Messages

But these loopholes only work when public opinion follows suit.   Many Americans gave up their rights during all the Homeland Security shenanigans because they were convinced doing so was detrimental to their family's safety.   The government slipped one by us.

I disagree. The suspension of habeas corpus didn't have much to do with public opinion. It had to do with the House and Senate approving the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (and during a time when public opinion of the administration was as low as it is now) and now the executive and judicial branches are now fighting it out as to whether the Act is constitutional or not. It's not a case of the government slipping one by us and the public going along with it, it's a case of government intervention into something constitutionally granted and regardless of whether you're an American citizen or not.

I brought it up as a contrast point to government non-intervention of gun rights.

Yes most laws are ambiguous: The intent of the right to free speech is evident but is consistently being debated in this country over the definitions of "slander" and "libel".

I'm still not convinced because context and intent aren't ambiguous. I think it's pretty easy to see why certain laws were established, why certain judges make their decisions. And to say judges make their decisions on language alone is like saying everyone buys cars based purely on colour and nothing else.

Most U.S laws started fairly ambiguous, and they've been whittled down by the judicial system.    Picking apart the language and making calls based on the language itself and precedents set in the past.

In general - you write a rule and have NO IDEA what exceptions will arise.   So you have to keep whittling it down.    But as for this issue, the government usually keeps its hands off since the language has been scrutinized by eagles' eyes all these years.   Simply touching one word would be seen as treason by these "militias."

I don't think the laws are that ambiguous, because they were created with a certain intent and context. I think it's more so how people can abuse laws to meet their wants. In other words, loopholes.

Likewise, you say the government takes a hands-off approach, but when a law goes against the wants of the government, they'll also use and abuse loopholes. Consider how different the government's approach is to habeas corpus. One of the main loophole they used to suspend the habeas corpus laws was to say that there was no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution, but just a prohibition against taking it away (These were essentially then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' exact words). My response is "You shittin' me??" How can you prohibit something being taken away without it being granted first (Arlen Specter's words). The Attorney General pretty much defined the language in the constitution to suspend proper legal rights, which is an abuse as far as I can see.

Read this for an interesting look at Gonzales' words: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

Consider the US fought the British to uphold principals such as this because they believed that even prisoners in federal custody deserved rights. That was the intent. There is no real ambiguity in what it provides. But the current administration abuses the intent by finding dumb loopholes to suit their wants.

The constitution is ambiguous about the word "militia".

Exactly, which is why I think the amendment needs amending. You're right though, it's not going to happen any time soon.

But the militia instead is usually interpreted as each individual with a potential to start his/her own militia

Which is interesting because the only reason for a US civilians to start his or her own militia is to overthrow the US government, and my guess is the number one issue a US civilian militia would do this is if the government enforced restrictions on gun rights.

There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

But this service is now going to go through the internet and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.

We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people.

The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time.

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

Do you know why?

Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.

http://seriesoftubes.net/archives/2-Its-Not-A-Truck...Its-A-Series-Of-Tubes.html

Just a bit of context because I don't think it's been mentioned yet...

A lot of people have cited that the law is constitutional, making it part of the foundation of American culture. From what I understand though, the right to bear arms came about partially to justify gun ownership for military service. i.e. as an American soldier, you have the right to bear arms. Likewise, the amendment was further justified in case small towns needed to raise a quick reservist army. The amendment was also borrowed from very old English law where people were required to keep and maintain arms in case they were called for military service.

The amendment was never meant for civilians/personal use but civilians basically interpreted as, "I am an American citizen and have the right to bear arms for personal use."

And even though the law was borrowed from English law, the UK has tightened civilian gun ownership through four seperate acts during the 20th Century.

It's an antiquated law and doesn't suit the 21st Century. Basically the amendment needs amending.

Pffff, not another spoof forum member. I bet it's really DGMacphee in disguise.

Whoops! Sorry, I've got to sound more like myself...

"Fuckity fuckity blah blah a pox on you blah blah here's a sixteen page response that doesn't go anywhere."

There! Now do you believe I'm the real me?

Babar, this is your opportunity to dress like Kevin Bacon and dance around your college while totally cutting loose, footloose with the female students. Don't let your John Lithgow-esque administrator not let you cut loose.

That is awesome.

You know what else is awesome?  DG posting again!!  Are you still getting married?

Thanks for the awesome props! Yep, still getting hitched. We have our engagement party this weekend. Most of the major wedding preps all taken care of and now we're working on the little details.

