Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2014, 04:22:32 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81363 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* 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 / mustache makes the man on: December 07, 2011, 04:15:16 AM
http://flavorwire.com/238333/mustaches-make-the-man
1602  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff ) on: December 06, 2011, 04:27:04 PM
"An even better synopsis.  And sorry... I am not used to not being the object of the fire!!!"

Hey, it's "Higher Consciousness through hard contact", even in the written format, right?   wink

Absolutely.  And I genuinely appreciate our discussions... and the bruises. 
1603  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff ) on: December 06, 2011, 03:52:02 PM
BD:  I am super pressed for time due to catching up from my recent trip.  May I ask you for a summary of the article's hypothesis?


Blame the gun lobby. 

As I said, GM, you will zero argument from me.  I just found it and thought it should be read.  Know your enemies (and their specific arguments). 




An even better synopsis.  And sorry... I am not used to not being the object of the fire!!!   cheesy
Copy BD. My fire was directed at the FP piece, not you. Your disclaimer was noted.

Crafty,

If Americans would just stop bitterly clinging to their guns, the ATF wouldn't have to arm the Mexican drug cartels.
1604  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff ) on: December 06, 2011, 03:10:06 PM
BD:  I am super pressed for time due to catching up from my recent trip.  May I ask you for a summary of the article's hypothesis?


Blame the gun lobby.  

As I said, GM, you will get zero argument from me.  I just found it and thought it should be read.  Know your enemies (and their specific arguments).  

1605  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / impact on elections of cartels on: December 06, 2011, 09:32:03 AM
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/world/la-fg-mexico-michoacan-elections-20111114
1606  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / a different take on Fast and Furious on: December 06, 2011, 09:29:13 AM
This is offered for consideration only.  I will not be defending this.  I just thought the different view was worth the read. 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/30/mexican_roulette
1607  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / TV at the USSC? on: December 06, 2011, 09:22:39 AM
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Congress-Considers-the-Televising-of-Supreme-Court-Arguments/10737426031-1/
1608  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff ) on: December 06, 2011, 05:22:39 AM
That is an excellent post, BBG. 
1609  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: December 05, 2011, 05:36:33 PM
First of all, Guro, thank you.  I appreciate your view of my intelligence.

Public sidewalks are not private property.  And, even if there is trespass without complaint, that doesn't mean that criminal action can take place.  (If I do not complain about meth producers, this does not make their actions legal.)  If the actions that take place from Black Friday shoppers or those who wait in line for concert tickets, such as obstructing public sidewalks, I've never heard any complaints.  But now that there is political movement doing the same thing, albeit for a duration, people are up in arms.

As for laches, there seems to be a gray area.  According to http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1097 laches is "the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of "legal ambush." Examples: a) knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title; b) Tommy Traveler learns that his father has died, but waits four years to come forward until the entire estate has been distributed on the belief that Tommy was dead; c) Susan Smart has a legitimate claim against her old firm for sexual harassment, but waits three years to come forward and file a lawsuit, after the employee who caused the problem has died, and the witnesses have all left the company and scattered around the country. The defense of laches is often raised in the list of "affirmative defenses" in answers filed by defendants, but is seldom applied by the courts. Laches is not to be confused with the "statute of limitations," which sets specific periods to file a lawsuit for types of claims (negligence, breach of contract, fraud, etc.)." 

Using the first of these examples, the cities of NYC and LA, at least, for damn sure waited until "Nat Neighbor has built a house."  Months after parks were occupied these cities decided that there was a nuisance. 

I don't understand this: "PS:  'People lose their liberties by actions of the government.'-- only under Due Process."  You have made the argument, with consistency, that people lose their liberties often without the due process ensured by the government.  Isn't this much of your concern with the Obama administration and Supreme Court (Kelo, for example)? 





BD:

You are a very bright guy, but I confess I am not fully following your logic.  In the give and take of life in a (still somewhat) free society, lots of stuff gets let slide.  Perhaps a relevant concept would be the law of trespass.  For example, someone comes on my property without permission.  If I don't complain, there is no problem.  If I do complain, then I have the right to eject them and/or have the authorities do so.  Would this not be the case with people camping out the night before Black Friday?

I suspect public defecation has been a no-no for quite some time. 

And yes there have been incidents, or perhaps even episodes, of "public camping" over the years, though nothing like OWS with its weeks/months of taking over public parks and such comes to mind (maybe IIRC Pershing clearing out a Hooverville in the 1930s?).  Should existing local ordinance have a gap in it, if I understand your argument correctly you are asserting that the local authorities are estopped from passing an ordinance to deal with an existing problem if the problem has a political component.

I challenge this.  It is not that OWS holds a particular political POV, it is that, regardless of its POV it is taking over public property, creating a mess and a health hazard, obstructing others from the use of the public common, and not moving on when asked to do so.

In conclusion, I see no inconsistency in my position whatsoever.
1610  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Hidden images in Mona Lisa? on: December 04, 2011, 12:43:07 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/45541410#45541410
1611  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Is the DEA money laundering??? on: December 04, 2011, 08:54:30 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45539772/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/
1612  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: December 03, 2011, 02:16:10 AM
Thank you Doug.

And for what is worth, I used to ride the elevator with a Nobel Prize winner and a different economist who was an architect of the Reagan economic policy, neither of whom I would call "liberal."  Oh, and the professor I took Price Theory with who is an IHS fellow.  Damn my liberal, Ivy League-quality education.

Did they cover what statistical outliers are in that liberal, Ivy League-quality education?

Of course they did, GM.  If you read closely, I was responding to a particular post that was discussing the absolute absence of conservatives in higher education.  I then went on to say "...I can't, for the life of me, understand why it is impossible to imagine conservatives teaching at top flight universities."  There was nothing in either of my posts that should indicate to you that I was suggesting a 3-1 conservative to liberal ratio.  But, I did illustrate that there is NOT an absolute absence of conservatives teaching in the nation's finest universities. 

And, there are conservatives who teach at the nation's finest law schools.  The University of Chicago, which is consistently ranked in the top five in the nation, is considered to be a conservative legal education.  And John Yoo, who most of have heard of, teaches at UC-Berkeley. 
1613  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: December 02, 2011, 07:56:14 PM
Thank you Doug.

And for what is worth, I used to ride the elevator with a Nobel Prize winner and a different economist who was an architect of the Reagan economic policy, neither of whom I would call "liberal."  Oh, and the professor I took Price Theory with who is an IHS fellow.  Damn my liberal, Ivy League-quality education.
1614  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / something is wrong with the global economy on: December 02, 2011, 07:52:17 PM
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=e870b663-1471-467f-adc5-318f6cd40ea7
1615  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: December 02, 2011, 06:23:51 PM
I don't understand why people disrespect the work that most Nobel laureates do.

And I can't, for the life of me, understand why it is impossible to imagine conservatives teaching at top flight universities.  For example, I was taught by a economics faculty member with strong ties to the Institute for Humane Studies.  
1616  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rand Paul kills detention bill on: December 02, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=399
1617  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / National Defense Authorization Act text on: December 01, 2011, 11:25:10 AM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

1618  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / media ignoring bill? on: December 01, 2011, 11:19:59 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-medias-blackout-of-the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-shameful-2011-12

The Media's Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful

The broadcast media's ignorance and unwillingness to cover the National Defense Authorization Act, a radical piece of legislation which outrageously redefines the US homeland as a "battlefield" and makes US citizens subject to military apprehension and detainment for life without access to a trial or attorney, is unacceptable.

Guys, this is far more important than Penn State's Disgusting Creep of the Decade, or even Conrad Murray's sentencing.

Call it what you will: a military junta, a secret invalidation of Americans' civil rights, a Congress gone mad. Whatever it is, it needs to be covered by the press, and quickly.

Anderson Cooper, Brian Williams, Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and the other handful of household names that mainstream America relies on for news should be talking about this non-stop.

I emailed producers and on-air talent at the three major cable news networks yesterday: not one of them was willing to step up to the plate and report on this appalling legislation, which would give Americans roughly the same protections as citizens in China or Saudi Arabia.

Bloggers and the ACLU's analysis have already made the work easy for you guys. Even an ADD segment producer can do the math:

- Pay special attention to Section 1031 of the bill.

- This bill violates the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), as it will allow federal military personnel to engage in domestic law enforcement. This is profoundly unconstitutional and scary.

- Also read Sen. Lindsey Graham's chilling defense of the offending provision in this bill, calling to make the homeland a "battlefield." Has anyone told these guys that Osama bin Laden and his deputies are dead? Those still alive are running from drone strikes on a daily basis. So who exactly are we fighting against? Are you protecting us from a handful of (almost entirely peaceful) college kids at the Occupy protests? If so, martial law and throwing out 200+ years of basic civil rights seems rather excessive.

- Finally, as the ACLU points out, you won't have any trouble booking an expert talking head who will tell you how dangerous and counterproductive the National Defense Authorization Act is: "The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive." Book one of them on your program, and do it quickly. The Senate has already rejected an amendment which would have banned the indefinite detention provisions from the bill.

Please, do your jobs. This is the kind of story that wins journalism awards and makes careers. It's the kind of story that makes viewers trust you.

UPDATE: To the mainstream media's credit, Keith Olbermann of Current TV has now mentioned the NDAA's harmful provision, and I've been told that Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC is drawing attention to it as well. A good start, but not nearly enough.

1619  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / detaining provision overshadows other issues in debate on: December 01, 2011, 11:10:41 AM
http://defensesystems.com/Articles/2011/11/29/Senate-NDAA-Udall-amendment-fails.aspx

Terrorism detainment provision overshadows 2012 defense bill
By Amber CorrinNov 30, 2011
The Senate has taken up the 2012 Defense Authorization Act, which will fund and dictate policy for the Defense Department for the fiscal year, and so far debate has been dominated by a provision that allows the military to indefinitely detain citizens suspected of terrorism in the U.S. and around the world without going through the U.S. justice system -- even on American soil.

The Senate has also approved an amendment providing for the inclusion of the National Guard as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This week's floor action thus far has overshadowed other parts of the bill expected to be debated, including the approval of funding for Joint Urgent Operational Needs and the acquisition of cyber defenses. The bill also calls for, and discussion is expected about, the development of capabilities that detect previously unknown cyberattacks.

The controversial detainee language in the Senate defense bill sparked tension on and beyond the Hill, with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in particular going head to head on the Senate floor Nov. 29.

Paul, along with Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who sponsored a failed amendment striking the bulk of the detainee language, argued that the provision dealing with the handling of suspected terrorists could be a threat to civil liberties. Udall stressed the opposition of high-profile figures like Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who have publicly expressed concern over the measure.

“Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism? Well, then the terrorists have won,” Paul said. “Detaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.”

But McCain and others who supported the measure, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), argued that the measure is vital to protecting U.S. security in wartime.

“An individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat,” McCain said. “We need to take every step necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives ... in our armed services.”

Udall’s measure was defeated 37-61 Nov. 29. The Senate will continue to debate the bill and is expected to vote on it soon.

The overall bill budgets for $663 billion in military spending for military personnel, weapons systems and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The House passed its own version of the defense authorization in May.

1620  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / ACLU on the Senate vote on: December 01, 2011, 10:41:24 AM
Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window
 UPDATE III: The Senate rejected the Udall amendment 38-60.

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

UPDATE I: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday.

UPDATE II: The debate on NDAA has begun. Your Senator needs to hear from you RIGHT NOW! >>

1621  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Daughter caught in a lie on: December 01, 2011, 06:57:15 AM
http://www.omaha.com/article/20111129/NEWS01/711299848#daughter-busted-by-surprise-visit   cool cheesy
1622  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Chinese nuke tunnels found by undergrads on: December 01, 2011, 05:19:36 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/digging-china-nuclear-tunnels-013008319.html

The Chinese have called it their “Underground Great Wall” — a vast network of tunnels designed to hide their country’s increasingly sophisticated missile and nuclear arsenal.

For the past three years, a small band of obsessively dedicated students at Georgetown University has called it something else: homework.

Led by their hard-charging professor, a former top Pentagon official, they have translated hundreds of documents, combed through satellite imagery, obtained restricted Chinese military documents and waded through hundreds of gigabytes of online data.

and the story continues
1623  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 30, 2011, 08:23:11 PM
Of course, sir. 

I do not like this at all.

BD, without limitation on anyone else, may I ask you to take the lead on keeping an eye on WTF this is about?

1624  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Posse Commitatus on: November 30, 2011, 08:28:47 AM
Woof Guro,
     I believe you are referring to this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html


Woof All:

I'm on the road and so my usual level of access to data is less than usual.  I've heard something about Sen. McCain has proposed a bill that would end posse commitatus?!?

Anyone have anything on this?
1625  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: November 29, 2011, 10:39:36 AM
Your response was helpful, GM.  Thank you. 
1626  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Back in the "hands off media" era of 2008 on: November 29, 2011, 10:04:42 AM
First of all, at the time this story came forward, Edwards was no longer for president.  Given that the thread is related to presidential politics, this perhaps is a media thread discussion.

Second, the fact that the National Enquirer broke the story is supportive of my overall point, which was the shift in media coverage since the 1960's.

Third, in about week's time from the story posted below, Edwards had admitted the affair.  On ABC news.  So maybe the MSM media didn't ignore the claim as much as you claim.

Fourth, I'll bite and say you are right, and that the media did ignore the claims.  Many on this forum have decried the MSM media's treatment of Cain in the wake of unsubstantiated claims of sexual harrassment and infidelity.  Would you rather that the media leave Cain alone, or are you just pissed that they left Edwards and Clinton alone?

John Edwards and Rielle Hunter; the affair US media won’t touch
 






LAST UPDATED AT 13:26 ON Tue 29 Jul 2008
 



American journalists are at sixes and sevens about how to cover the revelations about the two-times presidential candidate – and, until recently at least, a frontrunner for the position of Barack Obama’s running-mate - John Edwards. As reported yesterday on The First Post, the American scandal sheet the National Enquirer ran an apparently well-sourced story last week about catching Edwards (above left) staying in the same Los Angeles hotel as his alleged mistress, Rielle Hunter (above right), with whom he is also rumoured to have had a lovechild.

With the exception of Fox News, who have independently verified many of the Enquirer’s claims (that Edwards was in the Beverly Hilton room and that when the reporters jumped him as he was leaving he took refuge in a men's lavatory), none of the major news organisations has touched the story. What is more surprising is that even the political blogosphere, which would normally be all over such a tale, has shied away.
 
This has astonished journalist and satirical film-maker Lee Stranahan, who today has posted a blog on the Huffington Post, attempting to explain why there is still an apparent embargo in the US media. He asks first why Edwards hasn't denied the reports. "Let's go with the assumption that Edwards is innocent for a moment; he didn't have the affair so the baby isn't his. If he didn't do anything wrong then it seems like he'd have good reasons to stop the rumors. A DNA test months ago would have ended all speculation about the paternity of the baby. And if there are rumours and you're innocent, WHY go visit the subject of those rumours at a hotel and leave at 2:45 in the morning? Why hide in the bathroom when reporters catch you leaving?"
 
Stranahan believes there will soon be "a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party" and a "typhoon of press coverage is close to breaking", but he is most surprised by the absence of comment on the matter by "the progressive blogosphere", citing TalkingPointMemo.com, DailyKos and FireDogLake. He goes on: "Despite what some people are going to say, this is news. A former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate who was running for President less than six months ago and is now on the shortlist for Vice President has a long affair during the campaign and fathers a child, covers it up, and then is caught at a hotel with the mother of the child. News! Oh - and his wife made regular appearances on the campaign trail and has been diagnosed with cancer."
 
Stranahan finishes by suggesting that if the story had been about Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who is being talked up as John McCain's potential running-mate, we would be hearing "peals of laughter" from the Democrats. "Would it have made the progressive blogs? C'mon, of course it would."
 
Will Stranahan's call to "progressive" bloggers be heeded? Watch this space. ·
.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/38901/john-edwards-and-rielle-hunter-affair-us-media-won%E2%80%99t-touch
1627  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: November 29, 2011, 09:27:10 AM
No.  Like there wasn't a 24 hour news cycle.  Like when people didn't check news, etc. from their phones, but waited until the morning paper.  Like when there were three networks, and you waited until the 6:00 news to get the day's news.  Before blogs. There weren't constant feeds from FaceBook, Twitter (Weiner's demise) and other social media.  Like JFK could ask the nation's leading newspaper not to run a story on the building Cuban Missile Crisis and it didn't (see Day 5: http://homepage.mac.com/oldtownman/filmnotes/thirteendays4.html).  Before presidential campaigns were three years in the making.  Before the media followed starlets around incessently.  There were allegations that JFK slept with Marilyn Monroe.  Can you imagine Kim Kardashian or whoever is the biggest, hottest name in Hollywood these days, going to the WH in secret??? 
1628  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: November 29, 2011, 09:11:16 AM
Since we are talking presidential in this thread, it should be noted that:

A.  The JFK and LBJ daliances occured in a day when the media, generally, were much more "hands off" than they are now.
B.  Ted Kennedy was denied the presidency, or at least a presidential nomination, by Democratic voters.  And, most historians, pollsters, political science types think that was based in large part on his personal history.
C.  Gary Hart was caught read handed, and withdrew from the presidential race.

You can judge Newt.  I was writing about the voters' dilemma.  Weiner is disgusting.  In general, Republicans purge their most disgusting as they are discovered.  Democrats often don't.  Weiner almost wouldn't leave.  Marion Barry, the guy with the 100k in the freezer, Ted Kennedy, Dodd, Frank...  Just my observation. Did one of those guys really drown the girl, not call for help, then win reelection with 62% of the vote the next year and go on to serve 8 more 6-year terms and to become the 3rd longest serving senator in U.S History?

Mary Jo Kopechne, dead at 28
As for adulterers in the White House: Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton - more than half of recent Dems.  Judge whomever you want.  I already predicted Newt isn't the nominee.  Same guy on the other side - no problem.

Obama and Huntsman are one allegation away from being the subject here.
1629  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 29, 2011, 06:52:20 AM
I see.  My apologies for my confusion.  A couple of things:

1.  ''Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.'' 1701 The phrase ''bill of attainder,'' as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder. 1702  (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html)

2.  In my most recent posts, I was illustrating that GM's contention that public camping was an unknown until recently was false.  Based on the extensive history of public camping, yes, there could have been legislation passed that was not aimed at a particular group. 

3.  People lose their liberties by actions of the government.  That is my contention here, and that, by the way, is often the contention of you, GM, and several other contributors to this forum.  However, each of us (or at least me versus many others) seems to have a different view of which liberties are worth protecting and when.

4.  If public camping,  and "public sh*itting" is so bad, out of hand, then why do so many people camping out for concert tickets or Black Friday deals not raise your (plural) hackles?  In some cases, it may be that the Black Friday camping sites are private property.  However, the laws of the city, state and nation must still be followed on private property (smoking ordinances; handicapped access; hiring practices; etc.).  Moreover, it someone whipped out their d!ck for all to see while waiting in line, that would surely be indecent exposure, defined as "Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended" (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/indecent_exposure.html).  Also, there are many instances in which these camping sites occur on public, city owned sidewalks or city parking lots, etc.  I think, or at least I hope, that we can all agree that liberties should not depend on the economic activities that they accompany.

5.  Moreover, some seem to want to note that rapes and other acts of violence that occured with OWS and the off shoots.  Agreed.  But, acts of violence also occured with Black Friday shoppers, some of whom may also have been camping out (based on the early times in the day that some of these incidents took place).  Do we ban shopping?  Many bar patrons fight or engage in sexual violence.  Do we ban drinking?  People who want to do these things will find a place to do them.  How do we, as a group on the forum, feel when people note the misuse of firearms and then leap to say all firearms should be banned?  (Please note that this is not an attempt to dismiss the miscreants in OWS, simply to say that the recommendations are not universally upheld.)



1630  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 28, 2011, 11:20:03 AM
Guro,
     I am not sure why (lack of sleep, too much Thanksgiving food, inabilty to process the wording), but I don't understand your query.  Could you clarify, please, at your convenience?
1631  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / turkey pardon on: November 23, 2011, 10:45:24 AM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/23/definitive-history-presidential-turkey-pardon
1632  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 22, 2011, 09:01:20 PM
Your claim was that urban camping was new.  It isn't.  It isn't as though the idea just crept up on city officials.  They had plenty of time to pass laws that were not passed simply because OWS and its offshoots began. 

Most every state has laws and most every city has statutes that forbid or regulate "urban camping" that predate "Commie Rapefest-2011". 

And yet you posted an article with this little line: "There may be a legitimate political gripe about the promulgation of rules in response to the Occupy protests."  So, what were the rules promulgated in response to Occupy?
1633  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 22, 2011, 06:30:59 PM
Your claim was that urban camping was new.  It isn't.  It isn't as though the idea just crept up on city officials.  They had plenty of time to pass laws that were not passed simply because OWS and its offshoots began. 
1634  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Prayer and Daily Expression of Gratitude on: November 22, 2011, 04:48:29 PM
I am about to close up shop for the week.  Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.

Today, I am thankful for the forum that Guro Crafty provides, for the insight offered by many here, and by the continued challenge that some of you provide.  I truly appreciate the opportunities to learn from, debate with, and be edified by you.  May all of you have an excellent Thanksgiving, with family and friends by your side.  Safe travels for those of you who are going somewhere else.

Things I am feeling thankful for:

1.  The opportunities that this nation provides its citizens.
2.  Freedoms of speech, religion, press and to keep and bear arms.
3.  Sticks.
4.  Swinging them.
5.  Damn good teachers who have taken an interest in me over the years, in many different guises.
1635  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 22, 2011, 04:40:54 PM
Probably because until not too long ago, public camping/defication wasn't a problem in American cities.

Yep, people camping in public spaces in urban areas is unheard of!!!!!! 

From 2008: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26776283/ns/us_news-life/t/hard-times-tent-cities-rise-across-country/

"Homeless people and their advocates have organized three tent cities at City Hall in recent months to call attention to the homeless...."

From 2010: http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/11/19/tent-cities-pop-up-everywhere-in-the-u-s-as-homelessness-skyrockets/

From the Civil Rights Era: http://orig.jacksonsun.com/civilrights/sec4_tent_city.shtml

And: http://www.childrensdefense.org/about-us/our-history/poor-peoples-campaign.html

"Thousands of people from all over the country camped on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.  They called their camp "Resurrection City." At its peak, the camp held approximately 7,000 people."

1636  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 22, 2011, 10:10:01 AM
I wonder why this isn't explored further.

"There may be a legitimate political gripe about the promulgation of rules in response to the Occupy protests."
1637  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / spies rings busted on: November 22, 2011, 05:22:54 AM
http://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-cia-spies-caught-fear-execution-middle-east-233819159.html
1638  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / FaceBook intimidation on: November 21, 2011, 05:16:21 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/inmates-harass-victims-via-facebook-081733468.html
1639  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: November 08, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
OK, and once again we disagree.  But I enjoyed the discussion. 

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. 

Ok, I think it's a more than reasonable assumption based on prior caselaw.
1640  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. 
1641  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. 
1642  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. 
1643  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." 

1644  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. 
1645  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. 

1646  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. 
1647  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. 
1648  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?   
1649  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. 
1650  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. 
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 43
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!