tvashtarkatena

That's funny, i would have labeled you MBSH. That's (are you ready?) Man Boobed Speed Hiker. Yeah baby BABYYYYYY GET DOWN whoooooWHEEEEEE Take my advice. Leave humor to those who can pull it off.

Could it be? Has the presence of cartilage actually been detected in the spinal columns of certain Democrats?

Just thought I'd reinject that into the discussion because KKK hasn't in the last 3 minutes. Wouldn't want the rest of you to get too used to original content on this site. Wait...speak of the devil! Right on cue! The term "excessive ball drive" doesn't even come close.

Whale Oil Beef Hooked

Man boobs.

So I'm not the only one who had absolutely no fucking idea what the guy was trying to say. you two are cute together, and with a collective intellectual clout combining to pack a real nasty wrist snap, i thought you would have figured out what i meant. Alright, let's test the simplified version: "Yellowjackets are in the wasp family." There. How's that? Simple, succinct, factually accurate, and seemingly nothing to argue about there. And I thought I was OCD....

I find that term slanderous and defamatory.

Pilot to insurance company "OF COURSE I was doing the speed limit."

This just in: "socially liberal" does not equal "in love with police state". And last time I checked, the federal government has been around just a little longer than CC.

Here, here. Well said. This is a place to be outrageous. Nothing wrong with that.

OK, two comments. Kenke; I call bullshit on your "Fighting Soldiers from the Sky" post. Those two marines who regrettably died in this mess of a war did absolutely nothing to secure anyone's right to protest. Al Qaeda, the Iraqis...none of the folks we've been fighting have threatened that right at all. The only REAL threat to that right has been our own government. You're disingenuously yanking the "patriotic" chain for effect, and you know it. Second: in an age where central (federal) control has fucked our country up the ass in so many ways, property taxes represent the most significant local form of revenue generation, and therefore local political control. I'm all for local control these days.

That's some Kevbone quality legal analysis there. Can you rebutt it with more than a smiley? No, I didn't think so. How about you back up your contention that the US legal system would not change in the absence of private property so there is something to rebut. I can't imagine someone who has even a minimal working knowledge of constitutional and common law history making a statement like that. Step one of any rebuttal is to actually read the other person's statement. a) My thought experiment concerned the absence of LAND OWNERSHIP, not private property. In this hypothetical world, you could own any other kind of property. There is plenty of precedence for this. Water, mineral and airspace ownership are more often than not separate from land ownership. If airspace, and in some locales water rights, both necessary resources, cannot be privately owned (and our legal system seems to handle this in stride) why is land somehow fundamntally different? I argue that our current legal system is perfectly able to handle the instance where it isn't any different. b) I didn't state that the legal system wouldn't change, just that it need not change much. Those are my statements. I'm ready to be proven wrong. Go.

That's some Kevbone quality legal analysis there. Can you rebutt it with more than a smiley? No, I didn't think so.

It can be read two ways.

We've essentially given up our right to privacy. First to corporations, so we could get and keep our jobs. Pee tests, credit checks, employment contracts which include behavioral prohibitions outside the workplace, a whole array of electronic monitoring; you name it. By the time the federal government came around to probe our assholes, we didn't even notice.

I cant agree more....... Why should you have the right to own land at all? Umm, since private property rights and the legal system that ensures that is the basis for our economic system and by extension is the basis for liberty... There is no 'umm', here. Private land ownership is not the basis of our legal system; the Constitution is. Going further back, our legal system is based on the Magna Carta, drafted at a time when only a few of the population owned land at all. No, our legal system would be little changed if land ownershp didn't exist. It is also not a basis for our economic system; capitalism could hum along just fine without land ownership; merely one of many components of ownership. Finally, it is also not a basis for liberty. Native Americans did not have individual land ownership, and I daresay they had a HELL of a lot more liberty than we do today.

Congratulations; you've been propogandized. The companies in question were not served a National Security Letter under the Patriot Act which would have included a gag order. Those are issued by the FBI. This program was run by the NSA. Those companies handed whatever the feds asked for willingly and under no threat of prosecution. Secondly, why should legal culpability be shifted to the federal government, which ALREADY IS legally culpable for the illegal spying program? This shifts nothing; it simply eliminates culpability for the telecom companies. Third, the federal government, given it's unlimited legal resources and ability to play the 'national security' card to have legitimate lawsuits thrown out of court, is a much tougher entity to hold accountable for criminal activity than private corporations. The Telecoms knowingly broke the law; there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable. 'Poor Telecoms'? Give me a break. Finally, as I stated, if we do not hold corporations for abiding by the law and their own privacy policies, which they love to tout (and which are generally meaningless), then what incentive do they have for protecting our personal information at all? The answer is, of course, none whatsoever.

