prev <-> next
[2004-09-16 12:23:32] - And when I was talking about anti-war protests and civil rights demonstrations, I was thinking about illegal ones like when people would obstruct traffic or march without a permit or whatnot. -Paul
[2004-09-16 12:21:39] - All things being equal, I tend to favor the constituion over written law though so when it comes to whether or not the president should enforce an unconstitutional law, I tend to favor the part of the constitution which calls for the president to uphold the constitution over the part calling for him to uphold the law. -Paul
[2004-09-16 12:19:40] - Pierce: And I'll admit that supporting somebody who has participated in civil disobedience in the past and is running for president might be seen as inconsistent, but only because the passing of unconstituional laws have made the job of president inherently inconsistent. -Paul
[2004-09-16 12:18:10] - Pierce: I guess another difference is how we perceive the office of the president. You seem to see him as a sort of national sheriff who has the ultimate responsibility for upholding the law whereas I see that as a very minor part of his job description. -Paul
[2004-09-16 11:22:15] - Oh, and "anti-war protest" and "civil rights demonstration" are both very different things from civil disobedience, since they're both legal. Both of those things are totally fine for a presidential candidate, IMO. - pierce
[2004-09-16 11:20:14] - And while I understand your preference for someone who stands by their principles, I hope you understand why I find that inconsistent with your focus on strict constitutionalism in the past. - pierce
[2004-09-16 11:18:18] - Paul: My issue is not with Badnarik not having a driver's license... it's with the fact that he drives without one, contrary to the law, and yet he wants to be the person most responsible for the enforcement of law in this country. - pierce
[2004-09-16 09:34:40] - Pierce: In short, the only real disagreement we seem to have is that I don't think civil disobedience is always a negative thing for a candidate (and by no means do I think it's always a positive thing). I just think it depends on what kind of civil disobedience it was. -Paul
[2004-09-16 09:32:59] - rights demonstration. I guess to me, it's more important that a potential president stand by his principles than he be willing to obey whatever laws congress passes. -Paul
[2004-09-16 09:32:24] - Pierce: I don't think civil disobedience is inherently a positive at all. I just don't think it's inherently a negative either. It fully depends on what kind of civil disobedience it is. I just think it's a bit odd to think somebody is somehow less qualified to be president because they might have attended an anti-war protest or a civil... -Paul
[2004-09-16 09:30:58] - Pierce: I believe Badnarik doesn't have a driver's license because in order to get one in Texas you have to provide a thumbprint and your social security number and he refuses to give either, or so I've heard. -Paul
[2004-09-16 07:32:21] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/guard.memos.congress/index.html CBS News reports that woman who would have typed up memos says the memos are fake...but that the content of the memos is valid -dave
[2004-09-15 22:16:36] - And finally, I still understand if you think he's more qualified than any of the other candidates despite these actions. I just don't understand how you can treat them as a positive within a reasonable understanding of the role of the presidency. - pierce
[2004-09-15 22:16:25] - What's more, even if you claim that the income tax is unconstitutional (which is extremely arguable in and of itself), that only covers that one violation of Badnarik's. What about driving without a license? I assume you don't find state-issued drivers licenses unconstitutional as well, or more specifically that he doesn't. - pierce
[2004-09-15 22:16:15] - Don't get me wrong; if the president believes a law to be unconstitutional, then he should speak out against it. But I think it's inappropriate for the president to be able to cherry-pick which laws are constitutional and which aren't at his own whim. - pierce
[2004-09-15 22:16:06] - ...The legislature should be responsible for making the law, the executive branch should be responsible for enforcing it, and the judiciary should be responsible for making sure that the laws are constitutional. - pierce
[2004-09-15 22:16:00] - Regarding enforcement versus constitutionality, given a conflict between enforcing the law and upholding the constitution, I think the President should be enforcing the law. I see that as appropriate within the scope of the checks and balances... - pierce
[2004-09-15 22:15:51] - And a parallel-universe version of them, with exactly the same convictions and beliefs but who had not been civilly disobedient (in other words, all else being equal), would be my preference if given the choice. - pierce
[2004-09-15 22:15:44] - If they were running for president, I would hold them to the same standard that they would have to renounce civil disobedience as a part of their presidential responsibility... - pierce
[2004-09-15 22:15:36] - Regarding all the historical figures you mentioned, I repeat that I have no qualms with civil disobedience in and of itself. But it's extremely important that none of the people you mentioned were running for U.S. president (okay, obviously Washington, but his civil disobedience was against a different government). - pierce
[2004-09-15 22:15:26] - Paul: getting back to the Badnarik thing... - pierce
[2004-09-15 20:24:23] - http://www.diepunyhumans.com/archives/000770.html presidential campaign commentary - travis
[2004-09-15 18:55:36] - http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ap-marshall-coachremarks&prov=ap&type=lgns Marshall coach Bob Pruett will not be reprimanded for calling the Ohio State football team ``a bunch of Mandingos,'' a comment some thought could be offensive to blacks. -Paul
[2004-09-15 18:48:43] - http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-bryantcase-expenses&prov=ap&type=lgns Prosecution tab for Kobe Bryant case nearly $400,000 -- and counting -Paul
[2004-09-15 16:06:05] - Paul: $61k video card then, heh heh -dave
[2004-09-15 16:01:22] - Dave: Hehehe. I thought that was an article comparing graphics cards for a second there... -Paul
[2004-09-15 16:00:50] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1882134 New Jersey to trade Kidd to Portland for Shareef? -Paul
[2004-09-15 15:57:22] - http://motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_0410_others/ mmmm, Evo VIII FQ340 vs Impreza STi WR1. Endlessly amused that the FQ stands for F'in Quick -dave
[2004-09-15 12:50:47] - http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/movingon/20040910-movingon.html Interesting article on the line between appropriate and inappropriate contact between fathers and daughters. -Paul
[2004-09-15 12:15:44] - Dave: True, but I don't think the military would turn down more people either. -Paul
[2004-09-15 12:07:58] - something else -dave
[2004-09-15 12:07:51] - Paul:well I think that it's not a straightforward thing, because although the military may want more people, it doesn't have the money to pay for them. They have already been cutting back on naval ships and other weapons development programs because they have no money. So more people by itself would be great, but having to pay them is -dave
[2004-09-15 11:49:06] - Dave: Maybe. I guess we disagree here. I don't know if a draft is coming or not, but I do think that the military wants more people (although I hear they aren't too keen on getting them through a draft). -Paul
[2004-09-15 11:47:39] - Dave: So we should expect the military manpower shortage to start lessening now since it's been over a year since we started invading places? -Paul
[2004-09-15 11:46:37] - Paul: and they also haven't publicly asked for volunteers. I think that that makes a huge diff, because people (including us) aren't sure if they need more people or not. So if they made a public request, I'm betting a lot of people would signup -dave
[2004-09-15 11:45:16] - Paul: and for specialized people, it takes even more training -dave
[2004-09-15 11:45:02] - Paul: well, for one, even if you get a new recruit, it takes them awhile (I would guess a year) to get them through all the training. -dave
[2004-09-15 11:23:12] - Unless you are agreeing with what I just said, but correcting my spelling... -Paul
[2004-09-15 11:22:22] - Pierce: Holy crap, I have no idea what your comment is in reference to. -Paul
[2004-09-15 11:21:49] - Dave: And if the military had plenty of volunteers, why would they be extending the stay of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and calling up older reserve units? -Paul
[2004-09-15 11:20:56] - Paul: "its", and I think you're right but I wanted a flimsy excuse to be pedantic.
- pierce[2004-09-15 11:19:16] - Dave: Devin. And I don't know. All I know is that I'm pretty sure they AREN'T getting enough volunteers right now because I don't think the army has been meeting it's recruiting requirements for the past couple of years. -Paul
[2004-09-15 11:05:54] - Paul: I really don't see why there would be. If they asked for volunteers etc, they'd get a deluge of people. Didn't devon have to wait for forever to get into training camp because they were so backed up? -dave
[2004-09-15 11:05:50] - Paul: I really don't see why there would be. If they asked for volunteers etc, they'd get a deluge of people. Didn't devon have to wait for forever to get into training camp because they were so backed up? -dave
[2004-09-15 10:58:46] - Dave: They've been squashed in the sense that nearly every politician has denied them, but you'll excuse me of that doesn't exactly fill me with hope. -Paul
[2004-09-15 10:54:39] - Paul: Quite true, though I thought those rumors were squashed? Hard to tell in an election year, especially this one -dave
[2004-09-15 10:52:46] - Dave: True, but if rumors of a draft prove to be right, then that might not hold true for much longer. -Paul
[2004-09-15 10:32:24] - I wonder how much truth there is to the stereotype (not even positive it is a stereotype) that republican presidents are better for the economy -dave
[2004-09-15 10:28:54] - dave: yeah. I guess basically I was wondering whether it will be seen as a failure, but like you said, that probably depends on the outcome, not the casualties - vinnie
[2004-09-15 10:27:04] - Paul: also I believe Vietnam was such a bigger deal because so many more people had to go fight/die in it -dave
[2004-09-15 10:25:39] - Vinnie: Not on the same scale I don't think since large scale operations have pretty much ended and show few signs of flaring back up. However, we do know that the occupation is going to continue for awhile longer even if Kerry wins. -Paul
[2004-09-15 10:22:26] - vinnie: yeah...who knows. A lot probably depends on the "outcome." Like if Iraq becomes stable, democratic, and less of a breeding ground for terrorists, then I bet it will be hailed as a great success -dave
[2004-09-15 10:20:55] - will Iraq be a Vietnam 20 years down the road? I guess not nearly on the same scale, but I wonder - vinnie
[2004-09-15 10:17:31] - Paul: hehe, that's interesting, and a good example too. Even though I respect people who are/were anti-vietnam, I also don't look at them as favorably. Not that I think Vietnam was great or anything, but that trashing it so much takes away from all the people that fought in it -dave
[2004-09-15 10:16:09] - Vinnie: And I'm sure Gandhi's reputation would've suffered the more he got involved in the creation of the new Indian government. Hell, he was killed by somebody who disagreed with some concession he had made, wasn't he? -Paul
[2004-09-15 10:14:49] - Vinnie: I definitely agree. I even remember reading somewhere that MLK was murdered as he was losing popularity because of his anti-Vietnam stance. People wanted him to stick to civil rights but he was beginning to speak out against the war and that was losing him support. -Paul
