here are old message board entries

---

prev <-> next

[2004-06-30 11:45:46] - Dave: I didn't know that there WAS a fund for criminal victims, but I'm not surprised at all that she would be getting funds from such a fund (if one existed). -Paul

[2004-06-30 11:44:49] - Pieve: I see your point. It just seems to me that having open court proceedings is probably never going to affect whether or not a judge gets removed or not. -Paul

[2004-06-30 11:43:34] - Paul: Did you know that the Kobe Bryant accuser is getting paid out of some fund for criminal victims? I thought that was rather ridiculous. It came up because I read an article that said they were investigating whether they were giving her more than they were supposed to, because they want her to keep the case going -dave

[2004-06-30 11:42:22] - Pierce: Yeah, like they removed/fired the judge who wouldn't take down the 10 commandments. Also, there is accountability in the court system in that a higher court can overturn the decisions of lower courts. So theoretically, everyone but the Supreme Court is accountable to someone else -dave

[2004-06-30 11:41:39] - Pierce: And what do you think about the Kobe Bryant trial and keeping the accuser's name private? -Paul

[2004-06-30 11:40:03] - Paul: different states (and the federal gov't) have different rules for removing judges who abuse judicial power.  They're not completely unaccountable. - pierce

[2004-06-30 11:39:19] - Pierce: But why do we need to evaluate their effectiveness if we don't even have any power to remove them or whatever? -Paul

[2004-06-30 11:36:46] - I was on the side of keeping everything open, because while abuses are regrettable, I feel we need to be able to look at the information our judges/justices are basing their decisions on in order to evaluate their effectiveness. - pierce

[2004-06-30 11:35:50] - I had a long argument with my mom the other night about whether certain parts of court proceedings should be kept closed in order to protect the personal privacy of those involved.  Specifically, we were talking about the Jack/Jeri Ryan scandal recently, and how that information was really just used to discredit Jack Ryan politically. - pierce

[2004-06-30 11:34:24] - Paul: I never said that the courts would always result in the perfect decision even when it's unpopular, I'm just saying that they're more likely to get it right if they don't have to worry about getting reelected every four years.  As long as they have some accountability, including open court proceedings whenever possible. - pierce

[2004-06-30 11:10:08] - Dave: Going solely by self-preservation, it's totally smarter to shoot first and ask questions later. If I woke up in the middle of the night and found some stranger in my house with a weapon, I wouldn't feel bad about shooting him (with intent to injure) before announcing my presence. -paul

[2004-06-30 11:07:58] - Paul: like if I saw the criminal with a gun, or maybe even a knife, I might just shoot them first and not warn them at all -dave

[2004-06-30 11:07:08] - paul: I don't think people should shoot first and warn later, but I can imagine instances where it would be useful to just shoot before the criminal knows you have a gun -dave

[2004-06-30 11:06:34] - Paul: I think there is a fine line though with using a gun to "scare away" a criminal and not just shoot them, because I think sometimes people might be stupid and expose themselves to the criminal and tell them to leave vs. just shooting the criminal. -dave

[2004-06-30 11:02:53] - Travis: The entire 'be helpless and submissive and just let criminals do whatever they want' strategy just seems like the height of idiocy to me. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:58:14] - Travis: Right, but the point of more guns isn't so that more people end up dead. The point is that a gun lets you scare aware potential criminals or if that doesn't work it allows you to injure them, Only as a last result do I think a gun should be used to kill somebody. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:54:51] - paul: oh, i know his reasoning is the same as yours, that you think more guns prevent crime, but i still disagree with that - travis

[2004-06-30 10:46:55] - Travis: Hmmm, probably part of the paragraph I just skimmed. I could probably give you his reasoning in what he was trying to say there though, if you want. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:45:50] - Pierce: Somehow I think you would disagree if the justices were more conservative. The argument could be made that gay marriage is just such an emotional frenzy that the courts would be around to stifle. -paul

[2004-06-30 10:44:21] - paul: it's from one of the articles you posted, the first moore bashing one - travis

[2004-06-30 10:43:28] - And I fundamentally agree with them being the least accountable.  We need some part of government that won't be directly impacted by the misguided emotional frenzies that grip our populace from time to time.  The judiciary seems like the appropriate branch, since few things get people as frenzied as certain crimes. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:41:27] - Paul: I don't know if I'd call them the most powerful.  There's no question that they're powerful, but in different ways that are not really comparable in magnitude. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:41:25] - Travis: I have no idea what that's from, but my guess is he would've rather had the "killer" be disuaded or disarmed than for the victims to have died. -paul

[2004-06-30 10:40:35] - Pierce: I wish they had been more clear about the militia nonsense in the second. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:40:08] - Dave: So you had better convince Judge O'Conner to retire while under a Republican president. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:40:02] - "There has been plenty of talk about the fact that the killer had a gun.  There has been little talk about the fact that the victim did not." so the guy would've preferred two people dead? - travis

[2004-06-30 10:39:12] - Pierce: I think it's very amusing because the courts are possibly the most powerful branch of the government and yet we hear so little about them and they are the least accountable. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:39:08] - I really wish the founding fathers had been more clear about what constituted "retention by the people" in the ninth amendment. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:37:17] - Paul: It's all about the courts ^_^ -dave

[2004-06-30 10:34:14] - I don't know if "funny" is the word I'd use, but the point remains that such a law is not inherently a violation of the fifth amendment. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:33:44] - dammit

[2004-06-30 10:33:40] - Paul: I don't know if "funny" is the word I'

[2004-06-30 10:31:06] - Pierce: Right, it just means he could arrest you, which is totally allowed by the fifth ammendment. It's funny how many "rights" aren't in the constitution but are results of court decisions, eh? -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:30:47] - In other words, they can ask you to identify yourself, but that identification cannot be used as evidence of a crime in and of itself. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:30:19] - Pierce: What a great mental picture. -paul

[2004-06-30 10:30:02] - Paul: although, one could make the case that (assuming your "No Pauls" law) the identification provided in response to a police officer's request could not be used as evidence in a trial of the crime of being named Paul. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:28:34] - Paul: or if a state passed a law against using any slang referring to genitalia in public, and a cop asked Dick Armey to identify himself. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:26:54] - Paul: yeah, it is kinda funny. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:26:38] - Paul: interesting, and I don't really have a response beyond "such a law would never be passed", but I realize that's insufficient (and unproveable) as an argument. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:24:03] - Pierce: Do you find it ironic how we've switched sides here? -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:23:30] - Pierce: Well, what if a law was passed saying that everybody with the name of Paul has to change their name? -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:23:15] - Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, but I'm merely talking about it in terms of the fifth amendment. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:22:44] - Paul: I admit that "you have the right to remain silent" is now incomplete and/or incorrect.  Nevertheless, this issue doesn't directly contradict the fifth amendment, IMO. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:21:16] - Paul: but "being named 'Unique Name'" is no proof in and of itself.  It's merely a noun in other proof that the police must obtain through more traditional means, such as "'Unique Name' was seen fleeing the murder scene by three witnesses." - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:19:42] - Paul: Yes, we pay for soldiers' housing, but that doesn't mean that we, as individuals, can claim we "own" their house.  It's not "my" house just because my taxes paid for part of it just as the land we bought in the louisiana purchase didn't belong to any existing individual american citizen. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:19:01] - Pierce: Well, the obvious example is if the cops are looking for some criminal named 'Unique Name' and the cops pull you over and ask your name. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:16:51] - The funny thing is that I read a political comic where an officer arrests somebody for not identifying themselves and them proceeds to read him his miranda rights which begin with "You have the right to remain silent" and the guy under arrest just looks confused. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:16:30] - I admit the "witness against oneself" thing is less clear, but explain to me how identifying yourself proves that you did or did not commit a crime in and of itself. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:15:44] - Paul: ah, I had forgotten about that, though it still doesn't strictly speaking contradict the fifth amendment.  They're not being held to answer for an infamous crime, they're not being held to the same offense twice, they're not being a witness "against" themselves, they're not being deprived of anything. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:13:57] - Pierce: I think campaign finance reform has put restrictions on when you can air political ads during elections (illegal 30 days before the election or something). -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:12:15] - Pierce: Or at least I assume it was in response to that. I can't speak regarding what they meant about the third ammendment but maybe it has to do with the fact that we pay for soldiers' housing even if they don't stay in our houses. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:11:01] - Pierce: The right to remain silent is in response to the Hiibel ruling. Have you heard about it? -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:10:39] - Travis: Some people are dense. -Paul

[2004-06-30 10:06:06] - Somebody clarify their argument about the first amendment... I'm not actually familiar with the laws governing political attack ads in election season. - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:04:16] - "They have nullified the seventh; unless your civil case involves the exchange of 21 antique silver dollars, you have no right to a jury trial."  Is this true?  Was there a supreme court case that said the "$20 rule" only applied to the original U.S. dollars? - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:02:37] - "They have nullified the fifth; remaining silent is now unlawful" ???  What part of "You have the right to remain silent" were they unclear about? - pierce

[2004-06-30 10:01:01] - "let me be a Lott Moore (pun intended) specific" i think the intention was pretty clear when he capilatized and respelled both words - travis

[2004-06-30 10:00:48] - "We don't directly quarter the troops ... they wouldn't lower themselves to live in our hovels." That sounds a lot like "well, they aren't quartered in our houses, but I'm sure they could ignore the third amendment if they wanted to!" - pierce

[2004-06-30 09:59:18] - Paul: a few good points in the Bill of Rights article, but it also feels like they made the statements fit the list they wanted to create.  How has the third amendment been nullified?  "We are now serfs, via taxation."  What does that have to do with the third amendment and whoever said there would be no taxes in the U.S.? - pierce

