• Last Seen: MIA
  • Old Guild Username: The Calamity
  • Joined: 10 yrs ago
  • Posts: 57 (0.02 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. Feed 10 yrs ago

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

“Jiao Hai,” exclaimed Akida Kusanagi, leader of the Kusanagi clan. “Find Jiao Hai!”

Suddenly a great gasp was heard from the small crowd that remained behind as the clan disbursed to their position. The palm of his hand placed on the victim’s face, Jiao Hai withdrew his sword from the young and obviously inexperienced boy’s stomach. A faint aura filled the subtle gaps between the ronin’s hand and the boy’s face. Jiao Hai’s face showed no other expression than satisfaction.

With a swift slash through the air over his head, the ronin whipped the blood from his sword before sheathing it. With a calm demeanor, the young man sauntered towards the clan leader. He pushed aside those who got in his way without discrimination. A seemingly gentle motion belied the exacerbated reaction of those pushed aside who stumbled to maintain their composure. Jiao Hai found a suitable position a couple of steps behind Akida. Little did the ronin care about taking the life of another, but tradition was tradition.

“The Kusanagi paid a lot of money for your services ronin, you best hold up your end of the bargain.” The elderly leader snarled with an expressionless face.

“A bit of gold does a wonder for the wallet Akida. But you promised me a suitable opponent,” Jiao Hai replied. “Just make sure you hold up yours.” He scoffed.

Although the leader would not take a moment to recognize the young ronin, Jiao Hai bowed at the neck with a turn of his head. As he moved forward the ronin interlocked his fingers behind his head.

“I suppose I’ll see you in the city?” He cooed with a chuckle leaving the attack force in his wake.
Captain Jordan said
SCOTUS*


The common anagram used is SCOTUS, you are correct. However, when you are writing it down for your own personal use USSC is just as viable and shorter. It was a habit a picked up briefing cases.
Well, I'm not sure where all that information is coming from but it appears to be based entirely on opinion. Now, I am not going to go digging through hundreds of scholarly articles to refute any of that but rely on my experience with the system and my education which is to a certain extent dealing with analysis of why crime is an issue.

First of all, I will agree. Prohibition does not work. It is readily apparent that it does not work.

However, the connection with gangs is faulty. Gangs deal in a variety of different crimes on a varying number of levels. Drug crime is a big deal sure, but it isn't as troublesome as the media might have us believe. Drugs are an issue because they degrade the capacity of society to function. If everyone is getting high few people are actually functioning and getting things done. If you've ever done drugs harder than marijuana you know exactly what I am talking about. Furthermore, if gangs were not selling drugs they would be increasing their criminal behavior to include robberies, thefts, human trafficking, prostitution and other various crimes to achieve their goals. The typical street level dealer is not dealing because he wants to make his wallet fat without working hard, they are doing so because the means available to them cannot compete. With minimum wage being at $7.90 at least in the states I believe, it is much more worthwhile for these people to sell drugs. So they do. Take away their ability to sell drugs and perhaps eventually it will permeate society enough where those who would become criminals decide to take a different path but that is not a guarantee and it will not change the career criminals. As for the interaction with actual cartels, this is usually only one person per system of dealers. One person gets the shipment and it trickles down to the numerous dealers on the streets. Quite frankly, the authorities in general are cutting deals to get those people. That is how the authorities work. They will release the lesser guys to catch the big fish. So don't be confused with how prevalent drug crimes are, at least in the states. I see more people indicted for more serious crimes on a regular basis than anything drug related. And I do see the docket of new incoming charges every morning.

Are there thousands of good, non-violent people in jails across the country right now because of drugs, I think I can agree with that statement to a certain extent. The local lock up in my work place facility is generally packed up tight. But like I said, out of those people most aren't drug related. Generally speaking, the American court system provides offenders multiple opportunities to get their act together placing them in treatment programs and half-way houses to break the addiction before actually throwing them in jail for their crime. Of course, if they don't finish that treatment program and comply with any subsequent CCS they are than disciplined with the remaining time that they would have had to serve. However, let's be realistic. Despite what we see in movies or on the television with a lot of the harder drugs come a lot of different crimes. Users trying to find money to pay or their habit. Violence over turf wars and violence amongst other users as well as officers when it becomes an issue. So quite frankly, most of these people in jail for drugs are not good people. They are people that will expend anything just to get another fix as is common with any addictive substance. (And don't confuse this with something like internet addiction which is a completely different story.) As it were, these people are not truly good people. They don't deal with the reasons why they feel they need to get high they run from them and hide behind their addiction to not deal with them.

Now, let's assume we legalize all drugs from marijuana country-wide (which I would support) to heroin, meth, and this new Krocodil nonsense, or however it is spelled. Just imagine it, from coast to coast needles and baggies would line the streets and everyone would be... well dead... It is already apparent. Even those who believe they can handle addiction gets OVI's all the time. We have a giant addiction problem, at least in the states. Cigarettes and alcohol despite the medical ramifications are not only a billion dollar industry but there is zero discrimination amongst economic or social backgrounds. Now let's take legalized drugs. Do you really think people would be able to control themselves? People can't control themselves with the legal drugs, why would illegal one's be any different. Society would grind to a halt. The lowest paying jobs, that actually allow this country to run are generally carried by those who are most susceptible to picking up a drug addiction in the first place. We would end up with a lot of dumb people as they overdose without realizing enough is enough while they are actually high,

Yes, people will do drugs despite prohibition. Yes you can see people doing drugs anywhere, and if you walk down local city streets near the closest major city to me you may hear bums calling for a "nug." But this will still happen whether you make them illegal or not. And people will not become better educated. It doesn't not follow logically or rationally that legalization comes educations. At least, there will be no more education than there already is in the states. Schools teach their students about drugs. The medical community understands drugs more than anyone would care to read about. The education about cigarettes and alcohol is ridiculously expansive and people are still involved with exploiting them. So will I start doing crack if they make it legal, no. But would it convince others to do so, absolutely.

Now, let's get down to the real motive as why the government does not legalize every drug. Let's look into marijuana first. It has been legalized for personal consumption by a couple states for personal consumption. Is this legal? Absolutely not! What people are not educated on is the fact that while the states have made it legal, it is still a crime under federal law and because the state law clashes with the federal law the federal law will win. If the feds want to swoop in and start arresting state sanctioned dealers and people who grow for other uses than medical and users they still can. And why would they do this? Because the revenue from arresting people, ticketing people, and fining them brings in far more money than taxing drugs that are sold legally. If they were to legalize these drugs on a federal level, the increase in price would have to be high enough to cover that threshold which would force people back to the local dealers to get their fix effectively destroying the reason why you may be suggesting we legalize drugs. In my area, it is a $700 find for paraphernalia, which includes things like a bowl which may have resin in it. How do you suppose the government will tackle that? And quite frankly, it won't stop the more impressive crimes that I see on a daily basis.

As it were, legalizing weed is probably a good idea. It is less dangerous than alcohol, it may be less harmful than cigarettes given the shit they put into them and realistically it is nonaddictive. However, harder drugs would do more damage than people can deal with. One line of cocaine or one pile of ecstasy does have the ability to kill you. Now sure, driving drunk can do that more likely than not you are not going to die from one cigarette or one drink. To suggest making every drug legal is ridiculous because regulating and taxing them will not replace dealers just give them a reason to get out there and make real money. The government is selling them to you at this price, well here this one is ten bucks cheaper for the same amount. And do you really want the government interacting with the cartels anymore than they already are? That's a good idea when they are taking over entire neighborhoods in this country like little Havana down south.

Now we don't need to get into a debate over credentials or experience but making each and ever drug available legal would be, based on what I know of at least the American Justice System a terrible idea that would only be detrimental to the country.
Excellent, the posts look good so far. I'll be posting in the near future. Probably tomorrow at some point int time. I have some things potentially going on so I won't have much time tonight.
Wait a second... Is this a piece of legislation or did this turn up from a law suit that had reached the supreme court? The original poster used term "ruling" which would suggest to me that it refers to a court decision and not a piece of legislation as such legislation would not be ruled upon but enacted. If it is in fact a "ruling" in the sense of case law heard before the supreme court a petition would do nothing more but provide a minimal form of persuasion to enact legislation to override the supreme court case decision. Intrigued, I will be doing more research on the matter. But further explanation here wouldn't hurt either.

So further research has provided me with two facts. First off, this did in fact arrive from a court decision. With that being said, a petition is going to do very little to help that considering congress really doesn't give a damn what a majority of the people in this country say unless they can start padding their bank accounts even more. Second, it is a federal court decision. This is not necessarily binding across the board. It will provide a causeway for communication companies to rid themselves of net neutrality but will not necessarily solidify it. Essentially, it is only considered a secondary persuasive source for state claims and federal claims found in other circuits. It will only be binding in the D.C. circuit where the court was decided. Does this seem like something the Supreme Court might provide a Writ of Certiorari for, I couldn't provide any conclusive insight on that. But there are some things I can say about it given my particular educational and career background...

IF the United States Supreme Court does agree to review this case, it will certainly cause a political uproar from both sides. Most likely the Democrats siding with neutrality and the Republicans siding against it. It appears on its face from the small portion of research I've done, and will continue to keep doing that it may be viewed as a restriction on one's First Amendment Rights of freedom of speech/expression. However, the question that might arise would be does the freedom extend to all platforms? Certainly it doesn't extend to private institutions restricting the rights of people, that is a fact. Company X can say we don't want our people expression views of this nature and can without penalty uphold that guideline. The government on the other hand if we remember correctly cannot. It comes down to a substantive due process question which textually doesn't exist in the Constitution but over the years the USSC has agreed to a certain extent that the process is there. But that is a conversation for another time and if you really want to go over that we can discuss case law all day... but I doubt anyone cares to hear about that. Anywho... The USSC is a conservative one at this point with Sotomayor on the record with saying that she will not be retiring while Obama is in office for fear of slanting the court in a more liberal direction when he appoints a democrat. So five of the Justices are republicans, which may push towards them viewing the measure from an economic stand point, capitalism, business competition and all that jazz. They may find that access to the internet to be a privilege and not a right. And quite frankly, they may agree with the notion that a business entity can pick and choose who is sells to and at what prices depending on services provided.

Or... assuming the USSC even decides to entertain the case, they may totally surprise us and see it as completely overstepping the bounds of a businesses capabilities. Quite frankly over the years the USSC has made strange decisions, with the Justices going completely against what most would see as their party lines. Look at the beginning of Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison where Marshall pretty much said, we aren't going to decide this case on the merits explicitly because the President doesn't give a damn and won't listen anyway. Or how close we really are to losing abortion rights in this country at the moment. Quite frankly I thought the recent case in Texas was going to push the envelope but they settled it fairly quickly at the state level. But of course, that is another discussion entirely.

Sign the petition if you'd like, but it won't do any good to compel a court of law to actually do anything with it. I'd just keep an eye and perhaps prepare yourself for a boycott which may actually be the only thing that can help.

And now that I have done even more research it realistically appears that it won't matter. I'm not sure if the DC Circuit has actually reached its decision yet, I couldn't find a report talking about the decision just the arguments. With that being said, it is going to come down to the legislative history of this rule 706 I believe the number was. The rule is pretty straight forward, but the history does hold a certain weight. Quite frankly, the articles I've been reading simply state that it won't prevent us from getting information just prevent those from improving upon the system without a terrible amount of micro managing and bureaucratic nonsense.

Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass. It is getting late and I am tired as all hell from a long weak. Take it with a grain of salt I suppose.
Excellent! So now that there are four of us, why not get this show on the road?
Sorry Mahz, m'bad!

Fix me!!!

Thanks again,
In Adsense 10 yrs ago Forum: News
thorgili said
Well me and my very brunt libertarian no non sense if your offended by it then don't read it attitude (objectivism FTW) say that really there shouldn't we a required time to fade to black. you know if you want to write bout that stuff go ahead and anyone who doesn't like it or is offended (I am looking at you liberals) then why the hell did they search it up in the first place like really I personally perfer not to see sexual macabre on my forums ands that's why I pronto looking for it and if I see something that might British don't look at it and if I do well shame on me for being a retarded and looking. Same thing goes for any sort of niche thing ranging from brony cupcakes to hyper realistic blood.


I'll agree with what has previously been said. I can appreciate the sentiment on a real world application. However, given that ad sense picks up on pretty much everything that no one should be derp and simply abstain from any unnecessarily graphic material of the sexual nature. As it has been suggested take it to PMs. And while I generally abhor the smut written into stories, I can appreciate that some people enjoy it but as has already been suggested no one should have the right to deprive others of the guild because they can't "keep it in their pants."

As it were, adding a mature section would not solve the problem because the ad sense would pick up on it. Now I'm not sure what capabilities Mahz has to control the program but I don't think he can pick and choose what ad sense goes through to draw source information from to generate adds. On any accord, I don't think violence or gore will influence it too negatively.

I would say don't derp it on and stay cool like the Fonz but that's already proven problematic for certain individuals.
In Adsense 10 yrs ago Forum: News
That is a good point made. The report button sort of plays the same role as police presence in high crime neighborhoods. However, self-policing is highly problematic at least in a 1x1 sense. With the other areas there is enough traffic with enough people that most may consider reporting problematic posts. Or you may end up with the group think concept similar to what happens with crimes that happen on the streets near large crowds. "Why should I report it, someone else will take care of it." It is the same reason if you are being attacked and call out for help to single out an individual somehow like, "hey you in the red shirt." So that is somewhat problematic.

However, I'm not sure how the traffic is within a 1x1. Quite frankly, over the years I have never actually viewed a 1x1 that I wasn't personally involved with. I found no prudence to do so. But I may be the outlier. I'm not quite sure what appeal 1x1 would have with regards to other players with the exceptions of friends and that sort of bias would detract from what might actually be considered reportable material. A friend may give the wrong-doer a little benefit of the doubt with the material in question. And as you already mentioned, if the participants are consensual they may not report the other player at all.

So perhaps I am overanalyzing things as I have been known to do. But people were provided the option to self-police previously. There was a report button if I remember correctly. And if I am correct in remembering, it failed.
What does my avatar say about me?

Well, my Avatar is relatively monstrous perhaps similar to some level of daemonic specter. If I were to analyze on anything more than a superficial level I would suggest that perhaps it represents the darker side of my existence. When people ask me, "Are you afraid?" My typical response is "I am afraid of only two people, my mother and the other one is no one else." So perhaps to a certain extent, this avatar represents the "no one else" I am afraid of. My darker side that I often times feel I struggle with to keep down. Perhaps other feel the same way; however, I often feel like I am just one bad day away from turning in a true sociopath and merging with the dark side of humanity that I often work with on a daily basis. What really scares me is that I don't think I would have any trouble pulling the trigger.

So maybe that is what my avatar represents or says about me.
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet