‘Do you have anything illegal in the car? Would you consent to a search for guns, drugs, knives, bombs, illegal documents, or anything else that you’re not allowed to possess?’
What's wrong with just saying "no, I don't, and no I don't"?
But it's equally true on the other side of the aisle - when a Democrat president does a power grab it's fine with Democrats. When a R president does it, it's treason - to the Democrats.
Our two major parties are much alike - partisanship and a skewed view of the world is quite symmetrical.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Mike, as has Penn Jillette.
Beware of taking seriously the opinions of anyone - Nobel Prize winner, famous (and incredibly talented) comedian, whatever - outside their field of expertise.
In any economic system, there are limited resources. If you give more to some, you have less to give to others. That's not capitalism - that's just reality.
I agree police officers need to be paid more, much more - in order to attract better people. They also need to be held to far higher standards.
Re: antifascism was not a movement dedicated to the minority rul
Anti-facism, no.
Antifa, yes. Antifa loves to claim they're "anti-facist", but look at their methods, tactics, and goals - they are facists, just in the disguise of anti-facists.
As I've said elsewhere, somewhere Joseph Goebbels is laughing.
Do you really expect ANY group holding a minority opinion - let alone a principled moral stance (in their own eyes) - to simply "abandon their strongly-held beliefs" because their viewpoint is unpopular?
If people have strongly-held beliefs that prove unpopular (say for example, that slavery is immoral, or that homosexuals should have the right to marry - both of which were unpopular for centuries before their proponents managed to convince the majority of their validity), the normal and proper thing to do in a democracy is to keep on advocating for those views, and attempting to convince the majority to change their opinion - with arguments, facts, and appeals to fairness.
Sure, there plenty of people on the right who would be happy to "abandon democracy and any pretense of fair play to achieve their goals" - if they thought they could get away with it.
Do you honestly think there aren't an equal proportion of people on the left and in the Democrat party would also do so?
Whenever people feel strongly about things, esp. when they perceive a moral imperative, some will be willing to abandon democracy to get their way - if they can.
I don't think Republicans have any monopoly on that. (Look at Antifa, for example.)
On the post: Oregon Supreme Court Shuts Down Pretextual Traffic Stops; Says Cops Can't Ask Questions Unrelated To The Violation
No I don't, and no I don't
What's wrong with just saying "no, I don't, and no I don't"?
On the post: Richard Liebowitz Is Wrong On So Many Levels, And Is In Trouble Yet Again
Q:Who the hell still thinks it's worth hiring Richard Liebowitz?
A: Plaintiffs with cases so meritless that "no reasonable lawyer with any familiarity with the law of copyright" would take them.
On the post: Photographer's Bullshit Arrest By A Dallas Transit Cop Nets Him A $345,000 Settlement
Re: Re: Re: i would contest it..
For good or ill, we live in a democracy.
When the government does stupid and evil things, it's ultimately the responsibility of the voters who elected the government.
So expect, as a voter, to "pay your share" of the result.
Personally, I'm a big fan of rights that can't be taken away by majority vote.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
It's symmetrical
Re Barr and executive power, "bt' is quite right.
But it's equally true on the other side of the aisle - when a Democrat president does a power grab it's fine with Democrats. When a R president does it, it's treason - to the Democrats.
Our two major parties are much alike - partisanship and a skewed view of the world is quite symmetrical.
On the post: EA/Origin Rewards Adopters Of Extra Security By Scaring The Shit Out Of Them
Never attribute to malice...
...that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
On the post: Sacha Baron Cohen Is Wrong About Social Media, Wrong About Section 230... And Even Wrong About His Own Comedy
Amen
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Mike, as has Penn Jillette.
Beware of taking seriously the opinions of anyone - Nobel Prize winner, famous (and incredibly talented) comedian, whatever - outside their field of expertise.
On the post: Photographer's Bullshit Arrest By A Dallas Transit Cop Nets Him A $345,000 Settlement
Re: I think I might start hanging around cops with a camera.
Please do. That may be the only way to fix this.
If everybody does that, looking for their $345k, maybe they'll learn what the law is.
On the post: Photographer's Bullshit Arrest By A Dallas Transit Cop Nets Him A $345,000 Settlement
Re: i would contest it..
Ah, but if you live in Dallas it was your elected officials who hired her, mistrained her, and failed to supervise her.
You get to pay your share. Suck it up and vote more carefully next time.
