Honestly, I'd have to question the humanity of someone who is NOT outraged by any crime against a child,
So we should form a mob against anyone who dares to offend a child? How about spanking? Public scolding? I'm sure those are crimes in some areas, and doing those to children means it needs outrage and raving mobs, right?
I don't like presidents that spy on Americans, and feel that it's in my best interest that Bush be brought to trial, but I don't see any slavering "conservative" mobs backing me up. It's much more likely that she'll live in a police state than she'll be molested by a stranger.
You speak as if a police state protects it's citizens any more than a normal one as a tradeoff.
I consider Justice against those who prey on children to be the right thing to do. I'm not sure what exactly it is you have against that. Are you saying that child pornography should be legal? Is that what you are trying to imply? If so than I would vigorously disagree.
And now we see exactly what your protestations of outrage are really all about. You would force the rest of us to stand to attention behind you or risk having the vilest of accusations thrown directly against us. You are a pitbull of social reactionaries who will use any weapon, no matter how odious, to chip away at the foundations of our free society and who will without conscience pass within a hair's breath of libel so as to cut most deeply without risk to yourself.
You, and people like you, are destroying the western world, one pointing finger at a time.
You seem to forget that the less outrage you use against such a thing, the more likely people are likely to see you as one of THEM. And when being even thought of as "one of THEM" can lead to harassment and even being killed, it's easy to see why people are so rabid to call for the deaths of "them" so they can spare themselves.
So, in other words, you are technically forced to work just so the RIAA can take everything you make, leaving you homeless and not a penny to your name for 20 years? How exactly do they plan for you to survive for 20 years with no food, water or shelter due to not having any money whatsoever?
If they're going to be killing their own people in the first place, why in the world would you think "kill everyone" wouldn't be their first objective?
Without that high ground, you may encounter the general population's support of the federal government's campaign to squash the movement at any cost. And that battle is a hopeless cause for those on the receiving end of Washington's force.
You honestly think the government wouldn't issue press releases that declare such people terrorists, pedophiles, or the like?
Face it, high ground or no, any force that tries to start something in the US will find itself in a brand new crater, and everyone will turn their heads away.
Plus they don't have to "defeat you" they just have to sap your will to fight, and your homelands will to fund the fight for perpetuity. Since you have no real stake in being there; you WILL eventually be worn down; you WILL eventually leave.
You were right, right up until the "leave" part. Where the hell would you go would be the first thing on many's minds. The second would be executions if you tried to pass a border, most likely.
"They have to get out to take a piss sooner or later."
Pretty sure they can do that when there's a 10 mile radius of smoking wasteland around them, with no chance of anything being alive outside in a good distance.
I prefer the answer: "So you think a rag-tag band of locals defending their homes and equipped with only small arms would be no match for the U.S. Army? How's Iraq going?"
You're forgetting the army is trying to reduce civilian deaths. If they were just given guns and told "here, go nuts at whatever moves" no one would be able to stop them.
What makes you think that not even some of the US army would comply?
Everyone is different. Some might go along with such an order. And consider some of the weapons the army's got, all it takes it a few men with access to the equipment to wipe an area off a map.
Don't vote then. Many people say it's your duty to vote, but when the choices are all bad, voting for anyone will send them a message it's okay to continue what they're doing. Refusing to vote doesn't give them that same satisfaction from you.
I'd say large amounts of jail time could be rather cruel punishment, considering your chances of survival going into jail are low enough already, and for every year those rates drop like a rock.
My guess is if they throw this guy in jail, he'll be dead before the year is over.
Because we being indecisive really, really scares the hell out of our enemies.[/sarcasm]
Which is scarier, a guy who is usually calm and can get serious when it means getting serious, or a guy who is permanently in a state of indecisiveness about if or if not to kill you every time he sees you?
Slashdot Mirror
They need to learn a financial lesson, that if you treat your customers like criminals, they tend to become criminals.
Which they can then complain about and get laws passed to force them to cough up the money.
Isn't it wonderful how we get screwed either way?
Some faster than others, apparently.
That's not being cynical, that's being realistic.
It's not like I could have handled myself better or anything.
You could have not stomped out of the room when someone is already pointing out you are acting or looking suspicious.
People need to stop being selfish and work for the community as a whole.
That sounds suspiciously like communism, citizen. You're not a communist, are you citizen?
To be fair, with a name like Hoover, your life's probably going to suck in the first place.
Honestly, I'd have to question the humanity of someone who is NOT outraged by any crime against a child,
So we should form a mob against anyone who dares to offend a child? How about spanking? Public scolding? I'm sure those are crimes in some areas, and doing those to children means it needs outrage and raving mobs, right?
I don't like presidents that spy on Americans, and feel that it's in my best interest that Bush be brought to trial, but I don't see any slavering "conservative" mobs backing me up. It's much more likely that she'll live in a police state than she'll be molested by a stranger.
You speak as if a police state protects it's citizens any more than a normal one as a tradeoff.
And now we see exactly what your protestations of outrage are really all about. You would force the rest of us to stand to attention behind you or risk having the vilest of accusations thrown directly against us. You are a pitbull of social reactionaries who will use any weapon, no matter how odious, to chip away at the foundations of our free society and who will without conscience pass within a hair's breath of libel so as to cut most deeply without risk to yourself.
You, and people like you, are destroying the western world, one pointing finger at a time.
You seem to forget that the less outrage you use against such a thing, the more likely people are likely to see you as one of THEM.
And when being even thought of as "one of THEM" can lead to harassment and even being killed, it's easy to see why people are so rabid to call for the deaths of "them" so they can spare themselves.
Personally, if you're looking for something like that, I'd recommend LogMeIn, which is basically a VNC server wrapped up and made all pretty.
Where are we going to go? How many countries can you name that are not worse than the US, or aren't following the US' lead in these matters?
If he was stupid enough to make an issue of it, what could he charge me with?
Everyone has committed a number a crimes throughout their lifetime, even if they don't know it, due to the large number of laws on the books.
It's just a matter of combing through your life and finding which of those laws you've broken.
While it's just a band-aid, there's a greasemonkey script to collapse it.
So, in other words, you are technically forced to work just so the RIAA can take everything you make, leaving you homeless and not a penny to your name for 20 years? How exactly do they plan for you to survive for 20 years with no food, water or shelter due to not having any money whatsoever?
If they're going to be killing their own people in the first place, why in the world would you think "kill everyone" wouldn't be their first objective?
Without that high ground, you may encounter the general population's support of the federal government's campaign to squash the movement at any cost. And that battle is a hopeless cause for those on the receiving end of Washington's force.
You honestly think the government wouldn't issue press releases that declare such people terrorists, pedophiles, or the like?
Face it, high ground or no, any force that tries to start something in the US will find itself in a brand new crater, and everyone will turn their heads away.
Plus they don't have to "defeat you" they just have to sap your will to fight, and your homelands will to fund the fight for perpetuity. Since you have no real stake in being there; you WILL eventually be worn down; you WILL eventually leave.
You were right, right up until the "leave" part. Where the hell would you go would be the first thing on many's minds. The second would be executions if you tried to pass a border, most likely.
"They have to get out to take a piss sooner or later."
Pretty sure they can do that when there's a 10 mile radius of smoking wasteland around them, with no chance of anything being alive outside in a good distance.
I prefer the answer: "So you think a rag-tag band of locals defending their homes and equipped with only small arms would be no match for the U.S. Army? How's Iraq going?"
You're forgetting the army is trying to reduce civilian deaths. If they were just given guns and told "here, go nuts at whatever moves" no one would be able to stop them.
Tell me, what good is expending energy on a task you know will fail? Said energy and resources could be better invested in something else.
Legally, the US government can't do that either. The current government simply considers itself above the law.
Considers? For all intents and purposes, they already ARE above the law.
What makes you think that not even some of the US army would comply?
Everyone is different. Some might go along with such an order. And consider some of the weapons the army's got, all it takes it a few men with access to the equipment to wipe an area off a map.
Don't vote then. Many people say it's your duty to vote, but when the choices are all bad, voting for anyone will send them a message it's okay to continue what they're doing. Refusing to vote doesn't give them that same satisfaction from you.
I'd say large amounts of jail time could be rather cruel punishment, considering your chances of survival going into jail are low enough already, and for every year those rates drop like a rock.
My guess is if they throw this guy in jail, he'll be dead before the year is over.
Which is scarier, a guy who is usually calm and can get serious when it means getting serious, or a guy who is permanently in a state of indecisiveness about if or if not to kill you every time he sees you?