I would have voted for him anyway, simply because I wouldn't have to worry about the consequences of him winning. It's more about promoting third parties than it is about the candidate.
I probably would have voted for Gary Johnson if it weren't for that whole getting rid of the Department of Education and random other crazy things that libertarians tend to say. Still better than Ron Paul though.
Being beaten in the head with a dead cat is better than Ron Paul. And it would be a more sensible economic policy to boot.
I am seeing a lot of mea culpa articles about the coverage of the Zimmerman trial. Looks like a lot of people are now pissed about how the large media entities mislead the public on the details of the event.
What I want to know is why the people who were writing about the event didn't do their own research and instead are just now writing these articles.
No love for the Ghost of William Jennings Bryan? He'd be my go to protest vote. Either him or Donald Duck. I know the Swedes love voting for Donald, and IIRC he's fairly popular in Finland too (though, when I went looking for Finnish protest votes regarding the famous duck, I could only find a false rumor that he was banned in the country).
If I'm gonna vote for someone not on the ballot, I'd prefer to vote for someone who at least legally meets the qualifications of the office, which include being non-fictional and alive in addition to (for the Presidency) being at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen. I happen to meet all the relevant criteria. :P
I probably would have voted for Gary Johnson if it weren't for that whole getting rid of the Department of Education and random other crazy things that libertarians tend to say. Still better than Ron Paul though.
Yeah, the thing about the Gary Johnsons and the Jill Steins and whatnot are that just about all of them have something about them that completely rub me the wrong way and disqualify them from my vote for whatever reason. I've come across a handful of third parties that actually do have views quite similar to my own, but I have yet to see them put anyone on the ballot.
Greg, I always vote for President strategically. Regardless of whether my vote matters, not voting for Bush the first time was tantamount to electing him regardless of what state I was in. (I am PA resident which was a swing state but went Gore)
I mean if I was in Germany and didn't vote in the election that Hilter won, I'd feel really bad about not voting to get rid of Hilter even if my vote would not be the one that mattered.
I am seeing a lot of mea culpa articles about the coverage of the Zimmerman trial. Looks like a lot of people are now pissed about how the large media entities mislead the public on the details of the event.
What I want to know is why the people who were writing about the event didn't do their own research and instead are just now writing these articles.
Because it's a lot easier to cry racism and let slip the dogs of bluster and mild hand-wringing than it is to actually do some research?
Let's not forget that in many cases, even that wouldn't have helped. There is a vast number of people who are assuming that they know the evidence better than anyone in the courtroom, and whom have done some research on the wording of the laws in question without realizing that they don't actually understand what the wording of the laws mean - Ie, "Provocation" in the eyes of the law has a specific meaning, rather than the apparently common belief that if someone shoots off their mouth at you, you can jaw them, or enact whatever other act of violence on them you please.
It certainly doesn't mean anything like the frankly ludicrous layman interpretation of Florida law, which is "In Florida, you can start a fight, shoot the victim if you start losing, and like someone with a martial arts fetish, get off on self-defense."
The thing I haven't heard covered in regards to the Zimmerman trial coverage is the concept of reasonable doubt, and the fact that from everything I've heard he has it and that's what you need. Regardless of race it's better to let a guilty man go free than to put an innocent one in prison.
The same people who are taking to the streets in outrage now are the same ones who were jubilant when OJ beat a murder wrap. I think the justice system worked and worked well this time, and we just have too much guilt and news time to fill.
Reasonable doubt is why I'm meh over this case. just casually following the case, I can see why there would be reasonable doubt, HOWEVER the Florida stand your ground law is BS and needs to be altered.
Yeah, I think he should have gotten something but murder/manslaughter wasn't the way of going about it. It probably was self defense but the fact that he followed him and basically instigated the whole thing is what I would have gone after. I don't know exactly what but there's gotta be something in there. Negligence or something.
HOWEVER the Florida stand your ground law is BS and needs to be altered.
Definitely. I usually want there to be something like that in case I ever had to defend myself but there's something fucked up when a woman who fires warning shots goes to jail for 20 years and Zimmerman goes free.
