Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 88 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 >  Last ›
   8701. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4304433)
I haven't had a chance to follow the thread today, but has Andy now dropped his B***S*** resistance to the obvious fact that Eric Holder knew about the Petraeus/Broadwell investigation before the election, now that Holder has admitted just that?

Quoting from the USA Today:

8:06PM EST November 15. 2012 - The FBI investigation into former CIA Director David Petraeus' extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell found no apparent threat to national security, so there was no reason to notify President Obama or Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday.

"We conducted that investigation the way we normally conduct criminal investigations," Holder said at a press conference in New Orleans, his first public comments on the matter. "We do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations."

"We made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security," Holder said. "Had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would of course have made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the Hill."

Only after Broadwell was interviewed Nov. 2 was the decision made to alert the White House.

"When we got to that point, where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so," he said.


The problem with Holder's explanation is that they couldn't have known that there was "not a threat to national security" before they finished investigating. So Holder's "We determined that there was not a threat to national security" makes utterly no sense, as it is a conclusion that can only be made after an investigation.

But Andy: Please spare us your typical BS next time, just for once.
   8702. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4304434)
I have a Saiga AK style semi-auto 12 (count me as a lib who likes limited gun ownership). First two rounds are birdshot - they would make you seriously regret coming over uninvited, but not likely to be lethal, then the heavier stuff. Removes some of the threat of going overboard before fully knowing the situation, while permitting immediate response to stimuli.


I don't like to mix ammunition for a home defense weapon. In the unlikely event I ever have to use it, I want every round to feel exactly the same with respect to recoil, noise, muzzle flash, etc. Also shooting somebody with birdshot is lethal force, just like using slugs or buckshot. If you're justified in using lethal force and decide to use it, might as well use it effectively. If you're not justified in using lethal force, you shouldn't be shooting the gun at the guy, period, full stop.
   8703. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4304435)
A lawyer can bargain for you, and can take a plea for you in some cases, with your permission - but a lawyer can't just say "Welp, you're taking this plea for resisting arrest just as soon as my check clears" and then make you do that. "Copping a plea" is a thing defendants do, not lawyers.


Bull. The defendant doesn't do the negotiation. He doesn't have the special knowledge. He's not the one who has the relationship with the prosecutors. The lawyer does and works it out at every juncture; the defendant formally accedes to that. Don't quibble. You know what was meant.
   8704. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4304436)
It's just not as common as you'd like to think.


Its actually more common than I initially thought, before finding the data on the CATO site. I guess we just have wildly divergent opinions of how many constitute "almost routine". The site calls it "an epidemic of isolated incidents".
   8705. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4304441)
Am I terrible for not having a "plan" in the event of a home invasion?

I mean, what is the actual likelihood of a home invasion? And what's the likelihood I would be able to doing anything about it anyway? Do you all keep the guns and ammo at your bedside every night? Do you have to lock them up securely somewhere every day in case the kids nose around?

Do you folks live somewhere where the odds of such a thing are appreciably higher? Or do you have reason to believe you'd be the target of such a thing? (i.e. you have some valuable possessions, like the collected pre-1918 MLB boxscores?)
   8706. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4304442)
If you're justified in using lethal force and decide to use it, might as well use it effectively

And if you are shooting your neighbor who got drunk and fell through your door at 2am coming over to borrow some smokes, he'll live to tell about it. The Saiga goes just as fast as you can pull the trigger - it's quite easy to squeeze 2-3 rounds in under a second. I'd rather err on the side of caution, considering it will cost me very little in time or deterrent value. But that's just the lib in me i guess.

//Do you folks live somewhere where the odds of such a thing are appreciably higher? Or do you have reason to believe you'd be the target of such a thing? (i.e. you have some valuable possessions, like the collected pre-1918 MLB boxscores? - Both.
   8707. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4304445)
So besides grenade launchers and nukes, what other weapons can be banned without selling out second amendment principles?


The 2nd Amendment defends the right to bear *arms.* Armaments. Weaponry. To say that grenade launchers, or even nukes, are arms which can not be held by the common citizenry is to admit, prima facie, that the right to bear arms is restrictable by the state.

If you can't have a grenade launcher, why can you have an automatic assault rifle?

If you can't have an automatic assault rifle, why can you have a high powered, scoped sniper (deer hunting) rifle?

The question is not a game of gotcha. The question is posed in order to make plain the fact that NO ONE supports and unlimited right to bear arms. NO ONE. And at that point, we've established what you are, m'lady, and we're just haggling over price.
   8708. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4304448)
The problem with Holder's explanation is that they couldn't have known that there was "not a threat to national security" before they finished investigating. So Holder's "We determined that there was not a threat to national security" makes utterly no sense, as it is a conclusion that can only be made after an investigation.

By this logic, you'd have to inform the president of literally EVERYTHING before ever investigating.

