This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 253254255 256257 ... 520
7621
« on: June 03, 2015, 03:29:18 AM »
millions of people are fucktards who haven't played anything BUT CoD (and skyrim, and candy crush, and 2048) in their lives
So? They don't play the same games as we do. So what? This is no different from "any music genre that I don't like should die because it's stupid". Who cares? People enjoy it. It doesn't hurt you. Live and let live.
7622
« on: June 03, 2015, 03:25:04 AM »
Eh, why?
literally why not
Because millions of people enjoy it.
7623
« on: June 03, 2015, 03:16:49 AM »
Eh, why?
7624
« on: June 02, 2015, 05:16:27 PM »
In the last few years? 40+ hours for my exams and when I traveled to the US.
Holy shit Flee! How did you stay awake that long?!
Necessity and some determination, I suppose. Gotta get that second wind and then keep going.
7625
« on: June 02, 2015, 05:10:49 PM »
In the last few years? 40+ hours for my exams and when I traveled to the US.
7626
« on: June 02, 2015, 03:40:39 PM »
it was a 6/10
Yo that was at least a 7. Like, I even specified the hour (2am) to give it a more thought out and realistic premise.
7627
« on: June 02, 2015, 03:33:57 PM »
You're a criminal now, Rocket. A few days from now, your friend will ask you to drop him and his friends off at an electronics store at 2am so that they can go "shopping" with their masks on.
It wasn't that funny you kiss ass.
That was fucking hilarious you mean.
7628
« on: June 02, 2015, 01:51:42 PM »
yfw Fallout Online.
don't
just. don't.
>Bethesda E3 segment >massive 4 appears on screen >Fallout fans lose their shit >Doom fans lose their shit "4 new expansions coming soon to Elder Scrolls Online"
7629
« on: June 02, 2015, 01:47:55 PM »
If this has better PVP and proper variety as opposed to Bloodborne, I might have to end up buying a next gen console some time.
7630
« on: June 02, 2015, 12:38:15 PM »
And what perspectives to foreigners have of our royal family?
Pretty indifferent. Belgium's a constitutional monarchy and it's been shown that it brings in money and serves a diplomatic purpose. It's something for the people to somewhat "unite" over too, I suppose, so that's always a good thing. Plus, they lack any real power, so I really couldn't care any less.
7631
« on: June 02, 2015, 11:53:12 AM »
inb4 joke
7632
« on: June 02, 2015, 11:15:04 AM »
>People actually being against guns/pro-gun control
If you support any possible restrictions on the right to own guns, you're in favor of gun control. Just saying.
7633
« on: June 02, 2015, 08:01:23 AM »
Proof that yaps can't do anything right.
7634
« on: June 02, 2015, 07:21:32 AM »
Who would get such a prescription and for what reasons?
Pre-existing addiction, for the most part. So you'd have a special register for people dependent on high-risk drugs like heroin, methadone and the like.
But doesn't this already exist? People in rehab for these addictions being helped by not having them quit cold turkey?
7635
« on: June 02, 2015, 07:03:19 AM »
Any other tips to not screw things up this time?
Just don't be too needy and be somewhat prepared that this might go wrong. Don't smother her, don't push anything. If you feel like things are going right, ask her if she'd be interested in meeting up again some time. If she says yes, give her a text or call the day after. If things don't go as well, just take the loss and don't try to make something happen.
7636
« on: June 02, 2015, 06:54:56 AM »
Making them legal and thereby probably cheaper would lower that treshold and get more people to try it.
Making it legal is not the same as having it commercially available, though. Heroin should be free and distributed with a prescription. Charging people anything for something they're ridiculously addicted to is a bad idea, since the demand for that substance will be highly inelastic.
Who would get such a prescription and for what reasons?
7637
« on: June 02, 2015, 04:52:39 AM »
You're a criminal now, Rocket. A few days from now, your friend will ask you to drop him and his friends off at an electronics store at 2am so that they can go "shopping" with their masks on.
7638
« on: June 02, 2015, 04:17:12 AM »
It's one of the issues I care little about. While I see some benefit in legalizing soft drugs, I'm not quite sure if the same can be said for the harder, more detrimental and increasingly addictive stuff. It only makes some sense to say that certain drugs like heroine and cocaine being both illegal and pretty expensive would end up detering a lot of people from using it. Making them legal and thereby probably cheaper would lower that treshold and get more people to try it.
7639
« on: June 02, 2015, 03:47:27 AM »
Never heard of him before either.
7640
« on: June 02, 2015, 03:39:11 AM »
Sep7agon mod starter pack?
Surprised to see this hasn't been done yet.
7641
« on: June 02, 2015, 03:32:41 AM »
do you follow it? Nope. It's pretty much completely nonexistant over here. I don't know a single person who watches it, despite being friends with a lot of very sports-oriented people. There's no games being shown on TV and I think that the only air time it ever gets on most channels is a 30 second mention of who won the Super Bowl once a year. do you care about it? Nope, and I don't know anyone over here who does. do you think it's stupid? I don't like the sport, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it stupid. I just think it's kind of boring. So many interruptions and ads just to see them try and carry the ball across the field only to be shut down and piled upon by several other men most of the time. As a European who visited the US numerous times (twice during the Super Bowl even), I've watched some of it. Not really my thing. My girlfriend used to like it though, so I'd watch it with her if she wants to. has anyone ever tried to introduce american football internationally?
If they did, it definitely didn't catch on.
7642
« on: June 02, 2015, 03:06:46 AM »
>several factually incorrect claims
>moronic and paper thin analogy
Nothing to see here.
