LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=757)

Spanky 12-14-2006 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Mitt Romney, busted.
Its seems a few people were a little to quick to assume guilt here, doesn't it?

Cletus Miller 12-14-2006 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Its seems a few people were a little to quick to assume guilt here, doesn't it?
How so? From the reports I've seen, just looks like he entered into an agreement which might (if the new governor allows it to stand, which appears unlikely) increase Romney's costs for having his gardening done. Or do you have inside info on the immigration status of Romney's household help?

SlaveNoMore 12-14-2006 01:23 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Gattigap
It's times like this when I feel bad for you, Slave. We're living in the wrong generation. Here we have an unpopular war and everything, and for a variety of reasons the streets refuse to be flooded with antiwar numbnuts. If the worst angst that can be summoned is directed at a bunch of posters on Daily Kos, what is this crazy world coming to?
The crazy world is apparently coming to this - despite this board's suggestions to the contrary, the Democratic party really does support the terrorists:

Quote:

One piece of legislation in the works is the End Racial Profiling Act. It is an important priority of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, whose district includes one of the largest Muslim populations in the country. Conyers introduced the bill in 2004 and 2005, but it went nowhere. Now the alignment of forces may be changing. Conyers will probably be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes next month.

Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a “proud” cosponsor of the Profiling Act in 2004, is the incoming House speaker. And in January, Ellison, who represents the district where the imams incident occurred, will take his seat in Congress.

The act, although it doesn’t as yet impose large penalties, would bar any federal, state or local law enforcement agency from “relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.” That would include questioning, searches and seizures.

One of the act’s central features is its definition of illegal profiling. Under it, if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law. Law enforcement agencies would bear the burden of proving that discrimination was not the cause.


What would the effect of such a law be?

“A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety,” said Daniel Horan of the Los Angeles Police Department in an interview. He worked at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues for 6 years.

In the past few weeks the public relations campaign for the Profiling Act has moved into high gear. On Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations advised American Muslims to beware of the dangers of “flying while Muslim.” In light of recent allegations of “airport profiling,” it said, the council has set up a toll-free hotline for pilgrims traveling to Mecca for the hajj, or annual pilgrimage, who believe that their rights have been violated.

The End of Racial Profiling Act has languished until now. What did it need to reinvigorate it? New congressional leadership, and that’s coming in January. But it needed something else in this media age: a high-profile incident to jump-start it.
It's hojnestly going to take another 9/11 on American soil before these dim (or should I say dhimm) fucks get it

Hank Chinaski 12-14-2006 01:28 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The crazy world is apparently coming to this - despite this board's suggestions to the contrary, the Democratic party really does support the terrorists:



It's hojnestly going to take another 9/11 on American soil before these dim (or should I say dhimm) fucks get it
1- everyone forgets that the Senate has an independant that votes R on terrorism issues.

2- if passed it won't be signed for at least the next few years.

3- if voted on EVERY Dem who votes for it will be at risk in 08 (maybe not conyers and Pelosi, but the others)

andViolins 12-14-2006 01:30 PM

Is this guy on Crack?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Who is this Medved character anyway? Where did he come from? The guy seems to be a theocrat. I may be on crack, but I could swear I once saw him do a show as a film critic. Why does he get so much ink?
Medved does do movie reviews. However, he also has a conservative radio program, and has, in the past at least, sat in for Rush when the fat druggie took vacation.

aV

nononono 12-14-2006 01:32 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1- everyone forgets that the Senate has an independant that votes R on terrorism issues.

2- if passed it won't be signed for at least the next few years.

3- if voted on EVERY Dem who votes for it will be at risk in 08 (maybe not conyers and Pelosi, but the others)
I won't give a flip about Dems' reelection chances when I'm on that plane that's nosediving into the earth, or into other people.

Conyers should be shot. And Ellison is going to be trouble - he is already carried away by his own ego. Word is he has a bit of domestic trouble history, as well.

Cletus Miller 12-14-2006 01:36 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
[if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law]
If nothing else, this is ridiculous. Again with the belief that one can just tell, from observation, with 100% accuracy, who is muslim and who isn't. Does Keith Ellison look muslim?

And how is who among the questioned is what religion going to be determined? Is the government going to require all questioned passengers to declare their religion? Or will the TSA keep track itself (and then not ask about religion and mark down "unknown")? If not, does CAIR get to determine when "too many" muslims get questioned? And, how ever the determination gets made as to how many muslims have been subject to additional search/questions, isn't the TSA's way around it just to inconvenience a whole bunch of whiteys to balance out the proportions? This is just such a bureaucratic clusterfuck of a proposal that it's pointless.

Hank Chinaski 12-14-2006 01:38 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
If nothing else, this is ridiculous. Again with the belief that one can just tell, from observation, with 100% accuracy, who is muslim and who isn't. Does Keith Ellison look muslim?

And how is who among the questioned is what religion going to be determined? Is the government going to require all questioned passengers to declare their religion? Or will the TSA keep track itself (and then not ask about religion and mark down "unknown")? If not, does CAIR get to determine when "too many" muslims get questioned? And, how ever the determination gets made as to how many muslims have been subject to additional search/questions, isn't the TSA's way around it just to inconvenience a whole bunch of whiteys to balance out the proportions? This is just such a bureaucratic clusterfuck of a proposal that it's pointless.
in michigan a law just passed banning using race for giving preference in school admission etc. Word is the schools will focus on providing extra points based upon zip code. maybe we can profile based upon number of vowels in the last name?

taxwonk 12-14-2006 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
However, I still find your preference of Scalia over Bork surprising. I don't see Scalia as a strict constructionist (I am sure that will send Slave into an epileptic seizure) but as an activist judge who just pushes for conservative policies from the bench as opposed to liberal policies. Do you think Bork would fit into that catagory?

One of the problems I have with Bork was the fact that the guy can't grow a beard yet he didn't (doesn't?) shave. What is up with that? If a beard just won't come in full, don't grow one at all or you end up looking really creepy. How hard is it to understand that?
I agree with you that Scalia is not a strict consructionist. He is an arrogant, ultra-conservative, intellectually dishonest jurist who pushes his own view of a conservative agenda while claiming to be more ideologically pure than anyone else.

I dislike Bork because he is not only ultra-conservative, but he is also a whore. I'll never forgive him for the Saturday Night Massacre, and I don't think he should ever have been confirmed as a federal judge at any level.

taxwonk 12-14-2006 01:44 PM

Is this guy on Crack?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Who is this Medved character anyway? Where did he come from? The guy seems to be a theocrat. I may be on crack, but I could swear I once saw him do a show as a film critic. Why does he get so much ink?
I'm not positive, but I don't think they're the same guy. I'm pretty sure this Medved is a professor in California, maybe at the think tank at Stanford.

ETA I stand corrected.

Cletus Miller 12-14-2006 01:50 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe we can profile based upon number of vowels in the last name?
Absolute number or ratio to consonants?

Hank Chinaski 12-14-2006 02:03 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Absolute number or ratio to consonants?
ratio. and double weight if there's an "i" and an "a."

Cletus Miller 12-14-2006 02:11 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ratio. and double weight if there's an "i" and an "a."
So, for profiling purposes, Chinaski is the same as bin Laden?

taxwonk 12-14-2006 02:12 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
So, for profiling purposes, Chinaski is the same as bin Laden?
Well, he does describe himself as "swarthy."

Hank Chinaski 12-14-2006 02:16 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
So, for profiling purposes, Chinaski is the same as bin Laden?
more so. the double "i' is almost grounds for a search warrent. but it's long been okay to profile Italians.

Spanky 12-14-2006 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
How so? From the reports I've seen, just looks like he entered into an agreement which might (if the new governor allows it to stand, which appears unlikely) increase Romney's costs for having his gardening done. Or do you have inside info on the immigration status of Romney's household help?
Maybe I have read this wrong, but it seems to me that Romney hired a gardening firm to do his gardening work. He did not hire any illegal aliens. The Gardeining firm was not an illegal alien nor were its owners. So therefore, it seems to me Romney is about as guilty of hiring illegal aliens as someone who buys fruit since the company that sells the fruit hires illegals to do their picking.