Perhaps their initial knowledge suggested there was no security threat, prior to the full investigation? Is that not a possibility?
   8709. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4304450)
Swat teams breaking into people's home is extreme and very rare. However, there's a reason for a Swat team in this day and age. Hopefully, their activation in an instance is not just a random act. That there can be mixups(and messups) goes without saying, but consider: do you think there should be Swat teams? Should they be used in certain circumstances? Is it better they approach the suspects at night in a domicile or in the daytime in public? There's no ideal place to serve and arrest some people. Those people may see themselves as having nothing to lose. What's your alternate solution to the Swat action?

How many Swat incidents are there? How often do they go wrong? And by that, I mean how often do they force themselves on the wrong person?
   8710. The Good Face Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4304451)
And if you are shooting your neighbor who got drunk and fell through your door at 2am coming over to borrow some smokes, he'll live to tell about it.


You shouldn't be shooting him at all; the cavalier attitude you're displaying towards shooting people because "it's only birdshot" is the sort of crap that gives responsible gun owners a bad name, and is the furthest thing from "erring on the side of caution".

That said, if I had a neighbor who did that sort of thing, I could easily see wanting to put him down.
   8711. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4304455)
By this logic, you'd have to inform the president of literally EVERYTHING before ever investigating.


Actually, you wouldn't, since credible investigations involving the director of the CIA and whether his mistress was in possession of classified information are not "EVERYTHING."

Perhaps their initial knowledge suggested there was no security threat, prior to the full investigation? Is that not a possibility?


No, it is not a possibility, unless Holder is lying when he says this:

"We made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security," Holder said.

   8712. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4304456)
I'm not following the point you are trying to make.


Forget it. I was trying to determine the nature of your point.
   8713. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4304458)
Its actually more common than I initially thought, before finding the data on the CATO site. I guess we just have wildly divergent opinions of how many constitute "almost routine". The site calls it "an epidemic of isolated incidents".

You've referenced a source listing 191 over 27 years in the entire U.S. According to the census, there are ~114 million households (although more "housing units"?). My calculator tells me that's a 0.0001675438596% chance that such an incident will happen to one household over a 27 year period.

If that's "almost routine", what would routine be? 0.0002675438596%?
   8714. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4304463)
Is there a threat to national security, or isn't there? If there wasn't before and is now, what changed? Did they not understand before what any sixth grader would have, that the woman ending up with classified documents on her computer was a threat to national security, and that if they found some documents, there could be others?

   8715. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4304465)
You shouldn't be shooting him at all; the cavalier attitude you're displaying towards shooting people because "it's only birdshot"

Sigh - I knew as soon as I typed it you were going to jump on that. A poor example, but the point I was trying to make is, I am willing to trade a degree of lethality for margin for error. If it REALLY WAS A HOME INVASION, and I could stop it without killing someone, I would. I am far from cavalier, although my poor choice of examples did let you "get the drop" on characterizing me as such. Well done.
   8716. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4304466)
And if you are shooting your neighbor who got drunk and fell through your door at 2am coming over to borrow some smokes, he'll live to tell about it. The Saiga goes just as fast as you can pull the trigger - it's quite easy to squeeze 2-3 rounds in under a second. I'd rather err on the side of caution, considering it will cost me very little in time or deterrent value. But that's just the lib in me i guess.


I do like your multi-shot shotgun with gradually increasing shot-power solution. Elegant. Yet, including a shotgun. Impressive.
   8717. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4304467)
Actually, you wouldn't, since credible investigations involving the director of the CIA and whether his mistress was in possession of classified information are not "EVERYTHING."

That's right -- I forgot that all "classified" information was created equal. My bad.
"We made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security," Holder said.

The initial evidence could strongly suggest there was no threat, and the investigation "determined" it.

I do appreciate you giving Joe K a break on this one -- his Obama "magic bullets" were losing some of their magic lately.
   8718. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4304468)
Its actually more common than I initially thought, before finding the data on the CATO site. I guess we just have wildly divergent opinions of how many constitute "almost routine". The site calls it "an epidemic of isolated incidents".


Well, how common is it? How often are Swat teams used in this country (or the US-
Canada, whatever)? How often do they go wrong? What's the option? If not at your home, where? Work? The local Starbucks you visit? If you're the expert when it comes to this, tell us how, when, and where it would likely come out better?
   8719. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4304472)
You've referenced a source listing 191 over 27 years in the entire U.S. According to the census, there are ~114 million households (although more "housing units"?). My calculator tells me that's a 0.0001675438596% chance that such an incident will happen to one household over a 27 year period.


How many "oops, we randomly invaded the wrong house and mowed down the wrong 8 year old boy with our outsized military grade weaponry" events is too many? I'm going to go with "one."

Cops shouldn't have SWAT teams. Period. The militarization of the police force is a vile, evil end in and of itself. Even if *no one dies.*
   8720. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4304474)
Ray (#8701),

That came out yesterday, and it indeed shows that Holder knew about the investigation at some point prior to November 2nd. But prior to yesterday, there was nothing other than one isolated claim from anonymous "U.S. officials" to back up that assertion. If you look back to my original post about this, my concern (if you can call it that) was saying "we know" at a point when it was nothing but conjecture.

And if you want to get your panties in a twist about the fact that Holder didn't see this as a matter of "national security" until he informed Obama on Thursday, go for it. IMO the more important question was the role of that FBI agent who went over the head of his superiors in an obvious attempt to have some sort of late effect on the election. AFAIC he should be told to get a job someplace where his logorrheic impulses will do less damage. Perhaps a New York Post Page Six column or something.
   8721. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4304475)
How many Swat incidents are there? How often do they go wrong? And by that, I mean how often do they force themselves on the wrong person?


Morty, the link I provided has lots of sortable data. 191 incidents since 1985 of busting into the wrong house, 47 of which ended up with a dead home owner/occupant.

Here it is again: Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

Many of the initial raids were for non-violent offenses, like possession of marijuana. Absolutley unconscionable.


EDIT
As Sam said, police forces shouldn't have SWAT teams, period. They've proven, with 47 innocent lives, that they do not have enough restraint, discretion and common sense to use them responsibly.
   8722. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4304476)
do you think there should be Swat teams? Should they be used in certain circumstances? Is it better they approach the suspects at night in a domicile or in the daytime in public? There's no ideal place to serve and arrest some people. Those people may see themselves as having nothing to lose. What's your alternate solution to the Swat action?

How many Swat incidents are there? How often do they go wrong? And by that, I mean how often do they force themselves on the wrong person?

Good questions, all. I would be curious to see the response of our resident armed conservative-leaning Canadian organic gardener.
   8723. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4304480)
Forget it. I was trying to determine the nature of your point.


I believe we are on the same page, hence my confusion.
   8724. Mefisto Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4304482)
The quote in 8701 isn't nearly as definitive as Ray thinks. Holder may very well have been using the royal "we", speaking of his department rather than himself personally.

This doesn't mean that Holder was not informed, but the quoted passage doesn't prove he was.
   8725. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4304483)
That's right -- I forgot that all "classified" information was created equal. My bad.


No need to treat them as equal. All it takes to inform Obama is the understanding that if she had some classified documents, she could have others.

The initial evidence could strongly suggest there was no threat


To nobody with a clue. Some documents being found has to raise the question of whether she has other documents/information, and at that point it is time for the President to be involved.

Of course, you're assuming without evidence that the initial "classified" documents she had were of a trivial nature (travel schedules and such), but (a) that is not a fact yet to our knowedge, and (b) it doesn't matter anyway.

, and the investigation "determined" it.


Then why did Holder ultimately notify Obama at all?
   8726. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4304484)
Bilbray conceded to Scott Peters. Very happy about that.
   8727. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4304485)
The quote in 8701 isn't nearly as definitive as Ray thinks. Holder may very well have been using the royal "we", speaking of his department rather than himself personally.


Wow, there really is no limit to the absurd arguments people will make.

This is how you end up with a sitting president seriously saying "It depends what the meaning of 'is' is."
   8728. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4304486)
No need to treat them as equal. All it takes to inform Obama is the understanding that if she had some classified documents, she could have others.

Now I see why you love slippery slope arguments so much -- you like to make them!

Did she have a handgun in her home too? If so, she may have also had other weapons, like grenade launchers!

Then why did Holder ultimately notify Obama at all?

Because his farging head of the CIA was resigning over it?
   8729. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4304489)
The quote in 8701 isn't nearly as definitive as Ray thinks. Holder may very well have been using the royal "we", speaking of his department rather than himself personally.

Wow, there really is no limit to the absurd arguments people will make

I read it as 10% serious, and 90% Big Lebowski reference. Which would reduce its absurdity quite a bit.
   8730. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4304490)
Cops shouldn't have SWAT teams. Period. The militarization of the police force is a vile, evil end in and of itself. Even if *no one dies.*


The solution to an arms race is for some just not to play--yes. The opposition really likes that option.
   8731. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4304491)
This is so naive to beg the question of your sanity. If you successfully defended your family from a no-knock raid you'd be sent to the electric chair as a cop-killer. More or less ever last time.


Um, sure. Sanity? I am neither a lawyer or gun guy, but what you say does not accord with what I have heard others say. But hey lay that assertion out there.
   8732. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4304492)
The solution to an arms race is for some just not to play--yes. The opposition really likes that option.

The problem is that situations requiring the paramilitary equipment occur quite rarely, but the police have the use of them full time. Like tasers, it's easier to just put somebody down and apologize later.
   8733. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4304495)
Because his farging head of the CIA was resigning over it?


Sigh. That is not what Holder said:

"Had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would of course have made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the Hill."

Only after Broadwell was interviewed Nov. 2 was the decision made to alert the White House.

"When we got to that point, where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so," he said.


You will note that Holder does not say "Because the farging head of the CIA was resigning over it."

Nor does Holder say, while I'm at it, that he personally didn't know about the investigation - unfortunately for Mark's absurd argument.
   8734. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4304497)
do you think there should be Swat teams? Should they be used in certain circumstances? Is it better they approach the suspects at night in a domicile or in the daytime in public? There's no ideal place to serve and arrest some people. Those people may see themselves as having nothing to lose. What's your alternate solution to the Swat action?

How many Swat incidents are there? How often do they go wrong? And by that, I mean how often do they force themselves on the wrong person?


Good questions, all. I would be curious to see the response of our resident armed conservative-leaning Canadian organic gardener.


They certainly happen in Canada, but not to the degree as in the US. Nobody have ever been killed in one that I know of, and of course part of that is a result of most Canadians not keeping loaded guns within arms reach of their beds (its actually illegal under Canadian law to keep a gun loaded and/or unlocked). I am not worried about one happening to me, because I don't live in a metro area or in a multi-unit building, where most of them seem to happen.

If you want the stats for the US, follow the link I've already provided twice.
   8735. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4304498)
What's your alternate solution to the Swat action?


When serving routine warrants, the police wear normal police gear, knock on the door and announce their presence, then wait a reasonable amount of time for the resident to respond (i.e. a minimum of 30 seconds) before knocking it down. If officers break down the door to the wrong residence, the repair costs come out of their personal salary.

Even if they end up losing the occasional opportunity for a minor drug bust because the occupant flushed a joint down the toilet, I think not accidentally killing innocent people makes it more than a fair trade.
   8736. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4304499)
Morty, the link I provided has lots of sortable data. 191 incidents since 1985 of busting into the wrong house, 47 of which ended up with a dead home owner/occupant.


As, presumably, a numbers guy, this being a numbers website, do see that there is a deficiency here? How many Swat incidents were there during the period in question? Don't you think this is vital to know? This is a Cato study. How did they conduct it? How did they get the information they got? Seems as if it depended a lot on news reports, not police or court records.

Again, the rest of my questions above still stand.
   8737. DA Baracus Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4304500)
First two rounds are birdshot - they would make you seriously regret coming over uninvited, but not likely to be lethal, then the heavier stuff. Removes some of the threat of going overboard before fully knowing the situation, while permitting immediate response to stimuli.


Put yourself in the intruder's shoes, are you going to stop because you get hit with birdshot?
   8738. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4304501)
"When we got to that point, where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so," he said.

Sigh. I would think, with your amazing ability to hyper-parse an issue through a USA Today story on a press conference, would be capable of noting that statement does not disclose the reasons for that notification, only the timing of it. Maybe once they spoke to Broadwell, they knew conclusively that Petraeus was going down.
   8739. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4304502)
Only after Broadwell was interviewed Nov. 2 was the decision made to alert the White House.


Presumably, Holder thought that something Broadwell told him was important enough for the president to be notified. At this point, we don't have enough information to know exactly what that was.
   8740. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4304503)
The solution to an arms race is for some just not to play--yes. The opposition really likes that option.


Well hopefully more states will follow the example of Colorado and Washington, and then even take it further by legalizing all drugs, at which point there wouldn't be any arms race to get left behind in. Oh how we love to use bandaid solutions and dance around the root of almost every problem we have.
   8741. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4304504)
If you want the stats for the US, follow the link I've already provided twice.

I've checked out the link. I think that total SWAT activity would be a worthwhile number to put this into context.
   8742. hokieneer Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4304505)
How many "oops, we randomly invaded the wrong house and mowed down the wrong 8 year old boy with our outsized military grade weaponry" events is too many? I'm going to go with "one."


Yep.

Cops shouldn't have SWAT teams. Period. The militarization of the police force is a vile, evil end in and of itself. Even if *no one dies.*


Agree again.

--

The problem is that situations requiring the paramilitary equipment occur quite rarely, but the police have the use of them full time. Like tasers, it's easier to just put somebody down and apologize later.


Yep. Unless you're dealing with a Travolta in Swordfish type of situation, it's never needed.



Police brutality of any kind is probably the biggest issue to me that no one seems to talk about. With the internet what it is now and since everyone has a video camera on their phones, I can easily find several new incidents daily of police brutality and the authoritative nature of our law enforcement officers. Most of the time the officers get minor suspensions / slaps on wrists. I have seen a few serve some minor time for the more despicable acts.

I guess it's safe to assume it's always been like this. We as citizens just didn't have the means to document and publish it previously. #### it still pisses me the #### off.
   8743. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4304507)
How many Swat incidents were there during the period in question?


Too many. I can't give you any more detail than that. As Vlad said, if there is any foreseeable risk that someone might get shot, let alone killed, over a drug offense, its not worth it. Some risks are worth taking, some are not.

If you have a homicidal maniac holed up in an apartment, by all means, bust down the door unannounced (and get into a shootout if necessary) but its never, ever justified for non-violent offenses.
   8744. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4304508)
.
   8745. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4304509)
Sigh. I would think, with your amazing ability to hyper-parse an issue through a USA Today story on a press conference, would be capable of noting that statement does not disclose the reasons for that notification, only the timing of it.

Good god. Yes it does:

Had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would of course have made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the Hill."

Only after Broadwell was interviewed Nov. 2 was the decision made to alert the White House.

"When we got to that point, where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so," he said.


When we got to that point. What point? The point where we made the determination that a threat to national security existed.

Reading is fundamental.
   8746. bunyon Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4304511)
When serving routine warrants, the police wear normal police gear, knock on the door and announce their presence, then wait a reasonable amount of time for the resident to respond (i.e. a minimum of 30 seconds) before knocking it down. If officers break down the door to the wrong residence, the repair costs come out of their personal salary.

This is a key. If the SWAT kick down the wrong door and the local cops apologize and pay for damage, I don't think these instances would be a big deal. I mean, if the guy at 4004 is an arms-dealer and I'm at 4040, I'm not going to be irked if someone screws up and kicks my door down, so long as I'm not out any cash, not beaten up and not imprisoned. Accidents happen.

But when these things happen, very often the innocent guy ends up in trouble - the cops want to cover their ass by showing the guy wasn't really "innocent". Even if there is some finding that the homeowner is innocent, the cops don't have to pay for damage. It's nuts.

We should be able to acknowledge that accidents will happen - the cops shouldn't be prosecuted as war criminals nor should the homeowner who has made no mistake in the affair get screwed. Unfortunately, that isn't what happens.
   8747. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4304512)
Then why did Holder ultimately notify Obama at all?


That's easy- because it was going to "break" and no matter how close Holder and Obama are, Obama would be pretty pissed at Holder if he first found out about it from the news or twitter or something...

moreover, you also almost have to assume that Holder knew about Eric Canter going to the FBI head (after Mr, Shirtless tipped off the congressman)- in which case it would have been almost POLITICALLY imperative that Obama know that something was going on with the General...
   8748. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4304513)
I guess it's safe to assume it's always been like this.


I don't think so. There have always been bad apples, sure, but since the advent of COPS on TV, the public image of a police officer has been someone who gets to bust heads with impunity. That was never the case 30, 40, 50 years ago, when the public image of a cop was Andy of Mayberry, basically. Somebody who would protect the innocent, was fair and wise, and a trusted, admired member of society. If you did a poll now, I don't think a majority of people would say they admire cops.
   8749. Langer Monk Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4304514)
Not to argue the larger point - paramilitary units within police departments for drug raids or gambling, or whatever, is unconscionable (because I agree)- but the smaller - have you read through the details of those incidents on the CATO site?

None reported in 2012, 6 in 2011 - those are all SWAT teams. But then of 18 in 2010, not all are SWAT teams - some are just #### police work, one or two officers who committed crimes. Same in 2009, and I don't have the time to go back further. Clearly none are anything other than horrible, but we should be accurate in what we're talking about.
   8750. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4304515)
Police brutality of any kind is probably the biggest issue to me that no one seems to talk about.

seems to be contradicted by:
With the internet what it is now and since everyone has a video camera on their phones, I can easily find several new incidents daily of police brutality and the authoritative nature of our law enforcement officers.


I suspect the latter is going help reduce these instances (or at least keep them at the "natural" levels, cops being cops throughout the ages and all).

I'm pretty much with you generally, though. Police could definitely stand to tone things down about nonviolent offenses. And our laws could use some toning down about drug offenses too.
   8751. Morty Causa Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4304516)
Well hopefully more states will follow the example of Colorado and Washington, and then even take it further by legalizing all drugs, at which point there wouldn't be any arms race to get left behind in. Oh how we love to use bandaid solutions and dance around the root of almost every problem we have.


SWAT teams are used on suspected minor drug infractions?

You are more sanguine than I wrt legalization of drugs as some sort of panacea to all our problems. I've gone into this before, so I'm not going to repeat myself, but just as a for instance: black markets, and black markets supported by the stuff from the states have legalized it into states that haven't.
   8752. Ron J2 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4304518)
If you successfully defended your family from a no-knock raid you'd be sent to the electric chair as a cop-killer. More or less ever last time.


I did include a case where it happened. Guy was prosecuted but was not convicted.

How it plays out will obviously depend on jurisdiction etc. This happened in Quebec and the SQ has a well earned bad reputation.
   8753. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4304519)
8745. So Holder knew. They investigated and when it hit a certain level they notified the President.

That does not seem very scandalous to me.
   8754. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4304521)
The question is not a game of gotcha. The question is posed in order to make plain the fact that NO ONE supports and unlimited right to bear arms. NO ONE. And at that point, we've established what you are, m'lady, and we're just haggling over price.
the supreme court may disagree with you
   8755. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4304524)
That's easy- because it was going to "break" and no matter how close Holder and Obama are, Obama would be pretty pissed at Holder if he first found out about it from the news or twitter or something...

moreover, you also almost have to assume that Holder knew about Eric Canter going to the FBI head (after Mr, Shirtless tipped off the congressman)- in which case it would have been almost POLITICALLY imperative that Obama know that something was going on with the General...


So basically you're saying Holder lied about his actual reasons.

In that case, I don't see what the argument is. Because that's what I'm saying also. That he lied about his reasons. Why should we accept your speculation of what the "real reasons" were as valid, while arguing that my speculation is invalid?

(Also, once we assume that Holder is lying, then he could be lying about not informing Obama as well.)

   8756. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4304525)
the supreme court may disagree with you

In that video, Scalia says "there are some limitations that can be imposed." Points out that cannons aren't covered, but handheld rocket launchers "would have to be determined. CAREFULLY."