[2004-06-30 09:59:01] - Travis: They guess. -Paul

[2004-06-30 09:57:23] - i'm always curious how statements like "only about 35 to 40% of the victims of crime bother to contact the police in the first place" work, because how can you get a percentage of a number you don't know? - travis

[2004-06-30 09:57:13] - Travis: I was wondering if anybody was going to point that out. I'll bet they interviewed the only female there just in hopes that she would say something like that. -Paul

[2004-06-30 09:55:16] - paul: "If I can get the meat down, I'll be happy." such dirty articles you post - travis

[2004-06-30 09:25:05] - http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/rnunn_20040629.html Again, ignoring the Moore bashing, I think this article has an interesting point about the abnormally high amount of publicity F 9/11 is getting. -paul

[2004-06-30 09:23:04] - http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8125 Ignoring the Moore bashing, this has some interesting stuff about how it's difficult to compare crime rates in two countries. -Paul

[2004-06-30 09:18:10] - http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/tle277-20040627-03.html Do any of the ammendments in the Bill of Rights mean anything? -Paul

[2004-06-30 08:57:50] - a: It also has more than a pound of cheese. -Paul

[2004-06-30 08:55:17] - cup of mayonnaise?!  ~a

[2004-06-30 08:53:13] - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040629/ap_on_fe_st/burger_challenge That's a big burger. -Paul

[2004-06-30 08:33:41] - Dave: My guess is that he at least takes this next season off, if he's returning at all. -Paul

[2004-06-30 08:25:31] - anyone know where Phil Jackson is going to end up, if anywhere? -dave

[2004-06-30 07:43:44] - Paul: mmmm, looks like another interesting NBA season shaping up ^_^ -dave

[2004-06-29 20:55:28] - Travis: What's crazy is that I've never seen anybody be even close to him by the end (he always easily has twice the nearest person's score). -Paul

[2004-06-29 19:58:15] - yes, i already noted the slight irony of the grammar mistake in that post, which i'm sure everyone would've been happy to point out - travis

[2004-06-29 19:57:12] - oh yeah, just to show how useful my computer science + english double major can be: the current 20-day champion on jeopardy a software engineer with a cs/english double major, just like me, boo-yah! (now if only i could win $600k+ in 20 days...) - travis

[2004-06-29 18:20:41] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/29/iraq.reserves.ap/index.html army reinstitutes slavery once again. - mig

[2004-06-29 17:23:46] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1831594 T-Mac to Houston. -Paul

[2004-06-29 16:01:40] - dave:  yay, so my webpage won't have to use AVS .... for now. - mig

[2004-06-29 15:50:12] - maybe she'll luck out and get this judge for her case http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&e=4&u=/nm/odd_judge_dc - travis

[2004-06-29 15:40:31] - Ashcroft v. ACLU. Why do I get the feeling that isn't the first time a case has been called that? -Paul

[2004-06-29 15:35:09] - get this tho, the teacher is a woman, and from the picture pretty dang attractive. Kinda funky that the 14 year old would turn her in -dave

[2004-06-29 15:34:46] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/29/teacher.sex.ap/index.html teacher (23) charged with having sex with a 14 year old student -dave

[2004-06-29 15:32:50] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.web.indecency/index.html Supreme Court rules that the Child Online Protection Act may be unconstitutional -dave

[2004-06-29 15:29:36] - pierce: I agree, but in some senses the Supreme Court's rulings are even more important than the law itself since their actions are supposed to show how the law is supposed to be interpreted. -dave

[2004-06-29 13:39:24] - Dave: Yes, though it's important to note that the supreme court is never supposed to add rights or protections to the constitution, but rather to find correct interpretations that provide those rights.  Also important is that the supreme court has reversed its position on whether something is constitutional or not in the past. - pierce

[2004-06-29 13:22:12] - Dave: That was what I was thinking, I can't imagine there are that many politically minded kids out there who are too young to see an R-Rated movie. -paul

[2004-06-29 13:15:08] - Paul: I don't get why kids would want to see F 9/11 at all. I mean I guess I thought Bowling for Columbine was mildly interesting, but that was when I was in college. What kids have that much political interest? -dave

[2004-06-29 13:09:48] - http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20040628.html J.K. Rowling announces title of Book 6? -Paul

[2004-06-29 12:59:17] - I didn't even know it was 'R' - vinnie

[2004-06-29 12:58:37] - yeah, it's gonna get to the point where everybody hates it again. like garfield - vinnie

[2004-06-29 12:58:28] - Dave: And I doubt there are millions of kids out there who really want to see F 9/11 badly enough to go through all of this and can't find an adult to take them. -Paul

[2004-06-29 12:56:31] - Paul: I don't see why they care so much if more people are seeing Moore's film or not, it's already got enough "acclaim/publicity" as it is -dave

