Perhaps disgruntled workers like those in Los Angeles in 1992 who had a short lived uprising until the army marched in?
That wasn't an "uprising". It was a riot instigated by opportunistic criminals, who pretended to be outraged about the non-guilty verdict in favor of the LA police officers that were videotaped while arresting Rodney King.
As I noted in a subsequent reply, I wouldn't have dignified the issue with a vote at all. I would have been out of there the moment it was brought up for discussion. The originator of the plan (Scott Camil) says that it was never seriously considered. But, other members said that it was put to a vote at a meeting that had been moved to another location precisely because they found the government had bugged their original meeting place.
I applaud Kerry's vote against the plan and his subsequent resignation from the organization. But, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask if he reported it to the appropriate law enforcement organization.
It should also be noted that Kerry continued to represent the VVAW in public after he resigned from the leadership of the organization.
Expecting our country's leaders to lead, WTF was I thinking? Jesus.. your the dumbest fuck I ever met.
There is very little that a US President (or any other elected official) can do to steer the economy in any particular direction. And when they manage to do so, the lag time is so long that it usually gets credited to (or blamed on) the next administration.
Being grown up, unlike you, is the very reason why I have these job related concerns. Feeding a family takes money, something I won't have too much of if my job doesn't exist.
Then you should spend your spare time developing your skills so that you can either keep your job or find another job quickly, rather than expecting someone else to protect you.
Take your anti-political views and stick them up your uneducated ass.
Who did the reporting? The much-debunked, lying Swiftboat Veterans for (un)Truth?
No, it is actually members of the VVAW. And, after initially claiming that he resigned before the meeting and being contradicted by FBI reports (who were already investigating the VVAW), Kerry's office issued this non-response:
"If there are valid FBI surveillance reports from credible sources that place some of those disagreements in Kansas City, we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war."
I know that many people want to ask Bush these kind of hard questions, and I think that's fair (I'd like to hear the answers, too). But, you have to be willing to pose the same kind of hard questions to Kerry, or you are just being a hypocrite.
It's real simple: Kerry apparently knew about this assassination plot. In all fairness, he reportedly resigned in disgust immediately after the failed vote. But, one should ask if he reported it to the FBI. As a former officer in the US military, he should have known his obligations.
Had I been presented with the same kind of situation, I would have denounced the plan, submitted my resignation and walked out of the meeting before any vote was conducted. And I would have ran -- not walked -- to the nearest phone and called the police (this was before mobile phones were common).
If Kerry didn't do that, he doesn't deserve to hold any elected office, much less the the chief executive office of the US Government.
Politically, I'm independent. I think that both of the major candidates don't deserve to be President. But, I'm appalled at the blatant political activism on this forum: postings about problems with Bush's character get modded up. Postings about problems with Kerry's character get modded down.
If you have a contrary point of view: express it. But, don't be a coward and hide behind negative moderation points to suppress viewpoints that you don't want to hear, or don't want others to hear.
I think that's a fair question. But, a similar question should be posted to Senator Kerry.
In particular, someone should ask this question:
Senator Kerry, several witnesses place you at a VVAW meeting in Kansas City in 1971, where you reportedly voted against a plan to assassinate US Senators. To your credit, you reportedly resigned immediately thereafter. Did you report the plot to the appropriate law enforcement authorities? If not, why not?
Without detracting from your other points, I can answer this question:
This gun was accepted outside of his state of residency so there are multiple potential felony offenses here if he accepted the gift and took it home to Massachusetts.
As a sidenote, after the spying failed when it was busted, the Republicans resorted to the unprecedented, and grossly wrong trick of appointing the judges during a Senate recess, unopposed.
Keep in mind that the Media Research Center is a conservative organization, so they have their own axe to grind. But, this should give you enough references that you can find the data for yourself and decide if their spin is justified.
When this film was first broadcast, the network superimposed the word "dramatization" on the bottom of the screen every few minutes and ran disclaimers after every commercial break, to remind people it was only a movie. That didn't stop some people in Charleston, S.C. from panicking anyway.
The trivia entry doesn't go into specifics, but I remember the movie (it was a bit overly dramatic in places, but actually wasn't a bad movie), and subsequently reading that local law enforcement got at least a few calls.
Going back to the case with guns, if that store owner had caught the burglar red handed entering the store and shot him (let's say killed) would he still have been found guilty? or is that justifiable homicide? If it's the latter then I think there is a double standard here.
It's not really a double standard -- it's two different standards for two different situations. The distinction is whether an innocent party is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
In every state, justifiable use of deadly force except by law enforcement is an act of last resort -- i.e. when you have no other options (including a reasonable opportunity to retreat). It is limited to situations where you are defending yourself or a third party from imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
In most states, the act of illegal entry is considered a threat of serious bodily injury or death. Many of those states explicitly exempt the defender from a requirement to retreat if possible, if the illegal entry was into a habitation.
At least one state does have a legal justification for use of deadly force in protection of property under limited circumstances. But, that same state explicitly prohibits "trap" devices designed to injure/kill an intruder.
MoveOn.org was created during the Clinton administration by a couple of married computer professionals. Its original purpose was to organize a petition to skip the impeachment of the President so the country could 'move on' to more important issues.
MoveOn.org originally claimed to be bipartisan. You can see it yourself in their FAQ at the time:
It has since grown, taken on new goals, and attracted the attention of various notable liberals, including George Soros (who donated a sizable chunk of money to them).
In other words, MoveOn.org demonstrated they weren't bipartisan at all. I sometimes wonder how many of their original "members" are kicking themselves for falling for it.
During a meeting in Kansas City in mid November 1971, a proposal to assassinate several senators was put forth according to Randy Barnes, current head of Missouri Veterans for Kerry. Scott Camil a radical key leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War proposed the assassination of the most conservative members of Congress, as well as any other powerful opponents of the antiwar movement.
According to interviews with VVAW members who were present at the Kansas City meeting, Camil organized something he called "The Phoenix Project." The original Phoenix Project during the Vietnam War was an attempt to destroy the Viet Cong leadership by targeted assassination. Mr. Camil's Phoenix Project planned to execute the Southern senatorial leadership that was backing the war including John Tower, Strom Thurmond, and John Stennis. The assignations were to be executed during the Senate Christmas recess.
The plan was voted down, although the closeness of the vote is debated. Although John Kerry claims he had resigned from the organization prior to the Kansas City meeting, one account indicates Kerry was present for the vote, voted against it, and simultaneously resigned from the organization in disgust.
And if you follow the links from the article you quoted:
Yup, some plot Kerry was involved in. I agree though, this election is spending too much time on events that happened decades ago and not enough on the hear and now.
Kerry is has insisted on making his Vietnam service a centerpiece of his campaign. So, he shouldn't be surprised if that and his other activities during that period come under closer scrutiny. Of course, Bush has plenty of skeletons in his closet as well. But, if one insists on making character the deciding issue in this campaign, I think Kerry is on the losing side.
However, I think the attacks on "character" are a smokescreen for both sides to divert attention from the political issues. I wouldn't vote for either one of them, based on their record as politicians. And I suspect that a lot of people would make a similar choice, if they weren't distracted by the political entertainment that masquerades as "news".
Bush has disappointed a lot of his core political supporters, and the Democrats have once again fallen for the fantasy of Camelot and have nominated another Massachusetts liberal for President (that worked well against the elder Bush). If there were a "None of the Above" choice that was truly binding and forced a new election with new candidates, I think it would win.
There has also been huge amounts of evidence that the sift boat vets for thruth have direct ties to the Bush campaign (a violation of campaign finance law if true).
The same can be said for MoveOn and Kerry's campaign
Personally, I think the Swift Boat controversy is a non-issue. What people should really be asking Kerry is what really happened in Kansas City in 1971, as he has been changing his story whenever confronted with a contradicting account.
If there was even a hint that Bush has been involved in a conspiracy to murder US Senators, the mainstream media would be dogging him until he resigned. Even if Kerry did indeed resign in disgust after the plan was voted down, one has to wonder why a man who now wants to be President didn't immediately report the plot to the FBI.