Reasonable doubt is why I'm meh over this case. just casually following the case, I can see why there would be reasonable doubt, HOWEVER the Florida stand your ground law is BS and needs to be altered.
Definitely. I usually want there to be something like that in case I ever had to defend myself but there's something fucked up when a woman who fires warning shots goes to jail for 20 years and Zimmerman goes free.
Uh, you might want to look a little deeper into that case. From what I recall, "warning shots" actually meant that she went inside, got her gun, and didn't so much fire warning shots as simply miss what she was aiming at, namely, her father's head. He also may not have been moving toward her or presenting any credible deadly threat. Warning shots was her defense, but it didn't stand up in the face of evidence.
The whole idea of warning shots is BS anyways. It's being irresponsible because those "warning" bullets have to end up some where. It's counter productive, because a sudden loud noise is the last thing you want in a tense situation. There is a reason police don't fire "warning shots".
You don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Period. Likewise, you don't draw the weapon unless you intend to use it. Anyone who cant get that through their head has no business carrying a bee-bee gun, let alone a real firearm.
Definitely. I usually want there to be something like that in case I ever had to defend myself but there's something fucked up when a woman who fires warning shots goes to jail for 20 years and Zimmerman goes free.
Uh, you might want to look a little deeper into that case. From what I recall, "warning shots" actually meant that she went inside, got her gun, and didn't so much fire warning shots as simply miss what she was aiming at, namely, her father's head. He also may not have been moving toward her or presenting any credible deadly threat. Warning shots was her defense, but it didn't stand up in the face of evidence.
Wow, I didn't realize that was the case.
Don't even get me started on "shooting to wound."
And shooting to wound is bullshit said by people who've never shot a gun. You don't shoot to kill or wound. You shoot to get them to stop trying to kill/injure/rape/.etc you. If that was so easy cops would all be shooting the guy in the leg or shooting the gun out of his hand.
And shooting to wound is bullshit said by people who've never shot a gun. You don't shoot to kill or wound. You shoot to get them to stop trying to kill/injure/rape/.etc you. If that was so easy cops would all be shooting the guy in the leg or shooting the gun out of his hand.
First, you use a real gun to shoot to kill, period (at least if you're shooting at a living thing and not an inanimate target, of course). Granted, not all shots necessarily result in the death of the target, but all shots should be taken with the assumption that they will result in the death of the target. If you're not prepared to kill the person you're shooting at, you shouldn't shoot the gun. Yes, I concede that the reason why you're shooting said gun at another person, unless you're a criminal or mentally deficient in some way, is to stop them from harming you in some fashion, but it should only be shot with the assumption that it will result in the death of the target. If you're not prepared to kill the target to defend yourself, you shouldn't be shooting a gun at them.
Of course, the criminal and mentally deficient could have "shoot to kill for the purpose of killing" as the main purpose for shooting, but that doesn't apply to this scenario. The same applies to military personnel in a combat situation (which admittedly overlaps greatly with "prevent someone else from harming me" -- only it's more proactive than reactive).
The desire to "shoot to wound" is why tasers and stun guns were invented. If you want to "shoot to wound," use one of those gadgets. If you shoot a real gun, then you are shooting to kill, period, no matter what the justification, legitimate or otherwise, is for shooting it.
So far this new AT&T Next offering looks like a total and complete ripoff.
There is no drop in your monthly bill compared to a customer who is going with the typical subsidized 2 yr contract. This means that with the basic subsidy still in your bill AND the installment plan for the phone you are actually paying for the phone twice!
If you trade it in after 12 months you are giving them a phone that you have completely paid for.
T-Mobile did the right thing by uncoupling the phone from the service contract. AT&T is not doing this. They are keeping the service charge the same whether you are under contract or not and making you pay a butt load of money for the option of buying another phone in 12 months.
I would like to switch from T-Mobile to AT&T due to coverage issues but I also want to keep the phone that I own. A phone that I pay about $35 a month for service on via T-Mobile that similar service would cost over $100 a month via AT&T.
