Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: gPink on February 11, 2018, 09:17:45 AM
-
..is the biggest threat to the Bill of Rights in modern times.
H.R.4918 - Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2018
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr4918/BILLS-115hr4918ih.pdf (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr4918/BILLS-115hr4918ih.pdf)
-
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Ben Franklin
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
-
And once individual rights are traded away, they are difficult to impossible to regain.
People are looking toward the gov't to provide ultimate safety and protection. The gov't cannot provide that but they certainly chip away at personal liberties in an effort to offer some protection along with the false veil of actual security.
Brian
..is the biggest threat to the Bill of Rights in modern times.
H.R.4918 - Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2018
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr4918/BILLS-115hr4918ih.pdf (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr4918/BILLS-115hr4918ih.pdf)
-
"and that White su- premacists ‘‘were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 . . . more than any other domestic extremist movement’’."
Apparently these guys never heard of jihad.
-
Not sure where Jihad comes into it as ISIS etc (who don't represent all Muslims) is an external factor.
As I read it this Bill is to crack down on your home grown nutters.
That said it does seem like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, these White Supremacists referred too in the PDF are responsible for 46 of the 105,915 homicides carried out in the USA between 2000 & 2016.
Leaving aside any angst individuals may feel about the perceived threat to their rights that's really going to make a dent in the stats although it will create a whole new level of bureaucracy to catch a small percentage of criminals ;)
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
"and that White su- premacists ‘‘were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 . . . more than any other domestic extremist movement’’."
Apparently these guys never heard of jihad.
-
mikey, the threats are not 'percieved' they are real. The language in the Bill is open ended, open to interpretation and ambiguous at best. The information sources quoted in the Bill such as Google and the SPLC are left of center and their reliability and truthfulness is not just suspect but proven to be many times outright false. The left has already miss used the power of the fedgov against it's political enemies and will use a law like this to farther punish it's opponents.
-
mikey, the threats are not 'percieved' they are real. The language in the Bill is open ended, open to interpretation and ambiguous at best. The information sources quoted in the Bill such as Google and the SPLC are left of center and their reliability and truthfulness is not just suspect but proven to be many times outright false. The left has already miss used the power of the fedgov against it's political enemies and will use a law like this to farther punish it's opponents.
As I read it, as an impartial outsider, this Bill is intended to create a bureaucracy to investigate & further further report on "domestic terrorism" which is already defined in the USC as
activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
The primary aim is "to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism."
As I see it the only way that could be worded slightly differently to make it explicit rather than inferred that any such steps follow due legal process is
""to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps using due legal process to prevent domestic terrorism.""
The activities being investigated & reported on are already a " violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;"
Would it be less 'worrying' if the opening statement of the proposed Bill simply stated """to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity" I wonder especially as the rest of it seems to concentrate on generating powerpoint slideshows & stats for consumption by other bureaucrats ;)
-
Who gets to define domestic terrorist groups and individual? Are you familiar at all with the Southern Poverty Law Center?
-
Who gets to define domestic terrorist groups and individual? Are you familiar at all with the Southern Poverty Law Center?
There's an existing "broad" definition in the existing USC referenced by this proposed Bill :)
This proposed Bill does not define nor does it seek to define.
-
There's an existing "broad" definition in the existing USC referenced by this proposed Bill :)
This proposed Bill does not define nor does it seek to define.
And therein lies one problem.
-
It specifically targets "right wing extremists". Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stopping right wing extremists from committing acts of terrorism. But I'm also all for stopping anybody, right or left, religious or not, "homegrown" or not, white, black, purple from committing acts of terrorism. We already have a large federal agency tasked with this job. Instead it has been weaponized to go after political opponents of the previous administration.
As I read it, as an impartial outsider, this Bill is intended to create a bureaucracy to investigate & further further report on "domestic terrorism" which is already defined in the USC as
activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
The primary aim is "to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism."
