|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:59 pm Post subject: 81 |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Chaz: They already DO limit "protests" near rallies, polling places, even businesses etc. It's usually "across the street", sometimes further, but you haven't been able to go absolutely ANYWHERE you wanted to make a scene for a damned long time now.
Look, I understand the whole point of protecting speech is protecting speech that other people don't want to hear, and this stuff clearly qualifies for it. But they AREN'T being silenced. Their message can still get out. But just as you don't have the right to stand on someone's doorstep and yell at them through the door any time you want, they shouldn't have to right to disrupt people's funerals with this. |
Firstly... you haven't been able to go absolutely ANYWHERE you wanted to make a scene in the history of humanity. 
I agree DeathMage. I just disagree that government should be involved at all. We don't need more laws to protect the funeral; we need less laws to protect the protesters.
There isn't anything in the Constitution that says someone has the right to shoot his/her mouth off without having to worry about getting his/her ass kicked. Those were laws enacted later--probably because of some other laws protecting property before them, and so on and so forth.
Somewhere, someone convinced us that it's Government's job to protect our rights from everyone... I don't think it is. I think it's the Constitution's job to protect our rights from Government.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: 82 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| No no no, we let the poltergeists handle that. |
That's Anarchy mentality, jsyk.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:56 pm Post subject: 83 |
|
|
| Chaz wrote: |
| but... as is... I'm down with this particular law, since the alternative (a good ass kicking) has been precluded from our possible solutions. |
Do you understand that a lot of world lives with the idea that violence is the appropriate response to people disagreeing with you? Would YOU like to live in those places? These are places with no government to speak of -- the only "government" they have is composed of the people who were the MOST adept at violence using it against those who disagreed with them, until those who remained were afraid to do so. This, of course, isn't government; it is what you get when you live in a society where violence is considered the appropriate response against people with whom you disagree.
Perhaps you are making a distinction between violence and "a good ass-kicking?" If so, please explain what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:05 pm Post subject: 84 |
|
|
| I have a feeling that in this specific case, they passed the law knowing fully that it wouldn't pass constitution rigor, but by the time it was struck down it would have already had the desired effect - allowing them to remove protesters from the vicinity of this specific funeral. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:34 pm Post subject: 85 |
|
|
Here's the Fresno Bee's reporting on the "vigil".
I love how they say there were "dozens" of vigil people (I believe they did a song called Whine MCA) but there were at most 20 KMJ supporters. So 24 vs 20? Nice biased reporting there.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:17 pm Post subject: 86 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Do you understand that a lot of world lives with the idea that violence is the appropriate response to people disagreeing with you? |
I do.
| Zag wrote: |
| Would YOU like to live in those places? |
I do live in this sort of place. 
| Zag wrote: |
| These are places with no government to speak of -- the only "government" they have is composed of the people who were the MOST adept at violence using it against those who disagreed with them, until those who remained were afraid to do so. This, of course, isn't government; it is what you get when you live in a society where violence is considered the appropriate response against people with whom you disagree. |
Honestly, Zag, I fail to see the difference between "these" places and "this" place.
| Zag wrote: |
| Perhaps you are making a distinction between violence and "a good ass-kicking?" If so, please explain what it is. |
It's all about accountability. If I kick someone's ass, someone can ask me why (and even kick my ass back if they think I'm being a tyrant.) Laws don't work that way. Laws don't care about "right" or "wrong" or "intent". Ass-kickers do. Laws care about "conviction rates" and "technicalities" and "loop-holes." Laws aren't passionately involved in enforcement (which seems like a good idea on the surface, but leads directly to criminal mentality.)
Laws get enforced because they are laws, and not necessarily because they make life better for society as a whole.
Ass-kickings get enforced because someone is causing somebody else enough problems that the ass-kicker finally resorts to violence.
If a law gets over-enforced, people just take it because government is too powerful to fight.
If an ass-kicker kicks too many asses, people will band together to kick his ass back.
If laws keep the people under control, who keeps the laws under control? The Constitution is supposed to, but congress doesn't seem to regard it as anything but a naive piece of paper these days...
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:30 pm Post subject: 87 |
|
|
| Chaz wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| Would YOU like to live in those places? |
I do live in this sort of place. |
Salt Lake City. Oooo, that's one violent place.
It turns out, even bonded together, dead people don't kick a whole lot of anything.
Buy a clue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:00 pm Post subject: 88 |
|
|
Ditto in reverse...
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:21 pm Post subject: 89 |
|
|
| Chaz wrote: |
| Laws don't care about "right" or "wrong" or "intent". Ass-kickers do. |
I wasn't aware that laws cared about anything. I thought they were words written on paper or abstract ideas.
