scruffy

There's a lot of that going around today. Peace, love and hoppiness

news at 7: Atheists marginalize organized religion. What a nailbiting story this is. Peace, love and hoppiness

If they succeed in the act I doubt they will care too much about your criticisms. Peace, love and hoppiness

I went expecting it to be complete garbage. I thought it actually delivered suprisingly well though. It broke a long chain of films I've gone to see and came out cussing for coughing up 10 bucks to endure with a clever hit. Peace, love and hoppiness

I'd love to go see one of my favorite bands in one of my favorite cities..alas I'm a working man and I don't have time for a living because I'm working all the time Peace, love and hoppiness

Not a huge surprise he's coming out like this. Remember Ron Paul was the congressman who was pushing for us to not go to war after September 11th but actually go back to just issuing letters of marque to people to go overseas and kill terrorists. I always thought that was a pretty interesting idea. Peace, love and hoppiness

You might want to check out the 1890 manifesto of the LDS church. Peace, love and hoppiness

That sounds like the same reductive nonsense that lead people to believe that the blood of the 3000 Americans who died on 9/11 were on all Muslims hands. Peace, love and hoppiness

I would amend your argument slightly by removing the whole bit about any weapon they choose, I think many gun rights supporters understand just like the other freedoms granted by the bill of rights the second amendment is not unlimited. Peace, love and hoppiness

it's vague in the sense it's throwing simply wearing half an army navy store down the street in lots with lying about your service records to fuck over the VA. There may be a good law in there somewhere, but the legislature cannot just buckshot it and hope for the best, especially when a bill of rights issue comes up. In order for a law to pass the strict scruitinty of a constitutional challenge it has to address a clear, legally traceable injury that has enough compelling interest to the government to supercede somene's right to free speech and then narrow the scope to only sanction that particular action. At least that's my understanding. Peace, love and hoppiness

Well the issue why is that specific lie any more fit to be judicially sanctioned than any other lie a politician uses to get into office. It sounds well and good, but the problem is in actually having to write a law that isn't so vague it's completely unenforceable...like the stolen valor act was. Peace, love and hoppiness

I already went through that in a post above, at least following the Georgia statues the law is pretty clear about its purpose to keep people who are not police officers from acting like police officers for the reasons I described in my earlier post. Military folk are not law enforcement and not a judicial symbol of authority so the compelling interest in keeping people from acting as such isn't there as far as I'm concerned. As someone so astutely pointed out earlier, if lying was a crime Washington would be one empty joint. There is actually a case here in Georgia about a county commissioner who lied about getting a ranger tab, degrees, etc to get elected, got found out, and will no longer be a county commissioner following December. People lie, a lot, I just still don't see a reason that claiming military awards has any constitutional precedent to be any more illegal than his other lies about getting degrees or any other lofty claim. Peace, love and hoppiness

Obviously this is going to vary from state to state, but I'm under the impression that's still fraud by deception. I've already said here that if congress wants to try again and make a law that specifically targets people who reap personal gain through fraudulent claims about ones purported military service than that's probably closer to a commercial speech issue and would stand a better chance of passing a constitutional test. But if the law includes lines like simply "falsely represent[ing] himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress" can get six months in prison...there is no way in hades that's not going to get burned up in a court. Whoever thought this law was in any way close to be constitutionally sound should have read the majority opinion of Cohen v Cali and slowed their roll a little. With the amount of JDs in our congress this kind of stuff is mind blowing to me. Peace, love and hoppiness

The constitution is a living document and as such it doesn't make someone guilty of cherry picking from it when they are calling to amend it or remove amendments they feel are or have become destructive. I consider myself a pretty strict constructionist and weigh heavily on textualism and original intent when filtering political news through my BS-meter. I don't really have an opinion on the 14th amendment issue yet, honestly we have bigger problems. But I have to 100% agree with Congressman Broun on the 16th and 17th amendments, and I don't feel that in any way makes me less of a libertarian or constructionist. Peace, love and hoppiness

I wonder how surprised the officer was to find that kid still breathing after that. I'm pretty amazed anyone could live through that. Peace, love and hoppiness

The way I think of it is, comparing it to active LEOs, is that if someone comes up to the door of your car and says get out, get your face on the curb and let search you and take your stuff, I got a DSC in the army while I was in the 5th special forces group, you're going to (or at least I would, I guess I shouldn't make ASSumptions) tell him to go fuck himself and go about your merry way. But if someone lights up your car and taps a badge on the glass would the response be the same? I don't think there's any imminent danger of anyone purporting a military service record they didn't earn. What there is a danger of is fraud (VA, paid public speaking events, etc)...but that's fraud and illegal already. Same with maybe perjury or other commercial speech items. The supreme court generally has the idea that commercial speech is more commerce than speech, so it's a lot easier to make laws against it. If the government wants to try again and write up a law specifically to nail some cats who are directly using false records for direct monetary benefit than I think it would stand at constitutional muster. But at the end of the day if someone wants to raid a army navy store and walk around like a jackass, it's their constitutional right to be a jackass. tl;dr: the law as written, in my opinion, is vague, unconstitutional, and unenforceable...but if the government wants to try again and make it a commercial speech issue than I say that's all for the better. Peace, love and hoppiness

As reprehensible as their actions may be, and trust me, I have no shortage of choice words I have for anyone who would do something like devalue the honorable service of our armed forces...I can't find a singe reason, and I've been enjoying legal debates with other legal junkies, why this would not be protected speech under the first amendment. If any of you have a reason why it would not be protected speech I'd love to hear it, but I can't come up with any myself. Peace, love and hoppiness

Why get helpers when you can get those pf changs things in the frozen aisle and not even have to make a trip to the meat section too. It's better food and you get to be even lazier. I voted for the 4th option as I have no problem passing up a meal for boobs Peace, love and hoppiness

That cannot be good for the finish. Peace, love and hoppiness

Also I think there's some legitimacy to the idea (of course I'm a bachelors of arts and crafts student so take this for what its worth) use of the word among blacks is taking the word back, similiar to gays coining "queer theory" etc. On the flip side the words use by whites brings up the virulent nature of black's history in this country, even if that black person never experienced that level of hardship. As a white person I think this is a place we as benefactors of white privilege have to just admit we have no way to way to sympathize with the damage that word can cause. I can be called a cracker, honkey, whatever else the parlance happens to be and not be bothered by it because there is no negative history to associate with it. I detest when people try to lay down white guilt or bring up some essentialist theory nonsense, but this is a place it seems white people just have to say "I don't get it, but I see the effect the word has, so I'm going to respect that." Peace, love and hoppiness

This is why I'm glad I have a phone I can turn the audio recorder on with 3 taps of the screen and I live in a state I can record conversations with police without getting their consent. I don't have many interactions with police, but if one goes pear shaped I know I got my butt covered. Peace, love and hoppiness

Just in case you're curious, as of 8/9/10 the list of states that honor your WA CCP are: MT,ID,UT,AZ,SD,TX,MO,AR,LA,MS,TN,AK,NC,VA,VT, IN,OH, OK, KY And since you're a resident of WA: FL and MI source: www.handgunlaw.us Peace, love and hoppiness

3 mins that's a jumpship i want at a dz near me Peace, love and hoppiness

Could be, it's my 4th year of classes and I can say without a doubt I'm not into men. Peace, love and hoppiness

Not a lady, but as a women's studies student in college I can say that being the only guy surrounded by women not necessarily the most advantageous place to find relationships. Half of my classes I'm the only guy in there and I still have to reserve my romantic pursuits as an extra-curricular activity Peace, love and hoppiness