   8757. hokieneer Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4304526)
Police brutality of any kind is probably the biggest issue to me that no one seems to talk about.

seems to be contradicted by:

With the internet what it is now and since everyone has a video camera on their phones, I can easily find several new incidents daily of police brutality and the authoritative nature of our law enforcement officers.


Well, every topic is "talked about" on the internet. The issue never comes up on a national stage in politics or with the major news outlets. Also I've rarely seen it discuess when it comes to local reporting or state politics. People post their blair witch videos on youtube of a cop on a power trip, it gets a few thousands views, and a week later it's forgotten.
   8758. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4304527)
Had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would of course have made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the Hill."

Only after Broadwell was interviewed Nov. 2 was the decision made to alert the White House.

"When we got to that point, where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so," he said.

AGAIN: there is nothing in that last statement that indicates that a threat to national security was ever reached. I think you're connecting things way too closely here.

They would tell the president as soon as they determined that a threat to national security existed, this is true. But that doesn't mean that the only circumstances under which they could ever tell the president would be a threat to national security. Does "that point" in the last sentence refer to a determination of a threat to national security? Or does "that point" refer to a general point when "it was appropriate to share the information"? I would lean towards the latter, but if you have more evidence of the former than linking demonstration adjective "that" to an earlier sentence rather than its own sentence from a press conference article in USA Today, I'd be happy to reconsider.
   8759. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4304528)
So basically you're saying Holder lied about his actual reasons.


Couldn't he (FBI) have investigated. And waited to let the President know once they felt it was warranted?

Where in the various bits is that scenario invalidated?
   8760. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4304529)
SWAT teams are used on suspected minor drug infractions?


Well I don't know what you'd call minor, but anything involving marijuana is minor to me, even if you're a kingpin.

From the site:

Trevon Cole

June 11, 2010—NV

Trevon Cole, 21, and his nine months pregnant fiancee, Sequioa Pearce, were in bed at 9:00 pm on a Friday evening when Las Vegas narcotics officers entered Cole's apartment. Cole moved to the bathroom to flush marijuana down the toilet. Narcotics Dectective Bryan Yant kicked open the bathroom door and confronted Cole. Yant fired one round from his rifle into Cole's head at close range, killing him.
   8761. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4304531)
I'm still trying to figure out where Ray is going with all this.

Right now, the best I can figure is that he's implying that Eric Holder should resign because he didn't tell Obama soon enough about an FBI investigation that is turning out to be one of the funniest ####### things I've read about in a while, with almost ZERO national security implications.

Or is he still peddling the idea that Obama knew about this hilarious story and buried it to win the election, despite the Republicans knowing about it before he did, and not saying a damn word about it to anyone in the media?

I understand that Ray is wielding a nice "blame and shame" shotgun, but he's been firing rounds off indiscriminately for a while now that I can't figure out who his target is at this point.
   8762. Downtown Bookie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4304532)
"We conducted that investigation the way we normally conduct criminal investigations," Holder said at a press conference in New Orleans, his first public comments on the matter. "We do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations."


Perhaps I'm misreading the above, but it seems clear to me that the Attorney General is stating that, when a investigation is ongoing, the facts of the investigation are not shared with Congress, the White House, nor any other party outside the FBI.

Now, it's possible:

1) The Attorney General is lying. It's possible that this is just a CYA story Holder made up to protect the administration from criticism that the election was the driving force behind keeping this investigation away from the White House (or, perhaps, the White House did know, and this is just a lie to give the President cover when he says that he was unaware);

2) The Attorney General is telling the truth; notifying the White House regarding the details of the investigation until the investigation was concluded is nothing more than standard operating procedure. If that is so, then it's the procedure/bureaucracy in place that needs to be examined; the individuals should not be criticized for following the rules in place.

Again, I don't want to entirely dismiss the possibility that I'm misreading the Attorney General's comments. But if I have read them correctly, then it seems to me that one must either believe that Holder is lying, or that not notifying the President until the investigation was concluded is just SOP. Because I personally don't see a middle ground where the Attorney General's statement is truthful, and yet the President should have been told anyway.

DB
   8763. Ron J2 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4304533)
No, it is not a possibility, unless Holder is lying when he says this:

"We made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security," Holder said.


Ray, I honestly don't get your point.

Investigation starts. Nothing to be alarmed about. No need to inform President. Investigation continues. Nothing to be alarmed about. Etc.

You're really hung up on the "classified materials" aspect. Nobody who's actually experienced classification in action is. Or was at any point.

EDIT: To go further. If Obama needs to be informed immediately it's because you've decided Petraeus' clearance needs to be revoked as soon as the investigation starts.

Note that this is not an insane position. I can imagine a protocol which says that as soon as an investigation of somebody with his level of clearance is started that clearance must be suspended for the duration of the investigation. (For that matter, you can lose a clearance for sloppy handling of documents even if they're over-classified)

It's just not the way things work right now. In the wake of this whole affair it's entirely possible that this will change.
   8764. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4304534)
(Also, once we assume that Holder is lying, then he could be lying about not informing Obama as well.)

Even if Holder is tell us the truth, he could be lying about not informing Obama anyway.

Heck, even before Broadwell got classified documents from Petraeus, she still could have had some classified documents anyway. Why wasn't Obama told about Broadwell as soon as he took office? Either he knew about her then, or he set up a shitty system that prevented him from knowing for political reasons. Either way, Obama is a sham, a turd, and a terrible excuse for a president (excepting all other presidents who served before and will serve after, of course).
   8765. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4304535)
Gone for the weekend, in case anyone thinks I'm just ignoring them. Its been a good discussion.
   8766. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4304536)
Either he knew about her then, or he set up a shitty system that prevented him from knowing for political reasons.


Or he was also having an affair with her ... which would explain so much.
   8767. hokieneer Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4304537)
Well I don't know what you'd call minor, but anything involving marijuana is minor to me, even if you're a kingpin.


But, but, but victimless crimes!
   8768. Mefisto Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4304540)
For those who care, there's a CNN timeline of the Petraeus investigation here.
   8769. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4304543)
I am saying that this just happening to fall out at 5pm on election night, with Obama being informed the next day, is not a coincidence.

That's it. I'm not accusing anyone of crimes or treason. I'm not linking it to Benghazi, or assuming any Benghazi related scandal, either about Obama's actions w/r/t Benghazi or Petraeus's testimony.

Once more: I am accusing politicians of playing politics. People here oddly seem to think that Obama is above that.
   8770. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4304548)
I am saying that this just happening to fall out at 5pm on election night, with Obama being informed the next day, is not a coincidence.

That's it. I'm not accusing anyone of crimes or treason. I'm not linking it to Benghazi, or assuming any Benghazi related scandal, either about Obama's actions w/r/t Benghazi or Petraeus's testimony.

Once more: I am accusing politicians of playing politics. People here oddly seem to think that Obama is above that.
that's exactly the thing. in the span of one post, you say that obama was unaware of the incident, and then imply that he was playing politics by not informing people of the incident he was not aware of.
   8771. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4304549)
SWAT teams are used on suspected minor drug infractions?


Yep. Here's a fairly typical example from last month:

Amarillo police have arrested eight people on various drug-related charges after they raided an Amarillo Boulevard motel.

Armed with six arrest warrants, the officers searched six rooms Thursday evening at the Deluxe Inn, 620 W. Amarillo Blvd., and found small amounts of cocaine and marijuana worth about $2,000. The SWAT team, various Amarillo police units and the Texas Department of Public Safety narcotics unit executed the warrants. Two of the rooms were not occupied and officers also found small rocks of crack cocaine inside, police said.


Emphasis mine. Two people busted for "manufacturing and delivery of a controlled substance" (read: small-time street dealers or recreational users with a stash), a couple more popped for outstanding warrants, and four collars for "possession of drug paraphernalia". For that, you need SWAT?
   8772. Ron J2 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4304550)
#8769 I most certainly don't think Obama is above playing politics. I'm just buggered as to why anybody would feel the need in this case. If there was some political dynamite then sure, they'd have done their best to bury it until after the election.

I mean it surely speaks volumes that Eric Cantor had the information and didn't see any way to gain a political advantage from going public.
   8773. spike Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4304551)
   8774. Downtown Bookie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4304553)
#8769 - I think I see your point: There's a system in place where the President is not informed until the investigation is over, and the AG worked that system to make sure the investigation didn't conclude until a time that was politically expediant.

OK; I can see that possibility. If that is the case, then I agree with you (again, presuming that I'm understanding you correctly): it's not a crime; it's not a scandal; it's just a pretty shitty thing to do.

DB
   8775. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4304556)
So a variety of government officials (including a leading congressional Republican?) "played politics" by waiting to tell the public and the president about essentially a tabloid story with no real importance to the public or the president.

You sure zinged us with that one! I bet those BBTF liberals didn't even see it coming! They thinking that government officials are perfect and all.
   8776. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4304557)
The solution to an arms race is for some just not to play--yes. The opposition really likes that option.


What arms race?
   8777. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4304558)
Once more: I am accusing politicians of playing politics.


I am pretty sure we all agree on that. Why do you keep coming back to it and making a big deal of something we all agree happens. If it is run of the mill political stuff that every politician since the Romans has done and there was no harm done, then who cares?
   8778. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4304559)
Um, sure. Sanity? I am neither a lawyer or gun guy, but what you say does not accord with what I have heard others say. But hey lay that assertion out there.


Have you ever seen the propaganda campaign police departments roll out any time a cop is killed?
   8779. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4304560)
#8769 - I think I see your point: There's a system in place where the President is not informed until the investigation is over, and the AG worked that system to make sure the investigation didn't conclude until a time that was politically expediant.

OK; I can see that possibility. If that is the case, then I agree with you (again, presuming that I'm understanding you correctly): it's not a crime; it's not a scandal; it's just a pretty shitty thing to do.

How is it shitty? Do we really need the president to get a daily briefing on every investigation ever? Or are we going to base it on how well the story might sell to the tabloids?

