COMPLY OR ELSE!!!!

As I've said before...the further Left we move, the more intolerant we become.

and a totalitarian state we are becoming....or are...I should say.

freedom of choice is gone.

Yeah like the legislation to force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds before an abortion and mandating doctors to describe the images! The left knows no bounds to force morality on the population.

Wait, that was actually actions of the conservative lawmakers. Strike what I said above please!

there are health codes and building codes that exist for a reason. (should the be simpler and less burdensome, yes, if standards of safety can be met) If a restaurant went to a policy of not having employees wash their hands when the regulation was removed and i didn't know about it, I would be very pissed off. if it is your business to sell food to people, then that food must be prepared in a place that is clean, by clean people. If it is your business to rent people a place to live but dont have a solid building that doesn't fall like a house of cards. that's a problem. Yes there are remedies after incidents, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Whether you admit it or not there are reasonable regulations that exist to prevent problems. I'd rather have to comply with the health department than risk having to get my stomach pumped any time i go out to eat!

Abortion.....a one note song.

Abortion.....a one note song.

The article is about forced compliance and you seem to indicate it is a problem caused only by the left. I try to be inclusive. Just helping complete the picture.

Both political ideologies are at fault in this argument; it is disingenious to point only at one side or the other. Is that not a fair statement?

forcing doctors to give out information in regards to procedures is what that law dictates....

I personally do not support abortion and would counsel family members against it if asked. Your article however is about forced compliance and the change in the law was what I was addressing.

The abortion issue has been around since what, the '70s? Now we have this assult to force women into unnecessary, painful and expensive procedures. My argument was with a comment that indicated these issues are generated as the country moves farther left. All ideologies want to force compliance for their positions, not just liberals.

Yeah, marshall, you just keep promoting the great god known as the "free" market. And the rest of us will read books like Upton Sinclar's The Jungle, and learn what USED to be common practice in butchering meat, and what may have been IN some of that meat.

Marshall, we've tried your simplistic view back in the 19th century, even if you refuse to admit the US WAS a libertarian "paradise", and that what you got was mass corruption, an extreme of wealth and mass poverty with little in between, little growth, constant high unemployment, exploitation, child labor in factories and mines and so on.

And, from another post, on how the "courts will protect you" from such horrors, shows you apparently have NO knowledge of how the courts work, or their history and you seem to suffer from the common delusion that the courts ENFORCE the law - they don't. They APPLY the law to cases and make RULINGS, which are then ENFORCED by the EXECUTIVE - object lesson, ask the Cherokee how that whole ruling without enforcement thing worked in 1835, when the Supreme Court RULED that the five "civilized tribes" of the SE US had a LEGITIMATE RIGHT to remain in their lands, lands Andrew Jackson wanted for white settlement. Jackson's response was, They have ruled, now let them ENFORCE their ruling. And then he proceded to round up the indians and marched them to what is now Oklahoma, in the winter, on what is now known as the Trail of Tears. That the courts "work" is because SOCIETY agrees that they should work, and NOT because of some eternal idealistic whatsits.

the right wing is small government...non intrusive.

Do you just not read the news about and legislation from the right wing or do you just choose to ignore it? The Fed gov't is smaller under the current administration.

But should we really be so surprised? Contrary to popular myth, every Republican president since and including Herbert Hoover has increased the federal government's size, scope, or power--and usually all three.

http://mises.org/daily/895

Some folks look at life in a very self-centered and selfish manner. They want the freedom to incur risk, but then leave society responsible for cleaning up the mess. They want the freedom to believe as they wish, but expect society to inflict those beliefs on everyone else, too. The want to exploit all that society makes available to them to enrich themselves, but refuse to acknowledge and honor society's role in making their enrichment possible. All in all, it's a pretty selfish approach.

It is ridiculous to label cooperation, collaboration, and synergy as "self-centered" or "selfish". The whole point of civilization is to work together to achieve something greater than each person can achieve themselves. Only a selfish perspective would label such aims as "self-centered" or "selfish", as a projection of that selfish perspective's realization of its own failing, and the fear that noble efforts contrary to such selfish perspectives evoke.

Marshall: Saying someone is "100% wrong" and trying to foist your self-serving appraisal of someone else's point is vacuous. It's self-gratification - nothing more. Defend how the selfishness you advocate for serves the needs of others, if you can. Otherwise accept that all you are advocating for is your own self-enrichment at the expense of those less fortunate.

In regards to our own citizens...our government is just as bad. If you are an American citizen...and you speak out against this country....you will be killed without a trial.....If you are deemed a "threat" to this country...you will be held in prison indefinitely until you see the "error" of your ways. If you resist money being extorted from you....for the common good you will be imprisoned...if you resist you will be killed if need be.

OK so where are the links to prove this statement, this is NOT fact at all. Where is the facts for your article. Quite frankly JM< I am surpised that you even wrote this.

MArshall- perhaps the opposition to your article is because you failed to express it in a way they understood. Would you allow me to assist? Delete this if you wish, I'll understand it.

Right wing socialist engineering and left wing socialist engineering are BOTH to blame for the "Comply or Die" mentality running rampant in our government lately. When Republicans told us that opposition to the USA Patriot's Act was the sign of a guilty person, they supported the "C or D" mentality. When the Reps supported GITMO, enhanced interrogations, rendition, the creation of the TSA, and other Constitutional violations "For the safety of the US", they supported the "C or D" mentality. And the Democrats opposed them all, well, until THEIR president was in power. Then they renewed ALL of these programs, and strengthened them. When Obamacare decided it was going to force people to purchase a product from private enterprises or face fines, it was "C or D" support. When we are told that fighting to preserve any of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights makes us possible terrorist threats, as our current beloved janet Reno has warned police, it's "C or D" time. When returning veterans from the Iraq war are considered possible terrorist threats, it's "C or D" time. When organizations that have a religious opposition to abortion or contraception are ordered to provide insurance that covers these things, it's "C or D" time. (Do not bother trying to use Obama's double-talk about a compromise to claim the organizations won't be paying for these things- it's a lie) So BOTH sides are supporting an ever-expanding federal government.

I hope this helps you out, Marshall.

I love Marshall because he is so unfailingly consistent...

My world consists of greys and colors, so I dont agree with him.

But I admire his abililty to see in black and white so crisply.

I'm saying this with honesty and no slight or sarcasm... Marshall truly is a man of conviction, you have to at least give him that much.

are you reading what I am typing??????

Yes, and laughing my ass off at how detached from reality you must be to type it. But then again, you are the guy who thinks that laws that make it a crime to drive your three thousand pound vehicle on a road with the rest of us while blind drunk is tyranny. You want the right to destroy the lives of others without ever having to answer for it. That is not how it works here or, for that matter, anywhere else on this planet. We will go back to the insanely stupid libertarian ideal that failed miserably when we go back to bleeding us of our humors to treat illness.

If a restaurant went to a policy of not having employees wash their hands

when the regulation was removed and i didn't know about it, I would be very pissed off. if it is your business to sell food to people, then that food must be prepared in a place that is clean, by clean people.

As person who has worked in restaurants I can almost guarantee that just because a restaurant has a sign on the wall that says all employee must wash hands before returning to work is no guarantee that they will do it. You think the health department has a representative in every restaurant every day? Ha you better stop eating out.

FILE - In this Nov. 8, 2010 file image taken from video and released by SITE Intelligence Group on Monday, Anwar al-Awlaki speaks in a video message posted on radical websites. A senior U.S. counterterrorism official says U.S. intelligence indicates that U.S.-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed in Yemen. (AP Photo/SITE Intelligence Group, File) NO SALES (Credit: AP Photo/SITE Intelligence Group, File)

Oh great Marshall, so you are upset that this law covers TERRORISTS????????????
What the @!$%#, ya, let them live. This law ONLY< ONLY goes after US citizens if they are TERRORISTS, why would you have an issue with that????

For Immediate Release

December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 31, 2011.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

NO go to the SOURCE!!!!

said....that is in direction contradiction to what he has signed.

peace.

It is also BS

because someone speaks out or against our government does not mean they should be targeted and killed under the direction of one person...let alone many.

And they are not. So what is your point?

Marshall James

seems like they were.

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/

Anwar al-Awlaki who he is:

Anwar Al Awlaki Role In Prepping Underwear Bomber Revealed By Feds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/anwar-al-awlaki-underwear-bomber-federal-court-memo_n_1269703.html

Anwar Al-Awlaki: From American Boy to Face of Terror

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anwar-al-awlaki-american-boy-face-terror/story?id=13666145

Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico. He was also an operative for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula who fomented jihad in Yemen.

His terror portfolio reached the U.S. homeland: he facilitated the botched attack by the Christmas Day underwear bomber in 2009, and he may have prompted Nidal Hasan to massacre soldiers at Ft. Hood, TX.

The successful U.S. drone strike against him terminated his career as a jihadist.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/anwar_al-awlakis_comeuppance_and_the_framers_vision.html#ixzz1maRNlkVx

A hole search on him

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Anwar+al-Awlaki+&form=HPDMHP&qs=n&sk=&x=123&y=14

You are upset because this @!$%#ing terrorists was killed???????

Yes we did follow the law, when HE CHOSE to have AMericans killed, he was no longer an american.

I personally like this law.

when HE CHOSE to have AMericans killed, he was no longer an american.

Excuse me? How does that work? Every American who has murdered another American is no longer an American, and subject to execution by a hit squad without benefit of due process?? And you guys blasted Bush the Imbecilic for GITMO???? I call )..( on that one. Serious, bigtime )..( . So every single murderer in jail is no longer an American (unless, of course, his victim wasn't an American)?!? REALLY? See, we have this nifty little document. You might have heard of it. It's called the US Constitution. Attached to it is the Bill of Rights. I'm SURE I read somewhere in it that American citizens are entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers. But I forgot. Obama is above that outmoded document that Biden said "Was very old. It was written a hundred years ago, and doesn't count today." Amazing. The same people who read a right to healthcare paid for by taxpayer extorted monies, free housing, free schooling, free food, welfare, and government subsidized everything else INTO the Constitution when they aren't anywhere in it ALSO feel free to eliminate the things THEY don't like.

Equal protection for everyone except those who might do something violent someday? really?

The concept of equal protection and due process should be SO ingrained in every American that they feel - oh, I don't know, SAFE - from persecution and murder. That is even more BASIC than the concept of free speech! America isn't a land where we murder people without trial based on the fact that they MIGHT do something SOMEDAY.

I'm SURE I read somewhere in it that American citizens are entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers.

Clearly you are right, that is a right granted by the Constitution and Al-Awlaki could have exercised that right but chose not to and continue terrorist activities against America. Wasn't it Bush who said either you are for us or against us?

“It is wholly proper for the American military to be making plans to defeat Al Qaeda by eliminating its military leaders,” Mr. Samp said. “Anwar al-Awlaki is a leader of an Al Qaeda affiliate. His US citizenship does not entitle him to an exemption from the normal rules of war.” [....

....] Bates said Awlaki himself holds the key to preventing the US from moving forward with its alleged “kill list” plan. He said Awlaki, like any other US citizen, could avail himself of the protections of the US judicial system.

But the judge added: “No US citizen may simultaneously avail himself of the US judicial system and evade US law enforcement authorities.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1207/Judge-dismisses-bid-to-remove-Anwar-al-Awlaki-from-US-kill-list/(page)/2

you join the enemy and recruit for them, you lose citizen protections. its called treason. we didn't give the german americans who joined the nazis an american trial. it makes no sense. you can;t betray your country and expect to be protected by its laws. sorry. you're an enemy now, die like one.

And you guys blasted Bush the Imbecilic for GITMO????

I never supported Bush's ridiculous War on Terror. As to the rest, I have a son who needs Daddy-time. Later, Pat!

make sure the height of your sink in your business is the desired height....no choice if you own your business on what you desire for YOUR property

Right-wing conservatives continually likes to remind us that a job is not a right. Therefore it stands to reason that if a job is not a right then neither is owning a business and employing people. Therefore I would ike to remind them that owning a business is not a right it's a privilege. As a privilege there are rules that must be followed.

If you don't like the rules then you are free not to open a business. As far as your own home I'm sure you have the right to place the sink at any hight you desire.

Just for clarification, I am a business owner and employer.!! I own a small chain of restaurants and have no problem with any of the laws or regulations that govern and regulate our industry.

If anything when it comes to food safety I think there are to few regulations. As I said before I have no problem whatsoever with any of the laws regulating our industry and in fact am very happy I live in a country were it's citizens allow me the privilege of owning my own business..

I actually do have a problem with the sink height...how come all my people have to go home with back aches because the sink is too low?

and you saying that owning a business is a privelege is just nonsense.

I can see by your comment that you have never owned a business. Well I have, I've spent over 40 years building my restaurant business. Opening a business to the public which has the potential to affects the pubic and or put the public at risk and which also could affect the local community is not a right it's a privilege granted to you by the people of that community.

Just because you own property does not mean you can violate the law on that property. Murdering someone on your "private property" is just as illegal as murdering someone on public property so this idea that buying property gives you the right to do as you please is BS.

and you saying that owning a business is a privelege is just nonsense.

we are guaranteed the right to life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.......

enough said.

Yeah and when my youngest son was 13 his idea of "PURSUIT of happiness" was driving a car up and down the street. Unfortunately a drivers licence and driving a car is a privilege very much like opening a business to the public is a privilege.

You see what you fail to see is that a right becomes a privilege once the perceived right has the potential to negatively impact other peoples rights.

Let say I own some beach front property that I wish to use to open a new restaurant. According to your logic I should have the right to do so regardless of the impact this action may have on my neighbours and community.

In effect you are saying my right to open a business supersedes any rights my neighbours may have. For example how will my business effect local traffic and parking and will it cause a hardship for my neighbours. How does my right to open a business compare to their right to access and enjoy their own property. Will the trash that my restaurant generates cause a problem with insects and rodents that could negativity impact my neighbours. Those are only a few of many considerations involved..

You see, no man is an island unto himself! We as men no longer lives in caves we live in civilised socialites and as such your rights must be balanced with the rights of others. In reality there is much more involved in opening a business then some idealistically perceived right to do as you please regardless of how it affects your neighbours and community. And that sir is why opening a business in a modern civilised society is considered a privilege and not a right..

I actually do have a problem with the sink height...how come all my people have to go home with back aches because the sink is too low?

Being over 6'1" I also have this problem. That's why in my restaurants I always install more then one bathroom sink. I install one out of respect for our disabled vets who are in wheel chairs and I install another of comfortable hight for our taller guests. I personally have no problem abiding by the Americans with disability's act. Furthermore I would seriously question the integrity of any business owner who didn't.

A. I'm not talking about the bathroom sink.

B. I would seriously question the integrity of someone who can't have a discussion without questioning the integrity of their discussion partner....but that's just me.

Blaze- owning a business isn't a privilege. I've owned two, I know. It's hard work, it costs all your money and time, and government regulations can do as much as double the costs of operating. Then, 6 months down the road, some jackass changes the requirements for sink height or something else and adds to the costs.

In a free market economy, (which we are supposed to have, but don't) it is THE CUSTOMERS who decide whether a business is being run correctly. Not the government. If I CHOOSE to allow smoking (as an example) in my bar, and enough customers object (by leaving MY bar for the one across town), then I can change my policies or go out of business. If the local vets and HC people boycott me because my bathrooms are not HC Compatible, I'll either go out of business or add HC facilities. The market can decide.

When I lived in Jersey (25+ years ago) there was a restaurant I frequented. One day, I went in, and they had decided to allow smoking. This was, of course, before the smoking nazis took freedom to choose away from business owners. After my first meal in clouds of cigarette smoke, I informed Don (my friend, the owner) that it was my last visit to his place. The smoke made it unpleasant to eat there. Two weeks later, he called me to tell me he'd walled the dining area in half, and there was a totally isolated smoking section now. I asked him why, and he said "Half my regular patrons stopped coming by. I want to stay in business. But the smoking section HAS increased my late night business, so I have to keep it." Free market solution.

Now, I hear one of you proclaim "Non-smoking rules are for employee health. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. If I go to apply for work in a bar, and there is a cloud of cigarette smoke in the air, I have to accept the fact that a job there means exposure to 2nd hand smoke. I have NO right to accept a job there, then sue my boss for allowing smoking. If I am a woman, applying at Hooters for a waitress position, and the work uniform is hotpants, a halter top, and spike heels, I have to either accept those terms of work, or go elsewhere. (Or negotiate with the boss to avoid them. Maybe it will work). What I cannot do is take the job then sue the boss because "High heels hurt my back, and the halter top immodestly displays my bosom!" I took the job KNOWING that my boobs were a selling point of the job. Don't like that, don't apply there. It's like getting a job as a stripper, then suing the boss for making you take your clothes off on stage.

The problem is far too many people who falsely believe that the consumer has no power, and only the government can change the practices of a business. It just takes two simple things to accomplish ANY of the things you want a business to do. Well, three things, actually. The first is a willingness to get off your ass and let the business owner know your problems with the practice you oppose. Second, you need to have the guts to REFUSE TO PATRONIZE A BUSINESS if it continues to do what you oppose, even if it costs you a little extra time (going farther to buy the product/service), money (fuel costs plus possibly a more expensive purchase of the same product) and possibly even doing without a product. The third thing? Enough people who agree with you to do the same thing. Without that, you are trying to force the views of one person down the throat of the many.

Blaze- owning a business isn't a privilege. I've owned two,

"Owned" as in past tense..?? If so then obviously you're either retired or you must not have been very good at running your business's

I started out over 40 years ago as a dishwasher. Today I own a small chain of 5 restaurants and employee over 150 people. I've built each location from the ground up... I own 2 beach front seafood restaurants, 2 BBQ restaurants and a Greek nightclub / Bar and Grill. During the day it's a Bar and Grill and when the sun goes down it's a nightclub with a $40 per person cover charge with live entertainment and dancing. You would think after 40+ successful years in the restaurant business I just might have learned something about running a damn business in America...

by saying others can tell you what to do with your property you are saying they have a right to your property...which they do not have

The idea that owning property which you wish to use for business purposes means your rights supersede your neighbours rights is outright ludicrous. Your rights end where theirs begins and that's one of the reason why we have zoning laws. Noise, pollution and traffic congestion don't respect property lines...!!!

A side note that you might find interesting or coincidental. I have a foster son named James Marshall.

Neither is true, actually. One was co-owned with my father, (a plumbing company) and I moved to another state. The other, I sold when I moved to where I now live. Currently, I am contemplating starting another small business, but the political climate for gun shops is les than salubrious, and subjecting my family to some of the regulations entailed in this particular field. Since I sold my first gun shop (in 1995), the rules have vastly changed regarding differentiating between private property and business property. It used to be an FFL (Federal Firearms License, the license necessary to run a firearms business) gave the BATFE the power to engage in warrantless seraches and siezures on the business premises only. Now, they have expanded it to include business, home, and even rental property I own that is entirely unconnected to the gun shop. A tenant in a two family apartment building I own 30 miles from the gun shop could find their apartment invaded by ATF agents just because they want to see what I might be hiding there. NO warrants, no probable cause needed.

I applaud your going from dishwasher to small chain owner. If you haven't found the regulations a burden, you have my pity. You are comfortable in chains. I'm not. This isn't an insult, it's just a fact. I pity anyone who can not only support regulations, but even defend them.

ANY person with a foster child has my un-bridled admiration. It takes a special person to take on a responsibility such as that. My wife is involved in therapeutic Foster care. I don't think I could do well in TPC, although once a few of my 4 kids leave to go to college, we might try being standard foster parents. It depends more on my health- I have survived a stroke, and I'm just not as mobile as I once was.

I applaud your going from dishwasher to small chain owner. If you haven't found the regulations a burden, you have my pity. You are comfortable in chains. I'm not. This isn't an insult, it's just a fact. I pity anyone who can not only support regulations, but even defend them.

You see I don't see them as chains, I see then as common sense rules that I would abide by even if they weren't rules.

The fact that they are laws simply levels the playing field between the greedy business owner who would jeopardise his customers health for profit and the business men who have enough integrity to prioritise customer health and safety. Why should I be forced to complete against an unethical greedy business owner who would put profit above all else including food safety and customer health while I try to balance profit with the cost of common sense food safety practices.

Actually now that I think about it when it comes to restaurants and food service in general I don't believe there is enough regulations in place to adequately protect the health of the consumers. I've seen some commercial kitchens in restaurants that I wouldn't use to prepare a meal for a dog let alone a human..

I would be mortified if a single customer ever got sick. As a result all my kitchens, dining rooms, restrooms..... are kept immaculate. Food safety is my number one priority and as such I go above and beyond regulations to insure that no one ever gets sick.

After seeing the conditions and food handling practices that are normal in the industry I have come to the conclusion that the minimum standards I have personally set regarding food safety and cleanliness in my establishments should be the very minimum standards required by law. As I said before I started out as a bus boy / dishwasher over 40 years ago and you would not believe the disgusting things I have seen.

ANY person with a foster child has my un-bridled admiration. It takes a special person to take on a responsibility such as that. My wife is involved in therapeutic Foster care. I don't think I could do well in TPC, although once a few of my 4 kids leave to go to college, we might try being standard foster parents. It depends more on my health- I have survived a stroke, and I'm just not as mobile as I once was.

What can I say I love kids, but you're right it's not easy. I've had my fair share of children who were tough cases. I think I was able to break through to them because I understood what they were going through and where they were coming from. You see I lost my parents when I was young and by the time I was 14 I was living on the streets sleeping in the back seats of abandoned cars. I used to slop out bathrooms and wash dishes and windows at local restaurants just to earn meals. While I was living on the streets I vowed that when I grew up I would help as many homeless kids as I could and I have tried my best to honour that promise.

And for that, as I said, you have my respect. On the restaurant cleanliness, as a plumber, well, I get your point. But laws haven't fixed it yet, and I really don't ever see them fixing it. But we're just going to have to agree to disagree, unless you need some plumbing advice- then, I'm all ears to lend you a hand!

unless you need some plumbing advice- then, I'm all ears to lend you a hand!

Hey thanks for the offer, But with 5 restaurants to maintain I have my plumbers, electricians, window glass company, insurance company's, lawyer and accountant on speed dial on one phone and my vendors on speed dial on another ;-)

Seriously there are days were it seems like I have phones glued to each ear all day. Trust me with 5 restaurants to run you learn how to hold more then one or two conversation at a time otherwise you wouldn't ever get anything done. Oh I forgot I also have a 3rd cell phone that I use strictly to communicate with executive kitchen staff, managers and bartenders. That's my priority phone and when it rings it gets my undivided attention.

If you haven't guessed I do provide cell phones to my executive kitchen staff, manages and bartenders so they can text me with minor problems or can call me when more serious issue's arises that require my attention ie.. Checkbook :-)

Tell me something. If I walk into your kitchen to clean a clogged drain, does the kitchen stay operating around me? If so, HOW? Can I grease skate in front of the fry station? And last but not least, when I finish my job, and the chef/kitchen/ restaurant manager offers me a free lunch, will I accept it, or politely claim I'm not hungry, and go eat a cold baloney sandwich in my truck? Having worked the restaurant business for 40 years, you get the point of my questions.

One of the things that most people complain about is ADA compliance. I am blind and there are two particular stores I detest above all other and that is Pier One Imports and food stores. They place in the isles all kinds of stuff in the way. Stacks of canned food breakable objects and a cane only gives you a rough idea of what is in front of you. These types of marketing are extremely dangerous for me. I have tripped many times and knocked over stuff that was in an unexpected place. For every rule and regulation there is some idiot out there that caused mayhem with it. That’s why the regulation is there. I knocked over a display that was in the center of an isle and broke a bunch of glass ware. The manager of the particular store wanted me to pay for it. I refused and he called the police. When they arrived they cited him for hazardous placement of breakable objects and I left the store with out paying for the damage. ADA compliance can be difficult to deal with but if I had fell onto the broken glass the liability of the store owner would have been tremendous.

All law is legislated morality Marshall.

ALL of it.

Whats special about individual liberty? Thats is a moral question.

If it isn't, then why is it wrong for me to kill you and take your stuff?

Get it?

If you're consistent...I applaud you.

I agree that laws of morality are wrong... I am glad that you support gay marriage and abortion rights. It is good to see that you support gays in the military. I am finally happy to see someone willing to stand up to the Christian Right for trying to force their religion on me by having the government support it through classroom prayer. Someone willing to keep the government out of my bedroom and away from my birth control. Someone willing to take on the establishment for not allowing a Mosque to be built in New York, close to "ground zero". All of these things should not be monitored by a government... glad to see you are on our side...

And marshall dodges the OBVIOUS TRUTH, ALL law is based on moral and order precepts, INCLUDING the laws, and with those laws the implication of VIOLENT FORCE to maintain them, of people not killing marshall or stealing his stuff after beating him up.

Or, do you support murder and theft Marshall?

His smokong pot causes your auto insurance rates to go up.

Allowing smoking makes everybody's insurance go up.

You have no right to affect my finances Marshall.