[2004-09-15 10:13:34] - dave: yep. one year after india's independence if memory serves - vinnie
[2004-09-15 10:13:29] - Dave: Ok then, I guess we don't disagree. I'm sure civil disobedience probably hurts a candidate's chances more than helps, I just think it's silly to say that any type of civil disobendience automatically makes him less fit for office. -Paul
[2004-09-15 10:12:22] - ghandi was murdered? I don't remember that somehow, even though I had to sit through that movie in HS -dave
[2004-09-15 10:11:24] - vinnie: I agree, their stories probably wouldn't be half so big if they hadn't been murdered -dave
[2004-09-15 10:11:03] - paul: I'm not disagreeing that we eliminate great people. I just think people would think twice about electing them, at least back in their day - vinnie
[2004-09-15 10:09:28] - also (I hate to suggest it)... but I suspect much of mlk's universality nowadays comes from the fact that he was murdered. a great man surely, but without his early death and consequent mythical status I think he would've been more criticized. gandhi too - vinnie
[2004-09-15 10:08:24] - Paul: I don't think we're (or at least I) disagreeing with you. It's just that we're trying to say that it can appear hypocritical, and therefore reduce the person's chance of winning -dave
[2004-09-15 10:06:37] - Because it seems like you are eliminating a lot of great men that way. You're essentially eliminating those people who think for themselves and instead inviting people who do what they're told. Electing followers instead of leaders. -Paul
[2004-09-15 10:05:35] - Vinnie: Oh, no. He probably wasn't very popular in his day at all. And I know the presidency is mostly a popularity contest and I'm not suggesting that civil disobedience makes one popular. I'm just saying that it seems foolish to dismiss a candidate just because he has taken part in civil disobedience. -Paul
[2004-09-15 10:03:54] - Anybody know if there are any good football games for the PC other than Madden? I'm sick and tired of waiting for them to release it. -Paul
[2004-09-15 10:03:14] - vinnie: yeah, I agree. Kinda what I was trying to say ^_^ -dave
[2004-09-15 10:02:42] - Paul: Maybe, but I think they only might allow it because of several reasons, 1. because most people approve of the causes they were supporting, and 2. because the incident was way in the past -dave
[2004-09-15 10:01:58] - paul: I really think you're neglecting the power of hindsight. was mlk jr. really so universally popular in his day? something makes me very much doubt it, and I bet even if the majority agreed with their opinions at the time it was silently or not with their actions - vinnie
[2004-09-15 09:51:48] - Dave: Whether or not the public / media approve of the civil disobedience would really depend, I think. People wouldn't think twice about electing somebody like Martin Luther King Jr or Gandhi, even though they had performed famous acts of civil disobedience. -Paul
[2004-09-15 09:48:48] - On the one hand, Badnarik would be helping to uphold the constitution by not enforcing the unconstitutional income tax. On the other hand, the income tax is a law and so in order to fulfill his duties, he would have to enforce it. -Paul
[2004-09-15 09:47:47] - Pierce: I'm not trying to be selective about the constitution, but because the president is supposed to enforce the law AND uphold the constitution and those are often at odds, there are really two different constitutional sides to this argument. -Paul
[2004-09-15 09:45:03] - Pierce: Are we focusing on the constitution or reality then? Because they are two very different things. The President cannot both follow the constitution AND uphold the laws of the country because the two are often diametrically opposed to each other. -Paul
[2004-09-15 09:41:25] - "In the past 18 presidential elections, if the Redskins lost or tied the last game before the election, the party in the White House lost, too" that's a funny statistic, and i approve - aaron
[2004-09-15 09:41:11] - Dave: He's done that before with other sports stuff too. I think the big reason people make a big deal is because it shows he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about and is just pretending. -Paul
[2004-09-15 08:57:43] - not that I don't understand why packer fans might be upset tho -dave
[2004-09-15 08:26:24] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21672-2004Sep14.html Man, I would so not want to be a presidential candidate. Kerry being ridiculed for messing up the name of Packer's stadium...called it Lambert Field. -dave
[2004-09-15 08:24:01] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21623-2004Sep14.html Marion Barry back -dave
[2004-09-15 08:14:02] - ironically, the man being chased died after he flipped the car over later -dave
[2004-09-15 08:13:25] - the police officer who picked up the baby said that -dave
[2004-09-15 08:13:01] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/14/baby.tossed.ap/index.html baby dropped out of car during police chase. Apparently, the guy slowed to 10 mph and dropped the baby out in her car seat. Fortunately ""She didn't have a scratch on her," he said. "She wasn't even dirty. She had on these little pajama things. She was just as content as any baby." " -dave
[2004-09-15 08:10:27] - incidentally, if you post bail, do you get it back if you show up for the trial? -dave
[2004-09-15 08:06:28] - also, CBS does not have the originals, only photocopies. -dave
[2004-09-15 08:05:03] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/bush.guard.memos/index.html Three experts were asked by CBS to authenticate Bush memos, all three concluded that they could not authenticate them. CBS states that they are relying on "another expert" whose name they will not disclose -dave
[2004-09-15 07:58:52] - http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_38/b3900048_mz011.htm AMD overtakes Intel in retail desktop sales (not corporate, just retail) -dave
[2004-09-15 07:45:01] - http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/13/pf/autos/monster_truck/index.htm?cnn=yes haha. Wanna big car? 4.5 feet longer than Hummer H2, and 9 feet tall...pickup truck? -dave
