User Profile: Apologist JD

Apologist JD

Member Since: December 07, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [2] January 28, 2015 at 5:04pm

    Why do they even bother with these hearings. I don’t think anyone’s minds are changed from the outset, so have the vote and be done with it. Also, it’s not like they’re really concerned about qualifications, it’s all political litmus testing. I’m happy that a slightly more sane group is holding the hearings and votes now, but it’s still a charade.

  • [2] January 28, 2015 at 4:59pm

    They’re just setting the table for the eventual handing of power over to the Taliban. They realize that we either had to stay longer or face the fact that Afghanistan isn’t ready for western democracy, so the Taliban will take back over. Since the first option didn’t sit well with their base, and they aren’t willing to admit that nation building has failed, their only option is to make the Taliban return to power look less bad than it is. Thus, you have to start rebranding them because we can’t stomach the idea of turning power back over to terrorists.

  • [1] January 28, 2015 at 4:53pm

    I can’t figure out why she ran in front of the dashcam. Without that piece of evidence, she might have been able to claim she wasn’t driving because, after all, how could she with her hands cuffed behind her back?

  • January 28, 2015 at 3:22pm

    Plane,
    You’re welcome. Even if you can’t see the need, I and those like me will continue to safeguard your liberty and the liberty of everyone else in the world not wise enough to do it for themselves. I won’t even ask for any of your tax money for service provided. Common man’s ownership of weapons is responsible for all freedom on earth, to the extent it exists. So again, you’re welcome.
    On a side note, how do you suppose the language “shall not be infringed” should be interpreted in light of canons of statutory interpretation?

  • [6] January 28, 2015 at 3:11pm

    “But the student’s roommate — a fellow University of Central Florida student — went to her bedroom, got her own gun and pointed it at the robbers, who fled”
    I was hoping the words “and fired repeatedly” would be included in this phrase somewhere. Seriously though, when the perps are armed (or seem to be), don’t take time asking them to drop their weapons and relinquish the advantage of surprise, just come out firing. You never want to give them time to sight up on you, especially since Florida is a castle law state!

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] January 28, 2015 at 10:27am

    ECtech
    I don’t believe movies and TV, and in fact rarely watch either. My point is that nobody needs to hack you. They could get through your security other ways, and you’ve laid out some of them. The fact that you’ve managed to not get hacked doesn’t mean your security is impenetrable, just that whatever you’re protecting isn’t important enough for a sophisticated attacker to take the time to penetrate. I work in security also, but at a level that accounts not just for IT security, but also for physical and human security. And you may have the best crypto on earth, but someone determined enough doesn’t need to break your crypto, they just have to get the key from you or someone else who has it. Again, if someone is determined enough, they’ll break your security.

  • [44] January 27, 2015 at 6:50pm

    plane,
    Actually, I am qualified to lecture you given your qualifications, but I’m not going to lay mine out, because it would mean falling into the same ad hominem argument fallacy you’ve made (and which is common of those who don’t want to argue ideas on their merits).
    That said, please be honest and just say you’re ready to abandon the Constitution and make a new one, or just quit playing by rules altogether. The ACS leaning living document stuff is incredibly dishonest. If it has shifting meaning, then it has no meaning, which is what you really want because it proscribes things you want. The fact that half the Supremes agree means little, we’ve had greater historical consensus about things that are false and stupid before and we will again, so please again quit with ad hominems and discuss the merits of your position (should be fast because there are none).
    Finally, Cav is right. I never said we’re at the point where armed rebellion is warranted because I don’t think it is, but it didn’t take many years for Weimar Germany to descend into Naziism. The fact that we don’t need to rebel today is not a valid reason to take away the ability to do so in the future, and the motives of anyone suggesting we do so ought to be heavily scrutinized.

  • [2] January 27, 2015 at 6:35pm

    ECtech,
    Interesting reply. Your evidence all supports my conclusion, but then you conclude the opposite. The point is that you may be able to make a password that’s hard to guess, but there are lots of ways to get the password other than guessing. Again, anyone who is determined enough will get in, and will likely be able to do so at relatively low risk to themselves. If anyone wants to snoop on my kids, they have to breach physical security, and risk life and limb in the process.

  • [207] January 27, 2015 at 3:47pm

    This is good proof that even for self-defense you might need more than 8 rounds or whatever the idiotic proposal is at the moment. However, the 2nd Amendment was not primarily about self-defense, it was about armed rebellion against oppressive, self-serving government. So the real question is whether you might need high capacity magazines to fight the government, should it become necessary?

    Responses (28) +
  • [3] January 27, 2015 at 3:45pm

    Proverbs,
    I’ve long thought we need a Constitutional amendment requiring that before a social program may even be proposed, the person proposing it must prove that they’ve personally donated some amount (maybe 10% of income) to address the issue, just to prove that they’re really concerned about helping and not just buying votes and power with other people’s money.

  • [23] January 27, 2015 at 3:42pm

    Ya, don’t get them for this reason. And please don’t make the mistake of thinking that passwords will fix this. It’s a good idea whenever possible, but anyone who’s determined will get through your password. Just don’t use these things. Back to old fashioned listening for the kid to cry and going in there in person to comfort them if needed.

    Responses (8) +
  • [49] January 27, 2015 at 11:59am

    Naturally, I’m opposed to this, but it might be kind of amusing to propose an amendment requiring that this be funded directly out of Congress’ and the President’s pay. Let’s see how committed they really are to helping the federal workers.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] January 26, 2015 at 3:34pm

    Why as reporters? Just let them live as normal citizens and see how long before they have a death sentence passed down for behavior that passes as normal here.

  • [6] January 26, 2015 at 1:25pm

    Or we could just change all bar exams to one question:
    Please list the enumerated powers of the federal government.
    Then have normal people read the Constitution and grade the replies. The overwhelming majority of lawyers gone instantly. The few that remain can more likely be trusted to do the limited work that we actually need lawyers for.

  • [7] January 26, 2015 at 1:21pm

    That’s how you know the story isn’t real. After all, gun restrictions were going to stop mass shootings and suicide, right?

  • [4] January 26, 2015 at 1:18pm

    That was my first thought: why do you want them to think you’re alive? Just quit paying taxes and enjoy the error in your favor!

  • [20] January 26, 2015 at 1:14pm

    I’d settle for making it required of voters!

  • [5] January 23, 2015 at 4:27pm

    The U.S. Constitution has a scope clause in the preamble. It is about “We the people of the United States,” not the world. I don’t care about what “rights” foreign combatants think they have or what the UN says on the matter, if we want to torture and kill them, there’s nothing in the Constitution against that. Not saying we ought to do that, just saying they have no rights. It’s a completely different story when we’re talking about US citizens.

  • [313] January 23, 2015 at 3:57pm

    This is to be expected for one reason: postal workers are unionized. No incentive to perform, no real consequence for this behavior, can’t be fired, might even get assigned to sit in a room watching porn somewhere. Why try?

    Responses (3) +
  • [19] January 22, 2015 at 5:01pm

    There is value in showing the GOP that it can’t ignore real conservatives and win. This is done by voting 3rd party, not by staying home. Voting for McCain or Romney is wasting a vote because even if they win, you won’t be able to tell the difference between them and what the Dems would have done.

123 To page: Go