I think it's much more frightening that someone has the self-awareness to realize he believes Trump is a demi-god. Many of his followers act as if they believed he was, but would be resistant to admitting it.
Actually, I'm just glad that one of them admitted it. I've been calling them out for their idolatry for some time.
Thank you, bhull242. Everyone who knows me knows I'm a Christian, and that I think Trump is an epic prat.
You've all seen evidence of my ability to think critically over and over again. It's not fair to declare that every Bible-believing Christian is incapable of critical thinking if one's own belief that all Christians are incapable of critical thinking is based on a raft of logical fallacies.
Some believers are downright awful. Others are thoroughly decent people, and there's a plethora of shades of grey in between, and all of these are subjective, so let's can the blanket statements.
The whole 'tyranny' thing is a scam, a made up story by gun lobbyists to sell guns to paranoid dipshits.
Confirmed correct. Actually taking up arms against the state will get you labelled a terrorist and flung in jail... assuming you survive both the rap and the ride.
Trump actually tried to do the right thing. But this office was set up hurriedly and turned over to people who apparently had little desire to clean up the Department. The OAWP seems far more interested in burying whistleblowers and their reports. It appears to believe its job is to keep the boat from rocking, no matter how troubled the seas nor how agitated its passengers.
Trump likes to be seen to be doing the right thing, but when it comes to practicalities he epically fails. Why? Like our own Poundshop version, Boris Johnson, he's not interested in details. He just wants the Shiny Thing. Such people have no business being in office, however noble their intentions, because they make things worse instead of better. Details-oriented people may be boring, but they're the ones we need at the helm.
What Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:55pm says. Mike leans libertarian, if anything, as implied by his frequent references to the free market.
Right-wing authoritarians don't get the libertarian dislike of government interference in business and privacy, etc., and left-wingers don't get the libertarian desire to let market forces decide between winners and losers in business. Mike's insistence on protecting the public welfare is confusing to both because he's about public and personal freedom rather than attempting to corral or control the public. I share these viewpoints, for the most part, though sometimes we differ over how to best serve the public interest.
The other AC is neither the first nor the last to whine about the imagined political leanings of this site, or to declare that he and/or others will stop reading this site until articles more favourable to their viewpoint are published. It's not Mike's job (or intention) to pander to anyone, but to state the facts as he sees them. The only explicit leaning this site has is in favour of the public interest and our personal rights, which can only be a good thing. It's what keeps me reading.
Anyone who objects to writings in the public interest needs to get their heads read; we're all members of the public.
Sorry, JDL, that's wrong, mate. If that were the case, attempted __ would not be prosecutable.
DUI is dangerous, and such drivers should be off the road, period. Don't drink (or otherwise impair your judgement) and drive.
That said, 11 years when no harm was done is way past excessive. Over here, you get a fine and remedial course, which you have to pay for. That is sufficient. If you actually kill or cause life-changing injuries, however, the punishment should fit the crime. 10 years minimum for life-changing injuries, 20 to life for killing someone. I'm sick of seeing dangerous drivers who actually maim and kill people let off with light sentences. One guy I know who actually killed someone and went to jail for a couple of years went straight back to drink-driving after he was released. Jailing them for longer keeps the public safe while they're inside.
Agreed. Secure a conviction, seize all goods bought with the proceeds of crime. Leave the innocent out of it. Stop seizing at the limit of the law, i.e. to the amount of fine imposed.
^This, although FB-stalking for bad attitudes might result in non-conformist attitudes being taken into account. We live in a world where concern for the public is seen as a leftist position.
It can't be that big a stretch to imagine a decent cop who cares about the environment complaining about toxic emissions being passed over for promotion because he or she is seen as being a bit of a lefty.
Be very, very careful what you wish for: if you give out power, be aware of who might wield it.
Don't take nudes with a phone unless you're a supernerd and you know you have it locked down somehow that prevents anything getting uploaded. If you take a photo or video with a camera, and then put it on your computer in encrypted storage and delete it from the camera, you can be pretty safe that no one will ever see it.
Taking care and thought for one's actions tends to kill the thrill. tl:dr; don't be dumb.
The other aspect is trickier. I imagine you are highly confident that 1) you are not going to get divorced and 2) your husband would not betray you in this way even if you did. You're probably right, but I bet most of the people who get divorced were sure they were not going to get divorced. And obviously if they thought their spouse was someone who would maliciously spread around nudes of them, they wouldn't have married them. Yet there are some ex spouses who do just that. Either some people change when going through a divorce, or sometimes we're just not that good at predicting others' behavior.
True, dat. Better to be safe than sorry. I'd also add that even the self-actualised exhibitionist types who would pooh pooh our caution would be horrified if their intimate pics were viewed and commented on by the dirty raincoat brigade. They suddenly get all coy when they realised that their attitudes aren't necessarily shared by others. Is it bad that I find this hilarious?
(1) Indefensible, and a form of harassment. Not okay, not even for a media outlet. I've got a lot of sympathy for people unwittingly filmed in intimate situations. What a creepy thing to do to someone!
(2) Yeah... some thrills aren't worth it. If my hubby started asking me to agree to such pictures, the answer would be a very firm no, not because I'd suspect him of nefarious intent, but because I'd worry about keeping them private. Rule of thumb: if you think it's hidden, someone will find it, the IOT being what it is. Anything that can gain access to your photos can gain access to the ones you don't want going public. (3) Unsolicited sexting is far less defensible (though I do not think teenage sexters should draw severe jail sentences and lifetime on a Sex Offender Registry as auto-child-pornographers). Nevertheless, as a remedy I would recommend, rather than Internet publication, telling them to stop, backed by a threat to go to the authorities.
Teens can be thoughtless and inconsiderate, and just not realise the consequences of their actions. As a remedy, I'd show them the kind of creepy old perverts who seek out such images, and ask them if they want that kind of person to see them. I'd warn girls in particular to be aware that the moment the photo is taken, it will most likely go viral. We should actually teach this in schools. Teens should be taught not to pressure each other into situations that will almost certainly come back to bite them later. Merely telling them to stand up for themselves is not enough; we need to teach boundaries. In a social environment in which conformity is battered into them on a daily basis, good luck with that. I suppose I can still hope.
If our right to privacy is subordinate to someone's "right" to make money by making our lives a misery, that's a problem. They shouldn't be able to hide behind the 1st Amendment if there's no compelling public interest.
On the post: Prager University Loses Another Of Its Silly Lawsuits Against YouTube Over Non-Existent 'Bias'
Re: Re: Definition
Leave us out of this, please. Prager is a prat and a liar, I want nothing to do with him.
On the post: Man Sues Twitter For $1 Billion Claiming His Account's Suspension Violated His Right To Worship President Trump As A Demigod
Re: Legal elections as miracles
I think it's much more frightening that someone has the self-awareness to realize he believes Trump is a demi-god. Many of his followers act as if they believed he was, but would be resistant to admitting it.
Actually, I'm just glad that one of them admitted it. I've been calling them out for their idolatry for some time.
On the post: Man Sues Twitter For $1 Billion Claiming His Account's Suspension Violated His Right To Worship President Trump As A Demigod
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
^Truth.
On the post: Man Sues Twitter For $1 Billion Claiming His Account's Suspension Violated His Right To Worship President Trump As A Demigod
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you've met every single Christian and supposed Christian in existence, then?
On the post: Man Sues Twitter For $1 Billion Claiming His Account's Suspension Violated His Right To Worship President Trump As A Demigod
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you, bhull242. Everyone who knows me knows I'm a Christian, and that I think Trump is an epic prat.
You've all seen evidence of my ability to think critically over and over again. It's not fair to declare that every Bible-believing Christian is incapable of critical thinking if one's own belief that all Christians are incapable of critical thinking is based on a raft of logical fallacies.
Some believers are downright awful. Others are thoroughly decent people, and there's a plethora of shades of grey in between, and all of these are subjective, so let's can the blanket statements.
On the post: Cops: People In Their Own Homes Are In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time Whenever A Cop Enters Unlawfully
Re: Re: Second amendment?
The whole 'tyranny' thing is a scam, a made up story by gun lobbyists to sell guns to paranoid dipshits.
Confirmed correct. Actually taking up arms against the state will get you labelled a terrorist and flung in jail... assuming you survive both the rap and the ride.
On the post: VA's Whistleblower Office Retaliated Against Whistleblowers And Buried Complaints
Re: Re: Wounded Soldier and Family Hotline
They deserve a system that actually works and where complaints are dealt with properly and in a timely manner.
On the post: VA's Whistleblower Office Retaliated Against Whistleblowers And Buried Complaints
Re: Re:
AC, agreed.
Trump actually tried to do the right thing. But this office was set up hurriedly and turned over to people who apparently had little desire to clean up the Department. The OAWP seems far more interested in burying whistleblowers and their reports. It appears to believe its job is to keep the boat from rocking, no matter how troubled the seas nor how agitated its passengers.
Trump likes to be seen to be doing the right thing, but when it comes to practicalities he epically fails. Why? Like our own Poundshop version, Boris Johnson, he's not interested in details. He just wants the Shiny Thing. Such people have no business being in office, however noble their intentions, because they make things worse instead of better. Details-oriented people may be boring, but they're the ones we need at the helm.
On the post: Report: Devin Nunes' Aide Going Around Leaking Ukraine Call Whistleblower's Name
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:55pm says. Mike leans libertarian, if anything, as implied by his frequent references to the free market.
Right-wing authoritarians don't get the libertarian dislike of government interference in business and privacy, etc., and left-wingers don't get the libertarian desire to let market forces decide between winners and losers in business. Mike's insistence on protecting the public welfare is confusing to both because he's about public and personal freedom rather than attempting to corral or control the public. I share these viewpoints, for the most part, though sometimes we differ over how to best serve the public interest.
The other AC is neither the first nor the last to whine about the imagined political leanings of this site, or to declare that he and/or others will stop reading this site until articles more favourable to their viewpoint are published. It's not Mike's job (or intention) to pander to anyone, but to state the facts as he sees them. The only explicit leaning this site has is in favour of the public interest and our personal rights, which can only be a good thing. It's what keeps me reading.
Anyone who objects to writings in the public interest needs to get their heads read; we're all members of the public.
On the post: Hundreds Of Law Enforcement Agencies Are Still Allowing Bad Cops To Provide Testimony
Re: Re: Re: 11 Years for DUI??
Sorry, JDL, that's wrong, mate. If that were the case, attempted __ would not be prosecutable.
DUI is dangerous, and such drivers should be off the road, period. Don't drink (or otherwise impair your judgement) and drive.
That said, 11 years when no harm was done is way past excessive. Over here, you get a fine and remedial course, which you have to pay for. That is sufficient. If you actually kill or cause life-changing injuries, however, the punishment should fit the crime. 10 years minimum for life-changing injuries, 20 to life for killing someone. I'm sick of seeing dangerous drivers who actually maim and kill people let off with light sentences. One guy I know who actually killed someone and went to jail for a couple of years went straight back to drink-driving after he was released. Jailing them for longer keeps the public safe while they're inside.
On the post: No, Internet Companies Do Not Get A 'Free Pass' Thanks To CDA 230
Re: Re: Re: Propaganda
That is true, AC.
On the post: South Carolina Judge Says State's Asset Forfeiture Programs Are Unconstitutional
Re:
Agreed. Secure a conviction, seize all goods bought with the proceeds of crime. Leave the innocent out of it. Stop seizing at the limit of the law, i.e. to the amount of fine imposed.
On the post: Phoenix Cop Sues Department To Block Investigation Of Officers' Questionable Social Media Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
^This, although FB-stalking for bad attitudes might result in non-conformist attitudes being taken into account. We live in a world where concern for the public is seen as a leftist position.