If he had hired a illegal alien as a nanny, picked these guys up off a street corner, or hired them directly, that is one thing but he hired a gardening company that in turn hired the illegals. That seems to take the "busted" and "gotcha" that Ty was referring to out of the whole scenario.

Spanky 12-14-2006 02:25 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
If nothing else, this is ridiculous. Again with the belief that one can just tell, from observation, with 100% accuracy, who is muslim and who isn't. Does Keith Ellison look muslim?

And how is who among the questioned is what religion going to be determined? Is the government going to require all questioned passengers to declare their religion? Or will the TSA keep track itself (and then not ask about religion and mark down "unknown")? If not, does CAIR get to determine when "too many" muslims get questioned? And, how ever the determination gets made as to how many muslims have been subject to additional search/questions, isn't the TSA's way around it just to inconvenience a whole bunch of whiteys to balance out the proportions? This is just such a bureaucratic clusterfuck of a proposal that it's pointless.
If there was any justice in the universe Pelosi and Conyers will be on the next plane that is hijacked.

Cletus Miller 12-14-2006 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Maybe I have read this wrong, but it seems to me that Romney hired a gardening firm to do his gardening work. He did not hire any illegal aliens. The Gardeining firm was not an illegal alien nor were its owners. So therefore, it seems to me Romney is about as guilty of hiring illegal aliens as someone who buys fruit since the company that sells the fruit hires illegals to do their picking.

If he had hired a illegal alien as a nanny, picked these guys up off a street corner, or hired them directly, that is one thing but he hired a gardening company that in turn hired the illegals. That seems to take the "busted" and "gotcha" that Ty was referring to out of the whole scenario.
Okay. Hadn't seen that and didn't look for old news. Only Romney + illegals stories that are new relate to his agreement (as Mass Gov.) with the INS, so I thought you were refering to something related to that.

Hank Chinaski 12-14-2006 02:29 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
If there was any justice in the universe Pelosi and Conyers will be on the next plane that is hijacked.
we've been through this. planes won't be hijacked anymore. blown up sure, but no way anyone who can fight will let non-specific peoples take over a plane ever again.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 12-14-2006 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I even prefer Scalia to Bork. And I view Scalia as one of the most dangerous men in America.
How is that? Scalia has basically zero control in the Supreme Court, which itself has limited authority to do much.

Spanky 12-14-2006 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Okay. Hadn't seen that and didn't look for old news. Only Romney + illegals stories that are new relate to his agreement (as Mass Gov.) with the INS, so I thought you were refering to something related to that.
Oh - I see, you were operating under the naive assumption that I chose to discuss something substantive that actually affects the voters of this country. However, as usual, I was off in tabloid superficial political land.

Secret_Agent_Man 12-14-2006 03:12 PM

Up to the minute gossip
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It's only a matter of hours before the folks at KOS accuse rove of injecting Johnson with Polonium 210.
So, THAT"s where the Iraqi WMD went!! Should have known that Rove had it squirreled away all along.

yeah, it all makes sense now . . .

S_A_M

Cletus Miller 12-14-2006 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Oh - I see, you were operating under the naive assumption that I chose to discuss something substantive that actually affects the voters of this country. However, as usual, I was off in tabloid superficial political land.
No such assumption here. I just had not seen anything relating to Romney's gardeners, etc. since the initial story. Guess I missed the follow-up you were talking about. My assumption, with Romney + illegals in the news today, was that you were refering to today's news.

taxwonk 12-14-2006 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How is that? Scalia has basically zero control in the Supreme Court, which itself has limited authority to do much.
His influence is much larger than his degree of control on the Court. In addition, he is very powerful within the Federalist Society, which is pretty much the recruiting pool for Republican government lawyers and judges.

Hank Chinaski 12-14-2006 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
His influence is much larger than his degree of control on the Court. In addition, he is very powerful within the Federalist Society, which is pretty much the recruiting pool for Republican government lawyers and judges.
do you wish he died?

Shape Shifter 12-14-2006 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you wish he died?
I'd like him to wait a couple of years.

Secret_Agent_Man 12-14-2006 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Maybe my history is off, but because Bork was turned down didn't we get Kennedy? You prefer Kennedy to Bork?
Lord yes.