[2004-06-29 12:55:05] - paul: the same thing goes for free speech and the internet, the original free speech clause may or may not cover the internet, but cases in which judges rule have to be factored in -dave

[2004-06-29 12:54:54] - http://www.ncbuy.com/news/2004-06-29/1009962.html Is it just me, or does this seem like wishful thinking? -Paul

[2004-06-29 12:54:06] - pierce: and in our legal system, court cases have weight just like the law does. Like you can say you have the right to own a gun not solely because of the amendment, but also because of the jillion court cases in which judges have ruled that you can -dave

[2004-06-29 12:52:47] - Pierce: One thing you are overlooking is that even though the constitution/bill of rights does not necessarily explicitly give the rights you and paul are talking about, there have been many court cases on those same topics -dave

[2004-06-29 12:35:00] - lunchtime now.  ttyl. - pierce

[2004-06-29 12:34:52] - Paul: I see it more similar to the assert() function in C.  It's very much like an if statement, but it's never meant to be false and everything else is invalidated if it fails. - pierce

[2004-06-29 12:25:21] - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_medium;action=display;num=1045173700;start= here's the discussion (which has a link to the agreed upon answer) - vinnie

[2004-06-29 12:24:18] - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/riddles/medium.shtml#samwiseAndGandalf a tricky but cool puzzle - vinnie

[2004-06-29 12:16:02] - Aaron: Just basically the two I listed. There is a toolbar when composing and replying to messages which lets you modify the font and add smileys and such which is missing and it will often hang when I tell it to send something. -Paul

[2004-06-29 12:15:13] - paul: I'll look for that toolbar when I get home. Yahoo Mail lets you change fonts? That's funny. I'll have to try it. - aaron

[2004-06-29 12:14:22] - paul: I use Yahoo Mail through firefox without noticable problems.  Are there any specific problems I could look for? - aaron

[2004-06-29 12:14:10] - lunchtime...  over there  -mel

[2004-06-29 12:13:41] - Pierce: ok, I fixed it by changing my run command to include "-profile default"  Thanks Pierce.  sorry to interrup your debate,    I have already become dependent on firefox.   \-mel

[2004-06-29 12:07:43] - Paul: ah.  Nope I haven't seen any similar problems.  -mel

[2004-06-29 12:07:23] - Pierce: no, it's not.    -mel

[2004-06-29 12:07:21] - Pierce: Well, I don't think there is anything wrong with your interpretation (are we talking about your interpretation where it's more of an IF..THEN relationship?) I just don't happen to agree with it. -Paul

[2004-06-29 12:06:12] - Mel: The font manipulation toolbar doesn't seem to show up and it often hangs and has trouble sending messages. -Paul

[2004-06-29 12:04:04] - Mel: it's not in the start menu? - pierce

[2004-06-29 12:03:28] - Paul: okay, that was going to be my followup question.  I guess it boils down to whether you think my strict constitutionalism argument is valid-but-incorrect or invalid. - pierce

[2004-06-29 12:02:52] - Paul: wht kind of issues?  -mel

[2004-06-29 12:02:38] - Pierce.  Weird, I geuss I have a nwewer version of Firefox.  Because I don't have a Profile Manager as far as I can tell.    -mel

[2004-06-29 12:01:18] - Mel: Ok. I was just wondering because Firefox seems to have issues with Yahoo Mail and I was wondering if anybody else experienced it. -paul

[2004-06-29 12:00:21] - Pierce: That sounds about right. My only major concern was that if you consider the opinion "the 2nd ammendment guarantees my right to own a gun" to be a personal interpretation of the ammendment (which it technically is), then you have to pretty much call EVERY interpretation of the ammendments that. -paul

[2004-06-29 11:59:57] - Paul: No, I don't, I use Eudora.  -mel

[2004-06-29 11:59:41] - Pierce: thanks.  This new profile doesn't have any of my keywords and stuff,    -mel

