MikeC’s Techdirt Profile

mikec

About MikeC


http://www.linkedin.com/mdcody



MikeC’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 6th, 2018 @ 8:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Let see - a voluntary process being derailed intentionally

    >>Were you just trying to cram as many unsupported >>assumptions into one paragraph as possible?

    Note you aren't willing to post your name or back your comment up with refuting evidence. I can however produce video of both clintons, obama, and pelosi all saying how we need to control the boarder and stop illegal immigration. They all talk it, no one does anything.

    Don't see what unsupported assumption is there. It's illegal to cross the boarder outside of a port of entry. The entire Rio Grande is not a port of entry. Everyone talked about how they would control illegal immigration, no one ever did it until Trump. ICE is simply enforcing the law. If you commit a crime in the US often you are separated from your children -- ask a lot of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc.. mothers in jails today. Don't believe it's a good idea, but why aren't you against separating mothers from children when the commit a crime if they not an illegal alien?

    https://thefederalist.com/2018/06/16/thousands-of-american-children-are-separated-from-parents -put-in-prison-every-year/

    If you are found in the company of a child that you can't prove it's yours when enter Canada - guess what you might get that child removed from your care.. same here.

    "The are committing a crime by entering illegally - not through a Port of Entry" it's that simple. It's against the law and congress has not changed the law. ICE is simply enforcing it. If politicians don't want it to happen - change the laws. It's really that simple.

  • Jul 6th, 2018 @ 1:28pm

    Let see - a voluntary process being derailed intentionally

    Let's see, I get from the article that the system is useless because aside from the crazies(to be expected) it's being intentionally undermined by the folks who don't like it's intended function therefore it's a bad idea. Personally I too am against it but it's a bit of a bad logic here. It's ineffective because it's being attacked by callers who want it to fail, therefore it's a bad idea.

    Basically we are saying ICE is bad because it tries to enforce laws passed by politicians who don't want those laws to be enforced even though the voted for them? There is plenty of video evidence of obama, clinton(s), democrats, etc.. and republicans too all saying we have to stop illegal immigration for security and a number of other reasons. But those same folks want to abolish ICE and hate Trump because they are enforcing the same laws those politicians passed.

    I would love to see true immigration reform with a true path to citizenship that is not almost impossible to get through. I would like a fast lane for those already in the system - ahead of those who are here illegally (yes not undocumented but "illegally") ... a path for those who jumped the line that doesn't require them to go back. But first you have to stop increasing the second set. That means enforcing the laws on the books or repealing those laws up front. But no one has the balls to deal with the problem.

  • Apr 21st, 2018 @ 1:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Hmm

    Hillary hijacked the Democratic Party
    She stole the nomination
    Got debate questions ahead of time
    Bury evidence by deleting emails
    Finance a fake dossier on Trump
    Weaponize FBI and use the fake dossier to get warrants
    Outspend your opponent by more than double (Trump
    spent 62% less per electoral vote than Hillary
    Promise free stuff to just about everyone
    Spy on your opponent

    and STILL LOSE!!! Then call the man who beat you INCOMPETENT. You all have to see the unbelievable irony of blaming it on anyone but Hillary right?

  • Apr 20th, 2018 @ 9:50pm

    Doesn't this open the DNC to discovery?

    I mean now the defendants can go after everything the democrats have in hand, if they are suing under DMCA they can request discovery of those documents, etc.. right? Not mention the few emails they might have <grin> and tons of other documentation, servers, etc. How does the DNC prove this without showing what was hacked/influenced/stolen right? Sure to get leaked too.

    My prediction is that this case will be dropped about Nov 7th...but until then it will allow the DNC and it's PR folks to say/leak/fabricate anything they want as commentary and it will be backed/reported as gospel by their supporting media outlets.

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 1:35pm

    Russian WhistleBlower?? More Fake News

    So we are to believe the Russians are so effective in they "internet trolling operation" they could not do something like having their own Fake WhistleBlower to tout how effective they are in influencing things. Why do they need to work at influencing us when we are willing to do if for them? Sure sounds like something a smart operative would think of.

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 1:31pm

    We did it to ourselves

    We have finally enabled anyone anywhere to access the very basis for our society - at will w/no repercussions. For all the good the internet has done this world, it's has provided a conduit to the evil as well as the good. Sounds almost biblical doesn't it? But what used to be limited to the few hundred square miles around a person can be pushed out to entire world with a few keystrokes and we have proved over and over we are worthy of this power. Like giving a child a loaded gun and not expecting a disaster ... I don't see how we fix this but sure I don't want to hand the warden the keys to the internet, but I don't see how we can fix this in any way.