It can't be that big a stretch to imagine a decent cop who cares about the environment complaining about toxic emissions being passed over for promotion because he or she is seen as being a bit of a lefty.
Be very, very careful what you wish for: if you give out power, be aware of who might wield it.
On the post: Phoenix Cop Sues Department To Block Investigation Of Officers' Questionable Social Media Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. The speech reveals the attitude. Cops with a bad attitude need to go.
On the post: Illinois Supreme Court Says State's Revenge Porn Law Is Constitutional While Barely Trying To Apply The Constitution To It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So what's next
Don't take nudes with a phone unless you're a supernerd and you know you have it locked down somehow that prevents anything getting uploaded. If you take a photo or video with a camera, and then put it on your computer in encrypted storage and delete it from the camera, you can be pretty safe that no one will ever see it.
Taking care and thought for one's actions tends to kill the thrill. tl:dr; don't be dumb.
The other aspect is trickier. I imagine you are highly confident that 1) you are not going to get divorced and 2) your husband would not betray you in this way even if you did. You're probably right, but I bet most of the people who get divorced were sure they were not going to get divorced. And obviously if they thought their spouse was someone who would maliciously spread around nudes of them, they wouldn't have married them. Yet there are some ex spouses who do just that. Either some people change when going through a divorce, or sometimes we're just not that good at predicting others' behavior.
True, dat. Better to be safe than sorry. I'd also add that even the self-actualised exhibitionist types who would pooh pooh our caution would be horrified if their intimate pics were viewed and commented on by the dirty raincoat brigade. They suddenly get all coy when they realised that their attitudes aren't necessarily shared by others. Is it bad that I find this hilarious?
On the post: The Good And The Bad Of The ACCESS Act To Force Open APIs On Big Social Media
The lipstick is slipping off the pig
Authoritarians. Gotta love 'em.
On the post: House Overwhelmingly Votes To Empower Copyright Trolls And To Bankrupt Americans For Sharing Photos
Re:
I would love to stop this bill to own the libs, but wherever money is involved, the Golden Rule applies: he who has the gold makes the rules.
On the post: Cop's Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Nearly Puts A Small Iowa Newspaper Out Of Business
Re:
LOL!
On the post: Illinois Supreme Court Says State's Revenge Porn Law Is Constitutional While Barely Trying To Apply The Constitution To It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So what's next
(1) Indefensible, and a form of harassment. Not okay, not even for a media outlet. I've got a lot of sympathy for people unwittingly filmed in intimate situations. What a creepy thing to do to someone!
(2) Yeah... some thrills aren't worth it. If my hubby started asking me to agree to such pictures, the answer would be a very firm no, not because I'd suspect him of nefarious intent, but because I'd worry about keeping them private. Rule of thumb: if you think it's hidden, someone will find it, the IOT being what it is. Anything that can gain access to your photos can gain access to the ones you don't want going public.
(3) Unsolicited sexting is far less defensible (though I do not think teenage sexters should draw severe jail sentences and lifetime on a Sex Offender Registry as auto-child-pornographers). Nevertheless, as a remedy I would recommend, rather than Internet publication, telling them to stop, backed by a threat to go to the authorities.
Teens can be thoughtless and inconsiderate, and just not realise the consequences of their actions. As a remedy, I'd show them the kind of creepy old perverts who seek out such images, and ask them if they want that kind of person to see them. I'd warn girls in particular to be aware that the moment the photo is taken, it will most likely go viral. We should actually teach this in schools. Teens should be taught not to pressure each other into situations that will almost certainly come back to bite them later. Merely telling them to stand up for themselves is not enough; we need to teach boundaries. In a social environment in which conformity is battered into them on a daily basis, good luck with that. I suppose I can still hope.
On the post: Cop's Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Nearly Puts A Small Iowa Newspaper Out Of Business
Re: Re: Re:
It's not a problem till it's their problem, AC.
If our right to privacy is subordinate to someone's "right" to make money by making our lives a misery, that's a problem. They shouldn't be able to hide behind the 1st Amendment if there's no compelling public interest.
Next >>