Politics 2017 part V

[majestic]

L0L So.. to prove that islam is cool... he wants to force all women to wear headscarves.. proving the point of all people who ar eanti muslim/anti headscarves. hahaha! wHAT A NAZI!

 

He never said any of that. Are you triggered by someone advocating that everyone should have the freedom to wear whatever they like? Are you an enemy of FREEDOM?

 

There's a difference between being facetious and "asking" and "forcing", I mean, like, are you projecting here?

 

R00fles.

 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Gromnir]

It looks like Val might be right. I did some reading and in 2009 Moore v Madigan the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision by the Federal Court Southern Illinois and found that a blanket refusal to allow legal carry is unconstitutional. No hearing with the SCOTUS was ever sought apparently so that appears to be that. How that will affect what the Court does with Peruta (assuming they even hear the case) remains to be seen.  

 

Gromnir or Enoch might correct me on this but it's been my observations the SCOTUS does not want to take cases where the solution is clear. But in this instance one Federal appellate court decided on way and the second another on similar cases. That seems like the kind of thing that will put it to the front of the line.

2nd amendment were an extreme limited protection for much o' the history o' the US. didn't apply to states even after the 14th amendment were first passed.  in dicta, the Court has been pretty clear that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited grant.  types o' weapons has always been subject to limitation.  use history to show what founders or authors o' the 14th amendment had in mind insofar as what kinda weapons deserve protection is gonna be used similar if the Court ever decides open carry. yeah, the Court ain't a big fan o' any overbroad prohibition o' a fundamental right, but even if such a thing managed to be granted cert, the resulting opinion would be o' limited guidance as states and municipalities rare indulge in overbroad when attempting to put limits on fundamental rights.

 

val is wrong.  if is Constitution questions, best guide is to assume val is incorrect.  he gots an improbable capacity to be wrong when discussing the Constitution... and history.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69988-obama-to-propose-free-community-college/?p=1556763

 

is but one such example.

 

honest, regarding the Constitution, if val says "yes," your guess should be "no."

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

It’s a very rough system. It’s an archaic system…It’s really a bad thing for the country.

[majestic]

its getting more crazy here in EU than one might think:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxrSYO9N7AY

 

(president of Austria)

 

For a more serious reply, wow, talk about hysterics.

 

Guy says that he disagrees with the idea of a headscarf ban - something demanded by right-wing populists all across Europe for about two decades now - and then goes on a hyperbolic statement that we'll eventually might end up wearing the things out of solidarity at some point.

 

The "media" picks it up, runs it through google translate three times and we end up with the headline reading Far-Left Austrian President: All Women Must Wear Headscarves to Fight Islamophobia and Volo crying Nazi and me spending way too much time on this message board arguing... again. And not even in favor of something I really believe in.

 

I mean, personally, I'd rather be free of religion than having freedom of religion but banning items of clothing sure doesn't seem to be the right way to deal with Muslim immigration and the culture clash.  Since when does out of sight, out of mind actually work? Besides, it really always does strike me as wrong to limit personal freedom for no real reason. *shrug*

Edited May 1, 2017 by majestic

[Guard Dog]

Well I had said the protections of the 2nd Amendment had never been interpreted as extended to carrying a loaded weapon concealed on your person. He said it had and he WAS right about that one thing at least. Like I said before it is legal to transport a firearm in all 50 states as far as I know (if not every city in those states) but to carry one loaded and concealed on your person takes that up a level and I don't see it being terribly burdensome to follow the permitting process with includes fingerprinting and background checks. Some states do not require them and some do not allow permits at all but no state prohibit ownership and possession in the home or place of business and transportation (with various requirements). So it seems to me if your state does not issue permits and you think they should then the place to make your case is in your state capital building, not the courthouse. 

 

As I said before I absolutely believe that a citizen with no criminal history that is willing to be responsible and abide by the laws of their state should be free to arm themselves if they see fit to do so. Step one, if your state requires a permit get one. That is part of being responsible.

 

Now if a permit to own a firearm in the home were required then it runs afoul of the Constitution in my opinion. There is a difference.

[Volourn]

"He never said any of that. Are you triggered by someone advocating that everyone should have the freedom to wear whatever they like? Are you an enemy of FREEDOM?

 

There's a difference between being facetious and "asking" and "forcing", I mean, like, are you projecting here?"

 

Nope. That's exactly what he said. He said he has plans to force women to wear headscarves and if they don't he will murder them in cold blood. And, he will do this because he is pro Islam because he is a moran who believes women should be forced to wear certain types of things. EVIL.

[majestic]

Nope. That's exactly what he said. He said he has plans to force women to wear headscarves and if they don't he will murder them in cold blood. And, he will do this because he is pro Islam because he is a moran who believes women should be forced to wear certain types of things. EVIL.

 

Right. You forgot your pills again, didn't you?

 

edit:

 

Seriously though, just admit you were triggered. It happens to the best of us.

Edited May 1, 2017 by majestic

[Volourn]

I'm always triggered. It is why I post.  I'm triggered when someone says hi to me as I walk down the street. They say hi and I'm triggered to say hi in response. It is not hard to trigger me. It is low hanging fruit much like triggering a SJW. I blame SJWs.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Volourn

[Gromnir]

Well I had said the protections of the 2nd Amendment had never been interpreted as extended to carrying a loaded weapon concealed on your person. He said it had and he WAS right about that one thing at least.

he ain't actual right.  the Court has not actual addressed and the appellate struck down the prohibition as a blanket prohibition, with exceptions for hunters and police, 'gainst weapon carry beyond "hearth and home."  decision doesn't mean what you believe it does.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Ben No.3]

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20170430000438/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/opinion/sunday/when-communism-inspired-americans.html

 

 

Felt the need to share this

[Wrath of Dagon]

lol http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/05/01/nyt-op-ed-communism-gave-americans-sense-ones-own-humanity/

 

The only good communist is a dead communist.