  • Mar 15th, 2016 @ 12:01pm

    (untitled comment)

    So if the state rep who is pushing this sends me a unsolicited email,IE a fund raising email or other stupid update email, that I find objectionable, to start this, I reply back to that email that I don't want to be contacted again.

    Now I show up outside of the capital building as he walks out - bingo I am in sight, he's violated the law and can be arrested right?

  • Feb 10th, 2016 @ 4:05pm

    Gender Wars

    "We are a pack of biased little idiots and the sooner we realize it the better and then, maybe need we can all be big enough to talk about our problems without getting all murderous on each other...

    yea right who am I kidding we are terrible and evil and there will never be peace until there is only 1 culture left on the planet."


    I created a desert and called it peace...

  • Jan 21st, 2016 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re: It's called satire Mike.

    From a career journalist, why is it bad satire? I merely applied what is current Michigan gun law and substituted journalist for it. It's not anti journalist, just showing how corrupt political agenda's are and how the narrative changes when it's something a person is not in favor of. That would seem to be the purpose of satire.

    In the spirit of mocking any idea that a journalist need to register their activities, I would think that fits the spirit of the original article quite well. Just curious

  • Jan 20th, 2016 @ 1:52pm

    If the Pen is mightier than sword - should it be registered?

    The saying goes that the pen is mightier than the sword, then it must be even more dangerous in the wrong hands.

    How can we allow this much deadly force to wielded by those who are un-registered and un-regulated? We must at once give the government the tools and power to protect us from a such a force so it can be only be used for good.

    We must think of the children, they might be corrupted or mislead. If you seek to wield this power, you must have a background check so we know you are not a criminal or heaven forbid mentally a danger to yourself or others. If you aren't a registered journalist how can we be sure you aren't writing inflammatory copy that will endanger or even offend someone?

    So I can see the need for the below kinds of processes:


    Every place where there are large gatherings of diverse people should be JFZ (journalist free zone) so we can be sure there will be no drive by journalistic attacks. No offensive stories, no reason for people to feel unloved.

    Police need you to disclose if you are CJP(concealed journalistic press) credential holder so they can be safe in the performance of their duties. You must surrender you stories to any officer if he/she feels it is necessary for their own or bystanders safety.

    Every time you transfer a journalistic story to another person, you need to fill out RI-69(journalist story transfer) form. Keeping one copy, giving one to your reader and dropping one off to the local law enforcement office so they can enter it in the Journalist Registry.

    Every time you send in a story you can not just publish it, it must go through a FJL(federal Journalism License) holder who will background check your publisher to insure it's not going to some with some criminal or mental issue that would prevent them from legally publishing your story.

    This is just a start of the things we need to do to protect everyone from irresponsible journalistic activity so we can prevent mass misleading lies from being published to the detriment of our society.

  • Jan 20th, 2016 @ 1:35pm

    Re:

    When reporters start killing people with their journalism, maybe we can start considering this bill.

    I am assuming that is sarcasm? How much space do we have to talk about all the people irresponsible journalism helped to be killed?

  • Sep 16th, 2015 @ 9:41am

    Re:

    Don't worry we all know no one in the government actually uses these databases.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 7:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe/maybe not but when you the result of not being prepared it your family buries you -- then you can't afford not to be prepared "each and every time" you face any situation. Maybe cop's need better tools. They tried taser's but they can kill too (not as surely as a .40S&W round) but public outrage is still the same. So they get hit for doing that ... it's a no-win situation but that doesn't excuse this clearly criminal act.

    It sucks but it's the world, we put cops in a position where they are never judged reasonably so they seem to be resulting more and more to brute force when considered communication and restraint in their actions would be called for. When you deal with the dregs of society you get to the point that you see every interaction as adversarial to the extreme.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "There are plenty of jobs more dangerous than that of police work, yet that doesn't give the ones in those jobs excuse to open fire 'just in case'. As such, I fail to see how cops should get a pass because they might be in danger of suffering significant harm at some point during their career."

    That is not you said in the first message, you said they are trained to view the public as a danger and I said of course they are, because there is a chance in every case that the public they are dealing with is lethal. You should wear a seat belt every time you drive "in case you get in an accident not because you are going to get into one". The cop has to treat each case as lethal jeopardy because it might be and to not be ready for that is a death wish.

