I don't think the people of the USA have much reason to celebrate any more.
A man was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with the caption "Veterans for Peace".
You don't need an id to rent a machine gun, but you have to sign a paper you won't use it filming an anti-war or anti-Bush protest movie?? Puh-leeze!
Re:Anomaly
Aristotle on 2006-07-04T19:55:08
What a surprise that police officers are sometimes either overzealous or ignorant of the law (if they were really smart, they’d be lawyers, after all). […] That is a private decision by the person renting the gun. Similarly, he is taking on all responsibility for whatever you do with the gun he is renting to you, so if he doesn’t want to check your ID, he’s taking a pretty big risk, but it is his to take.
You don’t think that the fact that a police officer thought they should arrest someone with such a t-shirt, or the fact that the only thing the gun vendor wanted to cover his ass about is whether a machine gun will be used for propaganda, is indicative of a certain political climate? If these outliers are really meaningless, how come noone would even think of doing something like that in another country, or for that matter why did these things not used to happen in the US 10 years ago?
(Note that I’m making no assertion about whether they imply anything about actual politics.)
Re:Anomaly
pudge on 2006-07-05T06:10:45
You don’t think that the fact that a police officer thought they should arrest someone with such a t-shirt, or the fact that the only thing the gun vendor wanted to cover his ass about is whether a machine gun will be used for propaganda, is indicative of a certain political climate?
First, you are missing the point with the latter: it's not about covering his ass, is my guess. It is far more likely he simply does not want to be involved in such a movie.
As to the former, no, I don't think it is the political climate, but it is the social climate. But so what? We live in a new world now, and we all need to adjust, including the cops. They need to be better educated (and perhaps getting smacked down in court is one way to do that).
how come noone would even think of doing something like that in another country
You're joking, right?
or for that matter why did these things not used to happen in the US 10 years ago?
No matter what you point to, we have far fewer and less egregious incidents of this now than we did the last time the U.S. was at war. Take a look into the DNC convention in '68, Kent State, and so on. If you just step back and take a little bit of perspective, you'll quite clearly see that things are not nearly as bad as they were the last time.
Re:Anomaly
Aristotle on 2006-07-05T06:28:01
You’re joking, right?
No I’m not, although it is indeed missing a bunch of qualifiers.
Re:Anomaly
pudge on 2006-07-05T07:18:25
Or maybe it has too many qualifiers, like "noone."
We see far worse abridgments of freedom all over the world. Saying someone cannot wear a t-shirt -- which, again, was a clear violation of the law by the apparently ignorant police officer, but still -- is nothing compared to what is done every day in most Islamic countries, nothing compared to Cuba or China, and does not even approach what happens every day in North Korea, which is without a doubt the most oppressive regime on the face of the planet.
So too is this IMO not as bad as what happens in the UK, where libel laws are extremely liberal (in favor of the supposedly defamed), or much of the rest of Western Europe and Canada (esp. Germany), with their insane hate speech laws (and while I understand the reasons for them [WWII], that doesn't make them OK).
This is one guy who was arrested and will easily have the charge thrown out by any court, and you're implying that's worse than the abridgments of free speech in all these other countries that actually are sanctioned and enforced by their respective governments, with people -- yes, even in Western Europe -- thrown in jail for months for saying something unpopular (such as the anti-gay preacher in Sweden; thankfully, his conviction was overturned, but it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for that to happen, unlike this case, where it won't get past the trial court).
Re:Anomaly
jdavidb on 2006-07-05T19:01:33
We have a climate of idiocy about the law and freedom, but I don't consider that "political" (as in showing anything in particular about the Bush administration, for example). Here in Texas we've had near absolute rights regarding homeschooling for nearly two decades (the law even grants a parent to pull a child out of a single class if they disagree with their child receiving the instruction) and there are still officials who harrass and intimidate those who use the right. It's not right-wingers alone that have caused this. Nor is it a climate of complete (or even majority) idiocy: the vast majority of officials have some vague idea that we are entitled to freedom.
Honestly I blame the public schools for it a lot more than I blame the Bush administration.
Interesting. When did you become a judge?He will, easily, win in court, since he violated no law.
Yes, that's why we have courts. Except when the administration decides it's higher than them.police officers are sometimes either overzealous or ignorant of the law
Terrible? Really? How so? Care to back that up with facts instead of innuendo, like typical sleazy right-winger writing?And it was also terrible when leftwingers similarly went after Rush Limbaugh.
Again, your court?that's not actually how law works
Thank you for the ad homimem attack. No, it's not a dictatorship. It's a tyranny. An administration that has grabbed power way above and beyond what the constitution has approved. It's one who's claimed private rights to privacy don't exist, regardless of what's on those silly law books. But don't let law and rights stop you. You're on a roll. Sadly, you're typical.anyone who calls it a dictatorship clearly is not a serious person
That's how it goes, correct?We're conservatives, we're in power, we make the laws. There is no loyal opposition: if you're against us, you're a traitor.
Re:Typical
pudge on 2006-07-05T07:28:19
Interesting. When did you become a judge?
I don't understand this apparent non sequitur. What does being a judge have to do with understanding this simple and widely understood aspect of U.S. law?
Yes, that's why we have courts. Except when the administration decides it's higher than them.
Um... huh? When did that ever happen? (Hint: it hasn't. At least, not by any President in your lifetime.)
Terrible? Really? How so? Care to back that up with facts instead of innuendo, like typical sleazy right-winger writing?
Nice ad hominem. Do you really not know of the smear campaign against Limbaugh when he got addicted to painkillers?
Again, your court?
Again: non sequitur.
Thank you for the ad homimem attack.
It was a statement of fact. Calling what the U.S. has a dictatorship is like saying that North Korea has a liberal democracy. It's not remotely accurate.
No, it's not a dictatorship. It's a tyranny.
That's also obviously false. The U.S. does not nearly approach absolute power vested in a single individual. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
An administration that has grabbed power way above and beyond what the constitution has approved.
That's your opinion; unfortunately for that opinion, the Supreme Court has ruled in the President's favor on the majority of Presidential power cases it's heard so far.
It's one who's claimed private rights to privacy don't exist
Really? How so? Care to back that up with facts instead of innuendo, like typical sleazy left-winger writing?
We're conservatives, we're in power, we make the laws. There is no loyal opposition: if you're against us, you're a traitor.
Wow. You slid that quote in there as though it was from me. Talk about sleaze. I never said any such thing in my life, and nothing I wrote in this discussion could possibly be construed by a reasonable person to imply anything remotely like that.
Re:Typical
VSarkiss on 2006-07-05T12:17:37
Thank you for substantiating everything I wrote. 'Nuff said.
Re:Typical
pudge on 2006-07-05T15:01:43
Riiiight. I disagreed with you, so therefore you were right all along. Nice "logic."
If you ever want to actually try to back up any of the things you've said with any actual facts, let me know. Until then, it would be wise of you to not pretend that you actually were proven right about anything, because it only makes you look the total fool.
Re:Typical
runrig on 2006-07-06T01:39:37
Do you really not know of the smear campaign against Limbaugh when he got addicted to painkillers?The significance of that whole incident was, to me, the outing of a hypocrite. Perhaps (probably) he was selectively targeted, but the charges were dismissed and he didn't go to jail, so the justice system works...sometimes...if you've got enough money (and a good lawyer)
:-) Re:Typical
pudge on 2006-07-06T06:28:45
The significance of that whole incident was, to me, the outing of a hypocrite
Fine, but people going after the editors and reporters of the NY Times can make the exact same argument. I am not defending either side; neither is justified.
