Andy9o8

Depends; they (plaintiffs) could potentially face liability under theories of Malicious Prosecution and/or Abuse of Process. Here are a couple of links to those causes of action under Nevada law. (One includes a shlocky lawyers' commercial; my apologies in advance.) http://nevadainsurancelaw.com/malicious-prosecution-abuse-process/ http://www.attorneyericroy.com/Practice-Areas/Personal-Injury/Malicious-Prosecution-Abuse-of-Process.aspx

You might think so, but at the end of the day you never know what might win the case. Sometimes it's the more creative claims or defenses that surprise everyone and win a case. It's also matter of due diligence and avoidance of malpractice that you have to include every potentially viable claim, even ones that might seem to be longer-shots. Let the judge dismiss a theory if need be; but the lawyer cannot afford to omit it or he risks getting sued for malpractice if his client loses the case.

The problem is that conspiracy theorists lose their sense of degree. For example, I do think FDR wanted to enter WWII at Churchill's urging and was happy to have any good excuse to do so that he could sell to the skeptical American people. But the notion that FDR actually knew that a major attack against the US by Japan was imminent, and deliberately allowed the attack to take place so the US could enter the war? That's just nuts. I do think that LBJ lied about the nature and scope of the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get Congress to authorize military commitment to Vietnam. It's also possible that LBJ knew that the Warren Commission did a mediocre job, and endorsed it, but not out of any "conspiratorial" motive, but simply because he naively felt the American people needed prompt and simple closure to put the assassination tragedy behind them, and so that he could govern without the constant distraction that would have resulted from a "messier" investigation. But LBJ having a conspiratorial hand in the assassination, so he could succeed to power, Klingon-style? That's just nuts. I do think that the Bush Administration bullshitted Congress and the UN to get approval for the invasion of Iraq. I also think they took advantage of 9/11 to grossly, criminally, abuse their powers, to bamboozle Congress into passing the Patriot Act era of laws, and to get the Supreme Court to authorize most post-9/11 erosions of the Constitution. But Bush & Cheney having advance knowledge of 9/11 & letting it happen? That's just nuts. Normal people of normal sensibilities intuitively understand these distinctions. Conspiracy theorists do not.

Ah, deft use of the word "require". Change the verb to "allow" and the inquiry is a bit more neutrally-phrased. Anyone who reads the oath can see that its requirements neither specify nor rule out specific means or methods. Anyhow, No, the oath has not changed. But one way, of many, of preserving and defending the Constitution is by shedding light on those who violate it. When it's done by members or agents of the government, it's a form of official corruption under the cover of the cloak of power, every bit as much as, say, taking or extorting a bribe is official corruption. And just because someone who violates the Constitution does so while wrapped in the cloak of government does not mean that he is thereby immunized from public exposure.

So you didn't turn them down?

Why do you hate Asian cuisine? What did they ever do to you?

I suppose if you're going to commit cold-blooded murder it's better to fly to Hong Kong first, than do it in front of 50,000 people.

Bwahaha. Helluva team you're recruiting there, old boy.

Hmmm...Bolivia didn't work out so well for Butch and Sundance. Imagine Butch as a student's jumpmaster: "Whattsa matter kid?" "We're flying over water. I can't swim." "BWAHAHAHAA! Hell, the fall will probably kill ya!"

And now Bolivia, too. Of course, the US anticipated this, and has demonstrated that it will do everything it can to intimidate other countries into denying fly-over rights. (Good thing the US doesn't have a reputation for being an international bully.) As of now, he can access Pacific international airspace via Russia-to-China; then trans-Pacific to Nicaragua; thence Atlantic international airspace to Venezuela. With this development, there may also be a counter-snowball effect, as other countries might become willing to allow asylum. The US antagonized a lot of Latin American countries (just like the good ole daze!) by orchestrating the Bolivian President's aircraft's involuntary diversion and "temporary non-detention detention" in Austria. Don't be surprised if, say, Argentina and possibly Uruguay join the list.

All you have to do is imagine a solution, and Bam! it's Truth. The weirder the better. That's how it works.

Just to toss this out there, it seems to me, at its purest, that it's intellectually inconsistent for one to be staunchly anti-abortion on the grounds that the foetus is an innocent human life not responsible for the circumstances of its conception, and then make an exception for rape. I suspect that most staunchly anti-abortion people who make an exception for rape are doing so because instinctively, perhaps even subconsciously (or due to the indoctrination of socialization), they realize that their position would otherwise be politically untenable.

Ah, yes, indeed. A most unfortunate breach of protocol.

It's interesting that you feel compelled to mention liberals 3 times, in 2 of which you use the dismissive semi-pejorative "lib(s)". You're so busy trying to discern and debunk a partisan perspective that you wind up projecting an extreme, almost caricatured, partisan perspective. Name-giving is just a back-handed way of name-calling; but more to the point, it's playing the player and not the ball. And parroting tired, old FoxNews-style sloganeering has become, well, tired and old. Gingrich ain't Mr. Speaker no more, and Conservatives who are conscientious about keeping their message credible and effective need to modernize their game. You make some interesting counter-points that merit consideration. But then you distract the reader from your own message by trash-talking. Pity.

I have been standing in line behind an idiot at the cashier, yammering on his phone, while the cashier was waiting for him to pay, but he was too busy blathering to notice. So the idiot had a cashier *and* a line of customers all waiting on him because his phone call was "more important" than all the people around him. That is being an asshole. I'm with Arvoitus on this one. I've occasionally seen the situation you've described here. At best, it's maybe a 5-second delay til someone says " 'scuze me?", to which the caller will say "Oops, sorry", and let the world get on with their day.

This.

So do conservatives, in their own way. This FoxNews-ian obsession with vilifying of "liberals" contributes absolutely nothing to the national conversation other than divisiveness. It is petty sloganeering at the expense of thought, analysis and discourse.

To lend that argument some perspective: That is precisely the argument used in the Deep South against civil rights rulings by federal courts and legislation by Congress in the 60's.

One year at Seville security were sending everybody (bear in mind this was the Christmas boogie, so this was dozens of people at a time) back to check their rigs in. Since this meant Ryan Air for many, it meant eye-watering excess baggage charges and not a few tears as panicked people had to re-queue while their planes were boarding. Lots of speculation resulted about them being in cahoots. End result of this and other incidents though is that my rig goes in the hold in a hard case. It's out of my sight, but my rigger uses a seal and the rest I can check carefully at the other end. You're far more trusting than I am. Not just the possibility of damage, but being out $7k if it doesn't arrive. The airline will NOT pay it. I forgot about this because it was solved so quickly, but TSA tried to get me to check the rig once. I said the FAA recommends carrying it on, and the only way I'm checking it is if I get a written confirmation that the TSA will cover a full inspection by a rigger upon arrival, and 100% of new replacement cost including rush construction fees if the rig is lost or damaged in any way. You're welcome to guess where the rig ended up :P But it's still a no-win situation if they simply say "No, you can't carry it on; you must check it; No, we're not giving you a written anything; and if you don't like that, you don't board the plane." I don't know if this is a perfect solution, but I urge everyone to have a policy of insurance (such as homeowners' or dwelling-renters' insurance, in which the rig(s) is/are specifically scheduled (like you might with jewelry) ), that covers replacement cost of the rig if it is stolen. Make sure the policy affords you coverage outside the borders of your home nation. That at least gives you more of an option (even if not a perfect one) to check the rig as luggage if they won't let you carry it into the cabin.

No, for the most part most of them just don't get it, and never will. It's a conversation that rarely ends well, so I usually just avoid/evade it. Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Will nobody think of the drum majors?

Is it too soon for tasteless jokes yet? No? Cool. ====================== They made their first ground-launch, first skydive and first BASE jump all in one jump. Props to them.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

I frankly doubt that most people even give it a thought.