|
12/25 |
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41632 Activity:nil |
2/1 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/387392p-328749c.html "Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy." Can anyone say "18 1/2 minutes" \_ Please explain? |
2006/1/31-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41618 Activity:nil |
1/31 What's the difference between the Chairman, President, CEO and COO of a company? To me, all of them are "people up there". Thx. \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_operating_officer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman |
2006/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41502 Activity:kinda low |
1/24 If a crime boss/gangster outsourced the killing to a hit-man, will the crime boss be held liable? \_ The man most recently executed in California outsourced all his killings. \_ Of course. Criminal conspiracy. \_ Typically, this is the wife who wants her husband dead for some reason and hires someone or convinces some boy to do it for "love". \_ Didn't someone just get executed for ordering the killing of his son's gf because she knew about his robbery? \_ So if the US 'outsourced' torture, should it be held... \_ Only if it wasn't done to "protect the American people" \_ This is not entirely clear. If a non-US citizen is captured in a theater of war and turned over to a country that does not forbid the use of torture, it is not clear that any const. provision has been violated (though a geneva conv- ention provision may be violated, if geneva is applicable). But, if a US citizen is turned over to a foreign power, then the use of torture by the foreign power under the color of US authority would be a violation of the 8th amend. |
2006/1/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41455 Activity:low |
1/20 "GOP == GOD" \_ "My vehicle, my choice. Keep your laws off my SUV." \_ "Fight crime. Shoot back." \_ if ("GOP" == "GOD") { exit ; } |
2006/1/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41454 Activity:nil |
1/20 Err... oh my. "Itœ is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself."€? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2001006,00.html \_ He's a fucking scumbag, Koran or not. And it's nice to see traditionally "tolerant" Euro govts. starting to catch on. -John |
2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:41324 Activity:kinda low |
1/10 http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/D8F1LRCO5.html "Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be treated like criminals" So if people break immigration laws, they're not criminals? \_ If the person writing that quote doesn't believe that they're just laws then, no, to them they are not criminals and shouldn't be treated as such. \_ Not all violations of the law are subject to criminal penalties. If you break the building code by putting in a deck w/o a permit are you a criminal? One can imagine a system where an immigrant is subject to a purely civil deportation system. \_ I see. So you're parsing the word "criminal" to mean the criminal part of the penal code, vs. the civil part. Okay. Yeah. What's the case of illegal immigration right now? Is that a civil violation or a criminal one. Shut yer pie hole \_ I agree that many violations of the immigration code are criminal, but not every violation is criminal. Some, such as overstaying a NAFTA guest worker visa may be treated as a civil offense, not even subject to deportation. Furthermore, my point is related to the speaker's idea of what the law ought to be, not what it is. The person who made that statement may feel that it is never permissible to use criminal law to punish immigration violations. There is nothing inherently invalid with that idea, regardless of whether it reflects currently law. \_ How would you apply your logic to the sentence "Child molesters should not be treated like criminals"? \_ It depends on what you accept as the basis for criminal punishment. One theory holds that criminal punishment is appropriate only in cases where the victim is one or more actual individuals (as opposed to society in general). If we accept this as the basis for criminal punishment, then we find that while child molest should be punished by criminal law, immigration violation should not. only in cases where the victim is a person (as opposed to society in general). If one accepts this view as the basis for criminal punishment, then we find that while child molest should be punished by criminal law, immigration violation should not. [ I am not saying this view is correct, I am suggesting that it can be logically self consistent. ] \_ This sounds like a hopelessly out of context (or out of reason) soundbite. A much more well-reasoned statement might have been, "Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be be treated like violent repeat offenders, drug dealers, or terrorists, unless they're guilty of those crimes, too." \_ You're reading your own bias into the quote. The Latin countries are asking for a guest worker program. Guest worker programs makes migrant work legal. By their proposed solution you see the main issue is the illegal status of migrant workers (hence "criminal"), and not the intensity of their treatment given they're illegal (hence not "violent criminal" or some such variant). \_ On a related note, I don't yet see the problem with a migrant worker system. To me, the biggest problem with illegal immigration is that there's no way to control it. Illegal immigrant violent criminals are a particular pain in the rear. It seems reasonable to work on both tighter controls and a migrant worker system. |
2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41314 Activity:nil |
1/9 A million little lies http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html |
2006/1/9-12 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41306 Activity:nil |
1/9 "The state's highest criminal court on Monday denied Rep. Tom DeLay's request that the money laundering charges against him be dismissed or sent back to a lower court for an immediate trial." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060109/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment |
2006/1/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41301 Activity:low |
1/9 Attention Trollers: It is now illegal to post messages anonymously that annoy others via the Internet. Basically, it's already illegal to annoy someone anonymously via telephone. However, someone added "communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet" to the existing law. See HR3402 Sec. 113. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402 [click "Text of Legislation", then #6] http://tinyurl.com/dfw9t (cornell.edu) http://csua.org/u/ejy (news.com) Yes, it is still legal in most cases to "annoy" someone non-anonymously via telephone and Internet. \_ You're annoying me. \_ Annoying? The whole net would collapse if that was ever taken seriously. \_ Apparently the law requires a prosecutor to prove "intent to annoy," which sounds laughably difficult to me. \_ but you're wrong. -tom \_ But isn't that what makes proving a libel case so difficult in an American court? The need to prove "intent to cause damage?" (aka reading defendant's mind) \_ No, libel has no bearing on the situation. The difficulty with libel suits is that true statements, or statements of opinion, are not libel, so you have to show that the statement is based in fact (as opposed to saying "he's an asshole," which is a matter of opinino), and that the person saying it reasonably should have known the statement was false, and that people reading the statement could reasonably believe it was true. "Intent to annoy" is easy; any reasonable person could see that, say, repeatedly sending explicit mail to someone after they've explicitly told you not to, or subscribing them to hundreds of mailing lists, or whatever, is intended to annoy. -tom |
12/25 |
2005/12/30-2006/1/1 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41174 Activity:very high |
12/29 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051229/od_nm/britain_party_dc The article above says certain areas require more claims than others. Does the insurance company have a right to charge your premium based on location, and if so, does it have a right to charge different based on last names (like scotsman)? In the US, you're not allowed to use things like sex, religion, age, and race, but what about the UK? \_ Question 1. Sure it can, it happens all the time. Question 2. Don't know, UK isn't a constitutional government AFAIK, but since it's the origin of common law I would assume you can't (whole concept of being a subject to the crown with certain inalienable rights per magna carta). \- um i think there is a fair amount of confusion in various \- hello i think there is a fair amount of confusion in various comments above like "in the US you are not allowed to use [sic] things like [list]" and "UK [sic] isn't a constitutional government". also it seems like you are alluding to the notion of what is called "sovereign immunity" although i am not sure what you point is about "common law" and the "magna carta". you may wish to see the very fine book The Law of the Land, by Charles Rembar. some random comments: \_ Well, for starters, the U.S. law (at least that which is not covered by the Constitution expressly) is derived originally from English Common Law. English Common Law isn't exactly written down, but is based on accepted traditional legal practices and case precedent. This is in contrast to what's called "continental law" which is more "rule-based." What this translates into is that the common law systems, such as the U.S. and commonwealth countries the system is often based on the adversarial system, the oppossing parties essentially run the trial while the jurist ensures that the proceedings are run in accordance to procedure (either civil or criminal, etc.). In the continental system the jursist supposedly has a much more active role. In real life I doubt that the systems differ much in modern day contexts. The amount of standardized procedure in the U.S. has resulted in what I like to call "form based law," in which we are innundated with Judicial Council forms, especially for things like divorces or DUIs. I'd say that 90% of the law that I do is routine, and I'm sure it's very similar throughout the world (I know for a fact that patent law certainly is). As for the magna carta, it basically set a precedent for the limitations of government through the use of a contract, so it is significant in the tradition of our modern day democratic institutions, as such a copy is prominently displayed in DC next to the constitution (at least when I was visiting it). \_ You are confused about so many areas of legal history and terminology this is no longer worth talking about. e.g. common law is characterized by being "judge made" based on actual cases ... in contrast to code/civil law, which is statue-based by a committe or legislature or some other codifying authority. the english may not have a WRITTEN constitution but they are a constitutional govt ... in their case the line between parliamentary statue and "rights under the const" are a little vague ... this is hard to talk about without going into great detail. for example there is an act on Habeus Corpus which is reasonably comparable to the HC section in the us const. however the document known as the "Bill of Rights" in english history, is not comparable to the US Const's BoR. comments like "English Common Law isn't exactly written down" is ridiculous. If you want to see where the Rule in Hadley v. Baxendale comes from, you can actually read the decision Hadley v. Baxendale ... some of it is based on custom which dont flow from a single authoritative document, but the huge body of prior cases are written down. 1. you may wish to look up "adverse selection" in the context of insurance markets and premiums. there are consequences for not allowing insurance companies to not consider all relevant factors. also there are indirect ways to influence your insured pool ... like having your office on the 8th floor of a bldg with no elevator [ok this may violate ADA, but you see what i mean ... efficiency and "public policy" both play roles in shaping the insurance business] 2. you can discriminate based on some of the factors you list, but different factors requires different levels of "scrutiny" [which means different levels of justification and narrow tailoring]. also this obligation doesnt apply to all occasions. you can invite whomever you want to your house for poker and beer, but if you apply for a alchol lic to run a booze operation, you may not be able to keep certain people out. BTW, i think english law begins before the magna people out. 3. i think english law begins before the magna \_ I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but I never implied that english common law started with the magna carta. English common law started much further back, and even has historical roots all the way to the Roman occupation. My point was that England is not a constitutional democracy (it never was), and it has the concepts that are embodied within the U.S. model (the constitution and the subsequent bill of rights) through tradition. However, not having things written down did apparently pose problems, as can be evinced by the subsequent misunderstandings which led to the revolution. \_ You are confused about so many areas of legal history and terminology this is no longer worth talking about. Also you are changing your vocabulary ... you say "const govt" above and then use "constitutional democracy" later. yes, they are certainly different. England was essentially a different country [or arguably wasn't really a country] much before the Norman Conquest so the Roman stuff isn't even worth talking about. I think it is fair to say English law really begins to take on its own identity starting with Henry II. I do agree there has some continental style "codification" of various areas of the law in the US sign on to various "uniform" standards for tort/contract/business practices etc. carta ... henry ii, the parent of king john, has an important legacy in english law [post norman conquest]. people out. BTW, i think english law really does begin before the magna carta ... henry ii, the parent of king john, has an important legacy in english law [post norman conquest]. YMWTS, the book referenced at: ~psb/MOTD/EnglishLegalHistory.ref As the Times Literary Supplement says "it is the standard".oktnx. \_ Again, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but apparently you're trying to interject something what appears at best tangential information. Anyway, I'm sure that individuals who are actually interested in this can do their own research. \- the last bit was just for the humorous review from AMAZONG. but ti does discuss the great Assize of Clarendon, the "census projects", and the Magna Carta (although i ends before the Magna Carta story really plays out, which it does for +50yrs after 1215, into at least the reign of H3.). |
2005/12/29-2006/1/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:41165 Activity:kinda low |
12/28 Come on guys, murdering women and children? NOT Honorable. http://csua.org/u/eg8 \_ You're being culturally insensitive. \_ Go away, troll. \_ they need to teach muslims the power of forgiving. not every- thing has to be eye for an eye. hopefully this gives fuel to us Westerners as to how ruthless these people are. \_ I think this has more to do with "third world" than Islam. |
2005/12/29-2006/1/4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41163 Activity:nil |
12/28 I don't think you can do this by accident http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/1213/garcia_ctv.html \_ He should have made sure that he was the heir of something rich and powerful before doing something controversial. \_ Ok, a guy does a BillClinton on a woman's dress, so what? There are worse things happening everyday and people still get away with it, especially the rich people. For example, an heiress kills a man, but gets only 60 days in jail even though she was found guilty. An heiress paid money for school assignments. Why single out this minor peccadile BillClinton wannabe? http://csua.com/?entry=38950 http://csua.com/?entry=40218 \_ I used to buy Vanity Fair a lot last year before getting on planes, and I was always reading about that Long Island scion who got away with chopping up a woman into parts and sticking her in a suitcase. \_ The only thing that causes this case to stand out is how out- rageous the alleged crime is. He hired her, then, while she's working at her desk, he ejaculates on her. Dude, seriously, wtf? \_ Actually, the part that made it stand out even more to me was that he then allegedly, "apologized and stated that he did not mean to do that." Ummm... did not mean to do what? That's pretty freakin' hard to do by accident. \_ Didn't mean to get any on her. \_ probably was trying to get it to go *over* her \_ Wait, is there DNA evidence? If there is, then this is going to become a He-said/She-said case; if not, why the hell is he even saying it was consensual? Didn't LewinskyGate teach people anything? \_ It's hard to believe there wouldn't be DNA evidence. \_ she called the cops three weeks later. \_ Hmmm.. well that certainly makes her story sound less reliable. \_ Everyone knows you keep cum stained clothes unwashed for at least 4 months for potential future impeachment purposes. |
2005/12/21-23 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41109 Activity:low |
12/21 I understand that the transit strike is causing huge headaches in NYC, but I don't get how a Judge can impose fines on the strikers if the strike itself is legal. Help? http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/21/ap2408180.html \_ "for the illegal strike" Umm.. it's not legal. \_ http://www.goer.state.ny.us/cna/bucenter/taylor.html http://csua.org/u/eee (cornell.edu) \_ eee! The Taylor Law, passed in 1967, prohibits public employees in the state of New York from going on strike, instead requiring management and the union to ultimately settle their differences via binding arbitration conducted by a neutral third party. \_ Thank you, that's very informative. -op \_ I lived in NYC and have little sympathy for the MTA workers. Having said that, If you remove the power of strike from Union, you are essentially remove the only teeth Union has, no? \_ Fuck 'em. \_ Are they allowed to quit? Is slavery legal again? \_ in the good old days, we have no minimum wage, no minimum age, and labor union was illegal. Are you saying that we should go back to those days and let iron hand of wages to do its work? \_ Union members are allowed to terminate the employment, while the employers aren't. Is that fair? \_ Misrepresentation of facts. Employers are allowed to terminate employment; they are simply required to follow strict guidelines to ensure that they do so in a socially just manner (i.e., not just because you wouldn't sleep with them). \_ isn't it fair if both sides go to binding arbitration? |
2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41089 Activity:kinda low |
12/20 Freepers confused about intelligence design decision http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543993/posts \_ Oh Jesus! Now we have leftists reading and posting freeper links. It was bad enough when confused pseudo ultra right wingers posted that crap. People have mostly stopped posting from ultra left wing garbage sites. Can we please stop posting from the ultra right wing garbage sites now, too? Please? We don't *have* to mimic the rest of the web's trash here. \_ What ultra left wing garbage sites did you object to? http://talkingpointsmemo.com? The guy that broke the Duke-stir story? \_ Three days later, still no reply. That is what I thought. The New York Times is "ultra left wing garbage" to the Freeper crowd. \_ Oh Jesus! Now we have leftists reading and posting freeper links. It was bad enough when confused pseudo ultra right wingers posted that crap. People have mostly stopped posting from ultra left wing garbage sites. Can we please stop posting from the ultra right wing garbage sites now, too? Please? We don't *have* to mimic the rest of the web's trash here. |
2005/12/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41020 Activity:kinda low |
12/14 I just saw a link posted on http://crooksandliars.com and I thought I'd ask motd about it: http://csua.org/u/ebc Mostly I was just wondering if people supported hate crimes legislation. I'm very much a liberal, but there seems to be something silly about punishing people differently based upon what was in their head when they committed the crime. Really, is one murder different than another? Do we want to punish people for what they think? \_ I am an ultra liberal, but in this regard, I don't buy this 'intent' logic. Let say if a guy raped a woman. His defense could be something like he was drunk at the time and thus get a less severe penalty. WTF? we are rewarding people who are not responsible for their actions? \_ Uh.. How exactly does your example relate to the discussion? \_ Well intent does matter in determining whether some acts are a crime or not, but I agree that it's pretty silly and basically amounts to extra crimininization because of the offender's politics. -another liberal \_ I think that using intent to punish people different for the same effect does make sense in most cases. A person who plans out a effect does make sense in many cases. A person who plans out a crime and executes it may pose a greater threat to society as a whole vs. the person who gets caught up in the heat of the moment and overreacts. Almost anyone can misjudge a situation and overreact, while few sit around and plan crimes. The fact someone overreacted once doesn't necessarily imply that they would do so again (though it is suggestive of this; hence the need for incarceration and post release monitoring). The effectiveness of incarceration as a means of correction on those who act w/o a plan may be greater b/c many of them feel regret over their actions and may take steps to prevent the recu- rrence of a similar action. rrence of a similar situation. In addition, the person who gets caught up in the heat of the mo- ment might have made a mistake re the need to defend themselves or others, so they could have a partial (or complete) excuse. This is generally not the case with those who execute a pre-existing plan. [ In the context of hate crime legislation - I think that the existing law are sufficient to punish hate criminals, so I don't really see the need to pass these law. I think that many of them will get passed b/c legislators don't want to look insensitive ] existing laws are sufficient to punish hate criminals, so I don't really see the need to pass new laws. I think that many of them will get passed anyway b/c legislators don't want to look insensitive. ] |
2005/12/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40991 Activity:nil |
12/13 Instead of "Tookie" Williams, maybe people can rally behind a death row immate who really got a raw deal. He's black, had no criminal record but lived with his 18 month old daughter in a duplex in a bad neighborhood. In the other unit lived a suspected drug dealer. In the middle of the night, a cop + SWAT team perform a "no knock raid" on the unit (mistakenly kicking in his door) and he shoots the cop, who happens to be white and the son of the police chief, and kills the cop. A mostly white jury sentences him to die. http://tinyurl.com/8kc4y \_ A mostly white jury sentenced Tookie to die, too. It's completely legal as long as jury members aren't known to the court to have demonstrated prejudice against the ethnicity of the defendant. \_ who said anything to the contrary? It is also not legalistically relevant that the cop who was shot happened to be the son of the police chief, but if you think it isn't indicitive of whether or not jutice was served, then you are none too bright. \- in theory peremptories are not supposed to be based on race. i dont have energy for extended discussion but you can start with Batson v. Kentucky. \_ i don't disagree with you. \- i am not taking a position here. i am just sharing a decision that goes to your "it's completely legal" [where it's not clear what the antecedant to "it" is] \_ I was talking to the "you need to have other black people (peers), don't you?" crowd, just in case there were any of those people reading. \- legality isnt just a matter of who ends up on the jury, but how the juries venire is composed, the vopir dire process itself, and there are special voir dire process itself, and there are special issues for grand juries and "death ceritifed" juries as well as auxilliary issues like victim impact statements. there are some pretty interesting stats about who end up getting the death penality. the crudest generalizations [black people get the death penality] are not so accurate but there are some dramatic staticistic ... like the differnece some dramatic statistics ... like the differnece in likelihood between a black fellow killing another black person vs black killing white getting the death penalty. --psb \_ Unfortunately, the white/black issue is pretty much irrelevant and by bringing it up you weaken your case. Also, the defenders of "Tookie" have helped people like this guy (who looks like he got a raw deal) get screwed. My friend's mother was sentenced to 20-life for killing her husband when there was video of him saying that she didn't do it. Her conviction was overturned, but not until after she had been in jail for 10 years and developed MS. \_ How did the defenders of Tookie screwed this guy? -clueless \_ Most of USA looked at Tookie and decided that the people trying to keep him from being executed were loons. That weakens any future attempts to keep people from being executed, especially when the race card is played. \_ I think most people think it's okay for Tookie to die because of the abominableness of the crimes, they really think he did it, and that after 26 years an appeal hasn't succeeded so that's good enough proof that he did it. His behavior in his first ~10 years in jail didn't help any. \_ Exactly. So when the nutjobs say he's innocent, they tune out on a case like this which may be legitimate. \-^innocent^nominate for nobel prize \_ I think there is a difference between someone with NO criminal record and a known gang leader ... There is really no dispute of the facts, only whether or not someone is permitted to defend themselves with deadly force if people storm into their house, and if there is reasonable doubt that the defendent did not know they were police officers, which I believe there is in this case. \_ Maybe I'm being dense, but how did he make a video if..er, you know, he was dead? -John \_ It was taken by the medics who life-flighted him to the hospital. -pp |
2005/12/12-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40976 Activity:low |
12/12 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/07/WILLIAMS.TMP "The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses 'whose credibility was highly suspect,' U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in 1998." ... while upholding the jury's verdict, because the jury >> appeals judges, unless you find a technical problem in the trial, new evidence, or persuasive evidence the jury was on crack, etc. \_ And? \_ "Four years later, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voiced similar qualms, saying the prosecution had relied on witnesses with 'less-than-clean backgrounds and incentives to lie' to win lenient treatment for their own crimes." (also upholding the conviction) \_ And he loves animals and writes children's books, found Jesus on death row and is a 5 time Nobel Peace Prize Nominee! Free Tookie! \_ And at 12:01 he'll meet Jesus. \_ strawman \_ it isn't a strawman. it is mockery. and i fart in your general direction as well! \_ strawman + mockery \_ a strawman is a lame debate method. i'm not debating or attempting to score points by saying you said those things and then knocking them down. i am mocking you. mock, mock, mock! we are the knights who say mock! mock! what a great word! mock! say mock! 10 times, fast. \_ whatever you say ... \_ here's an example of a different yet equally lame debate method. \_ no, it is not a debate method. i am mocking your attempt at mockery. \_ you're attempting but failing. go look up "mock". perhaps if you knew what mockery is you'd be able to do it. thanks for joining us today. \_ It must be strange to take so much joy in the death of another human being. One that did not even do anything to you personally. \_ No it mustn't. Justice is good. \_ Last I checked, eye for an eye is a crappy basis for justice. \_ I can understand a sort of grim satisfaction, but so much overwhelming joy. \_ Well I'm a different poster and I wouldn't call it joy. I think the pp's mocking doesn't necessarily == joy either, he just doesn't care about it enough to not joke. Personally I know very little about this guy but he doesn't seem worth caring about. Their strategy was to turn his case into a political hurdle for the Gov. \_ In fact he loves animals so much that he called the three victims he killed "three oriental pigs". \_ You know, in an abstract way I am opposed to executions, but I don't think there's any reason to get especially incensed about this execution. Becoming a cause celebre should not get you special treatment under the law. \_ I agree. I am not especially incensed, but I am generally pissed off whenever someone is executed and there is some doubt that the guy did it or not. \_ What doubt was that in this case? Have you read anything that doesn't have an agenda? The SF Comical is definitely agenda territory. \_ The idea that the SF Chronicle is a left-wing paper is so completely out of touch with reality and history that there's really no way to respond to it. -tom \_ SF Comical on Tookie: http://csua.org/u/ea4 Not everything in the world fits into your little boxes. \_ I read the DA's summary of events, and I read Ah-nold's 3-5 page statement. 3-5 page statement. I'll give 12 jurors thought it enough to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but to me there remains doubts. |
2005/12/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign] UID:40928 Activity:nil |
12/8 Lawyer for 13 GTMO detainees filed a petition Mar 11 2005 http://csua.org/u/e85 (latimes.com) "Falkoff's petition quoted a section of the memo, but the quotation was blacked out in the unclassified version...Falkoff's interpretation...: 'The government believes that Mr. Ahmad has information that it wants but that it cannot extract without torturing him.' ... because torture is not allowed at Guantanamo, 'the recommendation is that Mr. Ahmad should be sent to another country where he can be interrogated under torture.'" "Falkoff's description was not disputed by U.S. government lawyers or by U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who read the actual Pentagon document. The judge ruled in favor of the Yemenis on March 12 ..." \_ The LA Times has been found to be insufficiently patriotic and therefore in league with Emmanuel Goldstein. \_ Another violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. |
2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40908 Activity:high |
12/7 Where in the constitution and/or law says that you can't have a gun duel? How about a fist duel between two people (like boxing), is that still legal? If boxing is legal, how about non-lethal kendo stick duels, or even katana duels? \_ Faimiliar with Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton? \_ I'm betting where you will get in trouble with gun dueling is not going to be federal law but state/city law. Specifically assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter or murder, none of which are federal crimes (at least under normal circumstances). You are allowed to box, because thats a consentual sport. You aren't allowed to kill people, consentual or otherwise. \_ Ok, let's say there is no intent to kill. Let's say that ilyas and john hate each other and want to humiliate each other to settle their scores. They're happy to bruise each other and may fight it out using nothing but their fists. Is this legal at all? \_ Yes unless a passing cop decides to nail us for disturbing the peace or any number of other reasons, or in response to someone complaining about two crazy people beating each other up. And then, that doesn't keep either of us from calling the cops on the other for assault, or from filing a civil suit. I believe boxers sign all kinds of waivers before whaling on each other. -John \_ In a gun duel intent to kill wouldn't matter. If you killed someone it would be manslaughter at least. But yeah, I imagine if you had a fight in the privacy of your own home voluntarily with eachother, and without lasting injury there wouldn't be any legal recourse. -pp \_ Yes, its called boxing. Get a ring. \_ GUN DUEL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel \_ CA had a specific provision in the penal code that made Dueling a separate offense. This was repealed in 1994. Some states still have such provisions. Strictly speaking a separate provision is not required to punish dueling b/c it is a general principle that one cannot consent to a crime against one's person. If both ppl survive they are both probably guilty of attempted 1st degree premeditated murder. If one dies the other is guilty of 1st degree murder. Note that there is no self defense argument b/c the duelers created the dangerous situation. \- this is a silly question but for the rest of you with some interest in legal history, you may wish to read about Ashford v. Thornton. --lord blackstone \_ Interesting. Thanks. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_duel Summary: Until 1819 dueling was an alternate dispute resolution method. \- well i dont think that is fully the "take away"... it raises the issue of stale law, the evolution of law, the back and forth between law and what you might call epistemology. the interesting detail here is it was essentially forgotten that trial by battle was still on the books. it wasnt like 1819 was the year parliament finally got rid of it ... dueling and trial by battle being common until then. there had not been a case of trial by battle for ~200yrs before that and "the system" was sort of at a loss about what to do. anyway, if you are interested in legal history, this book is very interesting ... Charles Rembar: The Law of the Land. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rembar \_ it is still much cheaper and saves a lot more time than litigation. |
2005/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40830 Activity:nil |
12/2 Democrats - protecting you from yourself. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/12/02/game.ban.ap/index.html \_ Erm. Reads to me like "activist" judge protects us from overzealous lawmaker. A clerk for Stevens with some good legal sense? Must lawmaker. A staffer for Stevens with some good legal sense? Must rock your freakin world... |
2005/12/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40810 Activity:nil |
12/1 A discorse on why people do the murder-suicide thing. http://www.signandsight.com/features/493.html |
2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40762 Activity:low |
11/29 1 corrupt congresscritter down. 500+ to go: http://www.nbc4.com/news/5418701/detail.html \_ Scanlon/Abramoff may take out a dozen or more. The Duke's situation may take down a couple more before it's through... I just popped some fresh popcorn. \_ As a native San Diegan, I can assure you this couldn't have happened to a more deserving scumbag. --erikred \_ May he rot in jail. -emarkp \_ One can only hope. \_ I'm glad you served your country. I'm glad they made a movie about the highlight of your time in the service. I'm so glad you can sit there and judge, sleep in a nice, comfortable bed at night when you never lived in a communist state. \_ I'm glad you served your country. I'm glad they made a movie about the highlight of your time in the service. I'm so glad you can sit there and judge, sleep in a nice, comfortable bed at night when you never lived in a communist state. \_ Poor troll indeed. \_ Traficant was really not guilty, so was Jim Wright, too. I'm sure good old Danny boy Rostenkowski was not guilty as well. \_ "Duke Cunningham is a hero," Tom DeLay said during a press briefing " He is an honorable man of high integrity." 6/14/05 \_ Out of curiousity, who here defended Trafficant? Grow up, \_ Out of curiousity, who here defended Traficant? Grow up, dipwad. \_ "Duke Cunningham is a hero," Tom DeLay said during a press briefing. "He is an honorable man of high integrity." 6/14/05 "I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my high office. I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, and most importantly, the trust of my friends and family." -Duke Cunningham 11/27/05 \_ This would be interesting if the quote dates were reversed. \_ Actually, you are right. That would be hysterical in fact. I am going to start reporting them backwards like that. \_ Compared to Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham *is* an honorable man of high integrity. |
2005/11/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40694 Activity:moderate |
11/22 Yay, Fox News takes an AP story and does the global search and replace http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176345,00.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051122190101 \_ They forgot to replace 'insurgent' with 'homosexual America-hater.' \_ Fox also removed the name of the AP Reporter. \_ Aren't all bombs "homicide bombs" by definition? Suicide bomber conveys more information than homicide bomber. \_ I think "homicide bomb" may fail to suggest that the bomber is also sacrificing his own life. "suicide bomber" is fine for me. Why don't we just call them "murder bomber" if we're propagandizing? \_ Doesn't "suicide bomber" fail to suggest that the bomber is also sacrificing (and intends to sacrifice) other people's lives? (I do think it's stupid propaganda.) \_ "Sacrifice"? That almost denotes something halfway noble. And why is calling it "murder" propaganda? -John \_ I guess my only real point is that "homicide bomb" and "homicide bomber" just sound stupid. We get it, they're murderers. They're bastards. Yes, we get it. But they also committed suicide. They're... suicide bombers. \_ because murder signifies that we are in the right; realize that a lot of the insurgents do it out of revenge for lost loved ones in the war, and feel as righteous and justified as we are in this war. leaving it as suicide bomber is a more neutral term. \_ Um, this is one of the stupider things I've read in a long time. WTF? Who gives a shit "why"? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder - looks like a pretty clear case to me. There is no fucking justification for it. None. At. All. And don't give me shit about "he was aiming for combatants" or "yes but xyz is also murder." I don't want "neutral." It's brutish, malicious, primitive and criminal. Ergo, "murder", QED. -John \_ same thing US troops just did/have been doing. death = death, eye for an eye \_ This is the same kind of idiotic, cowardly equivocation I hear from a lot of pseudo-intel- lectual types here. (a) US troops don't target civilians and (b) if they do it's a crime and should be punished. Go away. -John \_ My revenge against the Americans is to blow up a Jordan wedding party! (Or a bunch of school kids, Jordian wedding party! (Or a bunch of school kids, take your pick) \_ sure, soon as you lose a son, brother, close friend, etc, you may feel differently \_ No, I can say with pretty much 100% certainty that losing any number of friends and/or relatives will not result in me wanting to blow up completely unrelated innocent people. \_ Whoever you are, when you lose a relative or close friend for whatever reason and decide that mowing down a pile of civilians with your car is the right answer, please make sure to do this far far away from here. You're a nutter. Thanks. \_ I'm just exploring the muslim psyche. It's not what I'd do personally - I've got too much to lose. Your average Iraqi/ Palestinian probably doesn't. \_ Why not? They're not human? They don't love? They don't have parents and children and wives and husbands? Are their lives truly so empty because they can't get an XBox360 on the first day at Walmart? What exactly is so valuable about your life that isn't about theirs? \_ Their family might have been wiped out, their home destroyed, no job prospects, no hope for the future. \_ So that would inspire one to strap on a bomb and blow up a wedding in a different country full of people who were most likely sympathetic to your cause and loss. Good plan. \_ The Jordan bombing was stupid. Suicide bombers have been brainwashed and/or weren't that clever to begin with \_ You understand that these were higher ups in the Iraqi branch of the Al-Q organisation, right? These were not teenagers pulled from some West Bank slum. These were leaders, not the brain- washed masses. \_ So what? Even if they are, they are committing a conscious act, and are almost always driven to do so by someone else (the "higher-ups" mentioned above.) Trying to "understand" is fine, but a lot of this sounds much closer to justification. -John \_ The English usage of "murder" denotes something more personal. While both "murder" and "homicide" are technically correct, homicide is much drier, less emotionally connected. \_ s/denotes/has the connotation of/ |
2005/11/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Science/Biology] UID:40662 Activity:kinda low |
11/20 Krauthammer also hates ID http://csua.org/u/e16 \_ What I don't understand is why this is even up for debate. I mean, it's the fuckin' 21st Century. Get with it, people. Aren't we done having the Scopes Monkey Trial? BTW, Wikipedia, for all its \_ Errr.. You do realize Scopes lost, right? \_ Indeed. And from what I understand of the facts of the _real_ trial, if Scopes were trying to teach today what he was trying to teach back then, he'd lose again. \_ What was he teaching? \_ Above poster is being disengenuous. He's probably referring to the fact that the textbook Scopes was using contained references to eugenics and the "superiority of the white race." However, the Tennessee law he was accused of violating read: "That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals" faults, has a nice summary of ID and its gaping logical and empirical holes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design \_ George Will doesn't like it either: \_ George Will can't stand it either: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will111705.asp |
2005/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics] UID:40449 Activity:nil |
11/4 Huge Iceberg Breaks Apart in Antarctica - Yahoo! News http://www.csua.org/u/dxd \_ USA USA USA! |
2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40446 Activity:low |
11/4 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515823/posts New Republic article condemning Libby indictment (compare this with the http://findlaw.com article) Rosen: "In fact, there's strong reason to conclude that no underlying crime was committed." Dean: "In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else under Section 793 [the Espionage Act]" \_ While that's the analysis of many conservatives, Fitzgerald believes he was obstructed in his investigation (and he was the one charged to the the real analysis). And last I checked, that /is/ a crime. -emarkp \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, Rosen's point was there was no "underlying crime", besides the crime of perjury/etc., which he pretty much discounts to support his dubious thesis: "... [Fitzgerald] succumbed to the old temptation to indict otherwise innocent officials for misleading him and his investigators reminds us, once again, that the entire apparatus of special prosecutors is a menace." Of course, Dean's point is that there may have been an underlying crime, which is violation of the Espionage Act, and that it looks like Libby is protecting Cheney. \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, but Rosen's argument can be summed up as: (1) "Strong reason" to think there was no underlying crime. (2) Perjury/etc. is not really serious. (3) Therefore, eliminate special prosecutors. Dean's argument is: (a) By reading the indictment, Fitzgerald thinks there may be an underlying crime of violating the Espionage Act. (b) Perjury/etc. prevents this determination. (c) It looks like Libby is protecting Cheney from (a). \_ On another front, Larry Wilkerson, Powell's former CoS, said today that he has a paper trail that links Cheney directly to the prisoner treatment guidelines. \_ I read that. He said he "had" a paper trail. He got it when he was trying to figure out this mess with Powell when he was still Sec State. Wilkerson says he no longer has access to those documents. \_ Right, and I desagree with (2). Dean seems to be completely nuts--do you mean the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982?). The text of that act says the agent must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." From what I've seen Plame doesn't qualify. That means that the spirit of the law may have been violated but no crime under that act could have been committed. -emarkp \_ From the findlaw article: "Count One, paragraph 1b ... 'As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.' ... What is Title 18, United States Code, Section 793? It's the Espionage Act -- a broad, longstanding part of the criminal code." != Intelligence Identities Protection Act. (it's good that you asked!) \_ Thanks for clarifying. I'll have to read the findlaw article more carefully. -emarkp \_ yeah, I'm confused why everyone was talking about the 1982 act (which would be hard to prove a violation of) when there should clearly be a broad, all-encompassing law covering release of classified information. \_ That confusion is by design. That's how this administrations' propaganda machine operates. \_ So David Corn (author of "The Lies of George W. Bush") is an administrative lackey? He apparently was the first to raise the question of the 1982 act. \_ So, soda user, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb. |
2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40440 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html (findlaw.com, Dean) "Thus, from the outset of the investigation, Libby has been Dick Cheney's firewall. And it appears that Fitzgerald is actively trying to penetrate that firewall. ... Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be so foolish as to crack a deal. ... Libby's goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as possible, so as not to hurt Republicans' showing in the 2006 elections." \_ Any incentive for Libby to do that? It's going to be his ass regardless and Bush & Co is abandoning him... |
2005/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40422 Activity:nil |
11/3 Okay, as I survey all the major (TV/print) news web sites, I see all of them feature Libby/Rove as a main story (usu with photo), except http://cnn.com. Even http://cnn.com International Edition shows Libby. Even http://foxnews.com covers it prominently. |
2005/10/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40334 Activity:nil |
10/29 Excellent collection of easy to understand points by Fitzgerald http://csua.org/u/dv7 (someone's blog) |
2005/10/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40333 Activity:high |
10/29 BTW, the right-wing spin is going to be very, very easy to predict: There may have been an unintentional outing of Plame, but the goal was always to protect America, and Wilson was wrong anyway. There will be no specific mention of Libby committing perjury, etc., other than the "unintentional outing" - we thought everyone knew. \_ Hold on, what was Wilsong wrong about? - danh \_ You mean the partisan spin. I'm right wing and my opinion is that perjury is a crime and should be treated as such. If Libby purjored himself, I want him out of there. Same as with Clinton. When will politicians learn that the coverup is almost always worse than the crime? -emarkp \_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a serious crime and should be treated as such. I can't follow you all the way as to saying that the coverup is worse than the crime. That may have been true with Nixon and Clinton, but these felons comitted TREASON, not burglary or adultery. I know that word (treason) gets thrown around by pundits inappropriately, but it literally applies here. \_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a serious crime and should be treated as such. I can't follow you all the way as to saying that the coverup is worse than the crime. That may have been true with Nixon and Clinton, but these felons comitted TREASON, not burglary or adultery. I know that word (treason) gets thrown around by pundits inappropriately, but it literally applies here. \_ No, I don't think treason applies here. Especially since that would be in the indictment. -emarkp \_ I love this. "not indicted, therefore, innocent of guilt." Based upon your logic, no one in the whitehouse ever leaked the identity of CIA agent neither. \_ I love this. My saying treason doesn't apply gets twisted pretty fast. I said I didn't think treason applied here, not that there was no guilt. Furthermore, given the resources Fitzgerald has had, I think he'd charge treason if he found it. Some random anonymous wanker on motd claiming treason has roughly zero value IMO compared to a special prosecutor who's been pursuing this for two years. -emarkp \_ that is my problem with the conservatives. it is not ok to lie about sex, but it's perfectlly ok to lie about war and leak of classified information. \_ Precisely where did I say it was okay? I specifically said perjory is serious. If Libby perjured himself he should be in prison. -emarkp \_ Have you really not noticed that your view is in the very small minority among American conservatives? Wake up! The former party of small government conservatism has become a proto-fascist organization. \_ I disagree with the second part of your sentence, but the first part (i.e. "former party of small government") is one of the reasons I'm an I and not an R now. -emarkp \_ emarkp, why do you play the catch-22 game? no matter what you say it is going to be twisted, taken out of context or as we see here, "you dont represent the rest of conservatives even though i have no link to prove that". \_ Never. Because it works far more often than it doesn't. \_ I disagree. This spin will take two forks. First, they will repeat the perjury in suggesting the Valerie isn't a "real" operative and therefore can't be outed (example below). Second, they will suggest that obstruction of justice isn't a real crime unless you can prove the underlying crime (example to follow since there are enough twits on soda they won't be able to help themselves). \_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years? -jblack \_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years? \_ yeah, you're doing it right. The funny thing is that the "outing" part isn't what the indictments were for. -op \_ Comments like this are the reason that Fitzgerald specifically mentioned in his indictment that Valarie Plame-Wilson's status was NOT well known at the time of the initial crime. Not only was her status classified, but her cover was still required as MANY operatives were posing as working for the same cover energy company she supposedly worked for. By blowing her cover, they ruined a number of other covers as well. Try reading the indictment and associated report before you condemn it. \_ I read it. The indictment pertains to different accounts given by Libby, Russert, and Miller, and has nothing to do with Plame's status or revealing her name. Libby is being accused of misleading the FBI during questioning because his accounts differ from the reporters. has nothing to do with revealing Plame's name. has nothing to do with Plame's status. In his news conference Fitz himself absolved Libby of any guilt related to Plame "outing". You are the one who needs to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is one who need to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is poorly written and self-inconsistent. |
2005/10/28-11/5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40329 Activity:nil |
10/28 Contractors Plead Guilty to Illegal Donations to Texas Democrats -jblack http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510734/posts |
2005/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40313 Activity:nil |
10/16 DeLay's prosecutors lack a key document http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3397339 |
2005/10/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40289 Activity:moderate |
10/27 Miers has WITHDRAWN! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4382370.stm \- But the CSUA Politburo is asking her to reconsider! \_ I have to admit I am suprised by this. I thought the WH could make the Congress roll over. The next nominee ought to be interesting... \_ Apparently Republicans basically told Bush that unless there is some good proof that she has a grasp of constitutional issues there was no way she was getting confirmed. Imagine that, requiring someone interpreting the constitution to be an expert on the constitution. \_ CJ John Marshall only had about a month of legal edu but is widely regarded as one of the finest justices to serve on the ussc. Personally I think that we should have *fewer* judges and lawyers on the ussc and more intelligent regular people in the ussc. I opposed the Miers nomination not b/c she wasn't a judge or a constitutional expert, but b/c she just didn't seem bright enough to serve on the ussc. Personally, I think they should nominate posner (if partha is unavailable). - #10 psb fan partha is unavailable). \_ I have no problem with the "brain the size of a planet" exception. \_ Nice quote on dailykos: It is a sad day when your choices for Supreme Court Justice appear to be 'unqualified hack who may do some damage' and 'qualified nutcase who will reap destruction a cross the land' \_ WHo's the nutcase? Roberts? \_ The Scalia clone to come. \- the comment about JM's legal educ is misleading. it was quite common for lawyers "back then" to have more of an apprentice style of legal educ. i think law is sort of different from say biology. today a bio prof has bs/ms/phd/postdoc ... which can easily be a decade of post-grad educ. while a newly minted law prof may be 3 yrs of law school and maybe two 1yr clerkships. \_ The Thomas/Scalia clone to come. \_ Interesting that you chose Scalia and not Thomas (the argument that Thomas is a Scalia clone does not hold water, ex. Scalia concu- red in Raich but Thomas dissent). \- this is somewhat interesting: http://voteview.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm \- i dont believe SCALIA and THOMAS had the highest percentage of voting the same way. Although it is possible of the 7-2 decisions, they are most likely to be S+T vs everbody else. \_ Emphasis on the "QUALIFIED" in qualified nutcase |
2005/10/24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40239 Activity:moderate |
10/23 So, I'm confused. Perjury is impeachable, but not indictable? http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/23/hutchinson-technicality c.f. http://www.conservativeusa.org/impeach-trial.htm \_ People who worship money and Jesus at the same time, which is technically not possible, should have no problem holding that belief. \_ I'm not sure what you are getting at b/c perjury is indictable and the comments only specify that the Sen. Hutchinson would like the indictment to be for a substantive crime rather than for perjury. There is a colorable argument that perjury is insufficient to meet "high crimes and misdemeanors" requirement of the impeachment clause (Art 2 Sec 4) re civil officers and perhaps the VP b/c their Art 4 Sec 3 oath may not be have covered perjury but the Pres. oath in Art 2 Sec 1 cl 8 does. (NOTE: I think this is a BS argument b/c perjury isn't the sort of "high crime or misdemeanor" the framers had in mind.) \_ I think the point is that the same senators decrying indicting government officials for perjury are *on the record* as saying that perjury qualified as "high crimes and misdemeanors" when it was Clinton lying under oath about something that wasn't even a crime. The traitors currently under investigation are not the President, and ARE lying about a REAL crime, assuming the indictments are handed out. \_ That's what I assumed, which is why I said there is a colorable argument that the std is different wrt the pres. Personally, I think it is BS - it didn't qualify then, it doesn't qualify now. the pres (not that I buy it, only that it is there). |
2005/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40236 Activity:nil |
10/23 The Katrina rape and murder myth: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/24/katrina_horror/index.html \_ I guess the writer saw the latest episode of South Park |
2005/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40220 Activity:nil |
10/21 http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051020/ts_latimes/iwilleatyourdollars Extremely complex Nigerian corporations working hard for your money. |
2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40183 Activity:nil |
10/19 Excellent summary of Myths vs. Facts re Plame and Joe Wilson http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-rebuttal |
2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40001 Activity:nil |
10/6 Larry Elder writing about Bill Bennett: http://csua.org/u/dnf "How does one artfully say that out of a small percentage of America's population -- 13 percent -- blacks account for 37.2 percent of all those arrested for violent crimes, 54.4 percent of all robbery arrestees, and are the known offenders in 51.3 percent of all murders? The murder rate in the city of New Orleans stands at over 7.5 times the national average, and authorities convict only one in four arrested for homicide." \_ One recognizes it's not about their race, but other factors. \_ Ever wonder why white collar crime is never broken up by race? \_ Because white collar crime are not violent crimes? People fear less for white collar crimes than for violent crimes, even in homogeneous society. \_ A mugger will only take your wallet. Kenny boy will end your job, take your life savings and put you on the street! \_ but Kenny boy is dubya's friend... \_ But a mugger would stab me to death as he pleases. \_ Why? If caught mugger/killer could face life in prison or death penalty. If Kenny is caught, well, he's still free ain't he? \_ Savings and credit can be rebuilt; a perforated heart probably can't be. If a guy is mugging you to begin with, considerations such as "he might get caught" aren't really a serious deterrent. Violent crime isn't inherently rational to begin with -- which is partially what makes it scary (aside from, you know, the possibility of being stabbed to death or getting raped). \_ Which would be true if every mugging resulted in death, rape, etc. But they don't. Odds are Kenny will do less time for damaging thousands lives than some fool who gets caught for doing for robbing $100 from somone. \_ It's not what "will" happen, it's the fact that it "can" happen -- and is far more likely a possibility. Honestly, I'm not even sure what the point of the conversation is. I'm not going to be able to keep on posting to this thread -- too much going on here right now. Perhaps the other guy will pick up the thread. Sorry man. \_ Not to mention few robbers can rob thousands at once or steal Billions. The amount of money stolen by bank robbers is insignificant to what the white collar crooks can steal. \_ Why? If caught mugger could face life in prison or death penalty. If Kenny is caught, well, he's still free ain't he? \_ That article has some stellar quotes. \_ Because white collar crime are not violent crimes? |
2005/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39991 Activity:nil |
10/5 Someone asked: "Any other historical examples of a president nominating a judge based entirely on that judge's loyalty to the president?" http://www.slate.com/id/2127493 \_ Hey thanks! --the someone who was asking |
2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:39964 Activity:nil |
10/3 DeLay indicted on second charge: money laundering http://csua.org/u/dln (statesman.com) \_ WOOOOOOOOOOO! What cell do I send his ham sandwich to? \_ You mean the ham sandwich the grand jury indicted as well? \_ Ham sandwiches are dangerous. Put both of them in the cell. See who survives. \_ Republican + pork? I think they'll get along just fine. \_ It's jail. There will be plenty of the other white meat to get along with. |
2005/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39936 Activity:kinda low |
9/30 "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down." -Former Education Secretary William Bennett, GOP member, and now radio host (Sep 28 2005) (full quote) \_ Despite his whining, the problem is not that he was taken out of context (people are clued enough to realize that he was not calling for the forced abortion of black fetuses). It's the disgusting insinuation that blacks are inherently predisposed to crime. He was playing this hand off the cuff when he said it. I wouldn't fault him the misspeak. But he doesn't realize what he said _was_ offensive and that he should apologize (if he did, it would all go away). \_ "Asked if he owed people an apology, Bennett replied, 'I don't think I do. I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an apology.'" \_ Considering that the context was a discussion of 'freakonomics' and the fact the very next sentence (not quoted above) was: "So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky." There is no reason for Bennett to apologize. \_ Yes, there is. If you miss that then you are also a bigot without realizing it. \_ Finally, 10 yrs of voting republikkan have yielded fruit. \_ You're making the same error though. It's a disgusting but accurate insinuation. You can attach whatever reasons to it you want (poverty, history of cultural abuse, etc.), that doesn't make it inaccurate. \_ You're putting a lot of words in Mr. Bennett's mouth. \_ To make it completely accurate, aborting all babies of any race would reduce the crime rate. Singling out blacks implies a bias. \_ did you mean "reduce the crime rate" or "reduce crime"? \_ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm Blacks 7x more likely than whites to commit homicide. \_ if it's a "disgusting but accurate insinuation", do you apologize? E.g., I casually mention to you in front of an audience, "If I could have sexual relations with your wife, she would be thrilled. That would be a morally reprehensible thing to do, but she would be quite satisfied." \_ Blacks commit crimes higher than their proportion in the general population. As a simple numbers game, it would have been more correct to say that if all blacks were removed from the population, the crime rate would go down. Of course, that's still not necessarily correct because of secondary effects. But no one is seriously considering it. \_ White males between 25 and 35 make up a higher proportion of serial killers than their proportion to the general population would suggest. Statistics without context are meaningless and, in this case, merely provocative. Get into Paul Harvey mode, or STFU. \_ not the poster above, but if we remove white males 25 to 35, then that would decrease serial killer crime. \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494395/posts \_ You could also give every black baby $100,000 at birth and in a couple generations it would probably be whites committing all of the crimes. \_ It probably wouldn't take a couple of generations. \_ Why do you think handouts will end crime? \_ People tend to commit crime out of desperation. There are exceptions, but in general criminals are products of their environment. If slums became suburbs then crime rates would fall. \_ Why would a single big handout to a baby turn slums into suburbs, reduce or eliminate desperation or do anything else positive? Counter example: lottery winners. How many big money lottery winners are any better off a few years after their pay out than they were before? Handouts do not improve lives. They create dependency. Another example: Africa. Pouring money into Africa has done nothing to eliminate crushing poverty or starvation. Free food, clothing, money, etc, from the EU and USA only destroys the local economy. How can a native African farmer make any money when the West is giving out free food (for a limited period of time)? They can't so they stop farming, then surprise! there's a famine. Handouts do not improve lives in the way you seem to believe. Opportunity *combined* with personal drive to succeed and excel through hard work, education and self- improvement improves lives. \_ This is why it would take a few generations. A lottery winner is already the product of his environment. A millionaire athlete is already a product of his environment. However, if every child's life was some incremental amount better (and it would be with $100K) eventually there would be a parity between the races. You and I both know that hard work is just hard work. Lots of people work hard and they are usually not the CEOs making life miserable for everyone else. Europe takes care of their poor and their crime rate is much better than ours. I actually do not believe in 'handouts' but there is no doubt they would reduce crime and help those who received them if you give them time to work. \_ You still fail to demonstrate how giving a huge handout at birth will change the environment the new-born is born into. Once we cover that the next concept we'll go over is this nasty thing called "inflation" and how "money doesn't grow on trees" but we still need to finish the "handouts don't help people" part. We've had generations of handouts and all we got were slums and high crime rates. Why do you think that is? Why have generations of hand out ridden people ended up worse off than their grand parents? You seem to think $100k is a lot. It isn't. Someone in section 8 housing, getting welfare, social security, medical/caid/care/etc, and various other government handouts is easily getting way more than $100k over a few short years. Are you saying that if they got a lesser amount ($100k) at birth all at once instead of the greater amount over time everything would just be roses? Or there should be continued handouts on top of the $100k at birth? What exactly do you think that $100k is goign to do for a child? How many more children will be born just to nab an extra $100k/kid? Where do you get the idea that tossing raw cash at a problem for long enough will make it go away? \_ I am going to guess that you have no real idea what life as a poor black family is like. Did you ever see the movie 'Hoop Dreams'? If not, watch it. If so, how do you think Arthur's family life would've been different if his parents had $100K for each of their kids. \_ Ok, thank you. We're done. You've completely ignored everything I've had to say and instead gave me a movie reference and your sister's anecodtal life story in return. And I was so looking forward to the next bit about how inflation works and money-growing-on-trees, but you're clearly just looking for $400k for your sister, not a rational discussion of why a) this makes no sense, b) won't help end poverty, c) can't be paid for anyway, and d) has already gone on for generations to the detriment of poor people who are now more dependent than ever on government handouts, not less so. If you'd like to actually read and respond to anything I've brought up, we can continue but you haven't shown any real interest thus far. \_ You're clearly the asshole I thought you were and I'm glad I didn't my waste time addressing your points. \_ No, really what happened is you had nothing to say so you fell back on "soft" anecdotal arguments about your sister and a movie in an attempt to avoid serious discussion. If "asshole = out debated you" or "asshole = unwilling to take an anecdote and a movie reference seriously from someone consistently unwilling to respond" then so be it. It isn't a case of you somehow having not "wasted your time addressing my points". You thought you were but simply failed and got called on it. Why do you feel the need to fall back on grade school personal attack? Because you lack the ability to think clearly and express yourself rationally? \_ Dude, you're an asshole and I thought that from the beginning. Now you've erased any doubt I had. You're also egotistical and, clearly, a neocon with little understanding of the plight of blacks in this country, and are possibly a bigot. Just admit as much. \_ This isn't helping or proving that you're any less of a "raving lunatic". If you play his game, you've basically conceded the moral highground. He may not be especially polite in his presentation, but he has made a a couple of good points. -mice \_ Maybe you can find them in there somewhere. He's setting up strawmen and knocking them down. "Inflation" and affordability (money growing on trees) are not really relevant to the discussion, which is not to debate the feasibility, but whether such an endeavor could be successful if feasible and the reasons it would or would not. It is to understand the nature of crime, especially crime as committed by blacks. Why blacks? It's what Bennett (way up there!) was addressing. Bringing a million tangential points up and making a couple of them doesn't score any points. moral highground. -mice \_ That really has very little to do with how much 'value' $100k really has within the US economy. It's also extrapolating a debatable example into a much larger population, which isn't necessarily valid when you take various regional differences into account. It also doesn't necessarily represent the general cultural attitude of the people -- this can greatly affect how the money is used and how the people in question choose to participate in society. I see what you're getting at, but your argument is basically flawed. -!ppp \_ So choose a number you think is more realistic. Attack the concept, not the number. That's a waste of time. As for cultural attitudes, I assure you that black people wish to succeed and *do* succeed when given the opportunity. \_ Hm, well, I would debate the concept, but the other guy that did that seems to have been labelled a possible bigot and a neocon, and a couple of other things besides without any real dialogue. I think I'll pass on your invitation and save my time. \_ Do I really need to explain to someone how money can 'change the environment a new-born is born into'? That is someone being difficult or an idiot - possibly both. Isn't that obvious to everyone other than a neocon bigot? To say that I just want money for my sister is offensive and uncalled for. He left all attempt at rational discourse behind with that. My evidence may be anecdotal, but I haven't seen him present any at all other than some bullshit about lottery winners. \_ ie, "I saw this movie once about poor black people so I'm an expert." \_ ie, "I have no rebuttal". As someone from a working class family whose half-sister is a black single mother of 4, I can attest to the accuracy of the movie in question. If, say, my sister had had the money to stay at home instead of 'working hard' and 'going to school' then the lives of my nieces and nephew would've been much better. As it is, they did well with what they had, but that's beside the point, which is that they could've done even better with aid. Maybe her kids would be less afraid of going to college (debt), for instance. \_ You do realize there are at least 3 people in this 'conversation', right? \_ Why don't you answer his questions? \_ He's a ranting lunatic. \_ No, he provided a list of points as to why your "give $100k to all blacks" idea is stupid. You didn't address a single one of them. \_ He's a ranting lunatic. His latest response proves that. He's not interested in rational discourse. His portrayal of me and my family is offensive and so is he. I don't waste my time with bullshitters like that. \_ Yeah, seriously. God forbid that you'd actually be required to try and rationally debate. Name calling and application of the race card is SOO much easier! \_ There's nothing rational about that guy. He's a blowhard who has already made up his mind that blacks commit crimes because they don't work hard and have no personal drive to succeed and money won't change anything for people like that. He already said as much. That is bigoted and beyond comprehension. \_ As far as I can tell, you made most of that up. Sorry man, you might as well give up. Pretty much everyone seems to agree you lose. \_ Just read the first response: "Opportunity *combined* with personal drive to succeed and excel through hard work, education and self- improvement improves lives." The implication is that money won't help poor blacks because they don't have those other qualities. Right? \_ Wrong. You're the only one here harping on race. See what you want to see. Play the race card. Launch personal attack. Do anything but respond to the opposing points raised. And then claim to be offended. If you bring up your sister as evidence of something, you have no right to be "offended" when someone attacks that "evidence" that *you* brought into this. Go re-read all the other comments and make a count of how many times someone other than you refers to race. Then count your own references to race. After that go figure out what might happen to the value of money if you hand it out in big chunks to people. It will become nearly worthless. This is called 'inflation'. Handing out money for nothing helps no one. Nor does resorting to unfounded personal attack help you make any points. \_ The whole thread is about race, bozo. The person who quoted Bennett made it so! It's not about about inflation. Can you think in the abstract? And attacking my motives is certainly beyond ridiculous. \_ See above. And after this I'll add "oops, nothing else to say, got called on it so let's fall back on the old 'i'm offended' thing". with bullshitters like that. Do you really think that if you gave, say, $100K to every black child born that crime levels would remain the same? How did you get into Cal? \_ Giving someone a fish vs. teaching someone how to fish. \_ A starving man doesn't have time to learn. You have to give him a fish and then show him how. \_ it is not just about money. There are rich people who are criminals. There are poor people who are very good. Moral values plays a good role in this, not just money. \_ Of course there are rich criminals. It's not *just* money but it plays a *big* part in it. Think of all the black fathers in jail for drugs. How many could've had better representation? How many could've bought the drugs like rich Cal students do instead of stealing for the money? Would the mom have been home more often to instill morals and watch the kids? Could they have gone to private schools outside of the slums? Money changes a *LOT*. The idiot above thinks that $500/month in WICK or Section 8 housing is somehow proof that money won't really help anything. Shit, man. Does anyone have a fucking clue here? \_ It's a lot more complicated than money. There are lots of examples of poor immigrant groups who work their butts off and get ahead, while the slum population gets worse. It has to do with the culture of the people involved and after all those generations it's not clear how that should be changed. The slum parents who are themselves unmarried drug users are not going to be of any use straightening out their kids, and never would be. \_ It's more complicated and yet money would solve a lot of problems. Black immigrants tend to do well here also. That's not the same as the descendants of the slaves, who have a whole different set of circumstances to contend with. To think that somehow a Vietnamese boat person immigrating here and succeeding is comparable misses the point. That person has a culture and an identity. Blacks in this country acquired that only recently. It's not the whole story, of course, since Mexicans in this country are also prone to crime and they do have a cultural identity, but it's part of the issue. Even by saying that 'unmarried drug users are not going to be of any use straightening out their kids' you are being borderline offensive. Those are the people who can and will straighten out their kids when they are given an opportunity to. It's hard when so much of the population is in jail because of a mixture of stereotypes and bad circumstances. The cycle self-perpetuates. At some point it needs to be broken and money is one way (not the only way) to do that. You would be surprised at how well kids who enter programs like 'Big Brothers' perform when given the opportunities many white kids are born with. \_ It's not a very interesting or useful point when taken out of a real-world context. Sure, if you give $100,000 or $1M or $1Kabajillion dollars to all poor newborn babes and stipulate that the value of the dollar stays constant you might have a point. But it's a completely empty point devoid of any real meaning with those assumptions. \_ Not any empty point at all. It proves that there is an economic component to all of this. Is that a point the raving lunatic is willing to concede? No one was arguing about feasibility, just like Bennett wasn't. He is not advocating killing all blacks and likewise I am not advocating that we give them all millions of dollars. However, to fail to see how giving them money would help solve the problem of crime is to also misunderstand why Bennett's solution is so bigoted and offensive. \_ See, what I would do, if I were king, is to give a 4 year full scholarship to any child who can prove that they are descended from slaves. This is "worth" about $100k, but would probably be a much more effective anti-poverty program. It is certainly affordable, too, no matter how much you claim it is not. There are certainly no more than 4M blacks of college age in this country. At $25k/yr that works out to $10B, a pittance by Federal spending standards. much you claim it is not. There are no more than 4M blacks of college age in this country. At $25k/yr that works out to $10B, a pittance by Federal spending standards. \_ Why only "descended from slaves"? Would you give a free ride to a "dfs" kid who has multi millionaire parents? Middle class parents? What about the poor kid of some other race? The kid born in the house next door gets screwed out of a $100k education because his skin is the wrong color? Why would you have a hand out program based solely on race when what you claim to be trying to do is fix economic injustice? Would that cause not be better served by giving grants based on economic status instead of skin color? And what about the kids who are descended from slaves but lost their "descended from slaves" membership card? Those kids get screwed too? I'm in favor of making education affordable for everyone, but strongly opposed to your picking a "pet" group to benefit based solely on skin color and unprovable membership in the "descended from slave" set. \_ I'm not the person who suggested that, but I think it is reasonable to extend such an offer to anyone descended from slaves, no matter their current economic status. Poor kids of some other race are another issue entirely and how to (or whether to) address that is divorced from this issue. Skin color is not relevant. If there's a white person descended from slaves that's fine, too (and there are some descended even from black slaves). From a practical standpoint a certain percentage of heritage would have to be decided, like with Native Americans. The people who couldn't prove it - well, that's a problem. Native Americans face it as well. It's not a reason to deny the people who can. It is, after all, still based on academic achievement (i.e. they still have to get into college). I personally would support such an idea. I think extending it based on economics isn't necessary, since there are already scholarships and grants to cover those cases. much you claim it is not. \_ Ob Lotto Lout. http://csua.org/u/dkv \_ what would happen if we removed all Asians from Berkeley Engineering? \_ the virgin rate would go down, duh |
2005/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39935 Activity:nil |
9/30 Ex-Education Secretary Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime: http://csua.org/u/dkj [sfgate.com] I guess the new edition of the Book of Virtues includes obsessive gambling and racial profiling. \_ "A Modest Proposal" \_ But... it's true. I mean at a naive statistical level, and even if you looked at the longer term implications it's true. Of course it's reprehensible.. and he noted that.. the whole point was a commentary on why there are some things we don't and shouldn't do to lower crime. \_ Yes, but it's a mental disconnect. Is abortion really related to the crime rate, specifically black abortions? The fact that the phrase "black abortions" appeared to have come up without prompting demonstrates a certain mindset. \_ Steven Levitt (U of Chicago economist, "Freakonomics" guy) wrote a somewhat related paper (link:tinyurl.com/ae7sf called "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" (one sentence summary: "legalized abortion had an impact on crime"). Actually all of his stuff is quite readable and really interesting. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/LevittCV.html --shithead@soda |
2005/9/28-10/1 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39906 Activity:nil |
9/28 Tom DeLay INDICTED Frist next? \_ Apparently he has already stepped down as House Majority Leader. \_ Isn't this automatic? You can't serve in congressional leadership when under indictment? \_ Yes, although the Republican leadership attempted to dismantle that rule (the so-called 'DeLay Rule Change'). They were publicly embarrassed into not doing it. \_ Wrong. This is an an ethics rule the Republican delegation in the House applies to itself! It \_ Bullshit. You are either lying or misinformed. was in response to the massive, widespread corruption in the House when the Republicans took over under Armey and Gingrich in 1994 (an apt analogy would be running the House like New Orleans). In 1993, BTW, Earle indicted Sen. Hutchinson during her Senate run in an attempt to change the outcome of the election. When the trial took place he refused to present any evidence and the charges were dismissed. \_ Mmmm... parrots... \_ Remember the adage: you could get a grand jury to indict a sandwich. \_ Unless the indictee is on The Other Team, in which case it's Justice. \_ Rove, DeLay, and Frist indictments being handed down? HIT THE TRIFECTA! |
2005/9/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39896 Activity:nil |
9/27 Is there a Federal law somewhere that bans gun duels? \_ Crime, such as dueling, is generally a matter for the states and not the feds. \_ What's the big deal? A duel is a fight between two consenting adults. It is an agreement, a civilized way to settle scores between two individuals. What does the government have anything to do with private contracts between two individuals? \_ You obviously failed contracts. There's a thing called illegal bargains. \_ uh, have you heard of "felonies"? \_ uh, are you serious? A "felony" is not the same thing as a "federal offence." \_ But they can be, and in this case they are. It's called either "murder", "attempted murder", "manslaughter", "criminal assault", or "criminal homicide". \_ I think there would have to be some reason for the Feds to get involved. I don't think just having a duel would cut it. A duel between international drug trafficers would do it. \_ uh, no. murder, attempted murder, &c. are generally crimes under state law (see Cal. Penal Code Secs. 187, 188, &c.) While there maybe federal equiv. of these crimes, those generally include a jurisdictional element related to a federal interest (interstate commerce, federal property, federal officers, &c.) FYI, until 1994 Cal. Penal Code Sec. 225 made dueling a separate offense. Now I think that it is charged as attempted murder (or murder, if someone dies). \_ No, but they're frowned upon in general. -John |
2005/9/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39831 Activity:nil |
9/22 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050922/ap_on_re_us/katrina_criminals_hk4 "State police did criminal background checks on every refugee and found that more than half had a criminal arrest records -- a third for felonies." |
2005/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39779 Activity:moderate |
9/20 http://tinyurl.com/bk4or (Yahoo news) Diversity (women, blacks, etc) changes the way justices see the world. Please don't delete this jblack. I already know what you think \_ never have deleted a thread, thanks. \_ I, on the other hand, have. Do I get freeper cookies? \_ I have never deleted a thread. |
2005/9/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39726 Activity:moderate |
9/17 "To the Citizens of the United States of America: In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately." --John Cleese http://kurtrudder.blogspot.com/2005/04/message-from-john-cleese-to-citizens.html \_ This is BRILLIANT thank you whoever posted this. \_ old. and who wants blair as our PM anyway? \_ Man, how far the standard for the word "brilliant" has fallen. Has it been smoking crack recently or something? \_ Not brilliant. Brillant. \_ it's not brilliant and it's not from john cleese either, dummies. |
2005/9/14-17 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39666 Activity:nil |
9/14 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050913/od_nm/philippines_imelda_dc Imelda Marco is ok with being guilty but she will not allow the government to sell her precious jewelries. |
2005/9/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39503 Activity:moderate |
9/3 Talking POINTS on Fox, towards the end of the talk on "The lesson to be learned from Hurricane Katrina" says that if you want something done, you do it yourself. You can't rely on the government for anything, you must rely on yourself. Conservatism #1! Republican #1!!! \_ Weird, I thought law and order was the one thing conservatives think government is good for. \_ Weird, I thought the one thing conservatives and libertarians thought was a valid function of government was law and order. \_ Conservatives believe in, first and foremost, *self-reliance*, the "take matters with your own hands" attitude. \_ oh, man, things were so much better when the states all printed their own money. \_ So you're saying that each state and local government should invest billions of dollars in their own military and civil infrastructure to defend themselves and deal with catastrophic terrorist acts or natural disasters? That sure makes a lot of sense economically. Why create a single resource that can be shared amongst the entire nation when you can just reinvent the wheel at the state and local levels? Because we all need to be "self-reliant" \_ I'm not saying that. It's what many Republicans believe. \_ really? got a URL for any republican saying that each state and local government should spend billions of state/local dollars for their own military and civil infrastructure to defend themselves and deal with catastrophic terrorist acts and natural disasters? oh. no. you don't. you just made that up. welcome to the motd. \_ Republicans are defending the federal government and the president while blaming state and local authorities for the NOLA fiasco. If you're saying that it means that either (A) the state did not utilize all the resources it had in an effective manner or (B) the state simply did not have the resources to handle the disaster in the first place. But I think it's clear from the scale of the disaster that the only way to deal with this disaster is to have an emergency response infrastructure that is well beyond the scale and budget of any state like LA. \_ The world is not that black and white. Local and state authorities have responsibilities that they shirked. They didn't even approach a minimal \_ You don't have any evidence of this other than the rantings of right wing blogs. Do you still believe the governor didn't declare a state of emergency? \_ How many school buses were left sitting unused? What exactly was the evacuation plan and did anyone even try to follow it? I don't read *any* blogs, thanks for trying. \_ So your evacuation plan would have been to ferry 100,000 on these school buses to be driven by all these school bus drivers who would rather take care of their own family and problems than to drive a bunch of strangers around on an already overcrowded I-10? \_ nice way to ignore the rest. but yes if you had read the plan you'd know that the school buses they left to rot were *part* of the plan to evac those who couldn't get out on their own. look, i'm sorry if the facts are getting in the way of your agenda but the fact remains that the locals have responsibilities and failed. here, let me save you the trouble of going on, "gwb is evil, HALIBURTON!, oil, Iraq, cheney is evil, scalia is evil, dick morris is evil, HALIBURTON!, oil, save the spotted owl, christians are evil!". did i miss anything? \_ I've never said anything in the last 5 lines you wrote there but nice of you to make assumptions like that. I do think GWB is pretty inept. What was the *full* plan? I think the mayor calling for a mandatory evacuation and the governer requesting a state of emergency is part of the plan. I think the federal government not acting on the request is pretty criminal. If a state governer requests resources for evacuation and you don't act on it that places the blame on the federal government, not state and local. level of reasonable response or use the resources they had in place prior to the event to prevent a lot of the hardship we've seen in the last week. Yes, of course the federal response could have been better as the President already stated. The federal response was slow and somewhat inept. The state/local response borders on criminal. With authority comes responsibility, something the locals didn't understand and the people suffered for it. It's all fun n games being Governor or Mayor until people start drowning, starving, and dying of dehydration. Then you just blame the feds and start your re-election campaign early. \_ How is the state and local response "criminal"? The state and local govt have limited resources. The federal govt has much greater resources. If you exhaust your state and local resources to capacity then you've done everything you can. But if you're a federal government with billions of dollars at its disposal and you've done jack shit at your disposal and you've done jack shit then that's criminal \_ see above. \_ I thought that was more of a Libertarian plank.... \_ I think their definition of "self-reliance" meant something like "give tax break to big business" and "relax pollution standard so mercury is on everyone's dinner plate." like "give tax break to big business" and "relax pollution standard so mercury is on everyone's dinner plate." |
2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Military] UID:39278 Activity:high |
8/25 Hah, San Francisco is voting to ban handguns in November. -- ilyas \_ why is that amusing? -tom \_ Because ilyas is not exactly what you called, a stable person \_ I suppose I am amused stupidity is alive and well in San Francisco. -- ilyas \_ That would never happen in LA. \_ LA has already banned 50 BMG weapons. Because you know, they are used in crimes ALL THE TIME. It's a veritable CRISIS. -- ilyas \_ cuz this is America biatch! \- wasnt this tried in a chicago suburb a few yrs ago? was that case materially different or are they trying to get inconsistenecies on the books so cert. will be more likely. Why is the Deliverator so equipped? Because people rely on him. He is a roll model. This is America. People do whatever the fuck they feel like doing, you got a problem with that? Becuase they have a right to. And because they have guns and no one can fucking stop them. ok tnx. \_ Because it's almost-but-not-quite as stupid as the Berkeley "nuclear free zone". I object to them not trying to ban knives and clubs and ice picks and fruit bats and orang-utangs. -John \- i dont know what is going on in SF, but the morton grove law had teeth. it wasnt an essentially symbolic move like berkeley "nuclear free policy" [or berkeley's various foreign policy pronouncements]. note that after the law passed the police didnt "round up" all the guns but were empowed to keep what they came across. also this law had enough teeth to be challenged in court. in "reponse" another community in GA or alabama i believe passed a law requiring the head of household to have a gun, or something like that. \- BTW, the morton grove case applied to "handguns" not all guns. \_ Yes, like in the UK where you can still have rifles if you are a member of a gun club. Incidentally, the UK also has the world's highest rate of video surveillance and, IMHO, really-fucking-scary big brother-type laws, such as ASBOs, RIP and PTA. None of which stopped a sharp rise in knife crimes, burglaries and beatings since they banned private handgun ownership. Not that the ban was the direct cause of the rise in non-gun violent crime, but it certainly didn't help curtail it in any form. I object to people who have problems with mandatory waiting periods, background checks or safety training as prerequisites for gun ownership, but a ban is the sort of badly thought through populist gut- reaction you get from "concerned citizens" and politicians who want to be seen as "doing something". It's as stupid and irrational as the NRA. -John \- well fighting it may cost the NRA $ and resources. \_ Come on, John, the "argument" that they'll just kill people with knives instead is ridiculous. England's rate of death by stabbing is at least an order of magnitude lower than the US's rate of death by handgun. -tom \_ Somebody overwrote my reply to this. Tom, re-read my statement; I did not claim causality. The problem in the US is NOT GUN CRIME. It is crime, plain and simple. Americans have this weird psychotic "ban them" or "pry them from my cold dead fingers" relationship with guns, neither of which is a solution. Anyway, about a year after the handgun ban in the UK, a study found that non-gun violent crime there was much higher than in the US. Once again, not causality, but I stand by my assertion that banning guns simply does not help; the UK did not have a tremendous amount of gun homicides before the ban; in the US, I would assume that other forms of crime would rise after a ban, yes. -John \- the gary becker school has claimed if guns become difficult to find, it will shift the victim profile toward old people and women in face to face confrontations, since a hood will be less inclined to hold up a young male with "only" a knife. \_ Another dose of true-but-irrelevant statistics from Tom. What you should be comparing is, for instance, murder rates pre and post ban. Or, more interestingly, crime rates in general pre and post ban. Or, even more interestingly, the pre ban gun crime rates (we are talking about three (3) gun homicides a year). What societal crisis ban gun crime rates. What societal crisis was this ban supposed to have solved exactly? -- ilyas \_ high murder rate isn't a societal crisis, right. -tom \_ Are you claiming England had a high gun murder rate, pre-ban? Compared to other countries, and other kinds of murders? -- ilyas \_ A handgun ban in San Francisco is particularly offensive since the SFPD is notorious for simply ignoring the pleas of citizens to patrol and protect certain areas. I have a cute female friend who's rather short of stature that has recently been forced to take an apartment in the Tenderloin (long story). She has seen some incredibly scary shit in her neighborhood in just the 3 weeks that she's lived there, and fears for her life. When she saw a gang of approximately 30 people beating a single man to death, she called the cops - no response. Her complaints and calls to various departments and government offices around the city have all been met with the same response - basically, "We don't give a fuck." Not everyone who lives in the TL is a crackhead or a prostitute, and it's just insane that the SFPD basically thinks you're expendable if you have to live there. Take away the guns, and you probably take away one of their few options for self-protection. \_ knock on the nearest manhole and borrow some weapons from the ninja turtles. \_ Call them and tell them you and 3 friends are about to open fire on the guys. -John \_ Will DiFi be allowed to keep her concealed carry? |
2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38950 Activity:nil |
8/2 In 1998, Susan Cummings, heiress of the late billionaire arms dealer Sam Cummings, murdered Roberto Villegas at her 2.3 million dollar vacation home. She was proven to have shot him in the back, withdrew her self-defense claim, and was found be guilty of voluntary manslaughter. She was sentenced to 60 days in jail and a $2500 fine. In 2005, a rich Chinese lord had his 2 bodyguards beat up a peasant boy who now needs wires for his jaw and a nose job, was not guilty of anything and gets away clean. All hail great Capitalism! I guess China is catching up to our great nation. \_ Ooo Susan was born in Switzerland. Did you know her, John? \_ Yes, I lent her my assault rifle? Sorry, did I miss something? \_ http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/65/crimeBeingPoor.htm In the same county a year before Cummings' trial, a cow killer was sentenced to 9 months in jail, woman who shoplifted got 135 days, a car thief 5 years, a purse thief 15 months, and a man who fired into an empty dwelling got 2 years. Hmm... |
2005/7/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan] UID:38886 Activity:high |
7/29 To the Japanese imperialist/asian nationalist troll (I'm so proud that my troll farm finally has a little friend for chicom troll, I was getting worried): They lost. -John \_ yeah and you thick skinned white men still don't get why you're bombed and attacked and hated and jihad'ed and so on so forth. \_ Here, let me take a stab at this: US is (for the time being at least) the top dog in the geopolitical dog pile, and also supports Israel. If you think it has anything to do with 'lack of sensitivity' then I have to wonder what deluded idyllic closet *you* came out of. Grow up, son -- the world doesn't revolve around your hurt feelings. \_ Ah, ok, now we're getting somewhere, I wasn't sure what your point was, exactly. So you are equating a racist, imperialistic regime's expansionist policies based on perceived American aggression with the justified indiscriminate violence perpetrated against civilians by a few ideologically exploited thugs who are just as wont to murder their own "people" and oppress infidels and women as a response to repeated supposed slights committed against a primitive, barbaric "culture" that has never undergone a renaissance, never ever consider a tiny measure of introspection about why it is economically and socially failing? You know, I'm the first to try and look for and analyze faults in my own society's internal and international workings-as I've stated before, maybe this makes me a bit naive. You, on the other hand, are a cranky, ill-educated cretin. Oh, and I'll make sure to inform Condi about the "white men" thing. I'm sure it sounded good on a flyer on Sproul plaza. -John |
2005/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38738 Activity:nil |
6/19 What is so special or significant about being part of the dissent \_ Why do people not know that July=7 (wrt the USSC's ruling)? What is wrong with having an opinion that isn't shared by the majority of other justices? \- i am sort of at a loss how to address the above, but 1. there are some famous "i told you so" dissents. one of OHOLMES nicknames was "The Great Dissenter", see e.g. Dissent in Lochner. Wouldnt you have been wanted to be known as the single dissenter in Plessey v. Fergueson, one of the cases contending for the "worst sup ct decision in history" title? [that was HARLAN]. \_ I would have preferred to have been a dissenter in Dred Scott, but Plessey would be a close 2d. 2. there are fome extremely fractured decisions where there isnt really a single maj opinion ... those as you might imagine are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the std such examples: POWELL, J., announced the Court's judgment and filed an opinion expressing his views of the case, in Parts I, III-A, and V-C of which WHITE, J., joined; and in Parts I and V-C of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, [438 U.S. 265, 268] JJ., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 324. WHITE, J., post, p. 379, MARSHALL, J., post, p. 387, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 402, filed separate opinions. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 408. \- bakke had 6 opinios i believe. it;s sort of funny that current liberal bastion STEVENS wrote the relatively hostile to affirmative action "dissent" ... STEVENS ends up on the pro aff action side of both recent UMICH AA cases [concurring with OCONNOR maj opin to uphold the law school system and dissenting with RHQ decision to strike down the UG AA system]. \_ Another good example is Powell v Texas which established that a voluntary act was required under the constitution for criminal punishment but tha a mens rea (criminal intent) was not. |
2005/7/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38711 Activity:low |
6/19 What is so special or significant about being part of the dissent (wrt the USSC's ruling)? What is wrong with having an opinion that isn't shared by the majority of other justices? \- i am sort of at a loss how to address the above, but 1. there are some famous "i told you so" dissents. one of OHOLMES nicknames was "The Great Dissenter", see e.g. Dissent in Lochner. Wouldnt you have been wanted to be known as the single dissenter in Plessey v. Fergueson, one of the cases contending for the "worst sup ct decision in history" title? [that was HARLAN]. \_ I would have preferred to have been a dissenter in Dred Scott, but Plessey would be a close 2d. \- i picked PLESSY because the lone dissent is a little more dramatic, although yeah, in terms of the actual holding DRED SCOTT is worse. 2. there are fome extremely fractured decisions where there isnt really a single maj opinion ... those as you might image are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the imagine are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the std such examples: POWELL, J., announced the Court's judgment and filed an opinion expressing his views of the case, in Parts I, III-A, and V-C of which WHITE, J., joined; and in Parts I and V-C of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, [438 U.S. 265, 268] JJ., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 324. WHITE, J., post, p. 379, MARSHALL, J., post, p. 387, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 402, filed separate opinions. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 408. \- bakke had 6 opinios i believe. it;s sort of funny that current liberal bastion STEVENS wrote the relatively hostile to affirmative action "dissent" ... STEVENS ends up on the pro aff action side of both recent UMICH AA cases [concurring with OCONNOR maj opin to uphold the law school system and dissenting with RHQ decision to strike down the UG AA system]. \_ Another good example is Powell v Texas which established that a voluntary act was required under the constitution for criminal punishment but tha a mens rea (criminal intent) was not. |
2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:38703 Activity:high |
7/19 Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity (wsj.com) http://csua.org/u/cr9 (via uclib - use lynx from soda) \_ Don't worry, Operation Distract The Public From Rove begins tonight at 9pm EDT! \_ the link actually strengthens the case against rove. It reveals a June 10 WH memo detailing that Joe Wilson's wife's identity was sensitive and confidential. \_ 71% of Republicans think Rove did something wrong and should be fired? Look! Over there! A supreme court nomination! \_ Uh, wasn't that 71% in response to, "/IF/ someone (was convicted of?) leaked/leaking classified info, they should be fired"? \_ Scratch the "was convicted of" and you've got it. \_ My reading of all this is that Libby and Rove both knew they couldn't out his wife; however, they belived they could say, "Oh, yeah, I heard that suggestion from another reporter ...", if another reporter mentioned "Joe Wilson's wife the CIA agent" to him. \_ So did Rove or Libby see the memo? \_ If you read the link, you'd know they didn't speculate on this, only mentioning that Fitzgerald is investigating this. \_ I did read the link, and my point is that "My reading of..." is completely ungrounded until you can determine if Rove or Libby read the memo. \_ This reminds of the Dave Chapelle where the lawyer asks him what it would take for him to believe R. Kelly is guilty. \_ To be honest, I am almost certain that Rove wrongly outed Plame, but I am unsure if he is legally guilty. I am a fan of fairness and logic, and I try to point out claims that are unsupported by fact. -pp \_ If Fitzgerald ultimately exonerates Rove, would you accept that? \_ Why hasn't Rove signed form 180? What is he hiding? \_ And the man on the grassy knoll!?! \_ Don't forget Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa. \_ I would replace "completely ungrounded" by "a plausible theory". I would put money on the issue of whether Rove and Libby knew Plame's identity was "sensitive". It's too bad that the truth of the matter is not likely to come out clearly enough to be able to collect on any bets. \_ "Sensitive" is another one of those words that sounds as if it should be useful as a delimiter but really isn't. \_ Let's refine that to "'sensitive' and probably shouldn't be disclosed to unauthorized individuals". \_ If you mean "classified", which has a clear legal definition, use that. It sounds like you're trying to carve out a category of information that occupies the space between legal and illegal to disclose. \_ Actually, I'm just using the words in the article. I'd be hesitant to bet on "classified" though. To a layperson, "sensitive and probably shouldn't be disclosed to unauthorized individuals" has a very clear meaning -- and I could bet on that. \_ Bush I probably thought the fact that he didn't like brocoli was "sensitive" and shouldn't be disclosed to the public. And I will repeat my claim that you are trying to carve out a space between what is legal and illegal to disclose. \_ Yes I am carving out a space between what is legal and illegal, but what is my purpose in doing that? It is what I would be willing to "bet" on, rather than legal criteria for putting him in jail. \_ I think it's because you suspect Rove won't be found legally guilty but you're not willing to let him off the hook, so you're trying to invent a standard whereby he is guilty even when he is not. \_ /Everyone/ suspects that Rove won't be found legally guilty. Listen, all I wrote was that I would put money on the fact that Rove and Libby knew Plame's identity was sensitive and probably shouldn't be disclosed to unauthorized individuals. I also acknowledge that Rove probably won't be convicted. I also acknowledge that the terms I would bet on probably don't meet the legal requirements for conviction. So what's the big whoop? \_ Nothing at all. But I am encouraged to see you admit that Rove's action "probably don't meet the legal requirements for conviction." \_ "Admit" is not the right word. I always had the distinction between what I wrote and legal requirements in mind, and I don't see how I implied I wasn't aware of the distinction. For legal purposes, "classified" has a very clear meaning as you pointed out, but I wouldn't bet on Rove and Libby knowing it was "classified". I'm definitely not betting on whether Rove will be convicted or not, but the smart money of course would be on no conviction. \_ Same question: If Fitzgerald ultimately exonerates Rove, would you accept that? \_ If by exonerate you mean "not convicted of breaking the law", I'm not sure I would be happy. If by exonerate you mean convincingly shown that Rove behaved ethically, then I would accept that. But what I said above is all very obvious, I think. \_ Does "not sure I would be happy" mean that you do not accept Rove was innocent, despite Fitzgerald to the contrary? \_ Look, O.J. was found "not guilty" / "innocent" of killing his wife. Do you accept that? \_ BTW, I take it that you will not accept Fitzgerald's conclusion if it is counter to your position. Who has the closed mind here? \_ How do you translate "I may not be happy" to I "will not accept F.'s conclusion if it is counter to [my] position"? \_ I asked the question, and I took your silence as acquiescence. Mea culpa. Will you accept Rove's exoneration? \_ See oddly shaped post [below]. \_ Nope. But then I am not trying to invent a standard by which OJ could be punished despite his legal innocence. \_ Where did I EVER say Rove should be punished under my criteria? \_ So if Rove were exonerated, you would not clamor for his removal? /--------------------------------------------/ If by "exonerated" you mean convincingly shown that Rove behaved ethically, I would accept that. \_ Convincingly to you or to Fitzgerald? So you're still saying that even if he is legally innocent, if you found him unethical by your "sensitive" standard, you will still want to see him removed? And that is not "punished despit his legal innocence" in what sense? \_ What does convicingly mean when used without qualifiers? It means convincing to an informed observer who can be persuaded both ways. This thread has deviated way off course. You are asking for my political beliefs, when the only thing I wanted to volunteer is what I would put money on as being factually true (but probably never practically verifiable), and independent of a criminal conviction or my political beliefs. Political beliefs are subjective and can be argued on UNENDINGLY. \_ I think your politics are abundantly clear. The question remains: Should Rove be pusnished even if he is found legally innocent? \_ It depends on who you ask. I'm too tired to answer myself. \_ What, tired of contradicting yourself again? If you've made up your mind, admit that. Being intellectually dishonest is probably worse than having a closed mind. \_ Oh god, I've been trolled. Fuck you troller. If you were an innocent motd poster, I apologize. \_ Hardly. You have been shown to be a charlatan though. \_ <roll eyes> Who are you dude? I stand behind all my posts. -jctwu \_ But apparently you're not willing to answer the question whether Rove should be punished depite his legal innocence, but that might cause you to contradict yourself again. \_ I would like to know that I am not being trolled. Please identify yourself. Thanks. -jctwu \_ Heh. Show a little intellectual honesty. It's not like we'd be surprised by your answer. \_ Okay, anonymous dude: You see contradictions where I do not. You see intellectual dishonesty where I do not. Your jump to these two claims are indicative of a troll, though not proof. You've been called out, and you have not come out to back up what you've written. -jctwu \_ Re "sensitive": carve out space between legal and illegal? "Actually, I am just using the words in the article". Well, later, "I am carving out a space" after all. \_ Both facts are true at the same time \_ Spin, jctwu, spin. \_ same to you, buddy Will you accept F's judgement? "How do you translate [not happy] to [will not accept]?" As it turns out, you want Rove to be convincingly ethical. To whom? F? Well, not F after all, but an informed observer. So you don't accept F's judgement. How about \_ This is a jump in logic punishing Rove? "Where did I EVER say Rove should be punished under my criteria?" So would clamor for his removal? Or are you going to contradict yourself again? \_ Non-sophisticated: What are you talking about? Faux sophistication / aloofness: "Delimiter" is a word that has a very clear meaning but for some reason really isn't here. \_ troll! or coward! one or both may be true. |
2005/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:38684 Activity:nil |
7/18 Which angry conservative/libertarian deleted the Plame threads? Did the http://abcnews.com poll upset you? \_ Why do you assume it wasn't a liberal. Restored. -emarkp \_ The assumtion was made because the threads were deleted after someone posted the http://abcnews.com poll. Wasn't that pretty clear? \_ You're both wrong, a moderate deleted it. -me, moderate |
2005/7/15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38630 Activity:moderate |
7/14 If Rove did nothing wrong please explain why the White House isn't shouting out their love for him right now? Gee, funny how waiting to see how the wind blows makes you look bad. \_ If Rove is found guilty, then the Dems would make fun of Reps for supporting him. So it's probably better to be quiet. However, if Rove is NOT found guilty, then the the silence would work to Reps' advantage-- they're more gentlemen like. Also it would just make Dems seem stupid, when he's not found guilty, which I think will be the most likely outcome. \_ So they think there is a decent chance he will be found guilty? \_ They probably just think there is a decent chance he'll be tossed for being caught red-handed doing something unscrupulous while blowing someone's wife's cover - not necessarily found guilty. That is, unless you believe all the talk about Rove not really leaking Plame's identity but merely confirming it for snoopy reporters. \_ It seems to be a pretty standard thing for the Bush admin to keep quiet in crisis. It seems to work well for them. \_ Yeah, true, imagine if they'd actually made rousing passionate speeches instead of cowering in bunkers the morning of 9/11. \_ If Rove did something wrong, how come he hasn't been charged yet? \_ patience, grasshopper. |
2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38604 Activity:moderate |
7/13 There's a lot we don't know yet about the CIA flap http://hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/071405.html \_ We do know that this guy is a National Review hack, however. \_ If you don't know what "being obtuse" is, here it is. [restored by !poster. fuck off, deleter] \_ I deleted my own post because I didn't think it was as accurate as I would have liked. It's maybe about 80% "being obtuse". \_ A lot of those questions have been answered. For instance Judith Miller was drawn into the case via phone records. \_ I stopped reading when he didn't acknowledge that the signed waivers were coerced and thus not authentic releases. What's the strongest evidence of this? Matthew Cooper didn't spill until he got an explicit release from Rove, and at the last minute too. \_ I don't think this true. Karl Rove's attorney has denied that Rove has contacted Cooper recently. Rover did sign a blanket waiver a while ago letting any reporter discuss all this crap. I think it's not really clear why Cooper suddenly said Rove is his source, it could be for a variety of reasons, maybe he just didn't feel like going to jail for 18 months to protect Karl Rove. - danh This is an opinion piece supporting Rove which dodges essential facts like the above. \_ FUD from the National Review. How uncharacteristic of them. |
2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Foreign, Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38600 Activity:nil |
7/13 http://csua.org/u/cp6 (findlaw.com) "Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." ... so, what do you think? I don't see "name" in the above, just "identifies", so I guess it depends on what the meaning of "identifies" is. A lot of it is also intent and foreknowledge. \_ Rove's claim that "I didn't know her name" is totally irrelevant. Identifying someone as "his wife" uniquely establishes her identity, except possibly in Utah. |
2005/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38588 Activity:nil 76%like:38586 |
7/12 Another DeLay ally indicted: http://csua.org/u/cp3 (WashPo) |
2005/7/12 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38586 Activity:nil 76%like:38588 |
7/12 Another DeLay ally indicted: http://csua.org/u/cp3 (WashPo) Republicans. You just can't trust them. |
2005/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38454 Activity:high |
7/6 So wait, a member of the "liberal" New York Times just took a fall for the Bush Administration? How is Rush Limbaugh going to spin this one? \- when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro \_ Interesting data point: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/7/1148/62336 Miller's filthy. I don't know that she should be in prison for "protecting sources", but she definitely needs to be in prison. \_ it hurts my head to sort out the timeline of how this happened, maybe someone could summarize. judith miller spewed a bunch of horseshit about Iraq leading up to the war and has no friends. \_ Judith Miller is one of the reasons that the WMD "threat" was so badly reported and covered. Fuck her and fuck the NYT. \_ I think Judith Miller is a putz too, but I think that reporters being able to maintain the confidentiality of their sources is even more important. --liberal \- this is not the relationship of a journalist and a source, it is the relationships of a criminal suspect and an (unwitting?) accomplice. it is a narrow case and the procedurual obligations are adequate to limit the chilling effect. it has nothing to do with miller being a putz but the nature of of what was revealed being against public policy. i think the one thing you can reasonably argue for is the journalist should be entited to his or her own jury trial [so jury nullification is an option beyond judicial checks and balances, should some secrecy obsessed "hypothetical" executive branch pass some law making all whistleblowing/leaking a crime] and not subjec tto detention by a sole judge for contempt. this is not an absolute right but one for a certain public policy end and thus is limited to a scope consistent with those ends. |
2005/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38433 Activity:high |
7/6 Every year, Americans vacationers disappear in foreign land like Mexico, Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, etc. Why is the Holloway case so much more visible on news? Why is Natalie Holloway so special? \_ Timing. It's the "Where the White Women at?" network news. DeLay's in trouble! Find me a kidnapping! \_ Its not a conspiracy. Just a good ol' American mix of racism and prurience. \_ It isn't journalism, and it's putting their ratings in the toilet. There has to be some sort of impetus for it. \_ Are you talking about Fox? In their case, they just don't want to cover Iraq anymore. Can't imagine why. \_ It's all of them. They spend more time on MJ and the latest missing woman than on our federal government, foreign affairs, local affairs, even sports... \_ http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/3/491/18474 \_ i don't think that many disappear, non english grammar troll \_ Cute white blonde chick kidnapped by black guys. You figure it out. \_ Same for the Laci Peterson case -- husbands kill wifes in America \_ http://www.wrongsideoftown.com \_ NSFW, duh. \_ Same for the Laci Peterson case -- husbands kill wives in America all the time, but this one got the media's and people's attention. \_ The Peterson case got a lot of attention because of the "prosecuting him for the death of the unborn" angle. That set an interesting precedent. \_ The Peterson case didn't set any precedent; the treatment of murderers of pregnant women is well-established. \_ I am pretty sure this is the first conviction in California for killing an unborn fetus. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/26/ctv.fetal.homicide \_ And it was an 8-mo. pregnant woman who went missing on Christmas Eve, etc. \_ wow. I've self-filtered my news-sources pretty well. I've never heard of her until this. -nivra |
2005/7/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38417 Activity:high |
7/5 James Wolcott talks sense on the "Freedom Tower" design. http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/07/gusts_of_mastur.php \_ I think this article is better: link:csua.org/u/clz (NYTimes) \_ I don't really understand this criticism. "An impregnable tower set against the outside world." What exactly are they supposed to erect, an inviting vagina in heat? "Freedom Tower" is the stupidest name ever though. -- ilyas \_ No, "Freedom fries" is the stupidest name ever. \_ Freedom Fries Tower \_ In the rush to make the world's most inviting terrorist target "bombproof," they've managed to make it incredibly ugly. Thus it is a telling symbol of the state of our current national psyche. That is the argument, at least. I guess whether you buy that depends on whether you think architecture reflects on the society that produces it. \_ I do think it's ugly (or at least could be better), but I don't understand the phrasing of the criticism. It sounds like the objection is to the very notion that it ought to appear impregnable. -- ilyas \_ It is a sign of cowardance to try and build an impregnable fortress. The real worls is a dangerous place. fortress. The real world is a dangerous place. \_ I agree. A cheaper, more aesthetic solution is to deploy an active missile defense system where the missle (hidden behind the glass building) launches to strike unidentified targets that are flying low and coming towards the new tower. \_ That's pretty stupid. If you know it's going to make it a target you should strengthen it. \_ I think the argument is more sophisticated than that. The argument isn't that the tower shouldn't _be_ impregnable. It obviously has to be secure, given how much of a target it will be. The argument is that it shouldn't _appear_ impregnable, because it sends the wrong 'aesthetic message.' I happen to disagree with that. -- ilyas \_ Why? A good contrast is the Statue of Liberty, which sends a very welcoming message, and is generally seen as a positive symbol of America's greatness. Do you really think that the architectural equivalent of an Abrams Tank should be a symbol of America? Just like the Twin Towers, this building will have strong symbolic value whether we like it or not. \_ I hate to point out the obvious, but people don't work in the Statue of Liberty. -- ilyas \_ The point is that trying to build an impregnable signature tower is horribly misguided; there's nothing you can do, architecturally, to protect against a 747 full of fuel ramming into your signature building. Perhaps you can build it so the building won't fall down, but you're still talking about thousands of dead and massive business resumption costs. The proposal is horribly ugly, and in addition is completely unnecessary, as vacancy rates in lower Manhattan have skyrocketed since the attacks; no one wants to work there anyway. -tom \_ I don't really understand. Building anything conspicious in a major metropolitan area in the US will render it a target. Given that something like that is a target, you have to take security measures. Are you proposing either that nothing conscpicious be built or that if something is built it not be secured? The mind boggles. -- ilyas nothing conspicious be built or that if something is built it not be secured? Ugliness is one thing, but clearly, the criticism here isn't just that the thing is ugly. -- ilyas \_ I think it looks like a big toothpick, and that's okay -- except for the base, and that's a big except. Kind of makes sense they hid the ugliest part several clicks in, huh? http://csua.org/u/cm0 (nytimes.com) \_ Ugh. Gotta wonder how many cavity searches and retinal scans you'll need to go through to get to work every day in that thing. \_ It looks like an anal probe. Someone I know said it looks like NY flipping the bird, maybe that's what they were going for. -- ilyas \_ Or an old-fashioned syringe and hypodermic needle. \_ Freedom Tower as Rorschach test? \_ anyone have a url for the original Libeskind design? |
2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38323 Activity:low |
6/27 http://csua.org/u/cj5 What is the penalty for War Profiteering? \_ $10,000 fine and no cookies before bedtime. \_ It's not profiteering nor illegal unless there are people in office who are not on your side. \_ And murder isn't murder if it's a hooker. |
2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:38316 Activity:moderate |
6/27 Agriculture - The Worst Mistake In The History of the Human Race? http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html \_ There are so many hilarious logical flaws in that article I don't know where to start. \- Helo, this seemed absurd to me too, but I really dont know much about anthropology or pre-literate societies. I have read a little bit of GGS and some of that stuff seems pretty interesting [also well-beyond things I have significant understanding of]. On the other hand, I believe much of what he says in Collapse seems tenuous. I think there are more he says in Collapse seems tenuous. I feel there are more compelling explanations rooted in economics. It would be like trying to explain prisonner dilemma by "studying the criminal mind" instead of the spare axioms of rationality or trying to explain tragedy of the commons by sociological factors or "first/second image" explanations [in the sense of Waltz: Man, the State and War]. I think it would be interesting to ask him if he things hunt/gather societies could have evolved universities, libraries and other such knowledge-oriented institutions and labor specialization. I think he's a pretty smart guy, but I wonder if after becoming a "public intellectual" he feels obligated to come up with big, provocative ideas that are a little beyond his core knowledge [the extreme example is when physicists win the nobel prize and start talking about world peace]. I do imagine he would have some rebuttals to your hilarious logical [not empirical?] flaws which you failed to know where to begin enumerating and leave unstated. ok tnx. \- btw, JD is giving a talk in SF in about 2 weeks. |
2005/6/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38202 Activity:moderate |
6/19 Defend this: http://csua.org/u/cfg \_ Why DO you hate America? \_ Why do you hate America? \_ Why would anyone defend this? -conservative \_ You'd be surprised. Or maybe not. \_ You're sounding like a terrorist. |
2005/6/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38186 Activity:very high |
6/18 AI is looking for solviet gulag survivors to back up their Gitmo=gulag equation. Criticism there of. http://csua.org/u/cez (Washington Post) \_ Why does the left (Democratic party) always embrace people who want to kill them. The Democratic ethos is self-destructive and irresponsible behavior. \_ Why do morons like you always embrace perfectly valid points and ruin any chance of educated discourse on the matter (such as letting people decide for themselves, "Wow... what dipshits" by making uneducated, irrelevant and pretty fucking pathetic generalizations like the one above? -John (not a Democrat) \_ obviously I have a hit a sore spot. Try not to be so transparent. \_ Troll! \_ No, I just don't like morons. I think morons are a great argument for retroactive abortion. In fact, I actively support eugenics as an anti-moron measure, if only to remove the irritant of morons trying to spoil my motd-browsing pleasure through moronitude. -John \_ Part of the Democratic "ethos" is to turn people to the Good Side, not destroying them. Republican behavior is to destroy the Evil ... with some collateral damage. \_ so you have 6 kids out of wedlock, no problem the Democrats will subsidize the bastardization of children. What better way to expand their voter base? You have unprotected sex with 100's of strangers, it wasn't your fault you caught AIDS you were a victim, entitled to free medical care for life at the taxpayer expense. Murdering a cop makes you an instant cause celebre of the left as a victim of the oppression of capitalism. As a nation state you are the largest state sponsor of terror over the past 3 decades and you stone to death teenage girls who have been raped, what are you to Democrats- a misunderstood democracy victimized by US imperialism. You sold out the country to China for campaign contributions from Loral Space - this action alone makes you the Savior of the Democratic party. Savior of the Democratic party. -jblack \_ Too many hits off the crack pipe? \_ Ah, yes, it's better to limit sexual education and availability of sexual protections so that things like this don't happen. \_ Wow... what dipshits. -- ilyas |
2005/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37835 Activity:nil |
5/25 Haha, it's about time: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/25/wilbanks/index.html \_ It's about time people stopped caring about bullshit non-news items that are none of their business. \_ True, but with the big deal ALL the news sources made about that bitch, it was hard not to get suckered into showing some interest. \_ Not really. Do you also consider the Michael Jackson trial to be important news? \_ Right now, no. I'll probably show some interest once a verdict is reached though. Same thing with that runaway bride. I didn't care about the updates, but once she was caught and no charges were filed against her, then I started caring some. \_ You're really that flaccid? \_ It's about time people stop posting un-descriptive URLs without a brief description of what the page is about. \_ Hey stop it, she seems like a very nice typical all American girl. \_ A very typical all American Bush voter from Georgia. |
2005/5/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37772 Activity:nil |
5/19 Good stuff: George Orwell, "The Decline of the English Murder" http://orwell.ru/library/articles/decline/english/e_doem |
2005/5/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37714 Activity:low |
5/16 "But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." -Sen Adams (R) NH on his filibuster of Clinton appointee Richard Perez \_ Where is that in the senate record? \_ You know, when googling this, it appears to be a quote from Senator Robert Smith on March 7, 2000, not Senator "Adams". Where did you get this quote from? \_ I got it from a discussion forum I am on. I guess the guy got the author wrong, but Sen Robert Smith is a (R) from NH, right? \_ "Mr. President, this is just one year of the Presidency I am talking about. I have only dealt with 1992 when circuit court nominees were blocked in committee. I could have gone back further into the Bush Presidency. I could have gone back into other Presidencies. I didn't do that, but these are filibusters. When you don't allow a nomination to get to the Senate floor--it may not be under the technical term ``filibuster,'' but when you block it, that is a filibuster. You are not getting it here and you can't talk about it if it isn't up here. If it is languishing in committee, then we are not going to be able to debate it, approve it, or reject it. No matter how you shake it, they were filibusters led by committee chairmen rather than the majority leader on the floor." From the same speech, Mr. Smith goes to washington and redefines the filibuster to include blocking in committee. His speech starts on page S1209, and this quote is on page S1212, March 7 2000. |
2005/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:37695 Activity:kinda low |
5/15 Interview with Intelligent Design leader Phillip Johnson: Attended Harvard one year early, graduated first in class at Chicago law, and a Boalt professor emeritus - http://csua.org/u/c2t (Post) \_ Gee, I always get my biological science from lawyers. -tom \_ Indeed, those do seem to be odd qualifications. -emarkp \_ Lawyers should stay out of science, scientists have always voluntarily stayed out of law. \_ munson@csua graduated cum laude in astrophysics, went to law school, worked as an attorney, and is going back to get his astrophysics doctorate. So much for that theory :-) -John \_ Lawyers and empirical scientists are both interested in causation (the former to determine responsibility, the latter to determine laws of nature). The business of law and science is not that different. -- ilyas \_ Lawyers are interested in winning, regardless of the truth. Scientists are interested in winning too, but at least the data has to stand up to empirical truth \_ Some lawyers. Just like there are some good politicans. \_ You are thinking about litigators, most lawyers don't litigate. So far what I've learnt is that being a lawyer is a lot like being an engineer, you try to design solutions that will keep your clients out of trouble and make thier lives easier. \_ I think it's a matter of knowledge not principles. |
2005/5/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Transportation/Car] UID:37679 Activity:nil |
5/14 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/14/world/main695223.shtml Tiananmen Square, Uzbekistan style. |
2005/5/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Recreation/Music] UID:37667 Activity:nil |
5/13 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050513/od_nm/mexico_mariachi_dc New type of crime: Bogus mariachi band rob music-lovers in Mexico. I can just see this new crime spread to Europe, where string quartet musicians in Vienna robs tourists after they play Mozart. |
2005/5/10 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37602 Activity:moderate |
5/9 Filling the jail cells American's don't want to fill. Feds pay $5.8 billion to jail criminal aliens http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44184 \_ Do you mean Americans want to leave them free, or kick them out of the country? \_ That is kinda the problem. Sent them to Mexico, they just walk back, or pay to put them in jail and pay for them. \_ When USSR existed, it had the longest border in the world and not even a fly could cross it. \_ interesting. I'd guess that's because if left open, vast amounts of people would have fled (bad for economy); whereas, w/ the US, porous borders are places where people enter (good for economy) ... so less incentive to expend the large sums of money needed to guard them \_ Do you think that's more expensive than trying to deport them all and keep them out? |
2005/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:37531 Activity:high |
5/5 Heh. It's hard to make a pinko happy: http://csua.org/u/byq \_ No, it's easy. Just put them in charge. It's more of an "I'm always right" ideology. |
2005/5/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Consumer/Audio] UID:37489 Activity:nil |
5/3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1474613,00.html Obscure law designed to make CleanPlay (a DVD censoring device) legal also contains provisions that make it a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to share a copyrighted movie or song. |
2005/5/3-4 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37462 Activity:nil |
5/3 Is the blond lawyer on the right wearing flip-flops? http://tinyurl.com/b997c (news.yahoo.com) \_ How should I know? I can only see her head. \_ What the hell are you talking about? I went through all the pictures and didn't see anything related. \_ What's it too you? The law says there shall be no blond lawyer? |
2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Health/Sleeping] UID:37399 Activity:kinda low |
4/28 Woman convicted of rape for giving sleeping man a blowjob: http://csua.org/u/bw2 \_ how fat was she? \_ This is ignorant, but yet oddly intelligent. He got paid $6,355 for getting head, does it get any better? \_ Yeah, but you have to go down in history (no pun intended) as the wierdo who called the police for getting a blowjob. \_ a Norwegian friend tells me he'd actually have to have reported her for the police to do anything. This doesn't sound like a good way to encourage more in the future from anyone. \_ Nine months of jail time is equality? If it were a man raping a woman, would it be nine months only? \_ for just going down on her instead of penetrating? \_ if a man gave a woman oral while she was sleeping and claimed that she consented, that doesn't sound too outrageous. \_ Who knows, we don't know what the standard sentences are in Norway, do we? Usually in Europe, sentences are much lighter than in the US. \_ Gee. I thought sentences in the US are already too light. \_ Which is why our prison population continues to increase as crime rates go down. \_ You mean, as we put criminals in jail, the crime rate goes down? holy crap! \_ Soylent Green...Soylent Green is *people*!!!! |
2005/4/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:37249 Activity:high |
4/18 Defender of Earth, Destroyer of Big Fat Ugly Hummer, sentenced to 8 years. It's a sad sad day. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/18/suv.vandalism.reut \_ 8 years? He should have gotten more! Get real. Destroying SUV does NOTHING to save the earth. Neutering people will, starting with people like you and him. \_ Yes sir! Damn the Yankee Rebels who threw our pretious tea into Boston Bay. They all should be punished. All Hail Her Majesty into Boston Bay. They all should be punished. All Hail Her Majesty \_ This stupid fool is on par w/ the patriots of the Boston Tea Party? WOW. After years of being deprived of their fundamental rights w/o representation the patriots took to violent protest. This guy chose violent protest as a FIRST resort. Show me how the sovereign (ie US gov) has deprived this man of any rights w/o representation. \_ Do we get to vote out the Saudi prince, the sheik and the ben ladens, who walks all over us? \_ This has something to do w/ Hummers how? I hope you realize that most of the crude does not end up in the belly of a hummer. \_ I'm sure he'll become real familiar with Hummers while in jail. \_ I disagree with his message and certainly don't condone his method, but I am bothered by the hypocrisy behind it. Years ago it caused an outrage when Singapore gave a mere 15 symbolic caning to an American playboy who damaged private cars for thrills and then let him walk. Now a political act in the American tradition of Boston tea lands one in Sodom for 8+ years. What's wrong with America? \_ Gee, spray painting is a different crime than arson; how hypocritical! Moron. -tom \_ 2 seditious aliens who fled did the arson; at least the prosecution did not (bother to) prove otherwise. Where does your notion of justice go? And how is arson better than shipjacking and destruction of 45 tons of public property? As for the insult, you are what you are. \_ I think you need to do a little research about how any sane or reasonable court system works. It's not the prosecution's job to prove the innocence of the guy they have in custody...that's the defense's job. The \- not all countries use the adversarial system used in the US. e.g. the german system is very different. practically nobody else uses juries any more. --psb \_ True, but this divergence rather misses my point. \- in the case of some systems the judge is not passive but actively participates in establishing the "truth of the matter" including the guilt or innocence of the defendant. while that doesnt make it the prosecutions job, the state does play a role on his behalf. i'm just suggesting the "a reasonable ct system" is not code for "the us style adversarial system". BTW, martin shapiro's book courts is pretty interesting. well done "scientific study" in the social sceinces. they have in custody...that's the defense's job. The prosecution's job is to put a malicious arsonist behind bars. *Of course* the defense is going to make the claim that 'it was someone else that did it, my client was innocent, blah blah etc'. A jury didn't agree or he chose to plea bargain. I have very little sympathy for an idiot that chooses to attack the property of his fellow citizens because of an obscure and noncritical political point (which, if you're really an educated reader, should show up *at least* two major differences from the Boston Tea Party). \_ The accused is presumed to be innocent. The prosecution should prove beyond reasonable doubt that he took part in the arson or has full knowledge in advance. He is guilty of spray-paint, but that doesn't mean he is guilty of arson because he is a fool and cannot afford a lawyer who can "prove" one's innocence. Is your freedom guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by a lawyer for a hefty fee? guilty of spray-paint, but convict him of arson just because he is a fool and cannot afford a lawyer who can "prove" one's innocence? Is your freedom guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by an expensive lawyer? \_ What you've basically just said here is "I don't agree with the verdict, so the whole justice system must therefore be broken". Uhm, yeah. This conversation has no future. \_ A person need not be charged w/ commission of the substantive crime in order to be found guilty of it. Ex. the dude could have been charged w/ conspiracy to destroy property, which means the people only have to show that he agreed to this conspiracy and that someone else who agreed to it committed the arson. Alt. he could be found guilty on accomplice liability theories also. The motivation for this type of liability is obvious, society has an incentive to deter these type of crimes to ensure everyone's safety and welfare. This is not about needing a "expensive lawyer", this is about not being STUPID and committing crimes. Perhaps you forget, but every man who signed the declaration (and many of those who dumped tea into Boston Harbor) was a traitor to his majesty and would have been hanged if caught. Most lost their homes, businesses, assets, &c. \_ the american boy in spore only got 3 strokes of the cane. originally it was 6, but they reduced it to 3 after bill clinton pleaded for the boy. He was 18 years old at that time. \-he was more of a bratty kid than "playboy" as suggested above but there are a number of interesting details ... in a new yorker kind of way ... to the story not mentioned here (like one of the cars painted belonged to a judge). YMWTGF "michael fay". an interesting double standard is women are not subject to caning in SIN. --psb, pro-beating \_ Yeah, I'll bet you're pro-beating. \_ I think I'd rather be caned 3 times than be raped and get HIV in jail. \_ Well, of course. But comparing the Singaporian incident and the corresponding sentence to the SUV guy...man, it's comparing apples to oranges -- just in terms of property damage *alone*. \- a better comparison is to vandalizing protestors like anti-nuke people, animal rights freaks etc.--psb |
2005/4/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37227 Activity:nil |
4/16 Doing the jobs American's won't do. First aircraft mechanics, now ship builders for the Navy. Audit Shows Illegal Workers Hired http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384322/posts |
2005/4/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Tax] UID:37166 Activity:nil |
4/13 Yahoo! News - "At tax time, lots of money under table": http://csua.org/u/bog The evaded tax is "equal to 75 percent of the annual budget deficit, two-thirds of Defense Department spending, or what the US spends on Medicare in a year." |
2005/4/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37120 Activity:very high |
4/8 First Bolemic Lady and now a woman in Georgia is being starved to death. In this woman's case however the woman's living will is being ignored. She's not in a persistenet vegitative state nor is she comatose. The granddaughter says "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?" She's also prayed about it apparently and says "Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus." \_ She's prayed about it...who are we to doubt the will of Jesus? -tom \_ Yeah, how would you feel as an atheist if someone prayed for you and decided you were ready to die? -emarkp \_ If I was incapable of understanding what was going on, I don't think I'd feel much about it. Why do you think the grandmother is an atheist? -tom \_ I don't know if she's an atheist, but I'm fairly confident that you are. And the question was directed to you, not her. -emarkp \_ I'll ask again, since you obviously have infinite free time: what the FUCK is your point? Aside from the fact that stirring up mindless bile among your fellow social conservatives helps bring about your theocracy, why are you so concerned with other people's business? Maybe you should take heed of the fact that if Christian fundamentalists really do take over this country, mormons won't fare any better than us liberal athiests. \_ The irony here is palpable. I'm not for a democratic theocracy. I don't like the idea of people being starved to death when their wishes are unknown or known to be against dying. -emarkp \_ Don't argue with him, tom. Bolemic Lady's probably already a Mormon by now thanks to posthumous baptism. JPII too most likely too by now. \_ Well, if you're really not interested in turning this country into a far-right theocracy, you should re-think some things. Do you really not see what's going on here? The media circuses surrounding various moral issues is to soften up appointments in May. It is all part of a so that the far right can force their extremist have occured daily forever. Doesn't the timing of this explosion of politics seem just the tiniest bit odd to you? Think about it. Based on your other posts, I don't think you are an evil guy, but I'm afraid that you have decided to act as a tool of evil by spouting the party line of the far-right theocrats. \_ Don't argue with him, tom. Terri's probably already a Mormon by now thanks to posthumous baptism. JPII too most likely too by now. \_ Aaron!?! You're back! And you can't spell "bulimic". -emarkp \_ So you admit that your question was nothing but a red herring? OK, thanks. I already answered your question for me, and it added absolutely nothing to the discussion. I certainly don't see how someone whose brain and bodily systems are all in an advanced state of failure can think that Jesus wants her to live. -tom \_ Um, this subthread was about the Georgia woman, who doesn't have the problems you describe. -emarkp \_ yes, she does. -tom \_ Where does any story say that? -emarkp \_ Then it'd be like that six month old boy that a hospital put to death in Texas, despite the pleas from this mother! CULTURE OF LIFE!! \_ obTroll: Remind me again how many people Texas knocks off every year? Oh, that's different. -John The only online story I can find about it is here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688 Please don't dismiss it just because it's worldnetdaily. I'll happily eat my words if the facts turn out to be different, but I've heard a phone conversation with Ken Mullinax (the elderly woman's nephew). You can listen to it free here (windows media unfortunately): http://www.glennbeck.com/audio/free-audio.shtml (first link) -emarkp \_ Stop saying "starved to death". They are not being starved to death. Their disease process is killing them, not starvation. \_ What you meant to say was, most neurologists say a PVS patient doesn't suffer, since they have no perception of pain. \_ Wow, your ignorance is stunning. What "disease" did "they" have? -emarkp \_ OK I was referring to Terri, not your new person. \_ What "disease" did Terri have? -emarkp \_ OK I was referring to Bolemic Lady, not your new person. \_ What "disease" did Bolemic Lady have? -emarkp \_ Oh I don't know, maybe some shit called necrosis rotting away in her brain from old events due to her eating disorder. She was as close to dead as possible, so don't even try to say she was healthy. The only reason you and others think she was functioning was because her eyes were open in a creepy sort of way, fooling you into believing she was engaging you. Yeah, the lack of food tipped the scales finally, but that was hardly a major blow. Starvation was the least of her worries. \_ She only needed food and water to survive, just like you and me. Also, I've never seen proof of any eating disorder. It's commonly noted, but her family disputes that it was ever established. Can you point to proof of her eating disorder? -emarkp \_ OK, how can we prove anything then? This actually brings up a very good point, which is that NONE of her situation is for us to discuss. And by us I mean anyone that isn't her, her husband, her parents, and her medical team (which means no dumbass lawmakers and politicians of course). The issue of one's end of life is an extremely personal issue that is only relevant to the few select people I mentioned, for they are the ONLY ones that know the true situation in all its intimate and fine detail. This is not our business (and it never was), so let's stop discussing it. \_ The *real* question in the issue is why did her husband have the only vote when there was doubt about her wishes. *That's* what we need to discuss. If Terri had left we need to discuss. If Bolemic Lady had left written instructions, I'd have no beef. Though it may not have helped her, as it hasn't for the woman in Georgia. -emarkp \_ For CHRISSAKE! He didn't have the only fucking vote. There were multiple relations who testified to her wishes. Her parents had their day in court. The system did its job. Get the hell over it. \_ No, the court system determined that he had the only vote. I don't understand how the judge did that. -emarkp \_ Because he was 1) her husband, 2) her legal guardian, and 3) when challenged, the judge decided not to change the guardianship. And if you start screaming about his "infidelity" again, we've been through it. Bury this dead horse. \_ Do you have a point? \_ Now wouldn't have it been a lot better if protestors rallied to this person's cause instead of Terri's? \_ Terri's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that person's cause instead of Bolemic Lady's? \_ Bolemic Lady's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that person's cause instead of Anorexia's? \_ Anorexia's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that this is more important than her case because (if the facts are right) they're killing someone against her express wishes. -emarkp \_ If this is indeed true, and someone wrongly claimed to have power of attourney, this is bad, and should come to legal trouble for the hospice and for the claimant to PoA. However, as the only sources so far are wnd and a few right leaning blogs, I'll continue to be skeptical. --scotsman \_ Did you listen to the audio? \_ no. but it appears to be an interview from someone who made plenty of hay out of schiavo. Get a journalist on the case and i'll lose some skepticism. check the validity of the will. check out the PoA claims. strip the hysterics and give me the facts. \_ Ah. So you're not willing to evaluate the case because Beck was in the don't-starve-Terri camp? Nice piece of Beck was in the don't-starve-Bolemic Lady camp? Nice piece of work. -emarkp \_ Uh, no, i'm not willing to evaluate the case because everything you've posted and everything on google news about it is from interested parties. Find me a couple disinterested observers as sources, and I'll consider it. For now it feels like an attempted echo chamber. \_ Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon... Manny Mota.... \_ People who lose credibility often find it tough to regain anyones trust. The whole Terri Schiavo crowd, by their pointless campaign to smear her husband by spreading a bunch of lies, has lost my trust and respect. \_ Now here is a non-WND link: link:csua.org/u/bm7 -emarkp \_ I don't doubt that even if this particular story is skewed, in the real world stuff like "Kid doesn't want to take care of granny anymore for [laziness|greed|revenge|stupidity] and sticks it to granny against her expressed wishes" is not new to the 21st century. \_ what is new is the idea that random nutjobs in Utah think they should have something to do with the decision. -tom \_ What does Utah have to do with this? -emarkp \_ Dum dum dum dum dum... \_ You mean you just discovered that people starve to death in America? This kind of stuff has been going on for a long time. \_ Hey 80 col Nazi! You keep deleting lines that are 79 or 80 chars. What's your problem? -emarkp \_ Yeah, doesn't he know that [79 columns|3 out of 4 neurologists who have done a neurological exam and say she's PVS for 12+ years] is acceptable to most people? [80 columns which causes automatic linebreaks|evil grandkid ignoring living will] crosses a line, though. \_ emarkp, do you realize all of the following: (1) In Feb 2000, the court determined "by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would then elect to cease evidence that Mrs. Bolemic Lady would then elect to cease evidence that Mrs. Terri would then elect to cease life-prolonging procedures if she were competent to make her own decision". (2) Her parents appealed. (3) The Florida appeals court affirmed the decision in Jan 2001. (4) The Florida appeals court denied re-hearing in Feb 2001. (5) The Florida Supreme Court denied review of the case in Apr 2001. (6) Since then there have been multiple motions claiming new evidence, but all the courts have come back leaving the original decision intact. Sure, innocents are executed in capital crimes. Just as well, Terri Schiavo might be a case where the court is wrong. And, I can this might be a case where the court is wrong. And, I can see how it would make sense to create a law that said you can't kill someone in a PVS unless they have put it in writing. I can also see how it would make sense to have a law that says you can't kill a criminal unless there is no doubt (as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt) that person committed a capital crime. Your focus should be on creating the former law, and you do a great disservice to your cause by not clearly stating this. In addition to saying "If Terri had left written instructions, I'd have no to saying "If Bolemic Lady had left written instructions, I'd have no beef", you should also say, "I support a law requiring such". Stop complaining about the effects of the rules -- petition to change the rules. the rules. -jctwu \_ You do know that this was a judicial review of Judge Greer's findings of fact, right? There was no 'de novo' review of the case. Oh, and sign your name. -emarkp \_ Because congress is not allowed to just create new jurisdictions. Separation of powers. The judge rightly smacked congress down for it. \_ This is not strictly correct. Art. 3 allows congress to enact legislation that provides jurisdiction for fed cts. The jurisdiction of fed cts is far more limited than what the framers allowed in Art. 3. Please note that the judges did not rule on whether the act of congress creating jurisdiction for Bolemic Lady's the act of congress creating jurisdiction for Terri's case to be heard in fed ct was constitutional. Rather he ruled on the temp restraining order that was sought to keep Bolemic Lady alive. In order to be granted a TRO the to keep Terri alive. In order to be granted a TRO the party seeking it must show that they will most likely previal at trial. The parents could not show this so the lost the motion. \_ What is "this"? Are you referring to (3)-(5), or the de novo review that federal courts were ordered by law to conduct? Before you answer, I urge you to consider carefully what I've already written. Why argue when we might already agree on some key points? -jctwu \_ "Ordered by law"... Heheh. The judge would have had a hard time deciding which grounds to toss that law out on. It's a veritable garden of unconstitutionality. \_ The standard for review of findings of facts by a ct of appeals is clear error. The only other way to make new findings of fact is to conduct a new trial. While it can be argued that congress authorized this, the text of the statute is not clear. The version I read simply says 'de novo', it does not state whether this is a new trial or merely review of the record. If it is review of the record, then the dist ct only had the power to review the record and reverse legal conclusions or findings of fact that were clearly erroneous; the dist ct would have to assume that the trial ct's findings of facts were largely true. Please also see above re the TRO. The parents did not meet the requirements to be granted a TRO (which has nothing to do w/ the standard of review). Terri's case was handled properly w/in the law, even if the judges didn't like the outcome, they were constrained to act as they did. If they were to do otherwise, all stability would be lost. If the results in this case are not to your liking, the proper course of action is to have statutes (fed or state) enacted to ensure a different result. --ranga \_ yeah, like in Texas where Bush enacted a statute that lets hospitals kill patients over the objections of their caregivers. -tom \_ I do not know the legislative history of the the Texas statute that you mention, however statutes are normally enacted by the legislature and signed into law by the Gov. Assuming that this statute became law in that fashion, the statute can be taken as an expression of the views of the majority of the citizen of Texas by their elected representatives. Perhaps the views of the citizen differ from those of the caregivers, but why should the views of the caregivers be given precedence over those of the general public? If the enactment of such a statute bothers you (1) don't live in Texas or (2) work to elect people who hold other views. \_ What kind of nonsense is this. So when the legislature of Indiana defined Pi to be 4, that was a good thing since it was the will of the people? \_ No, because the bible states it should be 3. Heretic! \_ The value of pi is a fact, community opinion doesn't define the value of pi, nature does. In contrast, the issue of how to handle end of life cases are largely based on societal conventions/opinion and are best handled by the legislative process. BTW, if pi were defined as 4, it just means that we have to change the rest of our number system, there is nothing holy about 3.14159... \_ If smart was defined as stupid, you would be smart. \_ Get your facts right. That never happened. http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm \_ I'd be willing to bet that if Terri hadn't been white and photogenic, we'd never have heard of her. |
2005/4/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37025 Activity:kinda low |
