A place for Canadians.

ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ
report this user
in the past hour ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on For the First Night of Hanukkah, a Downtown "Black Lives Matter" Protest Called by Jews.
Flee, Seattleblues! Disperse and vanish before my harsh words to which you have no answer besides calling me "boy" or "Junior"!

@17: Way to dodge the question, Seattleblues. Answer it.
I'm all for respecting the legal process. That is why I'm against vigilante justice, imposing a punishment on the accused (the police officers involved in the deaths of unarmed black men, in these cases) without giving them a fair trial. Of course, there's a difference between subverting the legal process and protesting what one considers to be an unjust ruling. We are fucking GUARANTEED the right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" in the Bill of Rights. Notice there's nothing in there about being non-disruptive or non-intrusive! You can block streets and otherwise take up public space as part of a protest, so long as it doesn't escalate to violence, outright chaos, or vandalism.

Also, demanding that everyone respect the rule of law and accept court judgments whether or not you agree with them is pretty funny coming from you. How do you reconcile that with your refusal to comply with the provisions of the ACA? You STILL insist that the SCOTUS ruling on its constitutionality is illegitimate and that therefore you don't have to follow the law. As usual, it's the law of the land for everyone except Seattleblues, because he is above the law and doesn't have to comply with anything he disagrees with.
Seriously, how do you reconcile those two completely contradictory opinions? The cognitive dissonance must be terrible.

@18: You know, I can express frustration without making death threats. I'm sorry if you don't have that level of maturity.
You can say what you like, and I really do believe you will continue doing so in the face of all sense, but I'm going to take Coretta Scott King's words over yours:
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'"
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
If anyone should know about what is or isn't comparable to the struggle of black Americans for equality, she certainly should.
More...
in the past hour ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Wall Street Now Owns Your Savings Account? And Who in the World Has Savings?.
@7: You dingbat, predatory lending practices lured poor people who COULDN'T afford to buy houses into buying them anyway. Have you been paying attention? (No, FOX News doesn't count.)
12:02 PM yesterday ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Lunchtime!.
@5: You know what Festivus miracle I'd like to see? I'd like to see that judgment where a court ORDERED voting districts to be gerrymandered, as you claimed a couple weeks back. Seeing as the Supreme Court actually struck down such "majority minority" gerrymandered districts on THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS, I'm very interested to hear why you think those districts are actually currently mandated by courts.

Don't think I'd forgotten!
Dec 12 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on The Torture Report Confirms That the United States Is Even More Monstrous Than We Suspected.
@53: The proffered legal theory is a bit scary, but we're talking about what's actually been done. So far it's really just been members of (mostly paramilitary) groups that have declared war and/or committed acts of aggression against us. The collateral damage is a separate issue, and in my opinion we should tighten the requirements for giving the go-ahead to launch missiles, and transition our armed UAVs to carrying munitions with a smaller radius of lethality (e.g. the Griffin rather than the Hellfire).

Also, not my fault Zok is too dumb to make a coherent argument.
Dec 10 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Rick Santorum Is So Totally Running for President.
@42: "remember- always check the definitions of words you don't understand before using them."

This from the guy who insists there's no such thing as homophobia because he defines homophobia as an irrational fear of homosexuals, which he thinks nobody has. Now, I've met a guy who has an irrational fear of homosexuals; he's honestly freaked out by them, but he recognizes that's irrational and doesn't actually hold it against them. That aside, here's the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of "homophobia":
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
(source)

Oh, what's that? The dictionary doesn't agree with little Seattleblues's little opinions? Well, we'd better override every expert and authority and change reality to fit his opinions!

Seattleblues, as much as you want to be God, I'm very glad you're not.
Dec 5 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on The Morning News: God vs. Pot in the Central District, Plus Bus Driver Bathroom Complaints.
@24: No, you fool. What I am saying is:

voter ID laws : right to representation :: gratuitously restrictive gun control laws unlike any that have been seriously proposed : right to keep and bear arms



I'm not going to be held accountable for your stupidity. If you can't read, well, that's your problem.
Dec 5 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on The Morning News: God vs. Pot in the Central District, Plus Bus Driver Bathroom Complaints.
@16: Liar liar. Of those 80,000 instances nationwide in 2010, there were 44 prosecutions, not 0. And not all of those 80k constitute a crime! Providing inaccurate information will get your application rejected, but it's only a felony if it's deliberately done. (source)
As far as enforcing additional laws goes, wouldn't universal background checks be exactly that? I mean, we have laws saying that people with XYZ criminal record can't legally own guns, but there's a loophole that prevents the laws from being enforced when the seller isn't a federally-licensed dealer.
We actually DO "[check] that someone is legally allowed to vote". What do you think they do with voter registration forms? Just rubber-stamp them? No, they verify that the applicant is eligible to vote. Requiring photo ID also at the voter booth would be like making a gun owner pass a background check every time he gets his pistol out of his gun safe.

And seriously? Your first sentence? Do you REALLY think other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights don't have reasonable restrictions on them? In order of Amendment in the Bill of Rights:
I. Speech can be restricted if it incites violence, is slanderous, involves the theft of trade secrets, causes a breach of the peace, or similar. Classic "fire"-in-a-crowded-moviehouse stuff.
II. The right to keep and bear arms is contingent on not having a record of violent crime or severe mental illness. Cry me a river.
III. Soldiers can be quartered in private property during wartime so long as it's authorized by the legislature.
IV. Searches can be conducted without warrants if there is probable cause or if there is a credible and immediate threat to public safety.
V. You can be compelled to testify against yourself if the testimony consists of documents or other already-extant information rather than simple speech. The Miranda warning can also be skipped if there is an imminent threat to public safety.
VI. The right to a public trial is not absolute, for example where issues of national security are involved or where excess publicity is disruptive to the proceedings. The right to confront one's accuser in court doesn't apply if the witness was killed or otherwise incapacitated to prevent them from testifying, or if the witness gave a "dying declaration" regarding the circumstances of his own death.
VII. Actually pretty much without exception, due to the brevity and straightforwardness of the text.
VIII. Excessive bail or fines are subjective; there is no hard-and-fast guarantee.
IX. Again, too brief and straightforward, not to mention abstract, to have any exceptions.
X. The federal government has a lot of leeway in making issues part of its jurisdiction. There's a lot of judicial precedent, for example, supporting the federal power to regulate the production or sale of commodities within a state based on the rationale that it affects interstate markets of the commodities.
Rights are not absolute and unlimited.
More...
Dec 5 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Alderwood Mall, Ferguson, Eric Garner, and the Rise of the Cheap Economy.
@15: "If your case were put before a grand jury and no indictment resulted, would you want respect for the courts and the rule of law? Or do those things apply on a case by case basis?"

That's funny. When the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional, you didn't care about respect for the courts and the rule of law, because it was a ruling you disagreed with. And instead of simply denouncing the ruling and vowing to get the law changed, you decided you were going to break the law because you disagreed with it.

If people who disagree with the grand jury decision followed your lead, they'd be imposing vigilante justice on the officer involved. You talk up the "rule of law" plenty, but seem to consider yourself above it, you raging hypocrite.
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy