RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,204
I match my rhetoric to my audience, babby killer.
I match my rhetoric to my audience, babby killer.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,204
Governor Christie disagrees with Vetteman? He must be a Commie! Or a Hippie!
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 28,178
The coverage conflicts with the article.
Peace, or some restless shambling live-flesh-eating semblance of life, be upon him.
TexasWife25
Porn Buddy
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Posts
- 6,951
Did you watch the video?
Lord_Steve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Posts
- 1,128
My Mind Has Really Been Changed By This Breaking News From http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/ The Obviously Unbiased News Source
M
miles
Guest
Is it true T-Bob was busted for creating a female alt?
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,204
Not at all Shitstein Ben Zonah. Even your buddy Vetty couldn't muster up enough courage to vote for your version of events.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Slob has a Marine phobia.It came from watching his mom pull a train of Marines. All he got was the corn.
M
miles
Guest
Does that mean his daddy was the 2nd Platoon?
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
and 3rd, 4th.....etc. etc...
M
miles
Guest
Oooorah!
U
unregistered
Guest
Lord_Steve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Posts
- 1,128
He tried propositioning one in a bar and wound up on the wrong end of the old Marine Corps follow through, he's been hatin' on us ever since.
hey! hey you!
know why the navy keeps marines on ships?
do you?
because sheep would be too obvious
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,204
He tried propositioning one in a bar and wound up on the wrong end of the old Marine Corps follow through, he's been hatin' on us ever since.
Yep, Marine AJ is a self-proclaimed "recovering" homosexual, Marine Vetteman and Marine Miles both cybered a dude, so that makes RobDownSouth gay.
Gotta admit, your logical fallacies lately have matched those of AJ himself.
Lord_Steve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Posts
- 1,128
i've got a feeling we are going to be friends.
M
miles
Guest
Uhhh....dude....T-Bob is generally considered to be...ummm....not very well thought of around here. In other words he's a repugnant slimeball.
Friend away.
M
miles
Guest
Judge a man by his friends...
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,204
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
I pretty much go with Eugene Volokh who writes for my frequently go-to legal blog. His take is here:
http://volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/#respond
The audio recording of the judge's comments is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE&feature=related
His so-called scolding is not as scathing as has been portrayed. One can make a reasonable argument that his description of how the religion of Islam is integrated with Islamic society is along the lines of merely informing the plaintiff as to why the defendant found his portrayal so offensive. It is also clear that the judge was not applying Sharia law to the case at hand.
Two problems present themselves, however. The first is that the judge did himself no favor by revealing his own Muslim faith. It is not relevant to the law he was empaneled to arbitrate. All he did was make himself appear to be (as he very well may have been) a biased rather than an objective jurist. While not technically in a position of a conflict of interest, there was no specific legal obligation to recuse himself. But if the facts of the case made it unable for him to have rendered an objective judgment, then recusement was the way he should have gone. Only he knows for certain.
But his biggest mistake was to so grossly misinterpret the framer's intent behind the First Amendment as well as describing the plaintiff as being "way outside the bounds" of his First Amendment rights. Horse shit! Last year's Supreme Court decision in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church gave us a clear picture of the bounds of inflammatory speech, and those boundaries appear somewhere just over the horizon.
I side with the arresting officer in this case who testified that the elements of the local harassment law in question had been violated. The judge, however, ruled that the case was one of one person's word against another and that the burden of proof had not been satisfied.
I think he is full of crap, but he acted within Pennsylvania law. Barely.
http://volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/#respond
The audio recording of the judge's comments is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE&feature=related
His so-called scolding is not as scathing as has been portrayed. One can make a reasonable argument that his description of how the religion of Islam is integrated with Islamic society is along the lines of merely informing the plaintiff as to why the defendant found his portrayal so offensive. It is also clear that the judge was not applying Sharia law to the case at hand.
Two problems present themselves, however. The first is that the judge did himself no favor by revealing his own Muslim faith. It is not relevant to the law he was empaneled to arbitrate. All he did was make himself appear to be (as he very well may have been) a biased rather than an objective jurist. While not technically in a position of a conflict of interest, there was no specific legal obligation to recuse himself. But if the facts of the case made it unable for him to have rendered an objective judgment, then recusement was the way he should have gone. Only he knows for certain.
But his biggest mistake was to so grossly misinterpret the framer's intent behind the First Amendment as well as describing the plaintiff as being "way outside the bounds" of his First Amendment rights. Horse shit! Last year's Supreme Court decision in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church gave us a clear picture of the bounds of inflammatory speech, and those boundaries appear somewhere just over the horizon.
I side with the arresting officer in this case who testified that the elements of the local harassment law in question had been violated. The judge, however, ruled that the case was one of one person's word against another and that the burden of proof had not been satisfied.
I think he is full of crap, but he acted within Pennsylvania law. Barely.