Campaign volunteers for the Democratic Presidential campaign were discovered distributing cigarettes to homeless voters after the volunteers had recruited the homeless specifically for their vote Saturday.
In all fairness, the Gore campaign responded:
"This kind of activity described by Channel 12 is not the kind of help we ask for and it's the kind of help we flat-out reject. These volunteers were from out of state, acting on their own and this was not part of any official Democratic 'get out the vote' activity in Wisconsin. They have left the state and we will not invite them to return," wrote Susan Lagana, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Coordinated Campaign.
You can imagine the little chipmunks and squirrels bounding about on top of the roof.
I don't have to imagine it. A squirrel runs across my roof almost every morning and makes enough noise to wake me up, especially when he/she slips and tumbles down into my yard.
My backyard is a heavily wooded "greenbelt". The squirrels frequently use my house as a thoroughfare (jumping from fence to roof to fence) because it's apparently easier than jumping from tree to tree.
I didn't notice any exterior pictures of the Monolithic Dome Institute. I've driven by it many times (on I-35E between Waxahachie and Hillsboro, south of Dallas). I've always thought that is looked more like a low-rent trailer park than any kind of upscale community.
If a third party was able to capture say 15% of the popular vote it would send a message to the other parties that maybe they need to modify their actions to appeal to those voters if they plan to keep their job next go around.
This is exactly what happened in the 1992 election. Perot got enough votes to wake up the major political parties, and they finally got serious about balancing the budget (for a little while).
The subsequent Republican majority in the US House of Representative after the 1994 elections was largely a result of modifications to the Republican platform to appeal to those that voted for Perot in 1992.
Which brings me to the second observation: no litter. There was, seriously, no litter. Even in my extraordinarily beleaguered state I was taken aback at how spotless everything was as the crowd dispersed following the landings.
I've never been to the annual Experimental Aircraft Association fly-in to Oshkosh, WI (in August), but this is one of its distinctive features: the grounds are spotless.
Articles written by attendees almost always include this observation, and I've read several that reported seeing litter discarded by a thoughtless visitor scooped up and deposited in the trash by another visitor only a few steps behind the offender.
I've noticed the same phenomena at the Albuquerque Balloon Festival, once you get away from the concession stands.
Maybe it's has something to do with the kind of people that are aviation fanatics.
You can't use your cell phone on an airplane in flight. They always tell you it's "Federal Regulations". Nope. It's neither the FAA nor the FCC. It's the airline.
Actually, it's all three.
The FCC says that you can't use cell-phones on a plane, because it can potentially cause havoc with cell-phone systems that expect you to be on the ground. However, it's not the airline's responsibility to enforce these rules.
The FAA says that use of any electronic devices on an airplane must not interfere with the avionics critical for safe operation of the airplane. But, there is no blanket prohibition of cell-phones.
However, it is the aircraft operator's responsibility to determine whether a specific or class of electronic devices interfere with the aircraft's avionics. I don't have the exact words in front of me, but it's effectively: "you must be sure that it doesn't interfere. If it does interfere and there is a subsequent problem, it's your responsibility".
As a result, the airlines take the safe route and prohibit all devices that transmit RF. Of course, there are still those devices that emit RF in normal operation without intentionally transmitting (i.e. inadequate shielding), but the airlines generally allow those except when manuevering close to the ground (takeoff and landing).
That's not relevant. The FCC has stated that landlords are unable to forbid the use of these devices by residents. This effectively trumps anything that goes in your lease.
I would agree with you, except that UTD doesn't appear to be enforcing under a lease agreement. They are threatening "disciplinary action", presumably under the agreement between the student and UTD (i.e. code of conduct).
Since the student is residing on UTD property (even though the buildings themselves are owned by someone else leasing the land from UTD), they would be within the scope of university rules governing student conduct on university property.
Will the FCC see it that way? I don't know. But, their rulings don't address the relationship between a student and a university. This particular issue is similar to a student disrupting a class by carrying on a conversation across the room, except the conversation is in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
That wasn't an "uprising". It was a riot instigated by opportunistic criminals, who pretended to be outraged about the non-guilty verdict in favor of the LA police officers that were videotaped while arresting Rodney King.
http://www.citivu.com/ktla/sc-ch1.html
Covering one eye would destroy the pilot's depth perception.
As I noted in a subsequent reply, I wouldn't have dignified the issue with a vote at all. I would have been out of there the moment it was brought up for discussion. The originator of the plan (Scott Camil) says that it was never seriously considered. But, other members said that it was put to a vote at a meeting that had been moved to another location precisely because they found the government had bugged their original meeting place.
I applaud Kerry's vote against the plan and his subsequent resignation from the organization. But, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask if he reported it to the appropriate law enforcement organization.
It should also be noted that Kerry continued to represent the VVAW in public after he resigned from the leadership of the organization.
There is very little that a US President (or any other elected official) can do to steer the economy in any particular direction. And when they manage to do so, the lag time is so long that it usually gets credited to (or blamed on) the next administration.
Being grown up, unlike you, is the very reason why I have these job related concerns. Feeding a family takes money, something I won't have too much of if my job doesn't exist.
Then you should spend your spare time developing your skills so that you can either keep your job or find another job quickly, rather than expecting someone else to protect you.
Take your anti-political views and stick them up your uneducated ass.
That's a very grown-up thing to post.
No, it is actually members of the VVAW. And, after initially claiming that he resigned before the meeting and being contradicted by FBI reports (who were already investigating the VVAW), Kerry's office issued this non-response:
"If there are valid FBI surveillance reports from credible sources that place some of those disagreements in Kansas City, we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war."
I know that many people want to ask Bush these kind of hard questions, and I think that's fair (I'd like to hear the answers, too). But, you have to be willing to pose the same kind of hard questions to Kerry, or you are just being a hypocrite.
It's real simple: Kerry apparently knew about this assassination plot. In all fairness, he reportedly resigned in disgust immediately after the failed vote. But, one should ask if he reported it to the FBI. As a former officer in the US military, he should have known his obligations.
Had I been presented with the same kind of situation, I would have denounced the plan, submitted my resignation and walked out of the meeting before any vote was conducted. And I would have ran -- not walked -- to the nearest phone and called the police (this was before mobile phones were common).
If Kerry didn't do that, he doesn't deserve to hold any elected office, much less the the chief executive office of the US Government.
Politically, I'm independent. I think that both of the major candidates don't deserve to be President. But, I'm appalled at the blatant political activism on this forum: postings about problems with Bush's character get modded up. Postings about problems with Kerry's character get modded down.
If you have a contrary point of view: express it. But, don't be a coward and hide behind negative moderation points to suppress viewpoints that you don't want to hear, or don't want others to hear.
And you shouldn't believe the promises of a politician.
What you should do is grow up and take responsibility for yourself.
In particular, someone should ask this question:
Senator Kerry, several witnesses place you at a VVAW meeting in Kansas City in 1971, where you reportedly voted against a plan to assassinate US Senators. To your credit, you reportedly resigned immediately thereafter. Did you report the plot to the appropriate law enforcement authorities? If not, why not?
This gun was accepted outside of his state of residency so there are multiple potential felony offenses here if he accepted the gift and took it home to Massachusetts.
http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004092329/
Why is your job security the responsibility of the President?
For that matter, why do you think your job security is anyone's responsibility but your own?
Dubious..... yes.
Unprecedented.... no.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31 112.pdf
In the future, do your homework before making such charges.
There have been a number of different surveys that support his point, although not in the exact terms he stated:
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#how
Keep in mind that the Media Research Center is a conservative organization, so they have their own axe to grind. But, this should give you enough references that you can find the data for yourself and decide if their spin is justified.
20 years ago, in 1983, there was Special Bulletin
From the trivia page:
When this film was first broadcast, the network superimposed the word "dramatization" on the bottom of the screen every few minutes and ran disclaimers after every commercial break, to remind people it was only a movie. That didn't stop some people in Charleston, S.C. from panicking anyway.
The trivia entry doesn't go into specifics, but I remember the movie (it was a bit overly dramatic in places, but actually wasn't a bad movie), and subsequently reading that local law enforcement got at least a few calls.
It's not really a double standard -- it's two different standards for two different situations. The distinction is whether an innocent party is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
In every state, justifiable use of deadly force except by law enforcement is an act of last resort -- i.e. when you have no other options (including a reasonable opportunity to retreat). It is limited to situations where you are defending yourself or a third party from imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
In most states, the act of illegal entry is considered a threat of serious bodily injury or death. Many of those states explicitly exempt the defender from a requirement to retreat if possible, if the illegal entry was into a habitation.
At least one state does have a legal justification for use of deadly force in protection of property under limited circumstances. But, that same state explicitly prohibits "trap" devices designed to injure/kill an intruder.
MoveOn.org originally claimed to be bipartisan. You can see it yourself in their FAQ at the time:
What was Censure And Move On?
Censure and Move On was a bipartisan group of concerned citizens organizing around a single cause: reaching closure on the Clinton scandal.
It has since grown, taken on new goals, and attracted the attention of various notable liberals, including George Soros (who donated a sizable chunk of money to them).
In other words, MoveOn.org demonstrated they weren't bipartisan at all. I sometimes wonder how many of their original "members" are kicking themselves for falling for it.
Or moderate your posting as "flamebait" because you can't dispute the point.
I think you should read the rest of the other article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Agai nst_the_War
During a meeting in Kansas City in mid November 1971, a proposal to assassinate several senators was put forth according to Randy Barnes, current head of Missouri Veterans for Kerry. Scott Camil a radical key leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War proposed the assassination of the most conservative members of Congress, as well as any other powerful opponents of the antiwar movement.
According to interviews with VVAW members who were present at the Kansas City meeting, Camil organized something he called "The Phoenix Project." The original Phoenix Project during the Vietnam War was an attempt to destroy the Viet Cong leadership by targeted assassination. Mr. Camil's Phoenix Project planned to execute the Southern senatorial leadership that was backing the war including John Tower, Strom Thurmond, and John Stennis. The assignations were to be executed during the Senate Christmas recess.
The plan was voted down, although the closeness of the vote is debated. Although John Kerry claims he had resigned from the organization prior to the Kansas City meeting, one account indicates Kerry was present for the vote, voted against it, and simultaneously resigned from the organization in disgust.
And if you follow the links from the article you quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_VVAW_contr oversy
You'll find the source of that particular account:
There, according to six eyewitnesses interviewed by the Sun, the plan was discussed and voted down, with Mr. Kerry speaking out against it, although there is disagreement about how narrow the margin of defeat was. On the third day of the meeting, Mr. Kerry and three other people resigned from their posts as national coordinators of VVAW.
Yup, some plot Kerry was involved in. I agree though, this election is spending too much time on events that happened decades ago and not enough on the hear and now.
Kerry is has insisted on making his Vietnam service a centerpiece of his campaign. So, he shouldn't be surprised if that and his other activities during that period come under closer scrutiny. Of course, Bush has plenty of skeletons in his closet as well. But, if one insists on making character the deciding issue in this campaign, I think Kerry is on the losing side.
However, I think the attacks on "character" are a smokescreen for both sides to divert attention from the political issues. I wouldn't vote for either one of them, based on their record as politicians. And I suspect that a lot of people would make a similar choice, if they weren't distracted by the political entertainment that masquerades as "news".
Bush has disappointed a lot of his core political supporters, and the Democrats have once again fallen for the fantasy of Camelot and have nominated another Massachusetts liberal for President (that worked well against the elder Bush). If there were a "None of the Above" choice that was truly binding and forced a new election with new candidates, I think it would win.
The same can be said for MoveOn and Kerry's campaign Personally, I think the Swift Boat controversy is a non-issue. What people should really be asking Kerry is what really happened in Kansas City in 1971, as he has been changing his story whenever confronted with a contradicting account.
If there was even a hint that Bush has been involved in a conspiracy to murder US Senators, the mainstream media would be dogging him until he resigned. Even if Kerry did indeed resign in disgust after the plan was voted down, one has to wonder why a man who now wants to be President didn't immediately report the plot to the FBI.
You can buy votes for a lot less than $50:
Cigarettes Distributed For Gore Vote
From the article:
Campaign volunteers for the Democratic Presidential campaign were discovered distributing cigarettes to homeless voters after the volunteers had recruited the homeless specifically for their vote Saturday.
In all fairness, the Gore campaign responded:
"This kind of activity described by Channel 12 is not the kind of help we ask for and it's the kind of help we flat-out reject. These volunteers were from out of state, acting on their own and this was not part of any official Democratic 'get out the vote' activity in Wisconsin. They have left the state and we will not invite them to return," wrote Susan Lagana, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Coordinated Campaign.
I don't have to imagine it. A squirrel runs across my roof almost every morning and makes enough noise to wake me up, especially when he/she slips and tumbles down into my yard.
My backyard is a heavily wooded "greenbelt". The squirrels frequently use my house as a thoroughfare (jumping from fence to roof to fence) because it's apparently easier than jumping from tree to tree.
I didn't notice any exterior pictures of the Monolithic Dome Institute. I've driven by it many times (on I-35E between Waxahachie and Hillsboro, south of Dallas). I've always thought that is looked more like a low-rent trailer park than any kind of upscale community.
Note that there is one home for sale at the site:
http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/italy-spec /index.html
The original listing is dated 1/30/2004. It promises "We will have exterior photos soon". Nine months later, there are still none.
This is exactly what happened in the 1992 election. Perot got enough votes to wake up the major political parties, and they finally got serious about balancing the budget (for a little while).
The subsequent Republican majority in the US House of Representative after the 1994 elections was largely a result of modifications to the Republican platform to appeal to those that voted for Perot in 1992.
I've never been to the annual Experimental Aircraft Association fly-in to Oshkosh, WI (in August), but this is one of its distinctive features: the grounds are spotless.
Articles written by attendees almost always include this observation, and I've read several that reported seeing litter discarded by a thoughtless visitor scooped up and deposited in the trash by another visitor only a few steps behind the offender.
I've noticed the same phenomena at the Albuquerque Balloon Festival, once you get away from the concession stands.
Maybe it's has something to do with the kind of people that are aviation fanatics.
The apartments were built and are managed by a private company. But, they do so under a long term lease from UTD.
That gives UTD the right to dictate the terms of the lease and even who is allowed to rent the apartment (UTD students get priority).
A few people that live in those apartments have already posted about out-of-the-ordinary rules for living in the on-campus housing.
Actually, it's all three.
The FCC says that you can't use cell-phones on a plane, because it can potentially cause havoc with cell-phone systems that expect you to be on the ground. However, it's not the airline's responsibility to enforce these rules.
The FAA says that use of any electronic devices on an airplane must not interfere with the avionics critical for safe operation of the airplane. But, there is no blanket prohibition of cell-phones.
However, it is the aircraft operator's responsibility to determine whether a specific or class of electronic devices interfere with the aircraft's avionics. I don't have the exact words in front of me, but it's effectively: "you must be sure that it doesn't interfere. If it does interfere and there is a subsequent problem, it's your responsibility".
As a result, the airlines take the safe route and prohibit all devices that transmit RF. Of course, there are still those devices that emit RF in normal operation without intentionally transmitting (i.e. inadequate shielding), but the airlines generally allow those except when manuevering close to the ground (takeoff and landing).
I would agree with you, except that UTD doesn't appear to be enforcing under a lease agreement. They are threatening "disciplinary action", presumably under the agreement between the student and UTD (i.e. code of conduct).
Since the student is residing on UTD property (even though the buildings themselves are owned by someone else leasing the land from UTD), they would be within the scope of university rules governing student conduct on university property.
Will the FCC see it that way? I don't know. But, their rulings don't address the relationship between a student and a university. This particular issue is similar to a student disrupting a class by carrying on a conversation across the room, except the conversation is in the electromagnetic spectrum.