P.S. Babar, did you take my advice and totally cut loose?

Babar, this is your opportunity to dress like Kevin Bacon and dance around your college while totally cutting loose, footloose with the female students. Don't let your John Lithgow-esque administrator not let you cut loose.

Here are some music videos to pump you up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwBbMXYDsXw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX38dNneIiU

YouTube also recommended Bruce Springsteen's Dancing In The Dark, so maybe it will pump you up too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk8VZgJkpeg

Futurama: Jurassic Bark

Hi guys,

Some good news first. I'm engaged. I proposed to my girlfriend in early Jan and she said yes. And luckily she hasn't changed her mind in that time.

Okay, the reason why I bring this up: we've been together since Feb 2007. When we first met, this was my "pick-up line":

"So, do you think Australia needs a Bill of Rights?"

... and that was it. I knew she was a lawyer and that day I read in the newspaper an article about discussions over a Bill of Rights. So, I felt that was the best way to start a conversation with her, let alone find an excuse to talk to her. That was it. That was my pick-up line.

And I guess it must have been a very good pick-up line because she later told me that particular night I had bad BO and she was trying keep her distance from me because I smelt like shit. But she still went out with me and look where we are today!

The moral here is: a) make sure your pick-up lines have some substance, and b) deodorant -- not essential, though it helps.

Heya DG

Heya Andail

These two threads came to my mind after reading DG's post:
Shoes for Santa Claus' wife
Dog pixel art

I miss that! Then again, I haven't really read the forum properly in ages, so perhaps there has been more similar threads recently. I just don't find the forum as interesting as it used to be for me anymore.

Before they ended on a serious note, these are examples of threads that if on another forum they'd be locked not because they're bad but because they're so hilarious and perfect and must be preserved AS IS for future generations to see. Especially the Shoes for Santa Claus' wife.

Another thread was the I LOVE MARK LOVEGROVE thread. One big joke that everyone was in on and there was no animosity whatsoever.

I think people here are a little afraid of upsetting everyone else. I've read a lot of threads on here that follow the same pattern: one person will say something to someone else, that someone else will misunderstand and take offense over nothing. A prime example is when someone gets called a "n00b". It's seen as a term of offense when really it's nothing. It's not really a big deal but people treat it like it is.

It's already happened in this thread...

You categorize people? It's not enough that they are human beings or whatever, they have to be lumped into set categories defining them by what kind of artistic output they have? It's things like the word n00b that probably need to be dropped from peoples vocabulary because it's such a coined internet term from a long time ago that lumps every new member of the community together in one "You are Shit" category.

No wonder people are leaving if people say things like that. "Here are your set categories. You as a new member are official a n00b well done."

It's like saying "Just because you are new, you are automatically shit." and not only that it is like laughable QUAKE lingo or something. I thought you only heard people talk like that on Counterstrike "lol pwned that n00b." It's so broken.

Really, you're just making a big deal over "n00b", a word that essential means nothing. It's got nothing to do with being "new" or "automatically shit". It's more so that new people often do absurd things. It's part of the nature of being human. And even the oldies who've been here for ages get picked on because they do crazy things. For example, I'm a pretty ripe target for mockery. A very ripe, intelligent and sexy target.

I just think people need to realise that sometimes others will make fun of them, not  because we're jerks and hate you, but because all human beings do silly, absurd things that make others laugh now and then. In life, you just have to have thick skin and realise that it's all just lighthearted and nothing personal.

That "because" has a pretty big "why" hiding behind it.  What about the forum is less fun?  What changed?

Those are good questions.

I think the answer is probably because people are having less fun and more people are creating threads that are limited in any enjoyable participation. When I think of these forums now, I think of words like "serious", "dry" and "straightlaced". There tends to be very little playfulness and lot of seriousness here.

Keep in mind I'm not saying the forums should resort to immaturity or anything like that. I just think people need to be a little more playful.

I think the main reason why people are posting here less is because the forums aren't as fun as they used to be.

"you know nothing about anything and you smell", which hardly constitutes a personal attack.

In your opinion.

Yes, in my opinion. If you're going to say it's a personal attack, then tell me what part of it actually "attacked" who you are as a person. Do you even know what a "personal attack" is? If you just going to accuse someone of making a "personal attack', you should back that up with some reasoning. And you haven't yet.

Just because you've got your panties in a bunch over a side joke (which I might add was pretty damn obvious I was kidding around) doesn't mean it's a personal attack.

