ViperPilot

Yes it's wrong...and you are certainly far less of a man for doing this...may God have mercy on your soul!

Well I don't quite understand how you think this guy deserves a nice little life in solitary confinement...that would be too nice. Why does he deserve that? And yes, having what truely should happen to him instead of some bullshit lethal injection is rewarding/deserving. Plus, it's not like it matters what you or I think, he's gonna get shanked one way or another by a guard, inmate, etc. It's gonna happen no matter what people think.

It's not exactly that I wish him any specific torment, it's just that we all know things will probably happen to him and I honestly won't give a shit when they do...that doesn't make me a bad person or someone who perpetuates violence like bill said, I just simply won't feel bad for him because in a way he has certainly earned it.

You guys have it all wrong...he just needs to be put into the standard prison population with all the other thugs. No solitary, no white wall shit....I'm glad he didn't get the death penalty....because what's coming to him in from the inmate population is going to be far more rewarding! Wonder how long he'll last...or his ass will last for that matter.

I like all those guys drinking hypnotic...what a bunch of fags.

Yeah I don't blame you there...that's bullshit to make second-rate standards so women can get in. If she can't hack it (obviously couldn't), then she needs to shut her mouth and get the fuck out. Sueing...what a douche.

I definitely agree with the non-biased physical tests. As long as they can hack it the same as a guy, they're in. From my perspective...there are chicks who can fly damn well. As long as they can perform to the same standards, there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be able to fight. I've also read several accounts about women soldiers in Iraq who weren't supposed to be in combat, but ended up there, and ended up doing very well.

Make them pull a few all-nighters to get the work done that would have been done on 1 May. If it's so damn important to them then they can sacrfice a night or two of sleep. See how they like that one.

Seems you already blew your one request.

Good, credible source....

Postive eh? Well maybe, maybe not, but certainly you can't be positive...you don't even know what education I have. I never said you didn't have education, from your previous post it seemed like you were blowing smoke out of your ass and didn't really know what you were talking about, therefore it appears that you at least aren't educated in that topic (law)...but that's only what it seemed from your post, doesn't mean it's true. Things can be misinterpreted you know. Yeah I guess that was niolosoiale who mentioned the PA...his was right above yours...oops! But if you're this asshurt over some idiot having cops come into his house because of toking up in plain sight, then one can make a decent assumption you think the Patriot Act immensely violates freedom, privacy, etc. All of that aside, I don't see a problem with this Texas case. The officers had probable cause to detain the people because of the smell of marijuana...that's been enough probable cause for decades. However in this sentence: "Approximately two hours after the officers initially entered the residence, Varner obtained a search warrant, searched the residence, and found marijuana.", it is clear that the men were merely detained, and no searching was done until the warrant was obtained. Where's the problem? So since I must have confused you with someone else on the Patriot Act thing, how do you think the Bush admin has taken away privacy from us? The above case is an extremely weak argument at best; you're gonna have to do better than that.

I'm not a lawyer, but I sure know a hell of a lot more than the average person...and in this case, apparently more than you too. I have the education, you don't...or so it seems from your baseless arguments. Ok, sorry for making an incorrect assumption... Absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act first of all (which is what we were discussing), and secondly, if LE officers have probable cause (e.g. see some dude toking up in his open doorway or think a driver may have drugs in his car b/c the guy is acting all kinds of weird), then they have the right to go into the house, car, etc. and do whatever they need to do to stabilize the situation and then get a warrant. That's been law for fucking ever...nothing new about that one. So it still stands...complete bull shit.

True...but at the same time I'm sure he didn't want to just stand there and watch his dog get fucked up. I'm not saying going and grabbing a gun from the house and coming back out was the best option, but I can understand he wanted to save his own dog's life (don't know circumstances of fight, but maybe the husky was beating the shit out of his dog...in which case he sucks for having a pussy dog). Maybe he could have just shot a few rounds into the ground or something to just scare the dog off w/ the noise...that probably would have worked. Oh well, armchair quarterbacking never solves any problems...we weren't there.

I think that's exactly what's going to happen...remember Dean was leading by a long ways for a while during the primaries, then look what happened. She'll be the same way, although maybe not AS alienated as Dean became...that guys a fucking nutjob...and allowed to be very influential in the Dem party...why do they do this to themselves?

