Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 05:52:08 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79111 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1036 Members
Latest Member: Evgeny Vasilyev
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 43
1601  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 08, 2011, 11:29:11 AM
"I didn't think conservatives liked to base their arguments on this type of argument."

Do you think that disrupting funerals would have been socially acceptable at anytime in America's history? Would the founding father's have been cool with Tories disrupting George Washington's funeral? I'm guessing that's a no.



I wasn't talking about the Framers, I was talking about the point that YOU made. 
1602  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 08, 2011, 11:28:28 AM
Again, it goes back to time/place/manner. Could Westboro stand on top of a coffin to protest lawfully? Could they lawfully link arms and block the coffin from being placed into the grave?

No.

Could they peacefully protest nearby without physically disrupting the funeral. Yes.

Once again, GM, this is an open question.  You don't KNOW the answer to this.  You suspect, based on your readings and understandings. 
1603  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 08, 2011, 10:50:31 AM

So? Most states didn't have a law banning the disruption of funerals until Westboro started their B.S. Now most states do, after legislators recognized a problem. The laws don't state "Westboro Baptists may not disrupt funerals", the laws forbid ANYONE from disrupting a funeral, no matter what their agenda might be. Sad that such a law might be needed in the first place.

Yep, that is the legal question I mentioned above.  The Supreme Court will likely have to hear the case to decide on this point.  At this point, the fact that the states have passed the laws don't make the laws constitutional.

I didn't think conservatives liked to base their arguments on this type of argument.  See Scalia's dissent in Atkins v. Virginia. 
1604  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 08, 2011, 10:16:28 AM
The Tennessee law, that was the origins of the question at hand, was passed after the Occupy folks began their settlement.  It targets them. 

Oh, let us not for get this:

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, 9 and Art. 1 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).

For your convenience, Art. I, section 9 reads, in part: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Art. I, section 10 reads, in part: "No state shall ... pass any ...ex post facto law." 

1605  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 08, 2011, 08:49:41 AM
BD:   I appreciate the citations you bring to the conversation-- which does mean a bit more effort must be put into this thread.  So help me out please.  What is the post number in this thread where the TE law was first mentioned?

Woof Guro: Politics 667.  Doug shifted the conversation to this thread based on the content of his question in 507 of this thread. 
1606  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 08, 2011, 04:44:21 AM
So, you note that speech in a public place has heightened importance.  The article then notes that "[t]he Court did not consider the Constitutionality of these statutes" but you want this to support your overall point.  Fine.  Let's keep looking... oh, the article then makes the amorphous claim that "there seems to be an implicit suggestion" (man, that is concrete and damn fine example that that might maybe possibly happen) "in the decision that such statutes, relating to time place and manner would be Constitutional if reasonably based on a government interest."

So, you want me to buy that the Court, in dicta, implied that it might answer a question that it specifically didn't answer.  I suspect that we will get our answer from the Court on the funeral protest laws. 

Did you look at RAV?  Did you look at the opinions from Scalia in Hill and Kennedy in Johnson? 

Quick note: You do correctly point out time, place and manner restrictions.  My point, which was unclear, is that the laws can't be passed to target the groups who use TPM.  Think flag burning as a particular law or the hate speech targeted in RAV. 

1607  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 07, 2011, 01:21:06 PM

I so far find the content of this particular movement either absent or meaningless but the best way to clear them out is probably to let them have their say for as long as they want... 

Your analogy with abortion protesters at the abortion clinic is excellent. 

As do I.  I've been talking about it to students for weeks.  I've had about four or so students go to various Occupy sites, and relate their stories of the vapidity of the protestors.  One student described them as "sad."  But, I think that when we allow for protests to occur, no matter what the reason (lack of reason/logic/ability to describe the ills they feel) we do a service to the country.  We are a nation that has had peaceful transitions of government for a couple centries (more or less).  Compare that to countries that consistently crackdown on speech/assembly/religion.  Coups, assissinations, revolutions, and other types of political instability.

The abortion analogy wasn't random.  Read this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1856.ZS.html, and note the Scalia dissent.  The best thing he has ever written, in my opinion.  But, note the struggle with the majority, too.  Unlike many of you, I don't scorn Stevens, and in this case he notes the struggle.  (I should also note that CJ Rehnquist assigned the opinion to Stevens here, and voted with him on it.)

