(Most of) That doesn't work, actually, all you'll get is people pandering to large corporations so they get good paying "consulting" contracts after they leave office.

Ban lobbying in every form. It's the tail wagging the dog. At least make it 100% transparent and on the public record.

Read this rebuttle on a public forum on an ad from Purple when someone brought this up:

Purple:
Hi Caitlin, we didn't sue because we has questions, as he asserted. We filed action against Honest Mattress Reviews (HMR), Ryan Monahan & GhostBed for violating the law by spreading false and misleading statements online, including specific statements that GhostBed — a primary competitor of Purple — had previously agreed to remove from its website and various social media platforms. Now, however, those and other false and misleading statements are being made on HMR and Momahan's newly-created mattress-industry-related blog. We have reason to believe Monahan & GhostBed are "in bed together" — some of the connections we've found are here: https://onpurple.com/blog/connections-ryan-monahan-ghostbed.

HMR’s, Monahan’s and GhostBed’s campaign against Purple includes numerous false and misleading statements about Purple and its products and services, including false claims about the safety of Purple’s mattresses, the assumed lack of adequate safety testing for Purple’s products, and Purple’s alleged deception of its customers regarding safety. In fact, many of the statements go so far as to imply that Purple’s mattresses are dangerous and can lead to serious diseases. These statements have been proven to be false and unfounded, and yet, they continue to dishonestly proclaim that Purple's products are unsafe.

The suit is public record and why we sued is clearly spelled out in it, but to clear up what seems to be insinuated — we didn’t sue because he gave us a bad review or because of his 4 safety questions (as he’s asserted). On the contrary, we encourage third-party reviews as an important part of the consumer research process. We are merely protecting our company and intellectual property against a dishonest ”reviewer” with connections to a competitor.

Since every time we discuss the lawsuit publicly evidence of the connection seems to disappear, this is all we can say at this time. Again, the suit is public record and you're welcome to review it yourself.

That is not a fact until you have EVIDENCE for it, until then, it's a claim.

In general, the requirement for evidence is inversely proportional to the probability of the claim. If I say the sky is blue, most people don't need evidence of that because it fits with their world experience. If I say I'm the second coming of Christ, I damn well better start turning water into wine to prove my case.

Your CLAIM is that no white male police officer has ever been convicted of murdering a black male in America's entire history. I'm willing to accept that it's possible, but I'm not willing to take it as a fact until you can provide a reputable source.

And no, it's nothing like big foot or the loch ness monster. Criminal convictions are a matter of public record.

As it happens, I can't find any records of a police officer being convicted of murder (although there are several for manslaughter).

Doesn't make your childish behaviour any better though.

Ummm.....so Tillman slandering his colleague and Tillman throwing the first punch...ignore that and blame the victim who called Tillman a liar for spreading lies on the senate floor and on the record about his fellow senator while they weren't present to defend themselves? I don't get that at all, both verbally and physically, Tillman was the clear instigator (and a piece of shit).
The rule had nothing to do with his blatant racism and everything to do with the personal insults and the fist fight on the Senate floor that involved numerous senators when it was done. It was to stop Tillman from repeating his personal attacks, not to stop his colleague from defending his own reputation from Tillman's slanderous lies by calling them lies, as I read the record.
Edit: don't take me wrong, I'm not arguing against your contention that some may have said protecting Tillman was the reason for the rule, or even that they meant it, just that, logically, it doesn't make a bit of sense.
I think the rule is proper if they change it to slander, not just apt but unbecoming description, and certainly not a reasonable interpretation of their actions as a public servant. Lies shouldn't be accepted, no matter what lies or about whom....imo.

All that said, I like the idea of calling it the Tillman rule and claiming it was created with the intent of protecting racists from having their public records made public.

Campaign finance reform IS a major political issue of the day, not a personal attack.
Hillary can't defend her actions on this issue, so she's attempting to deflect the focus back at Bernie for simply bringing up her public record/actions as related to this serious political issue.
That Hillary wants to characterize it as a personal attack shows clearly which side of the issue she's on and how deeply she's invested in that side, and it's the wrong side. There's absolutely no way to think she'll do anything meaningful about campaign finance reform when she benefits so much from the status quo.
If addressing this issue, one that dramatically effects ALL other issues and candidates, is meaningful to you, there's only one candidate for you, and it's certainly not Hillary or any Republican.

Well, yes, that's possible but not likely, to hold that theory you must assume the people running it are both 1)100% tolerant of antagonistic racist behavior and 2)liars. I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they didn't bow to perceived possible future pressure and actually found this personally disgusting. That's not a stretch for most. It's also quite possible they saw it as a potential internal lawsuit they were nipping in the bud.

I asked about his rights...I asked..."does he have a right to his job?" The answer is no.

Ahhh, but it's not illegal to ADVOCATE for having sex with children, only to actually HAVE sex with children. What would you arrest him for?

'intent to harm'? Certainly not. For pedophiles, they don't think having sex with children is harmful to them, so there's no intent to harm. On the other hand, the racist DID intend to harm (intentional infliction of emotional distress is a crime in many places) those he ridiculed, he just isn't very good at it.

Advocating for legalization of something is not the same as advocating people doing it illegally....so no.

If the company has a strict 100% no drug policy, yes. I hate those kinds of policies, but I do see that private companies have the right to hire people they trust, and if using drugs makes them lose that trust in a person, they can fire them...for any stupid thing really.

I'm pretty sure we have laws protecting people from being fired based on political affiliation...so no.

Again, I never said it was justice. I said it's reality. I actually mentioned that I think it's overboard that he's essentially unemployable now, but also mentioned that he could get a job with Trump, or any number of other employees that don't have a problem with his racism. Being fired for ridiculing random strangers for being non-white and therefore on welfare...well, that's poetic justice at least, if not pure justice. Poetic justice is a form of justice...so yes.

Companies have every right to not employ grotesque and offensive people. Don't you think?

Again...intentional infliction of emotional distress...that's harm. Not physical harm, but harm none the less. You may disagree, but you're disagreeing with the law and supreme court, not me.

They were no threat to his livelihood, he's not a fracker, he's in construction.


When is it OK to hold them to company policy? When they are making public, recorded, unambiguous, inapropriate statements and actions. The company draws the line, the company decides where, the company enforces it. If this were due to an outside influence, I would think differently, but because the company itself wrote how disgusted they are and that they have a zero tolerance policy for this...it's fine. He's not just a racist bastard off work...if they have a single person of color working for them, they just saved themselves from a HUGE lawsuit for allowing a hostile work environment.

Yes, the courts have said they have that right.

Again...no PC police here, just his company bosses that were outraged and disgusted with him...and they fired him. This is not new, or strange in any way. It happens hundreds of times daily.

Why? Because we have decided that firing/denying service to someone based on their (or your) religion is not acceptable, and codified that in law. Racists have no such protection, either by society or the law.

yes, I can look at the entire situation and see that some justice was served. I can also look to the future and see that it likely will be over served....but not necessarily. He just needs to apply to the Trump campaign, they love this kind of person, then it will be pure justice.

Look to the past. This 'moral calculus' has been in effect and in use for decades. I find it disturbing that you only get upset about it when it's applied to racist douchebags...he's insanely far from the first one.

Once again...NO PC POLICE HERE. Why don't you get it? Come on man...please...just GET IT. This is a private companies sole action...not bowing to PC police...the PC police didn't have time to find out where he worked and complain, the company saw it and said 'Aww HELL no!".

I would also rather keep my liberty and freedoms...like the liberty and freedom to hire people that share my level of civility, and display that at all times, not only while being paid. Fortunately for me, that's what the law says today...but if people thinking like you have your way, that liberty and freedom will be lost and companies will be forced to hire and not fire disgusting pieces of racist shit like this...because people that think like you are can't fathom that his job found this disgusting, you've decided it MUST have been the PC thugs (or fear of them) that forced his job to fire him, PC thugs that must be fought, so you're fighting. To me, that's just sad, and incredibly poorly thought through or understood...and a bit like seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

You have your liberty and freedom to do as you wish...there was NEVER the freedom to do what you wished AND HAVE NO CONSEQUENSE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. That's what you're advocating. This isn't about a law, it's a private company's private decision...no right has been removed, you have the right to be as disgusting as you wish, you don't have a right to force yourself into a job.

In short, this is his (non existent) right to keep his job VS his bosses right to fire him. The right right won out.

EDIT: It seems you two have not considered the possibility that the company might be owned by a black person.

True, it sounded like it was 'quit or be fired' (or perhaps she'd already been fired and was doing a 'you can't fire me, I quit' thing, but that's always silly).
It was the 'fuck it' part that I thought was unnecessary and may bite her in the ass later (even if she doesn't go back to media, it's out there now as public record of how she'll act when a job is over, so hurts her in any career).

LexisNexis is a massive database of public records, legal documents and cases, publications, medical journals entries and on and on...

