Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

bart (450)

Journal of bart (450)

Tuesday July 04, 2006
08:54 AM

4th of July

[ #30167 ]

I don't think the people of the USA have much reason to celebrate any more.

A man was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with the caption "Veterans for Peace".

You don't need an id to rent a machine gun, but you have to sign a paper you won't use it filming an anti-war or anti-Bush protest movie?? Puh-leeze!

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • In 3 minutes (EST), it will be my first anniversary. WE got married last July 4th at high noon.

    If I ever forget this anniversary date, I'm a dead man. :-)
  • This is clearly an anomaly. The guy will not have to pay a fine, will not go to jail. He will, easily, win in court, since he violated no law. What a surprise that police officers are sometimes either overzealous or ignorant of the law (if they were really smart, they'd be lawyers, after all).

    Same thing goes for your other links. Yes, it's terrible that people are asking for info on the NY Times editors' children. And it was also terrible when leftwingers similarly went after Rush Limbaugh. Your votin
    • What a surprise that police officers are sometimes either overzealous or ignorant of the law (if they were really smart, they’d be lawyers, after all). […] That is a private decision by the person renting the gun. Similarly, he is taking on all responsibility for whatever you do with the gun he is renting to you, so if he doesn’t want to check your ID, he’s taking a pretty big risk, but it is his to take.

      You don’t think that the fact that a police officer thought they sho

      • You don’t think that the fact that a police officer thought they should arrest someone with such a t-shirt, or the fact that the only thing the gun vendor wanted to cover his ass about is whether a machine gun will be used for propaganda, is indicative of a certain political climate?

        First, you are missing the point with the latter: it's not about covering his ass, is my guess. It is far more likely he simply does not want to be involved in such a movie.

        As to the former, no, I don't think it is the po
        • You’re joking, right?

          No I’m not, although it is indeed missing a bunch of qualifiers.

          • Or maybe it has too many qualifiers, like "noone."

            We see far worse abridgments of freedom all over the world. Saying someone cannot wear a t-shirt -- which, again, was a clear violation of the law by the apparently ignorant police officer, but still -- is nothing compared to what is done every day in most Islamic countries, nothing compared to Cuba or China, and does not even approach what happens every day in North Korea, which is without a doubt the most oppressive regime on the face of the planet.

            So too
      • We have a climate of idiocy about the law and freedom, but I don't consider that "political" (as in showing anything in particular about the Bush administration, for example). Here in Texas we've had near absolute rights regarding homeschooling for nearly two decades (the law even grants a parent to pull a child out of a single class if they disagree with their child receiving the instruction) and there are still officials who harrass and intimidate those who use the right. It's not right-wingers alone th

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
  • He will, easily, win in court, since he violated no law.

    Interesting. When did you become a judge?

    police officers are sometimes either overzealous or ignorant of the law

    Yes, that's why we have courts. Except when the administration decides it's higher than them.

    And it was also terrible when leftwingers similarly went after Rush Limbaugh.

    Terrible? Really? How so? Care to back that up with facts instead of innuendo, like typical sleazy right-winger writing?

    that's not actually how law works

    Again, your c

    • Interesting. When did you become a judge?

      I don't understand this apparent non sequitur. What does being a judge have to do with understanding this simple and widely understood aspect of U.S. law?

      Yes, that's why we have courts. Except when the administration decides it's higher than them.

      Um ... huh? When did that ever happen? (Hint: it hasn't. At least, not by any President in your lifetime.)

      Terrible? Really? How so? Care to back that up with facts instead of innuendo, like typical sleazy right-winger wr
      • Thank you for substantiating everything I wrote. 'Nuff said.

        • Riiiight. I disagreed with you, so therefore you were right all along. Nice "logic."

          If you ever want to actually try to back up any of the things you've said with any actual facts, let me know. Until then, it would be wise of you to not pretend that you actually were proven right about anything, because it only makes you look the total fool.
      • Do you really not know of the smear campaign against Limbaugh when he got addicted to painkillers?

        The significance of that whole incident was, to me, the outing of a hypocrite. Perhaps (probably) he was selectively targeted, but the charges were dismissed and he didn't go to jail, so the justice system works...sometimes...if you've got enough money (and a good lawyer) :-)

        • The significance of that whole incident was, to me, the outing of a hypocrite

          Fine, but people going after the editors and reporters of the NY Times can make the exact same argument. I am not defending either side; neither is justified.