Lol.
Again, no, he wasn't caught having lied. He attended an MLK march, not a BLM protest. That's no where near the standard for jury nullification. Chauvin's horrendous defense, his lawyers incredibly bad job reaching near criminal incompetence, is a much better case....but his lawyer isn't arguing that.

But more baggage has come out....in the form of civil rights violation charges against all four. Two separate cases for Chavin including a case from around 2018 when he strangled a 14 year old child by holding him by the throat for 17 minutes while beating him in the head with a metal maglight repeatedly. Grand Jury indictments yesterday. D'oh!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMj4LZvZTQ

(I edited, and some stuff pertains to your reply)

Regarding well regulated, here's the sauce :
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment is 2 part.
1st the motivation for why the rule exists, 2nd the rule.

The rule exists, whether or not the motivation is provided (and it's nice of them to provide context - but not necessary).

Even if regulation was meant in the modern sense, it would not change the fact that the rule does not depend on the motivating factors.

But if you insist on motivational prerequisite, here's Hamilton regarding individual right to bear :

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "
[etc]

(That last sentence - there's your training requirement, tee hee. Not only that, but that they should assemble people 1-2 times a year to make sure that everyone is armed and equipped. That's more than an individual right to bear, that's an individual requirement to bear. Let's just be happy with it being a right.)


Laws are supposed to be updated by new laws via representative legislators (who may need to be coerced via protest facilitated by freedom of assembly).
Or challenged by juries (i.e. citizens, i.e. members of the state) via jury nullification (i.e. direct state democracy). That's why there are juries. You need direct state involvement so that the legal system can not run amok independent of state sanction. It's not just for some group consensus.
The system was architected to give the state influence, so that government can't run off and act in an independent non-democratic manner.

-scheherazade

Gun control worked fairly well in Australia, no? For law abiding and not, and enforcers too. In England too, where it DID mean 'disarming' the average cop (not all cops, they do still have guns, they just don't wear them on a daily basis for normal contact with the public, so they have far fewer officer involved shootings). Enforced gun control would mean disarming anyone found with an illegal gun, not the law abiding, not just minorities.
As said above, about 90% of Americans said they favor some type of gun control. Gun control does not mean gun eradication, just as car control (speed limits and other laws of the road) does not mean car eradication. Duh, I'm so sick of that insanely wrong 'argument'.
Federal law 'nullified by the states, counties, and even local law enforcement agencies"?!? Wow.
Are you even American, because you have absolutely 0 grasp of the American governmental system (evidenced by your stated position that voting is worse than useless, and you've indicated the same about voicing your opinion to your 'representatives'..."useless". ?!?).
In America, the Fed can't be over-ridden or 'nullified' by the states, it's pretty clear, cut, and dry. It's certainly been tried, but never successfully, because our law says the Fed trumps all other government and they have the national guard and army backing them up. For instance, many states have 'legalized' marijuana, but no where is it actually legal because it's still federally illegal, they simply aren't prosecuting people for small amounts normally...but they are still prosecuting larger marijuana cases and seizing money and property, even where it's 'legal' because the state 'nullified the federal law'. Another good example (better actually) is ending school segregation. How did 'nullification' work out for those states that ignored/contradicted/'nullified' the fed? I'll answer for you...Not so good.
Please take a civics class, or be prepared to be contradicted at every turn until you get how the system is designed and operates.

Yep, Where Americans Draw the Line.

Just talk about Jury Nullification and you're off the jury.

One of the downsides of jury nullification not mentioned in the video is that it doesn't afford higher courts the opportunity to correct defects in the law.

In the UK an eleven and a twelve year old boy set fire to some newspapers, which unknown to them spread to a wheelie bin, which spread to another wheelie bin, which spread to a shop and eventually caused ~£1 million damage. They were convicted of arson despite an extremely reluctant jury and even judge, because while it was acknowledged that the boys didn't foresee the risk of the fire spreading the standard of recklessness at the time (which had persisted for around two decades) was an objective one referring to the judgement of a hypothetical reasonable adult.

It took their conviction, and the Court of Appeals upholding that conviction, for the House of Lords to reexamine the bad precedent they'd set in an earlier case and finally revert the standard to a subjective one of the defendant's actual capacity.