    Does that mean they should kill folks on a whim, NO WAY!! The cops in this case should be prosecuted for murder. The over stepped their authority, committing a criminal act that can't be justified. That is not a reason for any cop not to be ready to respond to a lethal threat in every case, they can't afford otherwise. What they need to do is be able restrain that lethality when it's not required. Just because you need to be ready to kill doesn't mean you have too.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "There are plenty of jobs more dangerous than that of police work, yet that doesn't give the ones in those jobs excuse to open fire 'just in case'. As such, I fail to see how cops should get a pass because they might be in danger of suffering significant harm at some point during their career."

    That is not you said in the first message, you said they are trained to view the public as a danger and I said of course they are, because there is a chance in every case that the public they are dealing with is lethal. You should wear a seat belt every time you drive "in case you get in an accident not because you are going to get into one". The cop has to treat each case as lethal jeopardy because it might be and to not be ready for that is a death wish.

    Does that mean they should kill folks on a whim, NO WAY!! The cops in this case should be prosecuted for murder. The over stepped their authority, committing a criminal act that can't be justified. That is not a reason for any cop not to be ready to respond to a lethal threat in every case, they can't afford otherwise. What they need to do is be able restrain that lethality when it's not required. Just because you need to be ready to kill doesn't mean you have too.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Re:

    "First, police are trained to always see the public as a threat"

    Cop has no choice in this. If it means that 999/1000 people do not intend him harm, 1/1000 the cop is dead. He has to treat every situation as potentially lethal or know that he will not make it home sometime in his career.

    Now the stacked in his favor part I support. It's that way because the same folks who review depend on the cops to do the job for them... sort of a built in conflict of interest. There needs to be an independent review somehow.

  • Jul 7th, 2015 @ 1:44pm

    Let's see - ban it and no will use it to break a law

    Or to paraphrase - "when exposing flaws is outlawed only outlaws will have access to the flaws" ...

    Because we all know that if it's illegal then no one will be able to do it right? Sounds like anti-gun, anti-drug,anti-bullying, etc.. arguments to me - make the "insert bad item of your choice" illegal/hidden and no one will be able to do bad things with it. IE: Don't let anyone expose the flaws in the system, then no one will be able to exploit them for bad things.

  • Jun 24th, 2015 @ 5:54pm

    Re: For want of a soldier

    "MikeC do you really mean to imply that people should be paid not by the effort that they put in, but by their personal or economic power?"

    No I mean to imply people are paid on perceived value. 1 out of a 100 can be killer broker, 50 out of a 100 can be a waitress, 90 out of a 100 can be a soldier -- value/scarcity of talent is what gets you paid. Don't make it right, just makes it so. That is why a great waitress can make more than a poor one, but is limited. Doesn't mean they don't have value, doesn't mean they don't bust there ass -- means there is a limit to their percieved value to society, reduced by the amount of folks who can do what they do, even if not so well. Always someone waiting to take your spot. Just not as many are killer brokers.

    In my career I've been better at what I do than 90% of the folks I've met in my profession. New much younger folks coming in push more every day and willing to work for less -- hence I have to give better ROI.

    I get paid well because of what I can do ... it's not
    liberal or conservative, it's the value delivered. A great waitress can only add so much value to society, other professions add more to the bottom line, hence they get paid more.

  • Jun 23rd, 2015 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: So we're back to the feudal era...

    Who makes more: a banker or a USMC grunt on the front line? Which one works harder?

    --- which one affects more people every day?

    Who makes more: a minimum wage waitress or a stockbroker? Which one works harder?

    which can can add move value to our economy with a single decision?

    I agree a lot of folks bust their rear for not enough money, I tip very well to a good waitress for just that reason. However I don't devalue a person just because of how someone perceives their amount of physical labor or physical risk (USMC) ... it's all about what is valued. If you don't value it fine -- are you paying their salary? If you aren't well then you don't get a vote. I think lots of folks are overpaid too. But I am not "directly" paying them so I don't get a say unless it's with my purchasing dollar or proxy vote. Wish it wasn't so, but this is the real world not the world I wish it was most of the time.

  • May 28th, 2015 @ 3:32pm

    Does is matter at all?

    Do anyone, really "DOES ANYONE" think this will make the slightest bit of difference to what the NSA/FBI/CIA/XXX groups will collect or do? In fact I would have to argue if for some reason it sunsets, it's made illegal even, someone will manufacture a reason (one that will probably get some innocent people killed) to reinstate it or they will just ignore the law - just like they are doing now.

More comments from MikeC >>