But, you can look at other cases.  Texas v. Johnson (aka "The Flag Burning case"), Kennedy writes what I think is his best work available here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZC.html.  To underline the difficulty of these questions, note the odd way that the majorities fall out in these two cases.  In Hill, you have Rehnquist voting with the majority, while other conservatives are in dissent.  In Johnson, Rehnquist and Stevens both dissent.  In other words, the rights to protest, the exetent of protest, the place of protest, etc. etc. really, really are difficult questions. 
1608  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 07, 2011, 11:52:33 AM
"I love the zealotry over a constitutional principle like freedom of speech and I'm intrigued by the attempts to expand 'speech' to include almost anything, like resting up for speech and enjoying a little sexual release, consensual or otherwise.  But the Bill of Rights is larger and longer than that. What I don't understand is the willingness of same people in so many cases to tromp all over other constitutional principles, for example, equal protection.  While the definition of speech gets expanded, the definition of equal protection gets narrowed.  I already gave several examples like the estate tax, we tax estates only over 5 million, in case law we determine that it applies to everyone evenly right while we are saying to the public and on the floor of the legislative bodies that we are targeting one specific group - the people with these large estates.  Same with progressive taxation.  Higher rates don't just happen to fall on certain people, they are targeted, just as much as a law against dominating the public square for any cause does, IMO."

Good stuff, Doug.  Good stuff.  Thank you for clarifying.  I can only tell you that there is almost always a tension between portions of the Constitution.  Here are some:

1.  Congress has the power to raise an army.  A religious pacifist has the right to exercise religion.  Can Congress raise an army using him?
2.  Congress "shall make no law" limiting press.  A person has the right to a fair trial.  Can the press report on issues that may taint the judge or jury?
3.  There is a right to free speech.  There is a right of privacy.  Where does your speech impede my right to privacy? 
4.  There is a right to an abortion (there is, even if you disagree with the right and the source).  There is a right to speech.  What are the legal limits that can be put on abortion protesters at an abortion clinic?

There are dozens of others, of course.  So, where does speech end and the right to stroll unabated through a park (as an example) begin and end?  I don't know.  But I can tell you that means of enforcement matter... and laws cannot be focused at one particular event/source/type of speech.  And that goes for the Tea Party, too, by the way.  I am NOT asking officials to have different standards for these disparate groups. 
1609  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 07, 2011, 11:43:06 AM
Yes, really.  You say you know the case law, GM.  Then you should know that laws passed to prevent particular people from speaking in a particluar place in a particular manner aren't constitutional. 

R.A.V. comes to mind immediately.  And the law in TN, which is the beginning of this thread, was passed AFTER Occupy started and was aimed AT Occupy.  Not the Tea Party.  Not me.  Not Young Republicans or Democrats. 

"Because it is one example, while there have been many examples of the opposite occuring nationwide.  Because you overlook arrested made in NYC, St. Louis, Nashville (the strating point of the discussion), Austin, and elsewhere."

**Arrests for the arrest for the rapes, assaults and other felony crimes? I'll refer you back to the letter from the Oakland PD union, where after they were ordered to clear the illegal encampment, the mayor then ordered them to allow the illegal campers to return, oh and then gave city employees the day off to join the illegal protest. Zucotti Park in NYC is private property, but the NYPD won't protect it because mayor Bloomie won't let them. So, the rule of law means nothing, so long as the powers that be agree with your agenda.
"This shows your lack of understanding on the totality of related precedent, GM.  If you know your case law, you know that laws can't be passed that target not only one type of speech, but one type of speaker."

**Really? Since when is trespassing "speech"? This is part of the Stalinist Criminal Union's game. Make everything "speech" then shield the criminal conduct under the 1st amendment. Is the public sh*tting speech? Public masturbation?   
1610  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 07, 2011, 07:23:23 AM
"If you'll scroll back up to the youtube video I posted, you'll see rush hour traffic being blocked by OWS protesters and the LAPD doing nothing about it. Why do you suppose that is?"

Because it is one example, while there have been many examples of the opposite occuring nationwide.  Because you overlook arrested made in NYC, St. Louis, Nashville (the strating point of the discussion), Austin, and elsewhere. 

"Did the law prohibit a certain kind of speech? I doubt it."

This shows your lack of understanding on the totality of related precedent, GM.  If you know your case law, you know that laws can't be passed that target not only one type of speech, but one type of speaker. 

"I pointed out the political alignment of this dem operative clad in a black robe who did as is commonly done by her ilk, legislated from the bench to further her political agenda."

