Active Users:419 Time:17/06/2025 06:34:24 AM
Random Title Isaac Send a noteboard - 05/03/2010 02:49:59 AM
Sometimes I feel a very small minority on that. Which is acceptable, but not always pleasant. FWIW, after a few years with this community, I think my contributions as a whole were more positive when I took heat for excessive length as well as the time to say things carefully and with ample qualifiers. People may have teased me for length, but far fewer got mad, and those who did usually got mad because of what I said rather than what they thought I said, because it was a lot harder to misconstrue my statements.


Well, I was lurking a bit even in '02. I think I found the site either right before or after CoT came out, maybe WH. The theory post though, not the MBs, I might have posted a couple times, then I was largely silent till '07, I think I firs tposted after RJ died, over on the WoTMB, then over on the RPG board (you should join us sometime, fun game) and then finally over at the CMB, initially I didn't even know what it was and kept wondering whit on a wheel of time sight people kept talking politics, but I'm a politico, so it eventually sucked me in.

I've never had someone get on me for being lengthy either, though I've certainly had a few pokes and jokes over it. I've always just written until I felt my point was clear, it always seems weird to me that so many others don't.

I can blame them, because they had no reason to take what I said at anything but face value. Why ask permission to search if you're going to do it anyway? A token acknowledgment of the Fourth Amendment only works if saying, "no" stops the search; if the guy really felt he had probable cause he didn't need to ask permission. But no problem; I happen to be among those liberals (and there are millions of us) who know full well who paid dearly for our freedom to complain, and appreciate it more than I can express. Reminding some ass is a pretty small repayment.


Oh, I don't blame you for being ticked off, you should be, I just want to make clear that I think the cop was in the 'minor abuse' area like accepting free coffee, not the full blown bad cop zone. I know many liberals are entirely reasonable, I used to be one, kinda, maybe still am, it's that you seem to attract certain types of crazy, as opposed to types of crazy the right gets. Maybe it's because of the more left of center-US views more common to the net, but right-wing loons tend to be dismissed as trolls and leftie-loonies tend to be more vocal and unchallenged... I don't know. As you might guess, I'm a big believer in protecting our rights and remembering how we paid for them, but I do tend to have a mentality of 'If you're gonna burn the flag, please wrap yourself in it first'. Rights yes, right to approval, no. When someone says, 'Hey! I'm just expressing my free speech' I always want to point out to them 'That's fine, that's why we're not stoning you, we don't have to like you, we can spit when you walk by, we just can't spit on you, I'm just expressing my free speech when I call you spoiled little prick.'

Obviously, there's a big difference between politely refusing a search and acting like a snot to the cops, lotta people forget that, you obviously have not.

Maybe in OH (though that doesn't square with what I've heard of OH) but not in TX, and definitely not in Williamson County. Here the implication you're willing to sue for wrongful arrest and the like is more than offset by how mad the cop will be when he sees the ACLU sticker. And Williamson County Sheriffs (which this was) are notorious; one of my neighbors is a retired trucker who says a California friend still hauling will drive 100 miles out of his way to avoid coming through here.


I live in rural ohio, I know the local police, I know the police dogs name and age and the name of the new one who's getting ready to replace him. So obviously I'm not really in a position to express un-biased views on them. I've certainly heard a lot bad stories about cops, and obviously many have been true, my regrets if your area is like that.

The main thing with laws against concealed carry is that it will stop law abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons, so that if you find one in the course of routine police work you already have a charge without needing to find an additional more serious one. It's not going to get anyone 20 years to life, and it shouldn't, but I think it's an effective stopgap. Again, that's coming from someone who thinks gunracks and hip holsters should be perfectly legal; then the only reason I can see for concealment is to say, "SURPRISE! You're dead. " That's not a culture I want to encourage legally or otherwise.