Keep your hands over your ears as you go "nananananananaaaaa can't hear you"

ALL law is based on moral

What moral are the drug laws based on?

puritan morality.

Well, think about morality being based in pragmatism and not religion and then answer that question for yourself.

Would it behoove society to be high all the time? Why or why not?

How about kids on heroin? you down with that? Some things are just obvious.

Would it behoove society to be high all the time? Why or why not?

on pot? yes it would. we would be a much calmer, more peaceful, more accepting, less aggressive, less greedy nation if we were high all the time.

of course, there wouldn't be much work getting done, but you can't have everything.

I'll give you the pot and you're right about that.

How about for kids? If not, why not?

But you're mistaken about the less aggressive part. Cannabinoids actually create a mental state where normal limits are exceeded. For instance, they've found in the martial arts that pot smoking tends to erase normal aggression limits.

depending on the age you mean by kids, while brains are still developing they should not get intoxicated ( at least rarely) as it is harmful to development of neural pathways. which, I believe (not a doctor) takes you through 15, 16 years old. and the only reason I would be willing to make that choice for them is that we consider minors to undeveloped mentally and inexperienced to choose wisely.

I did not know that about the martial arts. I suppose like most intoxicants, it just accentuates you.

Less greedy? LMAO!!!!!

The Munchies would seem to fly in the face of that......no?

Too inexperienced to choose wisely.....hmmmmmmmm.....do you hold that as a thing common only to children?

You may want to see the results of capitalism on the natural systems of the earth before you make that statement.

lol

You said:

but if you are not making mischief then why worry

Who decides what is "mischief?" What is fine today may be illegal tomorrow. We have allowed government to take "society's" moral values an impose them upon everyone equally. Majority Rules. That's democratic, right?

Except America is not a democracy, it is a Republic. What's the difference? We were set up to protect the minority from majority rule and domination.

Legislators decide what is "mischeif"

And our system was also set up so they could do that.

blue wolf - what part of:

We were set up to protect the minority from majority rule and domination.

do you not understand or accept? What if the majority of Americans said that anyone with red hair is to be shot on sight? How about anyone with a birth defect is to be left to die? Anyone over 80 is not to receive any medical attention? Would all of those be acceptable to you?

What part of "Legislators decide what is Mischief" do you not understand?

Who said anything about "the majority" other than you?

It actually appears that you are advocating that every person make their own laws.

Is this true?

If not, then who should make the laws?

Legislators maybe?

Laws are based on the PERCEIVED needs of society as a whole - not as individuals. Government PERCEIVES that we need to be told how much saturated fat is in our french fries. Government PERCEIVES that we need to wear seat belts. Government PERCEIVES that we must be told which guns we can and cannot own (that one is really stupid, since all guns can kill and criminals RARELY have "legal" weapons anyway).

Society's morals and values change - in 1790 nobody in their right mind would EVER have dreamed that women and blacks would be able to actually vote. Yet today, nobody would dream that they COULDN'T.

Congress bases their lawmaking on that they PERCEIVE the majority of society wants. Is that somehow a surprise to you?

Well duh!

How else are they supposed to do it? You certainly are in error in your assesment of society never dreaming that women and blacks could vote.

I'm equally as sure, and probably much more accurate that women and blacks were dreaming that exact thing.

Did, or did not, the Constitution and founders set up a system whereby legislators write legislation?

Also, today many, many right-wing people are dreaming of women and blacks not voting.

I find myself completely in awe of you. In no way could I ever hope to misunderstand anything so completely.

Sorry, I'm just not up to trying to explain it any further.

You have no valid argument.

And, what is the reason that blacks and women can vote now?

It was then, and is now a MORAL question. One that was decided by LEGISLATION.

Law IS Moral at its very core, so stop with the legislated morality crap. To say that you shouldn't legislate morality is to say that law is wrong, and itself should be abolished.

If that is what you prefer to believe, go ahead.

Law IS Moral at its very core, so stop with the legislated morality crap. To say that you shouldn't legislate morality is to say that law is wrong, and itself should be abolished.

Law is not necessarily moral. There have been laws that could be considered neutral, not having morality as a basis, and there are laws today that could be considered immoral, albeit immoral is one side of the morality standard.

The prudent exercise of law has a basis in morality as it should be exercised without prejudicial bias. The US Constitution has little basis in morality. Morality is about right and wrong, where the law claims no rightness or wrongness, but is more objective.

Basically to reduce the terms to b/w or r/w, the first law is that humans have rights bestowed on them by the creator. To break such a law, one must infringe on the rights of another.

Take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution. It doesn't say anything about right or wrong. It puts forth a premise for ideals of a nation. The first 7 articles say nothing about right or wrong, but define structure and guidance.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or

of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the Government for a redress of grievances.

There's nothing in there about right or wrong. The Constitution doesn't legislate morality, and it is the law of the land.

Yes and it makes it's appeal for the justification of rights to whom?

to the moral authority.

You are simply wrong.

"I have rights because God says so" That is NOTHING but an appeal to Moral authority.

Law is not "moral". Ever wonder why Lady Justice wears a blindfold? Because the law is supposed to be objective -

The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality. (wikipedia)

Hehehe BULLCRAP.

Impartiality in the case of Justice means the same as being no respecter of person, treating all the same.

Thats a Moral view.

Even the concept of "Justice" is a Moral view.

Blue Wolf, would you question the fact that you exist? How would the existence of a thing present itself as moral or immoral? The statement that rights are endowed by a creator are no more or less moral than that we credit our existence to a creator. In fact, the creator has remained anonymous, non-judgmental, and non-interventionist in human affairs.

Einstein defined the creator in this way:

The most famous Einstein pronouncement on God came in the form of a telegram, in which he was asked to answer the question in 50 words or less. He did it in 32: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

It could be the creator simply doesn't give a @!$%#. But that attitude doesn't change the nature of what is and what is not. People make up morality and right versus wrong in order to control each other. Your version of law is a manifestation of that control which is the exercise of force.

Demorcracy is a horrible form or government it just better than anything else tried. (bad paraphrase)

cultural relativity, post modern, "im ok you're ok" bull@!$%# doesn't work. The ethics of a group are determined by the one with the most power in some form and you just really hope that this person isn't a total dick. And looking back at the history of civilizations i'd say we're in the middle of a low dickish period.

We've tried democracy in America and it worked. It worked so well for us that other enlightened nations adopted it. It works well wherever it is practiced.

Our democracy has been replaced by corruption. The power in the USA rests in the hands of less than 1,000 people, all of the rich, all of them authoritarian and eager to have their way with us. We have a government which refuses to act in the public interest, because it's corrupt. We have an entire political party refusing to act in the public or national interest, because they are shamelessly corrupt, and eager to become ever more corrupt.

The current reality is an economy and political power structure which is oppressive to the vast majority. This must lead to further oppression. Sooner or later physical oppression must follow, as the people push back against the tyrants. The tyrants will choose to oppress, rather than lose power in a nation full of pissed-off people. So it goes, so it has always gone. Tyranny and fascism will be no different here in the USA.

Up with democracy. Down with tyranny.

The problem comes in trying to point out anything ACCURATE in the article Marshall.

First you go off on legislating morality and standing on rights, when rights themselves are morality (you didn't ever answer to that one)

You make the statement that if you speak out against America you will be killed without trial. Thats is so ludicrous...do you actually believe that? Why aren't you dead then?

Then you go on about not being able to drink raw milk. BULLCRAP!

Then you say if you don't do things that are in your best interest, you will be KILLED.

And now like a child with his hands over his ears and eyes closed, while being shown in the dictionary that the spelling of a word is different than you insist, you jump up and down and insist there are no innaccuracies in the article.

You one funny guy.

Marshall, I did point out what was inaccurate...I block quoted it. It is satire though I didn't know you wrote satire, I learned something.

For this article to stay in the Honor group, it requires a satire tag or lose some of the accusations such as what I block quoted. Or be a lot more specific in your accusations against the US Federal Government regarding US Citizen or Foreign policy.... One or two cases don't count either, Like Benedict Arnold or what's his name, those have been discussed ad nauseam.

I giving you some time to do so....I didn't have to ....

And had his attempt to blow the airliner headed for Detroit out of the sky with the underwear bomber he sent been successful, you would have no problem with our military targeting him, right? We just have to wait until a person who has declared their intent to wage war against us actually succeeds before we can respond militarily? During WW II we shot down a plane carrying one of Japan's best generals. You have a problem with that?

Sounds like you're making a Moral case against authoritarianism Marshall.

