Politics 2017 part V

[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.

[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!

[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

[Wrath of Dagon]

If protest during Senate hearings weren't illegal, it would happen constantly and there would be nothing that could be done except removing the protesters over and over. I don't expect Ben to understand how laws work, or how anything works really.

 

 

 

But republicans are the last bastion of our freedoms!

  Said no one ever!

 

 

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

 

That would be the 1st amendment. They have a first amendment right to protest outside, but not inside where they're being disruptive. Edited May 3, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

Contempt of court is hardly a new thing. Although the argument does make a good point that it really doesn't serve the court to pursue this, as it just brings more attention to this person who is clearly trying to gain it.

[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

 

That would be the 1st amendment. They have a first amendment right to protest outside, but not inside where they're being disruptive.

 

 

I was alluding to the fact that people who genuinely believe that republicans are protecting muh freedomz do exist.

Edited May 3, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Wrath of Dagon]

Conservatives do generally believe in protecting other people's rights, unlike the left that's become increasingly totalitarian and insane. But freedom doesn't mean being free to harm others.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

 

Conservatives do generally believe in protecting other people's rights, unlike the left that's become increasingly totalitarian and insane. But freedom doesn't mean being free to harm others.

Socialism: Set of ideologies seeking to build a egalitarian and (thus) free society based on common ownership of the means of production.

 

How is this totalitarian or insane?

 

It's not insane. It's not even necessarily totalitarian (although history provides few examples that were not). What it really IS is impossible. And it would not be free by any description.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Conservatives do generally believe in protecting other people's rights, unlike the left that's become increasingly totalitarian and insane. But freedom doesn't mean being free to harm others.

 

Yes, yes, laughter causes severe and irreparable harm, nobody should be allowed to bully our glorious leader attorney general like that, etc etc

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Conservatives do generally believe in protecting other people's rights, unlike the left that's become increasingly totalitarian and insane. But freedom doesn't mean being free to harm others.

 

Yes, yes, laughter causes severe and irreparable harm, nobody should be allowed to bully our glorious leader attorney general like that, etc etc

 

That's not the point. If the laughter was really reflexive as she claims, there's no offense, but if it was intentional as prosecution claims, then it's no different than shouting something out. And again, she has the right to do all that, but not at the hearing.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So I guess her freedoms ended where his feelings began. Seems familiar, except this time the US government is going after her as opposed to college students whining.

 

 

 

Conservatives do generally believe in protecting other people's rights, unlike the left that's become increasingly totalitarian and insane. But freedom doesn't mean being free to harm others.

 

Socialism: Set of ideologies seeking to build a egalitarian and (thus) free society based on common ownership of the means of production.

How is this totalitarian or insane?

It's not insane. It's not even necessarily totalitarian (although history provides few examples that were not). What it really IS is impossible. And it would not be free by any description.

Rojava is in a warzone and it's more free than burgerland by many descriptions.

[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?

I wouldn't say it is necessary. In many cases, authority is respected regardless of actual law. Take churches: very, very few will interrupt those speaking not because some law prohibits it, but people don't end up shouting. The reason for this is the "authority of the place", to speak so. An authority not attributed to a specific person (or even actually a specific place), but enshrined to certain types of places, protected by society and its norms. So I don't think that for most people, the existence or nonexistence of such a law change so anything about their behaviour.

The only reason why in churches for the most part and in librarys I was quiet was because there was a punishment for not doing so. Why I was quiet in class, why I was respectful to old people and people of authority, there was always a consequence for not doing so.

After time goes on, that knowledge of "something bad is going to happen if I don't do so" is at the core why alot of places and people I am respectful towards.

 

It works and that's why I'm on the fence with this. With the circus that's replaced Barnes and Bailey circus here in USA, I can see things proceeding farther than they need to be, but how to do so? Fines for laughter I'm iffy about, because if it's allowed there, what's to stop it from happening elsewhere? What would be the appropriate type of deference instead?

[Volourn]

L0L And, we have idiots defending this? Prosecuting someone for laughing is asanine. PERIOD. Only nazis defend htis sue of the court's time. RIDICULOUS.

[Gfted1]

Oh look, weve gone full Poe's Law and now warzones are free-er that the US. *sigh* I suppose the complete absense of law and order would be the ultimate freedom.

[HoonDing]

"L0L And, we have idiots defending this? Prosecuting someone for laughing is asanine. PERIOD. Only nazis defend htis sue of the court's time. RIDICULOUS."

 

your mother

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It works and that's why I'm on the fence with this. With the circus that's replaced Barnes and Bailey circus here in USA, I can see things proceeding farther than they need to be, but how to do so? Fines for laughter I'm iffy about, because if it's allowed there, what's to stop it from happening elsewhere? What would be the appropriate type of deference instead?

Not being such a bitch you push legal action, as Attorney General of the US, against someone who laughed at you.

[Zoraptor]

The appropriate response to someone laughing is for them to be chucked out, if it's disruptive. This looks distinctly like an attempt at Chilling Effect more than a legit complaint.

 

Here of course you can (NSFW, though the pictures were of course over every front page in the country and shown on the news at 6pm) throw large rubber marital aids at ministers and there's no criminal case brought.

 

 

 

Rojava is in a warzone and it's more free than burgerland by many descriptions.

Adding to the examples, Catalonia during the Spanish civil war

 

 

Yeah, nah. Rojava is a bit questionable since they do things like ban political parties- crap political parties run by that ultra corrupt kurdish Uncle Tom Barzani, but still- but even at its best Anarchist Catalonia was a lot worse than that. Still probably the closest to 'good guys' you got in the Spanish Civil War but given the alternatives were Phalangists, ossified paleo catholics and ludicrous nationalists on one side and literally Stalin (with assorted floppy leftists hanging on for a few spare T-26s and Polikarpovs) on the other there wasn't much choice.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Calax]

They're trying to take our overtime pay.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/briefing-room/presidential-actions/related-omb-material/saphr1180h_20170502.pdf

 

Honestly it's presented as my first line, but the current wording on the bill is that it's an employee option.

 

But it doesn't seem like an option you get to each time you hit the overtime mark.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

More on the laughing incident: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressional-hearing_us_590929bbe4b05c39768420ef

[redneckdevil]

They're trying to take our overtime pay.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/briefing-room/presidential-actions/related-omb-material/saphr1180h_20170502.pdf

 

Honestly it's presented as my first line, but the current wording on the bill is that it's an employee option.

 

But it doesn't seem like an option you get to each time you hit the overtime mark.

From the second paragraph, it seems like it's up to the employee and that it prohibits trying to stop someone from chosing more pay than the time.

[Azdeus]

Well, it probably only said things like "REMEMBER; DON'T USE THE N WORD".

 

Smart of her to have a reminder at hand.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Azdeus