A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.
Well, we know this had no basis in law and fact. Now about frivolous:
A lawyer's conduct is "frivolous" for purposes of this Rule if:
(1) the lawyer knowingly advances a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
(2) the conduct has no reasonable purpose other than to delay or prolong the resolution of litigation, in violation of Rule 3.2, or serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another
Either the lawyer knowinly advanced an unwarranted claim in order to injure another (prevent a researcher from doing his work) or he's completely incompetent.
Yeah, I think at least an official reprimand is in order.
The Chinese shot them, drove over them with tanks. The Democrat KKK killed civil rights activists with impunity under the tacit approval of local governments, even having victims handed to them by the police (who were often KKK themselves anyway). Khadaffi used snipers and helicopter gunships to kill dozens of people in just one protest. The protesters in Syria know full well their protesting is very likely to be deadly, with thousands dead so far.
An OWS protester has no real fear for his life in comparison to them.
I mean permanently injured. But the officers who did it are being investigated. There will be trials, lawsuits, etc.
But the Chinese protesters knew they'd be killed without repriasal to those who did it. If not killed, they'd disappear into the prison system to be shot or waste away the rest of their lives, no recourse for them or their families. The blacks knew there were organizations out to kill them, and many died. They knew no cops who beat them on marches and protests would be charged with anything. They could be attacked with impunity.
There really are Americans publicly saying that they should just roll over these protesters with tanks and shoot all the dirty hippies without any fear.
It's not like leftists didn't shoot up the Holocaust Museum or fly their planes into IRS buildings (the media tried to portray Stack as Tea Party, but he left behind a leftist manifesto).
Individual kooks do things like that. I'm talking about the organized ones, like the Democrat KKK during the civil rights movement, and the goverment.
1. Gather lots of damaging information on the target
2. Release part of it, wait for your target to play its hand, establishing its explanations in public
3. Release more of the information that contradicts the established explanations
4. Repeat if possible
The old 60 Minutes format just aired once, allowing for the possibility of the damage control spin to stick in the public's mind after the airing. But this method, made famous by James O'Keefe in his ACORN videos, gives a chance to expose the spin itself as a lie, making the target look even worse.
The blacks and Tank Man couldn't be sure the government wouldn't kill them on purpose. They faced down the very real threat of death for participating in their movements.
For the OWS movement, any deaths caused by the government will be accidental.
Back in 1999 a congressional staffer sneaked four words into the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 that made all the work of their recording artists subject to work for hire rules, meaning the labels would get the copyright. The bill passed and was signed into law.
After the ensuing uproar by the artists when this was discovered, the head of the RIAA tried to play "Oh my, how did this happen? We'll work to fix this."
They of course hired that staffer as their senior VP of lobbying, and he's still there today, and is probably behind SOPA. This guy had been behind the DMCA, the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, and many others. But this move, sneaking it in without notice or comment, was so bad the RIAA had to pull its mole out.
The valid argument was there, you just don't want to listen.
Higher taxation is no solution as long as the spending is uncontrolled. Historically, higher revenues (through whatever source) will only result in higher spending. It will leave us with the same crushing debt we have, only with more of a burden on the tax base.
I do not trust this government, Republicans or Democrats, with one penny of higher revenue through tax increases until they can prove they have the ability to actually lower spending. I don't mean "smaller increase than planned means lowering," I mean we spent $X this year, and next year we'll spend $X-$Y, not even adjusted for inflation.
FYI, we could confiscate the combined total wealth of the Fortune 400 and pay this year's deficit with a bit left over. Okay, what do we do next year? Take the next 400? That won't come close to covering the deficit if we continue spending at these levels.
It's only being bad at math if a person expects to win.
Playing for the hell of it or for the thrill of watching the drawing with money on the line is just fine. You paid your money for this form of entertainment just as you would have paid for any other.
Let's see if this made it through your leftist class warfare filter:
Bailing is the increase of taxation, which is only necessary because expenditures are more than income. Plugging the hole is lowering expenditures to an amount that current taxation can cover. Putting water in with the bailing bucket would be lowering taxes, which right now the Republicans are not proposing.
The Democrats would like to tax more and more and more, as much as they can popularly get away with, and by playing the class warfare game they think they can get away with taking it all from the upper incomes. Once that is pushed as far as it can go, they will go down and down, taxing everybody more and more. Obama's promise of no tax increase at $250,000 has already been lowered to $200,000, and expect it to go lower (it already has, but with regressive taxes not based on income, so this promise was broken).
Now you do have the Clinton "surplus" method by which you fill a bucket with water and dump it right back into the boat, and make people think you actually tossed the water overboard.