Are you?

You can't use words like "wrong" in an argument against morality based rule.

Now, if you are willing to adjust your paradigm and allow that Morality is the very essence of Law, then we can talk.

Can't say evil in a non-moral argument, it has no meaning .

No use of words appealiing to morality Marshall.

Go ahead and state your case without any appeal to morality whatsoever........

I'll wait.

If you are as honest with yourself as you think you are, you're going to come to the conclusion that you have no beef against legislating morality. Your beef is in WHOSE morality is being legislated.

You have a problem with the "particulars" and are loosing view of the "universals"

Your beef is in WHOSE morality is being legislated.

That is the truth. Well said blue wolf.

mstanley,

hell when I wrote a satire article, I put satire, double-satire, and double-extreme-satire, as tags. :P

And I am not even in the honor group, though maybe I should be in the honour group considering my birthplace. hahaha

I acknowledge that you scenarios could happen but first the cops would have to know you are not wearing a seatbelt, then you would need to not pay the fine, then you would need to resist arrest for not paying the fine.

I don't deal with a lot of what ifs, I deal with reality and reality says none of this is happening.

Marshall

if you resist arrest for said "crime" you can be killed if need be.

You have taken this law WAY out of context. OMG James stop watching FOx

Next time when watching MSNBC, turn on the sound. It helps.

There were plenty of people on the right screaming about what GWBush was doing. There were lots of people screaming about the war not just liberals. Maybe you do not know this but real conservatives are against the kind of war that Bush got us into and the spending and the patriot act as well.

plenty of people on the right screaming about what GWBush was doing.

No, there weren't. Right wing revisionist history at its finest.

Marshall, not a Real good idea to insult either. It is the part of the Honor Group to discuss Without insulting and Also being a Member of the group.

I've been here long enough to know and have discussed, Each and everyone of your 'points' with other members on other articles and seeds. I suppose I should have copied each rebuttal to save for all the future articles.

I'm intolerant? no accusations without proof. I have tolerated quite more in NV than I ever have in Real Time, in Real Time, I'd totally ignored a whole lot of people as a complete waste of time and effort and considered not even one of the comments they wrote worth one single reply. I have tried though and made the effort to understand what they were thinking. And that includes all the ones that Rewrite the Constitution on a regular basis, refuse to acknowledge Parts of the Constitution on a regular basis and completely ignore the difference between what is written and actual in Real Time life events.

As I've said before, I got tired of the rhetoric.. I drove one thousand, six hundred miles round trip from Kentucky to the Gulf of Mexico. Not one state trooper nor one city cop Stopped me, No one asked me for a passport, no one accosted me.

A lone woman on a trip. In fact, people where Helpful and friendly. I have lived in Five states, I've never seen, heard of nor experienced the America that so many howl about. I've been in city council meetings, county council meetings and a couple of State legislations sessions. Not counting C-Span etc. Current events, in both Real Time and cyber time.

But the bigotry, the lies, oh yeah, heard and seen those too. If people read what is written and Believe it for a lot of tv shows and articles, they'd get the impression that This isn't America, this is some Third World country, with a police state, armed to the teeth and arresting anyone that opened their mouth...much like what happened in the Middle East.

Syria is Real, Libya is Real, real People are dying and died, all these articles do is put their real deaths as not as worthy...they are fighting for freedom and have ....they have more Right to say about their government than Anyone that Hasn't fought for, bled for or had a loved one Die for America. They are Living the fight for Freedom that we Take For Granted Each and Every Day.

Oh, I'm not 'dismissing' you, I'm just showing the 'other' side of the picture, you know the one...

like in get falling down drunk in public, get so high on marijuana you don't know your own name much less Where you're at, have a needle hanging out of your arm after shooting up heroin??? All that "freedom' stuff. Seen it, seen the drooling brain dead young people scratching their skin to pieces from meth, seen the heroin needle hanging out of the arm of a dead girl, seen the guy so high on 'mary jane' didn't know he was Walking down the middle of an interstate highway at 2:00AM ...yeah, seen all the hurt and harm that drugs do. Wanna hear some more? Gotta lot of those 'pretty'stories... Oh lets not forget the places they Lived in or at.. filthy from being urinated on and feces around the floor, too high to get up from their own Vomit...yeah those 'pretty' pictures of Freedom to use drugs and alcohol.

Teeth rotted from alcohol and drugs and fighting, hallucinations from LSD years later...the craving for and they'll do Anything for more...sell their body, sell their mouth, they didn't care...all the same to them, heck they'd even sell their kids for more alcohol and drugs.

But the 'prettiest'....an innocent family of five, going to the mall, a speeding high from meth, drunk driver, T-bones them and pushes their car into another car...The three pretty kids in the back seat, two die, one lives paralyzed, the mother and father, dead. The drunk well, for once he was a victim too.

Have you ever seen how fast and then slower and slower...blood runs out of the human body? Yep that guy had Freedom, and his Freedom cost a family.... 4 dead one seriously injured for life. And the cost of the cleanup of all that mess...three wrecked vehicles, 3 ambulances, police, fire department, paramedics, and coroner. The one lone survivor, how do you count the cost of a child paralyzed for life?

I've seen enough of the 'other' side of the drug use story and there are a whole lot of people that have seen it too.

So why don't you tell that story? Why don't you show some photos and video's of the 'other' side of the drug use story? The people that want the Freedom to use drugs Never want people to see the 'other' side of the story do they?

Seriously now, even if all those horror stories weren't 90% propaganda, it wouldn't change anything. Individual liberty includes, at a minimum, control over one's own person, body and all. Absent prohibition, most of that remaining 10% would disappear from view in legal lounges, just like most drunks are in a bar, or in someone's house. There's a few out front, on the streets, etc., but not enough to merit taking away a politician's daily drink.

It is the same with drugs. Prohibition remains, not because it serves a valid social purpose, it doesn't--it causes far more harm than unleashed drug use ever could, it survives because too much profit is now derived from prohibition itself.

Oh yea, you can't have your American citizenship removed from you, and if you wish to abandon it, you must jump through hoops to get it done. Otherwise the IRS will follow you around the globe looking for money they can tax.

Marshall James, The Act of doing drugs, your drug use, it hurts everyone when others die Because of someone's drug use, it hurts others when it costs them the money that should be spent on things like food and music.

And I really liked Whitney Houston's music, my granddaughter cried when she heard she died. Her music is gone, just like Janis Joplin's, just like a lot of other musicians that OD'd.

Serious drug user ex brother in law, and his wife and kids...yeah he's the one walked in the middle of the interstate at 2:00 am....he died later massive heart attack from Extensive marijuana use, his level of THC was off the charts. A serious drug user ex husband, Cost me and his kids...

Oh, yeah I don't know a lot of families that Haven't been hurt by drug or alcohol abuse. Class Warfare and racist? geez The Opium Wars, all the fight against drugs for ages and ages, and people still don't Get it.

Being real in real time, is Hard, being faked out in a fake time of drug hazy world is Fake.

My father, two of my uncles, my brother, my nephew, my husband (died of AO), my youngest son US Navy Career. I've seen him four times in 19 years. Don't talk to me of patriotic. I know it I live it. I was and am the 'support' system.

I've already seen photos, lots Misurata, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Tehran and a Nazi German Auschwitz camp. My father was There. That doesn't count the ones that came out of Russia and China. Lots of those too. Amazing how much you can see on the internet.

Government has the responsibility to prevent the inmates from running the asylum.

The dream that everyone has the ability to do exactly as they wish, is really goofy. If proof is needed as to why there needs to be a variety of laws, Newsvine is proof positive that these legal mandates are desperately needed.

Marshall it defies reason in suggesting that there is linkage between height of sinks, helmets, raw milk, etc. to imprisonment and being killed. This is way too far over the top!

twinkie? really eating twinkies and driving kills people...been at or cleaned up many accident sites?

I have worked in healthcare for over 20 years

being killed for violently resisting arrest is not the same as a policy of "pay the fine or die". and you are smart enough to know that.

I just had to make one comment....after seeing msstanley stand up for America...bravo, regardless of the merits.

Marshall

You are WAY OVER REACTING

if you get killed resisting arrest, the crime that got you killed was resisting arrest. regardless of the predicate action.

does fighting oppression really compare to fighting a fine for not wearing your seatbelt?

But the 'prettiest'....an innocent family of five, going to the mall, a speeding high from meth, drunk driver, T-bones them and pushes their car into another car...The three pretty kids in the back seat, two die, one lives paralyzed, the mother and father, dead. The drunk well, for once he was a victim too.