S_A_M

Hank Chinaski 12-14-2006 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'd like him to wait a couple of years.
Giuliani will probably appoint someone at least as swarthy.

Secret_Agent_Man 12-14-2006 03:24 PM

The Bitter Troll Pounces
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Can anyone doubt, after observing the speed at which she jumped on the factual error of my post, that she scans this board with the sole purpose of finding excuses to comment on my posts.
You guys just need to finish up this elaborate insectoid courting ritual and just get a room.

S_A_M

P.S. Spanky I must say that I'm surprised that you seemingly haven't realized that you are both battlingly a deep-seated attraction. Like all others, Spanky, she wants you.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 12-14-2006 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
His influence is much larger than his degree of control on the Court. In addition, he is very powerful within the Federalist Society, which is pretty much the recruiting pool for Republican government lawyers and judges.
I think you overestimate his power. He may be influential, but that's because others find is intellectual power compelling, not because he's in a position to pull strings.

taxwonk 12-14-2006 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you wish he died?
No.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 12-14-2006 03:28 PM

The Bitter Troll Pounces
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You guys just need to finish up this elaborate insectoid courting ritual and just get a room.

S_A_M

P.S. Spanky I must say that I'm surprised that you seemingly haven't realized that you are both battlingly a deep-seated attraction. Like all others, Spanky, she wants you.
It's all for naught. Realize that when Spanky calls someone a "Spinster" that's code for "Of Legal Age". He won't touch her.

taxwonk 12-14-2006 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think you overestimate his power. He may be influential, but that's because others find is intellectual power compelling, not because he's in a position to pull strings.
Perhaps I'm giving him too much credit, but in the long run, I think the idea to influence the thinking of people younger than himself in the government and judiciary will prove to be more influential than a current ability to pull strings.

Secret_Agent_Man 12-14-2006 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he misuses Orwellian as often as Ty. Plus you should have heard his ass on the major patent case argued late November. Okay, it's a niche area, and you don't get it- but then shut the fuck up. We are actually as scared as minorities were waiting for the U of M law school case to come down.
Dude, ALL of your shit is obvious, but how do we prove it?

S_A_M

Shape Shifter 12-14-2006 03:29 PM

The Bitter Troll Pounces
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You guys just need to finish up this elaborate insectoid courting ritual and just get a room.

S_A_M

P.S. Spanky I must say that I'm surprised that you seemingly haven't realized that you are both battlingly a deep-seated attraction. Like all others, Spanky, she wants you.
I think you overestimate his power. He may be influential, but that's because others find his intellectual power compelling, not because he's in a position to pull strings.

notcasesensitive 12-14-2006 03:32 PM

The Bitter Troll Pounces
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's all for naught. Realize that when Spanky calls someone a "Spinster" that's code for "Of Legal Age". He won't touch her.
I'm just happy that he is not the sort to take things personal first. I'm sure that by pointing out that something that he posted was sexist, I opened myself up for jokes ("jokes") about possible incest in my background.


(And by mentioning it now, I'm opening myself up to allegations that it must be true, if it struck such a powerful nerve! Merde!)

Hank Chinaski 12-14-2006 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Dude, ALL of your shit is obvious, but how do we prove it?

S_A_M
the oral argument and briefing were horrible. neither even listened to what the judges were saying (they were lost).

Worse? there is a line of argument that the references don't support a rejection, and in fact suggest away from it. there was such a strong argument of that here that the original SJ should have gone the other way- not be turned down- gone the other way. they didn't make the argument.

Spanky 12-14-2006 03:36 PM

This is a rather strange piece....
 
Run Now, Obama

By George Will


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | New Hampshire was recently brightened by the presence of Barack Obama, 45, who, calling the fuss about him "baffling," made his first trip in 45 years to that state, and not under duress. Because he is young, is just two years distant from a brief career as a state legislator and has negligible national security experience, an Obama presidential candidacy could have a porcelain brittleness. But if he wants to be president — it will not be a moral failing if he decides that he does not, at least not now — this is the time for him to reach for the brass ring. There are four reasons why.


First, one can be an intriguing novelty only once. If he waits to run, the past half-century suggests that the wait could be eight years (see reason four, below). In 2016 he will be only 55, but there will be many fresher faces.


Second, if you get the girl up on her tiptoes, you should kiss her. The electorate is on its tiptoes because Obama has collaborated with the creation of a tsunami of excitement about him. He is nearing the point when a decision against running would brand him as a tease who ungallantly toyed with the electorate's affections.


Third, he has, in Hillary Clinton, the optimal opponent. The contrast is stark: He is soothing; she is not. Many Democrats who are desperate to win are queasy about depending on her. For a nation with jangled nerves, and repelled by political snarling, he offers a tone of sweet reasonableness.


What people see in him reveals more about them than about him. Some of his public utterances have the sponginess of Polonius's bromides for Laertes ("neither a borrower nor a lender be . . . to thine own self be true"). In 2005 the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO rated his voting record a perfect 100. The nonpartisan National Journal gave him an 82.5 liberalism rating, making him more liberal than Clinton (79.8). He dutifully decries "ideological" politics but just as dutifully conforms to most of liberalism's catechism, from "universal" health care, whatever that might mean, to combating global warming, whatever that might involve, and including the sacred injunction Thou Shalt Execrate Wal-Mart — an obligatory genuflection to organized labor.

The nation, which so far is oblivious to his orthodoxy, might not mind it if it is dispensed by someone with Obama's "Can't we all just get along?" manner. Ronald Reagan, after all, demonstrated the importance of congeniality to the selling of conservatism.


Fourth, the odds favor the Democratic nominee in 2008 because for 50 years it has been rare for a presidential nominee to extend his party's hold on the presidency beyond eight years. Nixon in 1960 came agonizingly close to doing so (he lost the popular vote by 118,574 — less than a vote per precinct — and a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and 24,129 in Texas would have elected him) but failed. As did Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (he lost by 510,314 out of 73,211,875 votes cast), Gerald Ford in 1976 (if 5,559 votes had switched in Ohio and 7,232 in Mississippi, he would have won) and Al Gore in 2000 (537 Florida votes). Only the first President Bush, in 1988, succeeded, perhaps because the country desired a third term for the incumbent, which will not be the case in 2008. So the odds favor a Democrat winning in 2008 and, if he or she is reelected, the Democrat nominated in 2016 losing.


Furthermore, remember the metrics of success that just two years ago caused conservatives to think the future was unfolding in their favor: Bush carried 97 of the 100 most rapidly growing counties; the center of the nation's population, now southwest of St. Louis, is moving south and west at a rate of two feet an hour; only two Democratic presidents have been elected in the past 38 years; in the 15 elections since World War II, only twice has a Democrat received 50 percent of the vote. Two years later, these facts do not seem so impressive.


In 2000 and 2004, Bush twice carried 29 states that now have 274 electoral votes; Gore and Kerry carried 18 that now have 248. Not much needs to change in politics for a lot to change in governance. And Obama, like the rest of us, has been warned, by William Butler Yeats: All life is a preparation for something that probably will never happen.


Unless you make it happen.

ltl/fb 12-14-2006 03:40 PM

The Bitter Troll Pounces
 
Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I'm just happy that he is not the sort to take things personal first. I'm sure that by pointing out that something that he posted was sexist, I opened myself up for jokes ("jokes") about possible incest in my background.


(And by mentioning it now, I'm opening myself up to allegations that it must be true, if it struck such a powerful nerve! Merde!)
I thought that there was a greater incidence of incest/sexual abuse among strippers/sex workers than in the general population?

Maybe it's because they are so hot, they are just sexually irresistable. Even at like 5. And even to Daddy. So perhaps it's sort of the downside of being steaming hot.

Now I'm concerned about gwinky.

Hank Chinaski 12-14-2006 03:42 PM

The Bitter Troll Pounces
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I thought that there was a greater incidence of incest/sexual abuse among strippers/sex workers than in the general population?

Maybe it's because they are so hot, they are just sexually irresistable. Even at like 5. And even to Daddy. So perhaps it's sort of the downside of being steaming hot.

Now I'm concerned about gwinky.
maybe uglier girls are just happy for any attention so they don't report it?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:42 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com