 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Young Guru |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
| User | Post | ||
Young Guru Snifit                    Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Rom Manic I really hope that isn't the case because I don't want my law enforcement to be the kind of people that will not be able to have level heads when something doesn't go according to plan. It's not the athority of the police to decide justice, it's their job to maintain order and bring suspected criminals into court to then have justice determined. I'm not saying people that kill cops are good, they're terrible people, but no worse than those who kill other civilians, and I always get a little worried at people in power thinking they have the authority to circumvent the systems of justice we have in place, no matter how bad that system might be (and let's face it, almost every judge in america throws the book at people who attack cops). |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| I'm not saying they should have to sacrafice their own lives, but 110 bullets is a helluva lot. And I don't care if they have automatics, they should be trained on how to use them and not to just unleash unrelented fire. Usually those weapons are fired in quick 3 shot bursts, and usually an entire squad doesn't fire upon one man. Or maybe better worded, they shouldn't. | |||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| Well, if it's like most standard SWAT weapons, they have three settings, locked, full auto, and semi-auto (3 shot bursts). As far as I know they usually leave it on locked, then switch to semi-auto for most situations and only go full auto on dire occasions (and a single shooter is not a dire situation). And with training SWAT should know how to not shot that many shots, it's their job for God's sake. If your a valet and you drive a beater car from the eighties with terrible pickup, you can't just hop into someone's nice bmw and crash it into a wall because, well, it's just so much more powerful, it's your job, you need to know how to use the equipment given you. I guess I just hold police officers to higher standards (maybe because it's their job!) and for them to show some restraint in situations that most citizens would go overkill on. As my civics teacher in high school said, if we let everyone enact their own justice, then if someone happened to run over my dog, I wouldn't just kill his dog, I'd destroy his car, kill his cats, threaten his family, and maybe even burn down his house, so that everyone in the neighborhood would no not to fuck with me. Now police officers are given the right to enforce the law from the citizens of the state and with this power we expect them to show fair justice and not just revenge justice. I guess it's just my stance on life, I've never understood the concept of killing someone to get justice, it just makes absolutely no sense to me (violence only begets more violence). | |||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| You do realize how long 3 seconds is when you're shooting someone. Three seconds is a long time, usuallly you trigger the gun for a quick snap maybe half a second, a whole second max, and get your bullets out and you reasses the situation. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, police punish those who attack them, but still, I like to hope in level headed authority to stick to the system. And beneficci is right, it's not our job, and it's not the police's job to enact karma, it's the judicial system's (which I know, is totally fucked, but still, what isn't in the US nowadays, I'm begining to lose a lot of faith in this nation). | |||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| I like question number 2 because basically it tries to implement both conservative and liberal views in one question. A liberal should say yes, it's okay, because of freedom of speech, but should say no if it's the government forcing religion on the people. A conservative should say yes because it supports relgion, but should say no because speech should be limited (basically an question that cannot decipher orientation).
I also like the response to abortion, why should there be a difference if rape was involved or not. I would either think it's murder or it's not, and depending on your view on the murder/not murder of the act should decide your response. I'd consider myself to be liberal, but mostly just upset with government and politics in general. The corruption in government (and bussiness) is absolutely appauling. I think it's interesting that there are very few universities that require ethics courses for business majors (and other majors as well). Those few schools that do get praised for doing it by reviewers of top academies because it appears that current business and political people have absolutely no sense of ethics. There are coverups for people sending explicit messages to 16 year old boys (not to mention the irony that this was perpetrated by someone who belongs to a party that condems homosexuality, but even if these messages were sent to a 16 year old girl they would still be abhorent) because the party doesn't want to lose control of the seat that that person holds in the House of Representatives. If I was in a situation to know that those messages were being sent, even if I was of the same party affiliation, I would have to call that person out on it. I couldn't look at myself in the mirror again for knowing that I let something like that slide. Sure, I'd probably lose everything that I had worked for by being black balled by all the other members of my party in the house, but at least I would know I still had morality. And I don't mean to imply that only republicans do this, this is definately present in the democratic party as well. This is why I say I have no respect for politics. I'll throw down my answers to those questions. 1. It is absolutely necessary for same-sex marriage to be allowed in the US. If we are to support the idea that all are created equal then we must allow those in the minority to live their lives without restraint from the state. And for everyone that says that same-sex marriage violates the sanctity of marriage, look at the number of divorces in this nation and tell me why you don't pass a bill that imposes a steep fine for those who get divorced, especially in the first year (except in the cases of abuse, then the marriage is violated by the one commiting the acts of violence). 