It may take thousands of nullifications before legislators even notice that their terrible laws aren't being enforced, while one unsound conviction can make a difference. So your strategy as a juror may be to convict in obviously stupid cases (unconstitutional ones in the US, say), but nullify where the law appears to be functioning as intended but conflicts with your conscience.

So, the judge can't declare a mistrial if s/he suspects jury nullification? Like in the extreme case presented where jurors ignore DNA and video evidence and just decide to vote not guilty anyway? That's a little scary, especially considering the double-jeopardy rule.

I imagine if you were on a jury, convincing all the other members to nullify would be extremely difficult. It seems much more likely to result in a hung jury except in the most extreme cases (like the slavery and lynching examples provided in the video).

Also, in California at least, jury nullification has itself been "nullified"--judges can remove from the jury any member that indicates they will not give a verdict that corresponds to the facts of law involved in the case.

See: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/california-court-rules-against-jury-nullification

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

There also needs to be probable cause to make Exigent Circumstances legal. Unfortunately the wording of the law is so full of loopholes that basically this allows complete nullification of our 4th amendment rights. Someone needs to take this to the SC to have it's constitutionality checked.

I voted for this -- JURY NULLIFICATION. We don't want that federal law.

I'm not a smoker. I'm just sick of the money wasted and the lives ruined by stupid laws.

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

You're misinformed:

"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

"And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left."

He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."

In 2008 he said

"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.

"FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html

>> ^heropsycho:

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

Your poll, you missed out on one little thing in it...

"*Among the 62 percent of Americans who have heard about the mandate*, 48 percent said they support an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions if they object to the use of contraceptives, the survey found. Forty-four percent said the groups should be required to cover contraceptives like other employers."

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

And it doesn't matter because majority rule doesn't determine whether something is unconstitutional. Majority votes don't tell what is good policy for the US necessarily either.

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left.

FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

"Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

So he's not an extreme liberal, but these views are extreme liberal, and you believe he's likely to take off his costume and become the true hardcore communist everyone should fear in his second term... but he's NOT an extreme liberal?

Dude, which is it?

>> ^shinyblurry:


Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.
There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause
Not according to this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/po
ll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/
Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.
That's just scratching the surface.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.
>> ^heropsycho:

In your first paragraph you paint the picture of absent federalism or nullification, practically pre-civil war state power restored. If it'd come to that, I think the USA would cease to exist in its current form of 50 states.

2nd paragraph: Aurens hinted at the antitrust laws being too lenient. I agree that money needs to be taken out of the political process, but I don't think dissolving anti-trust instead of fixing and enforcing it is preferable.

third paragraph and following: American Dream and American Exceptionalism and Excellence have turned negative, i agree.

My rant : I think RP'S fight against selfishness is in the wrong direction, but social policies are decried as "Socialism!" too fast, succumbing to scaretactics, which sadly work. Imho, market libertarianism is a political ideology: The solution to everything is "free market!" and "Voluntary everything!"; this sounds nice, but will likely fail, because everything is too complex for a one-phrase-solution. "How will our country prosper? - Communism!"

I (think I) know how it works, I've been ideological myself, it is very nice to think one's movement as better than all other movements, and everyone else is wrong. All solutions of my movement will work, and all imperfections couldn't be helped, they who fell through the cracks did not trust the movement enough.

Isms do not hold the answer,imo, not statism, not liberalism, not communism, not fascism, not liberalism, and not conservativism. Instead of trying to see how an -ism can provide the solution, a politician should just try to find the best solution. Rant end.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...
Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.
And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.
"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.
Off soapbox.

Lawyers and scholars do not believe that jury nullification is a perversion of justice. Days one and two of my substantive (cf. procedural) criminal *law class were about the importance of nullification as another check against the powers of a legislature. Democracy at its core.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

OK, I'm issuing a pardon. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

>> ^gwiz665:

Jury nullification? @dag?
@shinyblurry it matters because if it is allowed, then we open up the doors to spammers, so it's an effort to make the law equal for all users. In any case, you admitted you were at fault, but the reason was ignorance, not malice. I say, reinstate shinyblurry and this will be his slap on the wrist.
The point of this site is video sharing, not video creating. If you make something yourself, you are free to link it certain places, but you are not allowed to "sift" it. It's one of the very basic rules of the site, which I do believe is also highlighted when you submit as a P (probationary member).