Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But you seem to be arguing for a position where police can't search for evidence unless they already have enough to convict, which seems a little arse-backwards to me.
Perhaps. But if you go in all guns ablazing like that you'd better be pretty sure you're going to secure a conviction, I would have thought.
-
It's called legal process.
I'm aware of that, and I see the merit in insulating the police and prosecutors from the crime of slander when they happen to get it wrong. But, as I say, it pays to be right. I lived in a country that had anti-terrorism laws (and with plenty more justification, since we had, you know, actual terrorists) and for a lot of people who had done zilch it wasn't a lot of fun.
-
If the police thought that the people were conducting activites that could be considered to be domestic terrorism, it's not a far stretch to put that law down on the warrant.
It pays to be right, though, no?
-
Cool. What do peace activists use them for?
To silence guns. Could somebody explain to me very slowly how seeking evidence against somebody under the Terrorism Suppression Act does not tar that person with the suspicion of being a terrorist?
-
I offer the explanation that the Obama negatives attacking Palin highlights have caused the damage to the Obama campaign.
I'm sorry, I'm new to this fine website. When did Obama attack Palin exactly?
-
He does use the "out of wedlock" phrase occasionally on the stump (discussing abortion rights), but I really can't see where he's bashed Palin with it, anywhere.
And you won't find me claiming he did, anywhere. But when I read that phrase in The Audacity of Hope, I confess thought to myself - boy, is this guy going to run for President or what?! Not the only passage in that book - including the many that deal with his family and his faith - that felt designed to push just the right buttons of conservative readers. Whether or not it points to him being a closet conservative, of course, is another matter, but you could hardly accuse him of choosing his words casually, now, could you?
-
See, I don't agree with that for so many reasons. There are plenty of right minded teens around, but not enough in my view to warrant lowering the voting age.
It strikes me that they can handle weapons of tremendous force, in the form of cars, but not vote.
But then, I don't think kids should be allowed to have sex till they're 18, so what would I know?
Madness! It's what keeps them from all driving into trees.
-
Uh, not that I'm doubting you, but you got a link for that railing?
Okay, perhaps "railing was excessive"... I'll continue my struggle towards a more perfect English. But he does talk about it a lot, that's how he frames the problem - rather than referring to solo parenthood. A search of "out of wedlock" and "audacity of hope" should get you the bit in the book.
-
__Other than suggesting she wasn't Sarah's daughter__
Um, Trig Palin is her youngest son.
Quite, I keep getting the gender mixed up. It must be because trigonometry (which is, I assume, where they got the idea from) is feminine in Italian. :-)
like, as I said at the time, whether Bristol Palin and her redneck Baby Papa would be quite so well received by the Republican base if her mother wasn't who she is. Well, I think that's fair game -- especially when Bristol was outed by her own parents.
Sheesh... the family announced the pregnancy, they were hardly going to send her out on her own in front of all the media in the galaxy. As far as announcing was concerned, they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't, no? But absolutely nobody is denying you your atheism-given right to point out the hipocrisy of the slew of conservative commentators railing against teenage mothers (see Bill O'Reilly vs. Britney's sister, chapter and verse). Or Palin's record in office in that matter - what has she has or hasn't done for young mothers, and for sex-ed. Attack her for what she wants done to other families, that's the way to go.
I do respectfully disagree - as I have before in another thread - that a conservative Christian base would be uniformly against the idea of conception out of wedlock. So long as it is followed by marriage, it's actually okay for Catholics, for instance. But it's a racial thing, too, the template of a teenage mother is a black urban woman and that's not okay for conservatives. However: the one who is actually railing against "conception out of wedlock" (bizarrely worked, and would include all of my children) is Obama, because he wants to outflank Republicans in that particular area.
-
You can't have it both ways.
What I'm trying (badly) to say is that you can, it's a convention of the political presidential genre. Families are useful props and at the same time strictly off-limits. Obama is following that very same script, and wasn't above parading his daughters at the convention. (Does anyone remember that woman in Times Square on CNN after the convention talking about how great it was to see a successful, happy black family on a national stage?)
You bet he'd furious and cry foul if somebody alleged he wasn't the father or stuff like that.