[2004-09-15 07:32:57] - Paul: just think how much larger the uproar would be if he had actually committed civil disobedience and went AWOL from the military because he disagreed with the reasons for being in Vietnam? -dave
[2004-09-15 07:31:44] - Paul: I would also hazard to state that the public / media also holds this view. For example, even though Kerry was well within his rights (and not committing civil disobedience) to protest the Vietnam war, everyone is giving him grief over it because it smacks of being unpatriotic or unsupportive of the US. -dave
[2004-09-15 07:29:09] - Paul: I think your point is understandable, that saying that anyone who committed civil disobedience or is committing it is less fit, or being hypocritical about taking office. However, I agree with the gist of what Pierce is saying. That it in fact does seem hypocritical -dave
[2004-09-15 07:26:22] - Paul: After all, I would wager the attorney general is heavily influenced by the president's policies, meaning that he is going to pursue the president's agenda on what to prosecute and what not to -dave
[2004-09-15 07:25:29] - Paul: all that to say, I think the President is viewed as being the one who needs to enforce laws, or at least command those whose job it is to enforce laws. The realities of that conception may differ to some extent, tho I don't think they differ entirely -dave
[2004-09-15 07:23:44] - Paul: irregardless of what the specifics are on the duties of the president, he's popularly viewed as "the government." Like when the common person thinks of the US govt, they think of Bush. I also believe that it is tacitly accepted that the President is supposed to fill this role of being the titular head of govt -dave
[2004-09-15 07:20:27] - bah, interesting discussion and I had to be at class -dave
[2004-09-14 22:14:33] - So, the presidential responsibility to execute law is both constitutional and part of the presidential oath (in its reference to the execution of the presidency). For someone who seems to focus on any inconsistency in constitutional interpretation, you seem to have been uncharacteristically selective for this argument, Paul. - pierce
[2004-09-14 22:11:14] - And part of the oath (preceding the part you mentioned) is that "I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." - pierce
[2004-09-14 22:10:34] - Paul: and why do you think the attorney general is chosen by the chief executive? Because article two, section three of the constitution says "[The president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"... - pierce
[2004-09-14 21:59:55] - Paul: There's a distinction between "following the law" and "blindly following the law". The president (or candidate thereof) should do the former, but not the latter. You talk about standing up for what you believe in, but shouldn't the president also believe in the rule of law for the nation he or she intends to lead? - pierce
[2004-09-14 19:03:05] - Pierce: Don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from. I just think that standing up for what you believe in and not blindly following the law can be a positive for a presidential candidate. -Paul
[2004-09-14 18:37:42] - Pierce: The presidential oath (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878064.html) actually only really refers to defending the consitution, something which I believe Badnarik is MUCH closer to than Bush or Kerry (and which has little to do with enforcing current laws). -Paul
[2004-09-14 18:36:09] - Pierce: Also, I understand what you mean but I think you're blurring the lines between the Attorney General and the President a bit. The Attorney General is the guy who is mostly responsible for enforcing laws. -Paul
[2004-09-14 18:34:08] - Pierce: I do think (again, not sure) that Badnarik has said he will go back and file his income taxes but it's only because he doesn't want to bring any bad publicity to the party, not because he feels like he has to or should or anything. -Paul
[2004-09-14 18:33:00] - Pierce: Actually, Badnarik was a huge underdog (think Nader proportions) for getting the LP presidential nomination in April. The convention was in May and unlike the major party conventions, the LP nomination was very much still up for grabs when the convention rolled around. -Paul
[2004-09-14 17:58:50] - bah, laws, shmaws. i'm more impressed by people who are willing to stick by their principles. - mig
[2004-09-14 17:45:25] - However, all else being equal I'd give more credence to a presidential candidate who had never participated in civil disobedience over one who had. That's not as clear-cut, though, and is more a matter of personal preference. - pierce
[2004-09-14 17:43:55] - In addition, he should really go back and late-file all of his past returns if he's really genuinely concerned about it. They're still in violation of the law. - pierce
[2004-09-14 17:42:04] - In Badnarik's case, he really only gets credit if he filed his income tax this past April (I assume he knew by then that he would be running). If he "promises to do it in the future", we have no evidence at the present time that he has truly ceased his civil disobedience. When he loses the election, I'll be disappointed if he rescinds. - pierce
[2004-09-14 17:38:47] - Paul: yes, if it's current it's more important, because that would indicate that the candidate wishes to execute the laws of the country while simultaneously disobeying them, which I find hypocritical. If it's in the past, it's not as big a deal because it was done outside the context of being a potential chief executive. - pierce
[2004-09-14 16:36:54] - Pierce: Well, I think Badnarik has decided to file for the income tax now that he is a candidate but I'm not sure. So you're saying that if it's current, it's more important than if it was in the past? -Paul
[2004-09-14 16:35:53] - Pierce: I mean, I have no problem with your stance, but I think it would probably eliminate a lot of presidents and presidential candidates.