Perhaps you should focus on the people who write, interpret, and enforce laws. Or as one might call them, the government employed ass-kickers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:46 pm Post subject: 90 |
|
|
The problem with ass-kicking as a solution is that the problem is sometimes that you earned something I want and I'm a better ass-kicker.
The idea that an ass-kicker "cares" is ridiculous.
He only cares about getting his own ass kicked.
BTW Informative and somewhat related: The Myth of Violence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:59 pm Post subject: 91 |
|
|
Know what happens when the ass-kick solution becomes the social norm? He who can kick the most ass forms a type of government, as his word becomes law.
Besides that...
| Chaz wrote: |
| I do live in this sort of place. |
In the US, I don't know if even the areas with the worst gang-violence really compare to areas that TRULY live under a violent rule. Maybe a hundred and fifty years ago in the "old west", but in modern times? I just don't see it.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:01 am Post subject: 92 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| I wasn't aware that laws cared about anything. I thought they were words written on paper or abstract ideas. |
Therein lies the problem Thok. Why would I want to give money to something that doesn't care about my happiness? It's slavery.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
The problem with ass-kicking as a solution is that the problem is sometimes that you earned something I want and I'm a better ass-kicker.
The idea that an ass-kicker "cares" is ridiculous.
He only cares about getting his own ass kicked. |
I agree Jack, but that problem exists with or without government. Only the law abiding productive members of society obey the law, and their recourse is limited by laws whereas a criminal is not.
Often times a criminal can even get away with "breaking" the law by using loopholes. If government is "the only rule" then there's nothing you can do about these criminals, because, technically, they didn't do anything wrong. Even if they show up at your daughters funeral to say that God hated her and wanted her dead. A decent person's hands are tied, and the real dregs of society are allowed to thrive.
I will watch your video (I only started it, since I don't have twenty mins just now) and let you know what I think. I already agree with him that society (as a whole) is less violent than it was, say, 100 years ago. I bet he gives credit to things that I wouldn't though.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:18 am Post subject: 93 |
|
|
| Chaz wrote: |
| Therein lies the problem Thok. Why would I want to give money to something that doesn't care about my happiness? It's slavery. |
As I said, the laws don't care about anything, but the people who write interpret, and enforce them should care about your happiness.
Or at least they would if you were a "decent" person.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:26 am Post subject: 94 |
|
|
I am a very decent person. 
The people who interpret the laws do not care anymore about whether or not the laws apply. Expressions like "teary-eyed jury" and "zero-tolerance laws" are enough indication of this phenomenon.
The government's elimination of jury nullification (read up on it) alone shifted the power too far towards the men who write the laws. They are our masters, and we don't have a final say anymore.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:09 am Post subject: 96 |
|
|
Actually, the fact that the jurors were removed from the jury proves my point. Though... if your link was meant to warm my heart and give me hope for the future, well done.
I always know what I'm talking about. I'm just not always right about it.
| some random dude on wikipedia wrote: |
First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4 (1794),[29]
It was over time that judicial and legal opinion slowly changed to consider jury nullification only a power and not a right of juries, as judges and prosecutors wanted stricter enforcement of laws that juries nullified. This shift stemmed from the 18th century conflict between two factions of English jurists, the first led by Lord Camden, which was originally prevalent in what became the United States, and the second led by Lord Mansfield. The position of the latter was called "Mansfieldism" by Jefferson[30] and the shift has been called "Mansfieldization".[31]
In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use. The first landmark decisions since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution confirmed several rights of the defense in a criminal case: a requirement on the bench not make a decision on motions until all legal arguments had been made by both sides; the right to be free of making those arguments before the jury had been seated; and the right to make those legal arguments to the jury.[32][33]
The first major decision that departed from this line was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U.S. 322 (1840),[34] which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law. The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S. written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[35]
Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[36] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[37] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[38] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[39] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are considered by bar associations to be ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[40] |
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:55 am Post subject: 97 |
|
|
The lawyers have contrived to eliminate anyone who might nullify a law. Whenever I hear someone at work say "Ugh, Jury duty." I just tell them, "Say you're a libertarian. You'll be dismissed."
If I'm called, fuck them. They can verify that I'm a US citizen and that's it. All the other questions I can just bullshit. I see it as my duty as a peer of the citizen on trial to get on the jury even if I have to obfuscate.
Plus Thok, Judges will quite often instruct the Jury that they must follow the law, not their conscience. Despite clear Supreme Court rulings to the contrary. Unless you are bribed, you can vote however you want, for whatever reason.
The simple fact is that if you know too much or have any opinion at all, you are suddenly not a peer of the accused. Nevermind that you have no relation to the person, you are subject to harsher rules of elimination than judges undergo for recusal, and not because you might have some tie to the defendant, but because you might think for yourself.
Don't think someone should go to jail for possession of weed? They will stack it with people that do. Or people that don't care or don't think or are just fucking asshats.
I will never be on a jury. Ever. I guarantee you this (unless I'm very very sneaky). Chaz won't either. Pablo won't either. Most everyone on this forum won't either.
You need to be a sheep. I would have to act my ass off to get on a jury. They don't want someone like me on a jury because I disrupt their chess match (which involves trading pleas and etc etc and might hurt the conviction rate of the prosecutor).
It's bullshit. But like Winston Churchill said about Democracy...
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:18 pm Post subject: 98 |
|
|
Sam, I HAVE been on several juries
1. A rape case (convicted)
2. A "receiving stolen property" case. (acquitted)
3. A criminal trespassing case (acquitted)
4. A DWI case. (mistrial - the judge realized he had business dealings with someone involved in the accident that took place)
There have been two other time that I was called and selected, but eliminated by one of the attorneys.
I think all you say is true, but the process just isn't efficient enough to weed us all out. The trespassing case was fascinating, and despite the fact that he was absolutely guilty of breaking the law, and despite the fact that the judge told us clearly that we were not to judge his character, but to decide simply whether or not he had trespassed, we acquitted him. It was a pure case of jury nullification and I was proud and pleased to be a part of it. Not all jurors were pleased. The last couple gave in reluctantly, but as a group, we decided that the law was being applied inappropriately.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:32 pm Post subject: 99 |
|
|
My number has never come up. My wife's has a couple of times, but the jury box wasn't wheelchair accessible so she didn't have to go.
I'm not sure I understand your point, Pablo. Are you saying that he shouldn't have been convicted because the law was a bad one? Or are you saying that he was guilty, but not of the law they charged him with? Or that he was technically guilty of the letter of the law but that he didn't actually do anything wrong? or something else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:10 pm Post subject: 100 |
|
|
My guess would be the third. There was a law, he was breaking it, but the spirit of the law didn't apply in this case.
Jury nullification should be used for any of your circumstances (except maybe the fourth, depending on whether or not "something else" is a bribe or some other coercion.)
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:20 pm Post subject: 101 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
I'm not sure I understand your point, Pablo. Are you saying that he shouldn't have been convicted because the law was a bad one? Or are you saying that he was guilty, but not of the law they charged him with? Or that he was technically guilty of the letter of the law but that he didn't actually do anything wrong? or something else? |
Long story. He was a foreign exchange student who took a wheelchair bound friend to a restaurant and parked in the handicap spot. His car was towed. It was late at night, so he called the number and arranged to meet the tow guy to get his car back. He took a cab. When he got there, the guy wouldn't accept a check and a (peaceful) argument ensued. The guy told him that if he didn't leave, he would call the police, which he did. The police came and ultimately arrested the guy and he spent the night in jail. The next day, he went and got the cash, took it to the yard, paid the tow truck guy the basic fee PLUS additional money for all his time. All was, at that point, settled. The tower had been paid for everything. However, he chose to press charges, for whatever reason. True, our defendant had trespassed, true he had ignored the advice of the owner and the police, and true he was, by the letter of the law, guilty of trespassing, as explained to us by the judge. However, the jury concluded that
A. He had atoned for damages by spending a night in jail and paying everything the tower asked.
B. He was doing a very unselfish act and being from a foreign country, he didn't fully understand the significance of parking in a handicap zone. He did have a handicapped person with him.
C. He was an upright citizen, a nice, honorable young man, who did not deserve a criminal record.
D. The tow truck guy was being very mean-spirited by pursuing this. He had nothing to gain besides joy in seeing this guy get punished further.
IN THIS CASE, I strongly believed that jury nullification was appropriate and was our moral duty. To me, it was a good example of just why "jury of peers" is the best system there is.
In general, I believe it is the obligation of the jury to judge the quality of the law, the application of the law, and whether or not the defendant violated the law. I believe a verdict of not guilty is reasonable and possible, based on any of those three bases, despite any instructions from the judge. The system was intentionally and ingeniously designed without recourse to the jury so that their word was indeed final. Jury nullification is not an excuse to ignore the law, it is an instrument to assure that final power is in the hands of the people, not the government.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:49 pm Post subject: 102 |
|
|
If I've broken a law, I would definitely prefer a jury trial.
If I have not broken any law, I would rather deal with a judge directly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:02 pm Post subject: 103 |
|
|
| Good Morning America/ABC wrote: |
| "He did not watch TV, he disliked the news," Zach Osler said. "He didn't listen to political radio, he didn't take sides, he wasn't on the left, he wasn't on the right." |
| Page 3 wrote: |
Osler pointed to an online documentary series called "Zeitgeist" as a possible influence on the man.
The series rails on currency-based economics.
"I really think that this 'Zeitgeist' documentary had a profound impact on Jared's mindset and how he viewed that world that he lives in," Osler said.
Osler also said that Loughner's favorite quote was "Out of chaos breathes creation." |
He was, apparently, also following the laughably named "Truther" movement, documentaries etc.
That's right. The shooter had more influence from radical LEFT wing media than right-wing media. Yet almost all the major news stories on this blame the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh etc.
I hate the disinformation age we live in.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:31 pm Post subject: 104 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
If I've broken a law, I would definitely prefer a jury trial.
If I have not broken any law, I would rather deal with a judge directly. |
The guy we acquitted would have likely been found guilty by a judge. "Judge nullification" is probably rare....but I'm guessing it does exist.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:58 pm Post subject: 105 |
|
|
Thanks, Pablo, for the description. It sounds as if you did the right thing.
Also, thanks Samadhi, DM, etc. for the info on Jury Nullification. I hadn't realized that it was a valid choice by juries. I had thought (before you educated me) that the judicial process for overturning bad laws was that the defendants had to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court before a bad law could be struck down. While I see some possibility of abuse, I like it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:37 pm Post subject: 106 |
|
|
I didn't comment on Jury Nullification. There really wasn't anything I could add to it. I fully support the idea, mind you. It's one of the main reasons to have juries in the first place.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:36 pm Post subject: 107 |
|
|
People have been arrested for contempt for jury nullification (though the reason for the arrest is a technicality of some form or another.) Jury nullification pisses the courts off.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2899/whats-the-story-on-jury-nullification
On a side note... on my way to work, I thought of two "real world" examples where jury nullification would apply (for me.) The first is hot air balloon passengers who come down in a random field. Yes, technically, they're trespassing, but that's not what the laws are meant to prevent. So long as they make haste to get off the land, I would choose to nullify--and I've heard stories of people being arrested for this when the land owner wants to be an ass hole about it.
The second is teenage girls who are being arrested for distribution of child pornography when they send nude photos of themselves to their friends. It's fucking ridiculous. Laws shouldn't apply to the people they're meant to protect. It would be a bit like arresting a kid for statutory rape because he masturbated.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:40 pm Post subject: 108 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
The problem with ass-kicking as a solution is that the problem is sometimes that you earned something I want and I'm a better ass-kicker.
The idea that an ass-kicker "cares" is ridiculous.
He only cares about getting his own ass kicked.
BTW Informative and somewhat related: The Myth of Violence |
I watched (listened to anyway) this on my way to work.
I mostly agree with everything he says. I do take exception to his usage of "anarchy" (since he uses it to represent "chaos" which I'm adamantly against), but, other than that, it's pretty spot on to how I feel.
Especially the part about technology increasing empathy to a point that people are just nicer toward each other. I don't think civil order has as much to do with "government" as it does with "communication." If you look around, I suspect you'd find that the most empathetic areas are also the most "wired" areas.
Usually when someone is trying to "control" someone else, the first thing they'll do is cut off communication to the outside world... it always leads to hatred.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:02 pm Post subject: 109 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| People have been arrested for contempt for jury nullification (though the reason for the arrest is a technicality of some form or another.) Jury nullification pisses the courts off. |
Every case I can find (contempt) was over turned on appeal. The Supreme Court has ruled on this decisively. Unless the jury was up to no good, the judge is being a dick and will probably be reprimanded.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:05 pm Post subject: 110 |
|
|
The fact that some judges have the mentality that jurors shouldn't be allowed to nullify laws that the disagree with (and I've heard stories of them actually instructing the jurors not to nullify) is the most obnoxious fact in our legal system.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:54 pm Post subject: 111 |
|
|
I blame spineless, ignorant, lemming-like, jurors who don't have the guts to think for themselves. They should all chug on over to Mamby Pamby land and find some confidence.......jackwagons.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:58 pm Post subject: 112 |
|
|
I agree with Mike. Also... I blame government.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:31 pm Post subject: 113 |
|
|
Heard on NPR, posted without comment.
| Daisy Hernandez wrote: |
My eyes scanned the mobile papers. I held my breath. Finally, I saw it: Jared Loughner. Not a Ramirez, Gonzalez or Garcia.
It’s safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo |
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:56 pm Post subject: 114 |
|
|
I dunno... I had the same exact reaction when I heard he didn't advocate Anarchy.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:20 pm Post subject: 115 |
|
|
Huh. I just now read that Giffords is pro gun rights (extremely so considering she's a D.)
I wonder if her views on gun rights will change now. I wonder if she'll be more in favor of gun-control, or more in favor of gun rights, or if she won't change her view at all.
I might have to put her in the heroes of liberty thread if she stands firm about gun rights after something like this.
_________________
The enemy's base is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:10 pm Post subject: 116 |
|
|
An eerie resemblance.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
