Hear no evil?
There was a common sense IQ test in Congress recently, and the Democrats failed it.
In the Senate, 39 Democrats including our own Sen. Ken Salazar voted to remove immunity from lawsuits if you report suspicious behavior at the airport or on an airplane, while in the House the Democrats managed to strip that provision from a homeland security bill.
The Democrats are trying to tell us they will protect us by hearing no evil, speaking no evil and seeing no evil.
Jim Kutsko, Denver
hmmmmm, I wonder why.... Perhaps the Trial lawyers saw money in these frivolous suits and told their democrat weasels to vote against immunity?
Posted by Dravur on August 15, 2007 10:12 AMPerhaps because you see suspicion in everything. I could see rightwingers using this as a way to attack any of their enemies, or anyone who thinks or looks different than them. Beware the thought police they are alive in the Republican mind
Posted by on August 15, 2007 10:45 AMDid the bill pass? Are we now immune? If only 39 Democrats voted for it, it would have taken some republicans to make it pass as well?
Or does Jim Kutsko think the most pressing issue facing us today is that a resolution almost passed in congress?
Posted by on August 15, 2007 10:48 AMJim can you explain how the republicans lost control of the congress. Is it maybe because they dropped the ball so many times and didn't get nothing done except approve war funds for 6 yrs. Did any thing except tax cuts for the rich get done domesticly? NOT!!!
Posted by larry on August 15, 2007 12:16 PMBa, ba, ba, ba, but the Repuclicans.
Posted by dem caught w/pants down on August 15, 2007 12:36 PMThanks for the good news.
Posted by Charles B on August 15, 2007 12:41 PM10:45
Republicans and the thought police! Are you kidding? The dems invented the concept. Hate crime laws, you must frisk a 80 year old in a walker but can't target the group that attacked us, you can't question made made global warming. You can't do this and you can't think that because it offends someone. Please. I'm no fan of the current group of idiots on either side of the political debate, but come on. The dems win the thought police battle hands down.
but.. but... the left has to have its bumper sticker logic.... Tax cuts for the rich blah blah blah. These are the people who cannot open an econ book without their minds going blank. Why should we expect them to understand anything. Ever wonder why prison inmates are overwhelmingly democrat?
So Larry, your homework is... actually study who pays taxes in this country and understand why your statement is truly lame. Or are you one of those people who must rely on government theft for your own pathetic life?
Posted by Dravur on August 15, 2007 02:20 PMDravur,
Ever wonder why crooked CEOs are overwhelmingly Republican? That proves about as much as your comment about prison inmates.
Posted by Docjay on August 15, 2007 02:29 PMIs that why criminals outnumber CEOs 10000 to 1?
Posted by KW on August 15, 2007 02:40 PMNice..... Ever wonder why poor trailer trash are overwhelmingly republican?
Posted by J-Mac on August 15, 2007 03:04 PMI thought New Orleans was predominanlty democrat?
Posted by KW on August 15, 2007 03:16 PMDravur:
I asked a question. What did the republicans do about our domestic problems when they were in charge for 6 yrs? If they did something they may not have lost their jobs in nov.
Granting immunity to lawsuits is never a good idea. Let the courts, judges, and juries decide if a case has merit.
Blanket immunity will lead to abuses that can`t be controlled without, guess what, new laws and new agancies.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 15, 2007 03:22 PMGranting immunity to lawsuits is never a good idea. Let the courts, judges, and juries decide if a case has merit.
Blanket immunity will lead to abuses that can`t be controlled without, guess what, new laws and new agencies.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 15, 2007 03:24 PMGranting immunity to lawsuits is never a good idea. Let the courts, judges, and juries decide if a case has merit.
Blanket immunity will lead to abuses that can`t be controlled without, guess what, new laws and new agencies.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 15, 2007 03:24 PMi heard a doc say once that using logic on a sociopath will never work, they live in their own little world and nothing will change thier minds.
sounds a lot like the dems who contribute here with the same old worn our stories.
keep your shorts up in a twist please.
Posted by on August 15, 2007 03:24 PMThe Democratic Party Isn't What It Used to Be
"Clinton Man Drowns in Truman Reservoir"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 15
No one is living in those trailers..... I was refering to the repub hillbillies in Texas, Mississippi and Florida. Don't let me forget, Colorful Colorado, the local Faux News station did a heart wrenching piece on their plight the other day. Did you fellas (or ladies) happen to catch that one?
Posted by J-Mac on August 15, 2007 03:28 PMDidn't catch that one J-Mac.
But can you tell me, if the media in general doesn't have a tilt to the left, why is the only (and I mean the one and only) tv news outlet dems like to bash is FoxNews?
You'd think there'd be more than one, wouldn't you?
BTW - Have you noticed how Fox blows away CNN and MSNBC week after week in ratings?
People must be stupid, huh?
Posted by KW on August 15, 2007 03:48 PM"Have you noticed how Fox blows away CNN and MSNBC week after week in ratings?
People must be stupid, huh?"
No KW, just you & your ilk. Liberals watch a variety of shows and outlets, Cons only watch Faux News - no doubt so they can parrot O'Reilly's lies on "letter to the editor" & other forums the next day.
And Fox is the only channel that puts out such outlandish, partisan garbage day after day, week after week, hour after hour - and then has the gall to call itself "fair & balanced." Why wouldn't anyone with a sense of fairness bash these clowns?
Posted by drew on August 15, 2007 04:08 PMThat's great drew.
Lets see, air america can't get enough listeners and liberals say it's because they don't need to listen to talk radio because they're more intelligent.
MSNBC can't get a fraction of the viewers Fox does and you claim the reason is because libs have a greater variety of media.
Any other excuses?
BTW - My link showed the overwhelming ratings for "Fox News." You know, the 5pm news broadcasts that CNN, MSNBC and Fox have?
You see, OReilly has a "show" on the Fox News Channel called The Factor. He's not a news anchor.
But since you mentioned it, have you seen the disparaging difference in ratings between The Factor and Olbermann's "show?"
What praytell would be your spin reasoning for that?
Posted by KW on August 15, 2007 04:39 PMDidn't I just explain it KW?
And as for the 5 PM News - Who cares if Faux has more viewers? - if you added up all the liberals watching MSNBS, CNN, CBS, NBC, etc I'm sure that they'd vastly outnumber viewers of Fox News's "News." So what? What does that prove, besides the fact that wingnuts all flock like lemmings to the one source where their wacko views are apparently validated on a daily basis. I'm sure it makes them feel better. Does it make you feel better, KW?
Posted by drew on August 15, 2007 05:02 PMAll media is right wing media. Current "journalists" have abandoned the pretext of the adversarial relationship, and simply publish what they are told to publish by those who grant them "exclusive" interviews. Reporters who publish negative articles about Republicans are not granted access to government sources, which negatively affects their income. Reporters who stick to the party line and uncritically repeat what they are told by "unnamed administration officials" are the ones who get invited back by the administration.
Reporters go to Iraq and go on carefully scheduled tours put on by the military, write about the "great strides" the country is making in their paper, and get paid a mint to do it all again the next time Bush and co are looking for some good PR.
Why do you think so many adminstration officials are granted anonymity by the press? Why do you think the media continues to portray the antiwar movement (now 60% of the population) as some sort of "fringe" ideal? The reporters are in bed with Republicans because they are so entrenched in the beltway system that they are a part of the system they're supposed to be reporting on.
Don't get me wrong, Fox News is the worst, but we're witnessing a crisis of American media that spans all manner of media except the only one that anybody still has access to: the internet.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, 85% of people 30 and under consider the internet to be their primary news source. Someday the pillars will fall, and reporters will have to revert to actually, you know, reporting on things, doing research, stuff like that instead of just uncritically passing along whatever White House memo they're handed as part of their "exclusive" scoop.
Posted by Grog on August 15, 2007 05:43 PMI think perhaps that "Grog" has imbibed in a little too much grog. CBS, NBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc., "are in bed with Republicans because they are so entrenched in the beltway system that they are a part of the system they're supposed to be reporting on."
Get real...they're so anti-Bush, anti-Republican it's obvious. I bet you're even one of those under 30 intellectuals who believes daffy duck is a real entity because a web site says so. Try some balance in your surfing, Grog. Set down the bong and glass of brew and evaluate based on merit, not emotion.
You sound like the left equivalent of keith or An American.
CA
Posted by on August 15, 2007 07:03 PMBlanket immunity is a bad idea. Am I posting in smoke or what.? Blanket immunity, (immunity before the fact) is what the letter is about.
Anyone care to discuss the letter?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 15, 2007 10:24 PMSharon: you seem to be the only one who can stay on subject. A reasonable person who wants to discuss a subject can't seem to do so on the RMN blogs. It always comes down to name calling and generally ignorant statements. So long you hillbilly's have fun making fool's of yourself.
Posted by on August 15, 2007 10:56 PMSharon B
Basically, I agree with you that no blanket immunity should be given before the fact. Turning someone in for suspected acts or acting suspicious is a very serious matter that can cause the innocent accused lengthy and expensive legal problems. Additionally, it leaves the malicious (or juvenile minded) prankster a free pass on damaging another.
While there is a downside in that it might discourage someone from "getting involved" and possibly let a nefarious criminal or terrorist slip by unseen, we do not live in a police state which classifies behavior not considered as normal (whatever the hell that is) to be criminal or dangerous. It will be a sad day for this country when we investigate anyone when their behavior is not in accordance with another's view of acceptable.
Freedom requires personal responsibility by those benefiting from it. Responsibility includes not intruding, or causing the intrusion, into someone else's freedom.
Posted by Trinity on August 15, 2007 11:57 PMThank you trinity, well said.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 16, 2007 04:51 AMSorry Trinity, I can't agree with you. This involves security issues. Enough with the hyperbole about living in a police state! We're not even close to that.
If you had been paying attention to what this issue was/is all about, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) has long proclaimed on its website that Muslims need to use the American court system to file more complaints of discrimination in order to prove that "Islamophobia" exists here.
This while NYC and the Department of Homeland Security have been urging citizens that "If you see something suspicious, say something - report it."
This legislation was in response to the "Flying Imams" who were removed from an airliner in Minneapolis after bizarre behavior. A number of passengers expressed alarm. Can you blame them?
With the backing of CAIR, the Imams sued the airline and the "John Does" (passengers who reported their concerns). This legislation was to provide immunity from lawsuit for those ordinary citizens that acted in good faith in reporting their suspicions. There is no reason a person should have to incur legal expenses to protect themselves when just exercising vigilance in good faith.
While your concerns may be valid, the expense of hiring lawyers is not something many people can easily afford. In the case of suspicious behavior, there is no reason they should have to defend themselves. Or, perhaps you'd prefer another airline tragedy because people were too afraid to speak up?
Posted by RU Serious on August 16, 2007 08:28 AMRU Serious,
I do like your use of the word "vigilance" - along with the attached, "in good faith". It just about states the whole fundamental concept of the likes of the "Patriot Act", and its intended effects on the American public: A return to good old fashioned "vigilante law", where mere "suspicion" is enough to deprive someone of liberty - even life - if that suspicion is voiced "in good faith". The goold old Frontier Justice of the, "Hang 'em; and then give 'em a fair trial" days that lies at the heart of Republican/conservative war-mongering today.
The "good faith", of course, is to be taken for granted, since the "suspicion" ALWAYS comes from the "patriotic" desire for "national security" - as "national security" is defined by the war-mongers.
Let's just make this a nation of poison pen - or poison whisper - "confidential informants" for the Internal Spy Department - the Feebs - and everything will become a perfect Republican/conservative country, with duly obedient citizenry.
NO IMMUNITIES FOR VIGILANTIES! Let them be liable for the consequences of their poisonous actions! It might even make some of them think twice before they become "informants".
10:45 AM Anonymous of 08/15
It was the REPUBLICANS who instituted the frisking of an 80 year old with a walker by airport security, buster. All part of that whole "Patriot Act" syndrome of turning the country into a form of police state. (One in which your own preference for hate crimes would be not only tolerated, but perfectly welcome as well.)
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 09:21 AMSorry Sharon B, just need to correct drew again...
drew: "if you added up all the liberals watching MSNBS, CNN, CBS, NBC, etc I'm sure that they'd vastly outnumber viewers of Fox News's "News."
Au contraire drew. What we're comparing is "cable news channel" ratings which is comprised of FOX, CNN, MSNBC, HLN & CNBC.
NBC, ABC, & CBS are "network" channels and are not compared with cable. They get to fight for rating amongst themselves.
Now if you recheck my link you'll find that FOX's share of the ratings outnumbers CNN, MSNBC, HLN and CNBC combined.