As I see it the only way that could be worded slightly differently to make it explicit rather than inferred that any such steps follow due legal process is
""to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps using due legal process to prevent domestic terrorism.""
The activities being investigated & reported on are already a " violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;"
Would it be less 'worrying' if the opening statement of the proposed Bill simply stated """to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity" I wonder especially as the rest of it seems to concentrate on generating powerpoint slideshows & stats for consumption by other bureaucrats ;)
-
The other huge question is when do the things that lead to an act of terrorism become illegal? How about talking about it? Thinking about it? Mentioning a previous event of terrorism, in conversation, in a public place?
A very, very slippery slope. Thinking about bank robbery is NOT illegal and I cannot imagine how it could be made illegal. With the obvious exception: let's just assume EVERYONE is considering something illegal and take the appropriate action, whatever that might be. Of course we can let those charged with enforcing laws decide what is appropriate.
Everyone is a potential criminal, at all times. That alone is not sufficient to watch, detain, restrain, restrict or do anything even remotely 'protective' because any one (or group) of us may do something illegal. And that is not a slippery slope in the slightest- it is just a clear violation of our laws, both the letter of the law(s) as well as the intent.
Brian
It specifically targets "right wing extremists". Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stopping right wing extremists from committing acts of terrorism. But I'm also all for stopping anybody, right or left, religious or not, "homegrown" or not, white, black, purple from committing acts of terrorism. We already have a large federal agency tasked with this job. Instead it has been weaponized to go after political opponents of the previous administration.
-
mind you my problem is that you don't have domestic terrorists over there, you have groups of nutters with guns ready & willing to go kill people who disagree with their POV. (and which is already a criminal offence)
Now what we had over here was real domestic terrorism, ie the IRA, who went out indiscriminately planting explosive devices anywhere
-
It uses right wing extremists as justification/examples however the wording doesn't exclude any other group
It specifically targets "right wing extremists". Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stopping right wing extremists from committing acts of terrorism. But I'm also all for stopping anybody, right or left, religious or not, "homegrown" or not, white, black, purple from committing acts of terrorism. We already have a large federal agency tasked with this job. Instead it has been weaponized to go after political opponents of the previous administration.
-
Depends where you live and the times you live in .
Back in the 70's & 80's the UK Prevention of Terrorism Acts "Allowed for organisations to be made illegal, making membership an arrestable offence. It was also an offence to soliciting financial support for any listed group, display signs of public support, or attend a meeting supporting a listed group or addressed by a group member. The maximum penalty was ten years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. "
Fortunately for you guys that side of the pond I don't think any Americans were ever prosecuted for contributing to NORAID
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts
The other huge question is when do the things that lead to an act of terrorism become illegal? How about talking about it? Thinking about it? Mentioning a previous event of terrorism, in conversation, in a public place?
A very, very slippery slope. Thinking about bank robbery is NOT illegal and I cannot imagine how it could be made illegal. With the obvious exception: let's just assume EVERYONE is considering something illegal and take the appropriate action, whatever that might be. Of course we can let those charged with enforcing laws decide what is appropriate.
Everyone is a potential criminal, at all times. That alone is not sufficient to watch, detain, restrain, restrict or do anything even remotely 'protective' because any one (or group) of us may do something illegal. And that is not a slippery slope in the slightest- it is just a clear violation of our laws, both the letter of the law(s) as well as the intent.
Brian
-
It uses right wing extremists as justification/examples however the wording doesn't exclude any other group
If you don't goosestep with the left you are a right wing extremist.
-
If you don't goosestep with the left you are a right wing extremist.
Whilst that may be true the Proposed Bill does state (with no reference to Right or Left Wing) that it is " to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism. " (where Domestic Terrorism is as defined in the previously quoted USC which again makes no differentiation between right & left).
Ye sit uses current right wing based "incidents" as examples and there is a lack of any left wing based "incidents" however that could simply be because there have been no examples of home source left wing domestia terrorism in the period reviewed (2000-2016).
