Comments on: Morning Links

By: NAME REDACTED

NAME REDACTED — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:00:34 +0000

“b) In ANY case where “Sex offender registry” status is factually inaccurate, for whatever reason, how does that NOT constitute Libel … other than the usual ‘the Law is what we say it is at any given moment’?”

Bingo. We don’t have rule of law.

By: NAME REDACTED

NAME REDACTED — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:56:55 +0000

The science says that reducing salt increases death risk. Of course the government is anti-science, though.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:13:42 +0000

there is a strong anti-government streak in most Tea Party types I’ve run into.

Hopefully you can educate the others.

donttread,
I agree. I also think RB has been consistent (and right) in advising the TP to drop certain foolish stances and denounce some “leaders” when who are clearly crazy. Personally I have rooted for the TP from the beginning and cautioned friends who are members to be on guard for crazy opportunists. I’d say the TP (and members) have been about 50% successful. So, they are doing about 300% better than Repubs/Dems.

By: Brutusettu

Brutusettu — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:45:22 +0000

Your last link reminded me of a TShirtHell shirt featuring some well known Austrian and asking about “What about all the good things [this Austrian) did?”

And even Glenn Beck couldn’t say something crazy 100% of the time.

By: donttread

donttread — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:40:28 +0000

Radley

Rand Paul’s stance on this and many other issues and his Tea Party support argue against your past characterizations of Tea Party members as conventional law and order conservatives. Every movement group, especially one as decentralized as this, will show a broad range of opinions, but there is a strong anti-government streak in most Tea Party types I’ve run into.

Hopefully you can educate the others.

By: Mattocracy

Mattocracy — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:18:30 +0000

Rand is also wrong about being against war, Gitmo, bailouts, ending the drug war, supporting property rights, opposing the patriot act, etc.

By: freedomfan

freedomfan — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:19:18 +0000

[Aargh. My kingdom for a preview button!] “in the interest of ~~justice~~ just us” Fixed the typo.

By: freedomfan

freedomfan — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:17:08 +0000

“in the interest of justice just us”
Fixed the typo.

By: FDA wants Mandatory Salt Reductions « BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:57:00 +0000

[...] diet. After all, enjoyment of life must be eliminated for the betterment of the few. H/T: The Agitator for the [...]

By: Helmut O' Hooligan

Helmut O' Hooligan — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:54:16 +0000

Captain David Downing was asked what he meant by “in the interest of justice“, and although he acknowledged our request for a comment, he did not answer the question.

LOL! Of course he didn’t. He can’t admit to what everyone fucking knows: The police are allowed to get away with virtually anything because they are, you know, the police. They have a stressful job and all.

A little distracted driving now and then never hurt anyone, isn’t that right Captain Downing. This is why Downing and other police brass need to lobby their state legislatures to do away with traffic laws altogether. I mean, if the police are allowed to get away with causing accidents, speeding, running lights, driving while intoxicated, etc, then the rest of us shouldn’t be getting citations for these actions, right. That would be unfair, right Captain Downing. Umm, Captain Downing. Oh Captain Downing and that selective hearing loss of his.

By: EH

EH — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:53:16 +0000

CSP: If my memories of high school are correct, every single *threat* of prosecution for statutory rape is father-driven, let alone accusations. That she recants once she’s 18 speaks volumes.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:36:24 +0000

“Under these circumstances, how does the State justify NOT having a simple 5 minute hearing, and voiding the guilty pleas … aside from the usual ‘that might make the prosecutor Look Bad’?”

Because that would mean the State would have to admit that it was wrong. And getting anyone in authority to admit that is practically impossible.

By: JohnJ

JohnJ — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:30:58 +0000

As I understand it, striking Section 1031 of the defense bill wouldn’t limit federal power at all. The section “affirms” power that the government already has to detain civilians without trial, and the reason why it affirms it is because this bill removes the power of the President to decide who gets to be detained and who doesn’t. Everyone who gets arrested gets detained. But that’s gotta be contrasted with the current situation, which is that the President gets to decide who gets to be detained.

By: StrangeOne

StrangeOne — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:28:41 +0000

I know it may seem callous against many actual victims of rape, but can we please move beyond this whole guilt by accusation process of sex crimes? Can we have some minimum standard of evidence before allowing the state to ruin someones life? This isn’t the Crucible, its 21st century America, is that really too much to ask?

By: C. S. P. Schofield

C. S. P. Schofield — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:08:42 +0000

So, let’s see if I understand this properly; Girl makes accusations of rape. Boy pleads guilty because his parents are scared he’ll get tried as an adult. Bot is placed on Sex Offender registry. Girl recants, says she claimed rape because she didn’t want her parents to think it was consensual.

a) Under these circumstances, how does the State justify NOT having a simple 5 minute hearing, and voiding the guilty pleas … aside from the usual ‘that might make the prosecutor Look Bad’?

b) In ANY case where “Sex offender registry” status is factually inaccurate, for whatever reason, how does that NOT constitute Libel … other than the usual ‘the Law is what we say it is at any given moment’?

By: fwb

fwb — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:59:27 +0000

It might be a good exercise to read Ex Parte Milligan (1866).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan

By: Raoul Duke

Raoul Duke — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:16:08 +0000

I go to partisan liberal sites occasionally and attibute an Obama or other liberal icon’s quote to a Conservative or Republican and then watch the partisans tear it apart…Then I tell them it was President Obama or whomever. It’s great sport.

Nice job on the Rand reference.

By: DarkEFang

DarkEFang — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:15:03 +0000

Personally, I don’t have a problem with Rand Paul, but I do have a problem with some of his more vocal supporters, including: 1) elderly voters who want smaller government until it impacts their government benefits; and 2) idiots who think that being a libertarian means that you can stomp hippies and get rid of all the brown people. The actual libertarians got drowned out by those two constituencies during his run for the Senate.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:04:48 +0000

#14 | Joseph Moroco Let me know who performed Rand’s lobotomy. I’ll get one from the same doctor.

They won't do two on the same patient, Joseph.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:43:24 +0000

Henry, I was talking about Joseph and Joey, not Radley. And Joey, what, specifically, has he been wrong about? His proposal to cut federal spending by $500 billion in his first year? His vote against reauthorizing the Patriot Act? His support for balanced budgets? Or you can ignore my questions again and pretend that they could be interpreted as ignorance, that’s always an effective tactic. If you have actual objections to Paul’s policies, I’d like to hear them. I do, fyi. And I can articulate them, which, per your evasive and puerile response, I doubt you can. He’s a little too much of a social conservative, he’s been evasive on the topic of drug legalization, and he’s a knee-jerk border hawk. But on balance, he’s a better proponent for individual liberty than at least 95% of the US Senate, and he’s been right more often than wrong.