Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jim Logajan

Pages: 1 ... 184 185 [186] 187 188
2776
Spin Zone / Re: Oregon standoff leaders verdict
« on: October 27, 2016, 11:51:41 PM »
Quote from: bflynn on October 27, 2016, 11:14:27 PM
I really don't know what charges they were accused of, nor what evidence was presented against them.  So I cannot buy into a charge of jury nullification.

Looks like there is a wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy) and it says "Bundy was charged with a total of three offenses: conspiracy to impede officers of the United States by force, intimidation, or threats; possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in federal facilities; and using and carrying firearms in relation to a crime of violence. The latter offense carries a possible life sentence."

Later on "Judge Brown dismissed one of two firearms charges against Bundy and seven other militants, finding that the underlying conspiracy charge does not meet the legal definition of a "crime of violence" as defined by Ninth Circuit case law."

Wikipedia article ends with:
"On October 27th 2016, Ammon Bundy was found not guilty of firearms charges and conspiracy to impede federal workers."

The  oregonlive.com article in my earlier post has some info on some of the defense, but what arguments were made for and against the conspiracy to impede federal workers isn't mentioned there. It may be that the Feds case wasn't factually convincing.

2777
Spin Zone / Re: Oregon standoff leaders verdict
« on: October 27, 2016, 05:40:50 PM »
Found some info on the composition of the jury:

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/jury-refuge-occupation-trial-makeup/

"[...]12 trial jurors — eight women and four men — and eight alternate jurors have been selected for the trial of Ammon Bundy and six other defendants.
[...]
The jury is mostly white and includes a Mormon mother of four from Eugene as well as a former Bureau of Land Management firefighter from Baker City, who said the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January “happened in my backyard.”

Another juror, a woman from Hood River, claimed she doesn’t read the news and lives “in a world of art,” as an explanation for her limited knowledge about the occupation.
[...]
Four jurors are from the Portland metro area. Other jurors include an African-American man from Klamath Falls, a state employee, a woman who works at Boeing and another juror who lives in St. Helens.
[...]
Defense attorneys said it’s unusual to get a jury in Portland that’s from all over the state."


Wasn't expecting that geographic diversity.

2778
Spin Zone / Re: Oregon standoff leaders verdict
« on: October 27, 2016, 05:20:58 PM »
I would have expected an urban-drawn Portland jury to be more sympathetic to the government's case. (I presume that's where the trial took place.)

Yeah, definite case of jury nullification. I guess the defense lawyers and the Bundy boys did a heck of a good job to elicit that kind of result.

Edited to add this link into the strategies of the lawyers on both sides (written before the verdict was known, and interesting to see now how the defense strategy paid off):
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/legal_experts_weigh_in_on_ammo.html

2779
Spin Zone / Re: What would gun confiscation look like?
« on: October 26, 2016, 11:36:42 AM »
Quote from: Number7 on October 26, 2016, 08:38:35 AM
The UN is a cheer leading pack of wolves where gun ownership is concerned and people like Obama and Clinton will use them to take our guns when the time is right. Why do you think John f'ing Kerry supported the UN treaty on disarming civilians?

http://www.forbes.com/profile/hillary-clinton/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/#7e32b87b38a2

Ah, I see.
The treaty mentioned involves international trade, not domestic. (Found the full text here: https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf
Unless conservatives work even harder than they have to nominate self-destructive candidates to federal office, I don't see that treaty ever being ratified anyway.
Lastly, the SCOTUS has ruled in the past that the U.S. Constitution supersedes treaties ratified by the senate (which requires a 2/3rd vote.)

2780
Spin Zone / Re: What is a "weapon of war"?
« on: October 25, 2016, 08:32:24 PM »
Quote from: Little Joe on October 25, 2016, 07:33:52 PM
Where does it say "the right to bear sensible arms shall not be infringed.

Every time I have said that the 2nd amendment is vague, someone comes back and says "what is so vague about "shall not be infringed".

Well, take a careful read of the First Amendment and explain how laws against fraud and libel are considered constitutional when the plain text seems to exclude their existence? Or that FCC regulations on the content of broadcasts (e.g. profanity, nudity)  don't per se violate it?

As I see it, the same process has been used against most of the amendments. Often starting from before the constitution was even written.

2781
Spin Zone / Re: Rigged Voting Machines In Texas?
« on: October 25, 2016, 07:23:35 PM »
Quote from: PaulS on October 25, 2016, 06:36:05 PM
"It's idiot proof."

Somebody want me for something?