If THAT isn't a violation of a non using persons (well 5 of them in this case) rights, then I don't know what is.

I could put my late fiance, who died 20 years ago from a drunk driver who lost his license but still felt that he had the right to drive drunk as another person who has had their 'rights' deprived from 'drug use'.

perhaps, but surely you are not saying it is equivalent to fighting for independence or to end segregation?

Ban drugs because people are irresponsible. Anybody know why prescription drugs are killing so many folks today? It's because we have money to buy them. Ban money.

From : Mercola.com

Prescription drugs are now killing far more people than illegal drugs, and while most major causes of preventable deaths are declining, those from prescription drug use are increasing, an analysis of recently released data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by the Los Angeles Times revealed.

marshall.

and yet 5 peoples lives have STILL Had their constitutional right to life and liberty and freedom deprived.

As for the drunk driver in my case (I was also in that accident and spent time in the hospital including more than a month in a coma), he was also injured and was never again competent to stand trial. It wouldn't have mattered anyways, the guy had no money to compensate for the damage that he did to peoples lives. I was also sued by his family, but that got tossed out of court pretty quickly, though that still took more than a year to get discharged.

The basic point is though that in mstanley's case, 5 peoples lives were destroyed, (I will ignore mine, which I only said to indicate that MY own rights were violated in the past so I know how it feels), and there is nothing that is ever going to happen that can bring that back. Lovely world you are a proponent of.

Are you serious? the guy that ran me and my fiance off the road didn't have the capacity to understand what he was doing. His blood alcohol level was fairly close to alcohol poisoning. That argument is an end run around reality. Seriously man.

I seriously hope you never EVER become a victim of something like what I went through, or what the family of 5 that mstanley went through, but I honestly would probably have a stroke if you ever did and came back in here and had the exact same attitude. Seriously I would.

according to your theory, we have no responsibility to each other. there is no negligent homicide, or other negligent crimes, because I don't have a responsibility to be concerned about my actions until after something bad happens.

have you heard the story of Prometheus and Epimetheus? fascinating Greek fable about the power of forethought and the danger of its lack.

this theory seems to disrespect the whole idea of forethought.

digcreation:

according to your theory, we have no responsibility to each other.

I could twist that around and say that if there's no law against it, it's OK. I wouldn't do that of course because I do have a responsibility to you. Rights means responsibility. If I have an accident while doing the speed limit, and someone gets killed, I was perfectly in line with the posted speed limit. The law says it's OK, but the law doesn't have common sense. Prudence tells me when to slow down, and also tells me not to drive when I've had too much to drink.

Not so for everyone. Some people will drink and drive when they have no business doing so. What bugs me is that for some, it's not a foregone conclusion that drinking and driving will result in a traffic accident, but for those who have been affected by it, it seems an unavoidable consequence. Those who have suffered a loss from a drunk driving accident will agree that because of this accident they see life differently than before. Those who have been stopped and harassed by police officers because they, 'smell like a brewery', know another side of this issue.

MJ

DUI laws came into effect when MADD came about, women and men pushed after have their KIDS killed by drunk drivers

What has happened to you, this is not the same MJ I enjoyed having discussion with. What is wrong?????

Now we know why you have a problem with drunk driving laws. You like to drive drunk. How is it relevant that you were only a 1/3 mile from your home. My son's 10 year old classmate was two block from home when a drunk driver, who was only a mile from home, hit her dad's truck head on, pushing the engine block into her chest. Should her parents take comfort that the drunk driver was not that far from home when he altered the course of their lives? I am sure that they think that your freedom to drive your car when you are less capable of controlling it is worth the live of their daughter.

Did you get convicted? You left that out. Once again, to those libertarians freedom is all about doing what they want, when they want it without any responsibility for the consequences.

And laws are about preventing some in society from harming others. The laws that your broke when you drove your car drunk are designed to protect the responsible, sober drivers on the road from the irresponsible drunks. Your driving drunk violates my right to operate my vehicle free from the danger posed by your inability to control your vehicle because you are drunk. To you, however, your right to get your buzz on trumps my right to not be killed by your out of control vehicle.

and because a few people are killed...that means we need to oppress everyone right?? wrong.

Tell that to the families of the first trade center bombing, He was an american

Tell that to the families of 9/11

Tell that to the Fire Fighters and first responders and their families of 9/11

This law is to go after TERRORISTS and ONLY TERRORIST, go back and re read some of my posts proving this.

MJ, you have changed.

a car/truck going 60 miles per hour doesn't differentiate when it hits someone/something when you are only a third of a mile home. It still hits with the same force.

And laws are about preventing some in society from harming others. The laws that your broke when you drove your car drunk are designed to protect the responsible, sober drivers on the road from the irresponsible drunks. Your driving drunk violates my right to operate my vehicle free from the danger posed by your inability to control your vehicle because you are drunk. To you, however, your right to get your buzz on trumps my right to not be killed by your out of control vehicle.

Excellent points gatorum

MJ if you need a friend to talk about drinking email me.

You were a hair under the legal limit when you were tested. If you had your last drink when you left the bar, you were likely higher when you were driving than when you were tested. You can be guilty of dui even if you are under the limit if the government can prove, by your driving and by the officer's observations of your condition, that you were not capable of safely driving. People who refuse the test are often convicted based on those observations. You also failed to tell us if you were convicted or not. If you were, then it is pretty clear who was "lying" and who was not.

Your suggestion that we only arrest people after they hurt someone is moronic. I suppose that you then have a problem when the police use an undercover officer when they are informed that someone is trying to hire a person to kill their wife. Since no one is hurt until the wife is dead, there should be no law prohibiting the solicitation to commit murder. And, If I fire my gun at someone and miss; then, according to you, no harm, no crime.

Your suggestion that we only arrest people after they hurt someone is moronic

Please name another instance where you are arrested for NOT doing some harm. - I'm sure there must be hundreds, if not thousands of instances where people are arrested BEFORE they do harm. Do you have that list?

SHoplifting

Attempted assult

Stauking

Harassement

Threatening phone calls

Threatening mail

etc.

No bodily harm but illegal just the same

You guys are funny....as if the laws today are actually about helping or protecting people. It's become a way to generate revenue, and if they can pretend it's about keeping somebody safe then we buy into it and accept it.

The issue here is that a reasonable society criminalizes behavior that tends to lead to harm to the person or property of self or others. When society notes a significant instance of that tendency, and criminalizes it, then it does make arrests for that behavior, which in the broader sense is the precursor of the infliction of the harm that would be avoided by reducing the incidence of the predictive behavior.

Most of the time, these predictive behaviors are violations, rather than felonies (as would perhaps be appropriate if the predicted damage is actually inflicted due to the violation - do something wrong and get lucky, then at worst just pay the fine; do something wrong and be unlucky, then go to jail).

Regardless, society has the obligation to protect its citizens from the harm that would be caused by negligent behavior by imposing reason laws, that balance the rights of people to do as they'd like against the potential for harm they'd commit from doing those things.

Criminal conspiracy, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation come to mind. Every traffic violation is an example of people being charged with a violation without actually hurting anyone. Pedophiles who troll the internet are often caught when they end of communicating with a police officer they think is a child. One local guy was caught after he asked the person he thought was a thirteen year old girl to meet him at a McDonald's for sex. In his car he had condoms, gloves, ropes, handcuffs and chloroform. According to Marshall, his rights were violated when they arrested him because he had not hurt anyone yet. I suppose he thinks this guy's freedom to be a pedophile outweighs the right of the real 13 year old he could have been communicating with. Hell, a traitor who thinks he is giving military secrets to an enemy would not be committing a crime if the enemy agent is really not an enemy agent. Again, no harm, no crime.

Marshall______Sorry I got your name backwards I don't know why but I sometimes do that in my writings too. Again you have my support totally. Maria-Lyn

I did. You never once said which country you live in. This is an international forum, but the country you describe is unrecognizable.

I must say, the place you describe looks awful. It must be Hell hating your country as much as you do. I am glad the US is nothing like what you describe. We have a great country. Granted, tight wingnutters hate everything about the freedoms we have and are actively trying to destroy us from inside. Did you hear that in VA theGOPers are planning on forcibly raping women with foreign objects? I know. Disgusting.

In the US, the will of the majority of the people is what matters

Apparently not since the majority opposed Obamacare, but Obama and Democrats, after a year of trying, finally arranged enough back room deals to get the votes and ram it down our throats anyway. Now you better go purchase health insurance.....and it doesn't matter if you can afford it or not!

Common Scense and MJ

Nothing but probaganda to your statements. Won't spin here.

Nothing but probaganda to your statements. Won't spin here.

I've often wondered how simplistic life must be for some who simply dismiss everything they don't agree with, without any consideration for the truth? How worry free life would be, if I'd just stick my head up a donkey or elephant butt and follow along with every talking point that they crap out on my head.

naw, if MJL didn't agree with something, she would just come out and say it, this is just propaganda and fear mongering.

Nobody has died as a result of disagreeing with the government. That is just fear mongering propaganda.

our Jonathan, or we'd be missing a lot of people on the Internet...LOL

The majority did not oppose Obamacare. The majority elected a President who said he would enact health care reform and the elected senators and congressmen who said so as well. Any poll that asked people not only if they opposed the plan or supported but also asked why they opposed it established that the majority wanted either Obamacare or a single payer government run reform. The minority were those who opposed it because of the lies about it being government run. The conservative position to do nothing was the least supported in the polls.

And life is simple for those who dismiss everything they do not agree with without any consideration for the truth. I have always thought the tea party to be made up largely of simple minded folks.

lol @ mstanley,

yup.

The majority did not oppose Obamacare.

Current polls run from 55% to 73% for repeal of Obamacare. The more people learn about it and the effects, the more oppose it. Why is it necessary to exempt thousands of businesses from the law if everybody wanted it? When Democrats went behind closed doors and started promising exemptions from the law in exchange for votes to get it passed.....around 65% were opposed to it passing. It is a prime example of how the minority impose their will on the majority!

Common sense,

actually you are only looking at the high level stat, but if you dig deeper, you will find that of those that are against the ACA, about half are opposed because it doesn't go far enough (meaning they want single payor) and the other half are opposed because it goes too far (they want a completely unregulated industry).

And there are VERY few exemptions from the law, there are exemptions to allow time for various organizations time to adapt to the new law, but there are VERY few outright exemptions (I am only aware of one, and that is because if the exemption wasn't given, the cost of health care would exceed the wages of the largely part time service staff, which if they were to be outright literal, they wouldn't be required to give health care anyways).

Justify it how ever you like...but the fact remains that Obamacare is a prime example of the minority ruling the majority...regardless of to much or not enough! That was the discussion as started with the statement that in the US the majority rules. Thanks for helping make the point that their statement is a false premise.

There is no majority position in this: PPACA and the absence of it are both minority positions. PPACA reflected the plurality perspective and pretty-much still does. The definition of a plurality is that there is a majority of people opposed to the most popular position. It is an insult to the reader to talk about there being a majority of people opposed to the plurality position.

No matter how you slice it, there is not majority support for what the Republicans are promising with regard to health care in the United States. Their position doesn't even close to the plurality position, which is that which the Democrats support.

The point is not Republican or Democrat...the point is that our politicians forced onto the population, something that the majority opposed......and they did it with back room deals behind closed doors to get enough votes to pass it.

I've often wondered how simplistic life must be for some who simply dismiss everything they don't agree with, without any consideration for the truth? How worry free life would be, if I'd just stick my head up a donkey or elephant butt and follow along with every talking point that they crap out on my head.

If you go back and look, several SEVERAL viners have posted the FACT that this is incorrect, it is taken from a right wing source and GOD and everyone know you absolutely can not depend on them for FACTS. Am I clear now?

if I'd just stick my head up a donkey or elephant butt and follow along with every talking point that they crap out on my head.

Go for it and let me know how enlightening it was. LMAO, that is exactly what the GOP in Washington do. I personally, am not going to that just to see things from their point of view.

If you go back and look, several SEVERAL viners have posted the FACT that this is incorrect, it is taken from a right wing source and GOD and everyone know you absolutely can not depend on them for FACTS. Am I clear now?

Perfectly clear....you choose to dismiss any information that doesn't go along with your point of view, and consider any source that doesn't support your views to be "right wing", and you depend on "viners" for your facts. (reference post 19.7 once again please)

the point is that our politicians forced onto the population, something that the majority opposed

A majority of people were opposed to doing nothing. A majority of people were opposed to privatization. A majority of people were opposed to single-payer. A majority of people were opposed to every identifiable position that anyone took - including doing nothing different, and including doing less than was being done at the time. Why is that so hard to understand? (Or is it that you didn't read the message you replied to? Just in case that's the issue, I'll reiterate: The definition of a plurality is that there is a majority of people opposed to the most popular position. It is an insult to the reader to talk about there being a majority of people opposed to the plurality position.)

and they did it with back room deals behind closed doors to get enough votes to pass it.

Like every other similar piece of legislation that our government has worked on since the people reading this thread have been alive.

You're posting a lot of comments as if they're surprising or shocking, when they are anything but. They're generally normal and correct and reasonable.

No, they do not run 55 to 73 to repeal obamacare. And do any polls you cited ask whether those who oppose want it replaced

___To whom it may concern/what rules do we need to keep order? Because if it is up to the Government to keep order. Well thats a joke because they don't follow the rules at all. Our Population keeps the rule of law far more then the Law Makers do. The only concern that our Government/& the Military Industrial Complex/Law Enforcement/Representitives/and Senators care about. Is that they keep up the Grand Theft of The American People in order to line their already rich pockets. And to continue to pass laws that prevents us from any rights/therefore rendering us all criminals if we dare go against their goal! WAKE UP-WAKE UP- NOW!!!!!!! Maria-Lyn

What else could be worse then Murder/Rape/or Grand Theft of the American People? Unless of course your one of the 1% who might find it disturbing to you to have someone walk on your grass/or ruin one of your trees or flowers!!!!! There is nothing worse then those 3 crimes! Maria-Lyn

So, you do not think that there should be laws that prohibit a blind drunk from propelling his several thousand pounds of metal down the street. We know that you think your right to drink and drive trumps the rights of others to not be killed. How about the law the prevents my neighbor from selling his house in the middle of a suburban residential area to someone who plans to use it as a waste dump? Do you oppose zoning laws? Do you oppose the law that requires a pharmaceutical company to first prove that a drug actually does treat an illness and does not cause harm before they can market is as before they can sell it as a treatment for an illness? Do you oppose the law that requires that before a person can hold themselves out as a physician and began to treat people as such that they have to pass a test and become licensed? How about building codes? You oppose those? Don't think that building erected in a community has to comply with safety codes? What about laws that require amusement parks to have their rides inspected to assure the safety of the riders. Or do you think caveat emptor applies and that the market will take care of that amusement park after the first dozen deaths or so?

Not because of what they "might" do; because of what they do. Driving drunk endangers others. Do you think that pilots should not be charged criminally if they fly drunk, but do not wreck? Your views on this are so far out there that I doubt even the most devoted libertarian would agree with you on this.

gatorlum.

On the contrary, most libertarians that I talk to have the exact same view, they think that society was built for them, not for society. Which is why when you get into the details of it, they generally tend to have no issue with imposing their views on others, it is just that they don't want anyone to impose their views on them.

I am a libertarian, and I take a DIFFERENT view than M.J. on this issue. Driving is a privilege, NOT a right and I am of the opinion that traffic laws benefit society as a whole.

Now, it ALL comes down to the fact that driving is not a RIGHT. If the question was gun ownership, my answer would be different, since it IS a right to own a gun.

While it is a right to own a gun, that is not a right without limitations. If you use a gun to rob a bank, you have forfeited your right to ever own one again. If you use the gun to threaten to blow your wife's head off, you have lost the right to possess that gun or any other, at least for some period of time.

gator - who said that I agree with ANY limitations on gun ownership?

The constitution doesn't mention anything about guns, it talks about arms. Technically under the constitution, it is completely legal for an individual to own a fully operative nuclear bomb.

I did not say you did, Boudicea. But, I assumed you were a rational, intelligent person, and, therefore, would agree that if you commit a crime with a weapon you lose the right to get another one. Perhaps I assumed too much.

MJ. Stop with the racist @!$%#. There is a difference between locking a person up because someone who shares some characteristic with him committed a crime and locking up a person who engages in acts that endanger others. So, if I try to hire someone to kill another person but it turns out that the person I try to hire is a cop, you don't think I committed a crime because there was no actual harm, right?

