You know what the hardest part is, Elldren? When the team DOESN'T have a real identity. When they turn out to be something I've come to call Local Team X- there's really no reason for the team to be there, there's no discernible backstory, the fans are generic and don't do anything unique or particularly spectacular, or just aren't there period, the team's mainly there as the designated opposition in other teams' highlight reels.
A team with a story, those teams are easy no matter how little-known they are. Haitien, they were actually easy. They have a story. They give me something I can say.
Meanwhile, here is what I wrote for Le Mans of France:
Merged two other clubs in 1985. A couple renamings… screw it. Just stick to the 24-hour car race. Maybe pick them as a project in FIFA or Football Manager. BOOOOO-RIIIIIINNNNNG.
That's the whole thing. Lorient and OGC Nice didn't come off much better.
CS Sergipe?
edit: fioxeded
Okay, see, that's what I'm talking about. I don't even know who that team is but now I know there's a reason you mentioned them.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Did I miss the thread on it or is it sort of under the radar. This is what I get for having the economist and PA deliver all my news.
Just to play the devil's advocate
who says just because the public doesn't get to see the evidence means there isn't any?
The Constitution and Due Process.
To my knowledge, that says they can't do what is being attempted here. That doesn't mean the administration doesn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy is a terrorist. I'm all for the "you can't do this without going to court" part but the "I haven't seen evidence so there isn't any" is foolish, don't you think?
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Did I miss the thread on it or is it sort of under the radar. This is what I get for having the economist and PA deliver all my news.
Just to play the devil's advocate
who says just because the public doesn't get to see the evidence means there isn't any?
The Constitution and Due Process.
To my knowledge, that says they can't do what is being attempted here. That doesn't mean the administration doesn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy is a terrorist. I'm all for the "you can't do this without going to court" part but the "I haven't seen evidence so there isn't any" is foolish, don't you think?
Trust, but verify. Do you have any idea how many times the government has pulled clearance/national security &c. just because what happened makes somebody look foolish? Or because their case is so laughably weak? The notion that we should just totally take them at their word is belied by both recorded history and the very notion of justice.
You know what the hardest part is, Elldren? When the team DOESN'T have a real identity. When they turn out to be something I've come to call Local Team X- there's really no reason for the team to be there, there's no discernible backstory, the fans are generic and don't do anything unique or particularly spectacular, or just aren't there period, the team's mainly there as the designated opposition in other teams' highlight reels.
A team with a story, those teams are easy no matter how little-known they are. Haitien, they were actually easy. They have a story. They give me something I can say.
Meanwhile, here is what I wrote for Le Mans of France:
Merged two other clubs in 1985. A couple renamings… screw it. Just stick to the 24-hour car race. Maybe pick them as a project in FIFA or Football Manager. BOOOOO-RIIIIIINNNNNG.
That's the whole thing. Lorient and OGC Nice didn't come off much better.
CS Sergipe?
edit: fioxeded
Okay, see, that's what I'm talking about. I don't even know who that team is but now I know there's a reason you mentioned them.
Sport in the US is simply not granular in the manner of the rest of the world.
Elldren on
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
Did I miss the thread on it or is it sort of under the radar. This is what I get for having the economist and PA deliver all my news.
Just to play the devil's advocate
who says just because the public doesn't get to see the evidence means there isn't any?
The Constitution and Due Process.
To my knowledge, that says they can't do what is being attempted here. That doesn't mean the administration doesn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy is a terrorist. I'm all for the "you can't do this without going to court" part but the "I haven't seen evidence so there isn't any" is foolish, don't you think?
I'm sorry this is still bad devil's advocating. You're putting forth a position that relies on the government to make decisions regarding who lives and who dies with zero public oversight. If you honestly think that is a tenable position, devil's advocate or no, I don't see how this dialog can continue.
In any case I'm making a thread since this is apparently new enough.
I'll admit I'm totally out of my depth here and politics are not in my scope of understanding, but I'm just curious why a newspaper journalist is assuming there can't be any evidence because he hasn't seen it? That's the way it comes across, at least.
Did I miss the thread on it or is it sort of under the radar. This is what I get for having the economist and PA deliver all my news.
Just to play the devil's advocate
who says just because the public doesn't get to see the evidence means there isn't any?
The Constitution and Due Process.
To my knowledge, that says they can't do what is being attempted here. That doesn't mean the administration doesn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy is a terrorist. I'm all for the "you can't do this without going to court" part but the "I haven't seen evidence so there isn't any" is foolish, don't you think?
I'm sorry this is still bad devil's advocating. You're putting forth a position that relies on the government to make decisions regarding who lives and who dies with zero public oversight. If you honestly think that is a tenable position, devil's advocate or no, I don't see how this dialog can continue.
In any case I'm making a thread since this is apparently new enough.
No, that's wrong. I'm only talking about evidence here, not the actual carrying out of the assassination.
i am a little drunk but looking for something to do
man.
MAN.
i would say let's play some Reach but right now i'm having an in depth fucking google chat conversation with ronald fucking jenkees
:^:
he's like chatting with me about getting started making songs, where he gets his inspiration from, and oh god alalhgualhglugh i'm dying this is so cool he's my hero
I'll admit I'm totally out of my depth here and politics are not in my scope of understanding, but I'm just curious why a newspaper journalist is assuming there can't be any evidence because he hasn't seen it? That's the way it comes across, at least.
If there is such overwhelming and compelling evidence then a trial would be a mere, though still necessary, formality.
moniker on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I'll admit I'm totally out of my depth here and politics are not in my scope of understanding, but I'm just curious why a newspaper journalist is assuming there can't be any evidence because he hasn't seen it? That's the way it comes across, at least.
If there is such overwhelming and compelling evidence then a trial would be a mere, though still necessary, formality.
Right, I totally get it. I just don't think we should leap to the conclusion that this guy can't possibly be a terrorist because we personally haven't seen the evidence for ourselves. That's a bit ridiculous. Plenty of murderers go to jail without the evidence going on display at the museum or some such.
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
Did I miss the thread on it or is it sort of under the radar. This is what I get for having the economist and PA deliver all my news.
Just to play the devil's advocate
who says just because the public doesn't get to see the evidence means there isn't any?
The Constitution and Due Process.
To my knowledge, that says they can't do what is being attempted here. That doesn't mean the administration doesn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy is a terrorist. I'm all for the "you can't do this without going to court" part but the "I haven't seen evidence so there isn't any" is foolish, don't you think?
No, it's not. Google "Star Chamber" to understand why.
Would you insist due process is invoked every time an enemy combatant is shot at in war?
Summary execution is a war crime.
Okay?
Is every use of lethal force during combat equivocable to summary execution?
No.
Edit: A good example of summary execution as a war crime would be Allied soldiers carting off SS in their custody to a quiet spot to put a bullet in their head during WWII.
I'll admit I'm totally out of my depth here and politics are not in my scope of understanding, but I'm just curious why a newspaper journalist is assuming there can't be any evidence because he hasn't seen it? That's the way it comes across, at least.
If there is such overwhelming and compelling evidence then a trial would be a mere, though still necessary, formality.
Right, I totally get it. I just don't think we should leap to the conclusion that this guy can't possibly be a terrorist because we personally haven't seen the evidence for ourselves. That's a bit ridiculous. Plenty of murderers go to jail without the evidence going on display at the museum or some such.
No murderer goes to jail without a criminal trial where evidence is provided and he is able to face his accusers in a court of law.
I'll admit I'm totally out of my depth here and politics are not in my scope of understanding, but I'm just curious why a newspaper journalist is assuming there can't be any evidence because he hasn't seen it? That's the way it comes across, at least.
If there is such overwhelming and compelling evidence then a trial would be a mere, though still necessary, formality.
Right, I totally get it. I just don't think we should leap to the conclusion that this guy can't possibly be a terrorist because we personally haven't seen the evidence for ourselves. That's a bit ridiculous. Plenty of murderers go to jail without the evidence going on display at the museum or some such.
No murderer goes to jail without a criminal trial where evidence is provided and he is able to face his accusers in a court of law.
I'll admit I'm totally out of my depth here and politics are not in my scope of understanding, but I'm just curious why a newspaper journalist is assuming there can't be any evidence because he hasn't seen it? That's the way it comes across, at least.
If there is such overwhelming and compelling evidence then a trial would be a mere, though still necessary, formality.
Right, I totally get it. I just don't think we should leap to the conclusion that this guy can't possibly be a terrorist because we personally haven't seen the evidence for ourselves. That's a bit ridiculous. Plenty of murderers go to jail without the evidence going on display at the museum or some such.
No murderer goes to jail without a criminal trial where evidence is provided and he is able to face his accusers in a court of law.
That isn't what I'm arguing and never has been
I'm talking about this dude in the article. It seems like he's assuming there isn't any evidence because he personally has not been able to look at it. My question is: why does that make the evidence non-existent? I don't think he gets to make the judgement about whether or not this guy is guilty, which he seems to have done.
I'll admit I'm totally out of my depth here and politics are not in my scope of understanding, but I'm just curious why a newspaper journalist is assuming there can't be any evidence because he hasn't seen it? That's the way it comes across, at least.
If there is such overwhelming and compelling evidence then a trial would be a mere, though still necessary, formality.
Right, I totally get it. I just don't think we should leap to the conclusion that this guy can't possibly be a terrorist because we personally haven't seen the evidence for ourselves. That's a bit ridiculous. Plenty of murderers go to jail without the evidence going on display at the museum or some such.
No murderer goes to jail without a criminal trial where evidence is provided and he is able to face his accusers in a court of law.
Feral are you seriously advocating the enemy combatant line of executive philosophy? Seriously?
I'm saying that crying "due process!" isn't really an argument.
Elldren: even in the word 'prison' is used instead of 'jail,' moniker's statement still isn't true. The majority of prisoners got there without ever going to trial.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Posts
Okay, see, that's what I'm talking about. I don't even know who that team is but now I know there's a reason you mentioned them.
To my knowledge, that says they can't do what is being attempted here. That doesn't mean the administration doesn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy is a terrorist. I'm all for the "you can't do this without going to court" part but the "I haven't seen evidence so there isn't any" is foolish, don't you think?
:^:
Trust, but verify. Do you have any idea how many times the government has pulled clearance/national security &c. just because what happened makes somebody look foolish? Or because their case is so laughably weak? The notion that we should just totally take them at their word is belied by both recorded history and the very notion of justice.
It's a non-issue.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sport in the US is simply not granular in the manner of the rest of the world.
S9
I'm sorry this is still bad devil's advocating. You're putting forth a position that relies on the government to make decisions regarding who lives and who dies with zero public oversight. If you honestly think that is a tenable position, devil's advocate or no, I don't see how this dialog can continue.
In any case I'm making a thread since this is apparently new enough.
On the black screen
No, that's wrong. I'm only talking about evidence here, not the actual carrying out of the assassination.
This statement is true whether it was seen in the UK or America.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If there is such overwhelming and compelling evidence then a trial would be a mere, though still necessary, formality.
Summary execution is a war crime.
PSN: Corbius
NOM NOM NOM
Right, I totally get it. I just don't think we should leap to the conclusion that this guy can't possibly be a terrorist because we personally haven't seen the evidence for ourselves. That's a bit ridiculous. Plenty of murderers go to jail without the evidence going on display at the museum or some such.
But...
I just bought a commissar hat...
Is SC2 mandatory in South Korea?
And as for your laziness, if you don't carry out your plans, I'll tell your contact at the agency to withold your supplies.
Okay?
Is every use of lethal force during combat equivocable to summary execution?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No, it's not. Google "Star Chamber" to understand why.
Its pretty much required yes.
PSN: Corbius
No.
Edit: A good example of summary execution as a war crime would be Allied soldiers carting off SS in their custody to a quiet spot to put a bullet in their head during WWII.
No murderer goes to jail without a criminal trial where evidence is provided and he is able to face his accusers in a court of law.
On the black screen
Not every, no.
that's patently false.
You're thinking of prison.
That isn't what I'm arguing and never has been
I'm talking about this dude in the article. It seems like he's assuming there isn't any evidence because he personally has not been able to look at it. My question is: why does that make the evidence non-existent? I don't think he gets to make the judgement about whether or not this guy is guilty, which he seems to have done.
With Will Arnett?
I'm saying that crying "due process!" isn't really an argument.
Elldren: even in the word 'prison' is used instead of 'jail,' moniker's statement still isn't true. The majority of prisoners got there without ever going to trial.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
i don't
i
is this a euphamism for something/
are you advocating combating heavily armed uniformed guerrillas with something other than soldiers?
HE IS SO AWESOME
anywho i am up for reach. would you like to play now for a bit?
I have no idea