Your liberal viewing buddies, no matter how far you spread yourselves, can't even come close to the number of viewers tuned into FOX. You are a minority. I'm just surprised no one has ever explained that to you before.
Thank you. You may now return to your regulary scheduled topic.
Posted by KW on August 16, 2007 09:38 AM[Y]ou'll find that FOX's share of the ratings outnumbers CNN, MSNBC, HLN and CNBC combined.
Big whoop.
And the Broadway musical "Beauty and the Beast" ran twice as long as the original "My Fair Lady"; that means it's twice as good, right?
Junk food is more popular than health food, so that makes junk food better, right?
That's Fox News Network: the junk food of news sources. Trouble is, there's a slight difference between being a popular news source and being a reliable one.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on August 16, 2007 09:59 AMRU Serious
I agree you with regarding safety and security concerns. .However, I still stand by my original position. As I said in my Post, we do not live in a police state and I do not want to see us slowly evolve into one. Twice you used the phrase “in good faith” describing the reporting of suspicious behavior for which you support blanket immunity. Unfortunately, in our society that is a loophole you can drive a truck through. How can we be sure that was the motive behind someone reporting another? Where do we draw the line between acting “in good faith” and the alleged comfort and security of “big brother is watching”, along with cousins, little brother, neighbors, etc.
The example you used with the “Flying Inmans” is a prime example of when and how the general public should react. I know that is what prompted the proposed legislation because the actions of those men was highly suspect and witnessed by a wide range of people who responded correctly. Unfortunately, studies of terrorist acts after the fact have shown that the alleged perpetrators didn’t act in an observable suspicious or obnoxious manner prior to committing the act. They went about their business in a manner to exclude drawing attention to themselves.
These clowns, and I imagine with CAIR’s at least implied consent, set the stage to draw attention to what perceive to be “Islamophobia”. This was not typical behavior by an individual or group of individuals attempting to covertly pull off an operation. CAIR, while I believe them to be reacting to the extreme, is just doing what many other civil rights groups have done historically in this country in an attempt to right perceived wrongs.
As an example, I was waiting in the terminal at Newark for a flight to Denver last month. Two young men of apparent ME extraction were in the boarding area and appeared to be somewhat nervous or agitated as they kept glancing at the people around them. I went over and sat with them striking up a conversation. It turned out that their nervousness was the result of other people looking at them suspiciously. While they understood the reasons behind the apprehension they were afraid that the would be detained and or hassled, as had happened before, based on their appearance and the possible reaction by those around them.
Acting strange or apprehensive, and therefore suspicious, is not a very definitive guideline for determining possible wrongdoing. The alleged behavior being evaluated is based on a subjective evaluation and personal prejudices of the beholder.
Find a way to prove “in good faith” before the fact and I’ll support your position of granting blanket immunity before the fact.
In the meantime I still believe the admonition of Ben Franklin is appropriate:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
KW,
Amen to HCB's comments above. And for good measure I'll repeat my earlier comments:
So what? What does that prove, besides the fact that wingnuts all flock like lemmings to the one source where their wacko views are apparently validated on a daily basis. I'm sure it makes them feel better. Does it make you feel better, KW?
Posted by drew on August 16, 2007 10:13 AMAll this is ignoring the salient point. Who gains from all this, and why does it surprise you that it's lawyers? They are experts in causing confusion of an issue to take financial advantage of that confusion.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 16, 2007 10:36 AMAll this is ignoring the salient point. Who gains from all this, and why does it surprise you that it's lawyers? They are experts in causing confusion of an issue to take financial advantage of that confusion.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 16, 2007 10:36 AMAll this is ignoring the salient point. Who gains from all this, and why does it surprise you that it's lawyers? They are experts in causing confusion of an issue to take financial advantage of that confusion.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 16, 2007 10:36 AMAll this is ignoring the salient point. Who gains from all this, and why does it surprise you that it's lawyers? They are experts in causing confusion of an issue to take financial advantage of that confusion.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 16, 2007 10:36 AMJust correcting you drew. You have a nasty habit of regurgitation your opinion as fact.
Hans - If watching a musical is no different to you than watching the news I might recommend you try tuning into a better news channel.
