons.
Chief amongst which was the fact that it would not have worked unless we'd been prepared to reduce the whole country--North AND South--to a puddle of glass. In a situation where there's a Your Zone and a My Zone and they are relatively far apart (e.g. on different continents), it makes sense for me to try to nuke Your Zone, since doing so doesn't have any effect on My Zone. In a guerrilla action with no clear and relatively stable boundaries between Your Zone and My Zone, nukes are not such a bright idea. Unless your idea of winning is simply to wipe out everything.
We (yes, I'm from the US) lost in Viet-Nam because (a) half or more of the people whose freedom we were supposedly fighting for supported the other side and (b) we were never prepared to occupy the entire country in force and de-Viet-Cong-ify it, My Lai by My Lai, which is what would have been required for us to "win".
What in the HELL are you talking about? If you're not trolling you've got to be on something.
And I'm not sure turning the internet over to the whitest, most Protestant, countries in the world...
I am fairly sure that you have never actually been to Scandinavia.
Fun fact: Approximately 10% of the population of Sweden consists of first- or second-generation immigrants (including your humble correspondent Zontar, wow). It's much the same in Norway and Denmark.
Here in Stockholm, I am almost as likely to hear Russian, Arabic, Turkish, Chinese, or even English in my neighbourhood as I am to hear Swedish. Go to Copenhagen, Malmö, Helsinki, or any other major city in the region---you'll find it's not much different in any of them.
You ask us to assume that a gun is the same as any other weapon.
Excuse me, perhaps you do not know what a gun is.
A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly. It requires almost no real physical effort on the part of the user. Multiple uses can be accomplished pretty much as quickly as you can point, squeeze your finger, release, and point again.
This works really well for cancelling out advantages of size/weight/strength such as otherwise might be of concern to... I dunno... say, a skinny 16-year-old kid who's got a very big grudge against a high school teachers' lounge full of adults half again as big as he is.
Ah, but such things don't really happen except in our paranoid imaginations.
How anyone in his right mind can imply that such a device is qualitatively no different than, say, a baseball bat or a straight razor is simply beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and how I did forget to mention that some of his buddies could have faced conspiracy charges, since they apparently knew what he was planning well in advance of the election?
You have got to be kidding. Weaver was not "deprived" of anything; he was given a choice, and he made it.
He was given a choice between
1. Say X to the judge now, and the the judge will give you Y now (and Y is considerably less than 750 stolen identities * whatever the sentence is for ID theft, and you do realise that judges are generally free to order that multiple sentences be served consecutively rather than concurrently, right?).
2. Take your chances with the jury, and you'll get who knows what (but very likely much worse than Y), after who knows how long.
The case was a slam-dunk. He was caught red-handed, and he (and his attorneys) knew that no jury in the country was going to let him off from that.
For the first and possibly only time in this whole episode, the kid actually made a smart choice.
Weaver apparently wished to exercise his right to a *speedy* (and fair) trial and resolution, and that's exactly what he got.
More than fair; 10 years would have been fair.
I believe the ends justify the means.
I foresee a brilliant future for this one.
If the airport has a policy to the effect that anyone entering its property consents to a search, I suspect that the 4th Amendment need not apply.
Blowing up that car pretty much effected safety for those people inside the building.
I am pretty sure you just said the opposite of what you intended. Please consult a dictionary.
Innovation? From Yahoo? You picked the wrong end of its lifetime for that.
I don't mean to be snarky, but do you know what "verbatim" means? Did you intend "verboten", perhaps?
When are they going to start warning people about childish content?
But this is the default. Why should any warning be needed?
"Under Capitalism, man oppresses man. Under Communism, the opposite is true."
I have SO been waiting for this to come up.
Thank you, AC!
This is an ad graminum argument.
And that is nonsense.
In and of itself, this is not surprising, but it does point up very nicely the fact that you apparently have no qualms about just making shit up.
P.S. I believe the phrase you were looking for is ad grammaticam. Cheers.
Writing about "the Shaw of Iran" is like writing about "the Linux Colonel". It's not merely a typo; it's a neon sign that the author has zero fucking clue about the subject.
A-fucking-Men. Wish I had some mod points this morning for ya.
Leadership means leading not sitting there like some pussy while every country on the planet was taking pot shots at us on every front.
I always thought "leadership" meant things like "making rational decisions for the benefit of society" and "providing a positive example for others to follow", not "living up to Virtucon's ideal of cowboy masculinity".
How about, "Don't make friends with dictators"?
I like Jell-O. Especially the lime green.
Anybody got some popcorn?
I also forgot the fact that, had we not been dicks, Uncle Ho would have been one of "ours" and the last 20 years of the war might not even have been fought.
Vietnam was a political firestorm, bring in the nukes and suddenly the problem is solved. However, that wasn't allowed for various reasons.
Chief amongst which was the fact that it would not have worked unless we'd been prepared to reduce the whole country--North AND South--to a puddle of glass. In a situation where there's a Your Zone and a My Zone and they are relatively far apart (e.g. on different continents), it makes sense for me to try to nuke Your Zone, since doing so doesn't have any effect on My Zone. In a guerrilla action with no clear and relatively stable boundaries between Your Zone and My Zone, nukes are not such a bright idea. Unless your idea of winning is simply to wipe out everything.
We (yes, I'm from the US) lost in Viet-Nam because (a) half or more of the people whose freedom we were supposedly fighting for supported the other side and (b) we were never prepared to occupy the entire country in force and de-Viet-Cong-ify it, My Lai by My Lai, which is what would have been required for us to "win".
What in the HELL are you talking about? If you're not trolling you've got to be on something.
Said the pot to the kettle.
My money's with the general who spoke of "getting there firstest with the mostest".
Which basically leaves us with Northern Europe.
And I'm not sure turning the internet over to the whitest, most Protestant, countries in the world...
I am fairly sure that you have never actually been to Scandinavia.
Fun fact: Approximately 10% of the population of Sweden consists of first- or second-generation immigrants (including your humble correspondent Zontar, wow). It's much the same in Norway and Denmark.
Here in Stockholm, I am almost as likely to hear Russian, Arabic, Turkish, Chinese, or even English in my neighbourhood as I am to hear Swedish. Go to Copenhagen, Malmö, Helsinki, or any other major city in the region---you'll find it's not much different in any of them.
The discussion the Indians want to have is what the .org people are gonna do about jihadwatch.org, which riled up Islamic Indians...
.Which means that site is operating exactly as intended.
(Check out the connections with the David Horowitz mob.)
There's the potential for a Spanish Inquisition "our weapons are 3" parody here, but I've not yet had my coffee.
It's already got its own /. account. So, yes, probably inevitable.
...could provide a few special moments.
Stockholm Central
Route 4, near Rutland VT, USA
In the South Atlantic, about 250 km off the coast of Argentina
You ask us to assume that a gun is the same as any other weapon.
Excuse me, perhaps you do not know what a gun is.
A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly. It requires almost no real physical effort on the part of the user. Multiple uses can be accomplished pretty much as quickly as you can point, squeeze your finger, release, and point again.
This works really well for cancelling out advantages of size/weight/strength such as otherwise might be of concern to... I dunno... say, a skinny 16-year-old kid who's got a very big grudge against a high school teachers' lounge full of adults half again as big as he is.
Ah, but such things don't really happen except in our paranoid imaginations.
How anyone in his right mind can imply that such a device is qualitatively no different than, say, a baseball bat or a straight razor is simply beyond me.