[2004-06-29 11:55:59] - Paul: just to be clear... we both agree that interpretation of the constitution would potentially allow regulation and prohibition of gun ownership.  However, I believe that such regulation and prohibition is possible under strict constitutionalism, and you do not.  Correct? - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:55:20] - Mel: Do you happen to use Yahoo Mail with Firefox? -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:54:58] - Pierce: I think that would be very hard to do. Also, I don't tend to have as holy a view of the constitution as many people do. It certainly has it's flaws and shouldn't be seen as the be all and end all of law. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:53:47] - Mel: http://texturizer.net/firefox/faq.html#profilemanager should have something in it.  I don't use firefox so I can't give you specific, step-by-step instructions. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:52:18] - Paul: n/m, you answered it. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:51:49] - Paul: but do you believe all such interpretations are invalid, and that we should only obey the strictest possible reading of the document (thereby, for example, not protecting web publishing)? - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:50:43] - Pierce: Right, and I disagree. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:50:22] - And doesn't reflect some huge personal interpretation on the guy's part. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:50:08] - Pierce: Right, right, but I wasn't really trying to argue that we shouldn't interpret the constitution (bill of rights, whatever) because we kinda have to. All I was saying is that I think as personal interpretations go, saying that the 2nd ammendment gives people the right to own guns seems pretty close to what the founders intended to me. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:50:02] - Paul: and I would say that the second amendment does not inherently give the right to keep and bear arms except as a means to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:48:50] - Pierce: Right, and I believe that is something that people get from their own personal interpretation of the constitution. It's just like the right to privacy and the seperation of church and state. These are NOT constituional things but personal interpretations that people have created. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:48:04] - Paul: frankly, the bill of rights is too short to leave no room for interpretation.  Legal documents are so verbose because they have to define every single thing that could possibly have more than one valid definition. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:47:17] - Pierce: I believe that free speech over the internet is a good thing and that if you are going to go about interpretting the constitution then it's one of the better ideas to come out of it but I don't think the first ammendment inherently gives that right. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:46:38] - Paul: I can't answer for you, but I'd say most people would claim that it does.  Nevertheless, the first amendment doesn't specifically say anything about it, it only mentions speech and the press.  There's no press involved in web publishing, therefore the application of the first amendment to it is an interpretive one. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:44:15] - Pierce: I somehow created another Firefox profile and can't figure out how to change back to the default profile.  Do you know how?  -Mel

[2004-06-29 11:42:29] - Paul: do you think the first amendment applies to speech over the internet? - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:41:52] - Mig: the president has people watching him to make sure he's taken away from the "button" if he suddenly goes into a schizophrenic episode or something.  And the fact that he was elected means that at least a plurality of the citizenry (barring electoral shenanigans) think him "sane" enough to represent them in warfare. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:39:54] - Mig: I see a difference, though I'm not sure if I belive that the difference is significant enough to warrant one and not the other.  Regardless, there is inherently a credibility and accountability to the president's access to WMDs that is not present for Joe Blow from Queens... - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:39:39] - Mig: Because there are crazy and scary people out there that we should all be afraid of. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:38:39] - Pierce: Right, and that is where I think you are reading into stuff. You are essentially trying to "update" the bill of rights for modern times which I'm not saying is a bad idea, I'm just saying that doing so would seem to have to involve reading into it more than mst people. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:37:51] - Third, I think that the need of such militias beyond the armed forces is based on an outdated understanding of warfare rooted in the days when transoceanic warfare meant months and years, instead of hours and minutes. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:37:11] - i know this is something a lot of people disagree with, but I just dont' see a difference between an oridinary citizen owning a nuclear weapon and a warmongering bloodthirsty politician like GWB owning one. - mig

[2004-06-29 11:36:59] - Paul: I disgree with it in a number of ways.  First, I think that an armed populace with no restriction on the magnitude of arms is contrary to the goal of a well-regulated militia.  Second, I think the idea that militias are BYO-Gun is a throwback to the revolutionary war. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:33:21] - Pierce: I'm a bit confused about how you disagree with 2. Does that mean that you think that an unarmed populace is a perfectly acceptable militia? -paul

[2004-06-29 11:32:29] - Pierce: Ok, well, like I said, people disagree. I just think that if you read the sentence without any sort of pre-determined ideas, most people would assume that it means the right to bear arms should not be abridged because of the reasons stated. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:30:38] - Now, I agree with 1.  No argument there.  But I don't think 2 is true anymore, due to changes in weapons technology.  For example, the right of an individual to keep and bear a nuclear weapon would (IMO) be contrary to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.  And since 3 depends on 1 and 2, 3 is no longer applicable. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:28:26] - Paul: no, I'm reading exactly three things from it: (1) A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  (2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. (3) Because of 1 and 2, the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:13:16] - Pierce: You're the one that is reading into it that it probably doesn't apply to certain weapons. I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea, just that it seems like you are giving the 2nd ammendment more of a personal interpretation than somebody like me. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:12:17] - Pierce: Agreed. But it seems like you are admitting that you are reading stuff into the wording here. The founding fathers didn't imagine nuclear weapons would exist and so it has nothing to do with the 2nd ammendment as they wrote it. -Paul

[2004-06-29 11:08:14] - Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to bear arms outside the scope of a well-regulated militia.  I'm just saying that it's not inherently protected by the second amendment, and is potentially subject to strict regulation or prohibition. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:03:10] - Similarly, their idea of a well-regulated militia was limited to defense against an invading army with closely paralleling weapons technology. - pierce

[2004-06-29 11:01:18] - But at the time the consitution was written, they hadn't the faintest idea that such terrible things could ever come to exist.  Their interpretation of "arms" was limited to cannons and rifles and various other (relatively) low-impact weaponry. - pierce

