You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The New York Times, Democrats and the terrorists all working together. . .
- Thread starter TGregg
- Start date
Quote from hapaboy:
Please stop with the flame war, and instead try to discuss this thread in a civil manner.
Agree Hap.
Now whether you like the decisions or not, isn't this what we're really arguing about here -- prior restraints? The reason I say this is assume that the government went after some reporter after the fact in the way AAA suggests -- I'd imagine the judges would be asking whether the government could have stopped the publication beforehand. I pulled this off some fast search:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/priorrestraints.htm
Years have gone by since those old cases. The hard right never was happy about those decisions and the left media may well push something in this internet age. I bet we see all this come up again in some new light. For example, make believe the NSA's deepest darkest secret is they have a computer worm and they've put it in banks in foreign countries -- say Switzerland and the Carib, and the NYT somehow finds out and calls up the NSA, asks for comment, and says they plan to run the story. Does the government try to stop it in the courts? Or do they use some other type of muscle?
Feel free to start a thread titled "All rightwingers are KKK members and David Duke fans" if it so pleases you.Quote from dddooo:
LOL hapa, you've got to be kidding, the thread is accusing the dems of working together with the terrorists... and you want this subject to be discussed in a civil manner. Lets discuss "all rightwingers are KKK members and David Duke fans" in a civil manner instead.
Basically, you are saying that you are unable to discuss controversial subjects in a civil manner. How unfortunate.
You would all do well to remember that Baron and Joe are now moderating Chit Chat.
What I am saying is that this thread has an inflammatory title, then you yourself posted grotesque inflammatory cartoons and later when your arguments were [easily] destroyed by more intelligent members of the forum you all of a sudden are begging to conduct the discussion in a civilized manner. For whatever reason it did not occur to you to ask Tgregg to change the title of this thread and remove the cartoons in the name of civility.Quote from hapaboy:
Basically, you are saying that you are unable to discuss controversial subjects in a civil manner. How unfortunate.
Sometimes your tendencies to whine after you get a good spanking and your petty attempts to weasel out of the mess you yourself create when you post inflammatory nonsense and parrot Malkin/Coulter's rightwing garbage remind me of Wael.
What comments are you referring to that have been "easily destroyed" by "more intelligent members of the forum"?Quote from dddooo:
What I am saying is that this thread has an inflammatory title, then you yourself posted grotesque inflammatory cartoons and later when your arguments were [easily] destroyed by more intelligent members of the forum you all of a sudden are begging to conduct the discussion in a civilized manner. For whatever reason it did not occur to you to ask Tgregg to change the title of this thread and remove the cartoons in the name of civility.
Furthermore, why should I ask TGregg to change the title of this thread? What about posting the cartoons is uncivil?
Please stop flaming and baiting me to respond with ad hominems myself. Try to be an adult in this exchange, please, and discuss this and other controversial subjects in a civil manner.Sometimes your tendencies to whine after you get a good spanking and your petty attempts to weasel out of the mess you yourself create when you post inflammatory nonsense and parrot Malkin/Coulter's rightwing garbage remind me of Wael.
Hapa, it's really simple, when you and your ilk (Tgregg) start a flaming thread calling it "dems and the terrorists working together", when you and your ilk add fuel to the fire by posting equally inflammatory cartoons in that thread, it's too late, too disingenious and too pathetic for you and your ilk to pretend that you don't want a flame war and want a civil conversation. If you don't want a flame war, don't start it, don't accuse the dems of supporting the terrorists, don't accuse the libs of mourning the death of zarqawi (as you did in another thread), don't call opponents of the war in Iraq traitors etc and you'll be surpised how even without your phony appeals the conversations immediately become more civil.Quote from hapaboy:
What comments are you referring to that have been "easily destroyed" by "more intelligent members of the forum"?
Furthermore, why should I ask TGregg to change the title of this thread? What about posting the cartoons is uncivil?
Please stop flaming and baiting me to respond with ad hominems myself. Try to be an adult in this exchange, please, and discuss this and other controversial subjects in a civil manner.
Quote from dddooo:
Hapa, it's really simple, when you and your ilk (Tgregg) start a flaming thread calling it "dems and the terrorists working together", when you and your ilk add fuel to the fire by posting equally inflammatory cartoons in that thread, it's too late, too disingenious and too pathetic for you and your ilk to pretend that you don't want a flame war and want a civil conversation. If you don't want a flame war, don't start it, don't accuse the dems of supporting the terrorists, don't accuse the libs of mourning the death of zarqawi (as you did in another thread), don't call opponents of the war in Iraq traitors etc and you'll be surpised how even without your phony appeals the conversations immediately become more civil.
1) I did not start this thread.
2) You consider the cartoons inflammatory. I consider them accurate. So we disagree. But there is a way to disagree about them civilly.
3) IMO many Dems to support the terrorists via their actions, as do the liberal media. If you don't agree with that, fine. But there is a way to disagree about it civilly.
4) Please direct me to the post where I said the libs are mourning the death of Zarqawi.
5) Please direct me to the post where I call opponents of the war in Iraq traitors.
6) With or without my involvement, threads in Chit Chat are uncivil all the time.
(Points 7, 8, & 9 below refer to my response to comments you made previously that you have yet to address):
7) What comments of mine are you referring to that have been "easily destroyed" by "more intelligent members of the forum"?
8) Why should I ask TGregg to change the title of this thread?
9)What about posting the cartoons is uncivil?
Have a nice evening.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
My understanding is most attorneys advise not to take a breathalyzer at all for those who have been drinking. They prefer that a person be taken in, and given a blood test, hoping that in the time delay that the alcohol level lowers, or that they may employ other arguments at trial.
Actually, it is the opposite. Attorneys prefer that you take the breathalyzer at the precint, because it is easier to question the calibration of the breathalyzer. When you give blood, there is no disputing the fact that you have a blood alcohol content of whatever level. The little breathalyzer they give you when they pull you over only gives them the ability to haul you in. It doesn't get recorded as your actual BAC.
Quote from drmarkan:
Actually, it is the opposite. Attorneys prefer that you take the breathalyzer at the precint, because it is easier to question the calibration of the breathalyzer. When you give blood, there is no disputing the fact that you have a blood alcohol content of whatever level. The little breathalyzer they give you when they pull you over only gives them the ability to haul you in. It doesn't get recorded as your actual BAC.
Sorry to everyone for veering from the topic at hand, just thought people should know.
Hey Perry Fucking Mason,
Not everyone who actually practices law agrees with your expert opinion...
Here is but one
http://www.maasenlaw.com/information/
These tests are not required and are not always accurate which is why we suggest you decline. The results of the test are left to the discretion of the ...
www.maasenlaw.com/information/ - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
and another...
New York DWI Blood Test
In some states, some attorneys caution drivers with histories of drunk driving offenses that they may be better off refusing to take an alcohol test than by ...
www.anellilaw.com/new-york-dwi-blood-test.html
Not everyone who actually practices law agrees with your expert opinion...
Here is but one
http://www.maasenlaw.com/information/
These tests are not required and are not always accurate which is why we suggest you decline. The results of the test are left to the discretion of the ...
www.maasenlaw.com/information/ - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
and another...
New York DWI Blood Test
In some states, some attorneys caution drivers with histories of drunk driving offenses that they may be better off refusing to take an alcohol test than by ...
www.anellilaw.com/new-york-dwi-blood-test.html
Quote from drmarkan:
Sorry to everyone for veering from the topic at hand, just thought people should know.