4/1 U.S. Soldier Convicted of Killing Iraqi Walks Free http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20050401/ts_nm/iraq_courtmartial_dc \_ your url is long and tax free \_ I'm amazed he was convicted of anything. I don't know how we have a military that can accomplish anything when this kind of thing goes on. \_ Yep, it's GOOD to be the invader isn't it? \_ FOAD. It's a question of ethics on the battlefield. \_ It's a sad case. If you were in Infantry, it would have been drummed into you that if there is a mortally wounded enemy lying down in front of you, defenseless, and probably suffering terribly (this happens a lot when you're a U.S. soldier), you JUST CAN'T PUT THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY -- even if you personally think it's morally justified. However, the guy was trained as a tank commander, so he probably didn't know. He's a poor guy, since he did what he thought was right and probably spent a lot of time securing the role of company commander. His Army career is over, he can't even be a desk jockey. \_ It doesn't say what kind of discharge he got. If it was a dishonorable discharge, that will be a huge burden on him for the rest of his life. \_ http://basic.armystudyguide.com/benefits/after_the_army.htm 6. Including Commissioned and Warrant Officers who have been convicted and sentenced to dismissal as a result of General Court-Martial. [included with Dishonorable Discharge] |
2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36992 Activity:high |
3/31 Terry Schiavo dies. http://www.cnn.com \_ Any guesses on coverage ratio of this vs. the scathing WMD report that came out today? \_ Well, on the major news sites, it's in big print, but it's invariably #2 to the Schiavo story. \_ is it over now or do we have to put up with weeks of bickering over who has burial/disposal rights? \_ I give it about 5 days of additional bickering, and then everyone will totally forget about it. \_ Her name was Terri. Short for Theresa. If you don't give a damn about it, please don't comment on it. \_ woke up on the wrong side of the bed, did we? \_ I've been following this case for 2 years. I never saw it as a "right-to-life" or "right-to-die" issue. It was a "can a husband kill a wife" issue. I'm sad that a single judge was able to order her to be killed. I "woke up" to find out that Terri was dead and all our futures are in danger. \_ can a husband kill his wife and get away with it? \_ ask oj \_ If you could exchange places with someone terminal in excruciating pain in the last few weeks life for an hour I'll bet your entire viewpoint of the situation would change. All our futures are in danger -- what is the % chance of ending up on life support for 15 years while in a PVS? \_ Of four neurologists who have done a neurological exam on Terri, three said she was in a persistent vegetative state. That's how it is. \_ Actually, it was 8 doctors, 7 concurring. \_ I'd read from CNN or AP (can't remember which) that evidence from 5 doctors was used, 2 from husband, 2 from the parents, and one appointed by the court. Unsurprisingly, 2 from parents said she could recover, 2 from husband as she wouldn't, and the court appointed doctor said she wouldn't. So, bascially 3/5 with 4/5 giving largely meaningless testimony. \_ How about letting a hospital kill a six month old boy, following a law signed by then governor George W Bush? Um, right, that's somehow different. \_ "a single judge"? the u.s. supreme court refused to hear the case multiple times. 9 judges there. an appeal went to a 3-judge panel on the 11th circuit court. 2 ruled against the schindlers, one for. the full 11th circuit court later upheld that ruling. of the 12 judges, only 2 dissented. and lest you argue the "evil liberal judge" tack, the majority of these judges are republican. \_ "can a husband kill a wife"? please. are you one of those religious zealots who relies on the bible for the law (as opposed to the constitution), who doesn't believe in the multiple clinicans who thoroughly evaluated her, who doesn't believe that she made a living will...who, when all those failed you, resorted to a smear campaign against the husband? it sure sounds like it. don't worry about our future so much, it'll be ok. \_ Theresa? Can they still make her a saint? Since there's already Mother Theresa on the saint track. How do they deal with ambiguously named saints? \- there is already a famous st. theresa [of avila]. theresa isnt mother therasa's orgiginal name. you are a doofus. --psb \_ I take pride in not knowing about saints. --dufus, patron st. of MOTD \-it's not a matter of being versed in the history of the church. do you really think they turn down people because there already is somebody with the same name canonized? ... "you should have considered thomas beckett, before you started writing summa theological, thomas aquinas". you have never heard of them or st. thomas more? there are like 50 or a 100 st. marys. what is sort of weird are the nuns who pick a man's name after taking holy orders. --psb \_ I was being facetious with the saint question and asked about the names since it came to mind and I'd never considered it. I was thinking in type, so to speak. After that I went to http://catholic.org/saints and saw the multiplicities of certain saint names, many don't even have "of Rome" or anything else to disambiguate. I guess they divinely know to which one the prayers are directed. \_ Wait...St Dufus of MOTD or of CSUA? Which? Or are they the same? Shit...now I'm all confused. \_ It's "Dufus of the CSUA, patron saint of MOTDs and trolls". \_ You shall be named: St. Dufus of the CSUA \_ Surely there is already a St. Dufus of CSUA? what's the next level of disambiguation? Almighty and eternal God, grant we beseech Thee that, through the intercession of Saint Dufus the lesser of CSUA troller and nuker, during our journeys through the MOTD we will direct our hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee and treat with charity and patience all those trolls whom we encounter. Through Christ our Lord. Amen |
2005/3/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36950 Activity:high |
3/29 CNN: "Lawyer Johnnie Cochran, who famously defended actor O.J. Simpson, has died aged 67 at his home in Los Angeles, CNN confirms." Take those money to your grave, fucker. \_ Did OJ ever pay Johnny? If not, maybe OJ killed Johnny. No lawyer, no debt... \_ His civil trial (where he lost $$$ for wrongful death) happened after his criminal trial, so presumably Cochran got paid. \_ An autopsy will show OJ's blood inside the brain tumor. |
2005/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Religion] UID:36909 Activity:high |
3/27 I have a proposal for you Christians and Pro-Lifers. Instead of bitching and whining, how about setting up a "Save Terri Fund", where you donate a large portion of your church money to the Terri fund so that you can 1) bribe Michael and 2) pay for medical expenses? I mean, this whole thing is about MONEY right? Stop building really nice super mega churches, spend some of that money on Terri. \_ Um, people *have* tried to give Michael money. By his count it's over $15M. \_ I'm neither a Christian nor a pro-lifer, but this is a completely nonsensical statement. This whole thing is NOT about money. If you honestly believed that then you're a moron. This whole thing is about a whacky belief system that insists a brain-dead shell of a human should be allowed to be artificially maintained ad nauseum. I'm not quite sure why this is "christian" since if you believe in god, you'd figure that this is basically god's way of telling you that your time is up. Keeping people on earth indefinitely through life support sure as hell doesn't sound very christian, ethical, or humane. In fact, it's rather ironic that it isn't the atheists who insist on letting Terri continue on, since if there's no god, there's no after life, and keeping Terri alive indefinitely theoretically improves her chances of getting some sort of future miracle treatment that would cure her. Chances of that are obviously virtually nil, but it's an illustration on how whacky reasoning can get you to any conclusion you want. \_ anti-Christian troll alert. I hope to see a good rebutal from our good mannered Christian/Mormon friend(s) on motd. \_ Any result is in God's plan, right? \_ many if not most of Terri's advocates only want her to receive due process, which she obviously has not. There are too many conflicts of interest between the only judge who actually reviewed the case, the lawyer Felos, and Michael. I don't understand how after all of the publicity given to this case you can't see the glaring inconsistencies in the order of her execution. When the only witness to her wish to die contradicts himself repeatedly, one might expect a more thorough investigation. \_ I can't think of ANYONE who has received more due process than Terri Schiavo. THIRTY court decisions, state and federal, EVERY one of them ruling for Michael Schiavo, and against the parents. This is unusual since usually this many court cases will have at least ONE ruling that goes against the others. The "due process" the "Culture of Life" supporters want is for her to be hooked up to machines until she dies of old age. And of course, no mention is made by them of the DOZENS of people who could have been helped with the tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and medical care, resources and time wasted on keeping this brain stem functioning. People who could actually get better and live a meaningful life because of being healed. one of them ruling for Michael Schiavo, and against the parents. This is unusual since usually this many court cases will have at least ONE ruling that goes against the others. The "due process" the "Culture of Life" supporters want is for her to be hooked up to machines until she dies of old age. And of course, no mention is made by them of the DOZENS of people who could have been helped with the tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and medical care, resources and time wasted on keeping this brain stem functioning. People who could actually get better and live a meaningful life because of being healed. \_ her case was only reviewed in full once, by one judge. This judge received campaign contributions from Felos. This judge is legally blind. All of the others were decided in 90 minutes, not de novo. How can a judge review the evidence from a 15 year case in 90 minutes when it is a life and death matter? I think you are blissfully ignorant about the facts surrounding her sentence. David Boeis and Derschowitz support a de novo review, doesn't that tell you something. Clearly you understand the significance and precedent setting nature of this case, which is why you've become so upset. All that most are asking is a full vetting of the facts. surrounding her sentence. David Boeis and Derschowitz support a de novo review, doesn't that tell you something. Clearly you understand the significance and precedent setting nature of this case, which is why you've become so upset. All that most are asking is a full vetting of the facts. \_ Upon what basis do you call this precedent setting? This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. Thousands of families have to make this decision every year. I'm sure in hundreds of those cases, there are disputes which end up in the courts. The only precedent set here is the level of hypocrisy in our federal legislature. \_ The majority of America does not agree with your assessment \_ Bullshit. \_ No, really. \_ No, bullshit. You're are misrepresenting polls, etc. \_ Even evangelical Christians think the courts have it right. The polls are not being misrepresented, the courts did not screw up -- you are just wrong -- but I know no FACTS will convince you of this. Her cerebral cortex is just spinal fluid but fundies want to claim she is "minimally conscious" thanks to 4+ hours of footage edited Oliver Stone-style into 4 minutes of propaganda. At least in a few days this will be all over, an autopsy will show her brain was just mush, and the fundies can find the next illogical position to take and rant about. \_ Actually what was decided in 90 mins is whether a TRO should be granted or not. A TRO is designed to maintain/change the status quo so that one party is not unduly damaged while the case proceeds. In deciding whether a TRO can be granted the judge needs to see whether the party seeking the TRO has a strong change of winning at trial. In this case, there was basically no chance of winning at trial based on the record presented to the judge (which is all the judge can use at this stage to determine if a TRO can be granted), thus refusal of the TRO was appropriate. There is also some ambiguity about what exactly the judge is authorized to do by the act of congress. The act does not specify de novo trial. It simply specifies de novo. This could be de novo review which means that the judge cannot consider new evidence but must rely only on the record as presented. Also keep in mind that every fed judge in the middle dist of FL and all of their law clerks, &c. have probably been reviewing the record for some time since it looked like congress was going to do something dumb, thus they probably had a good idea about how to rule on various motions, such as a TRO. |
2005/3/27-29 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36906 Activity:kinda low |
3/27 Go Pat Go! http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-050323-nazi.htm \_ I think Godwin's law is now invalid. -emarkp \_ You're right, Godwin's law generally doesn't apply when Nazis bring up the subject themselves. \_ I hear the Nazi party is running Oregon now because of their euthanasia laws ... it's a slippery slope, just like Pat says. of their euthanasia laws ... It's a slippery slope, just like Pat says. Truly compassionate doctors would let babies suffer in agony for a few months instead when they know there is no hope -- and it's lots of fun for the parents too. |
2005/3/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36898 Activity:insanely high |
3/26 I think it's pretty clear the American public is being intentionally distracted from something right now by all this bullshit. But what is it? \_ Maybe the fact that we haven't got any sort of contingency plan for when oil prodcction can no longer meet the rate of increasing consumption? Just a thought. \_ Yer right. Michael Schiavo made a deal with Dick Cheney to pull out the tube while the VP was busy dealing with some unexpected tapes of Condi-Dubya "69" action. \_ more like DeLay and Frist and all the rest have been watching and waiting for the perfect case with which to bring this issue to the forefront of public discourse. I'm more skeptical about this being some kind of "cover up" ... and rather just a way for Bush Dick et al to throw a bone to the christian nut jobs who he's pissing off by letting them down on the marriage amendment, etc etc. \_ Let's bomb Iran! \_ Massive protests in Taiwan: http://tinyurl.com/6vtmv \_ euthansia and killing mentally handicapped people is not an issue worth your attention, eh? Well, I hope in the future you are put down when you get old or are mentally incapicated, and leave no living will. \_ Go fuck yourself. \_ go euthansize yourself. Here's your logic, someone is a murderer, kills a cop for example like Mumia, give him 30 years to go through the Fed courts and deify him as a victim. A woman is mentally incapicated and her husband remembers she wants to die 7 years later after receiving 1 million in money that is deemed to be spent on recuperation but isn't, starve her to death. I hope you and your children embrace and enjoy the culture of death you are creating. \_ Hi, motherfucker. So I guess you figure that once the constitution and the rule of law have been suspended, everything will be fine as long as your little club happens to be in charge. Fuck you. I hope the next federal abuse of power is you getting executed with no trial...because that's exactly where the present abuses of federal power are heading. \_ the Constitution grants to right to starve the mentaly incapacitated on the sole basis of compromised testimony from someone who may inflicted the injury in the first place?. That was summarized in Federalist 12, right? This was one of most heated points of discussion at the Constitutional Conv., right? Honestly, have you ever even read the Constitution? I suspect you are ignorant of the facts surrounding this case and are projecting your irrational vitrol towards anyone who is not a Communist on this poor women. It's ok to starve a mentally incapacitated woman who has not received due process but god forbid we disturb a few elk on a barren tundra. \_ I am not pp, but your argument re this poor woman's constitutional rights are flawed. There is something more important at stake here than whether this woman lives/dies: Are we a nation of laws or men? \_ Law, but the law is not an end in and of itself. I can't take a side in this gigantic tragic clusterfuck of a personal and legal travesty, as I really don't know what I would do (this sort of reminds me of the "would you use torture even though it violates your laws and principles if innocent life is at stake?") but it's pretty clear to me that, either way, some part of the judicial and democratic processes has failed pretty horribly. -John \_ Laws are instituted among men so that we may order and plan our affairs better. Whether or not you like the result in this case, the laws have served their proper purpose. Simply b/c the result is not palatable to some, is not a reason to throw out the laws and take an opinion poll to decide what should be done. BTW, the only way that you can say the judicial process has failed is if you think that the trial ct judge hugely screwed up in the original \_ As I recall there was some discussion about various expert opinions, some video tape that wasn't used, etc. I don't know the specifics, honestly, but the whole thing just reeks of "fuckup". -John \_ Actually, the stuff that the media is making a big deal about (experts, video, hearsay, &c.) are things that frequently get messed up at trial but are generally not grounds for a new trial. proceedings. This is not likely given that the record has now been reviewed by the FL Appellate Ct, the FL Supreme Ct, a FL Fed Dist Ct, and the 11th Cir Ct of Appeals. I somewhat agree that the democratic process has failed, b/c congress clearly overstepped its bounds. Yes the constitution does not grant the right to starve a mentally incapacitated woman. However, the constitution does limit the power of the fed gov/judiciary (see Art. 3 Sec 2). This is a dispute about whether her husband or her parents have the right to decided when to end her life. The dispute is governed by state law. In creating original jx for a particular fed ct to rehear her claim from scratch congress has extended the power of the fed cts beyond what the constitution allows: the fed cts cannot hear state law claims w/o diversity, which does not exist here. [Yes Art 3 allows congress to enact legislation that delineates the powers of the fed cts, but that power must be w/in the limits set by Sec 2.] WRT 14th amd due process claims, due process means that her rights are adjudicated in ct w/o being subject to material errors. In this case there is no evid that the cts of FL have screwed up and have violated any state or fed statutory or constitutional right this woman has. Thus due process has not been violated. WRT 8th amd cruel and unusual punishment, this is not applicable to her case. Re ANWR, I have no opinion. Drilling may be a good short term soln, but long term soln are needed as well. \_ As long as you and yours are first in line, we will. \_ The "facts" your screed is based on are lies and half truths. You need to educate yourself before spreading this propaganda further. What is your purpose in doing this? \_ As a resident of FL, that poor lady is subject to the laws of FL. Her rights have been properly adjudicated under that law. There is no reason for me or for the feds to get involved in what is essentially a private matter covered under state law. \_ Can they move her to another state or country? Will her rights then change? \_ If she was in a different forum, her rights may be different (state law/constitution can give you all sorts of rights beyond what the fed versions do, same goes for foreign countries). One of the compromises that we make in order to live in a given part of the world is that we are sub to the laws of that part of the world. \_ Could she be moved? Who determines that? \_ Her primary caregiver. \_ Your whole line of argument is based on a bunch of outrighT lies and misinformation. Either you are deliberately misinforming people or you are passing on falsehoods. You need to educate yourself before spreading this propaganda further. \_ Tom DeLay is a disgusting hypocrite. What a surprise: http://csua.org/u/bi5 (LA Times) \_ The cases aren't even remotely similar. If Terri had been on the same equipment as DeLay's father, there wouldn't be an outcry. Terri's "life support" consists of food and water. Can we disconnect your life support too? -emarkp \_ Unlike Terri, I feed myself and drink on my own. \_ So Christopher Reeve should have been put down? How about infants? -emarkp \_ you're very good at coming up with new red herrings. -tom \_ ANWR just got opened up. Bankruptcy bill just got passed, making it safe for CEOs to continue running companies into the ground. |
2005/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36886 Activity:nil |
3/25 Michael Schiavo lawyer on board of directors of Terri's hospice http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover032605.htm \_ Yep. And she shouldn't have been put there in the first place since residents in a hospice are supposed to be terminally ill. |
2005/3/25 [Academia/Berkeley, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36876 Activity:high |
3/25 Ward Churchill is coming to Berkeley! http://tinyurl.com/6prrz (resipsaloquitor.blogspot.com) \_ i think he was at codys a few weeks ago, no one died. - danh \_ That's unfortunate. -alexf \_ Do you really oppose academic freedom of speech? -ausman \_ Yes. I realize it's extremely difficult to judge such any particular case where the "academic freedom of speech" argument is invoked, but I do believe there ought to be bounds on the use of the academic pulpit to advocate terrorism or other forms of utterly unjustifiable, by any remotely rational argument, violence. How to adjudicate such cases is a different problem, and I (or anyone else, it seems) do not know of a complete answer. But that does _not_, in my mind, render the behavior immediately immune from justice. -alexf \_ A lot of idiocy could be prevented if these bullshit "studies" departments were eliminated. The arguement that because "ethnic studies" or "african american studies" are new warrants new departments is specious. When someone invents a new field of math, they are still in the math department, and still have to prove to other mathematicians that they're doing real work in order to get tenure. Yet these people in ethnic studies operate with no real peer review outside their tiny, politically charged world. I don't think this asshole would have gotten tenure in a history department at a school like CU. \_ Sure, because history departments are dominated by the elite white man genocidal oppressors and subject to their agenda! \_ I'm not sure how expressing disappointment or criticism of an individual whose views one disagrees with can be characterized as ``opposition to academic freedom of speech.'' Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us? Unless, of course, you're the one opposed to academic freedom of speech. -dans \_ Do you believe that murder is speech? Alex said that it is unfortunately no one died. I think it would be it is unfortunate no one died. I think it would be great if a bunch of protestors showed up to express disagreement. I think it would be a tragedy if someone was killed over it. -ausman \_ Ah, I parsed that as ``That's unfortunate [that Churchill was at codys a few weeks ago].'' It appears you parsed it as ``That's unfrotunate [nobody died attending Churchill's appearance at codys a few weeks ago].'' Eh. What can I say, natural language parsing is a bitch. I assumed the former because I know alexf to be a generally reasonable individual who is not prone to making part-serious statements like ``So-and-so needs killing.'' And of course I don't think murder is speech. Don't be a git, who do you think I am, Tim May? -dans \_ Interesting thread, guys. Somewhat contrary to dans's assessment, I did _not_ mean to say it's unfortunate that he was at Cody's, but rather that no one died. However the statement, need this be clarified, was meant as humorous hyperbole, although I do think the world would be an appreciably better place if Ward Churchill did not exist. -alexf \_ I was amused. You get a gold star. -dans |
2005/3/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36874 Activity:moderate |
3/25 US military deserters seek refugee status in Canada. http://csua.org/u/bhq I'm basically just posting this article to reference this awesome quote by the deserters' lawyer: "We don't believe that people should be imprisoned for doing what they believe is illegal." \_ I think what the lawyer meant was "... for NOT doing what ...". \_ I figured you should just replace 'illegal' with 'right.' \_ This is all kinds of irrelevant, but if I think carefully about the original statement I agree with it. If someone does something they think is illegal, but it's not, then no, they should not be imprisoned. But I think the first responder was right, the lawyer meant "for NOT doing". \_ That's not how criminal law works. People are tried and convicted for doing something which they think is illegal but it is not for some time now. The mens rea is sometimes more important than the actus rea in certain crimes according to some courts and commentators. The concept here is that we wish to deter criminal intentions for such crimes as conspiracy. \_ Conspriacy requires an agreement, an overt act and the mens rea to join an unlawful scheme. The unlawful scheme part is impt. Simply thinking that what you are doing is illegal is not enough. It has to be unlawful. Ex. If you didn't know that the 21st amd had been passed, but you concocted a scheme w/ your buddies to smuggle booze from Canada into the US thinking that you were breaking law, it wouldn't be a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that you thought it was a crime. FYI, an actus reus is ALWAYS required in order to get a criminal conviction whereas there is no constitutional requirement that a mens rea be shown (See Robinson v CA). \_ Ah, I see. Because Iraq was an "illegal war." \_ I agree with a pp that there is nothing wrong w/ the lawyer's statement. In order to be criminally punished a person must have violated the law. If a person thinks that they have broken the law but really they haven't, it is irrelevant whether the person thought that he was breaking the law. \_ No, you're completely wrong. It does matter in crimes of conspiracy. In fact, it's been ruled in the past that crimes of conspiracy don't even require that the other parties involved are agreeing to break the law, only that the defendant believes he is conspiring to break the law. \_ I am sorry, but this is just fucking stupid. Not you, the government for prosecuting people for not breaking the law. \_ I don't think that you understand how conspiracy works. \_ Well, you're wrong. I certainly do know how conspiracy works in general. How it works in your particular state is another matter. Conspiracy is an independent crime from subtantive crimes. What is required for conspiracy is agreement to an unlawful scheme. Once a party has agreed to an unlawful scheme, that party is responsible for the general intent version of any stubstantive crime committed by all other parties to the scheme. Note The underlying scheme must be unlawful, if you and I agree to stop watching FOX news and then you go off and kill someone, I'm not liable for voluntary manslaughter even though I thought that not watching FOX was a crime. \_ Actually, that's completely wrong. If you actually went to law school you'd have heard of the "empty pocket theory" in which a pickpocket can be convicted of attempt when he tries to pickpocket an empty jacket. The same applies for conspiracy. It doesn't take much to charge someone with conspirac. What you are describing is actually techinically a conspiracy, however, due to the inherent impossibility of committing the crime by watching FOX, it is not conspiracy. Your reasoning for why the above fact pattern is wrong is simply wrong. If you had actually studied conspiracy, you'd know about the "voodoo curse" doctrine in which inherent factual impossibility excuses conspiracy. \_ What about what the above person claims? What if you and I conspire to say, sneak across the Nevada border, a perfectly legal act, but one that I believe is unlawful. Can I be prosecuted for conspiracy? \_ The empty pocket theory mainly relates to attempt is applicable to factual vs legal impossibility. In attempt what is being punished is an act that is close to being a complete crime w/ the mens rea for that crime. A factual impossibility does not excuse b/c a crime would have been committed except for an external circumstance (the cops caught you in time, the pocket was empty, &c.) A legal impossbility is different. Consider a plan to steal a laptop from someone's backpack during class. Let say you sit down next to the target and you stick your hand in his bag, but he left his laptop at home. You are guility of attempted larceny. However, let's say that you both have the same sort of backpack and you happen to reach into your own backpack. Even if the cops slap the cuffs on you right at that point, you are not guilty of an attempted crime b/c stealing from yourself (regardless of the mens rea) is a legal impossibility. WRT "voodoo", if you conspire to kill someone, and one of you happens to use voodoo and the other uses a gun, you are both still guilty of the conspiracy to commit murder. However, if you conspire to kill someone only via voodoo you are not guilty of the conspriacy b/c killing via voodoo is not a crime. (I believe you are referring to the Ivy case, in which the brothers did time for trying to kill a judge via a voodoo hex). BTW, I got a decent grade in crim law. However, if you and I agree to put up a web site that lists all the locations of police speed traps in real time so that people can avoid speeding tickets, a conspiracy exists b/c the object of our conspiracy was to help ppl exceed the speed limit which is unlawful. Now if you kill someone, I will be liable for VMS. \_ CALLAHAN: Hypothetical situation, huh? All right, I'm standing on the street corner and Mrs. Grey here comes up and propositions me... that if I come home with her, for five dollars she'll put on an exhibition with a Shetland pony. MRS. GREY: If this is your idea of humor, Inspector... BOARD EXAMINER: All right, what are you trying to do here, Callahan? CALLAHAN: I'm just trying to find out if anybody in this room knows what the hell law's being broken... besides cruelty to animals. \_ What does this have to do with conspiracy? \_ It's one of the laws being broken in the hypothetical situation. \_ I'm not sure I understand how what you're saying applies to this case. Desertion is illegal, and I'm pretty sure the deserters knew it was illegal. \_ My comment is directed at statement itself w/o regard to the context. I agree that in the context of the desertion, the statement makes no sense. \_ Weren't there a bunch of CO cases during Gulf War I that rested on the argument that the US military service oath required you to 'defend the Constitution...' (yeah, yeah, I know, that whole 'following orders' thing. -John |
2005/3/24-25 [Science/Space, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36853 Activity:low |
3/24 Just in case you think we're getting close to the end of the loopiness caused by the Republicans running everything: http://csua.org/u/bhg I think the moral of the story is "Trial lawyers are bad for the country and cause our healthcare costs to go up but they're good if you're suing leftist professors because they don't agree with your beliefs" ... WTF? \_ "Professors would also be advised to teach alternative serious academic theories that may disagree with their personal views" Well at least they're not requiring anyone to teach creationism. Or is that Kansas public schools only? And this is pretty funny: "Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don't want to hear" Kinda goes both ways... -John \_ The point is if some Prof is teaching evolution and some student doesn't like it they are being encouraged to sue the school -- that is beyond lame -- don't go and get educated at a University if you don't want to be taught the currently prevailing theories and science. \_ Ever heard of "preaching to the choir"? That quote is from the bill's sponsor. -John \_ Water is good if you drink it in moderate amounts because you need it for life. Water is bad if you're in a tank of it with weights tied to your legs. WTF? \_ Your brain has been classified as: small \_ Your statement has been classified as content free. \_ Your statement has been classified as content free. \_ Time to amputate Florida before the disease spreads. \_ But it's America's wang! |
2005/3/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36851 Activity:nil |
3/24 Just in case you think we're getting close to the end of the loopiness caused by the Republicans running everything: http://csua.org/u/bhg |
2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36835 Activity:nil |
3/23 We paid $200000+ to help that piece of shit? http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/laci.peterson.costs.ap/index.html \_ Well, he was the defendent, and he did run out of money after a while, apparently. \_ It produced more than $200K worth of tax and "entertainment" for the state... |
2005/3/21 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36792 Activity:high |
3/21 The way I see the Schiavo case is as follows, it is just my opinion and you're free to criticize me if you want: -Scientists claim she has no consciousness, and that the probability of her regaining consciousness is less than 0.01%, which is unlikely. Let's just move on. -Family members and religious right activists say that all lives are sacred and that despite statistics and science, miracles DO happen. Let's keep her alive. \_ Husband claims that Schiavo explicitly requested death over being kept alive artificially like she is. \_ yeah, after he smacked her so many times she ask him to just kill her off Also, ^Family members^parents (above) \_ I think you have a large number of mitigating factors. This is not a right to die case, there is no living will and testimony to her wish to die is suspect at best. Michael Schiavio's behavior is very suspicious and there alot of facts that are not publicized. \_ what the hell are you talking about? there are lots of facts. here is a list: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html - danh \_ i suspect less than 10% of US population is aware of the full story involving her case and are basing their judgement on what they see on the alphabet networks. No need to work yourself into a frenzy. Are you aware of the conflicts of interest between Schiavos lawyer? Are you aware of affadavits from girlfriend stating Michael denied ever discussing Terri's wish to die? Are you aware he euthanized her cats so he could move in with a girlfriend 2 years after her collapse? Are you aware Michael was undergoing pyschological counseling and on prescription drugs at the time of her accident? Are you aware judge Greer is legally blind? \_ It's just a typical case of American blind justice, and there ain't a-nothin' you can do about it. Are you aware several women have restraining orders on Michael? \_ I have read stuff like "michael greer works near the hospital in question and really annoyed the staff about his vegetable wife's care, kind of like an annoying cast member of ER, so someone got a restraining order against michael". this is a lot different than random women getting restraining orders against him. \_ you mean the hospital staff does. Are you aware Michael's testimony in the malpractice suit contradicts his later testimony about her wish to die? Want more? Murderers on death row get better treatment than this. Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fe\ d and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had nu\ merous health problems, but none have been life threatening. Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because\ of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996,\ the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point,\ much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spi\ nal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true mir\ acle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious,\ reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. \_ tjb? is that you? \_ These are good to know, but the most important fact is that there is no documentation of Terri's supposed request to die. Michael could be wanting to sell her organs to the highest bidder for all I care. We don't know what Terri wanted and there is still a chance for her to recover. Given that, she should be kept alive. Anything else is murder, IMO. \_ Why should the US population be aware of this case? Even if all of the above were true, should Congress intervene in this case? What about in all similar cases when a person in a vegetative state has relatives who fight over the person's right to die? Should all those people ask Congress to intervene? \_ This whole affair is just political grandstanding by the Republicans, especially certain congressional leaders that have their eyes on 2008. This is red meat for their base and everybody (including the public) knows it. \_ Exactly. Come 2008, and they'll say that Democrats are evil heartless liberals, and that Republicans are compassionate. Personally, I think the Democrats should just give in on the basis of "compassion for election" -lib \_ http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf \-If this schavio vegetable woman was say a portugese woman and this drama was playing out in lisbon instead of florida, would you "pro culture of life" people advocate congress offering to bring her into the us and continue feeding/hydratiing her? [assuming portugal and her parents would be happy to let her move to the us, it could be done safely, from a medical perspective etc]. --psb \_ No. \- why doesnt the culture of life apply here? \_ I think you are a superstitious loon. |
2005/3/17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36731 Activity:nil |
3/17 WTF, Scott Peterson gets hot meals at the taxpayers' expense? If he's going to be executed anyway, let him eat table scraps from dumpsters like a homeless person. |
2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36723 Activity:high 75%like:36717 |
