rob

That's part of growing up. Not against the law. Maybe biking on US2 is illegal? I have no idea, but I don't recall seeing people biking on it much, if at all. If it is legal, I guess the oinker was just being a douche. Biking hwy 2 is totally legal. Maybe because he's underage? Or maybe he didn't have proper reflectors and headlight? http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/closed.htm

What's the difference? Flip sides of the same fucktard coin. well, not quite. Democrats are led by corporacrats as well and should be kicked around until they get their shit together, but the GOP is FUBAR since it has been taken over by right wing extremists. ? Fucktards are fucktards. If you're a fucktard, who cares what your party is. You are now a member of the fucktard party. Democrats and Republicans both share membership in this prestigious club. It's a binary value. You're either a fucktard, or you're not. You could be in either party. That's irrelevant.

So, have we ascertained that the President, based on this story, is a Republitard and NOT a Demotard? What's the difference? Flip sides of the same fucktard coin.

Nah. It sounds pretty messed up to me. That's a lot of perks for the president in a school which is raising tuitions drastically to "make ends meet." One of these is not like the other. I'm not saying it's the president's fault or that there was any ill-intention here or whatever, but come on. Something stinks. It's wasteful. You should trim all of the waste and inefficiencies out before you raise tuitions 14% or whatever.

It won't happen but that's the point. Arizona is flat out calling LA a bunch of pussies, which they are. Like the AZ law or not, LA wants to stick its nose into something that doesn't involve them but doesn't really want to take the moral high ground. Well, it does involve them. We're a union. When one of your friends or family does something fucked up, you call them on it, and stop buying them beers until they shape up. Or whatever. So, maybe they're a bunch of pussies (See my earlier post on the topic), but it's not fair to say they should "just butt out." If you saw a state pass a law that made it illegal to kill black people on site, would you speak up? After all, if you're not a resident of that state, is it any of your business? Of course, maybe you don't see that as a proper analogy, but if you can admit that some people DO see the Arizona law as a serious affront to civil liberties, then of COURSE they'd be little bitches about it and stick their nose in that shit.

So, I've thought about this some more. Actually, I'm OK with so-called "sanctuary cities." Well, actually, it's complicated. I think there is a big difference between deciding not to enforce a law, and deciding to enforce an additional law. For example; I'm totally in support of the City of Seattle deciding not to enforce marijuana laws relating to simple possession. I feel like this sort of "look the other way" allows cities and states to rebel against overreaching federal control. This isn't really the same as enforcing a law in opposition of the federal government which disenfranchises citizens. There seems to be an important distinction there. In the former example, nobody is being oppressed as a result. So, is it OK for states and cities to "flout" federal law? I guess my answer to that is, it depends. What's the effect? Is the flouting of the law protecting civil liberties, or threatening them? Because when it comes down to it, that's more important than "the law."

Well, to be fair, L.A. is made mostly of pussies and douches. It's a match made in heaven.

Seriously, though, I think that reasonable immigration laws should be enforced. However, I also support reforming immigration law. I'm sympathetic towards a lot of people who try to sneak in. I don't think they're all criminals and welfare cases. I've lived in the southwest. Those fuckers WORK.

I just disagree with whatever you say, haven't you figured that out yet?

yeah right, like THAT's gonna happen.

"What if I could bike there" I love your spirit. Most people would have just given up and whined about it, instead of giving it a shot on highway 2 on a crappy old bike.

They must have been pretty sympathetic, actually, considering that most of them got off, and that the two that were convicted we basically let go on a loophole. But, it was politically pretty risky for Adams to represent them, given that he was pretty big into the patriot scene.

That was his son, John Quincy Adams. (If, as I assume, you're referring to the Amistad defendants.) No, I was referring to the boston massacre.

802.11N routers will be backwards compatible with 802.11G devices. However, if you want to take advantage of the extra speed, you'll need to ensure you have 802.11N adapters on your laptop and PC. I would recommend getting the same brand of adapter as your router. I would recommend Linksys.

John Adams also once represented some unsympathetic defendants, as I recall.

They have left me alone ever since I put a pentagram on my front door next to the statue of a horned devil and a small fountain of blood.

So, the ACLU must be defending them... that's what they are best at defending - buggery, not to mention white supremacists and any other POC walking God's Green Earth. They also defended the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to freely express their faith on the streets, and successfully defended the existence of a faith-based homeless center in Maryland, and argued to allow a group of Christians to protest a gay pride parade in St. Petersburg, Florida. They also came to the defense of a 2nd grade student in Pennsylvania who wrote a story about Easter and redemption, after the public school rejected it because of it's religious content. Likewise, they prevailed in allowing a student to sing religious songs during a talent show. They sure do sound like a bad bunch of dudes.

But this is not what happened.

Tugging on a cam to see if a flake expands or to see if it's a good placement is NOT the same as "setting" it. The difference is that "setting" a nut actually makes it more secure, whereas tugging on a well-placed cam doesn't make it more secure, unless there is actually something wrong with the placement, and even then it's only made more secure by fixing the placement, not simply by tugging on it.

Parole boards. We are not talking about dangerous "ideas" but people who have been convicted of the most disgusting and egregious crimes against children. The guy in this test case was guilty of receiving child pornography online. The government decided to keep him indefinitely 6 days before his release. Are you saying there is no chance of a slippery slope here? That it's OK to indefinitely detain someone who downloaded illegal child porn, but NOT someone guilty of violent assault? Weird. If it makes sense to keep this guy locked up to protect us, then why shouldn't they protect us from other dangerous criminals? NOT FAIR!!!

Cool! I admire your love of the mountains. Keep it up, you'll just get stronger and stronger.

Decide by whom? And what types of offenders are next? People guilty of hate crimes? Political prisoners? Drug abusers? Hell, there are a lot of people with dangerous ideas. Let's lock them up for some other crime, and then we can keep them in forever! PERFECT!

I mean, it's so unamerican. If the sentence ended and officials were still worried he was dangerous, then they should have to prove that in court with a jury of his peers. And even if they add indefinite detention to the original sentence and cover it during the original trial, how often is it reviewed? By a jury of his peers, or just between the judge and prosecutor? What are the criteria for deciding he is still dangerous? Are the criteria listed, or are they arbitrary? Who gets to decide? fucking scary. I can't believe that the supreme court would be OK with this, and I am even more surprised that anybody I know would be.

So, why have sentences at all? Just keep them all indefinitely. If it's not applied retroactively, and it's applied at the time of your trial (not true, btw -- prosecutors can lobby the court AFTER the sentence is finished and they decide they are still "dangerous" -- there is no second trial), then why give a sentence at all? Why not just start the indefinite detention immediately? kkkkk, I'm sad that you're in support of this.

The claim that deep water drilling only occurred because environmentalists wanted it, is totally specious. There are VAST oil reserves in extremely deep water and oil companies have spent DECADES researching how to get to it. You make it sound like BP would rather have not gained access to this incredibly HUGE oil well, but only did so because of those darn environmentalists and their lawsuits.