barry9a

Registered bored user

barry9a wrote:
scheckydamon What heinous crime did this minor commit?
barry9a wrote:
jayme21 You speak of putting words in people's mouths. Apparently you interpret "should be sentenced for murder for a cop killing someone else" as me only pinging you for the age issue.

It was only two comments, and already you run to the rules and pretend I'm not saying half the stuff I'm saying. And you call this "being repeatedly vilified".

Perhaps you shouldn't put words in people's mouths either, if you're going to complain of it yourself?
barry9a wrote:
Draculya Holy fuck. I thought they were full-size bats as well. They spent $1800 on these - they would have been better off just spending that money on educational supplies and telling the teachers to use harsh language.
barry9a wrote:
jayme21 Um, he got a sentence for being an accomplice to murder. I called that unfair. You said you agreed with joint accomplice laws and then reiterated that you don't have a problem with that in a second comment.

It's fucking callous that you think a 15-year-old kid should be sentenced for murder for a cop killing someone else in a shootout.

Fuck conservative america. It's not even "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but "friends of people being killed by a third party kill people". It's beyond ridiculous.
barry9a wrote:
dm2754 The kid still has a few more years before he'd be allowed to vote, and has to live ~50% longer than his current age before he'd be allowed to drink. And from a mercenary standpoint, the state of Alabama now has to pay for 65 years of incarceration because of the expectation that young teenagers are up-to-date on criminal law and the ramifications of 'joint enterprise' laws. I just don't see how the LEOs involved in the prosecution can sleep at night.

Fuck, the US is a cruel place. Land of the free, my left testicle.
barry9a wrote:
megrendel And they didn't even have a plan for that, either. No plan to delineate the withdrawal of ACA, or how the vacuum was going to be filled when it was gone.
barry9a wrote:
Meanwhile over in Texas, you have that rich white teen who killed four people drunk driving and injured nine more, who gets away with no jail time and only 10 years probation because "he's too rich and spoiled to know right from wrong". He ended up going to jail for all of 2 years because... he still breached his probation.
barry9a wrote:
jayme21 He's a minor. How fucking callous do you have to be to call that sentencing fair, even with the breakdown?
barry9a wrote:
kalron27 Despite his annoying schtick, Plinkett is hands-down the most incisive film critic I've ever seen.
barry9a wrote:
I liked "now, these words are 100% ILLEGAL, but I'm going to say them as a journalist using them for education purposes", which suggests that the words actually aren't 100% illegal...
barry9a wrote:
kalron27 Well, we're going to get one of these every second year now, under the Disney release schedule :)
barry9a wrote:
holygod Did you not feel that the movie was shoehorning her into the 'chosen one' role? So what if she was the only one that could talk to dude Y, you don't need to continuously refer to the character as "dude X's daughter, so she's special" throughout the entire film.

In A New Hope, Artoo was the only one who could stop the trash compactor from smunching the heroes, but we don't refer to that character as "Artoo, built on Naboo, so he's special" throughout the entire film. It's such a lazy, empty way to build character.

Plinkett Reviews did an interesting thing: he asked his friends to describe characters from the original  and prequel trilogies, but forbade them to describe their job or their appearance. It was quite startling - everyone can characterise the main characters of the original and give a feel for who luke, han, leia actually were as personalities, but the main characters of the prequels are pretty... characterless. So were the characters in Rogue One.
barry9a wrote:
normalfreak2 Ironic, isn't it, how the conservatives paint themselves as the only ones who know how to govern, and they keep making a pig's breakfast of it.

I still can't believe after SIX YEARS of GOP hysteria about obamacare, they still had nothing to replace it with. Six years of constant bitching about an opponent's policy, and never once did they think to write something up to replace it. "Nah, we'll just wing it on the day!" for something as complex an issue as the healthcare system.

At least progressives actually try to help other people while they feather their own nests.
barry9a wrote:

 If I get stopped for speeding do I just say I do not give “consent” and on my way I go?

You didn't even need to read the link I gave to give the answer to that, because it was in the link text. 

So, since this is your gambit, tell me how electing your sheriff would get you out of your speeding ticket, mr "the only way to get consent is from elections". What are you going to do, hold a snap election on the roadside?
barry9a wrote:
holygod Rogue was ridiculously bad. A boring, sullen movie, with a railroaded uninspired plot and a shoehorned "chosen one". Why was the hero special? Because she was dude X's daughter. And this is important why? Because she was dude X's daughter. Did she have any special features herself? Well, a long time ago, half of her was a spurt of jism from dude X, although admittedly the other half of her was from her mundane mother.
barry9a wrote:

In fact i have a new suspicion on star wars:  If George Lucas didn't create it, it's going to suck

Spoken like a man who has never seen Episodes I, II, and III
barry9a wrote:
Oh, and this shit stain has this to say as well: "I don't give a damn what you say or what you do. I don't give a damn what your people say either. I'm going to put twelve people on a jury who are going to find your goddamn black ass guilty."

He put an innocent man on death row, the victim's sentence was overturned on the basis of Tate's coercion and witness perjury.
barry9a wrote:
dang007 Because as we know, elections in the US are the cleanest in existence, and you always have a good selection of choices available to suit your needs. Oh, and the community always fully participates.

In Peelian terms, "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so, so it's not about showing a charming face to a handful of voters and then doing what you want until the next election.

Also, elections for LEOs is a really bad idea, because you swap diligance for short-term-gain popularism. Sometimes the way to actually lower crime isn't the stuff screaming from the tabloid front pages.
barry9a wrote:
The US really fucked up by divorcing from the UK before Peelian Principles came about in the early 1800s. Peelian Principles have spread through the commonwealth, and basically see the cop as "empowered by community consent". This kind of unethical behaviour simply wouldn't fly under that philosophy. It's not to say there aren't arsehole cops in the Peelian system, but the scale of the arseholishness is nothing like this.

Whereas in the US, cops function very much on an 'us versus them'/'team good vs team bad' dichotomy, and if it's legal to screw someone over, then it's ethical to screw them over. Cops know damn well that in moral terms it's theft when they do civil forfeiture stuff, but fuck it, civilians aren't on our team, and the law says we can do it!
barry9a wrote:
yeah, because when people genuinely fight with weapons, they always keep them touching, amirite?
barry9a wrote:
I'm going to go to hell for wondering why a kind and benevolent god would be so insecure as to torture you for eternity if you merely doubt his existence.
barry9a wrote:
ffs monkwarrior, all serious philosophical traditions have The Golden Rule in them. "treat others as you would treat yourself. Only idiot niche philosophies like Satanism don't.

You don't need a specific rule forbidding you from coveting your father's adultery. The golden rule is enough.
barry9a wrote:
the pro-gun lobby should be 100% behind this. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people, and a killer will kill you with or without a gun. Therefore a stone is clearly just as effective as getting the job done as a semi-auto rifle, amirite?
barry9a wrote:
oobaka It was clearly there to keep him leashed if he started, say, talking about whores coming to the city on a g-rated program. And it worked.
barry9a wrote:
kalron27 He'd be a lot better if he didn't shout into the mike thinking that showed he was passionate. Bill Hicks used to do that too - I really liked him, but in some of his sets he'd just scream unintelligibly into the mike, sometimes for minutes on end.