Well, when I think concealed, barring obvious major professional or personal safety cases, I tend to assume 'one on the hip for show, one on the ankle for backup. I wouldn't object to conceal laws if they specifically said 'a backup weapon can be concealed, like a knife or gun, so long as the person is clearly advertising they are armed, and not informing the police of it prior to a search is a felony'

Oh, believe me, I hear ya; like I say, I favor allowing people to carry clearly visible weapons, anything short of a LAW, really.


Yes, I do tend to think there is a legit place to say 'this weapon can only be used for outright rebellion.', I do tend to feel there are legit caps to the level of ordinance someone can own, or at least carry around. Maybe owning a RPG is okay, taking it off your premises is not. Most problems from owning explosives and heavy ordinance can be taken care of without bans. 'Got kids? Show us a properly safe storage format or we're taking them for their safety, or you can hands us the RPG and C4' and 'your howitzer needs to undergo regular maintenance and inspection or represents a hazard, you want to show us some paperwork from a certified weapons tech?' Inconvenience tends to be easier than bans for enforcing things, that way you avoid people doing it as 'a matter of principle'... not that I can say I honestly object to laws on explosives and anti-tank weapons.

The proposition is not reversible; anyone who'll murder won't be stopped by concealed carry bans, but many who'd illegally carry a concealed weapon would never think of murder. But believe it or not, as adversarial as my attitude toward law enforcement can be based on some insane experiences of my own and others (I'm pretty sure I almost got shot one night in Georgetown for having car trouble, and the best part was that once they knew I was just a distressed motorist they left for their cop shop two blocks away) I recognize the police axiom that the most dangerous thing they do is "routine" traffic stops, because they never know whether it's Farmer Brown back from the market or a couple bank robbers with a teller bound and gagged in the trunk. Forcing them to ask if you're carrying a legal but concealed gun just makes life more dangerous for everyone, and something about making an already nervous and armed man more nervous is unappealing.


Oh yes, I don't blame the cops for being paranoid during traffic stops.

I understand that, but I disagree with the whole setup for primaries. If we're going to have a two party system where nearly every major office will be filled by either a Democrat or Republican I think the citizens have as much right to vote for both party nominees to an office as for the officeholder in the general election. Why should I be barred from voting for my preferred Republican (or Democrat) Nominee for President just because I voted for the other? If I vote for the Dem nominee (or vice versa) and the other one wins, am I any less subject to his jurisdiction?


Well, IMHO, parties should simply have their own specific criteria for selecting a nominee, if the New Hitler Party wants to pick their candidate by reading tea leaves that's fine by me. It's just easier to tack on nominees to the normal ballot for parties which believe in democratic selection. I can imagine in Texas there are a lot places where your vote for a candidate is basically only 'GOP 1 or GOP 2' so that's different from an ethical standpoint. In a case where the primary really is just the election, there's more wiggle room, though I still don't really approve. I don't like the 'common masses' voting in primaries for candidates because you can't assume ignorant votes will cancel out, 'smith' might get a lot more uninformed votes that 'Hussein', and a dem who crosses the line to vote for a purple senate nominee probably votes for everyone else on the ballot too, really screwing the Husseins, Whites, and Ignoramitz's. Or you can have malice votes, your in a stronghold area where a candidate's a shoo-in, people cross over and try to nominate a Ron Paul instead of a Scott Brown.

I live in TX; a few years ago I voted in my ONLY Republican primary to date for one simple reason: All the candidates to replace the disgusting Williamson County Sheriff (who was caught drunk and relieving himself by the side of the road only to be driven home by cops who recognized him, not once but twice) were Republicans, so the winner of the primary ran unopposed. If I wanted ANY say in my next Sheriff (and given how bad the one running for re-election was, I did) I had to vote in the primary, but when the State Democratic Party called up asking if I wanted to be a delegate to the State Convention, I had to say I couldn't because my voter registration card said I voted in the Republican Primary. I think people should be allowed to vote in all party primaries; it's more democratic, and removes the spoiler effect without disenfranchising anyone.


