richanddead

Registered bored user

richanddead wrote:
And the damage done about lying about getting raped and getting raped are not REMOTELY EQUAL.

 I totally disagree, both are extremely demeaning and take away the victims free will and force them to be powerless. I've known people on both sides of the coin, as one of my family members was viciously gang raped and I had a friend in college who was accused of rape. Although they experienced different horrors their level of victimization seems to be about equal. I've also talked with my family member about this exact thing and she feels that people who falsely accuse people of rape are rapists in their own right.

richanddead wrote:
Awesome post, but even though the Sakurajima volcano may have a major eruption with in 30 years, the Sakurajima volcano is actually just a tiny little vent of the Aira Caldera which is a super volcano.

richanddead wrote:
@layla_wilson  Native Americans would wage war and take territory from other Native Americans. Tribes like the Iroquois were always making war to try to take more territory. The Susquehannock Iroquois were the ones who killed and took the Shenks Ferry's lands and they were always trying to do the same to the Piscataway. This wasn't an isolated case, skeletons of hundreds of warriors have been found all over America, especially the south west, from ancient wars that were never recorded. If you look at South America the Aztec's were well known for taking other tribe's lands. In fact, the very first action of any new Aztec ruler was to always to stage a military campaign so that their coronation ceremony had plenty of sacrifices, the empire gained territory, and the Aztec public could enrich themselves on the spoils of war.
richanddead wrote:
74% conservative and 26% liberal. I figure that's about right even though I disagree with some of the options given.

richanddead wrote:
test test test
richanddead wrote:
ryan_fraser

The Vancouver Police Department has already cleared the security of any wrongdoing and the girl was booked into the Juvenile Detention Hall for second-degree robbery, a felony.



But welcome to IAB!

richanddead wrote:
ryan_fraser 

"No they actually don't."

Actually, they can, this is Vancouver, Washington and store security has full ability to detain shoplifters there. I understand you worked as a LP for a while but the abilities of store security depend on the jurisdiction they are in. Many places allow security to detain suspects. In Vancouver, they are allowed to even handcuff shoplifters if they have them. 
richanddead wrote:
She was a thief and got caught. Security is allowed in certain circumstances to detain shoplifters. Seeing as she is outside when this incident occurred supports the notion that this was legal as most security can not detain you until you left the store with the property. Flailing, screaming, and crying does not negate the security guards job, they need to detain her for police. 
richanddead wrote:
holygod 
Killing a pigeon is not illegal so there is not jail time for it, killing a human is. So a better comparison would be "Should you get more jail time for killing a kid, as killing an elderly person." 
richanddead wrote:
DuckBoy87

You're a great guy, intelligent, and thoughtful, in fact I can't remember one instance where you were rude or mean. You got my vote.
richanddead wrote:
@fancylad

I'll toss my hat into the ring, I've been on here for longer than a decade, I have more than 800+ approved submitted posts, and I used to be one of the top mods on IAB under Kitteh9lives. Electriceye and I did most of the work on the site when Kitteh wasn't able to and even though I banned a few people I think most would consider me pretty fair-minded and reasonable, even the people I banned. I think you and I even chatted a few times when I was mod about how to solve the problems we were having with demand media. 

Also, I sent you an E-mail, please let me know if you didn't get it.
richanddead wrote:
normalfreak2 
Hey I'm all up for that beer, we definitely need to make that happen. But as far as the CNN doxing, I agree the troll is scum but it doesn't matter to me. CNN is blackmailing him from expressing himself, hateful as he may be. In a genuine forum of free expression, people are going to say things that others find ugly and disgusting. CNN is not the monitor of speech and has no right to force people to think and speak a certain way.
richanddead wrote:
normalfreak2 
Sup Sam, mine is Diedrich. Although, if it is true, I do think CNN is doing the wrong thing here. Troll or not, they are attempting to silence a person by releasing his personal information and in doing so endangering him and his family. What if it was the other way around and a person made a gif against Fox and also made disparaging comments about the second amendment? If Fox feels that those comments are unpatriotic, would you support Fox pressuring them to delete all their comments under threat of releasing their personal information?
richanddead wrote:
I actually wouldn't mind it if the price is right and I could squeeze in my computer.
richanddead wrote:
Colonel Sanders may have lived in Mississauga, Canada from 1965 to 1980 but he had already forged, built up, and sold KFC a year before to  John Y. Brown, Jr. and Jack C. Massey in Kentucky before moving to Canada.
richanddead wrote:
Not surprised, 8% of the Chinese GDP is based on stolen tech. and counterfeited products.
richanddead wrote:
Stupid move, how she thought this was a good idea, and why no one told her it was a bad idea is beyond me. That being said, she said she was wrong and admitted to crossing the line, and she apologized to the president. I'm not sure how genuine she actually is, I doubt she is, but as long as she made an apology and admitted she was wrong then I see the issue as closed and don't wish her any ill will. Everyone makes mistakes, even really stupid callous mistakes, as long as she is willing to own up to them and apologize then I'm willing to give her a pass.
richanddead wrote:
mrteatime
The authorities are subject to the Constitution of the United States, just as any other government institution. Citizens have the right to freely assemble and freely speak as guaranteed by the first amendment. This right is further enhanced when the subject of the speech is of public concern rather than privet concern as speech on public issues occupies the “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection” as laid out in Connick v. Myers.

Governments can place time, manner, and place restrictions on first amendment demonstrations but those restrictions must be content neutral, be narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. The fact that Ted Wheeler is basing his objection on the content of "Alt-right" views with respect to the knife attack makes his objection invalid. The fact that that he also asks their supporters to not come to Portland also limits and violates their right to alternative channels of communication within Portland. Lastly, the fact that this group already received a permit to assemble means that the local government can not legally block the protest unless there is a "clear and present danger." The test for clear and present danger is laid out in Brandenburg v.Ohio, stating that the speech can only be blocked if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The "community's anger" does not pass as reasonable appeal that there is a clear and present danger as laid out in Smith v. Collin. This is why the National Socialist Party of America were allowed to march through Skokie, Illinois.

You may believe that authorities should have the final decision but in our system of government, the authorities are not kings and can not override codified laws governing free speech and assembly.
richanddead wrote:
Question: Why did Jamie Fox make a joke about sign language?

Answer: Because he's a comedian.


richanddead wrote:
Sure he's a pos and so is Hillary but the Supreme Court seat is what mattered. He'll be gone in at most 7 years..the new justice will shape your children's life's. 

Yea I think that's what I think most people were focused on, this was more of an election for the direction of the Supreme Court. It was definitely the major issue running through my head in the voting booth as well but I figured if Trump lost, as the polls were indicating at the time, at least the Congress would be more conservative and Republicans would have a better chance in 2020.
richanddead wrote:
I'd still vote for Marco Rubio, I already knew he wasn't going to win when I cast my vote for him but I didn't trust Hillary or Trump. I figured I let the cards fall where they may in this election as the Presidency was already screwed. So decided that I rather use my vote in an attempt to signal that I wanted Rubio to run for president again in the future rather than focus on the current election. 
richanddead wrote:
normalfreak2 Ditto my friend.
richanddead wrote:
stifler 

Things have been tough for him since his show ended.