Bio not provided
Other than Ms. Knox's age, I couldn't find one factually correct statement in the entire article. It is simply outrageous. Some of the responses make me wonder if the authors live on the same planet. What in the world has happened to this magazine?
1 month ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120903/dukes-belle-knox-catholic-upbringing-made-me-libertarian-activist
@AlanX PS.. I think that Galston may have a very good defense. The fact remains that it was a prima facie threat but it may also well be protected speech.
1 month, 1 week ago on Is Facebook 'threat' in Crystal Lake cop case protected speech?
@AlanX @Liberty1 I see, so the fact that the police broke into the wrong house with no warrant and no announcement means that the lack of prosecution was racially motivated. You are really a piece of work.
@AlanX You neglected to mention that Horton had no idea it was the police and even the state police agree that he didn't. He was released because it was considered by the police to be a case of self-defense. The cop that was shot was the police chief. Do you seriously think a black police chief let this guy walk because he was white?
It would have been so easy for the jurors to just say, "No way, I'm not putting myself and my family at risk and garnering the hatred of the community, I'm voting to indict and going home a hero!" but they didn't. They could have just thrown it into the lap of the courts and let a regular jury sort it out, making it someone else's problem, grand juries do it every day, but they didn't. That takes a lot of guts. For their sake I hope their names never leak and they can enjoy the rest of their lives knowing that when the pressure was on, they did their duty and called it as they saw it.
3 months ago on Ferguson jurors faced safety fears, lots of work
@On The Bright Side First of all, I am supporting the grand jury not because I am right wing, I am FAR from it, but because I despise lynch mobs. Next, I read that article and it is simply O'Donnell's take on one small part of the 7000+ pages of testimony the jury waded through. He is picking at nits. Nowhere in the questions is it suggested by the jury that they thought Wilson was not in danger. The revised law says almost the same thing as the original with the exception of being more specific.
Those who are out to hang Wilson and invalidate the deliberations of 9 jurors who spent agonizing months coming to their decision will never change their minds. "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty! Hand him over to us, Sheriff. We know what to do with him." I have nothing more to add. The facts speak for themselves (the actual facts, not crazed suppositions based on nothing but anger). I'm out of this. You folks all have fun with your witch hunt.
3 months ago on Grand jury focused on key fatal Ferguson ‘tussle’
@On The Bright Side Again, you haven't looked at any of the evidence while I have. It is not a question of IF. Forensics show that Brown was demonstrably well inside the car, contrary to the story of his companion, Johnson, who lied. That Wilson was struck several times is also not in question. That there was a struggle for the gun is also not in question as that is where the first shots were fired and Brown struck in the hand. If you want a blow by blow description and which way faces were turned, etc. you are dealing in irrelevant trivia.
Your second paragraph is the same, given the hard facts of the case. Again, Wilson was reaching for his gun as there was a battle for it. Mace is no good when your opponent has taken your service weapon. It may also have been impossible to get to the mace as neither you nor I know the position of Wilson and Brown nor what the relative position of the canister was.
As far as prepping him for his appearance, did they also prep the other 69 witnesses and all of the medical examiners? Did they fake the forensics and all the video and audio tapes? Are you prepared to claim that despite this being the most transparent grand jury in history it is all one big plot and only those with no information, such as yourself, know the truth? The mind boggles.
I am no cop and have had my own run-ins with jerks with badges, but rather than join the lynch mob I have actually been reading some of the transcripts before posting a comment. The grand jury heard 60 witnesses, 3 medical examiners, heard all of the police tapes, and reviewed over 7000 pages of testimony before reaching their decision. You just found the loudest mob and joined it.
You say Wilson was coached and lied. Please present your evidence. You say ham sandwiches can be indicted. Sounds you watch a lot of Law and Order on TV. Do you really think all grand juries return "No Bill"? I don't side with Wilson, I side with the evidence and the jury that spent months going over it.
The tapes were released weeks before the Grand Jury announcement. Brown was NOT down when the final shot was fired. Witnesses attest to that. The transcripts are available on line. Please read them.
He pulled his gun while being beaten in his car. That is where the first shot was fired.
Strange, the testimony of Johnson, the man standing right next to Brown was that they were walking in the very middle of the street and Wilson did pull up and tell them to move. Was Brown's partner lying again? For your last comment, see my previous reply.
@AlanX 6 white 3 black.
@AlanX American Justice! Find a kook that agrees with a verdict and use that fact to demonize the system. If the kook likes it it must be wrong. The fact that 9 sane people found it otherwise is meaningless.
@UFCreel Try this experiment. Sit in your car and have a 6'3" 300 pound man lean through your window punching at you. Now add a little excitement by adding a firearm which you are fighting over. Next, in the middle of the struggle for the weapon try to reach around and pull your mace out of a holder. Let me know how it goes. That is why Brown got shot in the car. Also, Grand Juries often "No Bill" a case but certainly not as often as they indict. They also don't publicly announce such a findings, but they did this time. The never publish the transcripts, either. This was one of the most transparent Grand Juries in history. Had they indicted there would have been a "Not Guilty" verdict at trial as there was no "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" that this was a criminal act. After hearing the evidence there wasn't enough to even bring a charge.
@UFCreel He did not have a club. He couldn't have used it in close combat in any case. He did not have a taser either. He only had his service weapon and a can of mace. The mace was not within reach during the struggle at the car. He called for backup at the same time he realized that the two people he has just told to move out of the center of the road might be the two suspects in the convenience store strong-arm theft. That occurred just before the confrontation.
@On The Bright Side You may have missed that in both the news reports and the transcripts. Go back and check. As far as putting his car in reverse, he was under attack. You can't drive when you are defending yourself. Wilson never shot Brown in the head when he was down. Witnesses refuted that. It is also in the transcripts. Next, he never fired while chasing Brown but only when Brown turned and came back at him. Witnesses as well as forensics confirm that as well.
@On The Bright Side Wilson called for backup before confronting Brown. It was en route. After the attack began he had no choice but to pull his weapon. He was in his car and being struck by a man who was much larger. It is easy to be brave and second guess from an armchair in Illinois.
@AlanX We also know that isn't true. Brown was never hit from behind. All those statements were retracted after the forensics were put into evidence. No more such claims were ever made.
@AlanX We know that isn't true. Browns DNA was found inside the car. Browns blood was also inside the car. Brown was also shot in the hand, not in the side when at the car.
@AlanX First, if you believe they said "not but a minute away from our destination, and we would shortly be out of the street," I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Johnson is lying. He says that Wilson's car pulled away and Brown never said a word, the car then suddenly stops and is jammed into reverse for no reason at all. He then pulls alongside Brown and Johnson and without a word tries to pull Brown into the car through the window by his collar. Are you kidding me? And all this time there was no provocation. Wilson just changes his mind while driving away and then returns with wheels smoking and tries to pull a much larger man through the window. According to Johnson, Brown is 6'3" and 300lbs. Johnson says that at no time was Brown ever in the car but we know that is a lie. He is NOT the witness you want to rely on for an honest narrative.
@AlanX He was being attacked by a much larger man. I think I would feel the same under the circumstances. How are you supposed to feel when attacked, overpowered and facing possible death by your own weapon. The shooting started inside the patrol car.
@On The Bright Side First, Wilson called for backup before confronting Brown. It was en route. Secondly, it is standard procedure to confront an individual with backup en route as long as the situation appears safe. Lastly, the comments about Brown reflected Wilson's feeling AFTER he was assaulted, not at the time of the confrontation.
@AlanX @Liberty1 @Mindful53 @feeedbak1 And I'm sorry as well. I thought that Mindful's comment was directed at me. We'll have to clean up the list or names prior to the comment.
@Mindful53 @feeedbak1 @Liberty1 @AlanX Why debate the facts when you can just call someone a name?
@AlanX @Liberty1 Yes, the night of the indictment. The next day they called in a much larger contingent after the rioting became more violent than was expected.
@AlanX @Liberty1 They called out surrounding jurisdictions and the National Guard. What kind of presence do you want? Further, it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. Heavy police presence and you get hammered for excessive force, lower police presence and you get charged with aiding the rioters. And if you don't think the mob would have lynched Wilson were they able to get there hands on him, you live in a different reality. Since they couldn't, they turn to terrorism. Charge him with murder or we burn the town down. They are making good on the threat.
@AlanX @Liberty1 I didn't realize that guilt or innocence was dependent on the time of a grand jury announcement. If I had to go out or had kids coming home from school I would be thankful that the announcement was held until everyone was safe at home. The lynch mob started burning and looting almost immediately after the announcement was made. The fact remains that after all the testimony and physical evidence was presented, the jury could not find cause to indict.
@AlanX @Liberty1 Ah, sorry I didn't realize that you were an attorney and were present at the hearings. Now if you can just get the press to quit publishing the transcripts, we can all put this behind us.
@AlanX Yep, 60 witnesses, 3 medical examiners, 70 hours of testimony over months of hearings. Sounds like he didn't try at all.
First a quick note. I am unalterably opposed to the militarization of the police that has been going on these last few years. It has got to stop. This case is not about that, however. This is about a criminal vs a cop.
A number of things are not in contention. Brown was a punk kid who liked to intimidate shop keepers and steal whatever he liked. When stopped by Wilson he reached into the car, punched Wilson at least twice and was shot once inside the car before backing off. When he fled Wilson went in pursuit, as he is supposed to. At that point stories diverge but Brown was NOT shot while fleeing, that is known. All the wounds were to the front. A number of residents, as the story says, confirm Wilson's story that Brown was charging him and specifically contradict the kids on the street that say otherwise.
This is definitely a tragedy but to try and turn Brown into an innocent victim is a travesty. The rage against Wilson is that of a lynch mob who will burn a city if they don't get their way. A man is innocent until the evidence proves him guilty. In this case 9 people couldn't find enough evidence to even bring a charge. The howling mob is right about one thing. Justice in this country is dying.
@AlanX @Xtut Which proves Xtut's case. Voters and politicians are economically clueless. This action will have several results. First, currently marginal workers will be completely locked out of the labor market. Next, job growth will take a serious hit as personnel costs are the biggest expense for most businesses. Further, companies thinking of entering Illinois will take a second look for that reason. Next, many workers that get kept on at the higher wage will see net income drop as aid payments are reduced more than the increase in salary. Finally, some marginal businesses may just close up.
If you could actually just mandate a wage, why not make it $50/hr? If the value of labor is decided by committee, make it anything you like! The answer is that even the economically illiterate know that the idea just makes no sense if you think about it. The trick for politicians is, how far can you distort the labor market before it snaps back and hits you in the face.
3 months, 1 week ago on Senate panel advances plan for $11 minimum wage
The GOP, as far as I know, has never favored a minimum wage and for good reason. There are only three possible results: increased unemployment, higher prices or a crippled business. OK, there is a fourth, all of the above.
I know of no Republican that is against birth control. There may be a few somewhere but I've not met them.
You are almost correct about reproductive rights. Evangelical Christian politicians do oppose it but that cuts through both parties.
Social Security is a financial disaster. It is the formal definition of a Ponzi scheme. It has blown through all of its income and is now eating into the imaginary "Lockbox". That is the name given to all the loans it made to Congress to offset the budget deficit. Now that the money is needed either taxes have to go up, the deficit has to expand or both.
Medicare is in even worse shape. Spending there is so far over income that it is not likely that there is any fix and no one will talk about it. Both programs need to be seriously overhauled and then wound down..
I don't know of any Republicans against labor laws, per se. I do hear them hollering about those laws that one-sidely cripple businesses and reduce job opportunities as well they should. Democrats too, if they care about jobs.
Your last comment is disgusting, racist and beneath contempt.
By the way, I am NOT a Republican and don't support them. I just can't deal with willful ignorance and deceit.
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Reick an extremist
@COT @feeedbak1 As in "Never vote your conscience if your candidate can't win. Just vote for the candidate, no matter how objectionable, that can win." Winning trumps platform.
5 months, 1 week ago on Libertarian could help tip Illinois governor race
@MiniBus Here is another version. The Japanese, up to the 1920s were a British ally with the British guaranteeing Japan's security. It was at US behest that Britain broke off the alliance and left Japan alone in the world. That led to the rise of the Japanese military machine, something not needed prior. Had the US not fancied itself a world player after WWI that most likely would not have happened and the Pacific war would have been avoided.
Germany had fought to a stalemate on both fronts in WWI. That is just a fact. She did get her eastern peace in March of 1918 but it was too late. Even though the eastern fighting had stopped in late 1917, the German western offensive never came close to achieving any of its goals. The defeat of France and England absent US intervention was a pipe dream. As for Central and Eastern Europe, how is a vicious anti-semitic communist dictatorship armed with nuclear weapons any better than the Kaiser and his cohorts?
The subject is very complex with lots of twists and turns.
7 months, 2 weeks ago on If Only The U.S. Had Stayed Out Of WWI
@AlanX It's the patriots that are complaining. You might have noticed that in Kevin's comments.
7 months, 2 weeks ago on Craver: Tanks, but no tanks, on police militarization
I agree with all points, for the most part, but don't understand why you think that the Leninist rising in Petrograd in November 1917 would have been avoided. The Czar fell in March of 1917 and the U.S. didn't even declare war until April. Lenin had been in Russia since April, 1917, long before US troops started arriving in France. By the time US troops arrived in numbers the revolution was in full swing. Our actions seem to not have been any factor in the revolution or its outcome.
7 months, 3 weeks ago on If Only The U.S. Had Stayed Out Of WWI
@mjackiw So if the SCOTUS follows the historical letter of the Constitution (please see the opinion and all quoted historical documents) they are a bought and paid for subsidiary of Koch Industries. And they say conservatives are conspiracy minded!
8 months ago on McHenry Co. gun-rights advocate answers Target CEO’s request
@mjackiw That minority decision was also held to be historically wrong, contra to precedent, and didn't even make sense when looking at the English language as it was used during the time the Articles were drafted. Please note that a very large amount of space was used to demolish the arguments by quoting both prior court decisions and historical documents. I urge everyone to read the original.
