HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » gulliver » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 12,554

Journal Archives

Has the NSA metadata program resulted in known harm to anyone?

The Drug War is a vicious mass killer and mass destroyer of lives. Why are people wasting political ammo on NSA programs that haven't been shown to do any harm to anyone? Give us Barabbas?

School me.

Concealed Carry is the root cause, followed by the Drug War.

If Zimmerman had not had a concealed weapon, he wouldn't have dared to confront Martin. On the other hand, if Zimmerman had an unconcealed weapon, the homeowners in his subdivision would have shouted him off of the street (or had the police drag him off). Concealed Carry enables "Stand Your Ground" and turns it into a trap.

What I am wondering is if civil law can be used to put an end to Concealed Carry. We know the Retreat at Twin Lakes paid a large settlement to Martin's family. That means that homeowners or an insurer (or both) were forced to pay for what Zimmerman did. To me, that is the key to getting rid of concealed carry altogether. Someone has to pay for it.

What if every homeowner's association (HOA) simply disallowed Concealed Carry in their by-laws under penalty of expulsion and lawsuit? I believe it would be their right to do so. As a homeowner myself, I know for sure that I don't want my property and retirement savings backing up the actions of a brain dead dirtball like Zimmerman. I also don't feel it is right for residents to have to pay additional liability insurance just because someone else feels they have the right to Concealed Carry. If people want to carry concealed weapons, they apparently have a right to do so, but they don't have the right to make me pay for it. I would love for my HOA to disallow it and quite simply force out (or sue into oblivion) anyone who exercised their Concealed Carry right in my neighborhood.

Then take it a step further. Couldn't/shouldn't businesses refuse to employ people who carry a concealed weapon on- or off-the-clock, on- or off-premises? Maybe every employment application should have a "do you ever carry a concealed firearm?" question. It seems to me that by eliminating these people from employment, a business could both reduce their liability and their exposure to the kinds of people who might carry these weapons. Once again, a citizen would still have the right to carry a concealed weapon. They just wouldn't have the right to be employed while doing so. Indeed, there is no such right.

Behind all of this is the engine of catastrophe known as the Drug War. While all of those burglaries were happening in the Retreat at Twin Lakes, cops were probably out arresting kids for smoking marijuana. Then those kids get a record and can't get jobs. So they commit more burglaries. And the burglaries make idiot dirtballs like Zimmerman want to play cop. People are funny.

Satan Offers Snowden Asylum in Hell

"Satan is bravely confronting authoritarianism with this bold move!" — Glenn Greenwald.

"The Prince of Darkness is a 99-Percenter!" — The Guardian Editors

Reached for comment, Satan (R) reiterated the offer, but said that Snowden "needs to find a way to get here."

Progressives everywhere announced support for the plan.

"If Snowden goes to Hell, I'm fine with that," said one.

"Yes, he'll be free of American hegemony then," said another.

VRA 2.0

The Republicans on the Supreme court managed to kill part of the Voting Rights Act, and that's bad. But I wonder if there isn't a silver lining here. Remember, we have growing Hispanic power in play now and whites are losing their majority status. The Republican Supremes just put voting rights front and center on the radar.

Maybe we can start talking about guaranteeing access to early/weekend voting, getting rid of gerrymandering, outlawing voter ID laws, etc. Hispanics are bound to be interested in preventing clingy, Republican, white minorities from stealing political power. There is an election in 2014, and the 5-4 Republican Supremes may have just handed Dems a great issue. I'm not so sure the Republicans wanted to have this conversation.

I thought Gregory actually got Greenwald

Gregory: "To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden — even in his current movements — why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?"

Greenwald: "...The assumption in your question, David, is completely without evidence — the idea I’ve aided and abetted him in any way..."

Greenwald didn't say he hadn't "aided and abetted" Snowden. He said that such an assumption was "without evidence." Why the evasion? Why not just say "I didn't aide and abet Snowden?" He could have added whatever indignation he wanted to after that.

Simply put, Gregory asked a question a lot of people wanted answered, and Greenwald decided to pound the table and evade rather than answer it. He wanted Gregory shouted down. But folks, Greenwald made himself news and put himself in whatever legal jeopardy he may be in. If he did more for Snowden than use him has a source, Greenwald may be looking at some unpleasantness in his future.

Gregory asked a "newsmaker" a very, very relevant question. It cut to the chase and it scored. Greenwald's thespian skills aside, he didn't answer the question. That's a win for Gregory, well in bounds.

Snowden set back human rights in China and Russia (so far)

By running to Hong Kong and Russia, Snowden is helping these countries politically. He allows their governments to argue a false equivalence with the United States. In general, if a government is a severe abuser of human rights or civil liberties, Snowden has helped to take pressure off of that government. They will now feel free to oppress, torture, and imprison more, knowing they can just say the magic word "Snowden."

Snowden set back WikiLeaks

Suppose you are entrusted with highly sensitive data. You've taken an oath and signed contracts saying you won't divulge it. Maybe if you divulge it, it will get someone killed. Whoever gave you your job or worked with you or recommended you will probably have their career ruined. Legally, you can't divulge the information or a jury of your fellow citizens will smilingly send you off to infiltrate prison.

What do you do? You just know you've gotta divulge. You feel it in your big heart. You think it in your big brain. Your inner Einstein tells you how right you are, and your inner Galahad says you are pure as the driven snow. Where do you take your info, oh radiant being? Do you take it to WikiLeaks?

Sure you do. You give it right to Julian Assange. Because that worked out so well for Bradley Manning.

Nope. You do it the Snowden way. You find an unscrupulous quasi-journalist with sales talent, drop your record, and skeeeeedaddle.

WikiLeaks is toast thanks to Snowden.

Snowden set back young IT people.

Another disastrous Snowden tragedy is his affect on the careers of young people in Information Technology. It's going to be harder for them to get higher responsibility/confidentiality jobs. A whole lot of IT jobs are high-confidentiality jobs, and Snowden is going to be a major cautionary tale for human resources folks. They will probably start looking for longer track records and kicking tires harder to weed out flakes like Snowden.

Snowden's no hero folks. Breathe deeply. Think about it.

Snowden set back civil liberties badly.

He's a grotesque misfire. Anyone backing him is being foolish. Maybe the government shouldn't be doing something or maybe it should. But the last thing civil liberties backers needed was a guy like Snowden, the weakest possible vessel for the message.

His exaggerations and his flight to Hong Kong turn him into poison. Maybe if he comes back to the United States to actually make his case and accept whatever happens to him, then you can call him courageous. Foolish, crazy, yes. But he would then be courageous. I don't know which book has heroes in it who run away to save their own skins. Not mine.

Yup but it hooked a few fish so they'll do it again.

Glenn Greenwald, star reporter, uncovers proof that water is wet. And the MSM knows good sucker bait when it sees it. The news cycle needs eyeballs, the more credulous the better. This got a bunch for a short time.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »