|
One group of delusional asshats hopped up on their holy self-righteousness and spreading the doctrine of their own infallibility, fighting a terrorist group of exactly the same. The irony is rich!
|
|
|
|
Our of interest today, I had a look at our faucet stats. On a typical day, we're giving out about 1000 bits (500 faucet claims) so it has it hasn't been a big burden. However, one thing caught my eye, our most active fauceter: Here is the list of faucet claim time (and time since last claim): http://privatepaste.com/6c2fbcdda5Hard to tell if that's a bot or an insomniac Hard to imagine it being a bot with this level of activity. I would expect much more activity from a bot. February 1 - February 7: 49 claims, for an average of 7 per day. I think the most was 10. (I didn't look backwards past this). This activity is hardly inconceivable for a person to be claiming. Probably has an office job and is at a computer most of the day. |
|
|
|
There wouldn't be any war if there were no soldiers. It's that simple.
Overly simplistic to the point of being inaccurate. Curious. How do you figure? Can you name a single war that was fought without them? <edit> Just so there's no question as to what we are talking about: War: War must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within a broad military strategy subject to military logistics. Soldier: A soldier is one who fights as part of an organized land-based armed forces. I'll explain my thinking, as I offered a conclusion without the reasoning before. It seems like a semantic game. "Soldiers are necessary to fight war, therefore if there are no soldiers, there cannot be war." Semantically and logically, I think the statement is accurate, but I think it loses applicability in the real world. Everyone's goal ostensibly is to end war, but getting rid of soldiers won't end war because soldiers aren't what cause war. To end war, you have to address the root causes: cultural differences, a lack of empathy, the violent tendency of mankind, and nationalistic fervor, among other things, are the root causes of war. Your statement makes it sounds like the cause to effect would be listed as soldiers ---> war, instead of the violent tendency of man ---> war. If we eliminated all the soldiers, mankind would not suddenly be peaceful, and the soldiers would return instantly once there is a cause for a new nationalistic fervor. |
|
|
|
And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults
I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech? People who condemn the publication of the prophet's image are exercising their freedom of speech and don't deserve to be lampooned. I don't think it's the people who condemn the publication of the prophet's image they're worried about so much as the people who violently react to it. |
|
|
|
Poor guy is gonna spend the rest of his life with rapists and murderers.. He's gonna get so destroyed in there =(
He did try to get people bumped off. So spending time with murderers is something he shouldn't be complaining about. Was that the worst crime he commited ? I think generally murder or the attempt of is considered the worst crime there is, however he has not yet been charged of that. That's for another trial I believe. I think he was charged with attempted murder in this trial. The Maryland indictment against him includes two charges related to attempted murder: one charge for attempted murder of a federal witness, and another charge for use of interstate commerce to facilitate murder-for-hire. |
|
|
|
In America, Canada and the U.K., the law is, let your accuser get on the stand and validate that you did wrong through oath or affirmation, speaking it into the record. Wrong doing doesn't include breaking some Law Code of the government except if you have a signed contract to obey that Law Code. Wrongdoing only includes harming a person with actual harm, damaging a person's property with actual damage, or breaking a signed contract where you have explicitly agreed to the terms of the contract.
You say some variation of this in every almost every thread I see you comment in about court cases. There's no magic code for beating prosecution: some magic trick of demanding to face your accuser, or making your accuser speak in court, or claiming you didn't agree to a contract not to break the law. This grave misunderstanding of how the court system works makes you look like a simpleton. Stop peddling fantasies! |
|
|
|
The judge had stacked the rules against him from the get-go so it was inevitable in my mind that he'd get convicted of something, if not the whole bag. If my back was against the wall like this and knew how things were going, I'd definitely take a chance and hop on the stand to defend myself. Can't do any worse at that point.
What do you mean by the judge stacking the deck against him? I only marginally followed the court case, it was obvious he was guilty so there was no need to follow it closely. Are you referring to the judge disallowing his "expert" witnesses, or was there other conduct? Yeah, pretty much things like that. Normally, the judge curbs what the prosecution can bring to the table as some of it could be irrelevant to the particular charges against the defendant yet allows some leeway for the defense to make a better case for someone who's freedom is on the line, especially here when he's facing 20 yrs to life when he's sentenced on May 30th. I don't have a timeline of what was allowed or not but numerous times the judge blocked evidence and testimony that would've helped Ross' cause so undoubtedly there'll be an appeal filed because of how one-sided things were for the defense. Imagine how vulnerable one would feel seeing how the tables were being stacked against you turning this ultimately into a kangaroo court. My understanding is his "expert witnesses" were disallowed because they didn't have credentials that would establish them as experts. I myself don't find this a compelling reason. It's your defense, if you want to put every Tom, Dick, and Harry you can find on the stand as your experts, you should be allowed to. It would be easy for the prosecution to discredit them if they didn't have the credentials anyway. So I don't see the justice in prejudging who can testify. I agree with you completely on this point. |
|
|
|
Net "Neutrality" is government managed price controls and forced reduction of service quality, which will result in reduced investment in internet within the USA and slower speed for everyone, as well as increased regulation.