Posted by KW on August 16, 2007 10:54 AMthrice posted Allen Campbell
Don't be in such a panic to get your posting on. Just hit the Post button once and WAIT for the software to work -- it's not ignoring you or evaluating your comments.
Attorneys are the bane of society. We should take Shakespeare's mis-applied advice to kill all the attorneys first. They try to benefit if someone farts in public. Perhaps if we were to pass some laws that attorneys would be financially liable for part of the costs involved in civil suits if they lost it might slow them down. Of course then we would be back to Trinity's question of how to determine good faith.
Posted by on August 16, 2007 11:18 AMKW,
If you think that TV "News" is any different from any other form of entertainment to be found there, I might recommend you try reading a good book - or even a magazine, say TIME, or NEWSWEEK, or perhaps U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT. The "60 Second Sound-bite", and the "Infomercial", have just as much appeal to those who watch them as a musical does for its fans; and the rating system is the same.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 11:20 AMI`ll say it again, liberals are too busy to watch tv talk shows or listen to talk radio all the time. KW says we are a minority, now we get some afirmative action for us?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 16, 2007 12:25 PMDispite Drew, Old Grouch, and KW ranting on thier political views and whos better then thou. The topic of immunity is interesting. On one hand we say that if you accuse someone of something it is ok and you can not be held liable for slander. Yet on the other hand we say that if you tell on me i will take you to court and try to ruin you finacially with a civil suit.
We all can agree that trail lawyers are out of control in this country. This equates to politics as the majority of represenatives and senators are lawyers. So could the reason laws aid in absurd lawsuits is the lawyers smell money. I think so. But is it fair to punish someone for speaking out at what may be wrong ...... no. But should anyone be allowed to make fasle claims just because they hold a bigotry or bias .... no.
Quit the pickle eh?
Posted by on August 16, 2007 12:26 PM"I`ll say it again, liberals are too busy to watch tv talk shows or listen to talk radio all the time."
Actually Sharon, it was news broadcasts, not talk shows. But I can relate to your point.
Too darn busy deciding what other people can and can't do, how much more of there money you need in taxes, planning the next pet project to extract more funds (helthcare), etc...
With all that going on I can truly see how little time is left for you to become informed.
Posted by KW on August 16, 2007 12:38 PMKW said proudly:
"Your liberal viewing buddies, no matter how far you spread yourselves, can't even come close to the number of viewers tuned into FOX. You are a minority. I'm just surprised no one has ever explained that to you before."
Anyone who depends on television broadcasts for their news is making a poor choice and is likely going to come away more ignorant when they started.
In light of this, boasting about the number of people watching Faux News isn't exactly making your case the way you intended.
Posted by Charles B on August 16, 2007 01:17 PMCB - Television media is but one of many sources for both cable and network news. When you construe my banter with drew to mean I only get news from one source, well that's quite a stretch to say the least. This also makes your closing statement false as well.
As I was pointing out, there's a huge majority of people, both dem and rep, who prefer FOX News (not The Factor) over the offerings of CNN, MSNBC, etc... They are moderates who don't like being misled.
Now you can write that off as being of no merit, claim liberals blah blah blah and that's the reason, or you can realize so many people are tired of being spoon fed what the rest of the agenda driven media offer and don't care to watch them anymore.
In other words, the socialistic viewpoint you share is not the mainstream of America, nor will it ever be.
It's as simple as that.
Posted by KW on August 16, 2007 02:04 PMCNN, FOX NEWS, ABC....
For God's sake, all of you, left, right, stoned, straight...it don't matter...
Give up your addiction to television...GIVE IT UP, today!!! YOu will not regret it...reclaim your life.
I wrote a research paper once and discovered that an American who lives to be 70 years old will have spent close to 9 years (NINE EFFING YEARS) of their life watching TV!!!
Honor yourself and turn that damn hypnotizing device off and get on doing something with your life...for the LOVE OF LLOYD!!
Also...having worked in TV news (and radio news, which does a lot better) I can tell you first hand, TV news is CRAP!!! And fairly inaccurate...GIVE IT UP, I SAY!!
Posted by Grim Reefer on August 16, 2007 02:39 PM12:26 pm Anonymous,
Nope. You got it just backwards. If you "tell on me" - that is, gossip, or throw around stastements concerning my character, lifestyle, and/or person/personality - and you do so falsely - "slander", or by way of wrting and publishing, "libel" - you can be held to account for it in Court, for damages to my character.
On the other hand, when you "accuse me" - from your "suspicion" that I'm MAYBE going to do something illegal, immoral, or against "national security" - and I am deprived of my liberty, harassed by investigation, etc., etc., - then YOU are supposed to be "immune" to any consequences, by way of your "good faith" in making your poison pen, or poision word, accusations.
The first case has with it - at least in most Courts today - a protection against "frivilous suits", i.e., truth is an affirmative defense to begin with; and a lawyer who brings suit without sufficient grounds can be disciplined all the way up to disbarment.
The second case, however, is the one where you can be a "vigilante", and get away with it, without let or hindrance. Because of your "good faith", you can be a poison pen writer, or a poison pen informant; and you're off, scott free from any responsibility.
The Republicans want that second example in place, to keep their own power on top.
Those of us who are Constitutional supporters don't want vigalantism in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 02:59 PMThink we're not in danger of becoming a Police State?
Read this little article (the story was first broke by the WSJ)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502430_pf.html
Trinity and Old Grouch
The reason I used the words "in good faith" is that the very phrase was written into the legislation in order to eliminate people using this law to harass others. In any case, a court would have to rule on whether or not a report was filed in good faith. So, it seems moot.
It seems funny to me that the ideology that pushes so hard for "hate speech" laws that effectively make thought a crime is the same one that cries about us losing our rights and moving closer to being a police state. The inconguety of their positions is astounding.
Muslim extremists and the Saudi financed CAIR are attempting to use our very system of law to silence us and cow us into submission. This legislation was an attempt to blunt that effort and yet it is shot down by those who claim our rights are being taken away.
Apparently, being nice to terrorists is more important than being able to report suspicious activity that could be a prelude to attack without fear of retribution. This is insane.
Posted by RU Serious on August 16, 2007 03:42 PMGrim Reefer
The article your posted above should give pause to even the more conservative elements of rational society. Of course, those who proposed and approved such a course of action will be joined by the hard core devotees to the concept of government is always right and such power would never be abused -- unless it intrudes into their rights, freedoms and personal lives; then it would be abusive.
The slippery slope toward a police state mentality (all in the name of security) has just received a little more grease.
Posted by Trinity on August 16, 2007 03:44 PMRU Serious
"Apparently, being nice to terrorists is more important than being able to report suspicious activity that could be a prelude to attack without fear of retribution."
That's a rather long and fanciful stretch of the imagination. Perhaps you are in favor of unrestricted accusations against fellow Americans based on personal biases and prejudices. I'm not.
If I see something that I feel is a threat I would have no qualm about reporting it and relying on the courts, if necessary, to decide if it was "in good faith" or frivolous in nature. Can you assure me that everyone else will be motivated "in good faith" and not misguided or malicious intent before giving your blanket immunity?
If all it would take is for someone to "suspect suspicious activities or thoughts, a poster on these blogs - An American -would have us all being investigated or up on charges of treason and/or sedition.
I agree with you that the bogeyman is for real. I just don't want to see us turn everyone into a potential bogeyman by pointing fingers at each other.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a defender of the so-called "hate speech" laws. Those are as absurd as the "turn in your neighbor with impunity" laws which you are advocating. Both forms of speech or activity are based on personal biases and prejudices. And you cannot legislate ethics or morality.
Posted by Trinity on August 16, 2007 03:59 PMAs I said, the "good faith" provision would have to be decided by a court anyway. Why the hysteria and slippery slope argument?
All you need to do is create a provision whereby a person accused of something by somebody not acting in good faith could recover legal fees as damages. Problem solved. No accusations just to harass.
You opponents to this common sense law are making a mountain out of a molehill. Remember the video store clerk who turned in the "Fort Dix Six" because of what he saw on their video? This was acting in good faith. Not hard to understand.
Posted by RU Serious on August 16, 2007 04:30 PM"Remember the video store clerk who turned in the "Fort Dix Six" because of what he saw on their video? This was acting in good faith."
And to think they did it without blanket immunity in place! Truly amazing and extraordinarily normal...
Posted by on August 16, 2007 04:44 PMRU Serious
"As I said, the "good faith" provision would have to be decided by a court anyway"
That's the status quo; why change it? Why complicate an issue that is going to have to be decided by the courts anyway. It sounds like you're advocating another law for the sake of confirming what already is normal judicial procedure.
