patrick.net

FortWayne says

Maybe we are tired of all the nuts sabotaging our society for their personal sick pleasures thinking they are entitled to everything in the world.

Maybe we are all tired of all the nuts in your religion sabotaging our society for your sick perverted religion and evil, false god thinking you are entitled to everything in the world.

Last time I checked, homosexuals were just demanding equality under law. Anyone who would deny them that is not a real American.

FortWayne says

That's the problem with you liberals, you have no moral or personal restraint and think everyone around you should live like that.

No, you're thinking of conservatives. They are the ones who are pro-torture. They are the ones who destroy the Earth's ecosystem for profits. They are the ones who invade countries to steal natural resources. They are the ones who were slavers and purveyors of genocide. In the fight of good against evil, conservatives have been on the side of evil every single time in the past 400 years of our society. Yes, going back even pre-revolution.

Moral restraint means not blowing up schools and children in response to terrorism. Moral restraint means not gunning down innocent people in the war on drugs. Moral restraint means not letting the police strip search people stopped at traffic lights or arrested for minor (hell even major) crimes. Moral restraint means not polluting the Earth and killing off half the world's wildlife to increase profits. Moral restraint means doing whatever it takes to reverse Climate Change. Moral restraint means being liberal.

Dan8267 says

sbh says

waterboarding the baby jesus!!!

Well, he is a good-for-nothing Arab.

He was a Jew, and he turned water into wine. Now that's entrepreneurship. So far I have managed to turn wine into urine.

Dan8267 says

Moral restraint means doing whatever it takes to reverse Climate Change.

No, that is plain ignorance and arrogance. What makes you think we can reverse the effects? We should just react to the changes.

Peter P says

No, that is plain ignorance and arrogance.

Feel free to back up that assertion with actual evidence.

Peter P says

What makes you think we can reverse the effects?

Negative feedback mechanisms in the ecosystem. If we stop polluting, those mechanisms take over. If we continue polluting, those mechanisms get overloaded and break. It's a math thing; you wouldn't understand.

Strategist says

So far I have managed to turn wine into urine.

And words into horse shit.

Climate scientists, like other academians, make things unnecessarily complicated to justify their existence.

I know a charlatan when I see one.

Any measure to "reverse" climate change represents poor risk/reward at best. A reasonable society will attempt to benefit from the consequences while others waste time doing the "right" thing.

Alas, most countries will try to make the most noise and do the least anyway. Classic game theory. Just like "life" in Macbeth, full of sound and fury, and that's it.

Anyone who counts on humanity to save the world is dumb beyond hope. Charles Darwin Award goes to ...

Strategist says

FortWayne says

We got rules, don't like it than move to doasyoupleasestan.

Isn't that what America is? FREE. doasyoupleasestan.

This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution. We are the number one destination of 7 billion people looking for freedom and opportunity.

There is no religious persecution here. Gays have pretty good life, and don't talk to me about founding principles in this country, because they'd probably stone you back in 1776 if you were openly gay right here in America.

Marriage ought to be allowed between/among 2 or more persons of the same kind (natural or corporate).

FortWayne says

There is no religious persecution here. Gays have pretty good life

Bullshit. The persecution of gays is and has always been religious.

FortWayne says

and don't talk to me about founding principles in this country, because they'd probably stone you back in 1776 if you were openly gay right here in America.

Unless you are black, in which case they would enslave you. Our founding fathers weren't noble and America wasn't great when it was created.

Do we really want to live like they did in 1776? Do you want to take away the right to vote from women and blacks? Do you want to re-institute slavery?

We should be better than the founding fathers. We have 240 years of history to learn from.

Of course the founding fathers were hypocrites. They wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and yet practice slavery. Well, that "are created equal" applies to gays as well. And they should be equal under law. To say otherwise is Unamerican.

FortWayne says

There is no religious persecution here. Gays have pretty good life

Not if you had your way. You hate them too much.

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

No, that is plain ignorance and arrogance.

Feel free to back up that assertion with actual evidence.

Granted, the subject matter is different, but I would point to the following as Exhibit A:
Dan8267 says

1. Our courts violate the First Amendment by prohibiting people from telling prospective jurors about jury nullification.

The finger of blame points straight at the Fed.

By artificially bloating liquidity, they have spurred police to all manner of horrific behavior.

CDon says

Granted, the subject matter is different, but I would point to the following as Exhibit A:

Dan8267 says

1. Our courts violate the First Amendment by prohibiting people from telling prospective jurors about jury nullification.

Are you saying that the courts don't violate the First Amendment when they prohibit citizens from informing other citizens about jury nullification. Please explain...

[Getting ready to pounce...]

Strategist says

FortWayne says

There is no religious persecution here. Gays have pretty good life

Not if you had your way. You hate them too much.

I don't think they should marry. Marriage is for children only, if you aren't raising future taxpayers you don't get the tax cut.

It's just liberals, who are completely losers, are constantly craving attention and acceptance of their wicked ways, so they naturally want to feel like society allows them to do everything same. But they are not same, if you are homosexual you are not same and should not be treated same. I'm not asking for persecution, all I'm saying is that marriage isn't for gays.

Dan8267 says

Are you saying that the courts don't violate the First Amendment when they prohibit citizens from informing other citizens about jury nullification. Please explain...

See post 35. I take it you did not read Heicklen 10 CR 1154 (SDNY 2012)?

Keeping in mind the time/place/manner restrictions which have long set the boundaries of our 1st amendment, what in the holding of this case did you disagree with?

Either shit or get off the pot. Make your argument or don't. I'm not going to infer your arguments for you.

Dan8267 says

Either shit or get off the pot. Make your argument or don't. I'm not going to infer your arguments for you.

OK, its been a long time since I was a 1L, but here is the holding:

By standing outside the entrance to a Federal Courthouse and handing out pamphlets about jury nullification, Mr. Heicklen did not violate 18 U.S.C. 1504 as originally charged. Mr. Heicklen is well within his first amendment rights in so far as he chooses to stand outside the courthouse telling any and all incoming prospective jurors about jury nullification. 10 CR 1154 (SDNY 2012)

If I'm not mistaken, people have been found in contempt when, as jurors, they tell other jurors about jury nullification, but that it's the first amendment to discuss it outside the duties of a juror.

FortWayne says

Strategist says

FortWayne says

There is no religious persecution here. Gays have pretty good life

Not if you had your way. You hate them too much.

I don't think they should marry. Marriage is for children only, if you aren't raising future taxpayers you don't get the tax cut.

It's just liberals, who are completely losers, are constantly craving attention and acceptance of their wicked ways, so they naturally want to feel like society allows them to do everything same. But they are not same, if you are homosexual you are not same and should not be treated same. I'm not asking for persecution, all I'm saying is that marriage isn't for gays.

You are saying everyone should not be equal under the law. The world is changing my friend, and you are getting left behind. Here is what the future of the world is......You can do anything you want, except hurt someone. Religions are in the forefront of denying rights and freedoms, which is why more and more people, believe less and less.
You have your set of morals, others have theirs. Morals are not God given, but given by societies of the time. Are you gonna stone someone for sex out of wedlock, or burn a witch at the stake, or have slaves because the Bible says it's OK? The Bible has some good stuff in it, and some bad stuff, but it has lots and lots of silly stuff like the age of the earth.
Give it up, you are fighting a losing battle.

CDon says

By standing outside the entrance to a Federal Courthouse and handing out pamphlets about jury nullification, Mr. Heicklen did not violate 18 U.S.C. 1504 as originally charged.

So, if I understand your argument, you are claiming that courts have not violated First Amendment rights regarding freedom of speech about jury nullification because there was only one case of a person being arrested for it and he was acquitted by the judge.

If that is your argument, then it is incorrect. Heicklen was hardly the only person prosecuted for informing the public of jury nullification. Ed Forchion was also prosecuted for the exact same thing as Heicklen and the judge did not dismiss the case. Forchion only avoided a length jail sentence because the jury in his trial -- and he was smart enough to insist on a jury trial -- practiced jury nullification. Now that's ironic.

A jury of 12 decided that the law he had broken was illegitimate, and they ruled not guilty.

Nonetheless, the Forchion case is a clear indication of the state violating the First Amendment rights of a citizen. And it's hardly the worse example.

Mark Schimdter was sent to jail without trial for doing the same damn thing that Forchion and Heicklen did.

Vietnam Era Veteran, peaceful freedom activist, and local small businessman, Mark Schimdter, has been jailed for 145 days by Judge Belvin Perry. Schmidter's sentence began Thursday after he was found guilty for distributing jury nullification info outside of Perry's self-imposed "free speech zone." during the Casey Anthony trial.

sbh says

Well, whadayaknow, you spun the wheel and it landed on "Don't be a dickhead".

That's because I missed. I'm spinning again.

sbh says

Strategist says

sbh says

Well, whadayaknow, you spun the wheel and it landed on "Don't be a dickhead".

That's because I missed. I'm spinning again.

Clearly it was an unfortunate accident. If only the Bible were more supportive of torture you could save yourself the trouble.

It is. It is. "Burn in hell till eternity"

Strategist says

Morals are not God given, but given by societies of the time.

Rather, morality is dictated by strength. Think of it as a story. Whoever has the strongest voice dominate the story.

Hate to admit it but Dan finally got something right.

Dan8267 says

. Ed Forchion was also prosecuted for the exact same thing as Heicklen

I don't think so. According to your source the daily "sheeple", Ed "weedman" Forchion was busted for pot and at his trial, he tried to present evidence as to jury nullification which was disallowed. The issue here is a procedural one, which I noted in post 43 revolves around the principle "Nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege." Frankly, I don't think you are ready to tackle that yet, so lets table this issue for the time being. As to the second issue:

Dan8267 says

Mark Schimdter was sent to jail without trial for doing the same damn thing that Forchion and Heicklen did.

This is completely wrong. During the Casey Anthony trial, Mr. Schmidter decided to descend upon the courthouse along with half of humanity who wanted screech their views on "tot mom". In response, Judge Perry issued an order restricting people from the boundary of the courthouse complex, meaning Mr. Schmidter, Nancy Grace, and all of humanity was relegated to the sidewalk (or designated free speech zones on campus) until such time as the trial was over. After receiving notice, warning arrest, Mr. Schmidter continued to distribute leaflets in clear violation of the order so he was arrested for contempt and jailed for 145 days.

On appeal, Schmidter argued Judge Perry's order violated his First Amendment rights because it "constitutes an unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech in a traditional public forum".

HOLDING:
Contrary to Appellant's (Schmidter's) argument, this order does not apply to speech in a traditional public forum. This is because courthouses and courthouse grounds (with the exclusion of perimeter public sidewalks) have uniformly been treated as nonpublic forums for purposes of First Amendment analysis. See U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 SCHMIDTER V. STATE 103 So. 3d 263

Also Held:
There can be no question that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting its judicial system from the pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create. Since we are committed to a government of laws and not of men, it is of the utmost importance that the administration of justice be absolutely fair and orderly. This Court has recognized that the unhindered and untrammeled functioning of our courts is part of the very foundation of our constitutional democracy ․ [and that a] State may adopt safeguards necessary and appropriate to assure that the administration of justice" Id.

Again, the fundamental question here (as was with Heicklen) relates to the time/place/manner restrictions on free speech that have been part of the constitution since its founding. Here the Florida court applied these principles and correctly found Schmidter guilty. This would not be causing you angst had you the slightest understanding of the underlying issue Dan. He was not jailed because of the content of what he said, but when and where he said it.

Fact of the matter is, the 1st amendment right to free speech has never been interpreted to say whatever you want, WHENEVER you want. There is a guy here in DC with a placard who regularly cries the govt violated his first amendment rights. His complaint: the govt would not let him walk into the State of the Union and speak his views about the incarceration of his adult son. Do you think this is a reasonable restriction on his speech?

Thus as I said in post 110 above: Keeping in mind the time/place/manner restrictions which have long set the boundaries of our 1st amendment, what in the holding of this case (Heicklen, and now Schmidter) do you disagree with? Say someone is invited to a Rose Garden ceremony for WWII Vets at the White House - if that person decides to then "exercise their free speech rights" by denouncing abortion, breakdancing, advocating jury nullification, or bursting into song about hairstyles of the 1970s is it surprising to anyone that this person will be arrested?

Also, since this is a discussion on what the law IS, please respond with something a little more tangible than the "daily sheeple" to support your views.

I have no sympathy for activists. These people have no clue how the world operates.

Strategist says

You are saying everyone should not be equal under the law.

Yes a poor single mother of 2 struggling to pay rent should not be treated same way Donald Trump is. Everyone is different, and every situation is different. Treating everyone same under the law is the biggest form of unreasonable inequality.

Just because one loves horses does not mean they are being prosecuted against when state won't let them marry a pony, I don't care they a horse whisperer. Gays can't marry for a very good reason as well.

Strategist says

You are saying everyone should not be equal under the law. The world is changing my friend, and you are getting left behind. Here is what the future of the world is......You can do anything you want, except hurt someone. Religions are in the forefront of denying rights and freedoms, which is why more and more people, believe less and less.

I might be being left behind, but human nature doesnt' change. If new generation does things wrong and repeats mistakes they are warned about, we'll fall apart like the old Rome did.

It's not a new world, there is nothing new under the sun. It's just new generation is repeating the mistakes of the past, that ironically bible warns against, it being one of the oldest pieces of wise advice. There is quite a lot of advice in it, and every time we deviate from good advice we fail as a society.

Bible warns against excessive interest and usuary, when we forget it we get economic crashes. It warns us against excesses and selfish existance, when we forget society falls apart.

I'm telling you, what you are saying will not work. It's been done and tried many times before, and it has failed every time.

sbh says

Ronnie, you are fucked up beyond measure.

No sbh, I'm just the voice of sanity.

FortWayne says

Bible warns against excessive interest and usuary

It also warns against menstruating women.

Still, you do realize that your Republican brethren will never let the financial industry be reformed. There's too much money to make by violating moral and ethical restraints.

You want a financial industry that Jesus -- you know, the guy who kicked the bankers on their asses -- would approve of, campaign for Elizabeth Warren.

Dan8267 says

Elizabeth Warren

There is a false prophet.

Dan8267 says

Still, you do realize that your Republican brethren will never let the financial industry be reformed. There's too much money to make by violating moral and ethical restraints.

I'm not a Republican.

FortWayne says

I'm not a Republican.

But you vote for them in the general election, don't you?

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Elizabeth Warren

There is a false prophet.

There is a false attack.

Dan8267 says

There is a false attack.

Bullshit

This is a false statement.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

I'm not a Republican.

But you vote for them in the general election, don't you?

no

The argument can be made that gay marriage is not a civil right, marriage is simply a government tool of "positive discrimination", which it practices all the time. The only fair solution is to abolish government regulated marriage entirely and let everybody form their civil unions under their own contracts. I don't have any issues with courts striking down gay-marriage bans, but then they have to be consistent and strike down any affirmative action law as well, tax deductions for kids, and the current marriage laws themselves. Everything else is just hypocrisy.

mell says

The only fair solution is to abolish government regulated marriage entirely and let everybody form their civil unions under their own contracts

Gay people can have "civil unions", but that's not what they are asking for. They are asking for "Marriage" and that's a whole different contract. You can't be an LLP if you are an LLC by your own self... but that's what they want.