Substantiate your claims, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are false, as evidenced by the UK where this system already exists and none of this is true. |
|
|
|
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
|
|
|
|
Even though he can't have sex anymore at least he has a taped memory of when he could.
And do I have to be the first to say "video or it didn't happen"?
Not only are you the first, you're probably the only, because it's a horrible thing to say. |
|
|
|
That's straight up child abuse to me. Leaving the kid tied up in the basement for FOUR hours is way too far.
Seriously, you're going to argue the semantics of how long they were tied up their rather than the actual act itself? I did make it seem as if I was talking about that last part. I'm sorry about that, Talking about the incident as a whole and giving that side information at the same time. Haha, it did seem like you were saying tying him up for four hours is what made this wrong, like if they had only tied him up for an hour, everything would have been fine. Perhaps you just enunciated it poorly, but I think maybe you brought up that bit about him being tied up for four hours as evidence as to how out of control and unreasonable these people were, not the singular point of what made it wrong. |
|
|
|
There wouldn't be any war if there were no soldiers. It's that simple.
Overly simplistic to the point of being inaccurate. |
|
|
|
It's been a year since concealed carry went into effect in Illinois, the last state to legalize it. Both sides were wrong about the consequences: concealed carry has neither led to a rash of shootings, nor a wave of crimes prevented through the intervention of armed citizens. This just shows that rhetoric isn't very useful for making policy, I'd rather politicians stick to making policy based on reality and real-world cause and effect. In Illinois, concealed carry of guns has quiet first year; expansion sought
Keith Hearn was getting out of his car in front of his home in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood when, as he tells it, police pulled up and told him he had committed a minor traffic offense.
Hearn, 34, has a concealed-carry license and said he voluntarily told the officers he had a handgun on him. Nonetheless, he said officers arrested him and took him to their station, claiming his gun was partly showing. After checking, he said, police found the concealed-carry law allows a gun to be "mostly" concealed, and let him go without charges.
"I was disgusted," Hearn said. "Why was I arrested, handcuffed in front of my neighborhood, when I didn't break any laws?"
He should thank himself lucky they didn't shoot him. Probably would have done if he was black. Actually, he is black. (The article shows his picture.) Perhaps that plays into the decision to actually arrest him and take him to the station, instead of letting him go. |
|
|
|
females have no place on the front line
What ever you think now, I encourage you to write it. so thank you for your post. As one of the poster asked, could you please tell us why do you think that? Chivalry or sexism? I'm also interested to know. |
|
|
|
So you're a supporter of the repeal?
Not necessarily. I was opposed to the passage of the bill, and I'm opposed to the concept that the government can force you to buy something you don't want to buy. There is though a question in my mind as to whether health care is truly a special case which necessitates everyone's mandatory involvement. (I haven't definitely answered that question yet for myself.) But repeal now will create chaos, and it's doubtful democrats would let the issue die there and would attempt again, which will further extend the chaos. I was more speaking from a sense of interest as to whether republicans will make a meaningful attempt at repeal when they have the votes to actually do it. When they didn't have the votes, it was all for theater ahead of the midterm elections. Now there will be actual consequences for attempting to repeal, and I'm not sure they will want to risk control of both houses over it. But I'm certainly watching because the strategy of why they act interests me, if not the actual repealing of the law itself. Create chaos? It's Obamacare that DID THAT. The solution (repealing Obamacare) to the problem(Obamacare) is not the problem. I guarantee that repealing causes more disruption than not at this point. It will disrupt business and insurance companies the most as no one knows what to expect any more, and then democrats will try to pass something again, further extending the uncertainty. If you think you repeal this and it just ends and everything is fixed, I think you will be proven mistaken. |
|
|
|
Rand Paul being praised at Age of Autism...Attention everyone.
Rand Paul believes in parental choice.
"The Hepatitis B vaccine is now given to newborns. We sometimes give 5 or 6 vaccines at one time. I chose to have mine delayed. I don't want the government telling me I have to give me child Hepatitis B vaccine which is transmitted by sexually transmitted disease and/or blood transfusion. . . . I had mine staggered over several months. I've heard of many cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders
after vaccines. ...I think they're a good thing, but I think the parents should have some input. The state doesn't own your children. The parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom." This is one of their daily blog posts... http://www.ageofautism.com/These folks seem like single issue voters mostly but the issue of parental choice is a crucial one these days since the left increasingly wants more say over the parents' leeway in deciding what's best for their kids. I can only imagine how problematic it is to raise a child that has issues of some sort. Paul needs to stick to the line about parental choice and end there. Once he starts in on the anecdotal evidence as a counter to scientific and medical consensus, he absolutely loses me. Keep it about the principle of personal freedom, anything else is a losing argument. |
|
|
|
Really basic example but if for instance female doctors were placed on tests that were somehow easier than what men would go through not only would it be unfair to both genders but patients would be totally fucked especially if the sole purpose of the new tests were to put more female doctors in the hospital wing.
