Politics As Usual

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
I call bullshit on the analysis in this article. They attribute suicide bombers to secularists who are fighting for more power in a post-SH Iraq but not jihadist? Sorry. Secularists wanting power don't kill themselves to get it. Religious nut cases do.

Strangely, there are only 30 guys in the cell and only some of them are in the car-bomb sections. Lets say 25 of them are car bomb builders. If they were the suicide people, there wouldn't be 25 tomorrow. There would be 24... or 23. ANd next week there would be 10 and the week after 0.

So it sounds like the securalists are the bomb-builders and the support structure. If your point is that only crazies kill themselves, then I agree. Unfortunately, I think there are more than enough religious crazies there to volunteer for the actual suicide part of suicide-bombing. It sounds like the ones who want to keep living are the ones building the bombs etc....

And hey, read the Time article. It supports your view and mine that Fallujah has been taken over by all kinds of crazies, including lots of foreigners etc....

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This one? Huh. Personally, I'm partial to this one just a few pages later.

shameless?

You said "twosies" someone teased you for not being more graphic, and you said words to the effect of "My mother taught me not to curse where there are men pretending to be ladies."

It was a perfect fit into the moment, a charming aw shucks kind of explanation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is why federal employees can be barred by the government from engaging in political activities at their workplace, which is publicly owned.

They weren't at their workplace, you moron:

• Bush came to West Virginia on the nation's 228th birthday to honor the country's veterans and garner support for invading Iraq.
  
  About 6,500 people packed into the Capitol's north courtyard to hear him.
  
  As police rushed her out, Nicole Rank shouted that they were told they couldn't be there because they were wearing anti-Bush shirts.
  
  * * * * *
  
  The White House coordinated the president’s visit to the state Capitol. Organizers described it as a presidential visit, not a political rally. State and federal funds were used to pay for the presidential visit.
  
  Dozens of people who attended Sunday’s event wore pro-Bush T-shirts and Bush-Cheney campaign buttons, some of which were sold on the Capitol grounds outside the security screening stations.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why is the gov't being charged for a private campaign event?

Was it a private campaign event funded by the government?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They weren't at their workplace, you moron:

• Bush came to West Virginia on the nation's 228th birthday to honor the country's veterans and garner support for invading Iraq.
  
  About 6,500 people packed into the Capitol's north courtyard to hear him.
  
  As police rushed her out, Nicole Rank shouted that they were told they couldn't be there because they were wearing anti-Bush shirts.

Ty, the West virginians are a proud people, The WV capitol Police don't want a debacle occuring on their watch. A guy flies up from Texas, Hides his shirt (why hide if its all okay?) then exposes his shirt, an obvious violation of Federal law. Should the police trust his violation of Federal law ends there or should they remove him?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, the West virginians are a proud people, The WV capitol Police don't want a debacle occuring on their watch. A guy flies up from Texas, Hides his shirt (why hide if its all okay?) then exposes his shirt, an obvious violation of Federal law. Should the police trust his violation of Federal law ends there or should they remove him?

I know you're trying to be funny, but this isn't your best effort. A gentleman's C for effort, though.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They weren't at their workplace, you moron:

This is so hot.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They weren't at their workplace

I didn't say they were. I used that as an example of a content-based restriction that is constitutional. You asked for a content-based restriction that is constitutional and I gave you one.

Whether the government can engage in content-based restrictions or not in publicly owned forums depends on whether the forum is considered a public or non-public forum. In your analysis in previous posts, you took the position that the government can never engage in content-based restrictions. I remarked that your analysis was not taking into account the public vs. non-public forum distinction.

It is my understanding that content-based restrictions in public forums are subject to strict scrutiny and in non-public forums are subject to a rationale relationship test. Read the cases if you want to know more.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I know you're trying to be funny, but this isn't your best effort. A gentleman's C for effort, though.

Sidd made you post this didn't he?

for what its worth, 6 months ago you posted a silmilar story about hecklers being controlled at Crawford. i found several stories re. the same thing happening during Clinton. The safety value of getting a malcontent out is higher than any value of some nut yelling crap that the president won't hear anyway.

[Gattigap]

Does anyone know offhand the rules for raising and spending campaign cash by a certain time?

I read somewhere that giving to Kerry now is a bad idea, because he has plentiful cash on hand and little time to spend it, since he can't save it and spend it after the convention.

From what I gather, each of Bush and Kerry are taking the federal funds, which is something like $75M for each to spend between the convention and the election.

If it's true that they can't spend pre-convention cash after the convention, then why are both parties still raising it like mad?

Gattigap

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I didn't say they were. I used that as an example of a content-based restriction that is constitutional. You asked for a content-based restriction that is constitutional and I gave you one.

No I didn't, I was talking to Burger, and you are still a troll.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No I didn't, I was talking to Burger, and you are still a troll.

When you resort to name calling like that, I have won again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
for what its worth, 6 months ago you posted a silmilar story about hecklers being controlled at Crawford. i found several stories re. the same thing happening during Clinton. The safety value of getting a malcontent out is higher than any value of some nut yelling crap that the president won't hear anyway.

I don't recall you posting that stuff, but I don't see how the identity of the President matters. The First Amendment shouldn't let law enforcement segregate people from a public event because they support or oppose the President. The sort of "safety value" you describe has very little to do with, except as a pretext, and the First Amendment doesn't mean much if it doesn't protect the expression of unpopular views.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Does anyone know offhand the rules for raising and spending campaign cash by a certain time?

I read somewhere that giving to Kerry now is a bad idea, because he has plentiful cash on hand and little time to spend it, since he can't save it and spend it after the convention.

From what I gather, each of Bush and Kerry are taking the federal funds, which is something like $75M for each to spend between the convention and the election.

If it's true that they can't spend pre-convention cash after the convention, then why are both parties still raising it like mad?

Gattigap

Kaus disusses it here. Scroll down about halfway.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Does anyone know offhand the rules for raising and spending campaign cash by a certain time?

I read somewhere that giving to Kerry now is a bad idea, because he has plentiful cash on hand and little time to spend it, since he can't save it and spend it after the convention.

From what I gather, each of Bush and Kerry are taking the federal funds, which is something like $75M for each to spend between the convention and the election.

If it's true that they can't spend pre-convention cash after the convention, then why are both parties still raising it like mad?

Gattigap

I don't think there is any restriction on spending the cash they raise pre-convention. I thought the pre/post-convention issue was only to do with how much they can get in matching funds. If so, then it does make more sense to wait to donate so that your donation will qualify for matching funds. But I could be wrong.