Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> > These people make my head hurt...

> Mine too. Now, if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray, I
> could convince everyone that the moon landing was not faked.

  I have a theory: Maybe the whole Moon landing conspiracy theory was
initiated by NASA itself, to draw attention away from something much
more serious. When people are fighting over whether the landings were
real or not, they will miss the real issue.

  (What the real issue is? I haven't formed a theory about that yet, but
keep tuned...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:32:17 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Not the only one :)
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stm
>
>I'm just giggling madly. How could you even transcribe that into your own 
>publishing system without realizing it's a joke? Are they just 
>cut-and-pasting content without even reading it to make up their "newspaper"?

They probably believe that anything could happen in the West :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray,

Doing: Vainly attempting to remote control my own mind.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 09/04/09 10:35, Darren New wrote:
> BTW, if you want amusing conspiracy theory, rent the movie "Conspiracy
> Theory" staring Mel Gibson. If you haven't seen it, you should. The
> acting is excellent if nothing else. Listen closely to things going on
> in the background too. :-)

	Awesome movie (in the "fun" sense). I think it's seriously 
underappreciated.


-- 
People who don't eat yogurt are uncultured.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/04/09 10:51, Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian<ski### [at] vtedu>  wrote:
>>> These people make my head hurt...
>
>> Mine too. Now, if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray, I
>> could convince everyone that the moon landing was not faked.
>
>    I have a theory: Maybe the whole Moon landing conspiracy theory was
> initiated by NASA itself, to draw attention away from something much
> more serious. When people are fighting over whether the landings were
> real or not, they will miss the real issue.
>
>    (What the real issue is? I haven't formed a theory about that yet, but
> keep tuned...)

	The satellites that cause earthquakes.

	(At least Darren should get this one).

-- 
People who don't eat yogurt are uncultured.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray,
> 
> Doing: Vainly attempting to remote control my own mind.
> 

Are you going to be using the remote control, or will someone else?

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Are you going to be using the remote control, or will someone else?

Ah, I phrased it wrong. The actual quote is "Secretly attempting to control 
my own mind."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Are you going to be using the remote control, or will someone else?
> 
> Ah, I phrased it wrong. The actual quote is "Secretly attempting to
> control my own mind."
> 

I was thinking along the lines of "Having an out of body experience, but
it's alright, I have this remote control!"

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:32:17 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Not the only one :)
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stm
>> I'm just giggling madly. How could you even transcribe that into your own 
>> publishing system without realizing it's a joke? Are they just 
>> cut-and-pasting content without even reading it to make up their "newspaper"?
> 
> They probably believe that anything could happen in the West :)

Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
state things like this:

"Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...

http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&

Not sure which is more annoying, the idiots, or the idiot with the drum. 
Video comes from this guy, who has been documenting this insanity:

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> The way I figure it, if all the shit they think people faked over the 
>> years where faked, the amount of power such people would have to have 
>> would make it **easier** for them to simply arrange for inconvenient 
>> people like Lazar to die in a car accident, *before* they write a dozen 
>> fracking books, then erase anything they might have written down, 
>> instead of wasting decades erasing documents to make the guy look like a 
>> quack.
> 
>   That's one part of radical conspiracy theorists which I find rather
> amusing. (Of course not *all* of conspiracy theorists are so radical,
> but many are.)
> 
>   A common claim is that the Big Evil, ie. the government secretly controls
> everything, performs assasinations of unwanted people, has supersecret elite
> forces which perform all kinds of illegal secret activities (such as the
> assasinations, as well as kidnapping people, etc), and that they will destroy
> anybody who tries to expose the truth about the government secrets.
> 
>   The amusing (and at the same time sad) thing is that these people honestly
> don't seem to see the contradiction here. *They* are supposedly exposing all
> the government secrets, and at the same time they are claiming that the
> government is assasinating anybody doing so.
> 
Except when they, of course, for no damn good reason, erase someone's 
entire life history, to discredit their work in UFOs, instead of doing 
the *sane* thing and just arranging for the poor sap to have a car 
accident, *before* he publishes a dozen books claiming the government is 
lying about everything:

http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/08/hoaxes-from-space-part-i-bob-lazar.html

Hell, its almost enough to make me shoot them, never mind the "super 
secret, hidden, government within the government, that can do 
*everything* except shut up a few random people that claim they exist."

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Sigh. Already posted some of that.. Too many forums, too little time, 
and too many bloody late night shifts this week. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>
>Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>state things like this:
>
>"Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>

Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?

>http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&

I could not view it 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>> state things like this:
>>
>> "Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>> apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>>
> 
> Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?
> 

That is a quote from someone in the video.

>> http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&
> 
> I could not view it 

Guy with video camera goes out to a Teabag Rally, and asks people to
describe what they have against Obama or health care reform. One lady
was debating with herself, in range of the microphone, whether Obama was
a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. She settles on Marxist, because he
doesn't match all the points of the other two. When asked what those
points were, or what makes a Marxist, she wanders off to find someone to
tell her.

The rest is even stranger, as people with printouts try to poke holes in
"The Health Care Bill". They quote section, paragraph, and line numbers
of one of the many versions of the bill, but manage to cut short most of
what the line says. The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
something costs."

Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:05:04 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>>> state things like this:
>>>
>>> "Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>>> apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>>>
>> 
>> Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?
>> 
>
>That is a quote from someone in the video.
>

Ah! That shows how much I have learned from these newsgroups :)

>>> http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&
>> 
>> I could not view it 
>

I still can't see it, all I get is a popup asking if I want to download a
shockwave flash object. <Grrr!>

>Guy with video camera goes out to a Teabag Rally, and asks people to

What's a Teabag Rally?

>describe what they have against Obama or health care reform. One lady
>was debating with herself, in range of the microphone, whether Obama was
>a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. She settles on Marxist, because he
>doesn't match all the points of the other two. When asked what those
>points were, or what makes a Marxist, she wanders off to find someone to
>tell her.
>

Well at least she has an opinion LOL

>The rest is even stranger, as people with printouts try to poke holes in
>"The Health Care Bill". They quote section, paragraph, and line numbers
>of one of the many versions of the bill, but manage to cut short most of
>what the line says. 

Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
talking about the Second Amendment.

>The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>something costs."

Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)
>
>Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.

I'm loosing my sense of humour when it comes to politics, nowadays :(
(But not my fecking vocabulary ;) )

Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:05:04 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>>>> state things like this:
>>>>
>>>> "Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>>>> apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>>>>
>>> Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?
>>>
>> That is a quote from someone in the video.
>>
> 
> Ah! That shows how much I have learned from these newsgroups :)
> 
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&
>>> I could not view it 
> 
> I still can't see it, all I get is a popup asking if I want to download a
> shockwave flash object. <Grrr!>
> 
>> Guy with video camera goes out to a Teabag Rally, and asks people to
> 
> What's a Teabag Rally?
> 

Someone's bright idea of political satire. Some people who are/were
against increasing government spending thought they would hold a modern
day Tea Party. Mimicking the Boston Tea Party, only this time there was
too much Samuel Adams beer and not enough of the politician. At some
later point, someone suggesting mailing tea bags to Washington. And with
outsiders looking on at why they would un-ironically associate their
movement with tea bags, the name just stuck.

>> describe what they have against Obama or health care reform. One lady
>> was debating with herself, in range of the microphone, whether Obama was
>> a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. She settles on Marxist, because he
>> doesn't match all the points of the other two. When asked what those
>> points were, or what makes a Marxist, she wanders off to find someone to
>> tell her.
>>
> 
> Well at least she has an opinion LOL
> 

 . . . that's a good way of looking at it.