"A 2001 study found "Leftist extremists were responsible for three fourths of the officially designated acts of terrorism in America in the 1980s." After 1985, following the dismantling of both groups, one source reports there were no confirmed acts of left-wing terrorism by similar groups.
Incidents of left-wing terrorism dropped off at the end of the Cold War (circa 1989), partly due to the loss of support for communism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#United_States
-
mikey, who do you think the leftists in this country are? They call themselves Democrats in case you don't get all the information way over there. They are the ones who wrote the Bill.
-
mikey, who do you think the leftists in this country are? They call themselves Democrats in case you don't get all the information way over there. They are the ones who wrote the Bill.
That's as may be but if it was passed by due process is there anything in there that says it only applies to right wing white supremacist domestic terrorists?
As it is written it applies equally to any domestic terrorist group be they left, right, black, white, yellow or even one legged and could quite easily be used by the Republicans without any amendments ;)
-
Yes, you are exactly right- a 'bad' law will be used and abused by BOTH sides against their 'enemies', real or imagined.
I do not know if the term gerrymandering works in the UK or not but very basically, it is the act of drawing district lines (lines that encompass groups of voters for the purposes of electing officials usually) such that it works to the best advantage of the party currently in power. You probably have it in the UK also, unfortunately. All very well explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY)
Now, gerrymandering is a 'bad' thing for the party not being in the majority but a wonderful thing for the party that is in the majority. The minority party always rallies against it but never, ever actually tried to remove it because doing so, while they are in the minority, would freeze the district voting lines in a place not advantageous to them and ALSO remove their ability to again move them to a more advantageous place when THEY are again in the majority. So the broken system goes on and on with no end in sight because both sides want the ability to misuse it when it is again 'their turn'.
As it is with restrictive laws: in the end, the power rests with the people, the gov't or a combination of both. As the gov't gains power through the loss of individual rights, they are not likely to ever be returned no matter which party is in power. So it is not a case of the right vs. the left, it is a case of personal liberty vs. gov't control. And that see- saw only tips one way, toward the gov't, always, as it must in order to maintain order (working under the theory that there are more and more ways to reduce or remove order as humans progress). I cannot speak for Gary (gpink) but I believe what he is resisting is the overall loss of individual freedoms to gov't control in general, not for any or either particular political party, group, etc. I know that is my stance: when it comes to the loss of individual rights and freedoms, it should only be done when not doing so would result in 'serious and immediate danger'. Which, BTW, is the litmus test used by most of our Supreme court justices.
But slipping sideways and introducing new limits and controls to ill- defined 'groups' of people, done under the guise of safety for 'all' or even the best intentions of any kind is always the method used by all gov't's to gain more control over all people, for all time. Only the words change, the intent is always the same and it is almost always negative overall, certainly on balance.
We have First Amendment to guarantee our rights of free speech extremely clearly, and further states that the US Congress 'shall make no law' with regard to religion, free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and the right to petition the gov't for a redress of grievances. But that same Congress also passed the Sedition Act of 1918, which wiped out all the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment and further, made complaining about the Sedition Act a crime in and of itself. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
The steps to any totalitarian government may be large or small but all should be resisted IMO.
Brian
That's as may be but if it was passed by due process is there anything in there that says it only applies to right wing white supremacist domestic terrorists?
As it is written it applies equally to any domestic terrorist group be they left, right, black, white, yellow or even one legged and could quite easily be used by the Republicans without any amendments ;)
-
If this Bill passes it'll be time to play Colonists and Redcoats again.
-
But its getting away from the point I've been trying to make.
As I read it this isn't a Bill that will be changing any laws, it's setting up a level of bureaucracy to primarily monitor & report on activities (ie ‘‘domestic terrorists’’ as defined in section 2331 of title 18,United States Code; ) which are already a criminal activity with a side dish of preventing that already defined criminal activity.
"involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State"
Yes, you are exactly right- a 'bad' law will be used and abused by BOTH sides against their 'enemies', real or imagined.
I do not know if the term gerrymandering works in the UK or not but very basically, it is the act of drawing district lines (lines that encompass groups of voters for the purposes of electing officials usually) such that it works to the best advantage of the party currently in power. You probably have it in the UK also, unfortunately. All very well explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY)
Now, gerrymandering is a 'bad' thing for the party not being in the majority but a wonderful thing for the party that is in the majority. The minority party always rallies against it but never, ever actually tried to remove it because doing so, while they are in the minority, would freeze the district voting lines in a place not advantageous to them and ALSO remove their ability to again move them to a more advantageous place when THEY are again in the majority. So the broken system goes on and on with no end in sight because both sides want the ability to misuse it when it is again 'their turn'.
As it is with restrictive laws: in the end, the power rests with the people, the gov't or a combination of both. As the gov't gains power through the loss of individual rights, they are not likely to ever be returned no matter which party is in power. So it is not a case of the right vs. the left, it is a case of personal liberty vs. gov't control. And that see- saw only tips one way, toward the gov't, always, as it must in order to maintain order (working under the theory that there are more and more ways to reduce or remove order as humans progress). I cannot speak for Gary (gpink) but I believe what he is resisting is the overall loss of individual freedoms to gov't control in general, not for any or either particular political party, group, etc. I know that is my stance: when it comes to the loss of individual rights and freedoms, it should only be done when not doing so would result in 'serious and immediate danger'. Which, BTW, is the litmus test used by most of our Supreme court justices.
But slipping sideways and introducing new limits and controls to ill- defined 'groups' of people, done under the guise of safety for 'all' or even the best intentions of any kind is always the method used by all gov't's to gain more control over all people, for all time. Only the words change, the intent is always the same and it is almost always negative overall, certainly on balance.
We have First Amendment to guarantee our rights of free speech extremely clearly, and further states that the US Congress 'shall make no law' with regard to religion, free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and the right to petition the gov't for a redress of grievances. But that same Congress also passed the Sedition Act of 1918, which wiped out all the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment and further, made complaining about the Sedition Act a crime in and of itself. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
The steps to any totalitarian government may be large or small but all should be resisted IMO.
Brian
-
as an aside what's interesting is that section 2331 of title 18, United States Code actually differentiates between International & Domestic Terrorism.
Here in the UK the first Anti Terror laws were Domestic in origin (ie related to the IRA) but have since been rewritten to cover any terrorist activity regardless of where it originates from.
-
mind you my problem is that you don't have domestic terrorists over there, you have groups of nutters with guns ready & willing to go kill people who disagree with their POV. (and which is already a criminal offence)
Now what we had over here was real domestic terrorism, ie the IRA, who went out indiscriminately planting explosive devices anywhere
I don't know of any "groups of nutters with guns ready and willing to kill people" other than gangs such as M13 far more associated with left wing extremism. Assuming the bills claim of 49 homicides in 16 years is true, that's 3 per year, about 1 hour of gang activity. Kind of like looking at an airliner with a wing falling off and writing a bill to fix a paint chip. Now why would someone write such a bill and be VERY specific about what the primary target is?
-
You may be right Mike, but I read words such as this found on page 11:
"1 (3) CLASSIFICATION AND PUBLIC RELEASE.—
2 Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall
3 be—
4 (A) unclassified, to the greatest extent pos-
5 sible, with a classified annex only if necessary;
6 and
7 (B) in the case of the unclassified portion
8 of the report, posted on the public websites of
9 the Department of Homeland Security, the De-
10 partment of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of
11 Investigation. "
.... as creating the ability to specifically allow yet more secret data gathering of individuals and groups, by the government, both local and federal, with no restrictions whatsoever. The words '(A) unclassified, to the greatest extent pos-
5 sible, with a classified annex only if necessary;' as readily meaning anything and everything so designated by that very agency and the agencies associated with it can be made secret. And reading through the document, I can find no guarantees of the individual freedoms nor any other authority, such as the judicial branch, including ALL courts in the US, that can intervene on behalf of any citizen.
All I am reading is a list of what the gov't is able to do, without any minimum requirements or even guidelines, with absolutely no responsibility to any citizen at all, whatsoever.
In short, it looks like a direct path for the elimination due process to me, all done to make me safer, of course, and 'for my own good'.
Brian
But its getting away from the point I've been trying to make.
As I read it this isn't a Bill that will be changing any laws, it's setting up a level of bureaucracy to primarily monitor & report on activities (ie ‘‘domestic terrorists’’ as defined in section 2331 of title 18,United States Code; ) which are already a criminal activity with a side dish of preventing that already defined criminal activity.
"involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State"
-
Who gets to define domestic terrorist groups and individual? Are you familiar at all with the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Obligatory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNlO5JscuW4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNlO5JscuW4)
-
YessireeBob, what a great idea to base federal law on an organization that makes it's fortune on hate.
-
Ok let's take an alternative look at this shall we.
We're (sort of) in agreement that the primary aim of this Proposed Bill is to investigate & report on an existing Crime. ie Domestic Terrorism, correct?
So in some respects doesn't that make the Bill unnecessary which is possibly a less emotive & more valid argument to protest it ?
The FBI for example already has Counter Terrorism & Counter Intelligence Divisions sitting under the same Executive Assistant Director.
Surely the aims stated at the start of the proposed Bill slot neatly into their existing remit and indeed they probably do already produce pretty powerpoints & graphs for presentations ) and therefore don't need a seperate Bill
You may be right Mike, but I read words such as this found on page 11:
"1 (3) CLASSIFICATION AND PUBLIC RELEASE.—
2 Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall
3 be—
4 (A) unclassified, to the greatest extent pos-
5 sible, with a classified annex only if necessary;
6 and
7 (B) in the case of the unclassified portion
8 of the report, posted on the public websites of
9 the Department of Homeland Security, the De-
10 partment of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of
11 Investigation. "
.... as creating the ability to specifically allow yet more secret data gathering of individuals and groups, by the government, both local and federal, with no restrictions whatsoever. The words '(A) unclassified, to the greatest extent pos-
5 sible, with a classified annex only if necessary;' as readily meaning anything and everything so designated by that very agency and the agencies associated with it can be made secret. And reading through the document, I can find no guarantees of the individual freedoms nor any other authority, such as the judicial branch, including ALL courts in the US, that can intervene on behalf of any citizen.
All I am reading is a list of what the gov't is able to do, without any minimum requirements or even guidelines, with absolutely no responsibility to any citizen at all, whatsoever.
In short, it looks like a direct path for the elimination due process to me, all done to make me safer, of course, and 'for my own good'.
Brian
-
Ok let's take an alternative look at this shall we.
We're (sort of) in agreement that the primary aim of this Proposed Bill is to investigate & report on an existing Crime. ie Domestic Terrorism, correct?
So in some respects doesn't that make the Bill unnecessary which is possibly a less emotive & more valid argument to protest it ?
The FBI for example already has Counter Terrorism & Counter Intelligence Divisions sitting under the same Executive Assistant Director.
Surely the aims stated at the start of the proposed Bill slot neatly into their existing remit and indeed they probably do already produce pretty powerpoints & graphs for presentations ) and therefore don't need a seperate Bill
Agreed... which brings us to the thoughtful conclusion that there are other motives behind the Bill since it is redundant except for the specific individuals and groups it targets. In order to understand the motives one must consider the political position of the authors. When this is defined one could assert that that bill, if passed into law would be used, not for the supposed intent, but rather for the persecution of ones political enemies.
-
If you don't goosestep with the left you are a right wing extremist.