You do not know me well enough to make any assumptions that your comments will be taken as jokes, particularly when you have this tendency to just go at people who don't share your opinion.

I'm fine with people who don't share my opinion. But I get confrontational and hate-filled about are people who make allegations that have no real basis. Like you are doing right now. You falsely accuse me of making a "personal attack" against you and you can't even tell me what it was about what I said that personally attacked you.

[you]

Once again, ProgZmax, chill out. Just because someone calls you smelly or says you know nothing about anything, doesn't mean they necessarily think so.

This is where you're wrong, DG.  Saying that I'm smelly didn't make any difference to me one way or the other, but dismissing someone's opinion with 'you know nothing about anything' is a different situation.  I've seen you do this before and I find it a rather rude way of trying to solidify your position as absolute in a discussion.  Whether you are being serious or not doesn't really matter when someone else thinks you are.  It's something to bear in mind.

Gee, I would have thought having my conclusion being "you know nothing about anything and you smell" sounded so ridiculous (especially a) the "you smell" part, and b) that I concluded you know nothing about anything from a discussion about cartoons, because cartoon obviously are the basis for everything) that people could instantly recognise I'm kidding around unless they'd actually have some kind of extra chromosome that stops them from recognising the bleeding obvious. It's something to bear in mind.

I mean seriously, if you feel that I personally attacked with "you know nothing about anything and you smell" that it actually caused you the kind of emotional damage that stops you functioning as a human being, then I will personally send you a packet of hankies so you can cry a river. Go on, explain to me how "you know nothing about anything and you smell" constitutes a personal attack, even when said with all seriousness.

I had no intention of resorting to personal attacks, nor do I have any future intentions of doing so. If I called you an over-sensitive bitch, that would be a personal attack. But I didn't call you an over-sensitive bitch. If I called you a humourless retard, okay, that would most definitely be a personal attack. But I didn't call you a humourless retard. If I called you a giant douchebag who wouldn't know good cartoons if they pissed in your mouth, yeah, that'd be a personal attack. But I'm not going to call you a giant douchebag who wouldn't know good cartoons if they pissed in your mouth. I didn't call you any of those personal attacks and nor will I. All I did was make a joke that was "you know nothing about anything and you smell", which hardly constitutes a personal attack.

Well, I also mentioned Simpsons, South Park, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Warner Brothers... Is that enough to keep this ship sailing steady?

Okay, so we're basically agreeing on everything except for the example I chose.

A matter of personal taste, I guess, because I enjoy watching Family Guy. Go figure.

That I can easily understand. That's a personal opinion. However, what I have issue with is "The 80s are the best decade for cartoons". If that's true, name a cartoon from the 80s that's funnier than Family Guy. If Family Guy is that terrible, then this should be easy, shouldn't it?

Last bit first...

Personally, the only thing this does is make me feel you are not worth discussing anything with, MacPhee.  I really wish you would tone down your antagonistic nature and behave like a human being on these forums rather than slinging personal attacks at people at every opportunity -- whether you mean them or not.  I don't think you're a child so I see no reason for you to behave like one.

Take it easy, smelly. Wasn't a personal attack. I thought it was pretty obvious I didn't really think you smell. No need to start getting all high and mighty on Mount Smelly. :

Now the other bits...

Was that supposed to validate your points?

Yes. Yes, they were. Thank you for verifying.

Just because South Park 'tackles' issues (to be correct they just do it to piss people off and not for any actual social relevance)

But, it does have social relevance, despite the author's intent. It lampoons social issues and provides alternative/ironic points of view on them. Surely that has social relevance. Can you prove to me it DOESN'T have social relevance?

doesn't make it any more entertaining than the GI Joe spin-off 'War on Drugs' was.

But that wasn't your point. You called South Park low-brow comedy, when it's very much the opposite. I demonstrated how and you haven't said anything to refute that.

And forget the spin-off. I doubt anyone will say a single episode of GI JOE had as much social value as South park did, other than being pro-government propaganda. Did you know GI Joe was originally based on a comic written for the US army's magazine? Yeah, I think South Park is way more socially relevant than an army recruiting tool in this instance.

As far as Family Guy being funny, yeah, if you are interested in low-brow humor then it is funny.

Great, I'm glad you agree. Still waiting on a cartoon from the 80s that you think is as funny, if not more funny.

Once again, ProgZmax, chill out. Just because someone calls you smelly or says you know nothing about anything, doesn't mean they necessarily think so.