>> The rest is even stranger, as people with printouts try to poke holes in
>> "The Health Care Bill". They quote section, paragraph, and line numbers
>> of one of the many versions of the bill, but manage to cut short most of
>> what the line says. 
> 
> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
> talking about the Second Amendment.
> 

Most of the time, the legal folks argue about the meaning of a few
commas. But yes, there are folks on both sides of that issue that insert
strategic ellipsis to make the words parse the way they want them to.

Completely off topic,

>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>> something costs."
> 
> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)

I suspect so. It makes sense, otherwise some brilliant accountant would
just apply the tax constantly, like continuous compound interest. Call
the fee 10% of what ever tax you pay, and you paid 100 units in taxes.
So the fee is 10 units, but now you have paid 110 in taxes, so the fee
is really 11 units, but now you have . . . and ending up with (e^0.1 -
1)% needing to be paid.

>> Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.
> 
> I'm loosing my sense of humour when it comes to politics, nowadays :(
> (But not my fecking vocabulary ;) )
> 

I have to find humor in it, it would be too depressing otherwise. I mean
if people, on both sides of these issues, really do believe everything
they hear from a few people who talk loudly, and do not even attempt to
research what they are handed as facts, it would just ruin any hope I
could have for the coming generations.

On the other hand, if that is really how people behave, I posit that the
health care bill is so (insert personal feelings here) that everyone
must (protest/support) it by sending $10 US currency to Sabrina Kilian.
This is a must, and will guarantee that the bill (does/doesn't) pass.
Please, think of the (children/budget/future generations).

> Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.

Both.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

>> What's a Teabag Rally?
>> 
>
>Someone's bright idea of political satire. Some people who are/were
>against increasing government spending thought they would hold a modern
>day Tea Party. Mimicking the Boston Tea Party, only this time there was
>too much Samuel Adams beer and not enough of the politician. At some
>later point, someone suggesting mailing tea bags to Washington. And with
>outsiders looking on at why they would un-ironically associate their
>movement with tea bags, the name just stuck.
>

Actually I like it :)
No Taxation without grumbling! ;)

 
>> Well at least she has an opinion LOL
>> 
>
> . . . that's a good way of looking at it.
>

I try to look on the bright side of life.

[sings]
Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad…

>> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
>> talking about the Second Amendment.
>> 
>
>Most of the time, the legal folks argue about the meaning of a few
>commas. But yes, there are folks on both sides of that issue that insert
>strategic ellipsis to make the words parse the way they want them to.
>
>Completely off topic,

This is the place for it, ye ken.

>> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)
>
>I suspect so. It makes sense, otherwise some brilliant accountant would
>just apply the tax constantly, like continuous compound interest. Call
>the fee 10% of what ever tax you pay, and you paid 100 units in taxes.
>So the fee is 10 units, but now you have paid 110 in taxes, so the fee
>is really 11 units, but now you have . . . and ending up with (e^0.1 -
>1)% needing to be paid.
>

Makes sense to me ;)

>> I'm loosing my sense of humour when it comes to politics, nowadays :(
>> (But not my fecking vocabulary ;) )
>> 
>
>I have to find humor in it, it would be too depressing otherwise. I mean
>if people, on both sides of these issues, really do believe everything
>they hear from a few people who talk loudly, and do not even attempt to
>research what they are handed as facts, it would just ruin any hope I
>could have for the coming generations.
>
>On the other hand, if that is really how people behave, I posit that the
>health care bill is so (insert personal feelings here) that everyone
>must (protest/support) it by sending $10 US currency to Sabrina Kilian.
>This is a must, and will guarantee that the bill (does/doesn't) pass.
>Please, think of the (children/budget/future generations).
>

Well, if you can get to that crock of gold I hid before Jim does then take USD
10 worth as my contribution to keeping the "land of the free" the home of the
healthy. <g>

>> Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.

>Both.

Me too I was having breakfast with the toothache fairy :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
> talking about the Second Amendment.