I cant agree more....... Why should you have the right to own land at all?

Congress passed legislation in the '90s allowing greater transfer of military weapons, training, and tactics to police. The result is the riot control cop of today. 'Crowd control' tactics have become extremely provocative and violent. It's not uncommon for the police to outnumber the protesters nowadays, and nearly all of them carry fully automatic assault rifles. A favorite tactic, and one which the ACLU has repeated filed suit over, includes ordering protesters into an overly confined area (through the use of crowd control barriers) and attacking that part of the crowd that can no longer fit for noncompliance. They have increasingly used violence against peaceful protesters, including the elderly, indiscriminately. They often use 'non-lethal' weapons in a lethal manner; firing tear gas grenades point blank into protester's heads and bodies is unfortunately common. A second popular tactic is to create 'protest zones' far from the target of the protest (President Bush during public addresses being a prime example), thus neutralizing the impact of the protest. A third is revocation of protest permits at the last minute with no cause, thus denying protesters a basic constitutional right. Make no mistake, the point is to intimidate peacefully protesting populace into cowing, not to maintain law and order.

rewind repeat rewind repeat rewind repeat rewind repeat... Little wonder why KKK voted Bush...twice: 911 911 911 911 911 911 911 WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WAR PRESIDENT WAR PRESIDENT WAR PRESIDENT WAR PRESIDENT WAR PRESIDENT SURGE SURGE SURGE SURGE SURGE SURGE SURGE....

No, I think Rosa Parks was much closer to the mark. The protesters in Olympia where attempting to promote social justice by helping to end an unjust war. In the 1950's, there were many people just like you who labeled the civil rights protesters as a 'mob'. All their arguments were the same as your's are today; absolutely no difference whatsoever. The protesters in Olympia are not a 'mob'; they're a group of protesting citizens. They knowingly broke the law in acts of civil disobedience to draw attention to the issue, just as Rosa Parks and her civil rights allies did. They expected to be arrested, and they were. You may agree or disagree with their issue or their tactics, but you've carefully chosen your labels to reduce them into disgruntled vandals. Clearly, by all accounts, they are anything but that. You also refuse to grant them credit the whatever success (the closing of the port to military shipments, however temporary) their action had, claiming they were using children as human shields or whatever. An amazing observation from 3000 miles away, but then again you're practiced at making them. The fact of the matter is, from your body of similar postings, is that you don't actually believe in the fundamental right to protest, and you're not honest enough to admit it openly. This protest achieved it's planned objective; draw attention to the issue and stop shipments through the port of Tacoma, at least for a time. You may have trouble accepting that, but the facts speak clearly for themselves, with or without your trans-continental opinion.

The Bush administration has been pushing for prosecutorial immunity for telecom companies who broke the law by cooperating with their illegal domestic spying program, which a FISA court ruled illegal last year and which has since been discontinued (according to the DOJ's public announcements at least). The ACLU has been watching this issue closely as well as lobbying to hold these companies accountable and uphold the rule of law. If immunity is granted, what incentive do these companies have for protecting our private information at all? Panel drops immunity for telecom companies from surveillance bill

I heart roid addicts.

Uh...sorry guys. I was just having a really bad day.

Y U HATES ECUDATION??/ I hate property tax. it just seems anti-American that you can't own your land and be done with it. no no no, you HAVE to have an income to have the American dream. seems to, albeit in a relatively small way, perpetuate wealth. if I were a liberal I'd still be against it and would find another way to make it up. You are the first person other than I whom I've heard express this viewpoint. We're 100% on the same page here. Here's to you: Feel free to move to a state that doesn't have property taxes. Oh wait, there isn't one. Well, in that case, feel free to move to any one of the following low property tax states: Louisiana, Alabama, West Virginia, Mississippi and Arkansas Stay here and quit whining, or move to a less expensive shithole. You get what you pay for. The choice is yours.