-Paul[2004-09-14 16:35:42] - If you are running for president, and currently willfully acting in civil disobedience to the law, then that is hypocrisy no matter what historical figures it may apply to. - pierce
[2004-09-14 16:34:18] - Paul: "I'm not expecting every candidate to be a perfect saint, but they should at least recognize that their disobedience of the law is inconsistent with their desire to fulfill the role of president." - pierce
[2004-09-14 16:33:04] - George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr,... -Paul
[2004-09-14 16:31:28] - Pierce: I'm just wondering if you realize the weight of what you're saying. You're eliminating a lot of people for consideration for running for president if you make it a qualifier that they always obey the law. -Paul
[2004-09-14 15:53:15] - In fact, that sentence almost seems custom-fitted as an answer to your question.
- pierce[2004-09-14 15:48:09] - Paul: yes, I think I made that pretty clear when I said "Civil disobedience is a viable method for change, but not an appropriate one for someone who would be the leader of the branch of government responsible for executing the laws." - pierce
[2004-09-14 15:46:31] - Pierce: Would you say the same thing about Gandhi had he run for President? He defied the law many times in the form of civil disobedience. -Paul
[2004-09-14 15:04:19] - Paul: the driver's license thing makes him eccentric (in the eyes of most people), but is commendable as being a legal expression of his ideals. Driving without said license (which he does, according to that article), on the other hand, is hypocritical given the official role he would like to fill. - pierce
[2004-09-14 14:54:49] - And honestly, since a lot of the libertarian philosophy is about government doing exactly as it is chartered to do, I find it objectionable to see a "libertarian" candidate knowingly and willingly disobeying the roles of the office to which he aspires. - pierce
[2004-09-14 14:41:57] - I'm not expecting every candidate to be a perfect saint, but they should at least recognize that their disobedience of the law is inconsistent with their desire to fulfill the role of president. - pierce
[2004-09-14 14:40:07] - Paul: no, I think a presidential candidate should respect the laws of this country, even if he or she disagrees with them. Civil disobedience is a viable method for change, but not an appropriate one for someone who would be the leader of the branch of government responsible for executing the laws. - pierce
[2004-09-14 14:24:39] - pierce: i agree with paul, and i think most libertarians view that as a positive rather than a negative about his refusal to file income taxes. - mig
[2004-09-14 12:10:32] - re: driving - vinnie
[2004-09-14 12:10:10] - paul: I was too - vinnie
[2004-09-14 11:47:09] - Pierce: Just wondering, you don't think he should be disobeying laws he doesn't believe in? -Paul
[2004-09-14 11:46:53] - I agree that it probably hurts more than helps on the whole, but it improves his standing in my eyes because it shows he really believes what he preaches. -Paul
[2004-09-14 11:44:20] - Pierce: I read that article awhile ago but I can't remember if I posted it here or not since I wasn't sure how many people would care to read that much about the libertarian candidate. He also doesn't have a driver's license (don't know if the article mentions it). -Paul
[2004-09-14 11:42:42] - Vinnie: I'm surprised you are legally allowed to drive. -Paul
[2004-09-14 11:40:53] - pierce: I agree, very strange. not that I think it's wrong or anything, but that seems like the kind of thing that could hurt him in an election. even many voting libertarians I'm sure don't agree with that stance - vinnie
[2004-09-14 11:31:45] - I didn't know that he refused to file income tax returns. Assuming that's accurate, it seems like a very questionable practice to me. Even if he's philosophically correct about his opposition to it, it doesn't speak well for him if he's not willing to obey laws that he disagrees with. - pierce
[2004-09-14 11:29:08] - Interesting article about the libertarian presidential nomination and Badnarik: http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/bradford-dark_horse.html - pierce
[2004-09-14 10:32:30] - (but then again it's probably already dangerous for one-armed me to drive
) - vinnie[2004-09-14 10:31:58] - does the tube like stick in your face or something? I think it would be very dangerous for one-armed me to try to stick the tube in my face while driving - vinnie
[2004-09-14 10:30:36] - I'd never even heard of it - vinnie
[2004-09-14 10:29:54] - wow, that's a very uh interesting device that blower - vinnie
[2004-09-14 09:59:49] - mig: the article also said that people who had good lung function haven't had any problems, and that they've decided to let peopel who have a doctor's note about their lungs to maybe take the thing off -dave
[2004-09-14 09:59:00] - mig: I think the overall point is prevention though - like if you're drunk, it's not worth trying to drive around in your car. If you're not drunk, then you should have no problem driving with the thing (although blowing into it while driving seems a bit distracting) -dave
[2004-09-14 09:58:11] - mig: I think the article said that the device gives you a time span (10 minutes maybe?) from when you fail the thing to pull over to the side of the road or someplace safe. -dave