And if you believe in a woman's right to remove a parasite from her body, you are an unamerican commie atheisic PLO sympathizer child molester. Just pointing out the extremes of BOTH sides pointing the finger at one another instead of handling the damn problems.
..but returning to subject, regardless of the bill's author's aims, it is redundant and appears to me that it would just generate more reports that could only be cited by one side or the other to throw into the faces of the other side. It should fail IMO as should've the hate crime laws that have already passed. Not because I hate, or sympathize with haters, but because it really shouldn't matter whether I kill a man because I hate his race or because I covet his wife. Murder is murder, and all lives mater, and hate is just another character flaw that adds one more motive to the list.
-
...
It should fail IMO as should've the hate crime laws that have already passed. Not because I hate, or sympathize with haters, but because it really shouldn't matter whether I kill a man because I hate his race or because I covet his wife. Murder is murder, and all lives mater, and hate is just another character flaw that adds one more motive to the list.
x2 ... thousand. x2,000. I couldn't agree more. Well, OK x3000.
-
I think our two different views reflect our nationalities in the end. The intent of the bill is not important to me; what is important is what powers / rights it gives or takes away. That bill gives none that I can find but absolutely and specifically allows for secret gathering of data, assignment of risk, an implied, fundamental 'accusation' on record and the possible restrictions that may go with such 'accusations', all without due process or even giving us (the big 'us', any person in the US) any protections, ability to redress such records or accusations, and especially, not even the ability to determine if we (again, any individual or group in the US) has been or is under scrutiny or restriction.
It is, IMO, simply un- American in nature and in direct opposition to my Constitution, at least as I read and understand it.
I believe many or most Americans are fundamentally different in thought and attitude toward out gov't than most other, first- world, modern, western nations. And a bill such as this one 'rubs those differences' just like sandpaper to the American concept of a citizen, the gov't and the relationship between the two. It is difficult to articulate those differences but they can be readily seen through examples of how an American and, say, a German would react to the very same thing in the very same circumstances.
I certainly am not saying one is better or more desirable than the other(s), merely that they are different just as food and culture are different between two countries.
I suspect part of this bill is to coordinate several branches of the US gov't, which have not operated very cooperatively or effectively as a group effort in the past. That, in and of itself, is a fine thing and perhaps desirable. Some of the clauses in that bill describing what that new bureau may be and what it may do are very much undesirable, at least to some of us.
Brian
Ok let's take an alternative look at this shall we.
We're (sort of) in agreement that the primary aim of this Proposed Bill is to investigate & report on an existing Crime. ie Domestic Terrorism, correct?
So in some respects doesn't that make the Bill unnecessary which is possibly a less emotive & more valid argument to protest it ?
The FBI for example already has Counter Terrorism & Counter Intelligence Divisions sitting under the same Executive Assistant Director.
Surely the aims stated at the start of the proposed Bill slot neatly into their existing remit and indeed they probably do already produce pretty powerpoints & graphs for presentations ) and therefore don't need a seperate Bill
-
Good example, and exactly right IMO. But we have an excellent 'rule book' for dealing with matters exactly like this, and I think we have done a very good job of applying those rules. The specific 'hot button issue' you mention is not an important issue to me but it is very much so to some, and I think we have reached as reasonable a solution, using said 'rule book', as is possible.
And a very important thing to point out is the second part of your post is that while murder is wrong and always illegal, hating someone or some group is not only NOT illegal, it is specifically protected by the 'rule book'. So far, anyone is free to hate anyone else he / she wants to, although that too is becoming dangerously close to no longer being true but at least it is things like FaceTwit that are putting such limitations in place, not any law or gov't agency.
There will always be groups that are in direct, sometimes dire, incompatible conflict with each other. IMO the key is to apply 'the rules' as minimally, fairly (according to the law, not the size or power of any group) and judiciously as possible and always with the understanding that some group or other will always be unhappy.