[2004-06-29 10:58:49] - And yet I think most people (not necessarily you) would agree that individuals shouldn't be allowed to have the power to decimate a city. - pierce

[2004-06-29 10:57:49] - For example, the second amendment says nothing about the magnitude of the arms.  By your reasoning, one could not support the second amendment and still claim that individuals should not be able to possess nuclear weapons. - pierce

[2004-06-29 10:57:18] - Paul: I think you're correct in saying they probably assumed the "if" was given.  But technology has changed the world of weaponry much more than anything else covered in the bill of rights. - pierce

[2004-06-29 10:48:16] - Pierce: My thinking is that if you look at all the other ammendments in the Bill of Rights, they are mostly written in the form of "Here is a reason, this is what we do about it" rather than "If this happens, then this happens". -Paul

[2004-06-29 10:46:01] - Dave: T-Mac to Houston. Shaq to Dallas. Kobe staying in LA. Any others? -Paul

[2004-06-29 10:44:59] - Pierce: I see what you're saying and that's certainly just as valid an interpretation as mine is. I think the founding fathers envisioned the IF part of your interpretation to be accepted as a given, though. -paul

[2004-06-29 10:42:41] - anyone care to make predictions on which NBA players are going where? -dave

[2004-06-29 10:39:10] - Paul: and I think that the individual right to bear arms is not currently making the maintenance of a well-regulated militia any easier.  Therefore, I think the individual right to bear arms is not inherently protected under the second amendment.  I think it's important, but not protected. - pierce

[2004-06-29 10:35:40] - Paul: I think it's only straightforward if you cut it off before "the right".  If you accept that the first part of the amendment isn't just rhetoric, then it's a condition that must be fulfilled as a part of the fulfillment of the amendment. - pierce

[2004-06-29 10:33:04] - Paul: I think that if a well-regulated militia was shown to be unnecessary to the security of a free state, or if it was shown that the right to keep and bear arms didn't help maintain a well-regulated militia, then the second amendment as currently worded would be inapplicable. - pierce

[2004-06-29 10:31:46] - Pierce: and I think that anybody who says that it only applies to the military and police owning guns (or whatever the argument is) is more guilty of reading their own view of the constitution in it. -paul

[2004-06-29 10:30:07] - Pierce: I don't think it's empty rhetoric either, I think it was an explanation as to why the ammendment was in there. It seems to me (and I know there is debate about this) that the most reasonable reading of that sentence is literally what it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" -Paul

[2004-06-29 10:18:12] - Paul: the way I see it, the wording about a well-regulated militia isn't just empty rhetoric.  I personally think it's important for people to have the right to bear arms for personal defense, but I don't think that right was the intended purpose of the second amendment. - pierce

[2004-06-29 09:46:10] - Vinnie: Well, I couldn't solve it but I read the answer. -Paul

[2004-06-29 09:30:32] - paul: you can do anything with the condoms but you can't pass potential stds - vinnie

[2004-06-29 09:28:24] - Vinnie: And I assume reusing condoms is out of the question. -Paul

[2004-06-29 09:25:18] - paul: yes - vinnie

[2004-06-29 09:18:39] - Vinnie: Does it have to be vaginal sex? -Paul

[2004-06-29 09:17:08] - "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." Sounds pretty straight forward to me (although I know others disagree). -Paul

[2004-06-29 09:15:20] - Aaron: Well, in his defense (and I disagree with other stuff he says), I'm not so sure his 'personal view' is so unreasonable. -Paul

[2004-06-29 09:12:55] - a riddle from this site: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/riddles/easy.shtml - vinnie

[2004-06-29 09:12:30] - hahaha Willywutang would like to have safe sex with three women, any of whom may be carrying an STD. Given two condoms, how can he do so, while ensuring that no STD is passed from one woman (or possibly himself) to another (or to himself)? - vinnie

[2004-06-29 09:12:09] - alright, that independent space flight thing has been posted like three times now. enough! - vinnie

[2004-06-29 09:08:32] - "Then again, as governor, he swore to 'defend the Constitution of the United States,' but that hasn't stopped him from embracing 'gun control'...." I love this quote because it likens his "violation" of his citizenship oath to his "violation" to uphold this guy's personal view of the constitution.... - aaron

[2004-06-29 07:54:28] - http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown_040621.html who needs nasa? - mig

[2004-06-29 07:51:02] - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39157 Go Arnie! - mig

[2004-06-28 21:15:15] - Aaron: I guess in theory you can play the game with only the DVD... -Paul

[2004-06-28 18:46:10] - One of the free DVDs you can get from Papa Johns right now is "Scene it" - aaron

[2004-06-28 17:04:03] - Travis: There are definitely other things I would learn before politics. -Paul

[2004-06-28 17:02:00] - and it would cut down on school costs - travis

[2004-06-28 17:01:33] - i think they need to develop a method to instantly pump info into your brain (a la the matrix) so then everyone could learn about all sides without having to invest time - travis

[2004-06-28 16:56:47] - Travis: I think it's a lot like Al Franken and Ann Coulter books, it doesn't change any minds because nobody who disagrees with the authors read their books. -Paul

[2004-06-28 16:50:54] - and on friday on WTOP they mentioned some conservative that said he hated the movie even though he hadn't seen it and had no intention of watching it - travis

[2004-06-28 16:50:18] - i thought of that because of those articles about labeling F9/11 as political ads mentioned how most people that will see the movie already agree with moore, so that's why the conservatives are upset over the ads and not the movie (at least not as much) - travis

[2004-06-28 16:49:01] - ...message too long - travis

[2004-06-28 16:48:56] - biggest reason stuff like michael moore movies don't really have much chance of having an effect: i told a friend sunday morning i was going to see F9/11 and the friend said he's pretty conservative and so he doesn't like/watch moore movies, which just drives home the point that most people only listen to/seek out stuff they already agree with

[2004-06-28 16:20:48] - For some reason it seems kinda strange that so many people would find Emma Watson to be attractive. I'm not sure why, but it just does. -Paul

[2004-06-28 16:15:43] - Travis: Yeah, I was surprised by how many of the people listed in that article that I myself have wondered when they were turning 18. -Paul

[2004-06-28 16:12:21] - excellent, emma watson is starting to pop up in all these types of articles - travis

[2004-06-28 15:58:26] - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/179579_jailbaitstars.html I had no idea Hillary Duff was so young. -Paul

[2004-06-28 15:15:38] - it's not really a spinoff technically. it's a tweak on an existing show, since "wife swap" isn't an abc original - vinnie

[2004-06-28 13:41:53] - Travis: If babylon 5 has taught us nothing, it's that the media is the voice of the state. -Paul

[2004-06-28 13:36:39] - http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/108816503613780.xml this is going to be an ugly election - travis

[2004-06-28 13:34:24] - Paul: no news is unbiased so the evening news should count as a political ad agency or whatever, if you're going to extremes - travis

[2004-06-28 13:33:10] - aaron: i can't tell if you're serious about the british copying chapelle or not - travis

[2004-06-28 12:41:55] - I think chapelle even called his show "trading spouses" but i suppose the play on words is too obvious to pass up - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:40:51] - travis: The british series was based on a chapelle show skit, so everybody is being unoriginal (not just the americans) - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:39:13] - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=televisionNews&storyID=5526778 ABC already creating spinoffs of "wife swap" before the show even airs.  why am i not surprised by the "based on the British series of the same names." line? - travis

[2004-06-28 12:35:41] - Travis: Are you mocking me and my belief that there is a liberal bias in the evening news? Or were you being serious? -Paul

[2004-06-28 12:35:00] - Travis: So what did a political apathetic think of the movie? -Paul

[2004-06-28 12:34:58] - *** aaron deletes his last two posts

[2004-06-28 12:34:37] - Or was it gerald ford? Well, whichever one was a president. That episode couldn't air - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:34:10] - paul: That simpsons episode with Henry Ford yeah I know. The cause makes sense (to me) but it's just too tough to regulate. - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:33:14] - the evening news would have come off the air, too - travis

[2004-06-28 12:32:49] - Aaron: Yeah, good luck defining what is, and is not a political ad. -Paul

[2004-06-28 12:32:42] - aaron: ptich black made almost $40mil and cost about $23mil, chronicles of riddick has made about $60mil and cost about $120mil - travis

[2004-06-28 12:31:02] - (just for those 30 days) - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:30:52] - Although in all fairness if they're going to regulate F9/11, they should also take Limbaugh off the air, and if he goes, then The Daily Show should probably shut down too - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:30:51] - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/754720.cms let us not forget the really important news: britney spears got engaged.  that a girl, maybe this time it'll count - travis

[2004-06-28 12:30:10] - travis: I was totally thinking about that yesterday. Political ads can't air 30 days before an election, but what if F9/11 hit TV in that time span? It would be just as unfair (or maybe more so) - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:30:08] - oh, i guess the "NYT News Service" credit would give that away - travis

[2004-06-28 12:29:39] - Paul: the text from that india times article is almost exactly the same as the first few paragraphs of the nytimes article, so someone copied someone - travis

[2004-06-28 12:28:36] - Travis: Interesting that the Time of India cares so much about US affairs. -Paul

[2004-06-28 12:28:24] - cause there's a much longer article about the ads but the nytimes link didn't work when i copy/pasted it, but when i click the link from google it works - travis

[2004-06-28 12:27:41] - has anybody else used google news to find a story, then when you cut and paste the link you can't access it because you have to log in?  do google news links automatically log you in somehow? - travis

[2004-06-28 12:27:32] - Mel: That's my hope -Paul

[2004-06-28 12:27:23] - Mig: If you want somebody to get your money when you die. -Paul

[2004-06-28 12:26:43] - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/755808.cms now they want to classify ads for F9/11 as political ads so they can be regulated more - travis

[2004-06-28 12:25:49] - Paul: haha.  watch out.  Pierce is going to get you for throwing around blatant insults like that.    -mel

[2004-06-28 12:22:45] - yes, for the 401k. - mig

[2004-06-28 12:22:03] - Moore is fat. -Paul

[2004-06-28 12:20:17] - he can go to tear hell.

