Highland

For the first time ever, I'm rather apathetic on who to vote for. All I know is that I'll vote for someone, since I believe if you didn't vote then you shouldn't bitch about who's in power.

Well hopefully they can get that bill putting a cap on litigation damages into law, if it hasn't already been shot down. I read an article a while ago, I think it was from Newsweek, about different professionals (a nurse, police officer and a little league coach) and the number one fear they had was being sued for the most inconsequential things "My son didn't make the team, I'm suing!" but those inconsequential things carried ridiculous costs (since there is no monetary limit or means of measuring "pain and suffering, etc."

Why do we take these threats seriously? Look at what happened at Columbine high school. Look at what happens when we DON'T take things seriously. -=Mike Klebold and Harris would have commited those crimes regardless of whether they were suspended for the materials (disturbing or otherwise) in their possession or not. Just because someone might act out a ficitious but violent role is not a reason to arrest them for having written it or being in possession of it. But, Naibus, how do we tell which threats are serious and which ones aren't? Let's say this crap poet decided to act out on his poems. Do you honestly think there would not be a wide chorus of people saying "How could you NOT see the warning signs?" It's a damned if you, damned if you don't thing --- and it is unfair to the authorities. It's up there with people bitching that Bush's recent mentioning of an increased terror threat is just politics only weeks after they bitched that he sat on info to prevent 9/11. -=Mike Yes, I agree. It is "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" but where do we draw the line that says our rights of expression are being violated? I realize that there must be a balance between the rights of the individual and the security and safety of society, but unless the latter is greatly threatened, I prefer to tip the scales in favour of the former, not matter how disagreeable it may be.

Why do we take these threats seriously? Look at what happened at Columbine high school. Look at what happens when we DON'T take things seriously. -=Mike Klebold and Harris would have commited those crimes regardless of whether they were suspended for the materials (disturbing or otherwise) in their possession or not. Just because someone might act out a ficitious but violent role is not a reason to arrest them for having written it or being in possession of it.

Overturn the conviction. This kid's an asshole, but frankly I'm tired of excuse after excuse (national security, etc.) being used as a means to get around the 1st Amendment. He only wrote about a committing a crime and that is still a far cry from carrying it out.

I don't see this happening. I sincerely hope not.

Well, NOW, they don't really have a point. However, back before about 1952, it's where the nominee was picked --- sometimes almost out of thin air. -=Mike ...Yup, campaign finance reform is working WONDERS So, the primaries and caucases act as a sort of safeguard from potential electoral corruption, and the conventions are just more or less a formality and a tradition? Heh, I learn something new everyday. Thanks.

Maybe Ice-T will offer you a contract instead of the Hoffster, kkk.

Damn. Oh well, at least he's he'll still be employed.

What are the point of these conventions anyway? They're basically a coronation for the presidential candidate. It's not like there are ever any doubts as to whom the nominee will be.

While I don't want to ban him (heck, I'm thrilled nobody asked to have ME banned in this thread) --- his constant opening of topics in the sports folder to bitch about the Yankees IS trolling, in my eyes. -=Mike There's times I actually do want to see the unregistered tag under your username, but then where would the CE folder be without you?

The prison abuse scandal should still be on the news, since the ramifications of it are still relevant. I am surprised however that the Berg story didn't get the same treatment as, say, Shandra Levi.

Actually that guy got banned for flaming whoever disagreed with him in that thread. Like a certain established poster does?

Other people have been banned for alot less. I recall someone making a thread supporting Sable and they got banned for it. AS fills threads with the same spiel over and over. I already know what he is going to post before he even posts it. I don't care if he's banned or not, but why don't the mods start applying the rules equally here instead of playing favourites and circling the wagons whenever any of them are critisized?

Heh, I love TF:TM and I don't know why, but there's something about it that lets me over look the horrible production and editing from it. Anyone that's watched it will know what I mean. Back on topic: I remember posting about this guy a while back. Will they deport him once he's released?

So he's untouchable? Bascially I think he bitches and whines too much over trivial matters, but there are more worthy candidates for baaning than AS.

Transformers > GI Joe They were much better shots too.

If I remember correctly, Cobra Commander was the one that invented the pyramid marketing scheme, so that's how he financed his organisation.

The Supreme Couty of Canada ruled against Steven Harper on May 18th that a bill tabled by the ruling Liberals on February 10, 2004 regarding "third party" expenditures during an election. Under this law, non-party organisations (Any group not registered under Elections Canada) is allowed to spend only $3000 in any particular riding or $150,000 nationally. Registered parties can spend $12 million nationally and $60,000 in a particular riding. Ruling. Personally I find this to be a grievous assault on my rights. If free expression is censored during pollitcal recourse then what is the point of democracy?

That would be like one big, giant party. I'm down.

It's hard to explain: they're not exactly small "L" liberals since their policies have run the gamut of the economic spectrum, but if I had to make a comparison then the Liberals=Democrats and the Conservatives=Republicans, but here the Liberals are the far more successful party, whereas the Republicans have been more successful than the Democrats. It's really just a name, it's not entirely reflective of their ideals or policy.

But that is just voter apathy "Why throw away my vote?" as far as I know, htere is no US law prohibiting non-party groups to campaign during an election. Is that what the campaign finance reform bill was about? I really haven't kept up to date on it. Did it pass into law?

Maybe things have changed, but when I was growing up in Calgary cheering for the Oilers was a grievious sin.

Yes, but this steps beyond the bounds of political correctness and prohibits alternative views on political discourse during an election. It would be the same as if the US media only allowed Democrat and Republican candidates to have national debates. Wait....

Hmm, two vacillating and self serving characters each representing the paragons of good and evil. Ugh. Magus.