GeorgiaDon

I did the N-400 process a couple of years ago. I recall that traffic offenses for which you are not actually arrested, but just receive a fine, do not have to be reported. I did the paperwork myself, I saw no need to feed the trolls, er I mean immigration lawyers. The reason for that one is if you lie, later on if they find out they can use that to invalidate your citizenship and deport you. I think they would be shocked if someone actually owned up to a crime. However if you are a career criminal who has been lucky so far chances are they will eventually find out and then you can't hide behind your US citizenship. They used that to deport an alleged Nazi concentration camp guard not long ago. True enough, but the conflict between keeping medical records private and public safety is a real issue. Cho was not considered to be so dangerous that he was involuntarily committed, so he fell outside the reporting guidelines. I think he was sent for evaluation, not treatment. Of course hindsight is always 20-20, but it is often not easy to tell the actual dangerous nutters from the merely depressed or odd personalities. If people lost their legal right to make decisions for themselves on the basis of just being evaluated for possible depression, for example, how many more people would forgo getting needed medical treatment? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder how this would work. She was never charged in connection with her brother's death (judged at the time to be accidental) or in connection with the mail bomb incident. Should that mere fact that you have been questioned by the police at some time (along with numerous other people) be sufficient to forever bar you from owning a firearm? Essentially, that is branding someone as a criminal without bothering with an actual trial or conviction. Doesn't our system presume innocence until conviction in a court? Do you advocate throwing that out, and going to a system that presumes guilt until you prove your innocence? I'm very sympathetic to the desire to identify "nutters", but denying constitutional rights on the basis of accidents or being caught up in a police investigation that does not result in charges or convictions seems to be giving up a lot. Around here (Georgia), if you apply for work as a police officer, you are asked if you have ever been arrested, and if you answer yes you are automatically excluded from employment. Note the question isn't "have you ever been convicted of a crime", just arrested. I think that's unconstitutional, and I wish someone with standing would challenge it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No, moronic. You can't extrapolate from one person to a whole group to which they belong, be it race or religion or profession. People are individuals, they make their own choices, good or bad. On the other hand it is reasonable to try to exclude guns from certain high stress situations, where people are going to be receiving very bad news. We don't allow guns in the courthouse, because people who are being sent to jail (or their friends and family) are likely to react negatively and do desperate things. A meeting where someone is being told their last appeal of denial of tenure is another situation where guns are an incredibly bad idea. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. In the incident the OP linked, someone pulled a gun during a faculty meeting and killed/injured several people. Would anything have been different had someone had a concealed weapon? If someone can walk into a Seattle coffee shop and kill four police officers, officers who were well armed and trained to deal with such situations, who can really believe that a bunch of University faculty (or basically any small group of untrained civilians caught off guard) would do significantly better? Here's another scenario for those who favor opening campuses to firearms to consider. When I teach large undergraduate classes (yes rushmc I am a teacher) I will often be standing at the front of a large auditorium with 100 or more students sitting in crowded seats that rise up as you go to the back of the class. From my perspective, I am at the bottom looking up at a wall of students. Let's say I have just returned an exam, and a student who's stressed out (because his girlfriend just dumped him and now he's failing my course and he's going to lose his scholarship and have to drop out and he's nothing but a failure...typical student issues) decides he's mad at the world and stands up and starts shooting. What am I supposed to do? I have nothing but a plywood podium for cover. Even if I am armed, my target is completely surrounded by other students, so any shot I fire in his direction is pretty much certain to hit somebody. Even if I hit him with the first shot (highly unlikely considering I will not even know anything is going on until he's got off a couple of rounds, so if I'm not dead I'll likely be running for cover), unless I'm using a pellet gun the bullet may well pass through him and still injure/kill people behind him. Will I still be a "hero" if I stop the bad guy, but in the process 4-5 innocent students are killed by "friendly fire"? Will their parents say, "we understand"? I believe law enforcement officers train extensively for such scenarios, yet dread them because there are no good solutions. What makes people believe untrained civilians will miraculously do much better? We have several LEOs who post here, how would they recommend this situation be handled? I know that it can (and doubtless will) happen that a determined person can bring a gun onto campus and cause carnage. No doubt in some circumstances a trained armed person could intervene in a useful way (someone might have stopped Cho earlier for example). On the other hand as it is any sighting of a gun on campus is cause to raise an alarm, so trained law enforcement could be alerted if a perpetrator was spotted on his way to the intended target. If it's OK to carry firearms around on campus, no alarm could be raised until the shooting actually starts. One last note, my understanding is that in Georgia the only requirement for a concealed carry permit is a clear criminal history. Absolutely no training in the law (such as when it is legal to draw/use the weapon) is required, and neither is training in how to respond to situations where there are crowds of innocent people around. (If I'm wrong about the requirements, no doubt someone will correct me). It seems naive to me to expect untrained civilians to respond effectively and save the day, when LEOs have to spend a lot of time training for such scenarios. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, first you say that these murders make you think about Kallend: Then you ask if I am a teacher. This sounds very much like a thinly-veiled threat. Are you saying you wish something similar would happen to Kallend or myself? If so, have the balls to say it directly. Oh, and sticking a or a

Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary technique, or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity, discordance, or unintended connection with truth, that goes strikingly beyond the most simple and evident meaning of words or actions. In what way is this tragic event "ironic"? Your "" says a hell of a lot more about your attitude than your pro-forma meaningless "no disrespect to the dead". Everything about your post drips of taking perverse pleasure in these meaningless deaths. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

A shoe-in for the Helen Keller award! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Of course, there's always this too. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Aren't most people who actually work for a living at work at 5:00, or at best just heading home? And if you do hurry home just to turn on the tube to that whiny wacko you've got other issues. Me, when I get home I'd rather talk to my wife and kids, or walk the dogs, or do just about anything rather than turn on the television. So if Mr. Beck wants to spin his conspiracy BS to 3,040,000 unemployed socially impaired losers, more power to him. I don't watch Matthews or Olbermann either BTW. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It kind of looked to me as if he might be leaning closer to hear something she was saying. He also ducks his head a couple of times after the so-called "bow", as if nodding in agreement. I suppose that's verboten too. Anyway, I'm looking forward to another seven years of right-wing tea-bagger types going apoplectic every time the President treats another human being with a modicum of respect. I mean, that whole swaggering "the world better jump to our command" thing the previous administration put so much stock in really worked out well, didn't it? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Firstly, the mood of the Iranian people may well differ from the politically motivated pronouncements of the leaders (just like here in the US). Secondly, do you have the slightest idea why we are the "Great Satan"? Hint: google "Operation Ajax". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

One more thing, I'm still uneasy with the idea of corporations (and labor unions) as legal persons. I recall a case a few years ago where a construction company broke a gas line, with the result that gas seeped into the crawl space under a nearby diner, which exploded killing several people. The construction company had not bothered to check about gas lines before digging. Of course there were lawsuits, but before the trial the construction company went out of business, and immediately reopened under a new name, but in the same offices and with the same management. Legally, the original company no longer existed, so neither it nor any of the employees could be held responsible for the incident. (I'm sorry, I can't find a link, google brings up over a million hits). So as long as corporations can use Lazarus-like tricks to evade criminal or civil responsibility, they aren't "persons" like you and I are, whatever the law may say. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree that it was not appropriate for the President to criticize the decision in that forum. However if a law is badly written, isn't it sometimes possible to write a new law that achieves the same goal and yet passes constitutional muster? Isn't that what the anti-abortion types have been trying to do for years (along with packing the court of course)? I have no idea if that is possible in this case, and have mixed feelings about how desirable that would be anyway. On one hand, corporations are (or should be) the "engine of the economy", and so they will have a perspective on things that voters should be aware of and consider. Similarly organized labor will have ideas that should be considered (many great ideas have come from labor unions, for example the weekend, which is critical for most dropzones to be able to survive). What I am concerned about is the idea that it will be even more difficult for diverse ideas to be heard if one side has the financial equivalent of 5-mile-high speakers to just drown out every other point of view. Also if private news/media corporations have a "right" to political speech, are they still obligated to carry news coverage of opposing perspectives? I'm thinking of Rupert Murdoch here. Of course the internet could alleviate some of this (unless, for example, Google decides to censor sites that advocate positions Google Inc doesn't like), but television/radio/print media still are probably the main source of "news" for most people. I'm also concerned that big money could be used for "swift-boating", bringing out a massive attack campaign at the last minute, not leaving any time for the attacked to respond. One thing about American political speech, there is no legal requirement to be truthful; you could falsely accuse your opponent of being a NAMBLA charter member and if they lost the election because of that there is no legal remedy. It seems to me to be reasonable to encourage as many voices as possible to be heard, but it's also in the public interest to find a way to balance speech with the opportunity to listen, consider, rebut and debate. Just having everybody yelling through ever-larger loudspeakers isn't very conductive to making reasoned choices. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Although the clip had some interesting points (to go with the cheesy graphics), I think it also used a straw-man definition of "democracy" that probably hasn't applied to the real world since the city-states of Athenian Greece, and arguably not even then (since only adult men could vote). As a result it ends up dismissing the idea of representational democracy, where elected "leaders" (i.e. politicians) formulate the laws that govern the republic. Where do the laws of the republic come from, and what mechanism would be acceptable to modify or interpret them, if democracy is nothing but a path to "bread and circuses"? Also, the explanation given for the fall of the Roman Empire (blaming it on "democracy") was so simplistic as to be cartoonish. At least it did explicitly acknowledge that some government regulation (that is, laws) actually make us more free, for example by allowing us to work instead of spending all our time guarding our property against thieves. So really, our current (and past) political squabbles are just about where to draw the line in terms of how much regulation is enough to optimize our freedom, and how much is too much. The video doesn't offer much of an opinion on that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Speaking of your signature line, I heard another Winston Churchill quote today: "You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities". The man had a way with words. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for the link. If you read it closely you would see that it completely supports everything that I said. You will recall that the discussion concerned the following amendment to the Constitution: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." From the link you provided: 1st Amendment: The Court held in Bridges that“freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. 4th Amendment: Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to non-citizens in the United States. 5th Amendment: Justice Harold Burton, delivering the Court’s eight-to-one decision in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding stated that it is “well established that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment.” Furthermore, “he may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law.” So non-citizens are, according to the Supreme Court, entitled to freedom of speech (1st), protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th), and due process of law (5th), exactly as I said. The article did not discuss other provisions of the Bill of Rights, but they are also not relevant to the Amendment we were discussing. At least some provisions, such as the 2nd amendment, do not apply to non-citizens, but I didn't claim that they did. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The link in the OP says nothing about auto body shops. It refers to contractors who are doing renovations on houses constructed before 1978, when lead-based paint was widely used (it was taken off the market after 1978). The rules require contractors who are sanding lead-based paint to contain the dust and to clean up properly, so that workers and others are not exposed to hazardous levels of lead. I can't see how that is so unreasonable. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

From the link you posted: All contractors should follow these three simple procedures: * Contain the work area. * Minimize dust. * Clean up thoroughly. Wow, isn't that outrageous! Fucking power-grabbing liberals! (/sarcasm) Are you really unaware of the health effects of lead exposure? Do you have any idea why leaded gas was banned throughout the world? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Once again, it is you who are having trouble with comprehension. Let's spell it out in small bits for you. The first sentence defines citizens: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. " The first part of the second sentence defines some rights of citizens: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." The next two phrases of the second sentence refer to persons: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..." and "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Had the writers intended for the latter two phrases to apply only to citizens, they would obviously have used the word "citizen", as they explicitly did in the first part of sentence two. Since they instead used the word "person" (which is not synonymous with "citizen", as was defined in the first sentence), they obviously intended that the protections described should apply to all persons within the jurisdiction of the States, not just to citizens. Got it now? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So is NASA also part of the "global conspiracy" as well? NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I hope you have an excellent birthday. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Bill Cole knows. But he's not sayin'. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And you, of course, will be the one defining what is "right". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm so sorry to hear of this. You and your family will be in my thoughts. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

"So long, and thanks for all the fish!" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)