Not really. The biggest debate is over the fact that it's poorly worded. 
People argue over whether the wording means

"Because we need an army, people can carry firearms"
vs
"People can carry firearms in order to be in the army."

I.e., the argument is over whether you need to be in the army to carry 
firearms, and it's not worded in a way to make that clear.

>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>> something costs."
> 
> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)

It's basically talking about whether you can charge others for the taxes. 
I.e., if it's like VAT (where you pass it along to the consumer) or whether 
it's like payroll (where your payroll costs don't go directly to the price 
of the product).

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I.e., the argument is over whether you need to be in the army to carry 
> firearms, and it's not worded in a way to make that clear.

  And of course *changing* it to make it unambiguous is a big no-no?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I.e., the argument is over whether you need to be in the army to carry 
>> firearms, and it's not worded in a way to make that clear.
> 
>   And of course *changing* it to make it unambiguous is a big no-no?

Not at all - that's what a constitutional amendment would do. It's just 
intentionally difficult. It takes something like 2/3rds of the federal 
legislators to vote for it, and then also 3/4ths of the states to also 
agree. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm is a 
good summary. Note that there's a part in the constitution that talks about 
how to change the constitution. Many people credit that (in part) with the 
longevity of the government here.

It's the job of the Supreme Court to decide what ambiguous laws mean w.r.t. 
the federal Constitution. And there, there are two schools of thought. One 
is that it should be interpreted the way the original authors meant, while 
the other is that it should be interpreted in a way that makes more sense 
nowadays. So, for a simple example, the constitution says the federal 
government gets to regulate ships and trade on the open sea. Makes sense, as 
the sea isn't owned by any specific state. Then people invented airplanes. 
Are airplanes like ships, to be regulated by the federal government? Or are 
airplanes completely private, as they are unmentioned in the constitution. 
You can see how it might make sense either way. If it needs to be changed, 
then the legislators should change it, is the thought.

With the fire arms, it's more like "everyone carried guns back then, so we 
should go with what the original authors meant" vs "simply having guns 
doesn't make you able to fight an army, so the phrase should mean an actual 
army."

Unfortunately (in this case at least), the Supreme Court tends to listen to 
only the very specific arguments of the specific case and tries to avoid 
making any sweeping decisions. As a fictional example, if the court case is 
about freedom of expression for students in schools, they might decide that 
since the student was chanting lyrics from a song as a protest, that's 
copyright violation, and freedom of expression doesn't include copyright 
violation. Which of course completely ignores the question of whether in 
general schools are allowed to punish students for chanting protests on 
school grounds.

Since the supreme court's decisions have the force of law (in a default sort 
of way), there's no need for legislature to change the law if they like how 
the supreme court decided. There's really no upside to it for a typical 
politician (as opposed to an honest, principled politician), as they'd 
simply be exposing themselves to the ire of the public in order to make a 
law something that is already a law. No politician in favor of allowing 
abortions is going to try to pass a law enshrining the right to have an 
abortion in law, since the supreme court already laid out the circumstances 
of that and every pro-life nut case[1] would vote the politician out next 
election.

The lower courts also decide on ambiguous laws. For example, is a pregnant 
woman allowed to drive by herself in the car pool lane? How about a hearse 
with a dead body in the back? Etc.

The layer below the federal supreme court has a handful of different courts 
(called the federal circuit courts, because they used to actually travel 
around from city to city in the horse/steam train days), and when one of 
them decides one way on a subject, and the other decides the other way, the 
supreme court usually gets involved.

I hope that helps clarify.



[1] Which is to say, everyone where preventing abortions is more important 
to them than any other possible political feature. Not that all pro-life 
people are nut cases.
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:03:21 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
>> talking about the Second Amendment.
>
>Not really. 

In what way? My understanding as an outsider is that the two sides interpret
your second amendment to be what they want it to mean by abbreviating it so that
it implies that any citizen can carry a firearm, hence they are or can be in a
militia (private or public) or by interpreting "well regulated militia" to mean
an army and "bear arms" meaning to carry firearms for service to the state.

>The biggest debate is over the fact that it's poorly worded. 
>People argue over whether the wording means
>
>"Because we need an army, people can carry firearms"
>vs
>"People can carry firearms in order to be in the army."
>
>I.e., the argument is over whether you need to be in the army to carry 
>firearms, and it's not worded in a way to make that clear.
>

Well at the time America had a distrust of standing armies, I believe. As did
Britain not that long before.

>>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>>> something costs."
>> 
>> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)
>
>It's basically talking about whether you can charge others for the taxes. 
>I.e., if it's like VAT (where you pass it along to the consumer) or whether 
>it's like payroll (where your payroll costs don't go directly to the price 
>of the product).

Yes it is quite succinctly put. (I was just joshing the legal profession.)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> In what way? 

See my response to Warp's question posted 13 minutes before yours. It should 
clear up what I meant.

> your second amendment to be what they want it to mean by abbreviating it 

Not abbreviating it.

There's two valid sentences:
"Driving the cars that are green shall be illegal."
"Driving the cars, which are green, shall be illegal."

The first limits the cars being discussed to those with green paint. The 
second merely mentions that the cars are green without limiting the sentence 
to green cars.

The actual text reads
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now that's just not grammatically correct. The first half of the sentence 
(before the second comma) is just kind of stuck on the front. So people in 
favor of control read the first half as putting a limit on the second half 
(else why would it be there?) while people in favor of freedom say that it's 
merely an explanation of why the government shouldn't interfere.

The version the 3/4ths of the states actually ratified essentially lacks the 
first comma there, so it's even less clear.

You could read it as "Since we need a militia, government should not 
regulate firearms." Does that mean that it shouldn't regulate fire arms and 
the reason is we need a militia? Or does that mean it shouldn't regulate the 
firearms of the militia?  There's a lot of argument because "The People" is 
used in specific ways in other places in the consitution as well, and those 
other places have been interpreted to mean the people here without 
limitation, rather than with the limitations from the clauses stuck on the 
front of *those* sentences.

Check out wiki for some of the other phrasings that were much more clear 
that weren't used for whatever reason. For example, the first versions 
explicitly said the militia is made up of the body of the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"""
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well 
armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country 
but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to 
render military service in person.
"""

It is, overall, a mess, and one that's highly politicized at that.

> Yes it is quite succinctly put. (I was just joshing the legal profession.)

Yes. It's saying "this is not a tax on stuff, but a general tax." :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:51:56 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>See my response to Warp's question posted 13 minutes before yours. It should 
>clear up what I meant.

It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know why you
said "Not really". I understand the arguments.
I'm obviously not very good at expressing myself. But thanks for all the time
you took.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
> something costs."
> 
> Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.

You can't debate fools, all they do is drag you down to their level. 
And, their level is to never read the actual document, but instead read 
one of dozens of *reposted* copies of a list of supposed "problems" 
published by some moron on the Liberty University website. For those 
that don't know, this is a super-right wing, Biblical literalist, so 
called college, which recently tried to have its "Bible Science" courses 
accredited by other colleges as valid for the use as entry requirements 
for more advanced classes, like molecular biology and physics. They are 
serious nutcases.

Among their other gems have been the suggestion that the government or 
doctors could "withdraw" funds from your bank account via automatic 
payment, when the actual section refers to streamlining the process of 
doctors *paying* to and from insurance companies, instead of having to 
send them paper checks, or other less efficient stuff.

In some cases they don't just leave off sections, they exaggerate shit 
to the point of pure stupidity.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Someone's bright idea of political satire. Some people who are/were
> against increasing government spending thought they would hold a modern
> day Tea Party. Mimicking the Boston Tea Party, only this time there was
> too much Samuel Adams beer and not enough of the politician. At some
> later point, someone suggesting mailing tea bags to Washington. And with
> outsiders looking on at why they would un-ironically associate their
> movement with tea bags, the name just stuck.
> 
You fail to mention *why* it stuck. See, in some obscure sexual 
contexts, which the heavily repressed right wingers would never bother 
to look up, never mind be aware of, "tea bagging" refers to sucking on a 
guys balls. Sometimes you don't even need to create political satire, 
your enemy, when dim enough, will do it for you.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:55:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>You fail to mention *why* it stuck. See, in some obscure sexual 
>contexts, which the heavily repressed right wingers would never bother 
>to look up, never mind be aware of, "tea bagging" refers to sucking on a 
>guys balls. Sometimes you don't even need to create political satire, 
>your enemy, when dim enough, will do it for you.


Ooo! that's rude. :D
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 09/05/09 12:13, Darren New wrote:
> a good summary. Note that there's a part in the constitution that talks
> about how to change the constitution. Many people credit that (in part)
> with the longevity of the government here.

	I once started a student organization. I had to draft a constitution, 
as per regulations. I had a section on the requirements for modifying 
the constitution.

	Big mistake.

	It was impossible to change it, because the majority of the folks 
involved (officers, club members, etc) never cared about the changes 
enough to vote for them.


-- 
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:13:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Ooo! that's rude. :D

Yeah, and shortly afterwards it became much less obscure thanks to people 
like Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert.  I'm sure there are clips (since the 
entire shows are posted) on comedycentral.com.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know why you
> said "Not really". I understand the arguments.

I didn't think you were arguing, no. I meant it's "not really" that people 
leave out parts of the sentence to change the meaning.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:58 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:13:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Ooo! that's rude. :D
>
>Yeah, and shortly afterwards it became much less obscure thanks to people 
>like Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert.  I'm sure there are clips (since the 
>entire shows are posted) on comedycentral.com.
>
I've been watching the Daily Show quite religiously on our Channel 4. But it is
off air for another month. :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:19:30 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know why you
>> said "Not really". I understand the arguments.
>
>I didn't think you were arguing, no. 

But I often do ;)

>I meant it's "not really" that people 
>leave out parts of the sentence to change the meaning.

I thought that some people ignored "A well regulated Militia" but that's what
you get when you only hear it third or forth hand. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You fail to mention *why* it stuck.

I remember having to explain to someone why the linebackers were all 
crouching up and down after sacking the quarterback one time. Apparently the 
cameraman knew what it meant but the rest of the people involved in picking 
which camera was sent out over the feed didn't.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I thought that some people ignored "A well regulated Militia"

Yes. I tried to explain why they ignored it. I.e., for the same reason 
people would take a sentence that said

"Red cars being uncommonly prone to speeding, nobody should go above 50KPH 
inside city limits"

doesn't apply only to red cars.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:47:00 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Yes. I tried to explain why they ignored it.

You did, you did. But I think that it might be deliberate out of convenience or
just plain ignorance. But them I have been called a little bit cynical from time
to time.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>> something costs."
>>
>> Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.
> 
> You can't debate fools, all they do is drag you down to their level.
> And, their level is to never read the actual document, but instead read
> one of dozens of *reposted* copies of a list of supposed "problems"
> published by some moron on the Liberty University website. For those
> that don't know, this is a super-right wing, Biblical literalist, so
> called college, which recently tried to have its "Bible Science" courses
> accredited by other colleges as valid for the use as entry requirements
> for more advanced classes, like molecular biology and physics. They are
> serious nutcases.
> 

Ack, please don't mention LU. It is just a short drive down the road,
and I don't want them to know a real subversive internet user is in the
area.

That joint and the hatred they used to broadcast on TV every Saturday
and Sunday mornings was the reason for more people leaving their faith
than many I have known. Unfortunately, it was also the reason for more
hate being passed around by those that found the warm glow of a TV to be
a soothing way to spend a morning.

