Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-20-2012, 07:09 PM
pointman's Avatar
pointman pointman is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Anybody here worried about the safety of those kids in the earthquake?
Yes, rumor is that the Democrats are going to introduce a bill accusing the Republicans of causing the earthquake in an attempt to assault the female child. After all, Republican's support Violence Against Women.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-20-2012, 07:12 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,943
Default

more importantly, in congress and obama's world:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_speech_.html

HOME / Jurisprudence : The law, lawyers, and the court.
You Can’t Occupy This
The government says the anti-protest bill was just a small tweak of the existing law. Don’t believe it.
By Dahlia Lithwick and Raymond Vasvari

Posted Monday, March 19, 2012, at 6:25 PM ET

The law purports to update an old law, Section 1752 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that restricted areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service. The original law was enacted in 1971 and amended in 2006. At first blush, the big change here is that while the old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter a restricted space, now prosecutors need only show that you did it "knowingly"—that you knew the area was restricted, even if you didn’t know it was illegal to enter the space. This has been characterized in some quarters as a small technical change that hardly warrants an arched eyebrow, much less a protest.

But it’s important to understand what has changed since the original law was enacted in 1971, because it shows how much a tiny tweak to the intent requirement in a statute can impact the free speech of everyone.

For one thing, the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. For another, it’s almost impossible to predict what constitutes “disorderly or disruptive conduct” or what sorts of conduct authorities deem to “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

The types of events and individuals warranting Secret Service protection have grown exponentially since the law was enacted in 1971. Today, any occasion that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event calls for Secret Service protection. NSSE’s can include basketball championships, concerts, and the Winter Olympics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with government business, official functions, or improving public grounds. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-20-2012, 07:42 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman View Post
Yes, rumor is that the Democrats are going to introduce a bill accusing the Republicans of causing the earthquake in an attempt to assault the female child. After all, Republican's support Violence Against Women.
So, it's "no" for you. Duly noted

Some more "Republican" news from today ... this is not "all" Republicans, it is from the "effing idiotic moron" wing of the party:

Quote:
Chuck Winder, Idaho Lawmaker, Suggests Women Use Rape As Excuse For Abortions

Posted: 03/20/2012 11:49 am Updated: 03/20/2012 5:05 pm

The sponsor of an Idaho mandatory ultrasound bill, state Sen. Chuck Winder, made some highly controversial comments Monday during his closing arguments, suggesting women might falsely use rape as an excuse to obtain an abortion.

Just before the Idaho's Senate passed the bill, which requires woman to have an ultrasound prior to obtaining an abortion, opponents of the bill pointed out that it makes no exception for rape victims, incest victims or women in medical emergencies.

Winder, a Republican from Boise, responded to those concerns by raising the question of whether women understand when they have been raped.

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this," Winder said on the Senate floor. "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that goes on.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1366994.html
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.