On the post: Journalists Publish List Of Convicted Cops The State's Attorney General Said Was Illegal For Them To Have
Re: Re: Re: Long ago, far far away...
I don't see what that has to do with capitalism.
In any economic system, there are limited resources. If you give more to some, you have less to give to others. That's not capitalism - that's just reality.
I agree police officers need to be paid more, much more - in order to attract better people. They also need to be held to far higher standards.
On the post: Big News: Supreme Court To Hear Google v. Oracle Case About API And Copyright
Electrical sockets and water faucets
APIs are no more software than electrical sockets are electricity, or water faucets are water.
Just because it's called a "software API" doesn't mean it's made out of software.
Will somebody please explain this to the court?
How do I file a amicus curiae brief on this?
On the post: Needless Trademark Spat In Canada At Least Has Exactly As Polite Ending As You'd Expect
Prior use?
Is prior public use not a defense against trademark violation claims?
On the post: Lawsuit: An Officer's BS Claims About 'Odor Of Marijuana' Led To 14 SWAT Team Members Pointing Guns At Our Kids
That's what they get for living in a poor neighborhood
Look at the photo on the Reason site.
If they'd had the good sense to live in a McMansion in a swanky suburb, they'd be fine.
Silly plebs.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Are baseless legal threats allowed?
I'm not a lawyer, but is there any basis on which to sue these people for making obviously baseless legal threats?
Or go after their attorneys for ethics violations via the Bar Association?
On the post: Ridiculous: Judge Says Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against An Internet Cow And Others Can Continue
Re: evidence that proves me wrong
Stephen, for somebody who talks about fascists a lot, you don't seem to know much about fascist history.
Google "Brownshirts".
Compare. Antifa matches the description to a T.
On the post: Ridiculous: Judge Says Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against An Internet Cow And Others Can Continue
Re: antifascism was not a movement dedicated to the minority rul
Anti-facism, no.
Antifa, yes. Antifa loves to claim they're "anti-facist", but look at their methods, tactics, and goals - they are facists, just in the disguise of anti-facists.
As I've said elsewhere, somewhere Joseph Goebbels is laughing.
On the post: Ridiculous: Judge Says Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against An Internet Cow And Others Can Continue
Re: abandon their strongly-held beliefs
You sound pretty partisan there, Stephen.
Do you really expect ANY group holding a minority opinion - let alone a principled moral stance (in their own eyes) - to simply "abandon their strongly-held beliefs" because their viewpoint is unpopular?
If people have strongly-held beliefs that prove unpopular (say for example, that slavery is immoral, or that homosexuals should have the right to marry - both of which were unpopular for centuries before their proponents managed to convince the majority of their validity), the normal and proper thing to do in a democracy is to keep on advocating for those views, and attempting to convince the majority to change their opinion - with arguments, facts, and appeals to fairness.
Sure, there plenty of people on the right who would be happy to "abandon democracy and any pretense of fair play to achieve their goals" - if they thought they could get away with it.
Do you honestly think there aren't an equal proportion of people on the left and in the Democrat party would also do so?
Whenever people feel strongly about things, esp. when they perceive a moral imperative, some will be willing to abandon democracy to get their way - if they can.
I don't think Republicans have any monopoly on that. (Look at Antifa, for example.)
On the post: Ridiculous: Judge Says Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against An Internet Cow And Others Can Continue
Re: special treatment
I don't get how you read it that way.
The core of his complaint is "while at the same time, treating the Democrats differently".
Not that the whole thing isn't silly and pointless in the first place.
On the post: Liverpool FC Denied 'Liverpool' Trademark Due To Its Geographic Significance
This is what comes of letting your lawyers make decisions for yo
By all means consult your lawyers, but make your own damn decisions.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
An electrical connector is NOT electricity
I wonder if the whole confusion stems from the term "software interfaces".
Someone unfamiliar with APIs might think, from the term, that software interfaces are interfaces made out of software.
Which of course, they're not. They're interfaces for software.
It's like the difference between an electrical connector and electricity. Or a plumbing fitting and water.
(or, worse, between a drawing showing the dimensions of a connector, and electricity)
On the post: What's Australian For Streisand Effect? Perhaps It's Fatty McFuckhead
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Billionaires, unless they get that way via crime, become so by GIVING to the world, not by TAKING.
By creating things that other people value enough to give them, voluntarily, BILLIONS of dollars.
Next >>