They do NOT desire to slow spending by any effective amount, definitely do not desire to make it less than current tax revenues. In fact, if they do increase taxes, you can bet spending will be raised to consume the extra income.
To continue the metaphor, offering to put a piece of Scotch tape across the gaping hole in the boat in exchange for much faster bailing is not really sincere bargaining.
He showed the military holes in their systems and procedures:
Don't just throw files out there even if they are on SIPR. Use normal directory and share security to keep things in your section unless you intend to share them.
Lock out CD burning and USB drive mounting.
If a soldier looks unstable, consider pulling his access. If he's going to be kicked out, it should be SOP to pull his access before you even tell him.
To disobey what he thinks is an unlawful order, it had better be blatantly unlawful on its face. One such order could be "Burn these thousands of classified documents onto a CD and give them to a foreign leak-publishing site." That is blatantly unlawful, and a soldier could probably get away with refusing to do it.
I knew a female military prison guard who was ordered to leave the female prisoners under her watch and report somewhere, and the male guard ordering her was to take over watch of the prisoners. Having female prisoners guarded solely by a male guard was explicitly against the written rules, so she refused to leave her post until relieved by a female guard. Even in such a clear-cut case she was in a heap of trouble until it went to the top and she was cleared.
So "I don't believe in the general mission here" is not going to cover a soldier's ass for disobeying orders.
Get an email with a classified sentence in it, forward it with your long unclassified comments, forget to label your specific comments as unclassified, ta-da, over-classification.
Individual paragraphs are supposed to be labeled by their classification, and individual pages are supposed to be labeled with the highest-classified paragraph, and documents labeled with the highest-classified page. But this isn't always done because people are lazy, or maybe their training wasn't good enough. Now when there's a FOIA request the person working it can't simply look at the classification indicators and allow the paragraph to be released, it has to be declassified. That can take much time and effort, and it's safer just to consider it classified.
Basically, well-meaning people err on the side of caution.
Oh, it may not be in this year's budget in order to get the votes for budget balancing, but next year any money raised from higher taxes will be more than blown with increased spending. The politicians cannot help themselves, it's a compulsion.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we know this had no basis in law and fact. Now about frivolous:
Either the lawyer knowinly advanced an unwarranted claim in order to injure another (prevent a researcher from doing his work) or he's completely incompetent.
Yeah, I think at least an official reprimand is in order.
Welfare is the new plantation. Keep them dependent.
That was the Democratic party platform. The Republican party was founded on abolishing slavery.
No intent to kill.
The Chinese shot them, drove over them with tanks. The Democrat KKK killed civil rights activists with impunity under the tacit approval of local governments, even having victims handed to them by the police (who were often KKK themselves anyway). Khadaffi used snipers and helicopter gunships to kill dozens of people in just one protest. The protesters in Syria know full well their protesting is very likely to be deadly, with thousands dead so far.
An OWS protester has no real fear for his life in comparison to them.
I mean permanently injured. But the officers who did it are being investigated. There will be trials, lawsuits, etc.
But the Chinese protesters knew they'd be killed without repriasal to those who did it. If not killed, they'd disappear into the prison system to be shot or waste away the rest of their lives, no recourse for them or their families. The blacks knew there were organizations out to kill them, and many died. They knew no cops who beat them on marches and protests would be charged with anything. They could be attacked with impunity.
It's not like leftists didn't shoot up the Holocaust Museum or fly their planes into IRS buildings (the media tried to portray Stack as Tea Party, but he left behind a leftist manifesto).
Individual kooks do things like that. I'm talking about the organized ones, like the Democrat KKK during the civil rights movement, and the goverment.
1. Gather lots of damaging information on the target
2. Release part of it, wait for your target to play its hand, establishing its explanations in public
3. Release more of the information that contradicts the established explanations
4. Repeat if possible
The old 60 Minutes format just aired once, allowing for the possibility of the damage control spin to stick in the public's mind after the airing. But this method, made famous by James O'Keefe in his ACORN videos, gives a chance to expose the spin itself as a lie, making the target look even worse.
The blacks and Tank Man couldn't be sure the government wouldn't kill them on purpose. They faced down the very real threat of death for participating in their movements.
For the OWS movement, any deaths caused by the government will be accidental.
Back in 1999 a congressional staffer sneaked four words into the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 that made all the work of their recording artists subject to work for hire rules, meaning the labels would get the copyright. The bill passed and was signed into law.
After the ensuing uproar by the artists when this was discovered, the head of the RIAA tried to play "Oh my, how did this happen? We'll work to fix this."
They of course hired that staffer as their senior VP of lobbying, and he's still there today, and is probably behind SOPA. This guy had been behind the DMCA, the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, and many others. But this move, sneaking it in without notice or comment, was so bad the RIAA had to pull its mole out.
What was that CmdrTaco quote? Oh yeah, "Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down."
Attaching a flamethrower to your car to combat carjackings is considered to be a reasonable idea.
Laws written by the MAFIAA are traditionally a Democrat thing, although members of both parties do suck up to them.
There's a reason why you see Howard Berman (D-Disney).
Over here Obama is still blaming the disastrous results of his administration on Bush.
The valid argument was there, you just don't want to listen.
Higher taxation is no solution as long as the spending is uncontrolled. Historically, higher revenues (through whatever source) will only result in higher spending. It will leave us with the same crushing debt we have, only with more of a burden on the tax base.
I do not trust this government, Republicans or Democrats, with one penny of higher revenue through tax increases until they can prove they have the ability to actually lower spending. I don't mean "smaller increase than planned means lowering," I mean we spent $X this year, and next year we'll spend $X-$Y, not even adjusted for inflation.
FYI, we could confiscate the combined total wealth of the Fortune 400 and pay this year's deficit with a bit left over. Okay, what do we do next year? Take the next 400? That won't come close to covering the deficit if we continue spending at these levels.
Of course you did. No reason to let anything threaten your programmed worldview. Now run along and be a good sheeple.
It's only being bad at math if a person expects to win.
Playing for the hell of it or for the thrill of watching the drawing with money on the line is just fine. You paid your money for this form of entertainment just as you would have paid for any other.
Let's see if this made it through your leftist class warfare filter:
Bailing is the increase of taxation, which is only necessary because expenditures are more than income. Plugging the hole is lowering expenditures to an amount that current taxation can cover. Putting water in with the bailing bucket would be lowering taxes, which right now the Republicans are not proposing.
The Democrats would like to tax more and more and more, as much as they can popularly get away with, and by playing the class warfare game they think they can get away with taking it all from the upper incomes. Once that is pushed as far as it can go, they will go down and down, taxing everybody more and more. Obama's promise of no tax increase at $250,000 has already been lowered to $200,000, and expect it to go lower (it already has, but with regressive taxes not based on income, so this promise was broken).
Now you do have the Clinton "surplus" method by which you fill a bucket with water and dump it right back into the boat, and make people think you actually tossed the water overboard.
They do NOT desire to slow spending by any effective amount, definitely do not desire to make it less than current tax revenues. In fact, if they do increase taxes, you can bet spending will be raised to consume the extra income.
To continue the metaphor, offering to put a piece of Scotch tape across the gaping hole in the boat in exchange for much faster bailing is not really sincere bargaining.
He showed the military holes in their systems and procedures:
Don't just throw files out there even if they are on SIPR. Use normal directory and share security to keep things in your section unless you intend to share them.
Lock out CD burning and USB drive mounting.
If a soldier looks unstable, consider pulling his access. If he's going to be kicked out, it should be SOP to pull his access before you even tell him.
Do you keep bailing water faster and faster, or do you just plug the hole?
"Any rational person" knows you plug the hole, because you can't just keep bailing forever. The Democrats refused to plug the hole.
To WikiLeaks. That is why he's in so much legal trouble.
To disobey what he thinks is an unlawful order, it had better be blatantly unlawful on its face. One such order could be "Burn these thousands of classified documents onto a CD and give them to a foreign leak-publishing site." That is blatantly unlawful, and a soldier could probably get away with refusing to do it.
I knew a female military prison guard who was ordered to leave the female prisoners under her watch and report somewhere, and the male guard ordering her was to take over watch of the prisoners. Having female prisoners guarded solely by a male guard was explicitly against the written rules, so she refused to leave her post until relieved by a female guard. Even in such a clear-cut case she was in a heap of trouble until it went to the top and she was cleared.
So "I don't believe in the general mission here" is not going to cover a soldier's ass for disobeying orders.
Get an email with a classified sentence in it, forward it with your long unclassified comments, forget to label your specific comments as unclassified, ta-da, over-classification.
Individual paragraphs are supposed to be labeled by their classification, and individual pages are supposed to be labeled with the highest-classified paragraph, and documents labeled with the highest-classified page. But this isn't always done because people are lazy, or maybe their training wasn't good enough. Now when there's a FOIA request the person working it can't simply look at the classification indicators and allow the paragraph to be released, it has to be declassified. That can take much time and effort, and it's safer just to consider it classified.
Basically, well-meaning people err on the side of caution.
Increase spending.
Oh, it may not be in this year's budget in order to get the votes for budget balancing, but next year any money raised from higher taxes will be more than blown with increased spending. The politicians cannot help themselves, it's a compulsion.
Where have you been?
Immunity is always part of our SOFA demands in a hot zone.
That any negotiations were strained by the release of the information is an interpretation of this CNN reporter, not a plain fact.