2782
Spin Zone / Re: What would gun confiscation look like?
« on: October 24, 2016, 09:35:19 PM »
Quote from: Number7 on October 24, 2016, 07:41:04 PM
The people who will show up, force their way into people's homes and 'search' for weapons and other contraband will look a lot like UN soldiers and people like Kristen will standing right them cheering. The true blue leftists will pop a decade long bone about abusing people under the cover of a UN resolution.

What does the United Nations have to do with any of this?

(I seem to have misplaced my playbill for this drama and a new villain has entered from stage left.)

2783
Spin Zone / Re: What would gun confiscation look like?
« on: October 24, 2016, 02:18:44 PM »
Quote from: bflynn on October 24, 2016, 01:27:26 PM
Not politicians, just one politician.  If we elect a president who will staff the Supreme Court with justices who believe that the militia is the state government's army then The People will lost all rights to own guns for any purposes.  That's the first step.

I believe the steps are really like this:

(0) Compliant senate must also affirm anti-gun judge(s) to the SCOTUS.
(1) A local government (city, county, state, or whatever) enacts a restrictive gun law.
(2) Either a gun owner who is affected brings a case (e.g. law is unconstitutional per second amendment) or gun owner is charged with a crime.
(3) Court considers arguments. If gun owner was charged with a crime and wins at this step, in most states that is the end of things. Otherwise the gun owner may appeal an adverse ruling.
(4) Appeals court considers any alleged error. If gun owner was charged with a crime and the appeals court reverses the lower court, again this may be the end of things. Otherwise an affirm by this court makes an appeal to SCOTUS possible.
(5) Assuming SCOTUS takes the appealed case, they make a deliberation. Anti-gun judges must be creative in their arguments.

So the route to a gun ban by judicial "legislation" requires more than just a compliant SCOTUS. A few more actors are needed in the chain.

2784
Spin Zone / Re: Would our country ever start a revolution over the 2nd amendment?
« on: October 21, 2016, 11:56:40 PM »
What makes you think that would happen? All the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs on this forum by paranoid conservatives would have you think left wing demoncrats are taking control or already have and the demons are of a single mind on the subject. But here is the reality that would first need to be reversed:

The Supreme Court of the US would need to reverse its District of Columbia v. Heller decision.[1] The SCofUS rarely reverses earlier decisions.

The 44 state constitutions that enumerate a personal right to bear arms would need to also be amended.[2]

Currently the US Senate and House are controlled by the Republicans.

Among the states:
31 states have Republican governors.
18 states have Democratic governors.
1 state has an independent governor.[3]

23 states have Republicans in control of both state houses and the governor's seat (a trifecta.)
7 states have a Democratic trifecta.
20 states have divided control.[4]

Given the above state of affairs, any revolution over attempts to repeal or amend the second amendment is likely many decades away, if ever.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
[2] http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors
[4] https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government

2785
Spin Zone / Re: The new religious freedom
« on: October 18, 2016, 09:58:32 PM »
Quote from: bflynn on October 18, 2016, 08:05:03 PM
We were talking about a very similar topic this afternoon.  Setting Islam aside, in the history of the world I count very few bad thing that can be attributed solely to religion, namely the Inquisition.  If you disagree with the Puritan policies then you might look at Oliver Cromwell.  You could stretch and say that religion is a collection of personal beliefs and claim some of the progressive policies today which are carried out with religious fervor.  Now I'm not an exhaustive student of history, but I don't see many and I'm stretching to get these.

The Crusades were defensive wars with the goal of freeing Jerusalem so that pilgrims could visit.  Despite the Pope's endorsement, they were primarily political wars against the policies of the Muslims. 

The Greeks, Romans and Norse never fought wars in their God's names.  I know of no wars fought in the name of Buddha, any of the Indian gods and nothing in China or Japan 

Since you are not an exhaustive student of history, and while neither am I, it happens that within the last two years I felt I needed a refresher of world history so I plowed through a few world history textbooks to learn and relearn/refresh since my last encounter in school 40+ years ago.  I therefore have enough recollection of some of the nastier things of the past that, with the assistance of Google, I can provide some examples of religious wars that indict religions other than Islam; a recollection of the inhuman things that happened when religion and the force of authority (state) are co-mingled:

2786
Spin Zone / Re: A really cool solution to climate change!
« on: October 18, 2016, 02:02:21 PM »
Quote from: Little Joe on October 18, 2016, 11:48:21 AM
I can fill my tank up with it, or maybe even drink it!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/?ref=yfp

Maybe I will become a believer in climate change after all, if that's what it takes to get plenty of cheap alcohol.

The process still requires energy input. The only difference between this new mechanism and previous ways of converting CO2 and water into an energy store (like ethanol) is its allegedly good efficiency. It's a possible alternative to batteries for solar, wind, or tidal power sources that produce power that isn't synchronized to demand. Also could be hooked to nuclear power plants to scrub carbon from the atmosphere in a presumably useful form.

2787
Spin Zone / Re: Where's Hillary?
« on: October 14, 2016, 07:46:57 PM »
Quote from: Becky on October 14, 2016, 05:26:12 PM
But for purposes of the Kristin discussion, I would say that anyone voting for or supportive of HRC could be accurately described as liberal.

 ;)

It's an odd election year and even some conservative Republicans have said they will vote her. So I'm not sure that is a good gauge, though maybe good enough for now.

Also, you do realize that Hillary once described herself as a Goldwater girl? As in, she once considered herself a conservative Republican? Of course she was only a high school kid and says she changed over time to a liberal Democrat. Of course that allegedly became complete when she met Bill.

2788
Spin Zone / Re: Foreign policy positions, as if they mattered
« on: October 14, 2016, 07:32:55 PM »
Quote from: Becky on October 14, 2016, 05:16:30 PM
Brilliant! If dead people can vote, why can't dead people be candidates? I like where this is going.

  :)

I know it has happened before, but until I did a Google search I didn't know that 5 dead candidates have been elected to congress:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/01/five-people-have-won-election-to-congress-despite-being-dead/

Even aviation content, of an unfortunate sort: plane crashes appear to have dominated in their untimely demises.

"There don't seem to be examples of people who have died, been on the ballot themselves, and lost. In other words: Dead people appear to be batting 1.000 in their Congressional races. Nonetheless, we do not recommend it as a campaign strategy."

2789
Spin Zone / Re: Foreign policy positions, as if they mattered
« on: October 14, 2016, 02:34:27 PM »
Quote from: acrogimp on October 14, 2016, 01:27:39 PM
Johnson is an assclown who actually allowed himself to be interviewed by Triumph the Comic Insult Dog, a stogie chewing puppet.

He is so far from being a serious candidate I can't understand why he gets any press at all.

Don't hold back - tell us how you really feel!

Johnson gets less press relative to his poll numbers than Hillary or Trump. The poll ratios are very roughly 7:6:1 (Clinton@45.3: Trump@39.4 :Johnson@6.6) (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/) So if press coverage were proportionate to polling he should appear in 1 of every 14 articles at any given time. He has only appeared in Google News main election stories when he makes a "gaffe" - maybe 1 in 50 at best. He has made serious policy speeches - they get ignored.

2790
Spin Zone / Re: Where's Hillary?
« on: October 14, 2016, 02:09:07 PM »
Quote from: EppyGA on October 14, 2016, 07:05:57 AM
She ought to, she is one.

I'm a slow learner. At age 60 I still don't immediately know what another person means when they use a term like "liberal" or "conservative" - and those are pretty common, while "progressive", well, I have problems defining that term in any useful way. So if questions about terminology yields these kinds of exchanges, I'm normally inclined to stay away because good old fashioned antagonism is probably at play, not an attempt to persuade or argue. That said, debates about terminology reminds me of when Reason (a libertarian magazine) did an opinion survey in 2014 of millennials (https://reason.com/assets/db/2014-millennials-report.pdf); turns out that group generally didn't know what "socialism" meant, but had a favorable view of it until a concrete definition was supplied:

Millennials May Not Know What Socialism Means

Millennials appear to be more favorable toward socialism than a government-managed economy, even though the latter is arguably less interventionist. This raises the question: Do millennials know what socialism means?

Perhaps not. A 2010 CBS/New York Times survey found that when Americans were asked to use their own words to define the word “socialism” millennials were the least able to do so. Accord to the survey, only 16 percent of millennials could define socialism as government ownership, or some variation thereof, compared to 30 percent of Americans over 30 (and 57% of tea partiers, incidentally).36
This may explain why socialism garners greater support than a government-managed economy. Interestingly, millennial support for a government-managed economy (32%) mirrors national favorability toward the word “socialism” (31%).37 Millennial preferences may not be so different from older generations once terms are defined. Indeed, millennials’ preferred economic system becomes more pronounced when it is described precisely. Language about capitalism and socialism is vague, and using these terms assumes knowledge that millennials may not have acquired yet. Moreover, these words may have taken on different meaning in the minds of most millennials, especially for a cohort who didn’t grow up during the Cold War and came of political age during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. For instance, capitalism may imply government favoritism instead of a free market, and socialism may imply protecting the vulnerable.


Pages: 1 ... 184 185 [186] 187 188