2. There's no form of speech that cannot be tollerated. Jesus should be allowed to be spoken anywhere. Hell, it's so bad that people won't even say his name in public schools for fear of getting sued, but there's nothing forcing religion upon anyone just by saying his name. 3. Abortion is wrong. I do think that it is murder and that we shouldn't allow it (rape or no rape) 4. I'm against the war, always have been, always will be. I do think that we need to finish what we've started and leave Iraq in as a stable state. Once we went in and overthrew the government there we created a situation where we were obligated to fix the disaster that we created. As far as I'm concerned, we had a plan for how to defeat Saddam, but we didn't have a plan to create a stable state in Iraq, and as far as I know, we never have succeeded in nation building (except for Japan, but that war was justified and we occupied Japan for many many years, and that was the plan from the begining). 5. The government should raise taxes to support the poor. I cannot think of a situation where there should not be some social net to help those who are struggling and without jobs. I especially think that the United States has a responsibility to help impoverished nations as well, being the current worlds economic power. Back on point, I think that it is reprehensible to give breaks to those in the highest tax bracket because they "work harder" and "deserve" their money more. I have always agreed with socialism when it comes to helping those who are less fortunate in the nation. And for everyone that says that the people with the money would give their money to charity anyway, then they can still do that and get the tax breaks allowed from charitable donations. I think that all forms of giving are nice, but I think it's absurd when someone with 100s of millions of dollars wants everyone to look at them as a saint when they give 25,000 dollars to charity. Yeah, 25,000 is a lot, but not compared to what they have. Be like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and start giving out those billion dollar donations if it's in your power. |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| So I thought about this while shopping for food tonight at the store. I was with one of my friends and I was picking out different things for dinner, like sauce, meat, wine, vegetables, etc. The my friend asks me, how do you know what to get when making dinner. The only thing I could think to say to her was that I just pick up whatever I think will go well together, to which she asked how do you know what goes well together. All I can say to that is that I just know. I know that I get a lot of the inspiration for what to cook from what my mom used to cook me when I was at home, but when actually dealing with the amount to put into my concoctions, I just improvise and just put in what I think is right.
So, to everyone who cooks, do you follow recipes or do you just throw stuff together and hope it turns out well with pretty good success? And incase anyone is interested, tonights meal was sausage meat pasta with red wine, vegetable and herb sauce. |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| I forgot to mention one of the tried and true methods of cooking that was passed down to me by my cousin's husband. Before you open the cupboard (if you have one of those where all the food would be stored) open up a bottle of wine, take a drink, and then survey the different food you have. As your cooking, pour wine into what your cooking and just drink more whenever inspiration escapes you. It's amazing, you think that you might just get drunk and make some terribly greasy beast of a dinner but it usually turns out pretty good. You just gotta make sure you pick the right type of wine for what your cooking, red wine for beef, white wine for fish, either for chicken (but I preffer red). | |||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Tarale Yeah, like baking. I can't bake anything like a cake or cookies without a recipe, it just fails every time. Stuff like that you really gotta know how much of each thing to put in or else, blah, you get terrible cookies, and nobody wants bad cookies. Other than that though, it doesn't seem like being a little (or even a lot) off will make too much of a difference. You just gotta remember that some spices are more volatile than others, like garlic, you can just pretty much put however much of that in a recipe as you like, and I like a lot of garlic. |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass I just want to point out, you don't see to many men and women roommates getting married to scam taxes (at least I haven't heard of a gross amount of that happening, I'm sure it has happened some times). And I know enough people who aren't very homophobic but would never want to be considered homosexual and the thought of saving money on taxes wouldn't be enough to make them risk people thinking they were homosexual. |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit  Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| From what I've heard about the issue I can't make a judgement on Hastert. It's all up in the air whether or not he knew anything about the messages that Folly was sending to the page. I just want to point out that Foley did a horrible thing and should be pressed to the fullest of the law. He almost missed a vote so that he could have IM sex with the kid, that's just fucked up. I mean, not only is he being negligent to his possition (which is punishable by law, or at least should be because it is if you're the CEO of a company and screw shit up by negligence), but he's having IM sex with and underaged boy, just wrong. And if Hastert knew about the later insident before it came out on friday then he should definately step down and face the punishment of aiding a criminal act. | |||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| That's what needs to be determined, how much Hastert knew and when. He said that he knew about overly friendly messages sent by Foley in 2004, to which Hastert told Foley to knock it off. Now, I have no idea exactly what "overly friendly" means, and if that is all he knew then, well, he didn't really do anything wrong. If he knew of anything more, then he is an acomplist in my eyes. And I think it's interesting that Hastert said he first heard about it in 2004, but it came out a couple of days ago that he recieved knews of it in 2003. Now why would you lie about something like that unless you were trying to cover it up. I'm to the point where I think it's the responsibility of all politicians to prove that they are NOT guilty as opposed to assuming they are innocent.
An interesting thing I've heard some people say is that democrats might have had this information for a while and then held onto it till right before elections. I really hope this isn't true, but if it is that's worse than republicans trying to cover it up. Where as republicans are letting something continue to go on while protecting their own, the democrats would be using the misfortune of a young child as a weapon for improving their positions while letting the act continue. I really hope this isn't true but with politicians I wouldn't put it past them. All I can say to this, and just about everything else going on in american politics nowadays is BAH. edit: I need to clarify, I have no evidence to back up the previous paragraph about democrats holding onto this information for self improvement and everything I've heard is just speculation. It could just be republican sympathizers attacking democrats for all I know, but it could be true. edit 2: I just found one of the e-mail exchanges, and I think it is the "overly friendly" one because there was no actual IM sex, but it was more than just overly friendly in my book. I'm not gonna go into details, but the things that were discussed and stated by Foley were things that would make a parent beat down on someone for saying to their child (or would easily be filed as sexual harasement by any competant, and even incompetant, HR department at a company). If this is the e-mail that Hastert had back in 2004 then he should resign and should be held responsible for not exposing this earlier. If you want to see it, just google "foley e-mail" and it should pop up close to the top. (edited by Young Guru on 10-06-06 07:26 PM) (edited by Young Guru on 10-06-06 08:50 PM) (edited by Young Guru on 10-06-06 08:52 PM) |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Kailieann That's not true. I've opened up my laptop before, not really the same (it still ran, but the keyboard clicked a lot more than usual and the case never sealed the way it was before), but still, it can be opened with the right tools (screw drivers, hammers, wedges) and a little bit of old fashioned elbow greasse. (edited by Young Guru on 10-07-06 11:27 AM) |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| So, Pat Buchanan offered his two cents of completely ignorant speech to this debacle, "Political correctness is to blame for all this," Pat Buchanan says. "We can no longer say what is true. Foley's behaviour was ignored because our Republican leaders were fearful of being accused of homophobia."
I totaly agree with Jomb in being completely fed up with those in power not being able to take responsibility for their errors. It's says quite a lot about our elected officials that their first reaction to anything is to find someone to blame for the problem. Why not be mature and instead of looking for someone to blame start looking for ways that you can fix the problem. Little question for anyone who cares to respond. Congressmen still want the page program to continue but if you were a parent would you ever let your child go off to be a page for a congressman? I know I wouldn't, but I probably wouldn't have let my child go even before this came about. I wouldn't want my children to have people like these as their role models. |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Salmon I feel the need to point out what appears to be a severe misunderstanding of what the campaign for same-sex marriage seeks. Currently, if you are getting married as a heterosexual couple of a partiicular faith you have two distinct marriages (usually contained in a single ceremony). One of them is the religious sense, if you are Catholic you pledge to love, honor and serve your spouse till death do you part etc. The second marriage is a legal contract that the United States recognizes. The legal contract of marriage is what provides changes to how your taxes are handled, sets up a state where the two spouses cannot be compelled to testify against eachother and other such aspects of marriage. If you are getting married as a couple of no religious denomination you might have a ceremony with a judge or someone else who has been appointed by the government the right to certify marriage certificates. This ceremony would probably have no religious aspects to it at all but would still provide the exact same characteristics of marriage that a religious marriage would. This leads to the cause of the same-sex marriage campaign. We are fighting to make it so that the legal contract between homosexuals is equal and of the same name as heterosexuals. Currently, if you are a same-sex couple you cannot get a marriage liscence, only a civil union. No matter how similar these two contracts might be legally they still have seperate names which le ads to the whole seperate but not equall that we saw back in the days of segregation of blacks and whites. By allowing same-sex couples to have a marriage license this would get rid of the discrimination inherent in the current system of civil unions. The ceremony involved for a same-sex marriage would be no different than that for two heterosexual atheists being married. Though I strongly support same-sex marriage I could not claim to support same-sex marriages in churches. By this I mean that a church (or any other place of worship) is a private entity from the state and cannot be compelled to abide by the will of the state. It is in no way illegal for a private organization to exclude individuals from its practices and I do not believe that the government should attempt to force religious groups to allow same-sex marriage. I would love to see the Catholic church allowing same-sex marraiges because I am a member of that church and believe that it would be the right thing to do, but that is for me and my fellow Catholics to decide in regards for the Catholic church and not the government. And thanks to Pvt. Pinny for the Political Compass reference. Very interesting site, and I was plesantly surprised to see that the results of my questionaire turned out exactly as I pictured my political orientation. Usually those types of things end up with results that are different than what you would picture which can be quite surprising to find out that you're actuall a hyper conservative if you thought you were a bleeding liberal your whole life, which happend to one of my friends when he started college. (fyi, -2.5 economic, -6.75 social) |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by Young GuruJust to play Devil's advocate, why is it necessary that a homosexual union be called a "marriage?" You talk about the idea of "separate