[2004-09-14 09:57:38] - mig: yeah, I thought of them doing it just at the beginning too. But like Paul said, then you just have to have a friend start the car for you -dave
[2004-09-14 09:42:28] - Mig: Well, I've heard that it basically cuts the engine off, but I don't know for sure if that's how it works. -Paul
[2004-09-14 09:35:29] - speaking of which, does the car just stop while your driving if you fail after turning on the ignition? isn't that incredibly dangerous? - mig
[2004-09-14 09:32:04] - Aaron: Otherwise you could have your sober friend blow into it when you start the car and then get behind the wheel. -Paul
[2004-09-14 09:17:04] - though i guess the irony of the government forcing people to drive less safely after convicted them of not driving safely is lost on them. - mig
[2004-09-14 09:13:39] - aaron: apparently they assume everyone who has a dui drinks while they are driving. - mig
[2004-09-14 09:07:59] - You have to blow into the devices while you are driving? That's absurd - i assumed you blew into them once to start the car - aaron
[2004-09-14 09:03:49] - That actually sounds like a really neat Oprah. Reminds me a little of this MadTV spoof I saw of Richard Simmons "dream maker" that was pretty funny. Heh heh. - aaron
[2004-09-14 08:45:24] - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132247,00.html Protestor dressed as Batman scales Buckinham Palace walls. Raises security concerns / questions. -dave
[2004-09-14 07:55:14] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/13/ignition.interlocks.ap/index.html In-car sobriety tests challenged. People with reduced lung capacity complain. Apparently, you have to blow into the tester for like 6 seconds...while you're in the middle of driving -dave
[2004-09-14 07:52:23] - oops, scholarships, plural -dave
[2004-09-14 07:52:10] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/09/13/gay.scholarships.ap/index.html Scholarship offered for gay students -dave
[2004-09-14 07:50:29] - http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/14/news/midcaps/mgm_sony.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes Sony buys MGM for 2.85 billion. Now controls around 40% of all movies ever created in Hollywood. Makes deal with Comcast to provide video-on-demand -dave
[2004-09-14 07:43:02] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/13/people.oprahs.surprise.ap/index.html Oprah celebrates premiere of 19th season by giving everyone in audience a Pontiac G6. The cars (276 of them) were donated by Pontiac -dave
[2004-09-14 07:41:13] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/13/lost.bomb/index.html lost nuclear bomb found off the coast of Georgia. They think they're going to leave it where it is -dave
[2004-09-14 00:22:31] - i did. -mig
[2004-09-13 18:53:31] - mig: did you see that badnarik made /. ? ~a
[2004-09-13 11:37:04] - "mental retardation that's been spreading among conservative voters" hehehe -dave
[2004-09-13 11:28:08] - http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5239.shtml bush memos may not be forgeries. - mig
[2004-09-13 09:09:53] - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=9&u=/ap/flipping_and_flopping bush's own flip flop record. unfortunately it hasn't had much of an impact on the election, due to mental retardation that's been spreading among conservative voters since 1992. - mig
[2004-09-13 08:21:14] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16909-2004Sep12.html Putin's problems with Chechnya -dave
[2004-09-13 08:16:08] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/13/exotic.pets.ap/index.html woman killed by pet viper. You'd think with poisonous snakes as pets, she'd keep some anti-venom around -dave
[2004-09-13 08:13:10] - that was in Hong Kong btw -dave
[2004-09-13 08:12:58] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/09/13/hong.kong.election/index.html bizarre, curtains from voting booths were removed to PREVENT intimidation. Apparently people were being pressured to use camera phones to photograph their vote to prove who they voted for. -dave
[2004-09-13 07:47:07] - http://www.livejournal.com/users/tmcm/?skip=28 actually i meant to link to this one.... - aaron
[2004-09-12 19:58:37] - http://www.livejournal.com/users/tmcm/?skip=27 tee hee. a funny too much coffee man comic. - aaron
[2004-09-12 00:34:32] - pierce: sorry
-anon[2004-09-11 20:55:54] - anon: not exactly the advice I was hoping for. but thanks. - pierce
[2004-09-11 19:16:51] - pierce: uninstall outlook 2000.
[2004-09-11 19:09:24] - Pierce: My version at work does by default but I don't know how to set it, sorry. -Paul
[2004-09-11 19:08:54] - http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=1879454 The University of South Florida will ask the NCAA to grant an exemption to its uniform policy and allow a Muslim player to wear Islamic clothing on the basketball court. -Paul
[2004-09-11 17:22:05] - extended version of rotk that is
[2004-09-11 17:21:48] - http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=4829&n=1&burl=r%3D0%26s%3D1 rotk officially out on dec 14th? - mig
[2004-09-11 16:52:47] - does anyone know how to configure outlook 2000 so it won't download external images in an HTML email? - pierce
[2004-09-10 16:12:08] - Mig: Sounds good. -Paul
[2004-09-10 16:11:38] - well then i'll be at the court at the usual time then. - mig
[2004-09-10 16:08:10] - Mig: Well, I'm up for basketball even if it just involves shooting practice or whatever. But if we're not doing anything tonight it would be nice to know before I leave work.