> Among their other gems have been the suggestion that the government or
> doctors could "withdraw" funds from your bank account via automatic
> payment, when the actual section refers to streamlining the process of
> doctors *paying* to and from insurance companies, instead of having to
> send them paper checks, or other less efficient stuff.
> 

"On noes, the HMO wants to take moneys out of my accounts with a balance
transfer. I should pay them in pennies just to teach them that no one
pays with . . .

What? You mean it is the same as paying with an electronic check?

The intarwebs is teh devil! Tell our government 'No Electronic Checks'!"

> In some cases they just leave to the point of pure stupidity.
>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> Completely off topic,
> 
> This is the place for it, ye ken.
> 

I remember typing that and thinking "I can put a strange anecdote after
it." But I don't remember typing or deleting said story.

> 
> Well, if you can get to that crock of gold I hid before Jim does then take USD
> 10 worth as my contribution to keeping the "land of the free" the home of the
> healthy. <g>
> 

Can we play hot-or-cold to see who can find it first?
*walking out the door* Am I closer yet?!

>>> Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.
> 
>> Both.
> 
> Me too I was having breakfast with the toothache fairy :(

Antibiotics for me. Not the good antibiotics that make you feel better
in a day or two, but the kind where you feel slightly less awful for a week.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:39:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:19:30 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>>Stephen wrote:
>>> It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know
>>> why you said "Not really". I understand the arguments.
>>
>>I didn't think you were arguing, no.
> 
> But I often do ;)

No you don't! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:35:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:58 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:13:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Ooo! that's rude. :D
>>
>>Yeah, and shortly afterwards it became much less obscure thanks to
>>people like Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert.  I'm sure there are clips
>>(since the entire shows are posted) on comedycentral.com.
>>
> I've been watching the Daily Show quite religiously on our Channel 4.
> But it is off air for another month. :(

I know, we're off for 3 weeks because Jon is.  Another 2 weeks, I think.

Do you get Colbert as well?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 20:13:03 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> I've been watching the Daily Show quite religiously on our Channel 4.
>> But it is off air for another month. :(
>
>I know, we're off for 3 weeks because Jon is.  Another 2 weeks, I think.
>
Good.

>Do you get Colbert as well?

No unfortunately.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 20:12:06 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:39:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:19:30 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>Stephen wrote:
>>>> It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know
>>>> why you said "Not really". I understand the arguments.
>>>
>>>I didn't think you were arguing, no.
>> 
>> But I often do ;)
>
>No you don't! ;-)
>

I do too.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:26:42 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>>> Completely off topic,
>> 
>> This is the place for it, ye ken.
>> 
>
>I remember typing that and thinking "I can put a strange anecdote after
>it." But I don't remember typing or deleting said story.
>

Then you probably didn't ;) But at that time of the morning you can be forgiven.

>> 
>> Well, if you can get to that crock of gold I hid before Jim does then take USD
>> 10 worth as my contribution to keeping the "land of the free" the home of the
>> healthy. <g>
>> 
>
>Can we play hot-or-cold to see who can find it first?
>*walking out the door* Am I closer yet?!
>

It was only a fairy tale sending Jim on a wild goose chase :)

Sabrina?

Sabrina, are you there? Can you here me?

Oh! Well, she'll be back in time for dinner. Don't forget to take your watch.
:-)


>>>> Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.
>> 
>>> Both.
>> 
>> Me too I was having breakfast with the toothache fairy :(
>
>Antibiotics for me. Not the good antibiotics that make you feel better
>in a day or two, but the kind where you feel slightly less awful for a week.

Oh! Sorry to hear that. I'm in full sympathy mode. My wife has Trigeminal
neuralgia on top of ME :( That has been disturbing her sleep for more than a
year.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:59:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>>>I didn't think you were arguing, no.
>>> 
>>> But I often do ;)
>>
>>No you don't! ;-)
>>
>>
> I do too.