The only distinction I would make on this line is that there is no reason to create a separate standard for men and women on intellectual grounds. There is nothing inherent in gender that would cause one gender to be smarter or more capable of being a doctor than the other. I understand the the notion of strength-based double standards because generally the male gender is physically stronger than female gender, all other things being equal. I understand this point, I just don't think it's applicable for soldiers. I think a better example is golf. In golf, nobody's life is at risk when women hit from tees that are closer to the green. The logic of this is also strength-based, but without potentially adverse consequences for having the double standard. Not true for elite soldiers. |
|
|
|
The full article is below, but here's the TL;DR: Kid's mother and grandmother agree to a plan by kid's aunt to "kidnap" him to teach him the concept of stranger danger because he was "too nice to people." Aunt asks a coworker to "kidnap" him. Guy does, in the process telling him some pretty horrible things and brandishing a gun, tying his hands and feet together, and leaving him in a basement for four hours. Mother was charged with kidnapping and abuse/neglect of a child. Grandmother, aunt, and coworker were all charged with kidnapping, felonious restraint, and abuse/neglect of a child. I fully agree with the charges of felonious restraint and abuse/neglect of a child. And all these people sound like wretched, horrible people. But the charge that I found interesting was kidnapping, since I guess I always assumed the definition of kidnapping was the taking of child from his parents without consent. There was consent here by the kid's guardians. Can you kidnap your own kid, or are the authorities just adding that charge because none of the other charges really capture the extent of this crime?
Police: Family plots to teach child a lesson with fake kidnapping
TROY, MO (KTVI) – Family members plotted to have a six-year-old boy kidnapped to teach him a lesson on stranger danger because he was “too nice” to people, the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office said Thursday.
According to the sheriff’s office, deputies learned of a kidnapping in Troy on February 4.
Investigators learned that sometime before February 2, 38-year-old Denise Kroutil approached a co-worker, 23-year-old Nathan Firoved, and asked him to kidnap her nephew to “scare” him. The victim’s mother, 25-year-old Elizabeth Hupp, and grandmother, 58-year-old Rose Brewer, agreed with the plan to kidnap the young boy to teach him a lesson.
The boy’s mother and grandmother did not know Nathan’s last name, only Kroutil.
On Monday, February 2, authorities said Firoved parked his pickup truck by the boy’s bus stop and waited for him to be dropped off after school. Firoved lured the six-year-old into his truck and drove off.
Firoved told the frightened young boy he would never see his mother again and that he would be “nailed to the wall of a shed.”
The young boy began crying, at which point Firoved pulled out a handgun and threatened to harm the child if he didn’t stop crying.
Investigators said Firovfed bound the boy’s hands and feet with plastic bags, then covered the child’s face with a jacket. Firoved drove the boy to his own home, carried the child into the basement, and left him there.
Kroutil, the boy’s aunt, walked down into the basement, pulled the victim’s pants down, and began shouting that he could be sold into sex slavery. She also allegedly chastised the child for not trying to resist her or Firoved.
The boy was kept in the basement for some time longer before he was finally unbound and allowed to go upstairs, at which time his family lectured him about stranger danger.
Family members and Firoved kept in contact via cell phone during the whole ordeal, which lasted about four hours.
The victim told school authorities on Wednesday, who then contacted the Missouri Division of Family Services. The sheriff’s office was called to the home and the child placed into protective custody.
The family members told investigators their intent was to educate the child and felt they had done nothing wrong.
Firoved, Brewer, and Kroutil were charged with kidnapping, felonious restraint, and abuse/neglect of a child. They remain in custody at Lincoln County Jail on $250,000 bond. The boy’s mother, Hupp, was charged with kidnapping and abuse/neglect of a child. She remains jailed on a $250,000 cash-only bond.
|
|
|
|
If the Ranger test results and focal points were equal across the board and these females passed them accordingly then a big round of applause is needed for them. Either way, the testing criteria that these females passed was epic, as in this wasn't girlscout practice, but top dog status. There's often a male and female standard in law enforcement standards in physical fitness tests and it's why I bring it up. I'm staying neutral for now.
I will say that military training is one example of where it does not make sense to have dual standards. I'm assuming the standard is set for a reason, and that's because it's the minimum strength and skill necessary to competently complete a variety of tasks that might arise on the battlefield. If you can't meet the standard, having a lesser standard you can accomplish for the purpose of having gender equality can put your life and the lives of those in your unit at risk. I don't see a perfect parity with police work, so would be more willing to accept a dual standard there, especially since most police work is administrative anyway. |
|
|
|
While there are no real winners, I feel for the 17 year old whose life is ruined because this scumbag filmed her having sex and it's on the internet now. She certainly made her point.
If she had no idea that he was filming the situation then I slightly agree with you. That said, ruining a man's junkyard so to speak is quite evil, which is worse than rape and just short of murder imo. The former problem does not legitimize the latter by any stretch - unless in your imagination. Worse than rape? I put them on par with each other, but I certainly have trouble believing it's worse than the most physically, emotionally, and psychologically violative act someone can subject their victim to. Her knowledge of the filming is immaterial to me, although it's certainly worse if she didn't know. Her consent to film doesn't excuse him making it public. And her reaction isn't excused by the circumstances. She should definitely be in prison, and he should have been too, but I'd be fine with a prosecutor not prosecuting on the grounds that he's already been punished. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