-Paul[2004-09-10 15:47:33] - paul: i'm up for basketball, i was just wondering if it was "officially" called off tonight because no one made that clear, and if it is called off, if anyone wanted to do something else tonight. - mig
[2004-09-10 15:39:15] - : Well, we had discussed playing basketball with three people last night and nobody ever said basketball is off (Miguel only said "IF") so I guess I'm missing the lines I'm supposed to be reading between. -Paul
[2004-09-10 15:27:21] - paul isn't very good at reading in-between the lines is he?
[2004-09-10 14:59:13] - Mig: Basketball is a no-go then? -Paul
[2004-09-10 14:41:11] - so if there is no basketball tonight, then what is going to go on tonight? - mig
[2004-09-10 14:33:46] - http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=29427&dcn=todaysnews be well, john spartan. - mig
[2004-09-10 13:51:28] - Dave: Sorry. -Paul
[2004-09-10 13:49:10] - Paul: haha, ok thanks -dave
[2004-09-10 13:48:25] - Dave: Well, I can't easily find anything stating for sure that the father would have to pay and I don't want to waste any more time on this so if you want to know you'll have to find it yourself.
-Paul[2004-09-10 13:46:00] - Dave: Not directly, but I think based on what it says there it seems that biological fathers have to pay no matter what. At least to me. -paul
[2004-09-10 13:43:38] - Paul: I didn't see it in there -dave
[2004-09-10 13:43:31] - Paul: does that article answer the question on if the father wants the mother to abort, but she doesn't? -dave
[2004-09-10 13:30:28] - Pierce: So you'll be coming to basketball?
-Paul[2004-09-10 13:30:07] - Dave: http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/Pages/whopaychildsupport.html -Paul
[2004-09-10 13:29:39] - I don't have to fly through Ivan in a flimsy metal tube.
- pierce[2004-09-10 13:28:57] - I'm home next week! Hooray! - pierce
[2004-09-10 13:26:58] - Dave: I'm pretty sure. Sometimes guys have to pay child support for children that aren't theirs. -Paul
[2004-09-10 13:20:32] - "It's not about child support, it's about adult support," ... that's a good line! I think that's funny. - aaron
[2004-09-10 13:18:47] - Paul: if you have a guy's kid against his wishes, do they still have to pay child support? Like if the guy wanted an abortion but the mother didn't? -dave
[2004-09-10 13:15:16] - Dave: You can get a pretty decent amount of child support from most guys. Even the ones who don't make much money often have to pay large child supports. -Paul
[2004-09-10 13:11:23] - 35k a month...that's 420k a year. -dave
[2004-09-10 13:10:28] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/10/people.diddy.support.ap/index.html Sean Combs being sued for more child support. Apparently he give 5k a month to one and 35k a month to another. Dang, all you have to do to be setup for life is have this guy's kid. -dave
[2004-09-10 13:08:03] - a: How do you know I forgot? -Paul
[2004-09-10 13:07:28] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/09/10/campaign.dating.reut/index.html Somewhat fun article about political-party-oriented dating services - aaron
[2004-09-10 13:02:57] - paul: you forgot to count dave. ~a
[2004-09-10 13:00:23] - Ok, so that means we have three people. Are we still meeting? -Paul
[2004-09-10 12:59:22] - I'm going to pass on basketball today - aaron
[2004-09-10 12:27:49] - well i'm showing up. aaron's been busy all day so i haven't had a chance to ask him. - mig
[2004-09-10 11:45:42] - Dave: Nader isn't going to be on a lot of ballots.
-paul[2004-09-10 11:40:29] - on one hand, the economy is huge, on the other hand, eBay supposedly does a ton of business. *pensive expression* -dave
[2004-09-10 11:39:51] - also in that article, Cheney points out that economic numbers don't include transactions on ebay. I wonder how much business occurs on eBay, and if that would really affect overall economic numbers? -dave
[2004-09-10 11:38:57] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9888-2004Sep9.html Nader to be absent from Florida ballot. -dave
[2004-09-10 11:16:10] - Paul: me! me! oh....wait -dave
[2004-09-10 11:10:13] - So who is showing up for basketball today? -Paul
[2004-09-10 09:55:25] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8763-2004Sep9.html gunmaker settles suit with sniper victims for 2.5 million. -dave
[2004-09-10 09:40:34] - "The pink pistols" now that's a hilarious name. - mig
[2004-09-10 09:39:35] - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40377 gun-toting homosexuals endorse lp prez candidate badnarik. - mig
[2004-09-10 09:35:17] - wouldn't surprise me if they were fakes. there's so much dirt you can pick up on bush that's legit, why make shit up? - mig
[2004-09-10 08:22:42] - they were published in a CBS 60 minutes show, to be specific -dave
[2004-09-10 08:21:30] - CBS (the original publisher of the memos) still stands by their validity at this point -dave
[2004-09-10 08:17:09] - specifically, the characters are both horizontally and vertically uniformly spaced (something that the typewriters back then didn't do) and also the 'th' in 111th is in superscript, also something that wasn't done back then but is done today by word processors such as Word -dave
[2004-09-10 08:12:38] - that, and an article from the washpost cite several people close to the supposed author who deny their validity, and also expert agree that the documents appear to have been generated on a modern word processor and not a typewriter from the vietnam era. -dave
[2004-09-10 08:11:34] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/bush.guard.ap/index.html Bush memos fake? -dave