A judge that follows precedent is now legislating from the bench?  Not quite. 
1611  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 07, 2011, 06:56:22 AM
No, GM, I'm good on the case law, thanks.

And when the speech has turned into blocking roadways, for example, there have been arrests.

But, let us not forget that this train of discussion started with my post on the law in Nashville that was clearly not content neutral.  It was ruled as such by a judge, twho you in turn disparaged... nevermind the case law and historical precedent of that particular issue. 
1612  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 07, 2011, 05:44:03 AM
I understand the free speech aspect.  I don't understand why those rights trump others.  When you are done speaking, shouldn't you go home, let others speak?  In terms of free speech, it seems like they are the 1% trying to occupy disproportionately the conversation while the other 99% aren't being heard. JMHO.

Woof Doug, I am not exactly sure what you mean here.  You think that other voices aren't being heard?  That others aren't speaking out?  Occupying a park doesn't appear to me to be all that limiting to others' speech rights. 
1613  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 07, 2011, 05:39:57 AM
"As long as it's speech that damages America, the ACLU is there. Funny how there seems to be a lack of them litigating against leftist speech codes."

On this, we agree.  The ACLU's lack of support in one area should not cloud you to the fact that it is currently working to keep speech free at the Occupy sites.  Speech is not bad for America, or un-American.  Speech is the basis of America.  In the same ways that I support the free speech of the Tea Party, Nazis and Westboro (and I am not trying equate them, so climb down off that horse), I support the free speech of the OWS and other places.  It is the market place of ideas.  And I love it.


 
 
1614  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 06, 2011, 03:03:01 PM
http://www.military.com/news/article/vets-heed-occupy-rallying-cry.html (Support Our Troops!!!!)



NEW YORK -- U.S. military veterans are heeding the rallying cry of Occupy Wall Street, saying corporate contractors in Iraq made big money while the troops defending them came home - and can't make a living now.

"For too long, our voices have been silenced, suppressed and ignored in favor of the voices of Wall Street and the banks and the corporations," said Joseph Carter, a 27-year-old Iraq war veteran who marched Wednesday to Zuccotti Park, the epicenter of the movement that has spread worldwide.

The former Army sergeant from Seattle spoke to fellow Occupy protesters and passers-by on Broadway after joining about 100 veterans marching in uniform from the Vietnam Veterans Plaza through Manhattan's financial district.

Their unemployment rate outstrips the national average and is expected to worsen. They worry about preservation of First Amendment rights. And they're angry.

A week before Veterans Day, generations of former U.S. military men and women threw their considerable weight behind the Occupy movement born in mid-September when about 100 protesters also marched in the Wall Street area.

"For 10 years, we have been fighting wars that have enriched the wealthiest 1 percent, decimated our economy and left our nation with a generation of traumatized and wounded veterans that will require care for years to come," said Carter, who leads the national Iraq Veterans Against the War group.

Requiring care now in California is a former Marine whose skull was fractured last week when he was injured by a projectile at an Occupy Oakland rally. Police there are now the subject of a formal investigation by the city's Citizens' Police Review Board.

In New York on Wednesday, police circled the veterans as they stood in formation in front of the New York Stock Exchange, chanting, "We are veterans! We are the 99 percent!" and "Corporate profits on the rise, soldiers have to bleed and die!"

By the stock exchange, Josh Shepherd, a former Navy petty officer 2nd class who was next to Olsen when he was injured, read the oath members of the armed forces
take to defend the U.S. Constitution.

"We are here to support the Occupy Wall Street movement," he then declared.

Police officers on scooters separated the veterans from the entrance to the stock exchange. On the other side of the marchers was a lineup of NYPD horses carrying officers with nightsticks.

"We are marching to express support for our brother, Scott Olsen, who was injured in Oakland," former Army specialist Jerry Bordeleau told The Associated Press earlier.

At the intersection of Wall Street and Broadway, they paused for a moment of silence for the Marine who served two Iraq tours and remains hospitalized.

Olsen was honored Wednesday by veterans and other activists at Occupy protests around the nation, from Boston and Philadelphia to Los Angeles and Chicago.

James McBride, 20, an Army Reserve veteran, said his military oath was the reason he traveled from Vermont to join the Occupy Boston encampment the day after 141 people were arrested on Oct. 11 trying to expand to an adjacent plot of land.