So, it is tyranny and oppression to make it a crime to attempt to commit a crime; to try to pay another person to commit a crime and to plan with another person to commit a crime. To your warped view the freedom to plan to do a crime; to attempt to commit a crime and to hire someone else to commit it for you is more important than actuall stopping them from happening. Better someone die than your freedom to plan to kill be infringed upon. Do you have any idea how terminally stupid what you post is? Any idea that just about anyone who reads your drivel would worry about your mental health or mental capacity? No intelligent, rational person could beleive the nonsense you post. You must just be messing with the rest of us; posting the most outrageous stuff just to get a reaction. Is that what you are doing? For your sake, I certainly hope so. By the way, ever going to tell us the outcome of your DUI trial Guilty, not Guilty or deferred disposition?

who cares if we execute a few innocent people...we are stopping crime...

Hmmm would you still have that same attitude if YOU were the one being executed while being innocent? And there is no evidence that Capital Punishment actually deters crime.

and the DUI laws are not for killing or injuring someone, they are for driving on the PUBLIC roads in a state that is considered debilitated.

Marshall,

There doesn't seem to be a point, because it seems you have no concept of a society, the ONLY thing you seem to be interested in is yourself, which is not too atypical of so called Libertarians. The only concern is yourself. But the problem is, you live in a society, and there needs to be a balance between individual rights and societal rights. You can't have either extreme. You benefit from that society, even though you refuse to acknowledge it.

Now I ask you this, lets take the DUI laws off the books (and you don't got to jail for DUI, you don't get killed for DUI, regardless of what you think), and the number of jackasses that drink and drive goes up by 10%. Are YOU going to feel comfortable driving on the road when you have no @!$%#ing clue if the people you are on the road with are drunk? If you answer yes to that, then, well I won't continue because you seem to be overly sensitive to comments towards you based on what I have seen.

Think about that if you will, and then think about the 5 people that mstanley mentioned, think about my late fiance, whose INDIVIDUAL life was cut short because some idiot decided that he wanted to ignore those same laws you complain about now, think about the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of people that die every year from drunken idiots on the road and ask yourself, hurray for individual rights. Congratulations.

Actually the first reference that I could find indicates that drunk driving related accidents have DECREASED significantly over the last 20 years:

Look up the table referring to alcohol-related deaths in the United States

Now I can't verify those numbers as it seems there are no single point of collection of those stats. Also, other countries with much stricter regulations have a much lower incidence of drinking and driving related accidents.

Quite frankly, your views are no different than most other libertarians, and I repeat, you have no concern for society, only yourself. I really wish that you never have to experience someone in your life dying or being severely injured as a result of a drinking and driving incident, I really don't, but if you ever do, you really need to think about this discussion, and what it is you are saying.

MJ. Not gonna tell us about your conviction for DUI, huh? Just gonna make bull@!$%# claims about COH violations. If telling the truth about the vapidity of you rambling is a COH violation, I am guilty. Your posts are childish. They are irrational and illogical. Most libertarians who would read your words would be embarrassed that you call yourself one. You make no ratoinal response, you jut repeat the same crap over and over again.

NO, you don't want to preserve our laws, you want to remove laws that you don't like, You want NO laws that seek to benefit society as a whole, you want laws that meet some kind of extreme minimum.

If you wanted to preserve our laws, then you would see the balance that the DUI laws are trying to achieve, and try to preserve that balance.

You CANNOT go out and say you are out to preserve our laws but then go out at the same time to try to remove the ones that don't fit your absolutely rigid agenda of so called personal freedom. You are proposing anarchy, not preservation of laws.

brianfromPA______Hey I like that idea of a new ism/but if the Repubs: have their way it will be cavemenism!!!! Because all the policy they are trying to create these days tries to take us as far back in History as they can. We will be a Country of Neoconism & Cavemanism won't that be a awesome Country to live in. And any laws we have now are being quickly swept under the rugs. Of the House of Reps: & The Senate. Anyway thanks for your idea of cavemanism. Maria-Lyn

To many degrees Marshall.. we have tried Libertarianism. Many of the ideas of Libertarianism are just archaic. They can't possibly work, and rational educated people (of which there are VERY few) can see this plainly.

Allowing business to police themselves can't work. Libertarianism will fail for the same reason that capitalism fails. GREED! Greed is the greatest of all sins and nobody has found a way to account for that yet.

Expecting restaurants and other businesses to comply with rules and pay fair salaries and have fair labor practices just because the market would dictate it is archaic, and cannot work. Someone above said it. If you ever worked in a restaurant you probably would NEVER eat at one again.

I am all for the freedoms part. I am the guy that thinks airport security is the Terrorists winning. I am the guy that thinks if my whole family died tomorrow in an attack because we had no security or invasion of privacy that at least I died free.

Let me put this out again, this is the TRUE law, not this article

For Immediate Release

December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.

My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 31, 2011.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Common Sense

Read post 23.6

It is from the horses mouth, this article is NOT factual.

Exactly... The president wrote that they won't imprison Americans without trial... He wrote it so it must be true... You trust him and the next president right? I mean... If we elect Santorum we can trust him to read Obama's line items there right?

9.11 was the greatest slippery slope humanity has ever known.

This hole article is simply to scare people

well it will not work on the majority of us

I am so sick of the "@!$%# we are all gonna die" attitude

and those rights you speak of are the very rights the GOP are after.

I am done here, I can lead you to the water, but I can not make you drink.

Good luck to you, it is pretty sad view you have

if the people of this country elect someone like dick cheney into office, after 8 years of him being president in chief, then they get what they deserve. If people don't think that it is appropriate to elect cheney, then DON'T ELECT CHENEY.

MJ

Personally IMO, you sound like your are scared @!$%#less

Not me.

of the two choices in the last presidential election, Obama most definitely was the superior choice, that doesn't mean he is great, as I think there are some serious deficiencies with his presidency, but those were the choices that were given to the people.

No comment on the previous president because I think in both elections, the alternative candidate was the better option, though I believe that with Kerry, it was only by a slim margin.

Now if I had the option of appointing someone president, it would be warren buffett, he does have the business and managerial sense, but most of all, he understands that government is very different from a business and would change what he does to suit the needs of the role. Problem is though, he isn't a candidate.

Marshall James_____Oh you are so right that the way this government is going we probably will have our worst enemy in the white house. What if we elected a Man from China/or from Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe someone from Isrel that wants to blow up the Middle East back to the stoneage. Just some of the ideas a person could come up with are scary!___Maria-Lyn

if the us population elects someone from China, Iraq or Afghanistan, then again, americans deserve what they get. How about if american elects someone from mars, that is just as likely.

Jonathan-1917156____WHAT EVER!!!!!

maria lyn, don't forget the eye roll ¿?

OKFW!¿? -- OK Fine Whatever! Eyeroll

Jonathan, we've already elected 'reptilians' to office. Martians should be a no-brainer.

well considering that it would require a constitutional change to elect such an individual to the office of the president in the first place, it is me that did the eyeroll.

looks like ba good article james....stirred it up a bit....that's what happens when you get people thinking...hope all is well..been along time

marshall,

if the people of the United States were to elect a David Duke, or a Dick Cheney, do you honestly think that the people of the US are going to give a rats ass about human rights violations? Hell Dick Cheney pushed for violating peoples Geneva Convention Rights (which ALSO have the force of law in the US) without any specific law allowing his minions to do it.

What you don't mention is that if anyone were to actually try and use the NDAA in a way that violates a persons constitutional rights, the law will be struck down as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Until there is a case, it can't be brought to the Supreme Court. When it does, guess what, it will be challenged.

As for the prima facia argument, if you care about constitutional rights, then DON'T ELECT DAVID DUKE.

and what provoked this article was me just seeing another news article of people being thrown in prison for nothing......

Yes. The largest prison population in the world. Most for drug charges and other nonsense crimes. Making them into career criminals behind bars. Now if they released all of them, we may have an epidemic of crime. But we should do that even if the consequences may be more difficult to control. It is the government's fault. Not our fault.

on a side note...got to see Ron Paul last night....very inspirational.

You saw him on the television?

Solutions are like facts -- discussion killer.

Ron Paul would get much more support than approximately 25-30% of a party that only represents approximately 36% of Americans.

Where'd this little tidbit come from?

Where'd this little tidbit come from?

Well:

During January, 35.9% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 35.4% in December and the highest number of Republicans measured since December 2010.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

You got me on this one, Paul did get 35% in Maine, his next higest finish was in Minnosota with just over 27% (source AP) - all other results were 23% or less.

Solutions are like facts -- discussion killer.

Without and offer of solutions this is nothing more than a bitch session. Can not one have a discussion on the merits of solutions offeredto fix what the author is finding objectionable? Without an offer of a solution there certainly cannot be discussion.