@mjackiw The article I quoted was published by North Dakota State University at http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html. It is not a pro-gun piece, quite the contrary, it shows how civic leaders were advocating for more control. It also plainly shows that such controls had not been enacted as of the mid-1880s. The “Wild West” was a period from approximately 1865 to 1890. When gun controls were enacted, it was already dead and gone.
Your second quote is just silly. How can a majority decision by the SCOTUS go against SCOTUS? That is nonsensical in the normal definition of the term. How, also, can a decision in favor of fewer restrictions by government of an enumerated right be unconstitutional? I also need to ask if you ever READ the majority decision. It doesn’t appear you have.
@mjackiw @Liberty1 Again, you are only reading the parts you like. That's why I posted the link to the entire decision. I have also read widely on the subject and others on this thread can do the same. I am not relying on rhetoric but actual published reports, as I quoted. Had you read the article I quoted, available on the Internet, you would have noticed that the "attire" was being worn in town. If TR was misquoted, please provide the accurate quote. I am quoting from an article by Dr. Ross Collins of North Dakota State University.
@mjackiw First, you have totally neglected the arguments that were used by the majority to refute each and every one of the dissenter's opinions. You also neglect the arguments used by the majority in the final opinion. Nowhere is it "unconstitutional". I would refer everyone to the case itself which can be found at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf.
You also state supposed historical facts without references. Even now almost no one, except police, walk around with guns. In which cities and during what years was possessing a gun in public a crime?
As for your version of the wild west, I think you have been watching too much TV. As late as 1884 the Laramie Northwest Stock Journal reported (negatively) that all the cowboys thought that a sidearm was a necessary part of their attire. President Teddy Roosevelt remembered that during his days in the west that the laws at least prohibited "shooting in the streets". A far cry from the banning of all public carry.
@Habawhat What? No one ever claimed that Target didn't have an absolute right to ban weapons of any type from its stores. No one claimed that the 2nd Amendment trumped everything else in the Constitution. None of the first ten amendments trumps anything except the government's power to abridge those rights. What alternate reality do you live in? Your second statement is just silly, so no comment. As for the rest of your statement, please read the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that reinforced the 2nd Amendment. It goes into great detail about the "1st part of the amendment". No one has ever overlooked that.
Contrary to the popular press reports, the employment numbers were awful. Since the previous report 523,000 full time jobs were lost. All the gains came from an increase in part-time employment. Never, in the history of the records, has it taken so long for full-time employment to exceed the previous post recession peak. We are still not there. If anyone thinks that having over a half a million people lose a full time job for either a part-time job or unemployment is anything to crow about, they either work for the government or would be welcome to a job there with open arms.
8 months ago on Dow tops 17,000 after strong jobs report
@AlanX I hate to break your heart but Barnhill took the anti-socialist side in those debates against the socialist Henry Tichenor. His quote was in strong refutation of the socialist ideal of "..a state regulated organization of national labor into a social labor system, equipped out of collective capital; the state would collect, warehouse and transport all products, and would finally distribute them to individuals in proportion to their registered amount of social labor and according to a valuation of commodities exactly corresponding to their average cost of production." (Quote taken directly from the original). V did indeed paraphrase the idea in direct opposition to British national socialism.
8 months ago on Concealed carry driving handgun sales in McHenry County
The quote most likely was made by John Basil Barnhill in a series of debates in 1914. Jefferson had a great deal to say on the subject of Liberty but he did not say that. Regardless, the point is rather well made.
Unlike those of us who were on the streets in 1968, Washington seemed to be shocked by the 1979 border war between China and Vietnam. Over 50,000 dead Americans and nearly 1 million dead Vietnamese to prevent these two from running into each other's open arms? Seriously? Now we are counting the dead in Iraq (another stunning success) and Afghanistan (about to join the long list of failed policy blunders). In what alternate universe does Washington exist?
9 months, 2 weeks ago on The Chicoms Are Coming! Reflections On The Folly Of The War On Vietnam And Its Progeny
We definitely had it sticking to cars and lawns in the central part of the county. Enough already!
9 months, 2 weeks ago on Snowfall hits McHenry County in May
I see the commentators on the left have once again resorted to character assassination rather than refute the stated premise. Fairly typical, unfortunately.
9 months, 3 weeks ago on Geithner’s memoir blasts Mark Kirk’s comments in China
@famamedia1 You may misunderstand. The majority of users in the cities that are part of the aggregation program get their supply from Direct. With the new contract coming up, those users may now "opt out" and go back to ComEd, otherwise they will continue to get their energy from Direct at the higher rates. It isn't a scare tactic. As you point out, ComEd needs explicit permission to change you back to their service.
9 months, 3 weeks ago on Algonquin, Woodstock, Huntley, Ringwood, Lakewood set new electricity rates