If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   How investigators unraveled the Ricin case. They started by looking for a chemistry teacher who had way too much money to burn   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 37
    More: Interesting, ricin, lie detector, researchers, castor beans, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Eastern District, Mark Glaze, Mount Pleasant  
•       •       •

5635 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2013 at 8:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-10 08:39:57 AM  
Ricin

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

Shoes

dnrtfa
 
2013-06-10 08:42:07 AM  
What a confederacy of dunces!
 
2013-06-10 08:42:36 AM  
"suspicious Tupperware"
 
2013-06-10 08:44:25 AM  
si0.twimg.com

/oblig.
 
2013-06-10 08:48:41 AM  
i184.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-10 09:03:35 AM  

atomic-age: "suspicious Tupperware"


Good band name.
 
2013-06-10 09:16:01 AM  
I just don't understand mailing someone poison. Even assuming it did reach your target what do you think they're going to do, huff the strange powder that fell out of the hate mail you just sent them? Maybe next time include a note that says "free cocaine sample". I feel like you'd have better luck actually mailing them a rattlesnake or a box of spiders.
 
2013-06-10 09:46:57 AM  
Nathaniel Richardson has not been charged.

It's taking his lawyer two weeks just to print an itemized bill.
 
2013-06-10 09:52:41 AM  
I like it when someone follows up with an explanation on how they deduced the perp. Too often we're left wondering.
 
2013-06-10 09:53:43 AM  
I figured that there was a lot of stupidity on her part that led to her being implicated.
 
2013-06-10 09:58:18 AM  
Heisenberg's blue meth actually made a cameo in The Walking Dead, so there is actually a six-degress of Bryan Cranston link to this case.
 
2013-06-10 09:59:20 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I just don't understand mailing someone poison. Even assuming it did reach your target what do you think they're going to do, huff the strange powder that fell out of the hate mail you just sent them? Maybe next time include a note that says "free cocaine sample". I feel like you'd have better luck actually mailing them a rattlesnake or a box of spiders.


In this case, she didn't want to poison anyone.  She wanted her husband sent to federal prison so she could get an easy win in divorce court.
 
2013-06-10 10:05:52 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I just don't understand mailing someone poison. Even assuming it did reach your target what do you think they're going to do, huff the strange powder that fell out of the hate mail you just sent them? Maybe next time include a note that says "free cocaine sample". I feel like you'd have better luck actually mailing them a rattlesnake or a box of spiders.


The old rattlesnake in the mailbox trick?  It's been done before.
 
2013-06-10 10:28:32 AM  
I had no idea castor beans were involved in making poison. The more you know...i guess.
 
2013-06-10 10:38:25 AM  
Something that's not discussed much is the difference between god-given, inalienable rights, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. God did not grace anyone with the right to own an assault rifle.

update: If it's phrased as natural vs legal rights, then it is discussed much. Just not in Derpistan.
 
2013-06-10 10:46:38 AM  

atomic-age: "suspicious Tupperware"


There's some in the back of my fridge.
 
2013-06-10 10:49:44 AM  
A redhead tries to frame her hubby for her misdeeds?

Color me shocked.

<not>
 
2013-06-10 10:51:17 AM  

Dear Jerk: Something that's not discussed much is the difference between god-given, inalienable rights, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. God did not grace anyone with the right to own an assault rifle.

update: If it's phrased as natural vs legal rights, then it is discussed much. Just not in Derpistan.


Read the constitution carefully.  It says that rights are granted by your creator (whether that's God, or Your Mom, is left to interpretation).  $Creator graces everyone with rights such as access to an assault rifle, purple fuzzy slippers or sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen, but only one of those rights is protected by the constituion against interference from the government.  For the other two, YMMV.
 
2013-06-10 11:12:05 AM  
blog.zap2it.com
 
2013-06-10 11:29:43 AM  
The big break in the case came when the lead investigator had to go take a dump in her bathroom.
 
2013-06-10 12:06:57 PM  
I always thought it would be cool if Heisenbergs Blue Meth ...caused... the walking dead...
 
2013-06-10 12:18:18 PM  
FTA: "...including her alleged failure of a lie detector test..."

The machines does not detect lies. It detects stress.
 
2013-06-10 12:23:49 PM  

DeathCipris: FTA: "...including her alleged failure of a lie detector test..."

The machines does not detect lies. It detects stress.


The machines do not detect stress. They detect physiological changes or states that are typically exhibited when the subject is, among other states, suffering from anxiety or stress. Particularly if it is concentrated in time, such as when a person is trying to present a falsehood and anxious about it being accepted.
 
2013-06-10 12:46:17 PM  

Flab: Dear Jerk: Something that's not discussed much is the difference between god-given, inalienable rights, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. God did not grace anyone with the right to own an assault rifle.

update: If it's phrased as natural vs legal rights, then it is discussed much. Just not in Derpistan.

Read the constitution carefully.  It says that rights are granted by your creator (whether that's God, or Your Mom, is left to interpretation).  $Creator graces everyone with rights such as access to an assault rifle, purple fuzzy slippers or sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen, but only one of those rights is protected by the constituion against interference from the government.  For the other two, YMMV.


Nope, inalienable rights are rights that no one, not even the government, can take away. The constitution mentions inalienable rights. To put it in American terms, you have the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of your labor(no slavery (for humans), taxes must include representation). Many of the founding fathers were not pleased with the constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. So they tacked on a bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of some legal rights. There is a process for altering these rights.
 
2013-06-10 01:04:24 PM  

Dear Jerk: taxes must include representation


Residents of Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico might have something to say about that...
 
2013-06-10 01:36:37 PM  

Dear Jerk: Flab: Dear Jerk: Something that's not discussed much is the difference between god-given, inalienable rights, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. God did not grace anyone with the right to own an assault rifle.

update: If it's phrased as natural vs legal rights, then it is discussed much. Just not in Derpistan.

Read the constitution carefully.  It says that rights are granted by your creator (whether that's God, or Your Mom, is left to interpretation).  $Creator graces everyone with rights such as access to an assault rifle, purple fuzzy slippers or sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen, but only one of those rights is protected by the constituion against interference from the government.  For the other two, YMMV.

Nope, inalienable rights are rights that no one, not even the government, can take away. The constitution mentions inalienable rights. To put it in American terms, you have the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of your labor(no slavery (for humans), taxes must include representation). Many of the founding fathers were not pleased with the constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. So they tacked on a bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of some legal rights. There is a process for altering these rights.


I agree with every word you said, except the "nope" at the beginning.  You are not contradicting me.
 
2013-06-10 01:52:24 PM  
Flab - I am contradicting you. Gun rights were not bestowed by the creator. Gun rights are not inalienable. Gun rights do not rise to the level of human rights. Sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen is a privilege, not a right.
 
2013-06-10 02:09:47 PM  

Dear Jerk: Flab - I am contradicting you. Gun rights were not bestowed by the creator. Gun rights are not inalienable. Gun rights do not rise to the level of human rights. Sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen is a privilege, not a right.


Why are you all arguing about gun rights. This isn't about gun rights. This is about a lady who tried to set up her husband so she could get everything in a divorce.
 
2013-06-10 02:19:43 PM  
The declaration of independence says that a certain number of inalienable rights were granted by our creator, and names three of them. One can safely assume there are more.

The Bill of Rights says the government will not mess with the right to bear arms. But does not say where it comes from.

We could argue for days on whether it's a God-given right or not.  Or if a right (ex: sleeping with Scarlett Johanssen) exists in and of itself before being recognized by the courts.
 
2013-06-10 02:26:13 PM  

ongbok: Why are you all arguing about gun rights.


We aren't.  I was arguing about the right to fluffy purple slippers.  I think Dear Jerk took offense to the fact that in the letters, she refered to the right to bear arms as being a God-given right.  I don,t wish to pretend that I know what goes on in his head, but i get the feeling that his issue is with the "God-given", and not the "bear arms" part of her statement.

Besides, it's Fark.  Even in a cute red headed chick thread, we'll find ways to argue about minutiae and semantics.
 
2013-06-10 03:03:37 PM  
My final post on the matter - The letter writer implys that his right to bear arms is a natural right, when in fact it is merely a legal right. Proof: constitutional (legal) rights are alterable by a vote of the states. Natural laws are not. I'm just sick of gun nuts.
 
2013-06-10 03:35:54 PM  

ongbok: Dear Jerk: Flab - I am contradicting you. Gun rights were not bestowed by the creator. Gun rights are not inalienable. Gun rights do not rise to the level of human rights. Sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen is a privilege, not a right.

Why are you all arguing about gun rights. This isn't about gun rights. This is about a lady who tried to set up her husband so she could get everything in a divorce.


It's monday - we're too early in the week for a misogyny thread, so it's about guns by default.
 
2013-06-10 03:41:08 PM  

Flab: Read the constitution carefully. It says that rights are granted by your creator


Er...

http://usconstitution.net/const.html

Search "creator"
Zero results found.

The Declaration of Independence uses "creator", but it's not actually a governing document, and the only rights it lists are vague. It's mostly a list of complaints. Interestingly, the three of those are complaining that the king didn't pass more laws.
 
2013-06-10 05:13:02 PM  
All things considered, her husband should look at this as a good outcome -- he is still alive and isn't missing body parts.

/never stick your dick in crazy
 
2013-06-10 08:53:38 PM  

JustGetItRight: To The Escape Zeppelin!: I just don't understand mailing someone poison. Even assuming it did reach your target what do you think they're going to do, huff the strange powder that fell out of the hate mail you just sent them? Maybe next time include a note that says "free cocaine sample". I feel like you'd have better luck actually mailing them a rattlesnake or a box of spiders.

In this case, she didn't want to poison anyone.  She wanted her husband sent to federal prison so she could get an easy win in divorce court.


FALSE FLAG!!
 
2013-06-10 09:42:45 PM  

Dear Jerk: Flab: Dear Jerk: Something that's not discussed much is the difference between god-given, inalienable rights, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. God did not grace anyone with the right to own an assault rifle.

update: If it's phrased as natural vs legal rights, then it is discussed much. Just not in Derpistan.

Read the constitution carefully.  It says that rights are granted by your creator (whether that's God, or Your Mom, is left to interpretation).  $Creator graces everyone with rights such as access to an assault rifle, purple fuzzy slippers or sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen, but only one of those rights is protected by the constituion against interference from the government.  For the other two, YMMV.

Nope, inalienable rights are rights that no one, not even the government, can take away. The constitution mentions inalienable rights. To put it in American terms, you have the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of your labor(no slavery (for humans), taxes must include representation). Many of the founding fathers were not pleased with the constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. So they tacked on a bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of some legal rights. There is a process for altering these rights.


Even the right to free speech? Now who's in Derpistan?
 
2013-06-10 11:09:45 PM  
Even the right to free speech? Now who's in Derpistan?

Yes. The supreme court has put limits on free speech and the states could do away with the amendment entirely although that is very unlikely.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report