I can't even use their prepaid branch because as soon as you say "smartphone" they tell you that the cheap prepaid plans only work with "feature phones". Yeah... They only sell you unlimited talk, text and data if the device you have can't really handle data.
I might end up going back to straightalk and their $45 a month unlimited plan. My only concern there is that I have heard if you use too much data they shut you off and you can say goodbye to your phone number.
I will be traveling to Canada in two weeks, anyone have tips or things I should know/do while there? Also I am driving to Toronto and Poutine is already on my list.
Steve, if you activate a new SIM with T-Mobile it's $30/month for unlimited text, data, and 100 minutes on any phone as long as you activate it online. Doesn't help you keep your phone, but it sounds a fair sight better than AT&T.
I have that plan right now except it is 5GB of 4G then throttled. Works out to about $33 with taxes and I pay Skype $2 a month for internet calling so as to avoid the 100 minute limit.
That's a thing up there? Also my Canadian hosts are now assembling a shopping list of things to "liberate" from the 48.
It's just their name for what's called "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese" in the U.S. Apparently, since there is no actual cheese in it (or at least not in a form recognizable by Canadian law), they can't legally call it Mac and Cheese up there.
Comments
What I want to know is why the people who were writing about the event didn't do their own research and instead are just now writing these articles.
I mean if I was in Germany and didn't vote in the election that Hilter won, I'd feel really bad about not voting to get rid of Hilter even if my vote would not be the one that mattered.
Let's not forget that in many cases, even that wouldn't have helped. There is a vast number of people who are assuming that they know the evidence better than anyone in the courtroom, and whom have done some research on the wording of the laws in question without realizing that they don't actually understand what the wording of the laws mean - Ie, "Provocation" in the eyes of the law has a specific meaning, rather than the apparently common belief that if someone shoots off their mouth at you, you can jaw them, or enact whatever other act of violence on them you please.
It certainly doesn't mean anything like the frankly ludicrous layman interpretation of Florida law, which is "In Florida, you can start a fight, shoot the victim if you start losing, and like someone with a martial arts fetish, get off on self-defense."
The same people who are taking to the streets in outrage now are the same ones who were jubilant when OJ beat a murder wrap. I think the justice system worked and worked well this time, and we just have too much guilt and news time to fill.
You don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Period. Likewise, you don't draw the weapon unless you intend to use it. Anyone who cant get that through their head has no business carrying a bee-bee gun, let alone a real firearm.
Of course, the criminal and mentally deficient could have "shoot to kill for the purpose of killing" as the main purpose for shooting, but that doesn't apply to this scenario. The same applies to military personnel in a combat situation (which admittedly overlaps greatly with "prevent someone else from harming me" -- only it's more proactive than reactive).
The desire to "shoot to wound" is why tasers and stun guns were invented. If you want to "shoot to wound," use one of those gadgets. If you shoot a real gun, then you are shooting to kill, period, no matter what the justification, legitimate or otherwise, is for shooting it.
There is no drop in your monthly bill compared to a customer who is going with the typical subsidized 2 yr contract. This means that with the basic subsidy still in your bill AND the installment plan for the phone you are actually paying for the phone twice!
If you trade it in after 12 months you are giving them a phone that you have completely paid for.
T-Mobile did the right thing by uncoupling the phone from the service contract. AT&T is not doing this. They are keeping the service charge the same whether you are under contract or not and making you pay a butt load of money for the option of buying another phone in 12 months.
I would like to switch from T-Mobile to AT&T due to coverage issues but I also want to keep the phone that I own. A phone that I pay about $35 a month for service on via T-Mobile that similar service would cost over $100 a month via AT&T.
I can't even use their prepaid branch because as soon as you say "smartphone" they tell you that the cheap prepaid plans only work with "feature phones". Yeah... They only sell you unlimited talk, text and data if the device you have can't really handle data.
I might end up going back to straightalk and their $45 a month unlimited plan. My only concern there is that I have heard if you use too much data they shut you off and you can say goodbye to your phone number.
Also remember that hockey is the only sport.
EDIT: Also, see Honest Ed's before it goes.