Brian
And if you believe in a woman's right to remove a parasite from her body, you are an unamerican commie atheisic PLO sympathizer child molester. Just pointing out the extremes of BOTH sides pointing the finger at one another instead of handling the damn problems.
..but returning to subject, regardless of the bill's author's aims, it is redundant and appears to me that it would just generate more reports that could only be cited by one side or the other to throw into the faces of the other side. It should fail IMO as should've the hate crime laws that have already passed. Not because I hate, or sympathize with haters, but because it really shouldn't matter whether I kill a man because I hate his race or because I covet his wife. Murder is murder, and all lives mater, and hate is just another character flaw that adds one more motive to the list.
-
Brian, I think you are being to kind to the bill. It's a third world, banana republic abomination written by people who expect to be back in power soon and who will then promptly turn it loose on their political enemies.
-
Whilst your "rule book" may allow someone to stand on the corner and proclaim that "Brian is a great big fat hairy git" if that person then attempted to forcibly shave you then that is not protected by the "rule book "
:)
Good example, and exactly right IMO. But we have an excellent 'rule book' for dealing with matters exactly like this, and I think we have done a very good job of applying those rules. The specific 'hot button issue' you mention is not an important issue to me but it is very much so to some, and I think we have reached as reasonable a solution, using said 'rule book', as is possible.
And a very important thing to point out is the second part of your post is that while murder is wrong and always illegal, hating someone or some group is not only NOT illegal, it is specifically protected by the 'rule book'. So far, anyone is free to hate anyone else he / she wants to, although that too is becoming dangerously close to no longer being true but at least it is things like FaceTwit that are putting such limitations in place, not any law or gov't agency.
There will always be groups that are in direct, sometimes dire, incompatible conflict with each other. IMO the key is to apply 'the rules' as minimally, fairly (according to the law, not the size or power of any group) and judiciously as possible and always with the understanding that some group or other will always be unhappy.
Brian
-
That may well be but again, I really do not care who wrote it or why, I only care that it is proposed and especially care if it is turned into a law (or series of laws). The key here is 'We the People', not 'Them, the Government'. And if the people have to give up personal freedoms in the hope that some new group or collection of gov't agencies <may> provide 'more' safety, then I think it is a bad trade and therefore, a bad bill.
I can hate or not hate whomever wrote it separately. ;)
Brian
Brian, I think you are being to kind to the bill. It's a third world, banana republic abomination written by people who expect to be back in power soon and who will then promptly turn it loose on their political enemies.
-
No 'may' about it: you (or anyone) absolutely can call me a git, whatever that is. And also correct, no one can force anything on anyone else without due process but especially the gov't. A key thing about our Constitution is that it was not written to protect us (citizens, residents) against each other, it was written to protect 'us' against our own government, or more accurately, what the founding fathers thought to be government excesses.
Of course we do not have the ideals expressed in those documents in reality, and cannot achieve them in any reasonable expectation of the real world. But the ideas are important and chipping away at those is reprehensible IMO. And it is made worse when done under the guise of some elusive, ill- defined 'good' that is supposed to benefit 'us'.
Of course there will be a cost for freedom and there is no way around it. If everyone was forced to strip naked and board aircraft without anything other than our bodies, air travel might be safer but the cost is far too high for that trade- off, IMO.
Brian
Whilst your "rule book" may allow someone to stand on the corner and proclaim that "Brian is a great big fat hairy git" if that person then attempted to forcibly shave you then that is not protected by the "rule book "
:)
-
Whilst your "rule book" may allow someone to stand on the corner and proclaim that "Brian is a great big fat hairy git" if that person then attempted to forcibly shave you then that is not protected by the "rule book "
:)
Hopefully they'll do it with his razors.
-
Hopefully they'll do it with his razors.
:rotflmao:
If everyone was forced to strip naked and board aircraft without anything other than our bodies, air travel might be safer but the cost is far too high for that trade- off, IMO.