"I swore to defend their freedoms, and they were being taken away. It's very unconstitutional," said McBride, who said he was less than honorably discharged for medical reasons.

McBride said the Occupy Wall Street protest is exactly the kind of civil disobedience protected under U.S. law.

"They wanted to kick us out. This is a peaceful assembly," he said Thursday. "In the Constitution, the people have the right to peacefully assemble. It's plain and simple. That's why I'm here, to defend the Constitution of the United States."

Back in New York, Bordeleau blamed some financial institutions for U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Wall Street corporations have played a big role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bordeleau, 24, who served several years in Iraq over two tours ending in 2009 and now attends college in New York.

He said private contractors have reaped big profits in those countries "in pursuit of corporate interests that have had a devastating effect on our economy and our country, benefiting only a small number of people."

"The 99 percent have to take a stand," Bordeleau said, to rectify the biggest income gap between rich and poor since the Great Depression, fueled by what protesters say is Wall Street's overblown clout in Washington politics.

From the stock exchange, the veterans walked down Broadway to the bronze bull that symbolizes the stock market.

"Halliburton and Bechtel think these wars are swell," they chanted, invoking the names of American companies that received federal contracts for work rebuilding Iraq.

They say those who risked their lives fighting for their country have the right to protest economic policies and business practices that give them a slimmer chance of finding jobs than most Americans.

From 2008 to 2011, veterans' unemployment rose 5.1 percentage points, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And a Department of Labor report shows that unemployment tops 20 percent among 18-to-24-year-old veterans, compared with a national rate of about 9 percent.

Veteran unemployment is projected to worsen after 10,000 servicemen and servicewomen return from Afghanistan and 46,000 come home from Iraq by year's end - many wounded or suffering from mental trauma.

Bordeleau, who served in the military police, said his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder has made it impossible to pursue a career in civilian law enforcement, and that he's had a hard time finding jobs that pay more than $10 an hour. He has worked as a groundskeeper at a New York public park while living on disability benefits.

"I can't really survive on that,"
he said.

Wednesday's protest comes two weeks after another veteran faced off with police in New York.

Shamar Thomas, a decorated
former Marine sergeant from Roosevelt, N.Y., went nose-to-nose with officers policing activists in Times Square.

"This is not a war zone! These are not armed people!" he told police in a passionate, videotaped plea that has gone viral on YouTube.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he believes the protest, now in its seventh week, is "really hurting small businesses and families."

He said the city has worked hard to preserve the protesters' First Amendment rights, but is very concerned about the rights of others in the area. Bloomberg said the city will take action if and when it's appropriate.

To ease access to small businesses on Wall Street, hundreds of police barricades were removed Wednesday, said Marc LaVorgna, a mayoral spokesman.


1615  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 06, 2011, 01:27:30 PM
I don't see the rule of law being waived by sympathetic politicians.  Sorry.  There have been several crackdowns.  I have read of the rape in the Philly Occupy on CNN.  And the ACLU continues to protect free speech, GM.  Like they did with well known Stalinists in Skokie.  Speech you don't like it the fing point of the 1st Amendment. 

Why not? The rule of law is being waived by the sympathetic politicians in various cities, the MSM is doing it's best to not report on the culture of criminality found within OWS and the American Criminal Liberties Union is performing it's Stalinist mission of using the American legal system to harm America.

You don't see this?
1616  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 06, 2011, 04:55:23 AM
Yeah, I am totally sure that this is true. 
1617  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 05, 2011, 09:48:15 PM
DougMacG: The issue in TN was that the law was not content neutral.  The law was passed with Occupy in mind, not as a general preventative manner. 
1618  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: November 03, 2011, 08:46:06 AM
"What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog.  They are in this case."

Pretty selective in their watch-doggery, ain't they?

Good dodge.  And it answers my question your level of concern about the GOP candidates.  Morality is optional with you, as long as they are REAL conservatives.

"Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of. "

And those would be?

You've read the stories, GM.  Don't play dumb.  You're better than that.
1619  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: November 03, 2011, 08:14:34 AM
"I am not saying that the media aren't biased.  I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three.  I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there.  And, when you run for the POTUS as a REPUBLICAN, you should expect that stories like these will break."

I think that when it's discovered that he attended a racist church for 20 years, got his house from a shady deal with a convicted felon and had his political career started by an unrepentant terrorist, he's done, right?


 rolleyes

So, you misquoted me to make a point.  Cool.  Let's get this straight, again.  I did not vote for Obama.  I won't be voting for Obama.  What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog.  They are in this case.

Sex sells, GM.  It is not as if the media turned a blind eye to the Weiner wiener scandal.  It isn't Dem. v. Rep on this front.  It isn't.  And after all the conservative talk about Clinton and Weiner and etc., I am rather frustrated that this issue is seen as a media slant.  Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of.  I would think that his supporters, or those who want the best possible conservative in office, would want the truth to come out.  And, if he emerges from this then he is really battle tested, and likely a stronger candidate for it. 

You guys talk about immorality in the Oval Office all the damn time.  Do you REALLY want to know the truth, or does your fondness for Cain cloud your willingness to learn that he might be less moral than he appears?Huh
1620  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: November 03, 2011, 04:51:17 AM
A)  The point of the article I posted was first was that the woman was willing to and trying to put her name to it.
B) An abuse of power is an abuse of power.  Some have more power, Guro, like the use of a state's police force, but coercion, blackmail, abuse of position, or whatever, is still an abuse.
C) So, dropping trou is the only way to be sexual explotive, abusive, or ....Huh?
D) There are now three women making an accusation.  My point about Clinton and Jones is that some point there MAY be a pattern emerging.  You'll forgive me, I hope, if I want the GOP frontrunner to be vetted.  Maybe we can prevent Clinton 2.0 from taking the Oval Office.
E) I don't understand this point. 

I am not saying that the media aren't biased.  I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three.  I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there.  And, when you run for the POTUS, you should expect that stories like these will break.  Why?  Because they do.  It is 24/7 media driven cycle.  And, I would like to note that Cain blames Perry (http://news.yahoo.com/struggling-cain-accuses-perry-harassment-case-022511386.html).  It is also true that presidential candidates work to discredit, miscredit, or downright blame/attack their opponents.

Good reminders of media bias, but pertaining more to the Media thread.

BTW BD in the Paula Jones case:

a) SHE PUT HER NAME TO IT.
b) Her allegation was that she was summoned to the Governor's presence by a State Trooper
c) and that Slick Willie dropped his drawers.   I gather that she also gave some specifics about the appearance of Clinton's penis (that it curved when erect) though one wonders how verifying evidence would be obtained , , ,
d) Clinton had quite the rep as the ladies man
e) Clinton was married to Hillary

Quite a contrast here!





1621  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 10 political scandals that ended in election on: November 02, 2011, 10:00:22 PM
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1955750_1955749,00.html
1622  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / #3 on: November 02, 2011, 09:52:25 PM
I wonder if we should have listened to Paula Jones?  Of course not, she was just trying to ruin the career of a presidential hopeful...

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-third-worker-says-cain-harassed-her-205655781.html
1623  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / hackers bring it on: November 02, 2011, 06:29:20 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/world/americas/hackers-challenge-mexican-crime-syndicate.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hackers%20kidnapping%20mexico&st=cse
1624  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / not so anonymous anymore? on: November 02, 2011, 06:26:33 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-cain-accuser-wants-allowed-talk-025045050.html
1625  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / domestic terror plot in GA on: November 02, 2011, 06:24:24 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/georgia-men-charged-plotting-ricin-012138938.html
1626  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 01, 2011, 09:09:30 AM
"I hope you realize that I do not make this distinction."

Just pointing out that many judges and elected officials sure seem to. Did CNN include this in their coverage of the OWS protests? If not, why not?

I know what you were doing.  The thanks was sincere. 
1627  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 01, 2011, 07:09:55 AM
And, yet, it is LEFTIST political speech and therefore due higher protection than it has been given:


Some animals are more equal than others.....

I hope you realize that I do not make this distinction. 

Your article on the cost to the Tea Party is very interesting.  Thanks. 
1628  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: American History on: November 01, 2011, 05:49:16 AM
This is a completely different version than I have always heard, including from a professor of mine who is a former CIA historian.

In particular, the missles out of Turkey is an odd piece of contention because I have always heard that the US was planning to remove them anyway.

Also, the "MAP" doesn't explain the CIA's continued, although often odd and questionable, efforts to remove Castro. 
1629  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / FBI on Russian spies on: November 01, 2011, 05:28:13 AM
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/31/fbi-releases-russian-spy-trove/?hpt=hp_c2
1630  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 01, 2011, 05:15:03 AM
And, yet, it is political speech and therefore due higher protection than it has been given:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/31/us/tennessee-occupy-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
1631  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / FBI releases Russian spy trove on: October 31, 2011, 01:53:07 PM
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/31/fbi-releases-russian-spy-trove/?hpt=hp_c2
1632  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: FMA Strategies for Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse Workshop w/ Guide Dog on: October 31, 2011, 07:10:42 AM
Kelly McCann on zombie attack defense:

http://www.blackbeltmag.com/daily/self-defense-training/combatives/survival-guide-when-multiple-zombies-attack/ 

Zombie repulsion is officially an industry! 
1633  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Guro Crafty in Chicago Nov 19-10 on: October 29, 2011, 06:53:06 PM
Woof, Guro.  I think the dates are 19-20, yes?  Alas, I can't break away for the seminar as I thought I would be able to earlier in the year.  Enjoy! 
1634  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: October 28, 2011, 03:21:42 PM
Thank you, Guro. 
1635  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: October 28, 2011, 11:43:03 AM
Despite this:
"Again, I am not necessarily unopposed to the snark."  The role of the UN in the attempted prevention of small arms and the related limits to the 2nd Amendment spring to mind here.  I just want to understand HOW, or perhaps WHY, the UN now how this reputation.  Is it because of a failed, or flawed, design or it the "derailment" more of a normative sense from those of you how feel this way.

And this:

"...has it gone off the rails due to institutional design or normatively?"

And this:
"I don't understand the institutional design that leads to the conclusion that having those countries on these commissions will allow they to dictate the outcome."

And this:
"I really am just seeking clarification about an institution I know comparatively little about.  And, thank you to all of you addressing this line of questioning, by the way.)"

And this:

"Could you you do me a favor and tell me what the UN's ambitions are, without the US or the EU?  (This is a serious question.  Since the US, UK and France are all permanent SC members with veto power, I am not sure what you mean.)"

Next time I will try harder to admit my ignorance about a subject. 


I got a bit of a similar impression; the idea that communicated was "What does it matter?  We have veto on the Security Council."
1636  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: October 28, 2011, 04:45:32 AM
I agree with Guro.  That was a very good post, and useful.  Thank you.

I do not understand, however, how you jumped to this conclusion: "I don't see how Bigdog you take lightly the fact that those horribly repressive regimes were sitting on committees judging other people's human rights violations."

I recall saying nothing of the sort. 
1637  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: October 27, 2011, 04:46:13 PM
Thank you. 

BD,

When an institution goes off the rails as the UN has, I think it does matter.

OK.  So again... has it gone off the rails due to institutional design or normatively?  If it is the design, what portion? 

It was a utopian concept that was flawed from the beginning and just went south from there. It assumed that every nation would rationally decide issues rather than break into voting blocs. It treats every nation as equally rational and decent.  rolleyes
1638  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: October 27, 2011, 04:25:32 PM
Again, I am not necessarily unopposed to the snark.  The role of the UN in the attempted prevention of small arms and the related limits to the 2nd Amendment spring to mind here.  I just want to understand HOW, or perhaps WHY, the UN now how this reputation.  Is it because of a failed, or flawed, design or it the "derailment" more of a normative sense from those of you how feel this way.




BD:

I have next to zero respect for the legitamacy or competence of the UN towards those ends, nor am I sure that I even agree with all of them.  (Whatever the hell "social progress" is according to the General Assembly of the UN, I suspect I rather strongly disagree.

This might explain the generally snarky tone of this thread towards the UN.  grin

To the extent the UN succeeds in claiming power, US sovereignty is diminished.

1639  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: October 27, 2011, 04:22:39 PM
BD,

When an institution goes off the rails as the UN has, I think it does matter.

OK.  So again... has it gone off the rails due to institutional design or normatively?  If it is the design, what portion? 
1640  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: October 27, 2011, 03:49:03 PM
GM, I am not sure.  And I am not sure that it should matter. 

Guro, isn't the purpose of the UN to serve as a moral arbitrator?

"The principles of the UN as explained in the Charter are to save future generations from war, reaffirm human rights, and establish equal rights for all persons. In addition it also aims to promote justice, freedom, and social progress for the peoples of all of its member states."  http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/unitednations.htm



1641  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: October 27, 2011, 03:05:53 PM
OK, so this is not really an instituional question, but rather a normative one of what constitutes the "good" of the country? 

(Incidentally, I am not trying to argue with any of you, Guro, GM, DougMacG, PC.  I literally study institutions, so this is my mindset here.  I really am just seeking clarification about an institution I know comparatively little about.  And, thank you to all of you addressing this line of questioning, by the way.)
1642  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: October 27, 2011, 05:33:16 AM
Moving here due to Guro's request. 

I may not have been clear with my request.  I understand that China, Cuba, etc. are in the UN.  I even understand that they are commissions that seem to run counter to their history.  I don't understand the institutional design that leads to the conclusion that having those countries on these commissions will allow they to dictate the outcome.  First, they aren't a majority, even when taken together, on the commission.  Second, there are at least three nations, all with veto power, who are permanent members of the Security Council.  These three are the US, the UK, and France, the later two of which are also members of the EU. 

I don't see, then, given the institutional design of the UN (or at least my understanding of the design) allows the opportunity for the UN to act in a manner against the US and the EU.


"I have this feeling someone may come to regret encouraging GM to provide links and articles that show the UN to be a group running in a direction counter to US interests. 

It was not just Cuba, but Libya and Syria were on the human rights commission.  And the Obama administration was 'self-reporting' Arizona for checking IDs with cause.

What was the agenda of the UN Oil for Food scandal?

Our pathological science thread chronicles quite a duplicitous agenda coming out of the UN IPCC on manipulated climate data and studies.  It wasn't 1 or 2 scientists.  It was a movement with an agenda and money, within the UN bureaucracy.  Yes the UN would like to have more power and bigger budgets.  Yes, they want global taxes and global regulations.  I know that sounds like I have a conspiracy problem, but I would only count what they say in their own words.  I will put few links down but these are easy to find.  I would be far more interested in seeing links that indicate otherwise.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17102
 July [2004], Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he "strongly supports finding new sources of funding" for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. "The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing," Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.
-----

Snopes took on the veracity of a pass around email that says a list of countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia vote against us 70% of the time and found out the truth was they were voting against us closer to 90% of the time: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp

Yet we host and we pay..."
 
1643  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: October 26, 2011, 10:34:41 PM
I guess I don't understand, still, how this can be the case.  I fail to see the opportunities that would allow the UN to act outside the will of the US and two key EU nations.  Any chance there is a reference?  A how to manual?
1644  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: October 26, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
Woof,
 I'm talking about the UN BEING FRIENDLY TO THE IDEA OF A ISLAMIC CALIPHATE just to gather up all these independent Arab states in a neat little package, much like the European Union. Good for UN's ambitions, not so good for the EU or us.
                                        P.C.

I see that you are trying to distinguish.  Could you you do me a favor and tell me what the UN's ambitions are, without the US or the EU?  (This is a serious question.  Since the US, UK and France are all permanent SC members with veto power, I am not sure what you mean.)
1645  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: October 26, 2011, 01:13:54 PM
The enemy, of my enemy, is my friend.
                  P.C.

That'll get you another OBL. 
1646  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 21, 2011, 11:20:48 AM
Nevermind.  I stand corrected.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-20/obama-foreign-policy-gadhafi/50845858/1

On Iran: Perhaps, but Stuxnet was a US decision.  I say that because it is possible (and I mean only possible), that Obama's use of intel, spec ops, and the like are being put to task in less obvious ways in Iran.  I will confess to not enjoying the "wait and see" on this particular possibility.

On McCain:  grin indeed! 

Really? Then why did Buraq say almost nothing when there was a real chance at a "Persian Spring" in 2009 while he instead focused on underming Israel's security at that time?
We spent more than a billion dollars on the Libya op. Aside from Ka-daffy's head, we shall see what spins out of it. Somehow I'm not expecting flowers and rainbows.
1647  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Super PACs on: October 21, 2011, 11:18:25 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-10-20/presidential-candidates-donors-give-to-superpacs/50847148/1
1648  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 21, 2011, 08:10:12 AM
On Iran: Perhaps, but Stuxnet was a US decision.  I say that because it is possible (and I mean only possible), that Obama's use of intel, spec ops, and the like are being put to task in less obvious ways in Iran.  I will confess to not enjoying the "wait and see" on this particular possibility.

On McCain:  grin indeed! 
1649  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 21, 2011, 06:22:20 AM
Ditching the 2 term presidency?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/first_times_a_charm
1650  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / America's Pacific Century on: October 21, 2011, 06:20:43 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 43
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!