but equal" being disproven during segregation, but was that not an entirely different idea? The fact of the matter is, black schools were hardly equal to white schools; on the other hand, a civil union would be exactly equivalent to a marriage, except for in name. The reason why it matters, and I think many people don't understand this because they've never been in the situation, is that by giving homosexual marriages a seperate label there is a message being sent by the state that there is something fundamentaly wrong with homosexuality. It says that as a government we'll give you similar rights but there's no way we're gonna let you have the same contract that the heterosexuals get. That's the point. Going back to segregation, if you instead look at buses instead of schools, there's nothing different about riding in the front or the back of the bus, the seats are exactly the same, but by forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus there was a message being sent that they were different in a negative way that made them unworthy of the seats that white people were allowed to sit in. That's my point there. Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by Young GuruHow many gay Catholics do you know? And I mean real Catholics, not the homosexual equivalent to those people who just go to church on Christmas and Easter, if at all. It's not like they'll be beating down the doors of the church to get their turn to be married, because there aren't exactly a great many of them. I don't think it will happen and I don't think there's really much of a push to have it happen. I was just using that as a way to clarify that I am not against same-sex marriage in a religious context but to show that I think it needs to be handled by each religion on its own terms. That's merely what I was getting at there. (edited by Young Guru on 10-08-06 05:41 AM) (edited by Young Guru on 10-08-06 05:43 AM) |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield As a person who is a strong supporter of this issue and knowing a lot of people who are homosexual and hearing their opinions on the issue I do believe that the distinction between a civil union and marriage assigns a relative lesser worth to civil unions. Imagine if we switched this to some other characterisation, such as, if you are a babtist you cannot get married, you have to have a civil union. I don't think many people would find any way to support the government disallowing baptists from getting married. It's very similar, except in the example case you could switch from babtist to an allowed religion if you wanted to get married that bad. If you are homosexual you cannot just switch to heterosexualism to get married to the person that you love. And I don't think that the bus relation is too much of a stretch, homosexuals face severe discrimination and they have to deal with hate crimes of extremely violent natures similar to what blacks dealt with in the past. |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| That could quite possibly be the worst advice I've ever heard. And I'm not saying that because it sounds like it's taking advantage of someone (you clearly stated that wasn't the intent). The thing is, if she was interested in him a while ago she is probably physically attracted to him. Therefore, if she is drunk she might just lapse into being physically attracted to him and something might happen but there might not be anything emotional behind it and then there's just a whole disaster of someone thinking there are feelings there when they really aren't.
I've been in a similar situation and it's really up to you whether you want to just see if she does something or if you want to talk to her about it. I let it sit for about a month and then brought it up with her privately. We ended up not getting together, but still, it was good to just talk about it, and we're still friends now, so that's nice. |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| It's already been suggested to throw the harddrive into slave mode and toss it into someone else computer to get the data. If you don't want to do that you can leave it exactly as is and just swap it out with someone else's harddrive and run it normaly. If you only need some of the data on it you can put it onto a dvd or something, if you need everything buy an external harddrive and copy it over by connecting up to your friends computer.
I think the reason it might need to be reformated is that it's not just a standard drive, it's a boot drive so the data might not be accessable outside that boot (not positive about that one, just guessing). |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| This season's so depressing. Notre Dame is winning, but not very impressively, and our one loss, unlike last year, was a devastating blow out that made us look like a bunch of chumps. I do have one thing to be happy for and that's Cal. They're doing a lot better since getting trashed by the Vols. They've scored 40+ in every game since and their game against Oregon was the closest game they've had since Tenn (Call won by 21 points). I still think Oregon's a good team, it'll be interesting to see if USC can weather the storm of ND, Cal and Oregon. I guess there's one other good thing about this season, as long as ND wins out we're guarunteed a BCS game (cause come on, you really think a one loss ND team is not going to the BCS, gotta love the fact that we have the best in on the BCS of any team).
Gotta give props to Ohio State, they're playing some crazy good football right now, most deserving number one ranking of any team I've seen in a long time. And I gotta say, Troy Smith, damn, he's stepped up from last year. He was really good last year, but I never would've considered him Heisman worthy, he just didn't have that something else that was required of it. But this year, he just steps up when he needs to, it's really impressive. The funny thing about his stats this year is they definately aren't the highest of the qbs in the hunt, but he usually ends up with around 200, a lot of times below that mark, just because they jump up on teams and he gets to sit out the entire fourth. (edited by Young Guru on 10-09-06 02:46 PM) |
|||
|
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6314 days Last view: 6308 days |
| ||
| Um, if your friend is abusing children, then yes, you should turn them in. If someone I was closed to did that I wouldn't even think twice, especially if I had told them to stop and they didn't. Definitely negligence in the eyes ifthe law at least. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Young Guru |