[Azdeus]

The only good communist is a dead communist.

;_;

And here I thought you liked me...

[Ben No.3]

 

The only good communist is a dead communist.

;_;

And here I thought you liked me...

Don't worry comrade, Germany takes in refugees. We can give you asylum Edited May 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

lol http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/05/01/nyt-op-ed-communism-gave-americans-sense-ones-own-humanity/

 

The only good communist is a dead communist.

This is from the article:

"The Times regaled Castro – who sent thousands, including Christians, LGBT Cubans, writers, and dissidents generally, to labor camps and killed thousands of others using firing squads – as a “victorious guerrilla commander in 1959” and lauded the alleged “medical advances” and “racial equality” of communist Cuba in November when the Cuban government claimed Castro had finally died."

 

I don't see what breitbarts problem here is. What times is saying right here is simply technically correct.

[Raithe]

Vox - Woman being charged for laughing

 

 

It is hard to believe this is happening, but it’s real: The US Department of Justice is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at now–Attorney General Jeff Sessions during his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year.

 

According to Ryan Reilly at HuffPost, Code Pink activist Desiree Fairooz was arrested in January after she laughed at a claim from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) that Sessions’s history of “treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented."

 

Sessions, in fact, has a long history of opposing the equal treatment of all Americans under the law. He has repeatedly criticized the historic Voting Rights Act. He voted against hate crime legislation that protected LGBTQ people, arguing, “Today, I'm not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.” And his nomination for a position as a federal judge was rejected in the 1980s after he was accused of making racist remarks, including a supposed joke that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “was okay until I found out they smoked pot.”

 

Given this history, Fairooz laughed at Shelby’s claim

 

But federal prosecutors have pushed forward with the case against Fairooz. As Reilly reported, prosecutors argue that “the laugh amounted to willful ‘disorderly and disruptive conduct’ intended to ‘impede, disrupt, and disturb the orderly conduct’ of congressional proceedings.” In court, they have tried to emphasize that the laugh was extraordinarily disruptive, with a US Capitol Police officer claiming that Fairooz laughed “very loudly” and people in the hearings turned around when they heard it.

Fairooz’s defense, meanwhile, has argued that her laughter was a reflex and not meant to disrupt the hearings. Fairooz was also in the back of the room, and her laughter had no noticeable impact, based on video of the hearings, on Shelby’s introductory speech for Sessions.

 

The trial will continue at the Superior Court in DC this week. If convicted, Fairooz faces a fine up to $500 and up to six months’ imprisonment for the laugh-related charge. She is also charged with another misdemeanor for “allegedly parading, demonstrating or picketing within a Capitol, evidently for her actions after she was being escorted from the room,” Reilly reported.

 

Fairooz has a history of disruptive protests. During protests over the Iraq War, she put fake blood on her hands and confronted then–Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

This time, however, Fairooz claims she was not trying to be disruptive — but merely laughing.

 

These details are all salient for the legal case, but it’s important not to lose sight of the big picture here: The federal government is literally prosecuting someone for laughing. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the Justice Department — which Sessions now leads as attorney general — is doing the prosecuting when the laughter was directed at its leader. At the very least, it’s not a good look for the top law enforcement agency in the country.

[redneckdevil]

Wtf.....

[aluminiumtrioxid]

But republicans are the last bastion of our freedoms!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Fairooz has a history of disruptive protests. During protests over the Iraq War, she put fake blood on her hands and confronted then–Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Perhaps they don't believe that her laughter was a reflex. It's legal to protest, but not during Senate hearings.

[Ben No.3]

 

Fairooz has a history of disruptive protests. During protests over the Iraq War, she put fake blood on her hands and confronted then–Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Perhaps they don't believe that her laughter was a reflex. It's legal to protest, but not during Senate hearings.

If this can be justified trough a law, it becomes more, not less outrageous

[Chilloutman]

 

 

Fairooz has a history of disruptive protests. During protests over the Iraq War, she put fake blood on her hands and confronted then–Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Perhaps they don't believe that her laughter was a reflex. It's legal to protest, but not during Senate hearings.

If this can be justified trough a law, it becomes more, not less outrageous

 

 

Not that I would like to look like I agree with persecution for laughter but there are places where you are suppose to keep quite - e.g at court IIRC

[Guard Dog]

But republicans are the last bastion of our freedoms!

  Said no one ever!

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

Fairooz has a history of disruptive protests. During protests over the Iraq War, she put fake blood on her hands and confronted then–Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Perhaps they don't believe that her laughter was a reflex. It's legal to protest, but not during Senate hearings.

If this can be justified trough a law, it becomes more, not less outrageous

Not that I would like to look like I agree with persecution for laughter but there are places where you are suppose to keep quite - e.g at court IIRC

Should you be respectful and keep quiet? Yes. Does this mean keeping quiet should be made a law, punishable with fines and even imprisonment? No.

[Gfted1]

Like holocaust denial?

[redneckdevil]

Problem is, how do u make people respectful and/or quiet if it isn't law?

 

Putting out there that I find this a wtf moment about being fined for laughter, only hoping it's a case of her history and someone finally having enough and doing something. But then again, it comes back to wtf are we fining people for laughter?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

But republicans are the last bastion of our freedoms!

  Said no one ever!

 

 

smth smth 2nd amendment, need for conservative Supreme Court justices, etc