[2004-09-10 07:55:29] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/09/frank.thomas.ap/index.html Disney top artist dies at 92. Illustrated Lady and the Tramp -dave
[2004-09-10 07:53:38] - in 2006 when his contract expires -dave
[2004-09-10 07:53:26] - http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/10/news/fortune500/disney_eisner.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes Eisner to step down -dave
[2004-09-10 07:39:02] - vinnie: I agree, I think that the msg board setup is good how it is atm. Especially with the reduced number of posts -dave
[2004-09-10 07:37:58] - mig: I think you just see less contention because people in the same parties tend to coincide on many more issues, so the candidate naturally meets more of the "standards" that his own party has -dave
[2004-09-10 07:37:13] - mig: it's definitely true that people pay more attention to the candidates in an election year, but partly that's our own fault for only paying attention in an election year. And I don't think that the candidates are only held up to high standards by the opposing party. -dave
[2004-09-09 16:39:41] - aaron: oh nevermind. i definitely misunderstood what you were saying. ~a
[2004-09-09 16:38:29] - aaron: but pierce's hack only sorted things chronologically. this board is already chronological. ~a
[2004-09-09 16:35:29] - Below a certain threshold of posts, it can just be tedious trying to find new posts when they are divided between several threads (like in pierce's journal, where he ended up writing that workaround so it wouldn't happen...) - aaron
[2004-09-09 16:34:30] - I agree. Threading has its place but this isn't really it, especially not when you're only dealing with ~20 posts a day - aaron
[2004-09-09 15:51:22] - I think I've mentioned it before but I like how conversational this board is, odd snippets and whatnot. threading is wholly unecessary and I think probably detrimental - vinnie
[2004-09-09 15:47:34] - : Not unless it was easier/more convenient then the current method. -Paul
[2004-09-09 15:46:31] - paul: you think people would actually use them?
[2004-09-09 15:22:07] - Nameless is right, the message board needs to support threaded conversations!
-Paul[2004-09-09 15:21:20] - travis, basically it's a byproduct of having a linear conversation. we could go back to the days where we didn't sign posts at all. how confusing would that be?
[2004-09-09 15:06:33] - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40365 ron paul fucking rules. - mig
[2004-09-09 12:08:34] - http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-09-08-star-wars-main_x.htm more details in store for the changes made for the Star Wars DVD, but don't expect anything earth shattering. - mig
[2004-09-09 11:51:43] - Travis: Sorry, blame Dave for posting so many links before I got into work this morning.
-Paul[2004-09-09 11:46:22] - and i just have to say it gets really hard to tell who's responding to what, i had to look down half the page and past two other mig posts before i found what paul was responding to - travis
[2004-09-09 11:44:12] - that's not to say that system doesn't fail, otherwise we wouldn't have this current situation - travis
[2004-09-09 11:42:57] - paul: because in theory that "one person" isn't supposed to be able to take drastic enough actions to destroy the world without first getting it past a series of checks - travis
[2004-09-09 09:50:58] - dave: well, kerry and bush are held to high standards, but only by the people of the oppposite party. and once one of them is elected, standards and accountability are thrown out the window. - mig
[2004-09-09 09:45:15] - Paul: Yay! -dave
[2004-09-09 09:42:01] - Dave: I would think the Spurs would have to be the favorite team in the Western Conference right now. -Paul
[2004-09-09 09:41:25] - Mig: I know. We can't let people have guns that hold too many bullets but let's give one person the ability to destroy the entire world. -Paul
[2004-09-09 09:37:06] - mig: not that i think he should have done what he did, but that I think they're both held to a pretty high / rigorous standard -dave
[2004-09-09 09:36:06] - mig: the same with Bush's National Guard record, probably many of us would have done the same thing (the article mentions that probably many of the guardsmen just didn't return because they knew they wouldn't be called up into active duty). In some senses, that's like us being held accountable for illegal mp3's, or movies we downloaded. -dave
[2004-09-09 09:34:21] - mig: really? I honestly think that they're held to a pretty high standard. For example, people look down on kerry because he demonstrated against vietnam, well, we've all done things in the past that we don't necessarily have the same views on anymore...but both Bush and Kerry are being held accountable for almost everything they've ever done -dave
[2004-09-09 09:28:02] - I didn't think Joey would be very good. Most shows centered around the "wacky funny" guy don't really work out.... you need a stable center in a sitcom universe - aaron
[2004-09-09 09:23:41] - dave: i don't know about higher standard than someone like me, but definitely they should be held to a higher standard than they are right now. - mig
[2004-09-09 09:11:18] - a: ahh, I guess so, I just copy pasted and then typed. Guess I didn't put a space in there? -dave
[2004-09-09 09:05:30] - dave: "it" combined Wolves into the link?! don't you mean that you combined Wolves into the link? ~a
[2004-09-09 08:00:46] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7223-2004Sep9.html rumors that Jennings lost on Jeopardy, leaves with 2.5 million -dave
prev <-> next