No, you didn't. The fact that a reporter was arrested trying to enter an OWS campsite does not preclude the possibility that many non-reporters were also arrested trying to enter the same OWS campsite on the same day, or even simultaneously.
Since the question is "did the police arrest some reporters at a time when they weren't arresting occupiers too?" this leaves us with the fact that you didnt answer the fucking question.
So what you are saying is that arresting the press at a gathering on public land is not a freedom of the press issue?
This idea that any infringement upon the right of way of the press is a freedom of the press issue is simply wrong.
I believe that it is only a freedom of the press issue if the press was specifically targeted for arrest. Its certainly wrong when the police target people specifically for the act of recording video of what the police are doing in public, and I'm sure you've seen youtube videos of this happening, and its even more wrong when its a member of the press.
The press do not have carte-blanch to go anywhere they please at any time. If everyone is being removed from an area for reason X, then that includes the press. If reason X is not valid, then thats the real issue.. not that a member of the press happened to be one of the people removed.
I agree that it probably shouldnt normally be that big a deal, but I disagree with the conclusion that if its not normally a big deal then that its supposed to be taboo to report about it.
In this case its one of the key factors of the case, as its allegedly an honor killing. From the linked article:
"Though the Crown doesn't ever have to prove motive and these jurors don’t have to decide whether this was an "honour" crime, it was just that, she said -- a mass honour slaying driven by tribal values born in the family’s native Afghanistan."
If FOX was the only American news outlet to report on this allegation, then bully for them, and fuck all the others that are too politically correct to report the news.
This is due to the fact that since they're footing the bill and are already in debt, they don't want to have to spend more on healthcare than they need to -- because unlike other budgets, it's hard to kick back some of the healthcare budget into perks for government employees without a huge backlash from the electorate.
Yes, but we are talking about America where half the nation thinks its fine when the guys they voted for (because they told them what they wanted to hear) literally borrow trillions per year, and do not "backlash" when it is found that the money just went to the corporations that supported the guys they voted for.
They think that they are "entitled" to shit so cant for the life of them figure out what can be cut enough to balance the budget, let alone pay for their new spending idea.
I didn't. I dont think anyone I ever voted for has actually made it into office.
They said that if I voted for John McCain that the administration would give trillions of dollars to corporations and special interests.
They were right. I did vote for John McCain and the administration did give trillions of dollars to corporations and special interests. Damn you Democrats for being right!
There are no liberal democrats, only democrats slightly less conservative than the average republican.
This idea that Obama administration is conservative stems from the fact that it isnt very liberal, but if you are actually paying attention you see that its more fascist than anything.. certainly not conservative by any real measure other than that "not liberal" canard.
Its funny that the current executive branch is liberal.. yet you are going on about conservatives in a story dealing with the expanding powers of the executive branch.
The DNC is corrupt the likes of which this country has never seen in its history.
Whenever I point this out with citations, I get modded down here. The problem is that while the Democrats are screwing people, they already have their lie machines busy blaming it on the Republicans.
Health care reform: "We wanted to give you what we promised, but because of those damn Republicans we had to force through something that fucks you in the ass instead." And then when pointing out that literally none of the Republicans voted for it, so the Democrats could have passed that thing they claimed they wanted to pass, they say "see, the Republicans are obstructionists!"
The lie doesnt even have to make logical sense, as you can see.
The latest thing is the NDAA: "The President signed this act reluctantly because it allows the indefinite detention of American citizens. Dont pay attention to the fact that it was the white house that insisted that language exempting American citizens be removed, threatening to veto it if it were not."
They are the great satan, the father of lies. No way the Republicans would get away with such audacious bullshit.
The solution is not no government (Somalia is staw man) nor is the solution more government, solution is SMALL TIERED government. You want to have a handful of people closely accountable to electorate so we all no their names, each fairly direct, clear, and knowable responsibilities.
So exactly the libertarian stance.
Now tell us who made you believe the libertarians are not for exactly this.. was it the Republicans you love, or the Democrats you love? Either way, we know it was someone you love because you accepted a lie without question.
The gyre appears to indicate that the ice is becoming thin enough over the Arctic Ocean that the wind is beginning to affect the motion of water under the ice.
I'm quite certain that not only has this not happened before, its not happening now. The summary must not state what the article states, because wind is not magical stuff that teleports through ice in order to transfer its momentum to water underneath it.
While I don't think going back to the gold standard is a good idea (there was a reason for going off it for international commerce), something needs to peg our fiat currency back down to reality
Who told you that it was for international commerce? Thats complete bullshit.
The reason we dropped the silver and gold standards was because these standards put hard limits on government deficit spending, preventing debt from being issued willy-nilly like it is today.
The typical person doesnt even believe me when I tell them these things.
They think of a store as a service, rather than a trading opportunity. These are the same people that don't believe that participating in trade is most-often win-win, and maybe when they do it it isn't.
And in any case, even if it only works for half a decade, that's a huge savings for them, and ~12% of the employees' working lifetime.
False dichotomy. You have presented the argument that there arent any other employers besides those in the agreement, when the fact is that all of the jobs Google, Apple, and the others in this alleged agreement command are still just a minority of all the jobs in the tech sector. The industry *adds* more jobs each year than are in this coalition.
When the coalition is employing ten millions people, come back and talk. That wont actually happen, of course, so you are going to have to find some other dichotomy to latch onto.
they're against anything that would actually give the union clout.
What gave unions clout before 1935?
Most of them think it's perfectly fine for an employer to summarily execute
There is a lot of violence in the past, but you are just claiming that free market supporters are in favor of it because you apparently dont like free market supporters so much that you are willing to shamefully claim heinous things about them without any support at all.
You seem to have this idea that even though you cant defend your beliefs, someone else must be able to and that that gives you the moral authority to make things up in order to mount the defense that you just can't believe is missing from the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
I did answer it
No, you didn't. The fact that a reporter was arrested trying to enter an OWS campsite does not preclude the possibility that many non-reporters were also arrested trying to enter the same OWS campsite on the same day, or even simultaneously.
Since the question is "did the police arrest some reporters at a time when they weren't arresting occupiers too?" this leaves us with the fact that you didnt answer the fucking question.
What is so suspicious about using port 82?
Because its not 80. Why isnt this alleged news site (that is either down or is slashdotted right now) not using the standard http port?
there have been numerous instances where journalists have been arrested while attempting to enter an OWS campsite or protest area.
Why quote the question and then not answer it?
So what you are saying is that arresting the press at a gathering on public land is not a freedom of the press issue?
This idea that any infringement upon the right of way of the press is a freedom of the press issue is simply wrong.
I believe that it is only a freedom of the press issue if the press was specifically targeted for arrest. Its certainly wrong when the police target people specifically for the act of recording video of what the police are doing in public, and I'm sure you've seen youtube videos of this happening, and its even more wrong when its a member of the press.
The press do not have carte-blanch to go anywhere they please at any time. If everyone is being removed from an area for reason X, then that includes the press. If reason X is not valid, then thats the real issue.. not that a member of the press happened to be one of the people removed.
Why is it a big deal that he is Muslim?
I agree that it probably shouldnt normally be that big a deal, but I disagree with the conclusion that if its not normally a big deal then that its supposed to be taboo to report about it.
In this case its one of the key factors of the case, as its allegedly an honor killing. From the linked article:
"Though the Crown doesn't ever have to prove motive and these jurors don’t have to decide whether this was an "honour" crime, it was just that, she said -- a mass honour slaying driven by tribal values born in the family’s native Afghanistan."
If FOX was the only American news outlet to report on this allegation, then bully for them, and fuck all the others that are too politically correct to report the news.
This is due to the fact that since they're footing the bill and are already in debt, they don't want to have to spend more on healthcare than they need to -- because unlike other budgets, it's hard to kick back some of the healthcare budget into perks for government employees without a huge backlash from the electorate.
Yes, but we are talking about America where half the nation thinks its fine when the guys they voted for (because they told them what they wanted to hear) literally borrow trillions per year, and do not "backlash" when it is found that the money just went to the corporations that supported the guys they voted for.
They think that they are "entitled" to shit so cant for the life of them figure out what can be cut enough to balance the budget, let alone pay for their new spending idea.
Hitler was a progressive, the exact opposite of a conservative.
I think it's a joke that you call your current office 'liberal'.
The fact that our liberal party is run by fascists doesnt change the fact that they are our liberals. We dont have a party that is more liberal.
I didn't. I dont think anyone I ever voted for has actually made it into office.
They said that if I voted for John McCain that the administration would give trillions of dollars to corporations and special interests.
They were right. I did vote for John McCain and the administration did give trillions of dollars to corporations and special interests. Damn you Democrats for being right!
There are no liberal democrats, only democrats slightly less conservative than the average republican.
This idea that Obama administration is conservative stems from the fact that it isnt very liberal, but if you are actually paying attention you see that its more fascist than anything.. certainly not conservative by any real measure other than that "not liberal" canard.
Oh I get it.. when the anonymous coward ranted about "conservatives" he meant the American liberals instead of the American conservatives...
Gotcha. Battered?
Its funny that the current executive branch is liberal.. yet you are going on about conservatives in a story dealing with the expanding powers of the executive branch.
Battered liberal syndrome?
I probably had one at the time but it has been very long couple of days at work.
The sad part is that next week you will forget about how bad the Democrats actually are, because they will again tell you what you want to hear.
Battered liberal syndrome.
The DNC is corrupt the likes of which this country has never seen in its history.
Whenever I point this out with citations, I get modded down here. The problem is that while the Democrats are screwing people, they already have their lie machines busy blaming it on the Republicans.
Health care reform: "We wanted to give you what we promised, but because of those damn Republicans we had to force through something that fucks you in the ass instead." And then when pointing out that literally none of the Republicans voted for it, so the Democrats could have passed that thing they claimed they wanted to pass, they say "see, the Republicans are obstructionists!"
The lie doesnt even have to make logical sense, as you can see.
The latest thing is the NDAA: "The President signed this act reluctantly because it allows the indefinite detention of American citizens. Dont pay attention to the fact that it was the white house that insisted that language exempting American citizens be removed, threatening to veto it if it were not."
They are the great satan, the father of lies. No way the Republicans would get away with such audacious bullshit.
The solution is not no government (Somalia is staw man) nor is the solution more government, solution is SMALL TIERED government. You want to have a handful of people closely accountable to electorate so we all no their names, each fairly direct, clear, and knowable responsibilities.
So exactly the libertarian stance.
Now tell us who made you believe the libertarians are not for exactly this.. was it the Republicans you love, or the Democrats you love? Either way, we know it was someone you love because you accepted a lie without question.
Two wrongs make a right then?
The gyre appears to indicate that the ice is becoming thin enough over the Arctic Ocean that the wind is beginning to affect the motion of water under the ice.
I'm quite certain that not only has this not happened before, its not happening now. The summary must not state what the article states, because wind is not magical stuff that teleports through ice in order to transfer its momentum to water underneath it.
Please try to tell me getting your balls groped in public is not an erosion of our rights with a straight face.
Not being groped is like yelling fire in a crowded security theater!
Anti-trust laws don't apply to you solely because you are a majority. It requires you are a monopoly.
No, thats the exact opposite of the anti-trust laws. It doesnt even require a majority share of the market to be applied to you.
Now stop talking when you don't know what you are talking about.
While I don't think going back to the gold standard is a good idea (there was a reason for going off it for international commerce), something needs to peg our fiat currency back down to reality
Who told you that it was for international commerce? Thats complete bullshit.
The reason we dropped the silver and gold standards was because these standards put hard limits on government deficit spending, preventing debt from being issued willy-nilly like it is today.
The typical person doesnt even believe me when I tell them these things.
They think of a store as a service, rather than a trading opportunity. These are the same people that don't believe that participating in trade is most-often win-win, and maybe when they do it it isn't.
The only way we're going to be able to support 9+ billion people on this planet is if we keep things running pretty much the way it is now.
Do you have a citation for 'now' being optimal, or are you just making declarations that sound good?
And in any case, even if it only works for half a decade, that's a huge savings for them, and ~12% of the employees' working lifetime.
False dichotomy. You have presented the argument that there arent any other employers besides those in the agreement, when the fact is that all of the jobs Google, Apple, and the others in this alleged agreement command are still just a minority of all the jobs in the tech sector. The industry *adds* more jobs each year than are in this coalition.
When the coalition is employing ten millions people, come back and talk. That wont actually happen, of course, so you are going to have to find some other dichotomy to latch onto.
they're against anything that would actually give the union clout.
What gave unions clout before 1935?
Most of them think it's perfectly fine for an employer to summarily execute
There is a lot of violence in the past, but you are just claiming that free market supporters are in favor of it because you apparently dont like free market supporters so much that you are willing to shamefully claim heinous things about them without any support at all.
You seem to have this idea that even though you cant defend your beliefs, someone else must be able to and that that gives you the moral authority to make things up in order to mount the defense that you just can't believe is missing from the discussion.
Didn't the Patriot Act from the Bush administration?
Acts are from Congress.
In this case, the vote in the House went:
Republicans: 211 in favor, 3 opposed.
Democrats: 145 in favor, 62 opposed.
Independents: 1 in favor, 1 opposed.
House Total: 357 in favor, 66 opposed.
And in the senate, the vote went 98 in favor, 1 opposed. I dont need to mention parties here, do I?
The Democrats as a whole look a little bit better in the same way that a 2 ounce shit sandwich is a little better than a 3 ounce shit sandwich.