7643
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:46:53 PM »
The main problem with this is how secretive and vague most of it is. Surveillance like this has a place, but there needs to be sufficient transparency and safeguards against disproportionate measures and infringments of your rights, something that is currently lacking in the NSA. You have a service operating based on a (now illegal) mandate, that makes it own internal (and largely secret) restrictions and that is supervised by a court that operates in complete secrecy, has only refused to give a warrant in 11 out of 33,000 cases, has been severely criticised for being biased and not independent, has supported warrantless searches and has in the past ordered service providers to hand over their complete call detail records on a daily and ongoing basis based on nothing but the third party doctrine (nothing like clear and articulable evidence linking these people directly to terrorists).
The patriot act is vague and sets out a general mandate for surveillance, which is still detailed internally (and in secrecy). Turkey made the point himself. "Who knows?" what the NSA needs to access and use certain data? We sure don't.
We've more or less been over this before. What safeguards are there? The NSA saying "trust us, we'll be good" and a court that is supposed to ensure they actually are, despite it's already been proven that this is far from the case? The fact that it took almost 15 years and a whistleblower leaking classified information before this actually led to a court properly evaluating the legality of what the NSA was doing?
This kind of surveillance is a necessary evil. You'd be a fool not to recognize that. But there are some very good arguments to be made against how it's currently done. Just because a lot of the people criticizing it are part of the "Snowden is a hero!" crowd doesn't mean that there isn't valid criticism.
7644
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:23:08 PM »
Also, didn't the US Court of Appeals rule that the bulk collection of metadata was illegal only 3 weeks ago?
Illegal =/= unconstitutional. There's a case to be made that the programme is technically illegal according to Section 215 of the Patriot Act.
Well yeah, that's why I said illegal and not constitutional. Just wondering how Turkey feels about that.
7645
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:17:16 PM »
Articulable evidence that the phone numbers in question were in direct contact with known terrorist cell phone numbers. And to actually read a text, or see name or location data, or heaven forbid they tap a phone? Who knows?
Source? Also, didn't the US Court of Appeals rule that the bulk collection of metadata was illegal only 3 weeks ago?
7646
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:05:28 PM »
Not a football fan either. Now tennis, that is a sport.
7647
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:33:51 PM »
How could anyone not love me, the best mod?
7648
« on: June 01, 2015, 02:40:40 PM »
You mind if I just copy paste what I wrote before? I might add some stuff later. I'd personally go for civil law. I realize that I may be biased because it's the one I'm most familiar with and actually have to apply for most of my academic and professional life, but in the end I do prefer civil.
I think (extensively) codified law is for the best. Not only offers it the most legal certainty for all parties (private persons, judges and the government), but it's also more accessible to the everyday person. As I've come to discover myself, picking up any law or piece of legislation and actually getting to fully understand it is hard, even for civil law systems that work with precise and encompassing laws. Hard, but not as chaotic and complicated as understanding some common law stuff.
Over here, if public opinion changes and the judiciary branch finds something undesirable about a piece of legislation, it gets changed accordingly. The law will be updated and properly adapted. In common law systems, this would generally just lead to more and more rulings and judicial interpretations being piled up, making it incredibly hard and in some cases near impossible for someone without a law degree to get a good understanding of what exactly the law is, as you don't just have to know and understand the codified legislation, but also have to be aware of all relevant rulings on the topic.
I also prefer the role of the judge in civil law systems, which is almost always inquisitorial rather than adversarial. This means that the judge actively participates in the trial by investigating facts, calling upon witnesses, ordering certain measures and investigations... They are not merely the referee between the prosecutor and the defense, relying solely on the parties to the trial to drive the process. It is partially the judge's task to gather evidence and find the truth, rather than to simply decide on which attorney made the best case.
Common law is also much more likely to employ the rulings by peers (as in relying on a jury) for most cases, which is also something I rarely agree with.
Then there's also the typicalities of contract. Civil law generally provides a more specific and encompassing regime for contracts. Certain provisions relating to contracts are codified and provided for by law, as opposed to common law that leaves it wide open. Both have their advantages of course, but civil law allows the "common man" to engage in this matters more easily, as simply referring to certain pieces of legislation can suffice. It doesn't require every little aspect to be written down and determined in the contract, which opens up a lot of debate, back doors and a ton of contractual fraud, errors and discussions. In other words, if you want to draft a contract under common law, you have to include pretty much everything and account for every situation, as if you're drawing on a blank sheet. Under civil law, you can simply refer to the law and regulations for what you're seeking to include in your contract, and only have to specifiy (or deviate) from the provisions of law where you want to.
I could go on and on about this, but it's almost 1am and I need some sleep. I also imagine my ramblings aren't particularly interesting to anyone on here, so there's that as well. But yeah, I generally prefer civil law, although I believe the more ideal solution lies in combining the strengths of both. tl;dr both have their strengths and weaknesses. I personally prefer civil, but there's good arguments to be made for common just the same.
7649
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:15:24 PM »
This is probably the best thread I've seen all week.
7650
« on: June 01, 2015, 10:18:45 AM »
I'm somewhere between Bren and Meta. Das as well
Probably Door.
Furthest would be Max or Flee, but they're cool people so it's k.
I'm somewhere between Midget and Door. Furthest would be Max and Challenger.
Greetings, my fellow libertarian circlejerk compatriots!
Back away statist shill.
AM I BEING DETAINED?
NO GOVERNMENT IS BEST GOVERNMENT
NATION STATES CANNOT INTO FREEDOM
NO GODS, NO MASTERS
SWEAT OF YOUR BROW
RAPTURE
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Pages: 1 ... 253254255 256257 ... 520
|
Show Posts