3/16 Robert Blake aquitted for murder. Hung jury on one count of asking someone to kill Bakley; acquittal on the second count. I'm still wondering how Scott Peterson got convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt". \_ Nobody cares if a woman dies, but a fetus on the other hand.. \_ Because the whole body of evidence pointed to Peterson killing his wife and unborn child, and there wasn't a reasonable doubt. \_ Which trial did you follow? The one I saw had plenty of room for doubt. \_ I guess we just disagree then. That happens, even on juries. \_ The law requires 'reasonable doubt'. I saw doubts, but didn't consider them very reasonable. Murders are never proved 100%. \_ Uh, so that guy, Brian Nichols, we aren't 100% sure that he murdered the judge, the court reporter, and the security guard who chased him out front? \_ No, we are 100%-epsilon sure. What is epsilon and what epsilon constitutes reasonable doubt is a matter of personal choice. \_ This analog thinking will get you into trouble; think Digitally, the new revolution! \_ Scott Peterson was guilty in my mind. He's one of those guys who, even if not guilty, deserves jail time anyway for being a dick. The death penalty seems a bit harsh, though. \_ Is it possible we have: Backlash against OJ -> Convict Scott Peterson Backlash against Scott -> Acquit Blake \_ You really think there was a backlash against Scott? \_ Nah, not really. That's one of the "benefits" of anonymous posts - you can troll every once in a while. Backlash against Blake -> <Screwed individual> \_ This is not rocket science. The trend is simple. If you're a famous guy in football or Hollywood, you're acquitted. And if you're not (Scott) then you're guilty. |
2005/3/16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36717 Activity:nil 75%like:36723 |
3/16 Robert Blake aquitted for murder. Hung jury on hiring a hit man. I'm still wondering how Scott Peterson got convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt". \_ Nobody cares if a woman dies, but a fetus on the other hand.. \_ Because the whole body of evidence pointed to Peterson killing his wife and unborn child, and there wasn't a reasonable doubt. |
2005/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36698 Activity:high |
3/15 Are they going to grill Michael Jackson as well or is he just going to sit behind his army of lawyers and let them do all the talking? \_ it is extremely unlikely they'll have jackson take the stand. \_ why? how can he not? \_ because putting nutjobs on the stand is a good way to get them exposed as nutjobs. -tom \_ Yes, but nutjobs often don't listen to their lawyers. \_ I know why they don't want MJ to take the stand. What I am asking is can they do that? This is all about fair and balance, how can he not take the stand? (or rather, why would the law allow him not to take the stand?) If you grill hard enough on any rape victims, you are bound to find some thing. This just seems a little strange. \_ It is fairly common for criminal defendants not to testify on their own behalf. I've known some public defenders who routinely advise their clients not to testify. -tom \_ Because of the 5th Ammendment of the US Constitution. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." \_ Ah, that nonsense... \_ I do believe he should be required to take the stand, and can say "I have nothing to say about that" for all questions. But required to take the stand. \_ The prosecution can call him as a hostile witness if they want to, but that would probably be seen as a grandstanding ploy. -tom \_ he'll plead the fizzif. one two three four fiiiiif! \_ because of 5th amendment, prosecution can't really force him to testify, so only reason he might testify is if his defense lawyers thought was a good idea. \_ This is the same thing as the "self incrimination" thing that we hear from cop dramas, right? \_ 5th Amendment "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war, or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." \_ About not being tried twice for the same offence, what if the subject was found not guilty, and then some new evidence is found later showing that he's guilty? \_ That's the idea. The prosecution has to hold off on bringing charges until they think they have enough to convict. Otherwise you could have someone on trial over and over again for the same offence as prosecuters keep 'discovering' evidence they should have presented at the first trial. Now if new evidence of a similar but distinct crime turns up, then you can be retried. \- unless the new evidence points to a "new crime" it is over. so in theory you could even confess once you have been found innocent. however there are some not very self-evident details about what constitutes the same crime, there may be state/federal issues, you can still be sued in tort possibly etc. you can also\ read about "jury nullification", directed verdicts, with/without prejudice dismissal. oh and obviously this doenst apply in the case of a mistrial. the double jeopardy issue was run around in the OJ case. \_ Uh, it's still double jeopardy. How did all you people who've never heard of the fifth amendment get into Berkeley? \- If you are talking about the Miranda warning, the decision of Miranda v. Az is sort of procedural rather than substantive decision. The essence was "you have to let suspects in custody know what their rights are" rather than an expansion of the right against self-incrimination. This is in contrast to a more subtantive decision like Gideon v. Wainwright, which says the right to counsel include an obligation for the state to provide counsel for indigents. There are a lot of intersting cases relating to self- incrimination. YMWTGF: christian burial speech. --psb \_ I'm surprised the racist-against-Mexicans guy isn't frothing at the mouth and posting another anti- immigration freeper storm in response to this thread. \_ tnx for the suggestion (re "christian burial"). An interesting case which I hadn't seen before. As usual, I think the dissent has it right. -crebbs \- somewhat interestingly, there are two brewer v. williams cases. the first one involves the "appeal to conscience" issue, and the second one promotes the "inevitable discovery" doc- trine. the evolution of the exclusionary rule is also pretty interesting. --psb \_ It's called "Pleading the 5th". |
2005/3/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36653 Activity:moderate |
3/11 I am curious, what would the death penalty opponents say about people like Brian Nichols? Or those who committed 911? Where do you draw the line? \_ You draw the line at "state-enforced execution." -tom \_ So you suggest we let people like Brian Nichols happily live in prison, watching TV, and pumping iron? \_ Yeah, I'm sure prison is just like a country club. -tom \_ Of course not. In a country club, you have to pay for the food and the gym, and there's no free medical. \_ What about state-enforced prison? Are you against anything state-enforced? \_ No. Don't be a moron. -tom \_ He probably can't help it. \_ I'm not necessarily against the death penalty, but I believe the system can be improved. My opinion is that, while in the U.S. you can convict someone with "beyond reasonable doubt", you should only be able to put someone to death using "beyond any doubt" that the defendent actually committed the crime. E.g., the jury convicted Scott Peterson using "beyond reasonable doubt", but I don't believe a jury could say it was "beyond any doubt" he did it or had someone do it, and so therefore couldn't sentence him to death. Naturally things like state-of-mind (premeditation / heat of the moment, clinical insanity, etc.) may be hard to include in this equation -- unless for example you have someone telling several people that they have nothing against Grandpa, but they really want that inheritance and he's old anyway -- but that's the main tricky part of the implementation. Ideally, there shouldn't be a death penalty, but some system where those who would normally be put to death would be punished with hard labor and minimal comforts for the rest of their lives. But this ideal may be hard in coming and in regulating abuse, so I'm not going to preach on that, but push a "beyond any doubt" restriction on capital punishment instead. \_ So let's say they can't prove for _sure_ someone did XYZ. It's OK to take away their life with a fate many would consider worse than death: life in prison, but not OK to kill them, usually on \_ What I don't understand are the arguments that support the death penalty for reasons beyond what it is: (a) to punish, (b) to set an example, (c) to remove a danger from society. It is not a mercy killing, nor can you apply economic arguments. I personally oppose it, although asking me a "what if" question like this is basically the same as the torture dilemna--in short, I don't know. I just wish people arguing pro/contra the death penalty would be intellectually honest and not use nonsense reasoning. -John the argument that it's irrevocable. I would argue that life (or even a long period) in prison is just as irrevocable. \_ Let's take Scott Peterson. We can't prove for _sure_ he did it or had someone do it. The jury puts him in jail for life. 20 years later, someone else says he did it -- Scott is an adulterer, an asshole, a liar, and a poor excuse for a human being -- but to a judge, he didn't kill Laci. You release Scott Peterson. The government must pay restitution and clear his legal record. The payments don't make up for the time lost. For some people, this would be fair. So, let's say we had someone truly innocent convicted, like Dr. whatshisface from The Fujitive. The government would pay restitution, but it wouldn't make up for lost time. But that's life. That's not "OK", but it's the best we can do with the system. On the other hand, if you kill Scott Peterson and Dr. Fujitive guy on "beyond reasonable doubt" and they both turn out to be innocent, that's not "OK", and we can actually do better with a "beyond any doubt" restriction on capital punishment. \_ That's just a more roundabout and less intellectually honest way of saying that you're an opponent of capital punishment. |
2005/3/10 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36615 Activity:high |
3/10 Hey ilyas, take your philosopher kings and blow 'em out your nose with a rubber hose! http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050310.shtml \_ Intelligently written, but horseshit. Imagine a world where legislation is so thorough as to leave absolutely no gray areas? The fact that lawyers can exploit this is not a failure of the way our legal system works, but a failure of the way lawyers work. No matter how clever a restriction you put into place, you'll always find some smartass who'll take advantage of it. -John \_ Then legislators can correct the problem. That's not the role of a judge. \_ interpreting the law is exactly the role of the judicial system. -tom \_ There is a huge difference btwn interpreting the law and making it. No one objects to interpretations of the law, but when judges base their decisions on the current prevailing views (as Kennedy recently did) the foundation upon which the law is based becomes quite unstable. The whole idea of separation of powers comes into question if you allow judges to "interpret" the legislative schemes to fit into their notion of how the scheme should work (look at the reluctance of the USSC to allow judges to fashion soln to the asbestos mess) WRT to the posted article the comparison of fixed speed limits to no undue speed is a poor analogy. In many cases the law needs to be flexible so that various factual situations can be handled. Things "undue" and "prudent" are not just arbitrary, they have specific meanings that judges and lawyers know and adhere to. In many ways the flexibility of modern law is a reaction to the common law writ system which had specific (but arbitrary) requirements on what a person must plead, &c. which forced people to distort their facts to fit into one writ or the the other. \_ Nowhere did I say "correct". The law is deliberately ambiguous in a lot of areas. The EU has a famous statute governing the curvature of bananas, as well as one about the positioning of light fixtures--something like 600,000 pages of random shit that their legislators use to try and regulate things they have no business with, which is what legislators do given the opportunity. This breeds a culture, all too pervasive in a lot of countries, that everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden--innovation and personal accountability are stifled. I am arguing against the extremes that the approach taken by Sowell's article would create implicitly. That said, striking down laws judged to violate the constitution (created by legislation) is a form of "correction", no? Would you ban that? -John \_ In our system a lawyer has a duty to represent the best interests of his client. If the clients interests means that he has to be creative in his interpretation, then it is not really his fault, he is doing what is required of him. |
2005/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36417 Activity:nil |
2/25 http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2005-02-25/n.php Proper courting behavior indeed http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2005/Feb/EEN421f5ecb61b68.html |
2005/2/23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36376 Activity:nil |
2/23 Dumbest Criminal Ever Award: Man admits bank robbery on radio talk show. http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-radio23.html |
2005/2/4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36063 Activity:high |
2/4 What do you sodans think if an Alien race came and claims that our democracy is inferior than their whatever system. Does that give them the right to attack us? Will any of you be working for the "Alien" for a "better America"? \_ definitely. i'd embrace their culture and worship their kind \_ let me be the first to welcome our new alien overlords. \_ damn, you beat me to it! \_ What would you sodans do if a stupid troll was posted on the motd? \_ ilyas wrote the question so it's not a troll. anyways, yes, they will have the right to attack us, as long as it's done in the name of Jesus Christ. God Bless. \_ Actually ilyas wrote one of the replies. But don't let me get in the way of the infallibility of your spy script. P.S. You are an idiot. -- ilyas \_ Well. That would depend on whether it is _actually_ better. \_ this is a matter of opinion, and if the Alien race used their \_ No, it's not. Some forms of government are better than others. You = Lenin's useful idiot. super media power to convince us, YES, so be it. But if the alien race failed to convince us at first and then attacked us, then it's their fault. Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/web.us The point is that information warfare is just as important as traditional warfare, and in this case, the US failed to win information battles and has a hard time catching up \_ No, it's not. Some forms of government are better than others. You = Lenin's useful idiot. \_ Better in terms of what? Freedom? Economics? Military Power? Control? And better for whom? Your brain has been classified as: American, self-centered and self-righteous \- you must pay me 5cents \_ American! Now that stings! Your brain has been classified as: European, relativist, and morally bankrupt. This game is fun. \_ Your brain has been classified as: Russian Jew, \- you must pay me 5cents sarcastic, not funny, and attention whore. (seeking attention on motd. how pathetic) \_ Wasn't my brain American a second ago? Make up your mind! And yes, I stand suitably humbled your brain! And yes, I stand suitably humbled by a fellow motd poster, who clearly is not limited by any kind of whoring himself. \_ But is democracy _actually_ better than what was in Iraq before? \_ your brain has been classified as: small. \_ wait... whose brain? \_ The brain of anyone who disagrees with ilyas on any subject. \_ We are the Americans. You will be democratized. Resistance is terrorism. \_ Hahahahaha, you've made my day! This about sums it up!! \_ ARe you Chinese? Do you understand the impact of the opium trade on Cnina? \_ I think that you fail to understand something fundamental about how the world works. Behind the protective wall of civilization people are free to argue about this right or that, but outside of those walls, a man's rights are based on his ability to defeat and destroy all those that oppose him. If the Aliens are stronger than we are, then we may have no choice but to live by their rules. Personally, given a choice between American and the Alien, I would fight and die for this nation b/c I believe that no better alternative can exist in this life. \_ My country right or wrong! -John |
2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35873 Activity:nil |
1/24 PROOF THAT DUMOCRAPS ARE VIOLENT!!! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1271455/posts \_ The motd has gotten so goddamn stale and boring in the last few days that I'm actually glad to see freeper troll back. Keep up the good work! \_ It's more like dirty than violent. \_ Proof that the American Justice system still works: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327414/posts |
2005/1/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35797 Activity:moderate |
1/19 Funny review of "Hated: GG Allin And The Murder Junkies" http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/ReviewsH.html#anchor270435 \_ GG Allin was a waste of space. \_ If I could push a button and make either GG Allin never have existed or make one of these all-sound-the-same corporate sellout bands they call punk now, I'd kill the corporate sellout. \_ I vote for GG Allin and others like him. He's a sellout of a different kind. \_ Seconded. Take your goddamn "performance art" out of my punk, please. |
2005/1/17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35743 Activity:insanely high |
1/16 Dear libertarians (ie "all man for himself") and conservatives (ie "flat tax means equality"), what is your opinion on the following article and why is it flawed? -moderate http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/wealth.gap.ap/index.html \_ Dear moderate (ie "I am too dumb to make up my mind"), please fuck off. \_ I'll bite. The article points out that the income gap has closed but the wealth gap has not. It seems intuitive that if the gap in income and wealth were to both close, that the income gap will come first. That we haven't seen the wealth gap close yet does not indicate a market failure. Also, doesn't take into account that regional variations in wealth/income and regional variations in race are highly correlated (see <DEAD>www.csua.berkeley.edu/~darin/upload/black.PNG<DEAD> --Darin (moderate libertarian) \_ user/pass? I tried moderate/libertarian and it didn't work. \_ I'll go in as well. Again, they point out that the income gap has closed, but not the wealth gap. In the article they attribute this to racism in companies giving morgages. BS. Lack of loans don't stop people from investing in the stock market or any other sort of saving. Basically, America has a big problem with people not saving. There's an epidemic of people living beyond their means in America, and blacks seem to be particularly susceptible to the lure of conspicuous consumption. This is cultural, if your parents didn't save money, you probably won't either. (In this case, it may be their parents didn't save money because some white guy would come and steal it. It doesn't matter, the result is the same now.) I think we should make a class in money management a high school requirement. -jrleek \_ I agree with everything you say, and yet I am a liberal. This may be one of the first jrleek posts I would say that about. \_ Ahh! You used the b**** word!!! Racist!!! \_ People keep saying blacks don't save money. Then you go look up life expectancy of black males and it's like 69. The amount of money one needs to save for retirement is vastly different depending on whether one is going to live to 69 or 82. to 69 or 82. White people complain a lot, but it's they who live a long, unproductive, useless post-retirement life on government subsidies. They should learn to die earlier like black people, and stop wasting my tax dollars. These days, you start getting social security at like 67, so the average black male is only gonna get two years' worth, whereas someone who lives till 87 is going to get 20 years' worth. So, please stop dissing on black people. \_ Sigh. This is why a little knowledge of statistics is such a dangerous thing. \_ well, the same thing can be said of jrleek's post, which is my point. \_ I must have missed it then. Could you explain where my post goes wrong in more detail? Your post makes a number a wierd logical fallacies that I makes a number of weird logical fallacies that I don't THINK I commited, which you claim to have understood when you posted. Please be more specific. -jrleek \_ Please explain what weird logical fallacies were in my post? \_ I don't think you know how life expectancy works. - !jrleek \_ That's the main problem. The way you apply life expectency is criminal, and the resulting argument is horrifying in it's circularity. -jrleek \_ This is the first time I've heard of the notion of African Americans in general not saving money vs. other Americans. I read last night in the Post editorial on Social Security that the average U.S. household saves 1.5% of disposable income, compared to 11% two decades ago. So ... that must mean blacks are dragging down the average, even though they make up ~ 10% of the U.S. population? (That was an absurd statement; of course I don't believe that.) \_ I was just using the stats from the article. I guess you could say that blacks are "dragging down the average" but I wouldn't. It's a huge probelm in every race. Blacks just seem to be particularly afflicted with it. -jrleek \_ I just updated my stats for you since I remembered my source. Anyway, if you said, whiteys played more stocks than black people, even if they make the same money -- I'd agree with you. But I think the numbers don't lie, for all Americans, when it comes to annual savings. I don't know if the Post's result intelligently classified some stock market investments as savings, so I can't argue there. \_ Again they focus on equal outcome rather than equal opportunity. The goal is clearly socialism. \_ socialism is equal income. communism is equal outcome. \_ capitalism is equal cum. \_ no, capitalism is equal outcome when you have enough income \_ "Victims!" |
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35631 Activity:very high |
1/10 As much as I like 24, I find its portraying of us liberals and the mention of moore interesting. Is the producer hard core republican? -curious 24fan \_ Is this from yesterday's episode? Didn't you find that they played the Sec. of Defense as a caricature too (on the right)? Also, have the good guys stopped using Macs? \_ yes, macs are kind of non-mainstream now. \_ Has any past U.S. Defense Secretary been a non-republican? Trollish, but I'm also curious. \_ Harold Brown might have, president of Caltech at one time Director of Lawrence Livermore. Ph.D. in physics by age 21 \_ Some of FDR's Secretary of Wars were Democrats. George Dern for sure. Louis Johnson, appointed by Truman must have been a Democrat, too. \_ Was Palmer rep. or dem.? \_ I never really watched 24 before last night. I thought the acting and drama was good but several things left a bad taste in my mouth. The stuff with the hacker "stealing software" was laughable. The \_ no, concluding that someone was "corrupting the internet" from looking at a scrolling series of hex numbers is laughable. defense guy's security was incompetent. The stuff with the terrorist's kid and his evil parents and the American chick was ridiculous. He wants to invite her over to kill her? Like that's \_ how did you draw this conclusion? \_ From the "scenes from the next episode" teaser they played afterwards. not gonna get noticed by anybody? \_ If you analyze it like that, then I am sure you'll find flaws. What I like about the show is the non stop suspense and twist and turns and the fact you have no idea what will happen next. A lot of shows are too predictable. I feel they've done a good job at 24. whether they are going up hill or down hill, hard to say at this point... \_ Yeah I said the acting and drama was good. I can't help analyzing stuff but I can generally overlook it. It doesn't take that much to appease me... if for example the feds put up even a slight bit of fight instead of getting completely wasted, or the hacker stuff was slightly plausible. \_ The toughest part for me to overlook has always been that the characters never seem to notice that something cliffhanger-ish always seems to happen every hour on the hour. At some point you'd think they'd look at their watches, see it's 9:59, and brace themselves for something really really bad to happen. It's still a lot of fun though. \_ The part that's always funny to me is the technical stuff. Looking at hex scrolling by is an example, maybe they thought we geeks can read machine code or something. Or they are so fancy/advanced I go \_ you can't? "you can do that?" Guess that's true with most movies as well. \_ I'm amazed at how quickly people can get from place to place in LA. |
2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35618 Activity:nil |
1/8 Death row inmate seeks organ transplant http://organtx.org/ethics/prisoners.htm |
2005/1/8-9 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35607 Activity:very high |
1/7 Before you people start mouthing off about the law, i.e. PSB, I suggest you pick up a copy of "American Courts" by Daniel John Meador. It's put out by West Group, probably the same people behind Westlaw. It's required reading at some law schools for entering 1Ls, and it's short and simple enough for the layman. And no, you can't go and find a pdf copy of it online. Unfortunately you can't become a lawyer by googling. Now STFU. \_ FYI, West Group is the same people behind Westlaw. \_ FYI, West Group are the same people behind Westlaw. law schools for entering 1Ls, and it's short and simple enough for the layman. And no, you can't go and find a pdf copy of it online. \- it's amazing what PDFs you can find via google... http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/tmp/Texts1.jpg Unfortunately you can't become a lawyer by googling. Now STFU. \- You know for the legal topics that interest me, I think I have a reasonable background. I'm not interested in the vocational practice of law ... so no, I dont know jack about civil procedure but I do know a little about Constitutional Law, Law and Economics, Antitrust Law [but I have more background in Econ ... but I have read a reasonable amount of Posner Redbook]. As for legal philosophy, I guarantee I have a deeper background than you do, unless you are at Yale, but clearly you are not. It would also be helpful if you deanonymized yourself ... face your accuser and all that. I think it is poor form to talk about background in a public forum but would be happy to do so by email. --psb have a reasonable background. I'm not interested in the vocational practice of law ... so no, I dont know jack about civil procedure but I do know a little about Constitutional Law, Law and Economics, Antitrust Law [but I have more background in Econ ... but I have read a reasonable amount of Posner Redbook]. As for legal philosophy, I guarantee I have a deeper background than you do, unless you are at Yale, but clearly you are not. It would also be helpful if you deanonymized yourself ... with these anonymous conversation you never know if you are speaking to the same person as before ... and then there is facing your accuser and all that :-). I think it is poor form to talk about background in a public forum but would be happy to do so by email. Somewhat ironically, my entire legal educatation, for what it is, esentially predates google.--psb \-Tangential comment: I am not familar with the book mentioned above and looked it up on AMAZONG. I was surprised to see that for what I assume is a classic, there was only one review ... allthought a 5star one. So then I looked up a number of famous law books [Martin Shapiro: Courts, Cardozo: Nature of the Jud. Process, Choper: Jud Review and Nat Pol Proc, Posner: Econ Analysis of Law, Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously, HLA Hart: Concept of Law] and not a single one had more than 10 reviews ... it sure seems like law people spend a lot less time writing reviews than say math people ... (Baby) Rudin has 73 reviews. A lot of the std math/phyiscs textbooks have 20-40 reviews. Oh Rawls: Theory of Justice has 46 reviews. \_ I was in a law class with PSB. For the Mock Trial he was the best attorney by far. His only problem was he was a bit impatient with a dumb judge during oral arguments. That hurt his case when we voted. He would probably be a better law professor than lawyer. \-Tangential comment: I am not familar with the book mentioned above and looked it up on AMAZONG. I was surprised to see that for what I assume is a classic, there was only one review ... allthough a 5star one. So then I looked up a number of famous law books [Martin Shapiro: Courts, Cardozo: Nature of the Jud. Process, Choper: Jud Review and Nat Pol Proc, Posner: Econ Analysis of Law, Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously, HLA Hart: Concept of Law, Bickle: Least Dangerous Branch] and not a single one had more than 10 reviews ... it sure seems like law people spend a lot less time writing reviews than say math people ... (Baby) Rudin has 73 reviews. A lot of the std math/phyiscs textbooks have 20-40 reviews. Oh, Rawls: Theory of Justice has 46 reviews. \_ psb, why do you specifically single out yale in your response? out of curiosity, where did you learn all your legal knowledge? \- in political science, philosophy, and econ departments. the one law class i took in the business school was the worst class i ever took at berkeley. it was taught by a visiting prof who was i believe a second rate practicing attorney who didnt know the subject well from an academic perspective and was just dull (e.g. he didnt know and could not understand anything about "the economic analysis of law" ... "i dont want to consider the availabilty of insurance" "what do you mean about the evolutionary efficiency of the common law"). has anybody else had really bad experieinces with a visiting prof? it was my theory that he wanted "taught at berkeley" on his resume and learned on some friend here to get him a job for the term. when i talked to prof muir with a number of specific example of what was wrong with him [like his scantron exam], muir sighed and i believe indirectly hinted he'd seen a lot of problems with visiting people. \_ Funny. I've been at Yale for the last five years and know exactly jack shit about legal philosophy. I guess the osmosis theory of learning doesn't work after all. I'm pretty sure the engineering undergrads I've TA'd all also know exactly jack shit about legal philosophy; this comment is mystifying. \_ not really. i think he's talking about, say, the people in the law school. yale's law program has a reputation for a relatively high focus on theory. \_ Well, that's even stupider. So if someone is in law school at some other top-tier school, they must automatically bow the might of the PSB? Of course given the near infinite idiocy of the op's pompous rant, I guess it all cancels out. \- sigh, it was sort of a jokey-reference to yale law schools reputation for abstractness. there is a joke that goes something like: 3 law student friends are waiting to take the bar exam in boston. the harvard student asks the umass student "what is the MA law on torts?" and the yale law student asks the HLS student "what is a tort?" only after i started meeting people who went to or were in law school i learned how "vocational" even good law programs were. you spend a lot of time on "how to be a lawyer" rather than thinking about "The Law and Justice". i.e you dont read a lot of Plato and Kant. --psb \_ Why shouldn't it be vocational? I'm not going to pay someone three hundred bucks an hour to talk about Kant. \- that was not a criticism. it was an observation. i mean to get at something like if you start up a conversation about something like "what do we owe each other" or what is a rationale for progressive taxation, a lawyer may little more to say than say an english major who has relfected some on a classist society upon reading Dickens. \_ If all our lawyers talk about Plato and Kant from now on there would be no frivilous lawsuits and our health insurance cost would come down. Everyone except the lawyers would be better off. \-SPARTAN LAWYER! O xein angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tede keimetha tois keinon rhemasi peithomenoi (Tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here obedient to their laws we lie.) --Simonides in honor of the Spartans who fell at Thermopylae \_ I think "theory" is just a code word for leftist. \- That applies maybe to something like "Critical Legal Studies" but a big area is Law and Economics [sort of the Chicago approach] so that is not really true. Plenty of this philosophy is libertarian in flavor [contract and all that]. I think Plato is sort of like Lincoln ... everyone wants a piece of him. Well except maybe whackos like racialists. racialists. --psb |
2004/12/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35495 Activity:high |
12/30 And a Slate article on Sontag. Hitchens wrote it so it's safe for liberals and conservatives alike. http://www.slate.com/id/2111506/12/30 \_ Sure, it slandered cancer patients. \_ A surprisingly touching eulogy from the man who described Mother Teresa as a twisted Albanian dwarf and Gandhi as a Hindu fundamentalist. [Edited to reflect psb's comment.] \_ Like I said. Hitchens has something for everybody. \-Hindi = language. Hindu = religion. Hine = Cognac. \_ It looks like the above was a typo, but accroding to this http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hindi hindi: adj : of or relating to or supporting Hinduism There is another meaning of the word "hindi" in English besides the language. \-hitchens is a pretty good essayist and debater evaluated in terms of form. content is sometimes suspect. e.g. the johnson quote is nice. the t.s. eliot reference is nice. his description of CHIRAC in terms of the character from L'Education Sentimental [someone who would gladly pay for the pleasure of selling his own mother] was also great. ok tnx. |
2004/12/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35475 Activity:nil |
12/29 http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/29/hunters.shot.ap/index.html Hmong hunter to use the insanity defense. I guess they didn't want to use the "Damn 4 eyed chink can't see and can't shoot, therefore you must acquit" defense as suggested by O'Reiley. |
2004/12/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35470 Activity:nil |
12/29 Jerry Orbach RIP: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/29/obit.orbach/index.html \_ That man singlehandedly made Law&Order fun to watch. |
2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35403 Activity:very high |
12/22 Dear Religious Democrats (emarkp, jrleek, etc), please help out. I'm trying to find biblical sections like John 12:34, Genesis 56:78, or something like that, which may suggest that Jesus 1) favors more government handouts for welfare 2) is compassionate and is soft on crime 3) prefers raising tax for the rich to support the poor 4) anything else that aligns with the Democratic agenda I'm trying to come up with something cool, but I need actual sections from the bible. ok thx -don't know much about bible \_ Apparently you know even less about the motd and its cast of characters than you do about the bible. \_ I have to wonder what I or jrleek have written which led this person to believe we are Democrats. -emarkp \_ Well, it sounds pretty bizarre to me. Is there *any* issue on which you would consider yourself to be a "liberal?" \_ This has to be the dumbest request of the year. You can't take the bible and start applying 21st century politics to it. Anyway, the Bible as a whole is definitely conservative, especially the Old Testament. You are prohibitted from homosexuality, you can't eat pork, and anyone who isn't part of your group is slain. If you think that Jesus was a liberal, you'd be wrong. He expressly states that although he brings something new, the old ways are by no means to be overthrown. Also, although the Catholic Church has traditionally been aligned with the Democrats, they are firmly against abortion, divorce, and contraception. I'm not quite sure how you could align the strongly traditional message in various parts of the Bible, especially books like Job or Jonah which teach absolute faith in God without reason, to liberal democratic views. \_ look, if Karl Rove can successfully use the Bible to manipulate the not-so-bright mass of people, then it shouldn't be so hard to use his own ammo to manipulate them the other way. If all logic and reasons fail, you have to resort to... Religion, which is proven to work well. \_ Maybe instead of finding a few choice quotes to bend to your agenda you should read the whole bible to get a better idea of what Jesus stood for. You're no better than O'Reily. \_ it takes one OReiley to counter another OReiley. \_ Maybe you should watch Jon Stewart on Crossfire. He seriously disagrees with that approach. \_ Um, I'm most certainly not a Democrat. -emarkp \_ uh, ok. So what are you, a conservative? \_ he's not a Democrat, he's been Visited by the Angel Moroni \_ Yes. And I see very little in the Bible to support government policy of any sort. -emarkp \_ Luke 12:33, Matthew 19:21, Colossians 3:2 \_ None of those have anything to do with public policy. -emarkp \_ so emarkp, would you say that if Jesus were alive today, he would rather support Republican agendas than Democratic agendas? \_ I don't think he'd support any political agenda. -emarkp \_ If you ask me, Jesus is a communist. Just read: Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Matthew 19:21 "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Colossians 3:2 "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." \_ Yes, those would be the verses listed above. They are about how you should live your own life, not how you should legislate the lives of others. Note also that in Luke he was speaking to the twelve (slightly different commission) and in Matthew he was responding to the young man who asked how to become perfect. -emarkp \_ "not how you should legislate"? Give me a break, conservatives are trying to legislate religious values all the time. \_ That doesn't mean Jesus would advocate it, or that all conservatives suggest that Jesus would advocate it. -emarkp \_ hi kchang! \_ "As you treat the least of mine, you treat me also". \_ 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his demons! For I was hungry, and you didn't feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn't give me anything to drink. I was a stranger, and you didn't invite me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me no clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn't visit me.' Jesus goes on to say Then they will reply, `Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?' And he will answer, `I assure you, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life." -Matthew 25:41 Also look up liberation theology to see how leftists have interpreted these ideals into action. \_ Jesus advocates charity. Leftists advocate charity at the point of a gun. -- ilyas \_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology#Passages_from_the_Bible |
2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35389 Activity:high |
12/21 Jesus of Nazareth, wrong on crime, wrong on defense, wrong choice. http://www.wiseass.org/files/Jesus.swf http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_jesusad.jpg \_ Yeah, those damn Jews, they're all democrats. \_ I'm surprised ilyas the Russian Jew hasn't said anything yet. \_ I am neither russian nor jewish. -- ilyas \_ How do you describe your ethnicity? \_ Why should I tell you things if i don't even know who you are? Email me if you care. -- ilyas |
2004/12/14 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35295 Activity:high |