If you're a lawyer you'd use it to look up case decisions and legal statutes, a bill collector would use it to find public records of people in collections, an insurance underwriter can see all kinds of insurance and claim data for a person, a medical researcher could look up published research and journals on specific topics, a journalist would search for other published news items about a topic or individual.

As a database, it has tons of uses and it's very extensive. I think it's also totally expensive to subscribe to.

@lantern53

When you have a country were it is acceptable for SWAT teams equipped with more weapons and body armor than an average soldier in your national military to kick down doors and throw flashbangs into people's homes on the "suspicion" that a small amount of drugs may be in the house, or to intimidate peaceful protestors by raising their weapons towards them, when it is acceptable for the NY city police department to conduct secret surveillance on anyone within three states who happens to be a Muslim in the name of counter-terrorism activities, when it is acceptable to taze people simply because they don't provide identification upon demand, when it is acceptable for the police to go to the wrong house to serve a warrant and shoot the dog that happens to live there then I think it is only natural that people are going to hate on the police. The police in the US (particularly the LAPD) have earned the hate they receive ten times over in my opinion for a lot of the reasons he states in this video.

Like he said, the problem is that you are telling a group of people that they are there to enforce the law. Which isn't a problem until it dawns on some of them that they occupy a position that allows them to actually act above the law and get away with it.

Every cop should have to have a camera attached to their uniform that is recording at all times while they are on duty and that video should be available for a civilian oversight committee to review. The committee should have the ability to punish or fire officers who overstep their authority or misbehave on the job. And the videos should be public record so we can see both the good cops and the bad.

Go to Viharts videos description on youtube to find links to get involved
http://youtu.be/NAxMyTwmu_M

or the below links stolen from videosift video descriptin Hank vs Hank
http://videosift.com/video/Hank-vs-Hank-The-Net-Neutrality-Debate-in-3-Minutes

Please make a public comment here!
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin
Tell the FCC that they should reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications (or "Common carrier") service. Right now broadband is regulated like TV or radio, which doesn't make sense.
This is a public comment for the public record...official government stuff... so you'll have to include your actual name and address.
You can also email the FCC directly here: http://dft.ba/-tell_the_FCC
If you want to help some organizations that work their butts off trying to fight the telecoms,
check out:
Save The Internet (from FreePress) http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
Public Knowledge: http://www.publicknowledge.org/
And contact your congress people: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Ever wonder how you get junk mail the day after changing addresses?
Easy electronic data harvesting of public records.

Paper records would slow this crap down.
Or at least 'throttled' digital record downloads.
Or returning records upon request for info about a specific individual/company, so they'd have to know who to ask about. Possibly in combination with a cap on requests per day.
Let the info be freely available, but not quick.

-scheherazade

Here's the long-list from a famous -hacked-to-bits and otherwise forgotten document's grievance rider which seems a poignantly appropriate reason enough to want to shove a vote up someone's ass and rotate it:

Of King George:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Someone needs perhaps to revise the list and start hoarding ammunition and conscripting, because methinks the "vote" be fast-resembling, fuck-all. I don't vote and I am damn sure not going to be quiet any time soon...Average Joe and Jane voters have already effectively been "opted out."

Everyone is speculating about what the police knew and when. What we do know is they did not know, or even have any evidence that they had returned to Boston after the shootout, but the description claims these searches happened there too.
As for evacuation at gunpoint, yes, it's possible he had moved into a nearby home, but not at all possible that he had morphed into a 12 year old child or woman, so holding them at gunpoint is ridiculous.
It will likely only be true "public record" if there are lawsuits that force the police to give specific reasons for each and every entry.

I agree that it should not be simple. But you are speculating a great deal as to what the police knew, and when they knew it. The"total picture" of police knowledge won't be known until several things play out in court. It will be public record and it can be debated then.

I disagree about the gunpoint evacuation thing. If they suspect he was in a boat, isn't it possible that he moved since police received that information? Couldn't he be in a house now? Seems reasonable to use caution given what his actions were throughout this event. I wouldn't like being pulled out of my house at gunpoint either, but I wouldn't think the police were doing it just to be dicks.

>> ^smooman:

injustice does not a police state make.


No, but having more of your citizens under police supervision than any other nation in the world damned well should. It's not even debatable, it's a matter of public record, our own and international as was sourced from both our own records and international above. How in the world do we figure that the nation with more of its citizens under police supervision than any other in the world isn't a police state?

The term Orwellian comes to mind. It's built slowly over the years so we didn't notice, it's us so we don't want to admit it about ourselves, but that doesn't change the fact that those are the facts.