[2004-06-28 12:20:04] - yeah, moore is a big tear jerk.    ~a

[2004-06-28 12:18:48] - Travis: I probably could've guessed that. US Health Care would make a great subject for a Moore movie. Plenty of tear jerking stuff to call upon. -Paul

[2004-06-28 12:17:28] - Aaron: Ok, because I don't think either qualifies and it somewhat upsets me that Moore's movies are still being called such. -Paul

[2004-06-28 12:16:06] - travis: Is it at least an improvement box-office-wise over the last riddick movie? I don't remember hearing anything about that one - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:14:25] - moore's supposed next target? it's not tony blair, it's not disney, it's us health care http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1248551,00.html - travis

[2004-06-28 12:13:40] - in other box office news, apparently riddick is doing terrible, it only has like $60 million and it's been out for a few weeks now - travis

[2004-06-28 12:08:38] - aaron: passion and F9/11 are similar because they're going to do much better because of the controversy that surrounded them.  i don't think passion had any intents of being a documentary style movie - travis

[2004-06-28 12:07:17] - i'm surprised a documentary (or docudrama, if you must) could do so well.  bowling for columbine was the previous documentary box office record holder and it took 10 weeks to to $20mil - travis

[2004-06-28 12:05:45] - An objective portrayal of events based on (arguably) accurate information retrieved from documents. I think that definition fits both movies (to a different extent) - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:04:52] - paul: "A sort of documentary" is vague enough that I think I could say yes, it was. - aaron

[2004-06-28 12:02:35] - Was Passion portrayed at all as a sort of documentary? -Paul

[2004-06-28 11:59:23] - vinnie: You mean like Passion? I think the two movies are really very very similar in scope, intent, and strategy - i don't know. I don't think this one will do as well, but I still think it's atypical as far as non-nationwide releases - aaron

[2004-06-28 11:48:37] - probably that fahrenheit did so well. that's quite a bit for a non-nationwide released movie to take in - vinnie

[2004-06-28 11:47:46] - Aaron: I don't think it's such a bad opening either. -Paul

[2004-06-28 11:41:46] - Is that really such a bad opening? It doesn't seem bad to me for that kind of movie. - aaron

[2004-06-28 11:34:01] - Travis: Surprised that White Chicks did so badly or that Fahrenheit 9/11 did so well? -Paul

[2004-06-28 11:32:50] - wow, weekend grosses (both movies opened last wednesday but fahrenheit 9/11 was only in two theaters until friday): fahrenheit 9/11, 889 theaters, $21.8 million weekend/$21.96 mil total.  white chicks, 2760 theaters, $19.6 million weekend/$27mil total - travis

[2004-06-28 11:31:31] - Mig: For your 401(k)? -Paul

[2004-06-28 11:28:11] - Do i have to designate beneficiaries now? - mig

[2004-06-28 11:25:36] - Mel: I don't have any mutual funds right now since I don't really have the income to spare for such investing right now but I would be interested in hearing what Lisa does too. -Paul

[2004-06-28 11:20:34] - Paul: I invest high risk in two different mutual funds.  I don't do my own diversification.  I'd be interested to see what Lisa does since she probably knows more about this stuff than I do.  -mel

[2004-06-28 10:32:28] - Lisa: Do you have your money mostly in one diversified mutual fund or do you do your own diversification? -Paul

[2004-06-28 10:23:06] - sorry that was answering aaron's investment question from a long time ago - Lisa

[2004-06-28 10:21:13] - I have my savings invested in all high risk areas, but is important to diversify (don't put it all in one place) - Lisa

[2004-06-28 10:02:33] - Dave: I'm glad I remembered mine then. -Paul

[2004-06-28 10:00:42] - a: they don't appear to have a way to recover your pw if you forgot it on the alumni site -dave

[2004-06-28 09:33:18] - Aaron: Ok, that's kinda what I thought. Thanks for the clarification though. -Paul

[2004-06-28 09:26:18] - It was briefly on their web site alongside around 1,000 other user-submitted ads, as a part of a contest. Democrats never in any way endorsed the advertisement, and as soon as they found out about it, they had it taken down. At least that was my impression after listening to Rush Limbaugh whine about it for ~1 week - aaron

[2004-06-28 09:24:18] - It's not true. The democrats actually were really appalled that the bush/hitler ad appeared at moveon.org - aaron

prev <-> next