+ Reply to Thread
Page 130 of 130 FirstFirst ... 30 80 120 127 128 129 130
Results 3,226 to 3,243 of 3243
  1. #3226
    Do not vex me mortal Hitman23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Long Island

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jlw1980 View Post
    So GC is a troll but you accept kudos from that guy (who obviously didn't read or just ignored the responses to that post)?
    Yes and yes.
    If fascism comes to America, it will come under the guise of anti-fascism.

    NYYFans Fantasy Baseball - Evil Empire

  2. #3227

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Nah, it pretty much does say that. It says they entirely dismantled that office, then restored it grudgingly with little to no signs of life.

    You're right, maximizing deaths is not always the point. So then why use that as your criterion? The federal crime is terrorism, not murder; the latter can *always* be investigated at the state and local levels. Terrorism should be investigated by the amount of terror caused, and the potential for more. If one abortion doctor is killed, you don't consider that worth committing terrorism resources to, but the effect is enormous - doctors stop providing abortions out of fear.

    Muslim terrorists in the U.S. are almost always random, not part of a network or organization. They may have pledged loyalty, but I can't think of the last case where there were any direct connections beyond internet viewings. They may have followed al-Qaddafi or ISIS, but they're not part of a group. They basically don't lead anywhere (other than perhaps the perpetrators of the Bowling Green Massacre, who didn't actually commit any acts of terrorism.

    Non-Muslim domestic terrorists are far more likely to be connected to groups or networks - somewhat loosely, perhaps, but very identifiably. These groups and networks are themselves connected,forming a rather vast conglomeration with far more devastating potential than a guy in Portland watching his computer. Furthermore, they have a specific anti-government, anti-American, pro-gun stance that goes far beyond "Great Satan Sucks." If they are investigated only as isolated cases wherever possible, as you have suggested, we end up missing the forest for the trees. In the case of Muslim terrorists, we spend lots of money looking for a forest where there is none.

    That's why it doesn't matter that cop-killing is usually a capital crime. The point of investigating it as terrorism isn't to inflict greater punishment, it's to fight terrorism.
    Good post. thanks.

  3. #3228

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitman23 View Post
    Yes and yes.
    Ok then.

  4. #3229

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Nah, it pretty much does say that. It says they entirely dismantled that office, then restored it grudgingly with little to no signs of life.

    You're right, maximizing deaths is not always the point. So then why use that as your criterion? The federal crime is terrorism, not murder; the latter can *always* be investigated at the state and local levels. Terrorism should be investigated by the amount of terror caused, and the potential for more. If one abortion doctor is killed, you don't consider that worth committing terrorism resources to, but the effect is enormous - doctors stop providing abortions out of fear.

    Muslim terrorists in the U.S. are almost always random, not part of a network or organization. They may have pledged loyalty, but I can't think of the last case where there were any direct connections beyond internet viewings. They may have followed al-Qaddafi or ISIS, but they're not part of a group. They basically don't lead anywhere (other than perhaps the perpetrators of the Bowling Green Massacre, who didn't actually commit any acts of terrorism.

    Non-Muslim domestic terrorists are far more likely to be connected to groups or networks - somewhat loosely, perhaps, but very identifiably. These groups and networks are themselves connected,forming a rather vast conglomeration with far more devastating potential than a guy in Portland watching his computer. Furthermore, they have a specific anti-government, anti-American, pro-gun stance that goes far beyond "Great Satan Sucks." If they are investigated only as isolated cases wherever possible, as you have suggested, we end up missing the forest for the trees. In the case of Muslim terrorists, we spend lots of money looking for a forest where there is none.

    That's why it doesn't matter that cop-killing is usually a capital crime. The point of investigating it as terrorism isn't to inflict greater punishment, it's to fight terrorism.
    Well, somebody is investigating non-Muslims:



    But let's say your contention that all resources are going to fighting Muslim terrorists domestically is true. Despite that, Muslim terrorists still killed more people than any other demographic. I know you don't like to use 'people killed' as the criteria, but it seems to me like the most important thing to try to prevent.

    Another thought-- The amount of domestic terrorism incidents is small enough that one or two incidents can change the conclusions we draw. You're almost never going to be able to stop the 'lone wolf' type, no matter what his ideology. So the entire situation will look different depending on which ideology has the most 'lone wolf' type of incidents in a given time period, for example.

    It's almost pointless for us to debate this based on the conclusions we draw from this small data set.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.

  5. #3230
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Coffee View Post
    Well, somebody is investigating non-Muslims:



    But let's say your contention that all resources are going to fighting Muslim terrorists domestically is true. Despite that, Muslim terrorists still killed more people than any other demographic. I know you don't like to use 'people killed' as the criteria, but it seems to me like the most important thing to try to prevent.

    Another thought-- The amount of domestic terrorism incidents is small enough that one or two incidents can change the conclusions we draw. You're almost never going to be able to stop the 'lone wolf' type, no matter what his ideology. So the entire situation will look different depending on which ideology has the most 'lone wolf' type of incidents in a given time period, for example.

    It's almost pointless for us to debate this based on the conclusions we draw from this small data set.
    It's the best data set we've got, by a lot. Better than the DOJ set, if they are to be believed, because DOJ just keeps data on the cases they investigate.

    I agree that you're not going to stop the lone wolf, which is one reason I'd rather investigate the ones with more extensive connections, even if they acted alone.

    But overall, you seem to be leading to the idea that all terrorism should be investigated as terrorism. The armed guy screaming "Allahu Akbar" isn't more of an existential threat than the armed guy screaming "Don't tread on me" or whatever.

  6. #3231

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Trump ass-kisser Bob Murray, responsible for the deaths of 9 miners here in Utah in 2007 (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...-in-fines.html), was hilariously destroyed on John Oliver last week. As the show predicted, and invited, Murray brought a defamation suit this week. I hope it was painful to have to include this in the claim:

    The complaint also said Murray's website "was hacked and inundated with the message incited by Defendants: 'Eat ................, Bob.'"
    Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers- George Carlin

  7. #3232
    time of my life ... ajra21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    not as far from yankee stadium as i once was

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees View Post
    Same. I listened to his weekly spot on the Thom Hartmann show as much as possible since it started shortly after he joined the Senate. It annoys me when some segments of the "left" think I'm just some idiot who joined a bandwagon and really shouldn't have a say in the future of the Democratic Party.
    should note, i like bernie cos he's "normal". back home, he's a middle of the road politician, edging towards the left.
    Bring tea for the Tillerman; Steak for the son; Wine for the woman
    who made the rain come; Seagulls sing your hearts away;
    'Cause while the sinners sin, the children play ...

  8. #3233
    crescat scientia awy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    https://www.facebook.com/annklefstad...54466595431682

    much more gating and aggression from leftists than the other way around.

    tankies man, not even once
    always reasonable

    Aaron Judge Career Homer #8
    http://m.mlb.com/video/v1294788283/s...-to-deep-right

  9. #3234

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.8efc2ae26af2

    The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider next term whether a Denver baker unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

  10. #3235
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider next term whether a Denver baker unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.
    This will be fascinating.


    On the one hand, it doesn't seem to be a matter of Constitutionality, and it seems the Supreme Court might have more pressing issues. But, on the other hand, it should answer a lot of questions about the "rights" of a business.


    - Should a sole proprietorship have the right to decline business on religious grounds?
    - If a sole proprietorship can, can a larger business?
    - What rights do businesses have to decline establishing a customer relationship for other than religious grounds? Basically, if a baker can decline to provide a service to a gay couple, could someone decline to do business with a customer due to race, or because they have facial tattoos, or because they're wearing a Red Sox cap?
    - Does Chik-Fil-A discriminate against the non-religious by refusing to sell to ANYONE on Sundays?


    My spin on the issue has always been that if you're a baker or a photographer, it's foolish to turn down business. Your participation does not sanctify, or even show approval of the ceremony. Take the sales and be glad of the money you're making. However, if you're THAT spun up about it, instead of refusing, tell the customer that your heart wouldn't be in it, and you're fearful that you'd do a crummy job, but will still take the job if that's what they want. Provide them with a higher quote than your standard.