Agreed on all of that...it's amazing how every one thinks they deserve so much. I hope there's not some bullshit deal that forces the employer to take them back...Mercedes can suck it.

***All kinds of rights to privacy. Privacy is nowhere in the Const, but it is the center of many decisions. The right to have your door be the threshold of privacy is gone, now the cops may enter your house, remove you and then get the warrant. *** That's such bull dude...if they're is an imminent threat from you in your house (like you're about to walk out the door to the local mall with a dirty bomb and LE gets wind of it...yeah they're gonna come and stop you), they've gotta do something about it. Otherwise, NO, they cannot just bust down whoever's door they want and drag them kick and screaming out. THEY NEED A WARRANT (besides MAYBE an imminent situation like the example above). Completely false.

Are you fucking kidding? Over the past 3 years, the insurgents have proven to be nothing more than a massive pain in the ass. They have not disrupted the creation of the Iraqi military/police force (who are getting much better as we speak...now they can handle operations completely on their own...big improvement), they have not stopped national elections, they have not stopped the will of the Iraqi people to have a free state. They have not accomplished a SINGLE GOAL. No one's losing control except maybe you over reality. Oh wow, they can wiretap people, oh my God, wait, you say they've been doing that for freaking 40 years? The only thing the PA changed was allowing roving wiretaps...as it should, non-roving wiretaps were retarded and made much less sense. By the way, you've obviously jumped on the bandwagon of "the govt is listening to all of us!", but if you actually read a little, you'd see the PA requires law enforcement/feds to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that wiretapping an individual is crucial to a case...then the fed judge gives a warrant. Yes, a warrant. Of course the misled think the feds can run around tapping anyone they want...well they can't, just freakin read. If you're not a criminal and you're not doing anything shady or connected to any shady people, YOU WILL NOT BE TAPPED.

A buddy of mine told me about a dude who drained his oil, then had to go do something else and forgot about it. Jumped in the car a few hours later to run to the store...wonder what went through his mind as he started driving down the street.

No, there's always fuck ups. We're not perfect, I never said that nor will I ever say that. But what international law is broken and to what degree can be questioned. However, I suppose it's more quantitative because they continue to break laws worse than we have (in 99% of the cases...yes, some shitbag US dude has gone to far at some points). There may be US screwups here and there, but in law standards, they're very few and far between. On another note, we adhere to LOAC DAMN WELL. There's not even the hint of comparison b/w us keeping w/ LOAC and the insurgents.

You got me! I'm not open to the idea of thinking it's ok to do things like that to another human being. But it's their culture, their religion, etc...bullshit, it's wrong. Everyone has some rights, and those insurgents took some of those rights away. No, I'm not open to the idea of it being ok to light dead bodies on fire and parade them around the street cheering. Sorry, guess I'm close minded.

Never said I've seen/heard everything...I'm not an old bastard yet! But yeah, I know what you're saying.

Yes and no...a state has the ultimate right of sovereignty UNTIL they break certain international laws, one of the biggest ones being humanitarian. Basically, if the world (e.g. UN) sees humanitarian distress at the hand of a govt, the majority group (say the Security Council) can decide that a law has been broken and something must be done...sovereignty goes out the door. Obviously some people think this is wrong...whether it's wrong or right, this is how it is. There are certain laws, again Humanitarian, that are considered binding to all states, regardless if they have signed onto it or not. So, sovereignty can be legally circumvented in certain scenarios...states can't just play the sovereignty card to avoid invasion, occupation, etc.

Sometimes you have to get off your ass to get what you want...I know, hard to understand.

Fucking idiots...yes, b/c I'm so sure a Musket from the 19th century and an MG-34 will be stolen from the musem and used to kill someone...give me a break; bunch of clowns up there in Canada!

Actually it's a policy that unfortunately must be taken because of the rising ability and willingness of terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah. Terrorist used to be just street thugs that law enforcement could deal with; now these dudes are as advanced and capable as some professional militaries. You obviously suggest we just get kicked in the nuts before doing anything...that's great thinking right there. You were the kid who got pummeled in school because you couldn't stand up for yourself and take action, right? Really, and which ones are we missing?