12/14 Instead of letting Scott Peterson get off easy with a painless lethal injection, how about we let Laci Peterson's mom cut off his head with a large knife and let Fox televise it? I'm sure it's get great ratings in this country, and would do more to deter crime than the current death penalty. \_ Sounds like a good idea to me. \_ You won't be making this joke if your loved one is killed. \_ Her mom wants vengeance! Did you see her during the sentencing?? \_ The punishment is death... by Unga Bunga! \_ is that joke that popular? i heard that freshman year ('96). \_ It's a lot older than that \_ Man I feel old, my freshman year is 92. \_ you are old. -another '96 \_ Ah, youngster, I remember you now. -'92 grad |
2004/12/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35265 Activity:high |
12/13 REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- A jury today recommended that 32-year-old Scott Peterson should be executed for the murder of his wife when she was eight months pregnant with their first child. \_ obTurnOffFoxNews \_ So does anyone thing he actually didn't do it? I don't care if you think he should have been acquited. \_ He is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He didn't testify, with everything that happened. \_ I think it would be a bad idea to testify. Having had the affair and all the stupid shit he did after Laci disappeared, the prosecution could have made him look very bad on the stand \_ Not to disagree with you, but do you remember him ever having stood up and said, "I had an affair but I didn't, honest to God, kill Laci". \_ No, but he wouldn't have to testify in court to say that \_ Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on circumstantial evidence? Look, I think he did it, too, but the trial's been a horrible miscarriage of proper judicial procedure. The lesson for you would-be murderers out there: don't be so damn public about it all. \_ A lot of murder cases are circumstantial. It's actually rare thet you have an eyewitness or incontravertable physical evidence. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' means just that: That any doubts in the case are unreasonable. The defence theory was that some strangers would kidnap a woman walking a golden retriever in broad daylight, and then go to the trouble of driving her body 100 miles away to frame the husband, yet also attempt to keep the body sunken. That strikes me as not very reasonable. \_ The burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the defense. Given that the prosecution's case seemed to be, well, he could have done it, there seem to be plenty of reasonable doubts. \_ Certainly the defense does not have to prove their case, but they must offer an alternative explanation for the evidence that is at least plausible. I saw no plausible explanation for the evidence other than the one the jury believed. \_ Ah, I've been thinking that it might be framining, until you mentioned the "yet also attempt to keep the body sunken" part. \_ Kidnappings of strangers are rare. Kidnappings in broad daylight are rare. Kidnappings of someone with a large dog are rare. Framings are rare. \_ Married men killing their expectant wives are rare. What's your point here? \_ Even if he didn't do it, his actions after his wife's death were so stupid that he probably deserves to die. \_ Scott should have tried to relocate to Los Angeles with the mostly sympathetic and uneducated jury. "Dear homies, senors, y senoras, que fish baits don't hook, you must acquit!!!" \_ help also if Peterson were a famous/heroic football legend who won the Heisenfuck award. \_ Or if he's African American. \_ racist!!! \_ I'm still looking for the Real Killer with every round of golf I play! \_ Yeah, clearly the problem with the criminal justice system in this country is that blacks have it too easy. \_ For cases under the media spotlight, it seems so. \_ That's why I don't agree with the Jury system. In this country we leave the jobs to the professionals. But like everything that's set in stone, it's hard to change. \_ the problem is not the Jury system, but the African Americans in the Jury system. \_ If you're going to say something blatantly racist, why use politically correct language to do it? \_ Most Napoleonic/continental European justice systems rely on cases handled exclusively by professionals (i.e. judicial panels--the more serious the case, the more judges.) It works more often than not, leading to fairly common-sense verdicts, but has resulted in some pretty horrendous travesties. Does this sound familiar at all? -John \_ Has anyone done a comparison between these systems? I am sure you can find bad examples in each, but I would trust professionals more than a bunch of idiots. Yeah, sure, a stupid guy smoking with cancer deserves some billions of dollars, give me a break. \_ These are the idiot examples of US justice. Someone did a study a while ago comparing US handling of, say, corporate responsibility vs. European--their findings were that the Euros do a nanny act up front, with tons of regulations, while the Americans rely on the threat of lawsuits after the fact to keep companies in line. The upshot? While it's possible for an cretin to disavow personal responsibility in the US and go for an insane payout, the average Joe also tends to have far easier access to the law. I'm not claming either system is better, but it's something to think about before completely discounting common/English law as a defective system. -John \_ You forget that there are now multiple efforts underway to reduce or remove people's ability to sue companies. -tom \_ The biggest problem IMO is the large number of CSI-style programs that people watch and the increasing legalese invading normal culture. \_ The punishment is death... by Unga Bunga! |
2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35092 Activity:nil |
11/27 Happy Holidays everyone! And in the spirit, I present to you this story. Teenage girl murders her mother and posts about it on her LiveJournal. Not a hoax. Hilariously, a lot of the comments on her blog are defending her. http://www.glassdog.com/archives/2004/11/26/heavenly_creature.html \_ nice web page name! - danh http://www.livejournal.com/users/smchyrocky http://csua.org/u/a4l (Google News search) |
2004/11/23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Military] UID:35047 Activity:insanely high |
11/23 Ok, right-wingers. Vang claims he was shot at first, and returned fire as if his life were in danger. Given the repeated statements of how eager you are to take the law into your own hands, how is Vang's reaction any different than what you would have done? \_ he is justified if true, he also assumed they had more than one gun if they are hunters \_ Actually in order to claim self-defense, he needs to meet several requirements: 1. Did he create the situation? 2. Did he have an honest and actual belief that there was a danger to his life? 3. Was his belief reasonable? [This test is tougher than it looks] 4. Was the threat imminent? 5. Was his response appropriate? If any of these questions are answered in the negative then he doesn't get self defense. He may get imperfect self defense, if he didn't create the situation, had and honest and actual belief, but his belief was not reasonable. \_ Everyone agrees it is unreasonable and not totally self-defense, but many people secretly wish they could do what he did. \_ And for that we have federal pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiary. \_ Quoth investigator report (via Reuters): "He fired back, hitting the man who shot at him and then pursued the others, shooting them and another couple who showed up later riding an all-terrain vehicle..." It seems that whether or not the hunters fired the first shot, Vang's claim to self-defense ended at some point through the killings. \_ Yeah, you think the rest of them wouldn't have "defended" their dead friend if Vang just walked off? \_ "...and then pursued the others, shooting them..." \_ Let's try this again. A group of thugs shoots at you. You decide to return fire and kill the one that shot at you. What makes you think the others would not have continued shooting at you? \_ Uhh.. they were running away? \_ Uhh.. they weren't all armed? \_ Yes. The rest were hunting with their fists. \_ Why don't you read the article? \_ What article? Do I need to go to The Free Republic and track it down? \_ I'm just suggesting that maybe you should read some articles about the subject we're discussing, rather than just shooting your mouth off. \_ "shooting" my mouth off, eh? You are a funny guy. \_ Wow. According to the sheriff's report, there was only one firearm amongst those that were shot. Those lying sheriff bastards! Obviously it was all a conspiracy! Well, that or you're a blithering idiot. \_ By the time the sheriff got there, the other hunters had hidden the rest of their guns, some of which might not have been legal to own. It would make for a nicer story too, if that damn gook shot and killed a bunch of unarmed white christian males. \_ The sheriff in a white southern county is just going to lie to cover up for high school drinking buddies. Especially over some dink. \_ I think my theory about you being a blithering idiot is far more likely. \_ Well, WI is south of Canada. - !pp \_ OK, let's take this real slow now. The rest of the hunters were running away, and Vang pursued them and then shot them (as in it's kind of difficult to pursue someone who's standing and fighting). Bye bye self- defense. \_ Depends on what happened. If they attacked Vang and he fought back, then pursued them b/c he was afraid they would come back and kill him, he has a valid self defense argument. Most juries in this country don't really care if you over-react (see Gotez from NY in 86). \_ maybe they just want to spread out into the woods and then hunt Vang down. Also who knows what firearms they carry in their ATV. \_ Do you get your tin foil hats cheaper when you join the tin foil hat of the month club? \_ they fired the first shot. once that happened you cannot assume those people are sane. \_ In this country, for a crime to be committed you have to be able to prove intent (in this case, only provable in the case of the first guy since he's the only one that shot). Ability (which is clearly lacking since only one was armed when Vang started shooting), and an attempt to commit a crime (which is really fucking hard to prove if they're all running away being chased by a gun-toting maniac). \_ Err ... we are arguing whether he is acting in the belief that he needs to defend himself, not whether a crime has been committed. Remember the Halloween case where a Japanese exchange student was killed because the shooter thought he was a threat? \_ Yes and no. The case can be argued for the first (alleged) shooter. But in the absence of wrongdoing on the part of the others, proving that he had self-defense as a motivator is not very likely to carry much water. \_ Actually, the question is not whether Vang believes he needs to defend himself, but rather whether Vang can *reasonably* believe he needs to defend himself. \_ White person shoots unarmed Asian: reasonable. Asian guy shoots armed White guy: not reasonable. Any questions? \_ Yes. How does it feel having your head up your butt 24/7? \_ Do you really think it will be any other way? Even if Vang really was justified and if it was totally self-defense, it won't matter. The jury of his peers will be white, and they're just going to see him as some slant-eyed murderer. \_ Yeah, ok. Does your hat use the heavy foil or the light foil? I assume the heavy foil offers better protection but the light is more comfortable. \_ but he was called names... \_ Nice troll. \_ Don't ilyas my thread. \_ It should be easy to verify that the hunter fired a shot. Has that been verified? \_ How would that be easy to verify? Ask the dead witnesses? \_ First, there is a live witness. Second, it's easy to tell if a gun was fired. There should be a round or pellets or something evident. \_ I'm still trying to figure out how the presence of a round or pellets will determine who shot first. \_ I want to know if he fired *AT ALL*. Has this been verified? \_ The US Army trained its soldier well. \_ California National Guard. Man, theyshould send this guy to Iraq, instead of hunting deer and white folks, hunt Al Qaidans. \_ Can't we just ignore facts and assume what probably happened: Vang was ticked, the white people didn't shoot first but shot off their mouths, then Vang killed all the white people. \_ It was private property. So really the correct rendition is he was trespassing, the may have impolitely asked him to leave, he lost it and murdered them. \_ How do you "politely" ask someone to leave after you've shot at them? Vang was already on his way out. The property was also adjacent to public property, and the property line wasn't marked. \_ Someone might have shot into the air. Like the old "git off my property" hillbilly stereotype. \_ So someone tells you to leave their private property, and as you're calmly walking away trying to ignore their racial slurs, one of them shoots their gun. Vang, realistically, acted to defend himself. \_ Let's say someone shot at Vang, Vang blew him away, other guys started coming, Vang thought they were coming to nail him, Vang nailed them first, all their guns were hidden, Vang didn't chase anyone down. Anyways, I still believe the Vang got ticked and anyone down. Anyways, I still believe that Vang got ticked and shot everyone theory more. \_ Hello armchair judges. Here's the fact. The outcome of the Vang trial has nothing to do with evidence and facts. It has everything to do with the jury and how the cops conducted their search. The OJ trial proved just that. \_ So is the jury all going to be Hmong and they'll find that the sheriff made racist remarks about Hmong on tape and Vang will go free and say he's looking for the real killer with every deer he shewts? \_ They were running away to get their guns, so Vang has to cut them down before they got more guns and more people. Shit, he killed one, but then they called for help and he sees a another vehicles with a bunch of reinforcements, what is he supposed to do? He's outnumbered at least 10 to 1, like Rambo, the man. \_ "Shot for vagrancy in Jerkwater, USA..." \_ "But the man kept pushing Sir...They drew first blood,not me." \_ Those other hunters should have joined a server with Friendly Fire off! \_ link:www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/10255877.htm?1c for a MUCH MORE detailed police report \_ Wow, this IS detailed. Thanks! \_ How stupid can you get? (1) 15 people in the hunting party but they only brought one gun...are they going to share it or something? They are either very stupid or lying. (2) Though unarmed, they start name-calling "chink,gook,fucking asian" to this guy holding a semi-automatic rifle. Uh. That's really smart. Duh. (3) Call more of your idiotic, unarmed ATV-riding friends on the radio, so they can come by to escalate the situation and make Vang even more scared and reactionary Conclusion: white "hunters" deserved to die for being stupid but Vang is the idiot who will have to go to jail for falling into their stupid trap. This is what happened: they see Vang on the platform, they call up to him: "hey you fucking chink, get out of our tree. You damn gooks are always trespassing". Then they radio their white friends, tell them to come over immediately because "we caught a chinaman on our property." Then the rest of the mob arrives, surrounds Vang, starts screaming, yelling, cursing at him saying: "fucking kick your ass, gook", "you fucking chink", "get the fuck off our property before we fuck you up, chinaman" Now Vang, being a Man, who has Pride, doesn't get off the property "fast enough", so white-hunter fires a warning shot at him. Vang, who is already pissed because (1) he didn't get to hunt (2) they call him racial slurs (3) they have him outnumbered (4) his pride is hurt (5) he's been wronged so many times in the past and just swallowed his pride, and now (6) his life is in real danger, lashes out and fires like a real soldier and hunter. Then a 2nd wave of even more shitheads show up on ATVs which just escalate the danger, he's outnumbered 15-to-1 by racist whites, who are hunters who would reasonably have guns, who have threatened him, so he defends himself (defend in military/moral/emotional, but not legal-sense) And he at least got some hunting done for the day. \_ What the fuck? \_ right.. the poor minority victim was called bad names. Too bad there is no death penalty in Wi, the taxpayers will have pay for housing this asshole. All of the facts - deer stand, scope, number of shots, position of victims, ammunition, etc. - indicate this guy flipped. \_ Read the http://twincities.com link. Use http://bugmenot.com for password. \_ We should let Ilya torture him to death. That'd teach him! \_ Lucky this guy have a gun. Otherwise he would probably be beaten to death like Vincent Chin. \_ This guy lives the pro-gun dream, defending himself against the odds with his rifle, and the motd right-wing turns on him. It's shameful. |
2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35007 Activity:insanely high |
11/22 So the hunting shooter turns out to be Asian. I hear a race card getting ready to be brought out. BTW, I hunt and I'm Asian. Hunting has far fewer accidents and far more participants than most people know. \_ The "hunting shooter?" What the crap are you talking about? \_ Who's pulling out the race card? I only just saw this story, but it looks pretty straightforward to me. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4630724,00.html \_ RACIST!!! \_ I dunno about the race card, but if he's a displaced Hmong, expect to hear the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder defense soon. \_ The most charitable explanation I can think of goes like this: Redneck: Git offa my property! <BLAM> Asian guy: Oh shit! <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM> Redneck 2: What was that? He shot pa! Asian guy: On no! More rednecks! <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM> \_ There was only 1 gun found amoung the 8 shot. \_ The dialog above only has one redneck shooting. So what's your point? \_ But let's not let facts get in a way of good ol' fashioned redneck bashing. \_ One gun among 8 hunters? During a 9-day hunting season? This is suspicious. \_ Only one gun was found amoung the 8 shot. \_ Haven't read the article, have you? \_ This is Wisconsin, not Kentucky. Wisconsin has a large number of Hmong refugees. It's possible that the victims used racial epithets and heated language, but it's not likely they shot first. \_ More likely, as a member of a Dem. mascot group, he feels a sense of entitlement. |
2004/11/18-22 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34971 Activity:low |
11/18 Can the owner/president of a private company hire/fire whomever he wants, for whatever reason? If so, does that include race-based reasons? \_ Yes, if there is no standing contract other than an at-will employment. There are statutes that protect for wrongful termination based on discrimination. However, if the employer (the correct term) is smart about it they will simply fire you because of lack of work and state that employment was at-will. You can bring a lawsuit against your former employer, and the usual song and dance is if an attorney finds enough merit in your case there will be an out of court settlement. If there is an employee handbook explaining the terms of employment and what is a fire-able offense then it's a bit harder. \_ no, you can't hire/fire based on race. See the Civil Rights act. That's why if you do go see a lawyer the first thing they will ask was "was it race based". If you say "no" then they probably will lose interest in talking to you. \_ Yes, but if the reason is race/gender/religion you can't say that's the reason why, unless you want to get suuuued. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pubarticles/Employment/at_will.html \_ Get a cat \- I dont know a tremendous about employment law, but I believe there are two factors to consider: 1. who is covered and 2. what is the standard. 1. re: "who is covered" obviously a public sector employer or subcontractor is prohibited. But today probably almost all employers will be covered ... this is the famous (ab)user of the interstate commer clause to give the federal govt jurisdiction in these matters. A famous quote talks about how the "ICC lets the fed govt regulate an elevator operator's job in kansas city" [elevator -> cant move like say trucking or bread production]. so by default you are probably covered. some exception are things like religious organization ... ostenisbly a hindu temple can prefer to hire hindu for a number of positions. even a sole proprietorship like a bar is probably covered [alcohol license] ... but i am not sure if all very small commercial enterprises are covered [you run a home business and hire somebody to stuff envelopes]. 2. using racial or relig [or the other categories mentioned on the expertlaw] WEEB page call the "strict scrutiny" standard, which means it needs the highest level of justification [and some more obligations]. it's easier to "discriminate" based on "must be able to life 80lbs" or "but be at least 5'6" than "no women" "no chinese" etc. this applies to more than employment relationships ... it's been argued about for laws [e.g. a case where the drinking age was lower for women], education, club memberships etc. this expasion of federalism through the ICC is one of the philosophical debates at the heart of the rightwing turn of the court. unless the new breed of republicans go totally nuts, this is more likely to be the ground the gives way than Roe v Wade. ok tnx. --psb \- BTW, for a similar dilemma see BATSON v. KENTUCKY [and its successors like Wilkerson v TX and Swain v. Alabama for context] which says you cant kick someone off of a jury because or race [i.e. a peremptory isnt really a peremptory any more] ... so now lawyers make up a reason other than race [kickng offf based on gender also not allowed but i forgot the SupCt case] to kick people off. Of course the only people who explicitly say they are doing things based on race are people looking for a fight [like the "white only" scholarship case]. --psb |
2004/11/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34879 Activity:moderate |
11/13 Scott Peterson should have hired Johnny Cochran. Then he would have been acquited based on 1) the possibility that black cops were racists and contaminated evidence to frame a white guy 2) moving the trial to a predominately uneducated, white supremacist neighborhood who feel threatened by the minorities 3) that the gloves/whatnot don't fit, and if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit. It just goes to tell you that expensive lawyers are in fact better lawyers. \_ Please explain why so many people on the motd or in the world at large seem to give a shit about this murder case. \_ I find it really puzzling also. -- ilyas \_ Are you a hoser? Do you have any idea the effect of ilyasing the motd?? \_ because the lawyers are crooks, the minority jury is dumb, and the OJ case proved just that. The fact that the case is in San Mateo a predominantly white/educated town, proved just that again. \_ The media decides you should care. They see a dramatic situation that has the right parameters for mass consumption and just run with it. \_ I guess we consume different media. I first heard about this on the motd, and only found out about media coverage by googling. Maybe it's because I don't live in the bay area anymore? \_ I refer you to the only intentionally funny line in "Traffic": "I have actually dreamed about this... about busting the top people... the rich people... you know, white people!" \- the original BBC version of TRAFFIK is much much better.--psb |
2004/11/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34862 Activity:high |
11/12 Scott Peterson found guilty of murder. \_ 1st degree for Laci, 2nd degree for their unborn son. \_ 1st degree with special circumstances, which qualifies him for the death penalty. \_ Am I the only one who thinks that there should be different standards of proof for conviction and a death sentence? I'd roughly say you need about 98% confidence to convict someone of a criminal offence (1 wrongly-convicted person for every 50 real criminals). But I think you need 100% certainty to give the death penalty, because there really is no appeal for the innocent once they're dead. I'm anti-death penalty, but not for the truly guilty, but there's the rub. \_ There *are* different standards of proof for conviction and a death sentence. -tom \- i dunno what tom is talking about but one possibly significant difference is the jurors have to be "death certified" meaning they have to be willing to entertain the death penalty. so the question is "if you weed out all the no-death penalty people from the jury pool, is the remaining group more likely to be pro- prosecution". this is the definitive book on how juries operate today: http://csua.org/u/9y0 there are certainly more appeal procedures, but i dunno if in law there is a different standard, as there is for treason. --psb \_ Really? I thought it was that the crime and special circumstances both needed no 'reasonable doubt'. \_ Not sure what you mean by there are different standards of proof for conviction and death sentence (sentencing in most cases is at the judges discretion). Anyway, CA Pen. Code only allows for death penalty in the case of 1st degree pre-meditated murder (there are other type of 1st degree murder, including felony and Taylor). The burden of proof for showing pre-meditated 1st degree murder is the same as for other crimes (beyond a reasonable doubt), but the requirements to show pre- meditation are quite high in CA (must show planning, motive, manner and can't use post killing evid. for this). Also in CA, any case in which the def. is sentenced to death MUST be reviewed by the CA S. Ct. BTW, the 2nd degree murder conviction for the unborn child makes no sense. If he pre-meditated to kill Laci, then there is no way for him to not pre-meditate the killing of the kid. The only way I can think of that the jury came up with this is that they didn't believe he had a good motive to kill the kid, even though he had planning and manner. \_ So why isn't abortion murder again? \_ Abortion is embryos that do not have higher cognitive function. An 8-month fetus is more-or-less a newborn baby. A 3-month embryo is closer to a worm, developmentaly. \_ partial birth abortion at 9 months., murder? \_ CA Penal Code Sec. 187 exempts (1) legal abortion, (2) doctor's who act in the best interests of the mother's health and (3) where the mother gives consent. The fetus has to be older than seven wks or so. \_ That's a surprise to me. I think he's guilty but I thought he was going to be acquitted by benefit of the doubt or some technicality or some nonsense. \_ cuz he's white. \_ YEAH, JUSTICE IS SERVED!! \_ OK, why wasn't it now? \_ ok, so when are the white men going to the streets of LA and start looting/protesting at the Koreans, like what happened in the Rodney King and the 4 racist LA cop case? \_ i think you're getting your race riots confused \_ whitey takes it up the ass, and there was much rejoicing. \_ There's not much to pillage in Modesto. \_ Huh? These two cases have nothing in common. Do you think that most white people think Scott Peterson was innocent? \_ Did most people think OJ was innocent? \_ What does OJ have to do with Rodney King? \_ Riots. \_ Did anyone riot after the OJ verdict? \_ Uhm, the guy you're arguing with is clearly either a troll, or fuck-stupid. I suggest leaving him be with his ill-informed commentary. \_ They would have if the verdict was guilty. \_ And you know this because...??? \_ Rodney King. Ta da! Tied it all together! \_ You are an idiot. But you probably already knew that. \_ Because you said so? Hardly. \_ You're right...you clearly don't know. Poor thing. \_ So they replaced one juros and started deliberations all over? All-in-all, how much deliberation was there? Wasn't that pretty quick? |
2004/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:34812 Activity:kinda low |
11/10 I think that Scott Peterson is guilty, but I am disturbed that the judge can just replace jurors who seem to be holdouts. What's up with that? The person was just too smart with a law and medical degree and so they get booted for a 'hang 'em high' type? I didn't realize our justice system provided for a trial by 'your peers, except for that guy and that guy'. \_ So you're surprised for some reason to find out we have shitty judges in CA? \_ When you're a shit salesman, your peers do not hold advanced degrees \_ my friend works at the same bank as the pink haired tattooed jurist. - danh \_ Radio said she has 7 tats. How do they know? \_ maybe they asked the 90 people she works with? - danh \_ Sigh. I was hoping for a more titilating answer. \_ yeah i know you were but sometimes there is a really easy explanation - danh \_ Juries are supposed to deliberate. The judge is allowed to remove jurors if they are preventing that from happening. For example, if a juror declares they are voting guity/not guilty, but declines to participate in discussions to persuade others or if one juror is preventing others from discussing elements of the case. Think debate vs. pundits yelling at each other. |
2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34808 Activity:very high 57%like:30533 |
11/11 I get the feeling the Peterson's trial is going to be like OJ Simpson all over again. If you are rich [1], you can get away with anything. \_ 3 things unique about the OJ case. 1. Johnny Cockroach and his lame glove/chubaka defense. 2. Uneducated minority jury who have sympathy for people of their own kind. 3. Uneducated jury who believe the glove/chubaka defense. \_ What the fuck are you guys talking about? I saw something about this case on http://www.cnn.com but they didn't explain the context at all either. What the fuck is the matter with this country that every news story involving, say, the secretary of defense of the U.S. tells you who everyone is in case you don't know, but for some stupid fucking celebrity trial tabloid bullshit, it's assumed everyone knows? \_ Peterson is a shit salesman. You are a knucklehead. His parents took out a loan on their house to pay his lawyers. \_ Why? He's fucking guilty. \_ why? cuz he uses a trout pole for ocean fishing? go to a pier and see what twinks fish with these days \_ Not because of what he used, but because of what he didn't use. He told police that he bought some fake bait and used it for fishing, but when the police found the bait it was still in its packaging. \_ Because they love their son and will believe anything he tells them as long as it preserves their image of him as a good boy. \_ No. The prosecutors presented a weak case. Also the police did a poor job of detective work. \_ With OJ, you had damning DNA evidence. The jury believed the defense showed reasonable doubt with a racist detective who might have planted the DNA evidence. With Peterson, there is no damning DNA evidence. \_ The OJ defence of a racist cop trying to frame him is a lot more compelling, if improbable, than the Peterson defence that the police did not look hard enough for the 'real killer'. \_ [1] Scott Peterson was a fertilizer salesman, I must be in the wrong business. |
2004/11/6-7 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34722 Activity:high |
11/5 http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1286272004 I was going to make some sort of snarky comment but I think this one speaks for itself. Headline: "Van Gogh murder backlash begins" please leave this nuked, i want to get my message across the asshole who selectively ilyaed my message. \_ go fuck yourself. some poeple are actually trying to communicate using the motd. \_ someone should've done the same to Michael Moore. -liberal \_ Perhaps you could, then you could pretend to be a mouth breathing pig ****ing bible basher. \_ MM is a big fat idiot, but your comment can only be met with something along the lines of "U SUKC TEH COCK". Sad. -John \_ C0KC [ pick a better adjective, bitch. -- ilyas ] |
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34631 Activity:nil |
11/3 So, when are the pissed off, desperate liberal extremists going to suicide bomb Ohio, Florida, and Texas? \_ Well the Unabomber was a Berkeley Liberal... \_ He spent two years in Berkeley, and hated liberals \_ Remember that it is a crime to threaten the President. \_ Who said anything about that? |
2004/10/26-27 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34366 Activity:high |
10/26 Awesome. Children's puppet show encourages massacre. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41091 \_ I love You, You love me We'll murder the Zionist Enemy... \_ that's hilarious, sad it's true.. sheesh.. \_ If your livelihood was an olive grove, maybe you'd want to shoot the people ripping it out. \_ Oh please. Did you catch the palestinians were using the trees to hide rocket launchers? \_ I knew that, but the people firing rockets from olive groves are not the same people who live/work there. The Israeli Army's distinct lack of sympathy for innocent farmers is not exactly winning them friends. \_ And how would you suggest an army deal with this situation? Ask them to stop? \_ Look, if they feel the need to destroy an olive grove for security reasons, that's OK, but you need to pay them a fair-market price if you're going to take away their means of earning a living. From what I've heard they just send in the buldozers and say 'tough shit'. \_ Did you know that if the police destroy your property while pursuing a suspect, etc. they are not liable for damages? Sounds like you don't know much about established law. \_ From what you've heard? Still reading dailykos? Or is that the PLO website? \_ Wow, the governments on your planet must be really fucking cool. Could you kindly cite an actual example of any existing government compensating individuals (in this case non-citizens!) for property destroyed/seized for security reasons within a reasonable timeframe following the destruction/seizure? \_ The US Army routinely reimburses non-citizens for property damage incurred during training. I know this for a fact, since I saw it happen in Panama. -Vet \_ I am unaware of any police department deciding they are in the business of punishing people, that is a matter for our correctional system. \_ If the army flattened your house while persuing terrorists in this country, you would probably be reimbursed but it isn't guaranteed. If your property was being used to hide weapons and you didn't report it and the military destroyed your house, tough shit. \_ Actually, you probably wouldn't be reimbursed, even in the case where you were just an innocent bystander. \_ There's no need to speak hypothetically here. One word: Waco. \_ But they were religious nutters so they don't have any rights. Just because Reno could have had Koresh picked up in town when he made shopping trips, usually alone, twice a week. \_ yea, easy for you to say. report it, and the next day, you will be killed by those bastards for "collaborating with the enemy". |
2004/10/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34228 Activity:kinda low |
10/19 Turn off any TV! (I want one) http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65392,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5 \_ Best...invention...ever. I wonder if this would banish the omnipresent FoxNews TVs they have at most US airports now. [why was this censored, exactly?] \_ Probably. I want one. That rocks. -John \_ Never confuse censorship with carelessness. \_ Because THE MAN wants yout to watch FOX News!!1!11 \_ I understand their logic. Fox is the most popular 24 hour news channel. Give the people what they want. However, that doesn't mean that I need other people's bad taste shoved down my throat while I'm waiting for an airplane. Note that by 'bad taste," I do not mean this in a partisan sense. There are plenty of great conservative media outlets. However, television news is a cesspool and Fox is the worst of a bad lot - with the possible exception of local TV news, which often makes Fox look like quality journalism. \_ I don't care about the video, it's the audio that drives me nuts. They should do the same thing they do on the plane: hand out headseats for those who want audio, and everyone else gets silence. \_ Sit down among the TVs with Noam Chomsky on a boombox. \_ WHY DO YOU HATE HEARING ABOUT JENNIFER LOPEZ AND LACI PETERSON OVER AND OVER AT TOP VOLUME? \_ BECAUSE I HATE AMERICA!!!! \_ Very cool. Note that if they catching you using one of these in a bar in New York or Boston tonight, they will kill you. |
2004/10/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34008 Activity:high |
10/9 Conservatives control the House, the Senate, the President, and two Supreme Court Justices. How do they still manage to come off as the victims of some huge liberal media conspiracy? \_ The control of the media by foreign liberal elements is well documented. http://csua.org/u/9eg \_ In case you didn't notice, members of the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court neither write newspaper articles, nor do they read the network news on the air every night. \_ OP knows. He's just a troll. \_ A little piece of news for you - most Congressional Republicans are not conservative. The conservatives embody a relatively small minority of the Congressional Republicans. \_ So true. Most Congressional Republicans are part of the New World Order Illuminati/Masonic conspiracy to kill our unborn children, take away our guns and sell us into bondage to the UN. |
2004/9/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33779 Activity:low |
9/27 Republicans try to steal Florida again: http://csua.org/u/986 (law blog) \_ There was no attempt in the first place. Learn your facts. Though many people were incorrectly on the felon list, more felons who should have been on the list were not. Blacks and whites alike. Nice troll though. |
2004/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33675 Activity:high |
9/21 Don't get Tim Noah mad at you. http://slate.msn.com/id/2107041 \_ it's pretty amazing how quickly the dittohead machine gets the public discourse away from the core issues. (See below discussion) -tom \_ ^Tim Noah^Geddes \_ Both. Is public examination of your life worse than getting fired? \_ http://csua.org/u/90k (original source article) If you think the right to privacy exceeds the newsworthiness, then more power to you. \_ Yep, I know. Just make sure you don't get Tim Noah mad at you, or he'd drag your life out in electronic print. \_ I'm struggling to find the newsworthiness in Tim Noah's expose of Geddes' life. \_ The "expose of Geddes' life" seems to be restricted to his political beliefs in direct relation to why he fired the lady. Again, if you think the right to privacy exceeds the newsworthiness, then more power to you. \_ Yes, I am sure Geddes' work as a standing trustee has much to do with the firing. And certainly the examination on how he got the standing trustee job has much to do with the firing. In fact, the whole point of the article seems to be that there's no news here. \_ Okay, that part is outside the firing. As for "no news here", it was news to me -- thanks for the URL. \_ Just eyeballing it, but that part is probably 2/3 of the article. Like I said, don't get Noah mad at you. \_ IMO, an employer firing someone for having a Kerry bumper sticker is something one can get legitimately mad about. \_ Sure, get mad. But publish an "expose" of Geddes as a standing trustee? This is just Noah flexing his power to punish Geddes. \_ I believe you were the person who used the term "expose". IMO, the publicity is deserved. BTW, do you know you overwrite posts? \_ Sorry if I overwrote your post, though I did try to merge in my changes. To be honest, with all the automerging that is going on, it's hard to tell who's overwriting whom in conversations like this. \_ We place different value on privacy then. If you care about your privacy, don't get Noah mad at you, because he has a mouthpiece, and he's going to use it to punish you. \_ The publicity is deserved, IMO. \_ I think we can all agree that Geddes is a jerk. So you think it's ok to talk about his other work as a standing trustee, even though it has nothing to do with the firing. What else would be ok to talk about? Can Noah publish his past traffic violations? Any other criminal record of Geddes'? How about what books he borrowed from the library? Or what tapes he rented from the video store? Or where he web surfed? Do you have a privacy threshold? \_ I believe I already wrote that this was outside the firing, and I won't spend time defending that. This is where you say "no news here", and this is where I say, "thanks for the URL, anyway." \_ Ah. I thought you were also the guy who said the publicity is deserved, and I was responding to that. Hard to tell on the motd. \_ I'm the same guy. Basically I'm for publicity on the firing, but I'm not sure about publicity on his trusteeship. The latter is much more arguable. \_ Ah, then we agree then. I also have no trouble with publicizing the firing, but I find the bulk of the Noah article disturbing. I don't find it disturbing. If you _/ Do something political and newsworthy then media will analyze you for juicy tidbits in search of a story. Noah here got a story: that this guy profits from people having economic troubles. \_ Tough shit. This is politics. This is how the world works. If you act like an ass, you might have someone act like an ass back to you. This is why we have a free press. \_ So every facet of Geddes' life is open to inspection? Or is there a privacy threshold? |
2004/9/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33579 Activity:insanely high |
9/16 Captain Yee given an HONORABLE DISCHARGE. \_ And his commander thanked him for all the muslim p0rn he brought to the military. \_ Do you even know who Yu is? \_ I think the OP is talking about Captain YEE, who was the Muslim chaplain at Gitmo who was charged with espionage. The case was dropped and it looks kind of like a Wen Ho Lee repeat. \_ wen ho actually misplaced classified documents. i think he was acting weirdly and stupidly but didn't deserve solitary for a year \_ Yeah, but they made a big case about how he was spying for the Chinese, and when it turned out they were totally wrong, they charged him for the only minor thing they could get him on. Oh, and before someone says "misplacing classified information isn't minor" I'll admit it's important, but it's a crime lacking in criminal intent. \_ Dropping charges for national security reasons which happens all the time is not the same as him not being a spy for the Chinese. \_ what was he doing then? it's just odd that he deliberately stored all that stuff on some of disk media, then some how lost it. was he just looking for another job? \_ what's so odd about it? some people are careless or absent-minded. einstein even forgot where his home in princeton was. \_ i bet when you work for a NUCLEAR LAB you get trained to not do the above. what do you think? \_ I bet you always follow every one of your employer's regulations to the letter. \_ You haven't been in one of the labs. If you had you wouldn't be so flip about it. \_ If I worked in a government NUCLEAR LAB, I would follow the "don't copy random secret shit to floppy disks and leave them lying around at Starbucks please IF IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TROUBLE" employee worksheet \_ Yeah I know, but wasn't he charged with adultery and storing p0rn on army computers? \_ And those charges were dropped this week and he's being given an honorable discharge. \_ Yeah, after the treason and espionage case was shown to be a crock of shit. \_ Not true. \_ Oh, really? They why did they never determine he passed any classified information? Why did they drop the charges? To drop a serious national security case and then press on with some minor unrelated stuff seems like major ass-covering by the people prosecuting him. \_ Would you care to elaborate? \_ I believe that person thinks Yee did mishandle classified documents. The Army said national security concerns prevented them from seeking a court-martial in open court. \_ An honorable discharge in this sort of situation is practically an apology (as close as he'll ever see). The pp is flat out wrong. \_ Which is a BS excuse, because they could use lawyers with security clearances, have the evidence sealed, and have a closed courtroom. In other words, use the same system they're planning on using on the Gitmo prisoners. |
2004/9/15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33545 Activity:very high |
9/15 Emmanuel Goldstein at the RNC: http://www.2600.com/rnc2004 \_ Yeah! Civil disobedience! What? You mean I might get arrested for breaking the law?!? NO FAIR MAN! \_ No, you get arrested for not breaking the law. Do you seriously support jailing people for their political beliefs? \_ No, I support people being arrested for breaking the law though. I just pointing out that it's really amusing how protesters always seem to think that civil disobediance should be legal. I'm not saying that that's what everyone in New York was doing, but it's obvious even from this report that a lot of "civil disobediance" was going on. \_ Goldstein was not breaking any laws. Did you read the link? \_ What site did you read? It sounds to me like a whole bunch of people just got rounded up on the street and arrested for no reason. Certainly *some* of them were breaking the law, but to just arrest everyone when most are being peaceful and law-abiding is political repression, plain and simple. \_ Well, we're only getting one side of the story. If the NYPD arrested people without charging them, then that's a tort case for illegal imprisonment. One would have to read the charges to get a clearer picture. I wonder what the total number of protestors was, the percentage arrested was probably very small. \_ So you don't see anything vaguely... oppressive about mass roundups and incarceration of people in order to arrest a few scattered people? \_ Interesting, you assume that one side of the story is valid without having heard the other. Since neither you nor I (and please correct me if I'm wrong) have all the facts pertaining to the incident you presuppose that mass oppression has occurred. I suppose it depends on your definition of oppression. If incarceration is simply oppression then all people incarcerated, whether guilty or not, are oppressed. Being detained can definitely be viewed as a type of oppression. However, if you are trying to infer from that that we are living in an oppressive society then I believe that your argument is rather weak. Sure, there is oppression in the criminal justice system. I'm not quite sure how you could have it any other way. At least we don't guillotine people on the spot and afford them the right to due process and a right to seek damages through torts from the government. \_ You may wish to consult Amendment I, regarding "freedom of assembly." [restored] \_ Yer gonna need a permit for that. -troll \_ nah, it didn't happen to supporters of the President so no one cares. There were no terrorist incidents, either, so it must have been a good policy. Be proud of NY City's finest! -troll \_ This happens all the time in SF. Last time it did, The City had to pay out $10k to each person illegally incarcerated. I expect NYC to end up doing the same thing. Municipalities probably consider it money well spent. I consider it a violation of civil liberties. |
2004/9/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:33377 Activity:very high |
9/6 Argument broke out among Chechens in Beslan raid: "Umar Sikoyev, a lawyer for a captured militant identified as Nur-Pashi Kulayev, said the band's leader did not tell them what their mission was and that after the seizure a fierce argument broke out in the band, with several objecting that taking children hostage was wrong. The raid's commander shot the dissidents' leader to death and then detonated the suicide belts worn by two women raiders by remote control to establish order in the band, Sikoyev told The Associated Press." Note to dissident hostage-takers: (1) Shoot hellspawn leader first, ask questions later. (2) Don't wear suicide belt remote-controlled by evil leader. \_ This is a pretty normal set of rules for any military situation. For example, if manning a base the Americans have just promised (we give warning usually) to drop a MOAB on, and your leader says "Stay at your posts," Shoot leader, THEN run. Not vice-versa. \_ I think this has been SOP since the German Kommisars started shooting deserters at Stalingrad. \_ These are not smart people. \_ As the old Dennis Miller might have put it, "First clue? suicide belts as haute couture. I mean, come on, people, those things are so 1999." \_ wow ... people are actually quoting Dennis Miller these days. \_ *Old* Dennis Miller. Pre-brainwashing. \_ I thought there are rules in the US military that says a leader cannot order his troops to do suicidal missions. \_ That's probably in the rules. In fact, in general, it's ok, if it serves some greater purpose. However, at least in the MOAB case, it's a totally worthless gesture, and really stupid order. |
2004/9/6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Recreation/Dating] UID:33368 Activity:low |
9/6 http://p2pnet.net/story/2356 Why all those Chinese guys come to Berkeley for CS. \_ There are elements of our government that would love to do the same thing here, and I'm pretty sure from some of the posts here that there are some csua americans who would be more than happy to help them do it. \_ And of course, the most insightful reply in the thread following: "If we stop looking at internet porn, the terrorists win. Is that what you want? Huh? I didn't think so." |
2004/9/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33363 Activity:very high |
9/5 They Knifed Babies, They Raped Girls It should be pointed out that Beslan is a small Christian enclave among a Muslim population. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1208007/posts \_ And the Russians raped and killed Chechens, a small Muslim enclave ruled by a Christian population. Right? \_ No, the Russians didn't rape anyone. Killing is what happens in war. \_ Well, the Russians have never been famous for their | kinder, gentler military. (Well, unlesss you're | comparing to the imperialist Japanese) But they probably | weren't so systematic about it. Sigh. Do I really have to dig up links? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2618021.stm http://www.torturecare.org.uk/news/newsRelease04-15-04.php http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,820261,00.html Russian rapes are widely reported, although often without direct proof, but do we have direct proof of this "They Raped Girls" allegation? \_ I don't ever recall the Russians taking a school and shooting 200 children in the back, do you? \_ Maybe, but they blew up entire villages and so forth. Why split hairs? Fact is the Russians have no justification for being there. It's left over from old Russian imperialism. If the Russians wipe out a village it's fine, but some terrorists take over a school it's unthinkable brutality. \_ Look, no one disputes that what the hostage-takers did at the school was dispicable. I think what the pp is trying to point out, though, is that they didn't do it just because they were bored and felt like being evil. To prevent this sort of thing from happening again, you need to understand why it happened in the first place. If you adopt the "all Muslims are evil" posture of these freeper idiots, then there is no hope. \_ It happened because some people *are* evil. This was it. No one said all muslims are evil. To prevent this sort of thing from happening again, you need to understand that some people *are* evil, they mut be found, they must be killed before they commit more acts of evil. You're strawmanning with the all muslims are evil line. \_ "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Alexander Solzhenitsyn \_ Hey, I hear ya. There are people who are just born evil, and there's nothing you can do about it. But I don't think comparing these guys to Son-of-Sam/Zodiac Killer types is entirely correct. Some people are born evil, some people aspire to evilness, and some people have evilness thrust upon them. In which group are these guys? As for "all Muslims are evil", did you read the entire text of the link you posted?: "And to anyone who is appalled at the prospect of killing "innocent" Chechens, these scum didn't grow up in a vacuum. They were raised to be fiends by other fiends. It's us or them." "If the muslims will not police their own, make Mecca Melt." If you want, I can pull even more egregious examples out the freeper bunghole. \_ Woah! You mean people sometimes post stupid crap on Internet message boards? No Way! \_ Dude, don't be fatuous. You posted a freeper link, and I made a comment on the content of that link. You then accused me ok creating a strawman argument, and I then posted evidence that I was responding to statements in the link you posted, and now I am somehow to blame for you posting a dumb-ass freeper link? Sheesh. \_ A) I'm not the same guy. B) Perhaps he was trying to link to the article, not to what a bunch of freepers SAID about the article. \_ watch how easy it is to link to the article without linking to freeper noise: http://csua.org/u/8xo [mirror.co.uk] that took me all of about 10 seconds. \_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com \_ It is not surprising that this attack happened in Beslan and not elsewhere. There have been always attacks on Ossetia throughout 90s and 2000s but most didn't seem to be worthy of coverage to the western media (those were mostly explosions on the markers, etc). It is quite possible that this time the terrorists were intending to instigate ethnic strife in all of Northern Caucasus. Many Ossets are already talking about revenge on the Chechen and Ingush peoples living in their republic. Beslan is the third largest city of the autonomous republic of Northern Ossetia. Here are some facts that put Ossets at odds with the Chechens: 1. Ossets are predominantly Christian (although there is a small muslim minority among Ossets, mostly living around the town called Digora). 2. Ossets are probably the most pro-Russian people on the Northern Caucasus. While they are very proud of their Ossetic identity, they are also very proud to have been part of USSR and now Russia. (BTW, they are also very proud of the well-known fact that Stalin's true father was an Ossetian from South Ossetian part of Georgia). In addition Russians seem to favor Ossets in their territorial conflicts with the neighboring Ingushetia and Georgia. 3. In the early 90s, Ossets have been involved in a short lived but very violent territorial conflict with the neighboring republic of Ingushetia. Ingush were demanding the return of the territories that were taken away from them by Stalin after WW2 for sympathizing with Germans. During the conflict Ossets succeeded in ethnically cleansing their territories from the Ingush who have moved in after they were rehabilitated after Stalin's death. Nothing has been done to solve this conflict since then and both sides consider themselves as victims. It is important to note that the Ingush are ethnically very closely related to Chechens. (they have similar languages, customs, etc) \_ short recent article on the ossentians in The Exile http://www.exile.ru/2004-August-19/war_nerd.html - danh \_ Thanks, that was among the most informative posts I've read on the MOTD. Like information I would expect to find on, gasp, http://freerepublic.com \_ The signal to noise ratio is much higher in places like the Journal of Foreign Affairs. |
2004/9/3 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33339 Activity:nil |
9/3 Man walks in Denver with Rocket Launcher: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3703268/detail.html \_ Right to bear arms! \_ Right to arm bears! \_ The police TOOK them? Why didn't they just ask him to wrap them up or something? \_ This really winds me up. I mean, I'm all about banning assault weapons, etc. but to take these relics is just plain abuse of power. I hope he sues. \_ Well, strictly speaking, they're probably still property of the army, not that they'd miss them. \_ While I can support the right to own fake/uselss versions of extremely powerful weapons, do you honestly think they should have let him walk around in public with them in plain sight? \_ Of course not. He should be made to cover them up. Taking them is an overreaction. \_ Well, transporting them as he did may constitute a crime. Taking them from him, may be an overreaction, but it's hardly a travesty of justice. If he comes to the police station with a proper means to transport them and they don't want to charge him with recieving stolen property, then I see no reason not to give them back. \_ If they think he's guilty of a crime, they should say so. They said they took them so as not to panic the other citizens. Call it like it is, or don't do it. \_ Man walks in Denver with used, useless rocket launcher. \_ disposable rocket launchers? Is it really better/cheaper? \_ I doubt it's cheaper, but you do avoid the issue of cleaning servicing and reloading in the field. Plus you are no longer required to make different warheads conform to a standardized launcher. \_ I don't know, but it would probably really suck to have your rocket launcher jam. |
2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33243 Activity:kinda low |
8/30 All right, I googled for the "$8 million" to re-sod Central Park, but I didn't find anything. Please help. \_ jesus fucking christ, youy're a dumbass. second link from google: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/224945p-193242c.html They say 18 million. whatever. \_ What's your problem? I asked nicely. \_ ok, sorry. nothing personal, i just hate everyone. \_ 100,000 protestors... 100,000 America-hating liberals, all in one convenient location, in a major landmark of a city known to be a terrorist target. What a waste of opportunity! \_ This joke telegraphed itself about a mile ahead. I was waiting looking at my watch for this sad mule to finally pull into the freaking station and ring the bell, already. --acs \_ Sorry. Wasn't feeling very sassy today. |
2004/8/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33210 Activity:kinda low |
8/29 The man of the East cannot take Americans seriously because they have never undergone the experiences that teach men how relative their judgement and thinking habits are. Their resultant lack of imagination is appalling. \_ Excuse me, but WTF? \_ Just an out-of-context quote. \_ W00t! \_ Europeans? \_ Because they were born and raised in a given social order and in a given system of values, they believe that any other order must be "unnatural", and that it cannot last because it is incompatible with human nature. But even they may one day know fire, hunger, and sword. \_ THEY CALL HIM JUDGE, HIS LAST NAME IS DRED SO BREAK THE LAW AND YOU'LL WIND UP DEAD! TRUTH AND JUSTICE IS WHAT HE'S FIGHTING FOR JUDGE DRED THE MAN, HE IS THE LAWWWWWWWWWW!!! \_ In all probability this is what will occur; for it is hard to believe that when one half of the world is living through terrible disasters, the other half can continue a nineteenth-century mode of life, learning about the distress of its distant fellowmen only from movies and newspapers. Recent examples teach us that this cannot be. \_ RESPECT THE BADGE! HE EARNED IT WITH HIS BLOOD! FEAR THE GUN! YOUR SENTENCE MAY BE DEATH BECAUSE I AM THE LAW!!!!! |
2004/8/25 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33130 Activity:high |
8/25 ilyas, what does your advisor, Judea Pearl have to say about his son, Daniel Pearl? \_ Do I know you? -- ilyas \_ Troll alert! Troll alert! \_ Why do you hate ilyas? \_ I don't hate ilyas. I feel pity for ilyas. \_ Do I know you? -- ilyas \_ http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003095 \_ what is it with this same religion/ethnicity advisor/student relationship here? Like, Chinese professors have mostly Chinese students, Iranian (ah ehm, PERSIAN) profs have Iranian students, etc etc. \_ what is it you find surprising about this? |
2004/8/24 [Recreation/Activities, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33103 Activity:very high |
8/24 Anyone watched men's gymnastics last night? During the booing for Alexei Nemov, I think I saw American spectators booing for him also. That was cool. \_ What happened? \_ http://csua.org/u/8qn (si.com) \_ Also http://csua.org/u/8qm (Yahoo! Sports) \_ well...they should. I was sitting on my couch booing for him. \_ yeah, that was really cool. Finally, the judges got judged, and humiliated. \_ What's more cool is that some of us are willing to set national pride aside and boo for our rival. pride aside and boo for our rival. Nemov asking the crowd to calm down was also a class act. \_ It was cool and yet uncool. The whole thing is bullshit. They still ranked him fifth based, as far as I can tell, almost entirely on the step he took on the landing. While Hamm also took a step (a smaller one, but still), plus Hamm's routine appeared less difficult and was shorter. All the sports with this judge system inevitably run into this crap, pretty much in every event the TV commentators question some scores. As a spectator it's just frustrating not having a public rationale for a score. The rings event where the Greek guy won over the Bulgarian looked pretty suspicious to me also. \_ I can understand why the two guys before and after Hamm either tied him or scored below. Olympics gymnastics are judged by classical moves. Crowd-pleasing stunts are hard to judge if no one else does them. Judges are looking for demonstrated control and form along with strength, and what better way than with classical moves? The two judges that changed their scores are tards. |
2004/8/20-21 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33049 Activity:nil |
8/20 Shit. This is exactly what precipitated Chicago '68. Now all we need is a few overzealous cops and a few overzealous protesters: http://csua.org/u/8p0 (yahoo! news link) |
2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:32866 Activity:very high |
8/12 Cringely has a short, excellent, non-techie article up. http://www.pbs.org/cgi-registry/cringely/thisweek.pl?pulpit \_ Key phrase: "My view is that they went ahead because they were more interested in punishment than deterrence." I agree. I am more interested in punishment than deterrence, also. What about you? Would you let a known criminal off the hook if it would prevent crime? I wouldn't. -- ilyas \_ obWhyDoYouHateAmerica? \_ My question is, What kind of punishment did the study recommend for poor people in the ghetto? \_ Err, hopefully it would have only been those that had committed a crime first that were punished, but then again this is the motd... \_ Excellent? It's a rambling mess. \_ All of Cringely's columns are about the same thing: What a clever little monkey I am. After reading the article do you actually understand anything new? There are a bunch of assertions made, he mentions he knowns one of the principles, he has his little twist at the end ... but is there a cite or link to the brilliant article? Is the thesis actually explained [the thesis isnt "the govt is wrong" but should explain the deterrence failure]. Cringely is a guy who doesnt understand social science, economics and politics writing for people who dont understand social science, economics or politics. \_ Key phrase: "My view is that they went ahead because they were more interested in punishment than deterrence." I agree. I am more interested in punishment than deterrence, also. What about you? Would you let a known criminal off the hook if it would prevent crime? I wouldn't. -- ilyas |
2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32843 Activity:nil |
8/11 Is George W. Bush a satanic mass-murderer? http://csua.org/u/8k8 |
2004/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:32628 Activity:insanely high |
8/2 Someone posted a few days ago: "Too bad 58% of the people don't know that the economy would collapse if the deficit was zero." I happen to be among the 58%. Can you please elaborate? Thx. \_ The trade deficit or the budget deficit? \_ I think it was the budget deficit. \_ I think the OP of the quote meant the debt and not the deficit. If it was the deficit then OP is truly ignorant because there have been budget surpluses in the past. However, there has always been a national debt. If we were to pay off that debt (which stands at $7 Trillion currently) there may be certain financial repercussions that economists aren't sure about. Greenspan commented on this briefly a couple years ago when there was overly optimistic talks about paying off the national debt within our lifetimes based on extrapolating from the surpluses we were getting from dot-com mania. \_ Someone's an idiot? \_ I seem to remember some discussion of financial chaos if the US government bond market disappeared. \_ US Bond market stops selling, Asian investors (and governments) stop buying. They stop buying, they stop selling their own currencies to buy dollars. That happens, the dollar starts to deppreciate VS. the Yen and Yuan. That happens, and asian goods becmore more expensive in the US, then asian exports start to decline, which is a big part of their economy. \_ US governemnt bond is the classic risk-free investment, and some people like to invest in them. Also, aren't lots of things tied to the price of a t-bill? \_ Even if the government wasn't selling bonds, there'd still be a t-bill market. The thing is prices would go up while interest rates would go down. \_ yea, but asia is becoming a big market itself, and asian domestic consumption is rising fast in relative importance. japan's economy was pulled out of its 10-year recession by by china, for instance. \_ Are there notable economies that regularly run a budgetary surplus? Probably some of the oil states, Norway for example. \_ China does not seem to have a trade deficit, and it's economy does not seem to be collapsing. We had a budget surplus a few years back and the economy was doing hell a lot better than it is today. \_ Historically, we run a budgetary deficiet, and budgetary surpluses are by far the exception. And when we were running the surplus, there was confusion among some financial people re US governement bond market. \_ Those who spread these kind of lies are republicans profiting from the war, the oil, and everything else at the expense of the middle class. \_ We need partha for the definitive answer. \_ The way I see it, it is similar to managing a household. If you manage your household, then you will try not to run into budget deficit, because you know if you borrow money, you have to pay it back with interest. Now why does the government runs a budget deficit most of the time? It's simple, because those who spend the money are not responsible for paying it back. Think about it this way, if your household will be run by someone else 4 years later, you might not hesitate to overspend, especially buying expensive stuff from a store you own down the street. Most households are more responsible about money because they have to pay back whatever they spent. The government does not. It depends on how corrupt they are. The democrats want to spend the money on public infrastructure, on job creation, on welfare (not everything I agree with). The republican wants to spend money on defense (the big surplus we had, geez, what can we do with all these money, how do I get it into my pockets), and for that, they need to create enemies and wage wars around the world. \_ spending billions on missile defense systems that don't work isn't defense, it's welfare. \_ Don't forget other corporate welfare like crop subsidies, ethanol programs, and tax cuts for 'job training' that amounts to operating the cash register at Walmart. \_ I figured I'd just post the most obviously fraudulent... Now watch as the motd neocons try to explain to us why deploying a system which was shown not to work makes sense, even without further testing. \_ Republicans also 'spend' surplusses by giving tax cuts, then scream bloody murder when you try to raise taxes to cover the defecit. \_ BTW, what was the last time the national debt was 0? \_ I am so happy no one is using such facts to lobby for deficits. |
2004/7/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:32435 Activity:very high |
7/22 So, the thread got deleted, but I am curious what the people who thought the fascism essay was well-informed and informative thought about the author classifying militant anarchists/libertarians as a proto-fascist movement? No one ever commented on that. It was a really dumb thing to write. \_ That is not what he said at all. He stated that they have political alliances with some extreme right wing groups and sometimes exchange ideas. I think that is correct. Where do you think these "income tax is unconstitutional" types get their thread of argument from? Certainly not from the usual trailer trash White Patriot guy. \_ Yeah, must be a right wing conspiracy feeding them these arguments. \_ All right I checked and he lump them in with the \_ All right I checked and he lumps them in with the "xenophobic right" which is kind of bizarre. But they certainly deserve some of the credit for making the Rush Limbaugh anti-government screed more respectable. Why does it have to be a "conspiracy"? They all go to the same gun shows, maybe they realy do listen to each others arguments. What is so nutty about? really do listen to each others arguments. What is so nutty about that? \_ Wait, are you saying 'going to gun shows' is a stain on one's character and intellectual integrity? Dude. People go to gun shows. You know, to buy guns, and look at pretty old rifles. You are a loon. \_ No, I didn't say that, you inferred it. I am a loon because I know that both libertarian types and anti-government tax freedom nutters go to gun shows? How do you think that I know that? I sure as hell didn't find it out reading Salon. \_ What sort of idiot is in favor of more government? All intelligent people are anti-government. It's a huge beaurocracy of the mediocre and uncaring. How can anyone be in favor of that?? \_ Lots of sorts of idiots, I'd wager. I am personally for better government and more government where I I am pretty sure it would do better than private enterprise, like the health care system, to start with. Lots of idiots want better schools, roads, more rapid transit, better fire systems, hospitals, mental health care, etc. \_ It never ceases to amaze me how people still believe government control of any business (like Healthcare) is ultimately better. \_ There are plenty of studies that show that countries with socialized medicine have much better price/performance ratios on healthcare. http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002173.html \_ I don't want better price/performance health care ratios. I want the best health care. Period. Of course a government run HC facility will have better *ratios*! You can't get the newest medical techniques and equipment! So you die but it saves a lot of money. Brilliant! \_ you can't afford the best healthcare period. if you don't want to die, try exercising and eating right, and not becoming a fat pig. prevention health care has good price / performance ratio. fancy equipment just prolong your miserable suffering. \_ National Health in the UK is a catastrophe-- it swallows insane amounts of money without delivering much. Same with Germany. France and Sweden have obscene income tax rates to support their habits. Lots of Euro countries also have massive public pressure to put hospitals in the furthest corners of nowhere. It's not as obvious as it seems. -John \_ People I know in France and England feel differently. They praise socialized medicine. Also, speaking of Sweden, I find it very interesting that on basically every study related to health care, standard of living, freedom of expression, happiness, social tolerance, and other quality of life issues, Sweden consitently ranks near the top and usually higher than the US. -!op \_ I have several friends in the UK, and they moved to private healthcare the moment they could afford it. French regional health- care is high quality, but in cities it is a calamity. As for Sweden, "quality" perceptions are also largely a factor of how much aid you receive. Students will love it, most upwardly mobile individuals I know from there try to move out. Not to mention Norway, with similar services, but one of the world's higher suicide rates... -John \_ This actually fits right in with yesterday's bureaucracy discussion. Bureaucracies, by nature, must impose rules over the whole system. Any rule they put in place, immediately changes the ecomomics of the medicine. Suddenly it's not "pleaseing the customer," it's "applying the rules directly so I won't get sued," or, even more commonly "gaming the system so I make more money." Such rules obviously stifle innovation and research. For any given problem, a lot of little groups will solve the problem faster than one huge bureaucracy grinding through it with trial and error. Try a throught experiment. Make up some law that would probably be passed about new medicines. Then figure out what that would cause in the market place. I defy you to come up with a possiable law that wouldn't screw everything and ultimately result in either the end of most medical research or massive corruption, or both. \_ I spent most of last night in the ER of an American private hospital, and I just want to say a big "fuck you" to anyone who thinks the US system is anything but fucking barbaric. I'm not arguing for a european system or any other particular system, I'm just saying that if anyone here doesn't think our system is 100% broken they can go fuck themselves. \_ This is the result of HMOs fucking everything up. Our health care system has already been destroyed. We're arguing about bringing it back to the way it used to be instead of going even further towards the failed socialist model. \_ You're right. The problem is right now we've got a kind of half and half system. It's sorta private, but it has a number of bureaucracies (HMOs, Medicaide) that act like little socialized Healthcare systems. Lawyers, Liberals, and insuracemen have been pushing in this direction for a long time, and it's screwed us up. What I don't is understand why so many people think the solution to the problem is MORE socialization. "Socialism didn't work, obviously it wasn't enough! We need communism!" Huh? \_ Compare and contrast the Canadian model with the American model. The Canadians pay less and get more, no matter how you slice it. They live longer, healthier lives, with less infant mortality and better health outcomes. And they pay much less than US patients, both in overall dollars and as a percentage of GDP. Yet you refuse to even consider that this might be because their socialist system is superior in this area. Faith based economics, anyone? \_ Socialism makes baby Jesus cry. \_ How did these words get in my mouth? _I_ didn't put them there... OH! you did! I'm sure it's better in that area. Never said it wasn't. But I think you're leaving out a lot of variables and important factors. For example, how much medical R&D is done by Canadian compaines? How many Canadian crack fiends are there per capita? What's the average wait for important care? etc. \_ Fewer crack fiends, more beaver junkies. \_ Which words did I put in your mouth? "Socialism didn't work..." But you said that! OH! I have studied where money is spent in health care, in both countries. In niether one do crack babies count for even 1/10 of 1 percent. In the US 50 percent of lifetime spending occurs in the last three months of life. \_ It's interesting how people who are in favor of open source and the whole "lots of eyes" concept to solve problems are so often in favor of big government one-stop-fits-all 'solutions' to real world problems. I don't get it. I guess it really comes down to they want free stuff, and don't really believe the rest of the open source philosophy. \_ I don't know about this private or public thing. One thing I know is that health insurance should all have higher deductibles and have the customer pay a percentage of the charges up to a significant limit. I see too many colleagues abuse health insurance by visiting doctors, chiropractors day in and day out for very minor conditions, and their doctors are happy to comply. American natives are especially good at bilking the system like this. They also eat like pigs and don't exercise, increasing health insurance costs for everyone. Just look at Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney, both too fat! Health INSURANCE should be an INSURANCE, not free healthcare! |
2004/7/12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:32225 Activity:high 71%like:32223 |
7/11 Illegal Aliens are Boosting for Billions, 60 Minutes http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/60minutes/main601396.shtml \_ It's Romanian gangs in Europe--they also do a lot of organized burglary, ramming (steal a car, ram a jewelery shop window), and stealing ATMs (attach to the back of a pickup truck, rip it from the walls. -John \_ Romanian or Romany? \_ Romanian. The Roma mainly specialize in pickpocketing. \_ Doing the jobs Americans won't do... \_ So instead of paying a fair wage you build your economy on the under paid backs of illegal labor? Oh, that's so liberal minded of you. Thanks for being such the humanitarian. Maybe we can export our slave labor policy to other nations in an effort to spread our form of human rights? \_ Bub, if you're gonna bitch, you should read the link first. \_ Americans will do any job if the price is right. \_ except for manually working a farm. it has that stigma, y'all know. \_ Are you kidding? Having sex with people for money has a stigma, but farming? Do you just mean the stereotype that farmers are 'dumb'? Dude, I d farm if the salary was good. It's much better than rotting in a cubicle. -- ilyas \_ No, they'd do that too if the work-reward ratio and conditions were improved. There is a stigma, but there's also a sort of romanticism about agriculture that I think would appeal to some people if there was any dignity to the job. \_ Winery employees have no problem working alongside the Latino laborers. I've done it myself at harvest. Lots of people like to garden, which is basically the same thing. If the salary was higher more people would do it. I'll tend sheep for $100K/year. \_ Alot of americans would do it for a third of that. \_ As long as we deny immigrants the chance to organize, a lot of people in America will end up doing it for 1/20th of that. |
2004/7/11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32223 Activity:high 71%like:32225 |
7/11 Illegal Aliens are Boosting for Billions, 60 Minutes http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169423/posts \_ dude can't you find another place other than freerepublic? i'd take you more seriously. \_ it's all 60 Minutes stuff \_ So find some other place that has the article. Seeing 500 nutjobs froth themselves in the comments is just sad. |
12/25 |