Posted by Trinity on August 16, 2007 05:12 PMKW offered up his fantasy:
"As I was pointing out, there's a huge majority of people, both dem and rep, who prefer FOX News (not The Factor) over the offerings of CNN, MSNBC, etc... They are moderates who don't like being misled."
Actually, they're the choir and they like having their beliefs confirmed, while not caring much for objective reporting. Perhaps in upside-down world where you live they're dems and moderates. In reality, 87 percent of Faux viewers voted for Bush in 2004. They watch Faux because ignorance is bliss.
In other words, the socialistic viewpoint you share is not the mainstream of America, nor will it ever be.
You're not only terrible at predicting the future, you're pretty bad at describing the present:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312
Read it and weep K-Tel.
Posted by Charles B on August 16, 2007 08:05 PMRU Serious,
You really presume that there would be "good faith", or that it should be left up to the Courts to try to decide "good faith" AFTER someone has been incarcerated on the basis of poison pen, or poison whisper, of "suspicion"? Did you say that you were a Vulcan, just visiting earth for a while?
But I guess that's right. For Bush and his followers, the Constitution - including the 4th Amendment, concerning unwarranted search and seizure, and other warrantless acts to deprive one of liberty, etc., - is after all, nothing more than a "goddamned piece of paper". So, hey! Vigilanties and informers away! And who cares about civil rights, or gurantees anyway?
As someone else remarked - perhaps on another thread - that bears a striking resemblance to the position of German National Socialism back in the 1930's. The good old "Inform on your neighbor, for the good of the State" routine just keeps recycling, all the way through history, from the times of the Ceasars.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 16, 2007 08:11 PMIt would seem the Democrats are on the side that wants to help the terrorists again.To protect them from being turned into the police.This is what the Democrats do on every issue.They are the US hating wing of the Democrat party
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 09:52 AMCharles B:
"Actually, they're the choir and they like having their beliefs confirmed"
Which menas the "chior" at CNN and MSNBC is from a much smaller church with a much smaller congregation.
This is exaclty the point I was making CB. People like you who openly advocate for increasing taxes on the upper crust to redistribute to the less well off are in the extreme minority. Your link even shows that from the eighties to nineties desires for increased social programs decreased and have only risen slightly in the 21st century.
This can easily be contributed to a) increase in population relocating from countries with a more socialistic style of governement, and b) + / - margin of error in the polls.
Thanks CB, the laughter from your link did make me shed a tear. You rock!
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 11:19 AMThe Pew institute is more left wing than Michael Moore. No wonder Charles B likes it -- i's like NASCAR; it only turns left.
Posted by on August 17, 2007 11:26 AMSomeone without the courage to name themselves said:
"The Pew institute is more left wing than Michael Moore."
This is a pretty dumb statement. Since the "show their work", why don't you attack their methodology?
Answer: Because you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Charles B on August 17, 2007 11:38 AMThe Pew Institute is a liberal Democrat operation.That is all I need to know about their methodology.Lie,lie,lie.Make up date that fit their feelings and destroy the US.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 12:12 PMDid we get your lefty panties in a twist, Charles B? Statistics are easily massaged, and questions formulated to fit the aim of the study. I bet you have all kinds good words to say about the Cato Institute. ALL think tanks are set up to advocate their point of view. The CATO is conservative and the Pew is liberal.
Grow up, Charles B and at least be objective, not pointy minded like your counterpart, An American (aka the Unhinged One -- I think that'll stick). Of course, if your trying to be the mirror image of the Unhinged One while coming from the left, you've a pretty darn good start.
CA
Posted by on August 17, 2007 01:21 PMThank you CA.Coming from a person of your quality I will take that as a compliment.
Posted by An american on August 17, 2007 01:40 PMCA:
Care to dispute the methodology of the particular study I referenced? It's right there for you to look at. Since you're so sure the study was "massaged" it should be pretty easy right?
I'll be waiting for that reasoned refutation...
Posted by Charles B on August 17, 2007 03:17 PMI think "CA" is still mad because I made her/him/it look bad on the gun issue. Her/him/it had all its facts wrong.
Posted by An American on August 19, 2007 08:16 AM