<panto>Oh no you don't</panto>

;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:54:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:26:42 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu>
> wrote:
> 
>>Stephen wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Completely off topic,
>>> 
>>> This is the place for it, ye ken.
>>> 
>>> 
>>I remember typing that and thinking "I can put a strange anecdote after
>>it." But I don't remember typing or deleting said story.
>>
>>
> Then you probably didn't ;) But at that time of the morning you can be
> forgiven.
> 
> 
>>> Well, if you can get to that crock of gold I hid before Jim does then
>>> take USD 10 worth as my contribution to keeping the "land of the free"
>>> the home of the healthy. <g>
>>> 
>>> 
>>Can we play hot-or-cold to see who can find it first? *walking out the
>>door* Am I closer yet?!
>>
>>
> It was only a fairy tale sending Jim on a wild goose chase :)

I KNEW IT!!!!  There is no pot of gold! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:58:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 20:13:03 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> I've been watching the Daily Show quite religiously on our Channel 4.
>>> But it is off air for another month. :(
>>
>>I know, we're off for 3 weeks because Jon is.  Another 2 weeks, I think.
>>
> Good.
> 
>>Do you get Colbert as well?
> 
> No unfortunately.

So that would be one to seek out online.  His brand of satire is a bit 
different, makes a lot more sense if you know some of the "personalities" 
on Fox News.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Sep 2009 12:19:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>>>Can we play hot-or-cold to see who can find it first? *walking out the
>>>door* Am I closer yet?!
>>>
>>>
>> It was only a fairy tale sending Jim on a wild goose chase :)
>
>I KNEW IT!!!!  There is no pot of gold! ;-)


There is but there is no spoon. <g>
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Sep 2009 12:19:00 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:59:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>>>I didn't think you were arguing, no.
>>>> 
>>>> But I often do ;)
>>>
>>>No you don't! ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I do too.
>
><panto>Oh no you don't</panto>
>
>;-)
>

Oh! Yes I do.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:29:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 6 Sep 2009 12:19:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>>>Can we play hot-or-cold to see who can find it first? *walking out the
>>>>door* Am I closer yet?!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It was only a fairy tale sending Jim on a wild goose chase :)
>>
>>I KNEW IT!!!!  There is no pot of gold! ;-)
> 
> 
> There is but there is no spoon. <g>

Then I'll need a shovel. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:30:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 6 Sep 2009 12:19:00 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:59:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>>>I didn't think you were arguing, no.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But I often do ;)
>>>>
>>>>No you don't! ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I do too.
>>
>><panto>Oh no you don't</panto>
>>
>>;-)
>>
>>
> Oh! Yes I do.

Oh no you don't!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2009 12:19:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

> >>>Can we play hot-or-cold to see who can find it first? *walking out the
> >>>door* Am I closer yet?!
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It was only a fairy tale sending Jim on a wild goose chase :)
> >
> >I KNEW IT!!!!  There is no pot of gold! ;-)


> There is but there is no spoon. <g>

  And the cake is a lie.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Sep 2009 12:36:29 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:29:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 6 Sep 2009 12:19:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>Can we play hot-or-cold to see who can find it first? *walking out the
>>>>>door* Am I closer yet?!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It was only a fairy tale sending Jim on a wild goose chase :)
>>>
>>>I KNEW IT!!!!  There is no pot of gold! ;-)
>> 
>> 
>> There is but there is no spoon. <g>
>
>Then I'll need a shovel. ;-)
>

Yes, it is a big field to dig up :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Sep 2009 12:41:17 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2009 12:19:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> >>>Can we play hot-or-cold to see who can find it first? *walking out the
>> >>>door* Am I closer yet?!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> It was only a fairy tale sending Jim on a wild goose chase :)
>> >
>> >I KNEW IT!!!!  There is no pot of gold! ;-)
>
>
>> There is but there is no spoon. <g>
>
>  And the cake is a lie.

Bzzztt! Whirrr! - Rebooting in 10 seconds, 9 seconds…
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message