When someone comes up with a great idea, and then shoots it down in the same sentence...then I'm forced to call them a git*. ...ah....a..ah...ah a great idea shooter downer...ah..twit.
(*request exception to forum rules about name calling, because even though I'm not sure what a "git" is, I'm sure it's not a name.)
-
:rotflmao:
When someone comes up with a great idea, and then shoots it down in the same sentence...then I'm forced to call them a git*.
(*request exception to forum rules about name calling, because even though I'm not sure what a "git" is, I'm sure it's not a name.)
Git (slang) ... Git is a term of insult with origins in British English denoting an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person. As a mild oath it is roughly on a par with prat and marginally less pejorative than berk.
Full Description (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang))
-
OK but it sounds like the Jewish people beat you to it with the words 'putz' and (my personal favorite) 'schmuck'.
:-)
Brian
Git (slang) ... Git is a term of insult with origins in British English denoting an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person. As a mild oath it is roughly on a par with prat and marginally less pejorative than berk.
Full Description (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang))
-
Git (slang) ... Git is a term of insult with origins in British English denoting an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person. As a mild oath it is roughly on a par with prat and marginally less pejorative than berk.
Well that's just great mikey, now I have to go edit my post. Ignorance was bliss.
-
it all depends on context.
"Hurry up you old git" has a subtly different meaning to " you absolute git"
but then again its whee you place the emphasis :)
Well that's just great mikey, now I have to go edit my post. Ignorance was bliss.
I like schmuck as well :)
OK but it sounds like the Jewish people beat you to it with the words 'putz' and (my personal favorite) 'schmuck'.
:-)
Brian
-
I would imagine that surveillance and prevention of domestic terrorism is a good thing, though the emphasis on white supremacists in the preamble is somewhat disconcerting. Much of the brouhaha about liberty being sacrificed in the pursuit of safety is ridiculous since we already have the Patriot Act and the Freedom Act doing much of the heavy lifting. The OP's outrage and anxiety are somewhat misplaced since both Presidency and a compliant Congress is controlled by one party. Federal judge appointments and the composition of the SC should facilitate matters. That is unlikely to change in the near future since the Dems have neither a coherent agenda nor a charismatic candidate to change the status quo.
The OP's frequent bashing of Dems as scum-bag leftists is quite ironic since the Rep faithful have been totally played by the ultimate leftists...the Russians. But hey, the end justifies the means, right?
-
:rotflmao: I reread the whole thread and didn't any where that the op called the leftist dems 'scumbags'.
-
:rotflmao: I reread the whole thread and didn't any where that the op called the leftist dems 'scumbags'.
Unless the OP is denying using "leftist" as a pejorative, there is an implication that the Dems are scumbags.
While we are on the subject perhaps the OP can explain why the SPLC is insidious beyond it's stated purpose of fighting hate crime. An odd name for sure, but a noble objective IMO.
-
Since the word pejorative means 'disparaging/insulting, etc.' I think the op is using the word 'leftist' as an accurate descriptive word to characterize the political leaning of the majority of self-proclaimed adherents to the principles of the modern Democrat Party.
As to the Questioners request for information about the hate group the Southern Poverty Law Center, the op would suggest a bit of open minded research by the Questioner into the political motivations and fundraising activities and money laundering in offshore accounts that Mr. Dees is promoting and actively participating in. Though I expect that not to happen.
Damn, this is fun.... :banana :banana :banana
-
.....
Damn, this is fun.... :banana :banana :banana
Yes. Soon a transition to the royal "we".
Since the OP denies pejorative use of "leftist", the allegation of Dem scumbagginess has been withdrawn.
The Questioner would prefer specific evidence, ideally from unbiased sources, of the SPLC misdeeds instead of nebulous assertions.
Now, wait a minute....YOU are the OP. That makes me the Questioner? Yikes......
(On the bright side, in a couple of months I will be too busy riding my C14 to engage in this friendly banter.)
-
Spring is just around the corner. :chugbeer: