Is voting for Bob Barr a vote for smaller government?

[KazooSkinsFan]

And the fact that you summarized JSPB's links as a "bunch of links of people saying 'I didn't do nothin'" vindicated my assessment of the likelihood that you'd be convinced by anything I could link to

I'm sick of reading these one sided agenda laden articles. The bias in these articles is ridiculous.

First of all, 80% of it IS protesters saying, "I didn't do nuthin." On what possible grounds do you object to me saying that? The police are trampling the Constitution and yet the only evidence is one person after another's personal account they didn't do nuthin and the police are criminals? Articles that are totally anti-cop and say nothing about the protesters. And of course they are all the GOP convention rather then the DNC where it's been the same. You should never go to a prison, dude, because you will discover that in fact every prison in this country is FILLED with innocent people. Just ask them.

In the words of John Belushi: I ran out of gas. I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god!

These links are compelling to you on their own? If your standards are that low, if you're that easily convinced by personal "I didn't do nuthin" accounts and obviously one sided stories, you're right, your posting links will make no difference.

[Irn-Bru]

First of all, 80% of it IS protesters saying, "I didn't do nuthin." On what possible grounds do you object to me saying that? The police are trampling the Constitution and yet the only evidence is one person after another's personal account they didn't do nuthin and the police are criminals?

I don't think you are fully appreciating where the burden of proof is. . .

You don't have to like the protesters to see that many were abused at the hands of the authorities. Most of them are idiots, because most of them think something is wrong with the GOP that isn't wrong with the Democrats. But that doesn't mean they deserve to be arrested just because they all showed up somewhere, in large numbers, on public property (and I have yet to see you prove that they were arrested because they were blocking streets and roads that they shouldn't have been).

You are assuming their guilt and then scoff at their "I didn't do nuthin'" excuse. In my view that's a bit backwards. What evidence exactly are you looking for? An exclusive on Ann Coulter's blog? Video taken by a conservative journalist? An admission by the GOP?

You don't want to look at some website that isn't Fox News? Fine. Look at the raw numbers involved (JSPB has one link above). The basic statistics, without any analysis, shows that cop activity is far greater than the actual crimes committed. At the very least, that should make you suspicious enough to investigate whether or not there was some kind of systemic abuse being perpetrated.

[Irn-Bru]

I should note that my own presumption here is that cops are not above the law.

If I know for a fact that someone is wearing a watch that they stole from me, I am justified in getting it back and taking it from them. But what if I was mistaken, and that is not in fact my watch? Then I become a criminal for chasing them down and ripping it from their arm. I owe them their watch (in its original condition) and damages I might have incurred.

When the police arrest and hold an innocent against their will, they have committed a criminal act. It doesn't matter if they thought they had the right guy, it doesn't matter if they were acting in the name of security or our best interests, it doesn't matter that their profession is trying to keep the peace, it is wrong. If the police wrongfully arrest me, upon my release the vibe shouldn't be "well, I guess you got lucky and were innocent this time," it should be "we are deeply sorry for having violated your rights," and in some cases restitution needs to be made.

In short, they are not above the law. I suspect that you and I disagree on this point, Kaz, which is what drives our dispute on this issue.

[KazooSkinsFan]

the Gestapo powers and practices of the IRS,

What Gestapo powers? You live in a country where you pay taxes. We're a lot less beholden to our tax agency than Europeans are, for instance (and we pay a lot less...scarily).

I said "powers and practices," I didn't object to paying taxes. The IRS tracks every dollar we earn, donate, invest. They force endless disclosures about us from financial institutions. Treat us as criminals for any significant cash we get. Restrict us from moving our own money overseas and tax money not even in the US. They can rape us to prove whatever they chose and we are treated as criminals. And that doesn't even begin with what they do to companies and all the waste of CPA, accountants, decisions that are made driven by taxes rather then efficiencies. You're so worried about warrantless wiretaps in calls to foreign countries and you're oblivious to the IRS?

every citizen dependent on the government and hence politicians, that the government prohibits ownership of our bodies (abortion, prostitution, drug, euthinasia laws)

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of this, either. Though about the drugs thing, I can see prohibiting access to many drugs that are prohibited now...simply because from a pharmacological standpoint, they're not appropriate for use unless the person understands proper dosing and drug delivery.

So you're OK with politicians and bureaucrats deciding that? What we can put in our own bodies? As long as the government feels there's a reason to restrict it? And what does it lead to? Shootouts in the streets, gangs and gang violence moving into middle class areas, funding of organized crime. And what we're doing is so much worse in countries like Columbia and Afghanistan that are dominated by drug cartels and countries like Burma that are run by them. And who doesn't do drugs because the government tells them? And how is it positive to teach people to ignore the law because it's stupid? I don't do drugs, but I don't not do them because the government SAYS I can't. But hey, as long as we can protect people from improper dosing and drug delivery...

that government controls our purchase of liquor, who can cut our hair, trim our fingernails, decorate our homes, treat us for illnesses or represent us in court.

This is a licensure issue. In most cases, the ability to procure a license is a very low level display of competence in the field...and I have no issue with that. I wouldn't want someone doing surgery on me who wasn't qualified, as I'm sure you would not want either, and the only way to assure minimal competance is to have that surgeon show he's jumped through the licensure hoop.

Liquor isn't just license. In NC where I live you can only buy liquor from the government. How sick is that? I have no problem with local government having licenses for those fields and making it illegal to not disclose accurately if you have a license. But to make it illegal to pay someone what color to paint your living room or file your nails? And in surgery, again, sure requiring disclosure of a government license is fine with me. But it's YOUR body. How can the government make it ILLEGAL to do what you want with it? Even surgery, as long as you have been accurately disclosed who is doing it?

The Federal government underwrites 90% of mortgages and the current mess is the fault of the market.

FYI - Not 90%, closer to 50% of mortgages in the US are underwritten by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

And the mess is a result of a multitude of things, as you know. I blame a lot on the unregulated hedge funds over-leveraging themselves, myself.

Actually, this article says that a little less then 50% are Owned or Insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. About 90% were underwritten and the rest were sold off. The article says they are publicly owned, it does not mention both are quasi-government (aka government) and they were created by Congress or that the government specifies the underwriting guidelines. Clinton greatly relaxed them for the "dream" of home ownership, but both parties are to blame. When the guidelines are too lenient, no one buys the loans, which is why sometimes they have to insure them to sell them.

Think about that, the government can't cleanly sell (meaning they are off the books, not owned or insured) over half the mortgages they underwrite. What does that tell you about the underwriting standards? What does that tell you about the projected default rate? What is it going to do to Fannie and Freddie when property values drop? EXACTLY what happened, and this is a government mess. And of course in true government loving fashion our socialism leading to failure is used as a lever to INCREASE socialism, the cause of the failure.

The government greatly restricts energy (domestic exploration, nuclear, new refineries, endless local blends) and yet energy is high because of the greedy.

Agree completely. F'ing lobbyists.

et al

The government is more and more controlling healthcare through ever escallating medicaid/medicare and restrictions on business.

As for healthcare, speaking from experience, it's easier to deal with medicare than it is with private insurers. Private insurers are far more restrictive on procedures and reimbursement than medicare is. FYI.

Second, I don't think you understand what the Gestapo actually did, if you think what we have here is anything close to Nazi Germany. In reality, the Gestapo weren't as powerful as common myth has them being for your information.

I didn't say this is Nazi Germany. Actually I mock the libs who compare Bush to that all the time for the reason you brought it up. Then, ironically, your link supports the IRS is in many ways like and other ways worse then the Gestapo. The IRS is like the Gestapo was clerical and bureaucratic and relied on Germans turning each other in. The IRS on the other hand is a lot more aggressive in going after the citizenry directly and burdensome with the rules, regulations and pursuit of truth. When I selected that phrase, I actually wasn't going by the stereotype which I knew to be false, I was going by the truth which is that the Gestapo was very IRS like.

But as far as I know, we don't have labor or death camps here in the US. I could be wrong. Well, Gitmo, but that's something that I understand I keep harping on about.

Yes, this isn't what I meant. I meant going after the people with accusations, assumption of guilt, treating them as criminals...

Though I would refer you to a forum I started on how actually the poor pay most of the taxes you are referring to.

...

Not sure how that helps.

That's not the forum. I'll find it and put a post in it to bring it to the top and we can discuss this there if you're interested.

But on the IRS, riddle me this batman. If we are going to have a progressive tax you advocated and all the deductions you wanted, how are we going to do this without an IRS? And if we are going to have an IRS how is that not going to lead to the incredible invasion of privacy and Gestapo control over the American people we have today?

I don't get what you want here. What country exists nowadays that fits your criteria? What government style. Our government has a lot of issues, but if you've ever lived or been in a 3rd world country, you'll know how relatively good our government is. I wouldn't replace our government system with one of the socialist European systems...and I'm not sure where else you'd look? Got any suggestions?

If you want a government that is strong enough to protect you, and protect the incredibly privileged lifestyle we as Americans enjoy (we're roughly 5% of the population of the world, but by FAR the world's largest consumer of natural resources), you have to pay taxes to support that government.

www.fairtax.org

But bringing up what you do while ignoring what you do makes NO sense to me. I only listed off the top of my head a long list of clear government attrocities perpertrated on the freedom of the American people. There are many more.

Sorry, but while having the government mildly track your spending for taxation, limit your access to cocaine and crack cocaine, and require people performing health care services to be licensed at a minimum competency level is not even in the same stratosphere as having a government snatching someone, and locking them up in a military prison for 7 years without any concrete evidence of wrongdoing. My first undergrad was Russian history, and that's Soviet-esque behavior.

As you said, it's a question of perspective.

I'm okay with paying taxes, not having easy access to crack cocaine, and having the IRS (maybe) look over my 1040 (oh no!) every year, as long as I'm not getting thrown in jail for no reason.

The IRS does so much more then that, you should read the fairtax site. I thought you said you were a Libertarian? Did I misunderstand that?

I don't mean that as an insult, just that I'm an MBA and you're a lawyer.

I have no issue with you understanding business better than I do. You have both an MBA and you're a practicing businessman. Me, I'm a doctor and a practicing lawyer. I'm no businessman.

However, don't you find it an interesting double standard that you feel compelled to argue laws as if you know the law as well as I do (or better than I do)...and I'm the lawyer?

I argue the Constitution. How does that say I know the law better then you do? I consider the Constitution to be the basis of the law but a document of the people, not a document of the lawyers that needs to be explained to the people. Other then when I say the lawyers are NOT following what the people told them, how do you say I say I know the law better then you?

Case in point, Guantanamo. I never challenged the court decisions and things like that you brought up. I said the Constitution doesn't say people outside the US have Constitutional rights and lawyers and judges can't make up law. What I object to courts doing is making a ruling on the Constitution (this part's fine) and making statements supporting the ruling (OK too) then later ruling based on the statements rather then the law. All laws need to be Constitutionally enacted. The courts cannot (though they do) make up law based soley on their own rulings.

I also never said you can't debate me on business. I just said I don't think you're a business guy in the sense that I am as you pointed out my education and job focus on that, and I spent time writing up the topic which I will find and give to you. I just wanted to be clear I didn't mean my pointing you to that was meant to be insulting in any way. Just that it's my baliwick. If you want to discuss or disagree with the post that's fine.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You don't have to like the protesters to see that many were abused at the hands of the authorities

I said it's not a big Constitutional issue to me. If the police policies are wrong they should change them. If someone is going to be tried for a crime they absolutely have the assumption of innocence. I also think the protesters were nuts and the cops deserve the assumption of innocence too. And the cops were abused too.

I have yet to see you prove that they were arrested because they were blocking streets and roads that they shouldn't have been

What I said is that you can't demonstrate in any public place at any time and gave a list of examples. None of those infringe on free speech. I reject the "Indian Rule" it was my job to disprove your point, you have the burden to prove it. Sorry, that's the way life works unless you're a liberal in the media.

You are assuming their guilt and then scoff at their "I didn't do nuthin'" excuse

No, I'm mocking the media for writing a story with no other evidence and those who blindly accept the declaration of people who say "I didn't do it!" And I also said if the Constitution is being violated so dramatically there has to be more evidence then that which I don't see provided.

In my view that's a bit backwards

It's backwards to ask them to provide more evidence then "I didn't do it?"

What evidence exactly are you looking for? An exclusive on Ann Coulter's blog? Video taken by a conservative journalist? An admission by the GOP?

You don't want to look at some website that isn't Fox News? Fine. Look at the raw numbers involved (JSPB has one link above). The basic statistics, without any analysis, shows that cop activity is far greater than the actual crimes committed. At the very least, that should make you suspicious enough to investigate whether or not there was some kind of systemic abuse being perpetrated.

We have the media to keep the cops in line and I'm all for that. When I read articles where all they can come up with are accusations of one side and no interest in accusing the protesters themselves of ANYTHING there isn't even smoke here.

If there were really serious police abuses here, the media would not just be presenting story after story based only on accusations of one side against the other. What do Ann Coulter or FoxNews have to do with my wanting more from liberal reporters then one sided self serving (for the reporter AND the protester) hearsay?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I should note that my own presumption here is that cops are not above the law.

If I know for a fact that someone is wearing a watch that they stole from me, I am justified in getting it back and taking it from them. But what if I was mistaken, and that is not in fact my watch? Then I become a criminal for chasing them down and ripping it from their arm. I owe them their watch (in its original condition) and damages I might have incurred.

When the police arrest and hold an innocent against their will, they have committed a criminal act. It doesn't matter if they thought they had the right guy, it doesn't matter if they were acting in the name of security or our best interests, it doesn't matter that their profession is trying to keep the peace, it is wrong. If the police wrongfully arrest me, upon my release the vibe shouldn't be "well, I guess you got lucky and were innocent this time," it should be "we are deeply sorry for having violated your rights," and in some cases restitution needs to be made.

In short, they are not above the law. I suspect that you and I disagree on this point, Kaz, which is what drives our dispute on this issue.

I want more then a liberal reporter printing a one sided story with the only evidence the statement of the protester saying they didn't do it. I want credible EVIDENCE the police did something wrong. And I think the protesters are nuts and the cops have to maintain protection for other citizens as well. It's a crappy job they're in and I'm not willing to throw them under the bus. And again with the reporters focus on nailing the cops that the best they can do is provide the testimony of the accused is a pretty strong statement the cops did nothing wrong.

I disagree with nothing of what you said about the cops job being. I want evidence. CREDIBLE evidence. There is no contradiction there.

[Irn-Bru]

Evidence: look at the number of cases that are dropped, dismissed, or settled versus the number of arrests made.

Since the cops made arrests, the burden of proof is on them to show that a crime was committed. If they can't, the activity of the cops was criminal. This is all I'm pointing out.

The arrests happened. You want evidence from those who are presumed innocent that they are innocent. What is actually needed is some evidence that they had committed a crime. If not, they were abused.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Evidence: look at the number of cases that are dropped, dismissed, or settled versus the number of arrests made.

Since the cops made arrests, the burden of proof is on them to show that a crime was committed. If they can't, the activity of the cops was criminal. This is all I'm pointing out.

The arrests happened. You want evidence from those who are presumed innocent that they are innocent. What is actually needed is some evidence that they had committed a crime. If not, they were abused.

Sure, the burden of proof in the COURTS is on the accused. I never say they should have been convicted, no idea. And the burden of proof the cops acted improperly is on the accused as well. And I don't say they didn't, only that I'm underwhelmed by the evidence they did.

My overall point going back to the beginning though was PERSPECTIVE. The focus of things like this, Gitmo, providing access to lawyers and courts to terrorists, making sure the NSA can't detect calls to Yemen to discuss bombmaking without a warrant while not mentioning the REAL attrocities of the government on our freedom and privacy like the IRS, war on drugs, assault on free enterprise, energy, social security, medical to me is staggering. Government owns our wallets and our bodies and these are such minor issues in relation to that. It's ignoring murder for jaywalking. Seriously. The government might detain you a couple hours while you were in a mob but not being unruly. Horrors! We must take this to the EXTREME!!!! But the government's control of our wallets and bodies isn't a big deal, just part of living in the USA. You have to be reasonable!

[Irn-Bru]

Sure, the burden of proof in the COURTS is on the accused. I never say they should have been convicted, no idea. And the burden of proof the cops acted improperly is on the accused as well.

No, the failure to prove their accusation is the damning evidence. You want the arrested to prove that they were arrested? OK. Arrests are the aggression I'm talking about.

My overall point going back to the beginning though was PERSPECTIVE.

I thought it was the claim that abuses weren't perpetrated (or that you hadn't seen evidence of it), or that it had nothing to do with the Constitution.

[KazooSkinsFan]

ou want the arrested to prove that they were arrested?

How do you get from my wanting a reporter to provide more evidence of police wrongdoing then the word of the arrested they did nothing wrong to that I want the arrested to prove they were arrested?

[Irn-Bru]

ou want the arrested to prove that they were arrested?

How do you get from my wanting a reporter to provide more evidence of police wrongdoing then the word of the arrested they did nothing wrong to that I want the arrested to prove they were arrested?

You appeared to agree with me that any cop who arrests and charges someone wrongfully (that is, arrests and charges an innocent person) has committed a crime.

The arrests were made; no one is questioning this. The question is whether the people arrested and charged are innocent or guilty. For this, the burden of proof is on the police, since the accused are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

JSPB pointed to about 1,000 cases where charges were dropped or a settlement was made. In each of those cases, since we know (1) the arrest happened and (2) the charges were not proved, it logically follows that the cops have committed a crime.

Just like if you "take back" "your" watch from your neighbor, only to discover that it was actually his and not yours.

What part of this doesn't make sense or are you disputing?

[Deadskins]

Kazoo, you keep repeating this "calls to Yemen" theme, as if you are convinced the only calls being warrantlessly wiretapped are overseas calls. This is patently false. Executive orders were given that allow for warrantless wiretaps of domestic calls as well. You may remember the big to do about all the phone companies (with the exception of Qwest) turning over their records to the NSA. Also these wiretaps are not performed by humans. All telephone traffic is scanned for keywords by computers, and certain calls are earmarked for further review. So if you mentioned to your friend that you sure hope they catch that bastard Bin Laden, then your call will be screened because you used a keyword. The same is true for internet traffic.

On May 22, 2006, it was revealed by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and Wired magazine that the program involved the NSA setting up splitters to the routing cores of many telecoms companies and to major Internet traffic hubs. These provided a direct connection via an alleged "black room" known as Room 641A. This room allows most U.S. telecoms communications and Internet traffic to be redirected to the NSA. The NSA used them to eavesdrop and order police investigations of tens of thousands of ordinary Americans without judicial warrants.

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

[KazooSkinsFan]

You appeared to agree with me that any cop who arrests and charges someone wrongfully (that is, arrests and charges an innocent person) has committed a crime

...

What part of this doesn't make sense or are you disputing?

I agree that charging someone "wrongfully" would be a crime, but I don't agree that charging an innocent person equates to making it wrongful and I don't agree that the charges being dropped makes them "innocent." To be wrongful, an arrest would have to be something like falsifying evidence, violating police procedures, tampering with evidence, that sort of thing. If someone appears to be throwing an object, the police can arrest them and guilt (or provability of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) is for the legal process to decide. Failure to convict is typically a 90% threshold. Therefore you could be pretty certainly guilty, say 85% and be acquitted. That doesn't say you are innocent, it says you were not proved guilty. And it doesn't make it a "wrongful" arrest.

My points are simple:

- The stories are one sided showing the agenda of the reporter. It's all about the cops doing wrong and doesn't question the protesters. That one sidedness immediately calls into question the objectiveness of the story in it's entirety

- The stories are OVERWHELMINGLY the reporters were told by the accused they didn't do it. The reporter is out to nail the cops (see the first point) and yet the only evidence they can dig up is the statements of the people saying they didn't do it? All this crushing of dissent and there's no other evidence other then it's the pigs, I was framed?

- Given the difficulty of an agenda laden reporter to make any credible case here, it's such a trivial story compared to the real crimes and violation of our privacy committed by our government every day that no one seems to care about.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Kazoo, you keep repeating this "calls to Yemen" theme, as if you are convinced the only calls being warrantlessly wiretapped are overseas calls. This is patently false. Executive orders were given that allow for warrantless wiretaps of domestic calls as well. You may remember the big to do about all the phone companies (with the exception of Qwest) turning over their records to the NSA. Also these wiretaps are not performed by humans. All telephone traffic is scanned for keywords by computers, and certain calls are earmarked for further review. So if you mentioned to your friend that you sure hope they catch that bastard Bin Laden, then your call will be screened because you used a keyword. The same is true for internet traffic.

On May 22, 2006, it was revealed by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and Wired magazine that the program involved the NSA setting up splitters to the routing cores of many telecoms companies and to major Internet traffic hubs. These provided a direct connection via an alleged "black room" known as Room 641A. This room allows most U.S. telecoms communications and Internet traffic to be redirected to the NSA. The NSA used them to eavesdrop and order police investigations of tens of thousands of ordinary Americans without judicial warrants.

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

Anyone who thinks unencrypted messages on the Internet are "private" are fools. In business we deal with the risk of competitors nabbing information. No, I don't like it the government's doing that. But when those who ignore what the government is doing through things like the IRS, drug war and assault on corporate America are doing I say they have no sense of perspective as to the real threats to their freedom and privacy.

[Irn-Bru]

Anyone who thinks unencrypted messages on the Internet are "private" are fools. In business we deal with the risk of competitors nabbing information. No, I don't like it the government's doing that. But when those who ignore what the government is doing through things like the IRS, drug war and assault on corporate America are doing I say they have no sense of perspective as to the real threats to their freedom and privacy.

You're missing the "telecoms" part. . .

[Irn-Bru]

I agree that charging someone "wrongfully" would be a crime, but I don't agree that charging an innocent person equates to making it wrongful and I don't agree that the charges being dropped makes them "innocent."

As a matter of positive law you could be right on this, but that shouldn't be the case. Common law has always held that a person who fails to prove their accusations is liable for punishment. To think otherwise treats an accuser as above the law (i.e., immune from retribution insofar as they are prosecuting someone else).

My points are simple:

All three of your points are irrelevant, as far as I can tell. You don't have to rely on liberal reporting to see that there were about a thousand arrests and (if the trend from 2004 continues) we will see 90% of those charges dropped or settled. That's very fishy, and I don't see why you give the State the benefit of the doubt in this case. Why here, when you are pretty good on distrusting the government elsewhere?

it's such a trivial story compared to the real crimes and violation of our privacy committed by our government every day that no one seems to care about.

Are you accusing me of this? If so, we can discuss. . .after I finish laughing. If not, it's likewise irrelevant. . .

[KazooSkinsFan]

Anyone who thinks unencrypted messages on the Internet are "private" are fools. In business we deal with the risk of competitors nabbing information. No, I don't like it the government's doing that. But when those who ignore what the government is doing through things like the IRS, drug war and assault on corporate America are doing I say they have no sense of perspective as to the real threats to their freedom and privacy.

You're missing the "telecoms" part. . .

I keep hearing the Democrats and the liberal media referring to "domestic spying." But every time I read the story "domestic" means "international" phone calls. Sort of how the Left describes spending as "investment" and tax cuts as "spending." Can you actually show me the government is spying on actual domestic calls without a warrant? JSPB's quote implies that only. I looked for it when it came up because that would be a blatant violation of our privacy, and admittedly stopped looking after too many articles kept calling international calls "domestic." There's nothing in the quote clearly different then that pattern.

On International phone calls, it would be like the Internet. Again, I'm not big on the government doing it. But if you call internationally there is no reasonable expectation of privacy at the other end. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy it's absurd to say our government must get a warrant to get information that can just be taken by someone else. There is or isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy. For International calls, there isn't.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Common law has always held that a person who fails to prove their accusations is liable for punishment. To think otherwise treats an accuser as above the law (i.e., immune from retribution insofar as they are prosecuting someone else).

Good luck ever hiring a cop after you announce the policy they are personally liable for anyone who gets off on any crime they arrest them for. In a world full of people where the cops, judges, citizens are all like you and me it would work. But it's a fantasy world you live in if you really think it should work that way.

it's such a trivial story compared to the real crimes and violation of our privacy committed by our government every day that no one seems to care about.

Are you accusing me of this? If so, we can discuss. . .after I finish laughing. If not, it's likewise irrelevant. . .

I meant the statement generally. The liberal media focuses on the triviality they want to focus on and ignore the real issues. In your case I think you and I would agree on most issues, we of course find the soft areas to debate and then it's usually not so much that we disagree in theory but how to apply it to reality. I think your focus is too much on the minutiae, but I do not think you "don't care" about the real issues. I do think most of the Left doesn't because they trust government. They are building prison walls from the inside thinking they are free because they get to elect the warden.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You don't have to rely on liberal reporting to see that there were about a thousand arrests and (if the trend from 2004 continues) we will see 90% of those charges dropped or settled

Settled means not guilty? They are admitting they committed a crime when they take a lesser charge. How does that mean the cop was wrong?

I don't see why you give the State the benefit of the doubt in this case. Why here, when you are pretty good on distrusting the government elsewhere?

It's not between the protesters and the cops. It's between the protesters and the DNC/GOP. The parties have a right to peacefully assemble as well and to be protected from the anti-abortion or the tree hugging nuts. The cops job is to ensure that. The protesters have every right to have their own peaceful demonstration. They do not have the right to infringe on the rights of the parties, which is exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it where they are.

As for the cops, I have every expectation they are experts in crowd control and they are using appropriate and minimal efforts to do so. And if they are not, absolutely I would hold them accountable. But undercutting them by assuming their guilt based on the reporting of media with a Left agenda or the statement of people who were trying to infringe on other people's rights to peacefully assemble and then claim it's the pigs isn't the way to protect free speech. Allowing them to have their own separate demonstrations is. And on that regard, when you said the government can't restrict demonstrations on public ground, you never answered my question if the KKK is free to demonstrate on the Senate Floor during Senate sessions.

[Irn-Bru]

Good luck ever hiring a cop after you announce the policy they are personally liable for anyone who gets off on any crime they arrest them for. In a world full of people where the cops, judges, citizens are all like you and me it would work. But it's a fantasy world you live in if you really think it should work that way.

Of course it would work. Doctors can and should be liable for certain medical mistakes, correct? Dan Snyder should be liable if he screws up your season ticket sales, correct? Construction companies, pharmacists, etc., all professions with danger and possible threats to human life. . .all liable. I'm not saying cops have to go to jail; there are other ways to sort these things out in a civilized society.

It takes a lack of logic and imagination to rest solely on the "that would never work in the real world" argument. Man, I haven't heard that one a million times. I thought you would know better, Kaz, because I know you hear that about as much as I do.

I meant the statement generally. The liberal media focuses on the triviality they want to focus on and ignore the real issues. In your case I think you and I would agree on most issues, we of course find the soft areas to debate and then it's usually not so much that we disagree in theory but how to apply it to reality.

The liberal media this, the liberal media that. . .I have a counterargument about perspective and emphasis I'd like to make sometime.

I think your focus is too much on the minutiae, but I do not think you "don't care" about the real issues. I do think most of the Left doesn't because they trust government. They are building prison walls from the inside thinking they are free because they get to elect the warden.

You don't really know what I focus on, because I do 99.5% percent of my thinking, discussion, and writing on political theory outside of THN. I comment on THN mostly when I see a one-sided debate or in instances of someone being a little too ridiculous (these judgments are made by my own humble estimate). This is how I got in this thread; that's how I get into most threads.

If I were to start threads they would be on 'big issues.' For example, the financial meltdown, and what King George is doing about it. . .

You get on leftists for trusting the government. But anyone with sympathies to the government in any area trusts it to some extent. You are getting on the left's case here, but frankly I'm seeing some weaknesses on your side, as well. So I don't think you can wave off my participation as bias or overfocus on minutiae.

[Irn-Bru]

You don't have to rely on liberal reporting to see that there were about a thousand arrests and (if the trend from 2004 continues) we will see 90% of those charges dropped or settled

Settled means not guilty? They are admitting they committed a crime when they take a lesser charge. How does that mean the cop was wrong?

I believe "settled" in many of those cases actually refers to the innocent being paid by the city for the mistaken arrest. If you go look at the reporting you'll see what kinds of numbers are involved—millions and millions of dollars.

They do not have the right to infringe on the rights of the parties, which is exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it where they are.

I haven't seen any proof of this, especially for 90%(+) of the arrests. It also doesn't explain the dubious pre-emptive arrests that were made. Given the reports I've seen (and, of course, silence from news sources you might truts), it seems obvious to me that we have should hold police activities with some suspicion. But we are limited with how much we can discuss this, as we've seen before in this thread. . .

And on that regard, when you said the government can't restrict demonstrations on public ground, you never answered my question if the KKK is free to demonstrate on the Senate Floor during Senate sessions.

Of course not, but this is irrelevant. We already agree that the protesters have no right to demonstrate on the grounds of the RNC. The question has always been about the protesters on the streets and roads outside of it.

[Deadskins]

Anyone who thinks unencrypted messages on the Internet are "private" are fools. In business we deal with the risk of competitors nabbing information. No, I don't like it the government's doing that. But when those who ignore what the government is doing through things like the IRS, drug war and assault on corporate America are doing I say they have no sense of perspective as to the real threats to their freedom and privacy.

You're missing the "telecoms" part. . .

I keep hearing the Democrats and the liberal media referring to "domestic spying." But every time I read the story "domestic" means "international" phone calls. Sort of how the Left describes spending as "investment" and tax cuts as "spending." Can you actually show me the government is spying on actual domestic calls without a warrant? JSPB's quote implies that only. I looked for it when it came up because that would be a blatant violation of our privacy, and admittedly stopped looking after too many articles kept calling international calls "domestic." There's nothing in the quote clearly different then that pattern.

Did you click on the link? The short quote was just relative to the splitters that redirect all (domestic as well as foreign) telephone traffic to the NSA. The overall page was about the call database the NSA has compiled of all the phone records of the major US telecoms. That's times, numbers called, and durations of all calls, domestic or foreign.

Who owns the "liberal media?" Follow the money. What purpose would be served by the media actually being liberal, as you claim? If it is truly liberal, then there has to be some alternate agenda, say divide and conquer. There is no other explanation.

[KazooSkinsFan]

We've pretty well beat this to death. I'm not saying not to respond to this, I'm addressing a couple points here, but let's try to converge to the end, if it works for you. I'm guessing it does.

Good luck ever hiring a cop after you announce the policy they are personally liable for anyone who gets off on any crime they arrest them for. In a world full of people where the cops, judges, citizens are all like you and me it would work. But it's a fantasy world you live in if you really think it should work that way.

Of course it would work. Doctors can and should be liable for certain medical mistakes, correct? Dan Snyder should be liable if he screws up your season ticket sales, correct? Construction companies, pharmacists, etc., all professions with danger and possible threats to human life. . .all liable. I'm not saying cops have to go to jail; there are other ways to sort these things out in a civilized society.

I agree with your point, but I don't see it disagreeing with mine. I said I WOULD hold the cops to standards. They can plan in advance, they should be experts in minimial force. They must tell the truth, have probable cause, that sort of thing. On the other hand, I said that just because someone gets off doesn't mean they were "negligent."

On the demonstrations, IF we were talking about "stand alone" demonstrations I would be 100% with you. If they were in their own field waving signs and chanting and whatever the cops better have a GREAT reason to interfere. But as Ayn Rand said libertarianism is about the principle that you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's right to do the same. When the DNC or GOP have a party rally, why do protesters need to be closer? They want to be in the way, they want to yell them down, they want to insult them as they go in and intimidate them. They are infringing on the rights of the parties and it's the job of the cops to not allow that. EVERYONE has the right to peacefully meet, including the DNC and GOP.

And Ayn Rand's principle is also about my saying they cannot protest on someone else's private property (I know you agree) in the street, in government buildings w/o permission, ... Those things are done by protesters for the express purpose of interfering with other people's rights. Go to a field, invite everyone who agrees with you, call the press to report on yourself, knock yourself out. But when protests are designed to infringe on other people's rights, as the protests at the Cenventions are DESIGNED to do, I give the cops a lot more latitude.

If I were to start threads they would be on 'big issues.' For example, the financial meltdown, and what King George is doing about it. . .

As a libertarian, isn't your concern that he is doing ANYTHING about it? Government got us into this mess and is using it to grab more power. It is government that underwrote massive bad loans, guaranteed them, created two bogus "companies" to try to dump them off on and when it didn't work, government bailed itself out and declared it a failure of capitalism. George Bush is a fiscal socialist, he completely sucks, which is why I couldn't even vote for him over the lunatic Al Gore or America hating John Kerry. But in no way was this a "failure" of capitalism. It is a failure of government that government is using to rationalize a massive power grab.

[JansenFan]

I used to work with a guy who worked for the NSA in the 80s and they were recording and monitoring calls then on a large scale. Why this is suddenly an issue is beyond me.

[Irn-Bru]

If I were to start threads they would be on 'big issues.' For example, the financial meltdown, and what King George is doing about it. . .

As a libertarian, isn't your concern that he is doing ANYTHING about it?

As it happens, everything that the government is doing concerns me. However, in a fantasy world here are some things a government could do that I wouldn't mind: (1) Let the companies fail, (2) Dimsantle Fannie and Freddie, (3) Return our currency to sound money, preferably the gold standard, (4) Cease all of our current wars, bring all of those toops home, dissolve our foreign military bases, (5) Get rid of the income tax and don't replace it; cut spending to reflect the decrease in income (i.e., to the government's budget in the year 2000)

If the government did those things we would be well on our way to a booming economy. We'd need a cure period for all of the bad investments to be liquidated and repositioned, but we need that anyway and nothing the politicians do will prevent it. (In fact, they are making the eventual correction worse with the actions they are taking now.)

Government got us into this mess and is using it to grab more power. It is government that underwrote massive bad loans, guaranteed them, created two bogus "companies" to try to dump them off on and when it didn't work, government bailed itself out and declared it a failure of capitalism.

I agree with all of this, but you are missing *the most important piece* of this puzzle: how the hell could an entire industry have made terrible financial decisions for almost a decade and not get punished for it? As always, follow the money: easy credit in near-infinite amounts. . .the Federal Reserve. Without the Fed, the government would have had to have taxed to do what it did. But since they don't face that reality (i.e., that someone has to pay for it), should anyone be surprised? That's why the Fed is the key here. (BTW, don't look for your boy Boortz to mention it, though. )