LawTalkers - Pepper sprayed for public safety.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Pepper sprayed for public safety. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=863)

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 469841)

you have no idea who passed the civil rights legislation do you?

The pro-lynching guy, right?

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 469846)

let's sum up where we are now:

Freed the slaves- a Republican president
dragged us into WW1- a Dem president
dragged us into WW2- a Dem president
Created the Environmental Protection Agency- a Republican president
Opened communications with China- a Republican President
allowed the USSR to invade a helpless country- a Dem president
defeated the USSR- a Republican president
lied to the country and his wife about his sexual fidelity- a Dem president
allowed al queda to swell its ranks, blow up 2 embassies and a navy ship, and let 9/11 plotters into our homeland- a dem president
defeated al quada and guided us through the horror of 9/11- a Rep president
let an AG serve who gave Mexican drug gangs automatic weapons that were used to kill our brave US law enforcement men and women- a Dem president
ordered the summary execution of US citizens w/o trial, and along with any people who may be in a vehicle with them- a Dem president

who are you all voting for again?

On the "sexual fidelity" thing, Kennedy belongs a bunch earlier.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 469846)

let's sum up where we are now:

Freed the slaves- a Republican president

I've always considered you the voice of the Rs here, but since you can't get an R today to actually claim ownership of Lincoln for their party, I'm now convinced you really are an independent.

Re: non-ephemera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 469832)

No. I'm disappointed in many respects by Obama but think Romney would be significantly worse.

His reversal on executive privilege being only the most recently galling. I am not sure there is a difference between them except that Mitt is openly pragmatic while Obama was better at concealing his lack of principle.

LessinBremen

Re: non-ephemera

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 469871)

Al Gore and George W. Bush were pretty fungible too, IIRC.

Re: non-ephemera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 469878)

Al Gore and George W. Bush were pretty fungible too, IIRC.

Were, because now Al's mass requires two Dubyas to replace.

LessinBremen

Re: non-ephemera

I don't get it. First, Scalia whines about having has to read the ACA when it is in front of him, then he goes and actually reads Obama's Executive Order on Immigration when it has nothing to do with the case.

Really, this is among the greatest commencement speeches of all time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLhqjOzoyE

Dr. Michael Burry, the guy from the Big Short, at UCLA's econ dept graduation.

It's a bit scary, it's brilliant, and it's spot-on.

Powers Arizona should have as a sovereign state:

(1) Send Californians back to where they came!
(2) Declare War on Colorado
(3) Enact Patent laws
(4) Elect Jan Brewer President for Life
(5) Build Navy
(6) Sign treaties with Indians

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 469891)

some State did have their own patent laws initially, as the Government was ignoring the vacuum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 469892)

some State did have their own patent laws initially, as the Government was ignoring the vacuum.

Get that cite to Scalia, and maybe he can replace his genuflection to slavery with it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 469893)

Get that cite to Scalia, and maybe he can replace his genuflection to slavery with it!

I told him at dinner. He goes "I'm not holding a fucking plebecite on my holding!"
I go "k niño, pass the lasagna?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 469891)

Do you, however, disagree with the majority opinion, which I think was 4-4 until Roberts switched? And that the lihs may have given in on the possible right to ask about citizenship? I say possible b/c the mainstream media I read failed to note that that issue was remanded for further inquiry, not an outright victory for Arizona.

LessinBremen

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

What was Spain supposed to have done? Martin Wolf:

Quote:

In January 2004, I attended a property conference in Switzerland….I argued that a number of European countries, the UK being one, had dangerous property booms. The most dangerous of all, I suggested, was Spain’s…. This remark led to a heated altercation with a Spanish property developer. I understood why he was so angry. But he was wrong, of course. The Spanish property sector created a huge boom and a huge crash. The big question is what the Spanish authorities should (or could) have done about it.

One answer is that they should have tightened fiscal policy, since they could do nothing about the monetary policy of the eurozone, which was wildly unsuitable for their economy, prior to the crisis (far too loose then and far too tight now). Maybe so, but Spain’s fiscal performance looked pretty good…. In 2008, the IMF, among the world’s most independent and respected official institutions, thought that Spain had run a substantial structural – or cyclically-adjusted – fiscal surplus in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Now it thinks this had in fact been a substantial structural deficit…. [T]here was no obvious reason why Spain should have run a tighter fiscal position before the crisis. It had an official seal of approval for what it was doing. In a boom, just about everybody misunderstands what is happening.Those who do not are Cassandras and so tend to be ignored….

What else could the Spanish authorities have done? Well, they could have tried to curb bank lending directly, via rapidly falling loan-to-value ratios or direct curbs on lending. There are two reasons for wondering whether this would have worked. First, it would have been desperately unpopular in Spain…. Alternatively, they could have tried to make their banks more robust. But they did in fact try to do so, with their famous policy of dynamic provisioning. It was controversial at the time, though a good idea. The problem, as we can now see, is that it was nothing like enough….

Spain did not run irresponsible fiscal policies, as Germans believe….

[H]ow could Spain have prevented this crisis, which was unambiguously generated in the domestic private sector and fuelled by private sector capital inflows? If it could not have prevented the crisis, how can it bear some deep moral fault? Surely, a far more sensible – indeed moral – approach would be to recognise that this is more misfortune than misdeed and offer Spain the help it needs to adjust its economy to the post-crisis reality….

In my view, Spain made only one big mistake: joining the euro. Without that, it would probably now look more like the UK: yes, the economy would be in serious trouble, but its exchange rate and its long-term interest rates would both be far lower. After all, its fiscal position is even now no worse than the UK’s, as I note in my blog post here. But reconsidering that choice is no longer possible. Now it needs help to survive the crisis. Will Spain get enough of what it needs? I doubt it.

I really get tired of hearing people say that the problems in Europe stem from profligate, irresponsible governments. Greece, sure. But not the other countries.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 469915)

What was Spain supposed to have done? Martin Wolf:

I really get tired of hearing people say that the problems in Europe stem from profligate, irresponsible governments. Greece, sure. But not the other countries.

I'm not 100% certain that revisiting that choice is impossible.

But no who matters seems to be doing it.