    If it was my wedding, that would be enough to make me look elsewhere. But, in today's world, it seems we'd rather force someone to do what they don't wish to do, if we disagree with their rationale for declining. This case will hopefully put an end to either the discriminatory refusal, the legal demand to force an artisan to accept a customer, or both.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  11. #3236

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    And another. What a day.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...tificates.html

    On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires states to list married same-sex couples on their childrenís birth certificate. The per curiam decision marks a landmark victory for gay rights, confirming that the courtís decision in Obergefell v. Hodges protects all rights relating to marriage, not simply the recognition of marriage itself.

  12. #3237
    NYYF Legend

    Yankee Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Left coast

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    - Should a sole proprietorship have the right to decline business on religious grounds?
    I hope the answer is an EMPHATIC NO!
    - If a sole proprietorship can, can a larger business?
    Same as above
    - What rights do businesses have to decline establishing a customer relationship for other than religious grounds? Basically, if a baker can decline to provide a service to a gay couple, could someone decline to do business with a customer due to race, or because they have facial tattoos, or because they're wearing a Red Sox cap?
    That the issue I have. If we make a religious exemption where does it end?
    - Does Chik-Fil-A discriminate against the non-religious by refusing to sell to ANYONE on Sundays?
    A uniform policy on your hours of operation are non-discriminatory.
    Baseball is life;
    the rest is just details.

  13. #3238

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    Excellent.

  14. #3239
    Not fooling anyone. Soriambi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Jersey

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    This was a nice surprise coming out today, as it wasn't even a case they heard.
    -Kevin

    "My point is you can't compare things with statistics." Joe Morgan


    "I'd have won that trial. I've often said that." Stephen A. Smith on the OJ Simpson trial

    RIP, Pete.

  15. #3240
    Not fooling anyone. Soriambi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Jersey

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    Pretty interesting that Roberts did not join the dissenters on this case.
    -Kevin

    "My point is you can't compare things with statistics." Joe Morgan


    "I'd have won that trial. I've often said that." Stephen A. Smith on the OJ Simpson trial

    RIP, Pete.

  16. #3241
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Soriambi View Post
    Pretty interesting that Roberts did not join the dissenters on this case.
    Roberts seems to be a Conservative-leaning Judge, but not necessarily a Republican-leaning Judge, which is how it should be. Wasn't it Roberts who crafted the "the penalty is really a tax" part of the original SCOTUS Obamacare decision? Without that interpretation, the original ACA was likely doomed, as a Congressional overreach. Roberts strikes me as the type who is going to honestly interpret the Constitution and the law, rather than do what the Republicans want to do. Sure, his biases are Right of center, but he's hardly as predictable as Sotomayor and Kagan are on the other side.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  17. #3242
    Not fooling anyone. Soriambi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Jersey

    Re: Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Roberts seems to be a Conservative-leaning Judge, but not necessarily a Republican-leaning Judge, which is how it should be. Wasn't it Roberts who crafted the "the penalty is really a tax" part of the original SCOTUS Obamacare decision? Without that interpretation, the original ACA was likely doomed, as a Congressional overreach. Roberts strikes me as the type who is going to honestly interpret the Constitution and the law, rather than do what the Republicans want to do. Sure, his biases are Right of center, but he's hardly as predictable as Sotomayor and Kagan are on the other side.
    I agree that Roberts can surprise occasionally, but I thought that was interesting more because Roberts wrote a strong dissent in Obergefell. I think it would stand to reason that if he dissented in that case, he would have been on the dissenting side in this case as well, but perhaps it shows a deference to the idea of stare decisis, since I think this was pretty clearly the correct decision if you're following the ideas and holdings expressed in Obergefell.
    -Kevin

    "My point is you can't compare things with statistics." Joe Morgan


    "I'd have won that trial. I've often said that." Stephen A. Smith on the OJ Simpson trial

    RIP, Pete.

  18. #3243
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Soriambi View Post
    I agree that Roberts can surprise occasionally, but I thought that was interesting more because Roberts wrote a strong dissent in Obergefell. I think it would stand to reason that if he dissented in that case, he would have been on the dissenting side in this case as well, but perhaps it shows a deference to the idea of stare decisis, since I think this was pretty clearly the correct decision if you're following the ideas and holdings expressed in Obergefell.
    I think Roberts manages to be both an ideologue and a pragmatist. He might have felt that this wasn't worth much of his time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts