kcplate

6 ms·

61.
by kcplate 8mo ago
I am sure how from my comments you could have any idea what my opinion about Don Lemon in this situation would be… But if you must know, I think it’s a long shot that he will be convicted, but he damn sure didn’t make it easy on himself. H
62.
by kcplate 8mo ago
I realize that there are some people that don’t really want the first amendment to cover speech they don’t like and religions they don’t like, but it does. As it relates to the FACE act that includes interruption of those religious services
63.
by kcplate 8mo ago
> open the discussion to more critical thinking You mean like pointing out that the law is actually agnostic and it should be considered to be agnostic?
64.
by kcplate 8mo ago
I say it matters to illustrate how someone commenting on a topic can be so ingrained on one side that they can’t conceive, comprehend, or concede that sometimes a law can protect all sides. If you want to shut down discussion because it spe
65.
by kcplate 8mo ago
I can tell you that piracy in the corporate world was RAMPANT in the ‘90s. I made a nice sum of money back in the day as a freelance auditor for companies trying to get their legal ducks in a row. Productivity software like Lotus, WordPerf
66.
by kcplate 8mo ago
While it has no bearing on the active case itself, within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case. Would they have a different opinion if the variables were t
67.
by kcplate 8mo ago
> Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event The law is specifically written to protect religious gatherings from protest and harassment (in addition to the abortion harassment prohibition in FACE), so it’s an ap
68.
by kcplate 8mo ago
No, A grand jury indicted him. Nothing untoward here. It’s how these things work.
69.
by kcplate 8mo ago
> peacefully protesting government actions In a church service? To what end does it make sense? The whole thing was live streamed. They intentionally interrupted a religious worship service. You had children traumatized, crying. What
70.
by kcplate 8mo ago
> Maybe he wanted that regardless (remote hut life), and this was just a final push for change Perhaps. Like I said in the other comment, his motivations for that living choice may have been unrelated to his government work, but it did
71.
by kcplate 8mo ago
I can’t speak to his reasoning and he made no explanation as to why he chose that living choice path to me, but I just view it as another choice he made to disconnect. Circumstantially with the rest, it would not surprise me if it was relat
72.
by kcplate 8mo ago
> Until that moment, the general sentiment about the government and the internet is that they are too incompetent to do anything about it In 2008 I worked with a retired NSA guy who had retired from the agency 5 years prior. He refused
73.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> sadistic vengeance"? I don't know what you're talking about A couple of quotes from your comments above…I added the emphasis that highlights your sadism and vengeance: “You know, I look forward to the day this unjust s
74.
by kcplate 9mo ago
You criticize my “indifference” and then in the next breath hope for some sort of sadistic vengeance on me. With virtues like that, I think your opinion of what is just or not should be viewed with suspicion (and I do). Your condemnation
75.
by kcplate 9mo ago
It’s remarkable how much you have personalized what started as a conceptual conversation. Good luck resolving whatever it is you are dealing with either legally or by finding a way to cope with the outcome, just or not.
76.
by kcplate 9mo ago
At no point did I say the legal system is always right. I suggested that in certain situations it might be right and in those situations resorting to violence because you feel aggrieved at a legal loss would not be an appropriate respons
77.
by kcplate 9mo ago
You are commenting about legal avenues not going your way on a thread literally about the concept of a violent response being justified for people when normal legal avenues don’t go your way.
78.
by kcplate 9mo ago
And if that day comes I still won’t resort to violence…or even consider it. Good luck.
79.
by kcplate 9mo ago
You know, it was you that decided to drag your personal situation into the conversation, not me. Be offended, or not—I’m indifferent.
80.
by kcplate 9mo ago
Well you know…If you are having trouble, you might consider that as a referendum on just how strong your case actually is. Good luck
81.
by kcplate 9mo ago
…and still got elected a second time, despite two impeachments on top of all his other legal woes, his previous term, etc... and he still managed to gain more votes each time he ran . People seem to forget what this says about the other par
82.
by kcplate 9mo ago
It’s pretty well known that for probably 50+ years that the US has commissioned operational plans on virtually every country in the world. Including allies.
83.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> Which is why it's important to build a society that treats people fairly. Who gets to measure that though? I don’t think we can assume that the presence of violence automatically indicates that society isn’t fair.
84.
by kcplate 9mo ago
If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal much easier than people sympathetic to the violence.
85.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say it’s not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to compla
86.
by kcplate 9mo ago
“They rounded us up, forced us into labor camps, and sterilized all of us, but at least we could see their faces. That’s so much better than being sent back to your hometown by someone wearing a neck gaiter”
87.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> “If you don’t want door-to-door, cooperate” is basically saying federal agencies get to punish jurisdictions for lawful policy choices by switching to more coercive tactics. If you make any level noncooperation law against federal law
88.
by kcplate 9mo ago
To what end? I think this has become the “feel good that I am doing something about it” approach but it literally has almost zero effect beyond creating rhetoric from the politicians. You need to hold your political leaders responsible wit
89.
by kcplate 9mo ago
Start holding the opposing party responsible to run good candidates for office and adopt a platform that can appeal to independents. The knee jerk reaction is to run your party’s candidates and platform to the opposite extreme. Instead you
90.
by kcplate 9mo ago
If you don’t like a law, change it. If your representatives are not representing you, elect new representatives who will. If you don’t want immigration enforcement, don’t elect someone who ran on that platform. And, no…I do not believe that

More ›