I know a lot of good people who work military or law enforcement who have gotten drunk and taken a whiz somewhere, but I catch your meaning. But, I really think every party should be able to set it's own rules for nomination, I mean if I setup a Demarchist Party, I'm being pretty hypocritical to have a primary, I should just be dumping the names of every member who can serve into a hat and picking. Having a voted primary after that would really just be for show and wasteful, and if someone get's ticked and runs anyway, people from other parties could come in and screw it up.

Show Me the Compromise, Jerry. Tort reform instead of healthcare reform isn't a compromise, it's a bait and switch; I'm well aware Republicans want comprehensive tort reform, but that's not the issue we're debating, not the one two Presidents got elected on, so maybe we should have that debate separately and on its own merits rather than in place of healthcare reform. Bringing up the New Deal doesn't help you much there; Republicans started "reforming" it as early as Taft-Hartley in '46 (that's before we consider the conservative SCOTUS rubber stamping the whole thing unconstitutional until FDR attempted an unconstitutional court packing scheme his own party rejected. ) By the time I was born, taking us back off the gold standard (revived by the New Deal) reduced minimum wage to nothing more than a spur to inflation. Deregulation and removing segregation of lenders, investment banks and insurance did the rest under Clinton and, rhetoric aside, that drove the high risk, high interest subprime housing mortgages far more than political pressure to lend to minorities (many of whom pay their mortgages just fine, thank you, and they didn't get all the bad loans either. ) Hell, Reagan even gave us a tax on Social Security benefits that were taken out as taxes in the first place. No, there wasn't "the better part of a century" of New Deal; there was about forty years, from 1933 until 1973. Contrast those years with the ones before and since and tell me how bad the New Deal was. Remember when the evil liberals were in charge and even our enemies respected us morally and strategically?


Sure, Tort Reform should be seperate, but the whole reason one does enormous bills is to make sure things go through that otherwise might not on their own. The GOP may talk the talk but not walk the walk on HC, but the dems do it for Tort, same thing. The GOP's offer to break this into manageable bits, all seperate, is hardly altruistic but it really is the right thing to do. Politically it's the best thing for the dems too, we're offering it because we're scared the whole thing will get rammed through and political suicide or not it would be very hard to get rid off, we'd have to take back sizeable majorities, because dems who voted no on the bill might vote no on a repeal, and we'd have to be able to override Obama, by then, it's in, people are using it, outrage is diminished, some people 'need it', so the whole start from scratch thing isn't a cynical ploy, it's genuine fear that this is a political win-win and lose-lose at the same time. We think we can snap the mega-majority even if the dems regain some favor, and that's all we want out of '10, a majority would be nice, but isn't the main goal, so getting it isn't worth some virtually indestructible new entitlement system.

Well, Merck developed an entirely new vaccine and one of their competitors developed a competing one (which was never considered for use by Texas government) so that one's off the table here. As I've said elsewhere, as long as it doesn't become a moratorium, I think limiting grounds for suit is much superior to limiting damages. It prevents ANY damage for suits by people victim only to their own negligence, without preventing real victims and/or their survivors from full compensation when wronged. When I was a few years old State Farm sold my parents (and millions of others) a life insurance policy on me that promised a monthly annuity in retirement once it was fully paid when I turned 25. They subsequently changed that to a $5000 life insurance policy ONLY, and only if I kept paying every month for the rest of my life, even though my mom had already paid more than $5000. A LOT of people sued, were combined into a class action suit, and offered a few hundred dollars each out of the eventual settlement. Clearly, we need tort reform to restrict suits for breach of contract, though I remain fuzzy on what this has to do with healthcare....


Both sides have openly stated a willingness to regulate that sort of thing, which as you mention has already been ruled on, so starting from scratch to permit that seems a good idea. Laws and programs can usually stand on their own, certainly anything as huge as this bill needs to demonstrably be able to, you don't roll the dice on a 1/6th of the economy. BEsides just be an obvious and blunt political tactic, the GOP is basically saying 'if you're gonna do this anyway...'

Heh, I suppose so; that's actually not a bad counterexample of why "leave it up to mom and dad" isn't exactly a panacea, though it doesn't seem any lasting harm was done in your case. I'm not unsympathetic to the critics position; I think it incumbent on parents to do at least as good a job teaching kids about sex as schools, or at least inform them as much as they're able, but even among we who are sympathetic there's a certain perplexity at people who decry welfare for single mothers of eight AND decry comprehensive sex ed. And make no mistake: I'm a veteran of that debate on wotmanias CMB, and used to taking fire from both sides for my position sex ed SHOULD be comprehensive, meaning kids are taught


Well, by now one would think there'd be some data showing if sex ed in school even worked, now, I don't care if they show my kids borderline porn in the process of explaining the plumbing, but I do want to know they are spending the time effectively, if they could otherwise be shoring up the weaknesses in 'Johnny Kantreed' and 'little Miss Spell', so I think some demographic data indicate a significant drop in areas that did teach versus didn't would be appropriate before the debate on parental rights is warranted. I'd want those regardless of which side I'm advocating.

People used to be a lot less black and white, more thoughtful and deliberate. There are always trolls, but "back in the day" as exhausting as it was (and I was unemployed then; I literally could and did spend double digit hours a day on the CMB) a single thread could generate DOZENS of discussions like this with many diverse, intelligent and reasonable people.


I'd like to have seen that, or maybe not, the site already takes up much of my time, I probably spend the better part of an hour on this site daily, maybe more, although a big chunk of that is on the RPG board. Well, except for prolonged bakc and forths like this, which I consider to be mental training like a crossword puzzle, realistically I just flip in every so often when doing other things and cut off quick replies, so I suppose it doesn't really eat into my time. I do remember when there were a lot more threads like the homeschooling one we just had, the last one I remember here going off like that was the Polanksi thread.

It almost never descended into a shouting match, and those who looked for that didn't get much attention, for precisely that reason. That, and the seemingly inexhaustible and genuine caring between members were the two things that made me a wotmaniac. For a lot of reasons, I wish you could've been around for that, wish I'd gotten there years earlier; maybe RAFO will be similar some day, but never the same, and as of now it's not even close. Not that I don't enjoy the one on one with you, and you in particular, but it didn't used to be as hard to have a meaningful, informed, diverse and civil discussion. I've done mea culpas for my role in reducing that, but more and more I wonder how much of it was me affecting the site rather than the reverse.


Yes, I remember your posting something along those lines a while back, I've always assumed I was missing something over a lot of that business. Much of the commentary people make about 'the old days' or anything that happened in chat goes right over my head.

No, it wouldn't; technically I don't think capping judgments would violate the LETTER of the amendment (just the whole of the spirit) but such guidelines that still allowed juries to use their own discretion, while ensuring judges were there to prevent juries turned vigilante, is in the same vein as regulations, without outright bans, on firearms. It's a fine line; someone referenced permits for protests earlier, and IMHO that's turned into a legal expedient for repealing freedom of assembly in practice if not on paper. Don't get me started on "free speech areas" which on the UT campus is something completely opposite to what a former Austin resident made it in DC.


Fine lines are fun to dance over, keeps a civilization from getting stagnant. It's all about trying to make the system a little bit less game-able, while people try to game it. I have to admit, I'm a little leery about some of the assembly restrictions, but at the same time, the right to protest doesn't really mean 'wherever we want', I'm sure you remember the protests outside the RNC. No protest should be allowed, within the spirit of protest, to impede other people's business, especially when it has nothing to do with what they are protesting, and large ones often get a violent element, so there's nothing too wrong about telling people 'protest all you want in the park over there, part we're not letting this drift next door to the elementary school, you're scaring the kids.' You can take this the other way, but by and large, I don't mind practical restrictions if they don't stomp on people's rights. No guns in school vs no gun in your house is pretty straightforward, protesting in front of city hall impedes business, but it's an ancient tradition and makes sense when you're protesting the gov't. So, fine line, but common sense vs law tends to fix most gray cases.

Then, once again, produce the alternative first, if only so there's not a vacuum where anything goes in between abolishing the old system and creating a new one. I'm dubious of the logic there anyway though; laws are written to say they supersede old ones all the time, and there's no reason a comprehensive reform package can't do that. Indeed, it's common. If you want a big rather than small reform, fine, but reform is more than "dump this, kill that, repeal this other. "


Agreed, you need replacements - unless it's just awful bad dumb, then kill is fine - but these would be easier if things were broken up more clearly, and my view on this is not situational, honestly I think the left will do better trying for some of their reforms if they do it more piecemeal. Right now I'd guess around 10% of the pop is against this bill just because they are scared by it's immensity, not most or even necessarily any of it's provisions.

Somewhere in there I remember you mentioning marijuana, I must have trimmed that on accident, and I remembered I wanted to mention something on that, turns out it's been positively and strongly linked to schizophrenia now, total sidebar but I read about it yesterday, anyway as you might guess I'm fairly indifferent to it's legality or lack there of, but it raised the interesting libertarian point similar to smoking, 'do we have the right to control it because now we all foot the bill for it's consequences?' which I always find an interesting mental conundrum.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
Palin reads Cheat Notes. - 08/02/2010 12:43:02 AM 1424 Views
Is it really worse than reading answers on a teleprompter? sorry, I see no big deal here. *NM* - 08/02/2010 01:02:49 AM 252 Views
yes yes it is. a teleprompter is subtle - 08/02/2010 01:22:17 AM 593 Views
a teleprompter is not subtle - 08/02/2010 02:25:46 PM 522 Views
staring openly and blatantly at your hand is? *NM* - 08/02/2010 03:09:25 PM 322 Views
I think if anyone else had done the dame thing we wouldn't even had heard about - 08/02/2010 06:13:44 PM 523 Views
you're right, we probably would not have heard about it - 08/02/2010 07:56:09 PM 562 Views
Yes for what the notes were - 08/02/2010 12:44:35 PM 557 Views
no biggie *NM* - 08/02/2010 02:00:12 AM 272 Views
Isn't her 15 minutes over yet? *NM* - 08/02/2010 02:45:58 AM 357 Views
This only obscures the rational reasons for duly decrying her political popularity. Moooooooo. *NM* - 08/02/2010 03:19:45 AM 326 Views
I disagree, I think it underscores it. - 08/02/2010 03:39:57 AM 524 Views
Or they might believe that a far left liberal - 08/02/2010 04:16:51 AM 542 Views
Calling someone who needs a cheat sheet for their talking points stupid isn't an ad hominem, IMHO. - 08/02/2010 12:13:36 PM 537 Views
soory but your wrong, again - 08/02/2010 02:23:31 PM 496 Views
You shouldn't need reminders of your major themes after two years pushing them. - 08/02/2010 02:55:22 PM 528 Views
That's a bit silly - 08/02/2010 08:40:25 PM 690 Views
I'm perfectly happy to discuss her positions; I just think Huckabee does a better job of it. - 09/02/2010 10:26:54 AM 709 Views
Well, let's discuss some of these points - 09/02/2010 07:13:33 PM 715 Views
Re: Well, let's discuss some of these points - 10/02/2010 09:15:04 AM 747 Views
Re: Well, let's discuss some of these points - 10/02/2010 06:49:51 PM 814 Views
Ironically, Palin seems to agree this is different than using a teleprompter for a speech. - 11/02/2010 09:05:19 AM 709 Views
Again, two seperate things - 11/02/2010 09:51:15 PM 525 Views
Agreed, but Palin and other Republicans, not I, drew the comparison. - 15/02/2010 01:02:25 PM 673 Views
Just to get the obligatory Feinstein comment out of the way... - 15/02/2010 11:43:42 PM 735 Views
Hadn't heard, actually. - 19/02/2010 06:58:50 AM 650 Views
Re: Hadn't heard, actually. - 19/02/2010 08:32:11 AM 648 Views
Ah. - 23/02/2010 09:55:45 PM 725 Views
Re: Ah. - 24/02/2010 01:32:34 AM 672 Views
Yeah, I think we've reached an understanding if not agreement. - 01/03/2010 03:51:49 AM 666 Views
Re: Yeah, I think we've reached an understanding if not agreement. - 01/03/2010 11:46:24 PM 881 Views
Re: Yeah, I think we've reached an understanding if not agreement. - 05/03/2010 12:11:48 AM 754 Views
Random Title - 05/03/2010 02:49:59 AM 683 Views
Re: Random Title - 15/03/2010 05:37:22 AM 599 Views
Re: Random Title - 15/03/2010 09:17:53 PM 913 Views
Re: Random Rejoinder - 29/03/2010 03:45:08 PM 636 Views
Re: Random Rejoinder - 30/03/2010 12:34:23 AM 1283 Views
Oh dear, who ever let you two get into a subthread together? - 15/03/2010 10:31:24 PM 744 Views
Ben was asleep at the switch, clearly. - 29/03/2010 02:48:46 PM 680 Views
oh yes, and the right never uses ad hominem - 08/02/2010 03:56:42 PM 491 Views
This is petty and also rather ignorant - 08/02/2010 03:59:40 AM 688 Views
There had to be better ways, though - 08/02/2010 08:36:50 AM 444 Views
so you're saying you're as dumb as sarah palin? - 08/02/2010 10:55:00 AM 502 Views
Basically yes - 08/02/2010 06:57:16 PM 558 Views
a couple of points... - 09/02/2010 01:53:29 AM 523 Views
Let me get this straight. - 08/02/2010 03:59:40 AM 601 Views
Okay, folks, it's not that she had a cheat sheet. - 08/02/2010 04:39:06 AM 558 Views
Style is EVERYTHING, dammit! *NM* - 08/02/2010 05:34:14 AM 284 Views
As Cheat Sheet was raised as an objection, so it clearly was - 08/02/2010 06:16:57 AM 661 Views
It's completely unprofessional - 08/02/2010 08:27:47 AM 521 Views
why? - 08/02/2010 02:29:44 PM 544 Views
well it's all she's got going for her. *NM* - 08/02/2010 03:10:37 PM 234 Views
You know that's a good question - 08/02/2010 05:19:10 PM 507 Views
maybe you are just projecting - 08/02/2010 06:15:57 PM 511 Views
well what is the association we have with notes on hands? - 08/02/2010 07:58:41 PM 536 Views
or people on the far left are being grossly disingenuous - 08/02/2010 08:18:06 PM 650 Views
dude, only posted it because it was funny - 08/02/2010 08:43:55 PM 506 Views
I agree on your title - 09/02/2010 11:30:11 AM 573 Views
Who cares? She's hot. *NM* - 08/02/2010 03:06:58 PM 247 Views
I agree with your first sentence. *NM* - 08/02/2010 03:07:31 PM 347 Views
I also totally agree with that first sentence. *NM* - 08/02/2010 03:48:24 PM 274 Views
Much ado about nothing. She was just making sure she didn't forget anything. - 09/02/2010 02:00:56 AM 487 Views
No, humble would have been note cards. *NM* - 09/02/2010 05:55:27 AM 252 Views
Nah, note cards can be dropped or lost. - 09/02/2010 03:03:25 PM 507 Views
She's such a retard. *NM* - 09/02/2010 02:46:51 AM 275 Views
Maybe - 09/02/2010 09:29:45 AM 545 Views
No offense, girlie. - 09/02/2010 11:36:55 AM 650 Views
She should have left herself a note... - 09/02/2010 11:04:34 PM 514 Views

Reply to Message