New Testingstan

xon wrote:I got damn luck on 1 of the dozens of fastfood stores which I canvassed with my CV (customized per business type), in that the manager was actually willing to tell me why I was rejected rather than just getting blackholing my CV. He told me I was too damn old, and had fuckall chance of getting employeed in that industry.

That's weird. Pretty much every fast food restaurant I've ever worked at has had at least one 'old hand', just that guy or girl who got unlucky in life and needed a job to support themselves, no matter how crappy. When I worked at McDonalds, there were three of them, one of them actually being a recovering hard-drug addict trying to support herself and her daughter.

And yeah, it isn't easy work, I don't care what anyone says. It might not be the most physically demanding, but it's messy, takes a mental toll, and if you have nothing else going for you, can lead to nasty psychological burnout.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the right to a jury trial doesn't extend to minor offenses... which I don't get from the text of the 6th amendment, but they did.

Wikipedia says the specific cases are District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937) and Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).

The decision cited this paragraph from the Constitution, article III, section 2:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

I must be missing something. But regardless of whether I can see it or not, the court made the decision.

adr wrote:The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the right to a jury trial doesn't extend to minor offenses... which I don't get from the text of the 6th amendment, but they did.

Wikipedia says the specific cases are District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937) and Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).

The decision cited this paragraph from the Constitution, article III, section 2:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

I must be missing something. But regardless of whether I can see it or not, the court made the decision.

That's retardedly unconstitutional.

Flagg wrote:

adr wrote:The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the right to a jury trial doesn't extend to minor offenses... which I don't get from the text of the 6th amendment, but they did.

Wikipedia says the specific cases are District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937) and Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).

The decision cited this paragraph from the Constitution, article III, section 2:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

I must be missing something. But regardless of whether I can see it or not, the court made the decision.

That's retardedly unconstitutional.

I have a hard time getting outraged over it. Most juries are comprised of idiots, I can't imagine why you'd want one unless you knew you were guilty.

Zod wrote:

Flagg wrote: That's retardedly unconstitutional.

I have a hard time getting outraged over it. Most juries are comprised of idiots, I can't imagine why you'd want one unless you knew you were guilty.

The point is to clog the system for years with jury trials for sitting in the street.

Flagg wrote:

Zod wrote:

Flagg wrote: That's retardedly unconstitutional.

I have a hard time getting outraged over it. Most juries are comprised of idiots, I can't imagine why you'd want one unless you knew you were guilty.

The point is to clog the system for years with jury trials for sitting in the street.

Unless the courts decide to joinder everyone involved and hammer out all those cases in just a few trials.

crimes is capitalized.

perhaps it implies that Crimes are distinct from Offenses.

Trial by idiots, or trial by a guy elected by idiots. Seems shitty either way.

in consitutional english they capitalized almost all nouns

Flagg, if you mean civil disobedience, then just say that. When you say "when you realizde non-violent methods a re useless things will get fun" does not imply anything like mass sit-ins or what have you.

Out of curiosity, what are you doing to support the movement in your area? Donating blankets, maybe? Chatting with occupiers?

I forgot how funny Chookie was.

Losonti Tokash wrote:Flagg, if you mean civil disobedience, then just say that. When you say "when you realizde non-violent methods a re useless things will get fun" does not imply anything like mass sit-ins or what have you.

Out of curiosity, what are you doing to support the movement in your area? Donating blankets, maybe? Chatting with occupiers?

Not starting riots. The fact is that I don't really have access to Occupy Seattle due to my situation, so there's not much more I can do that be indignant at the pigs for pepperspraying old ladies.

Flagg wrote:The point is to clog the system for years with jury trials for sitting in the street.

And this accomplishes...what exactly? Are you trying to enshrine the right to block traffic whenever you feel like it?

And if Chicago is an indication, they'll just walk you off to the side somewhere, write a ticket, and send you on your way. I suppose if you and the 10,000 followers you're going to get somewhere immediately go and sit back down in an intersection and keep doing that enough they might arrest you and charge you for something that requires a jury trial, maybe. Or, as Zod said, they'll just try you all at once.

In any event, what have you proved? You clog up the legal system - which, shocking as this may seem, does have legitimate cases to prosecute which they won't be able to if they're backed up from this - all for the sake of...thumbing your nose at the five-oh?

At least in the case of Rosa Parks and all those diner sit-ins, the point was to protest the injustice and absurdity of Jim Crow laws. You're protesting the fact the police won't let people arbitraily block traffic for an indefinate amount of time? That's a real injustice, to be sure.

I suppose you'll come back and say that what you're really protesting is the police who use excessive force in breaking up protests. That's a fair enough complaint, but I don't see how you clogging up the legal system with minor crap will accomplish anything in that regard.

RogueIce wrote:

Flagg wrote:The point is to clog the system for years with jury trials for sitting in the street.

And this accomplishes...what exactly? Are you trying to enshrine the right to block traffic whenever you feel like it?

And if Chicago is an indication, they'll just walk you off to the side somewhere, write a ticket, and send you on your way. I suppose if you and the 10,000 followers you're going to get somewhere immediately go and sit back down in an intersection and keep doing that enough they might arrest you and charge you for something that requires a jury trial, maybe. Or, as Zod said, they'll just try you all at once.

In any event, what have you proved? You clog up the legal system - which, shocking as this may seem, does have legitimate cases to prosecute which they won't be able to if they're backed up from this - all for the sake of...thumbing your nose at the five-oh?

At least in the case of Rosa Parks and all those diner sit-ins, the point was to protest the injustice and absurdity of Jim Crow laws. You're protesting the fact the police won't let people arbitraily block traffic for an indefinate amount of time? That's a real injustice, to be sure.

I suppose you'll come back and say that what you're really protesting is the police who use excessive force in breaking up protests. That's a fair enough complaint, but I don't see how you clogging up the legal system with minor crap will accomplish anything in that regard.

It's to send a message that the movement isn't going away. That's the whole point of the occupy protests, to occupy. And if you clog up the legal system of a major city they will either have to drop all charges, in which case you win, or try you and spend time and money in which case you win.

But, I can understand why he didn't immediately jump into the morally upstanding route, delivering exact reports.

get it?

m - u - r - d - e - r

i'm so proud of myself

Flagg wrote:

Losonti Tokash wrote:Flagg, if you mean civil disobedience, then just say that. When you say "when you realizde non-violent methods a re useless things will get fun" does not imply anything like mass sit-ins or what have you.

Out of curiosity, what are you doing to support the movement in your area? Donating blankets, maybe? Chatting with occupiers?

Not starting riots. The fact is that I don't really have access to Occupy Seattle due to my situation, so there's not much more I can do that be indignant at the pigs for pepperspraying old ladies.

pretty sure some disabled guy who had to hitchhike to the protest is going to do more for the movement than a guy playing videogames and advocating violence from home is

Flagg wrote:

RogueIce wrote:

Flagg wrote:The point is to clog the system for years with jury trials for sitting in the street.

And this accomplishes...what exactly? Are you trying to enshrine the right to block traffic whenever you feel like it?

And if Chicago is an indication, they'll just walk you off to the side somewhere, write a ticket, and send you on your way. I suppose if you and the 10,000 followers you're going to get somewhere immediately go and sit back down in an intersection and keep doing that enough they might arrest you and charge you for something that requires a jury trial, maybe. Or, as Zod said, they'll just try you all at once.

In any event, what have you proved? You clog up the legal system - which, shocking as this may seem, does have legitimate cases to prosecute which they won't be able to if they're backed up from this - all for the sake of...thumbing your nose at the five-oh?

At least in the case of Rosa Parks and all those diner sit-ins, the point was to protest the injustice and absurdity of Jim Crow laws. You're protesting the fact the police won't let people arbitraily block traffic for an indefinate amount of time? That's a real injustice, to be sure.

I suppose you'll come back and say that what you're really protesting is the police who use excessive force in breaking up protests. That's a fair enough complaint, but I don't see how you clogging up the legal system with minor crap will accomplish anything in that regard.

It's to send a message that the movement isn't going away. That's the whole point of the occupy protests, to occupy. And if you clog up the legal system of a major city they will either have to drop all charges, in which case you win, or try you and spend time and money in which case you win.

That's rather optimistic of you and assumes the city will play fair.

zhaktronz wrote:If Los was in australia he would already be Captain Young Labor party / Young Greens


Maybe he could join GetUp :V

Glenn Beck told me that party camps makes a country Nazis. Australia is Nazis.

frankly if los gets some inflammatory pictures he should just write a book

do some seminars

could someone remind captain asshole that the people he's standing up for literally gave him fucking cancer and didn't want to do anything about it until his fellow employees sued them

Losonti Tokash wrote:could someone remind captain asshole that the people he's standing up for literally gave him fucking cancer and didn't want to do anything about it until his fellow employees sued them

lolwut

A while back he posted about how his company had knowingly exposed him and others to radioactive materials and he had developed tumors.

Losonti Tokash wrote:A while back he posted about how his company had knowingly exposed him and others to radioactive materials and he had developed tumors.

i don't actually know who you're referring to

captain asshole's a bit vague

captainchewbacca

also i am definitely tempted towards posting in the lastest dumb rar.

Gands wrote:I forgot how funny Chookie was.

Seriously.

THE PROTESTERS ARE CANNIBALS I SAW A SIGN THAT SAID EAT THE RICH

I wonder what he thinks of Jonathan Swift.