 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 28/11/2011 01:01 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111128
>>
>> I know the game but I don't understand the joke.
>
> I'm presuming it's a reference to the news story about the women who
> used pepper spray to get people out of the way so she could be first in
> the line on Black Friday.
Nope. University of California, Davis incident. Look at Ezio's posture
and compare it to that of the cop in question.
http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/uc-davis-pepperspray-300x213.jpg
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/28/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
> Personally, I don't really understand why the US police force is doing
> this. They don't have to.
I'm guessing it's a general disdain for the protesters.
I'm also thinking this is *much* more common since our high-up politicians
started blatently ignoring the laws more and more. When the President says
"Hey, torture is legal, because you can't touch me", then the cops tend to
do the same thing. And then the shoppers see nothing wrong with it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/28/2011 5:35 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
>> Personally, I don't really understand why the US police force is doing
>> this. They don't have to.
>
> I'm guessing it's a general disdain for the protesters.
>
> I'm also thinking this is *much* more common since our high-up
> politicians started blatently ignoring the laws more and more. When the
> President says "Hey, torture is legal, because you can't touch me", then
> the cops tend to do the same thing. And then the shoppers see nothing
> wrong with it.
>
Its also a mix of paramilitarization, and the hiring of ex-military, or
others, to "teach them tactics". And, of course, its a side effect of
how you can't let any random idiot buy AK-47s, then expect that the cops
can still do their jobs, with hand guns, and tactics designed to handle
people with beer bottles. But, don't you dare suggest that its too easy
to buy assault weapons!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
> > Personally, I don't really understand why the US police force is doing
> > this. They don't have to.
> I'm guessing it's a general disdain for the protesters.
> I'm also thinking this is *much* more common since our high-up politicians
> started blatently ignoring the laws more and more. When the President says
> "Hey, torture is legal, because you can't touch me", then the cops tend to
> do the same thing. And then the shoppers see nothing wrong with it.
I think your president should make a public statement strongly condemning
police brutality and expressing it clearly like "police brutality must stop
now", and that investigations on the incidents will be performed. I think
he would win quite some supporters for the next election like that.
OTOH, I understand that Obama is not very known for standing firmly and
strongly behind his principles, and instead trying to make compromises and
try to make everybody happy, making him seem so weak, which is why he has
lost so much citizen support.
I think trying to appease the two parties in the senate with compromises
is foolish. It's not the senate who elects the president. It's the people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/28/2011 19:44, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> you can't let any random idiot buy AK-47s,
> assault weapons!!
AK-47's aren't assault rifles. And there's no definition of "assault weapon"
except "looks scary."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/11/2011 04:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 19:44, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> you can't let any random idiot buy AK-47s,
>> assault weapons!!
>
> AK-47's aren't assault rifles. And there's no definition of "assault
> weapon" except "looks scary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak47
"The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle[...]"
As you know, Wikipedia is always correct.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/29/2011 7:00, Warp wrote:
> I think your president should make a public statement strongly condemning
> police brutality
That would be great. But as long as he keeps locking up people without
accusing them of crimes, supporting torture, etc, it's not going to have
much affect what he says.
> OTOH, I understand that Obama is not very known for standing firmly and
> strongly behind his principles, and instead trying to make compromises and
> try to make everybody happy, making him seem so weak, which is why he has
> lost so much citizen support.
Yep. That's a big part of it. Of course, the fact that half of Congress
feels it's more important to make him look bad than to make the country work
well is the other part.
> I think trying to appease the two parties in the senate with compromises
> is foolish. It's not the senate who elects the president. It's the people.
Technically, it's the senate. ;-) However, yes, it's the people who vote
that elect both president and congress. The problem is that the president,
supposedly, can only do what congress says to do, more or less. The
president can't pass laws, can't fund spending, can't change taxes, etc.
(Again, all in theory, because if the president doesn't obey the congress
there isn't a whole lot they can do in any sort of short time-frame. It's
not like you can arrest the president for torturing someone. And apparently
you can't even arrest someone who isn't president for torturing someone.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 7:00, Warp wrote:
> > I think your president should make a public statement strongly condemning
> > police brutality
> That would be great. But as long as he keeps locking up people without
> accusing them of crimes, supporting torture, etc, it's not going to have
> much affect what he says.
I thought it was Bush who was doing that. Is Obama continuing the
tradition, then?
> The problem is that the president,
> supposedly, can only do what congress says to do, more or less. The
> president can't pass laws, can't fund spending, can't change taxes, etc.
I don't really understand how presidency works in the US, as it seems
that he has a lot of power to influence the politics of the country. If
the president wants to, for example, reform healthcare, he has a lot of
power to at the very least put it in motion. I don't really know how it
works there.
Here the president has very little political power. (I think in the past
the president had a lot more power, but it has been reduced significantly
in the last couple of decades or so.) The president is more or less the
representative of the country in international contexts. (Technically
speaking the president is also the commander-in-chief of the military
forces, but in peacetime that has little significance, AFAIK.) Sure, the
president could address the parliament and make suggestions, but I don't
remember any significant laws or projects being put into motion in this
way (although I'm certain that at least some such things have happened.)
I think legally speaking the president has significant power over the
parliament (such as being able to order the holding of premature
parliamentary election), but I don't know if any such powers have been
used in the last 20 years or so.
One interesting aspect of the presidency in Finland is that the president
must, by custom (although probably not by law), renounce any party
affiliation, so that he or she may be seen as neutral in regard to party
politics.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/29/2011 8:07, Invisible wrote:
> "The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rif
le[...]"
OK. Then people aren't carrying them around as a matter of course. Machin
e
guns are indeed highly regulated here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/29/2011 8:49, Warp wrote:
> I thought it was Bush who was doing that. Is Obama continuing the
> tradition, then?
Sadly so.
> I don't really understand how presidency works in the US, as it seems
> that he has a lot of power to influence the politics of the country. If
> the president wants to, for example, reform healthcare, he has a lot of
> power to at the very least put it in motion. I don't really know how it
> works there.
Originally, the president was basically head of the Executive branch. We
have congress (which passes laws), the executive branch (which executes
them), and the judicial branch (which deals with courts and the legality of
laws).
Basically, congress makes laws, the executive branch enforces laws (a la
police) and ensures they get enforced (a la appointing people to the various
government branches like the FCC and the EPA and such), and the courts do
their court thing (including deciding when lower-priority laws are preempted
by higher-priority laws).
The president gets his power from (A) the ability to talk to congress and
make suggestions and such, (B) the ability to control how laws get enforced
(emphasizing or deemphasizing, for example), and (C) the fact that when he
breaks the law, it's virtually impossible to actually get rid of him, even
more so now than historically.
> The president is more or less the
> representative of the country in international contexts. (Technically
> speaking the president is also the commander-in-chief of the military
> forces, but in peacetime that has little significance, AFAIK.)
That was how it originally started out, with a handful of notable presidents
(Lincoln during the civil war, the president whose name I forget (Wilson?)
who took the US off the gold standard and started the federal reserve banks,
etc).
> One interesting aspect of the presidency in Finland is that the president
> must, by custom (although probably not by law), renounce any party
> affiliation, so that he or she may be seen as neutral in regard to party
> politics.
That would be nice.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
