The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

Business getting vandalized.

 

Thats a crime right?

 

So if, a protester did that, they could be arrested and sent to jail, correct? They could be forced to pay restitution, correct? They could be sued in civil court for the damage, correct? And they may even have insurance to protect them from damage, correct?

 

So I count 3 ways that the business owner can be made whole if a crime is committed (same rules that apply to any business at any time).

 

To me it seems that businesses have been able to operate for the last 200+ years in the US, only having the protections described above. And at the end of the day, freedom > money. I can put a price on your damages, hard to put a price on your inability to make your opinion heard.

 

That sure isn't what happened when protestors got arrested for shutting down LSD. The police were the ones who were forced to pay restitution.

[Balta1701]

That sure isn't what happened when protestors got arrested for shutting down LSD. The police were the ones who were forced to pay restitution.

Having large scale protests of any sort in a city is going to be immensely disrupting to the city.

[southsider2k5]

Having large scale protests of any sort in a city is going to be immensely disrupting to the city.

 

The right to swing your fist ends at the beginning of someone else's nose.

[Balta1701]

The right to swing your fist ends at the beginning of someone else's nose.

But the right to assemble in a crowd doesn't necessarily end at the side of the street if the crowd is too big.

[Soxbadger]

You are kind of moving the goal posts here, and (imo) its kind of proving my point.

 

Protesters shut down LSD, is that not peaceable protest? Wasnt the argument that the G8 is different because its going to bring in professional troublemakers?

 

Dealing with protests is not easy, but our country has a strong tradition of standing up for that right. I work in Chicago, the protests would impact my life, yet I still believe they have the right to protest.

[southsider2k5]

But the right to assemble in a crowd doesn't necessarily end at the side of the street if the crowd is too big.

 

And this is the reason I am glad that this violent group isn't going to be in Chicago.

[southsider2k5]

You are kind of moving the goal posts here, and (imo) its kind of proving my point.

 

Protesters shut down LSD, is that not peaceable protest? Wasnt the argument that the G8 is different because its going to bring in professional troublemakers?

 

Dealing with protests is not easy, but our country has a strong tradition of standing up for that right. I work in Chicago, the protests would impact my life, yet I still believe they have the right to protest.

 

They committed a crime, that is my point.

[Soxbadger]

I dont see how that relates to business owners. The City of Chicago Police Department is part of a Municipality and I believe their salaries are paid for by taxes, etc. Quite different than the business owner who was going to experience vandalism.

[southsider2k5]

I dont see how that relates to business owners. The City of Chicago Police Department is part of a Municipality and I believe their salaries are paid for by taxes, etc. Quite different than the business owner who was going to experience vandalism.

 

Shutting down streets isn't a crime?

[Soxbadger]

I guess its jaywalking?

 

That type of crime is not one I believe people should lose their right to assemble over (like littering etc.)

[Balta1701]

I guess its jaywalking?

 

That type of crime is not one I believe people should lose their right to assemble over (like littering etc.)

Then if we want to make it plausible to have people assembling in protest of such an event, it can't happen in a major city without huge disruptions to the city.

 

Hence, Camp David.

[kapkomet]

I guess its jaywalking?

 

That type of crime is not one I believe people should lose their right to assemble over (like littering etc.)

 

 

Assembling peacefully with the proper authorization is fine. Without it, it is a crime.

[Soxbadger]

I dont really agree with those laws.

 

I dont like govt restrictions. In my opinion the less govt the better.

[StrangeSox]

Assembling peacefully with the proper authorization is fine. Without it, it is a crime.

 

This is terrible.

[kapkomet]

This is terrible.

 

 

Why?

 

Follow the law, get the permit, and assemble your ass off. No problem, right?

[Soxbadger]

Why should you need permission from the govt to speak your mind?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[southsideirish71]

Why should you need permission from the govt to speak your mind?

 

So if protestors want to occupy say Lake Shore Drive you are okay with that. How about the east runway at OHare. Or maybe a level 1 trama ER. You realize that people have the right to protest. You just don't have the right to infringe on others and their rights.

[Soxbadger]

Where did I say that at all?

 

There is a large difference between having to get a permit to protest and being allowed to protest anyplace, anytime.

[caulfield12]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

See the Stanley Fish column in the NY Times today...

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...Fish&st=cse

[Jenksismyhero]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Are you being a strict textualist here? Now a fan of Scalia?

 

I'm in agreement with Soxbadger. I think it's weak as s*** that the the governments of the world decided they couldn't face the people so they're hiding out in a compound. I'm confident the CPD and ISP were well prepared for the protests. They've got lots of history and video to look back on. Yes, it's sad that the G8 protestors resort to criminal acts, but that's the price we pay to be an open society.

[southsider2k5]

He probably wants to watch himself a couple of more times...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/03...ntcmp=obnetwork

 

John Edwards asks judge not to destroy sex tape

 

Published March 03, 2012

 

GREENSBORO, N.C. – John Edwards has asked a judge not to destroy a sex tape he made with his former mistress Rielle Hunter that was slated for destruction under a settlement reached last week, WRAL-TV reported.

 

A request filed Friday in US District Court in Greensboro said Edwards "intends to request, by subpoena or other procedure, certain materials covered" by provisions of the injunction.

 

Edwards asked the court to enforce an automatic stay "with respect to any transfer or destruction of items" until the request can be made.

 

Hunter settled a lawsuit last week against former Edwards aide Andrew Young seeking to recover personal items she said Young and his wife took from a house she was renting in 2007 while she was pregnant. They included a video she recorded with Edwards during his 2008 presidential campaign and photographs of him with their daughter, WRAL reported.

 

The Youngs claimed Hunter abandoned the items as trash.

 

Terms of the settlement between Hunter and Young and his wife included destroying the sex tape within 30 days. Other items were set to be returned to Hunter.

 

It was not clear whether Friday's request related to Edwards' upcoming federal corruption trial.

 

Edwards has pleaded not guilty to receiving illegal campaign contributions to cover up his affair with Hunter during his 2008 run for the White House. If convicted on all of the charges, the two-time Democratic presidential candidate faces up to 30 years in prison.

 

His trial is set to begin in April.

[Balta1701]

Senator Lugar (R-IN) who is facing a tough primary challenge has been ruled ineligible to vote for his own re-election.

Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) has just been thrown a curveball in his re-election race: The Marion County (Indianapolis) Election Board has ruled in a party-line 2-1 decision that both he and his wife are no longer eligible to vote where he is currently registered.

 

The Indianapolis Star reports that the decision, with two Democrats voting to disqualify and the Republican voting against, was in fact made at the recommendation of the board’s staff attorney. The attorney’s recommendation found that while Lugar is not disqualified from running for office (that matter was already addressed by the state Election Board, who dismissed a challenge to Lugar’s eligibility — more on that below), he has nevertheless abandoned his residency at the home he sold way back in 1977 but continued to vote from.

 

Unless Lugar were to successfully appeal this decision, then, he would have to establish a new registration at another physical address. He faces a challenge in the Republican primary on May 8 from state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who among other things has attempted to make make political hay of this issue.

[farmteam]

Are you being a strict textualist here? Now a fan of Scalia?

 

Nah if he was becoming a Scalia fan he'd start picking which side he wanted to win and then reasoning towards that end.

[StrangeSox]

Nah if he was becoming a Scalia fan he'd start picking which side he wanted to win and then reasoning towards that end.

Zing!