If you're going to brief the president on every government official who's cheating on his wife, that's really going to cut into his golf game.
   8780. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4304561)
I suspect the latter (cell phone video, the internet) is going help reduce these instances (or at least keep them at the "natural" levels, cops being cops throughout the ages and all).


You know what phone video has led to?

Laws making it illegal to record the police.

Good lord, it's like you've never interacted with a cop.
   8781. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4304563)
Laws making it illegal to record the police.


Here in Minnesota I believe it is illegal for police to interfere with a citizen recording something (including the police). There was a scandal about police confiscating recordings.
   8782. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4304564)
SWAT teams are used on suspected minor drug infractions?


The key here is to address the issue using basic assumptions of conservative political theory. Create a government bureaucracy (the SWAT team.) Fund it with a million dollar budget. Give it massive toys (guns and such.)

What the #### do you *expect* it will do? It will justify its existence by using its toys and find excuses to expand its budget.
   8783. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4304565)
The 2nd Amendment defends the right to bear *arms.* Armaments. Weaponry. To say that grenade launchers, or even nukes, are arms which can not be held by the common citizenry is to admit, prima facie, that the right to bear arms is restrictable by the state.

If you can't have a grenade launcher, why can you have an automatic assault rifle?

If you can't have an automatic assault rifle, why can you have a high powered, scoped sniper (deer hunting) rifle?

The question is not a game of gotcha. The question is posed in order to make plain the fact that NO ONE supports and unlimited right to bear arms. NO ONE. And at that point, we've established what you are, m'lady, and we're just haggling over price.

Yikes. And liberals complain that conservatives skip over the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.
   8784. Ron J2 Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4304566)
#8778 Sure have. That's why I said jurisdiction matters. Nobody in Quebec believes it when the SQ runs out that propaganda.
   8785. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4304568)

"When we got to that point, where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so," he said.

You will note that Holder does not say "Because the farging head of the CIA was resigning over it."


Ray, you will also note that neither does he say "because we determined there was a national security threat."
   8786. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4304574)
I bet those BBTF liberals didn't even see it coming!


I know I sure didn't. In fact, now that it's here, I still don't see it.
   8787. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4304577)
Yikes. And liberals complain that conservatives skip over the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.
So... was hoping you'd answer that question. Again, besides grenade launchers and nukes, what other weapons can be banned without selling out second amendment principles?
   8788. spycake Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4304580)
Ray, you will also note that neither does he say "because we determined there was a national security threat."

Did you miss the bolded words "that point" and the bolded words "Had we made the determination"? It's not exactly lying, but Holder and the liberal media were definitely playing politics there, by slyly admitting there was a national security threat through a curiously placed demonstrative adjective. Thankfully, intrepid above-it-all nonpartisan internet crusaders have the ability to see through such shenanigans, and shine a light on them through boldface type.
   8789. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4304581)
Ray: So when do you think that this should have been made public? And by whom? Should the president or the Atty. General call a press conference to announce every finding of every investigation, even if (as it turns out) it involves no real threat to national security? Do we really want the details of a private affair to be trotted out as if it were the breaking of a spy ring?

And again, if this was really a matter of such importance to "national security", why did Cantor just sit on it?
   8790. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4304587)
But when these things happen, very often the innocent guy ends up in trouble - the cops want to cover their ass by showing the guy wasn't really "innocent".

What should set your Spidey-senses to tingling is when the end of the news story includes the innocent guy's arrest history. "2012: cops broke down wrong door, beat the crap out of innocent guy... [last paragraph] who, in 1997, was arrested for DUI." SEE? WHO'S REALLY THE BAD GUY, HERE?

Bull. The defendant doesn't do the negotiation. He doesn't have the special knowledge. He's not the one who has the relationship with the prosecutors. The lawyer does and works it out at every juncture; the defendant formally accedes to that. Don't quibble. You know what was meant.

I quibble because I'm a criminal defense lawyer, and I find myself constantly needing to reassure my clients that I can't (and wouldn't) just "plead them out" without them knowing and agreeing to it. I can tell them if I think a plea is a fair deal or not, but it's always up to them. Anyway I'm often surprised by what they think is fair, compared to what I'd want ("Wait, you'd rather do 20 days locked up and get it over with, than take a couple of years of unsupervised probation and zero jail time? Well... OK, then.").

Also, it might be different in other jurisdictions, but there's effectively no such thing as a "relationship with the prosecutors" where I work. They pride themselves on their fungibility (that's how one of them actually put it), and whatever Prosecutor Monday said does not necessarily bind Prosecutor Thursday at all.
   8791. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4304591)
Yikes. And liberals complain that conservatives skip over the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.


Once again, Joe, this is why people treat you like an idiot. Because you act and post like an idiot.

If I were to say "the 2nd Amendment isn't universal, and the Congress is well within its rights to regulate the purchase and availability of so-called 'assault rifles;' it's all part and parcel to keeping a well regulated militia" you'd have a #### fit.

If I were to say "the first clause of the 2nd Amendment specifically notes that the right to bear arms is connected with militia membership; in the modern world militias don't exist and have been replaced by professional armies. As such the 2nd is itself fundamentally archaic and out of touch with modern times" you'd probably have a coronary.

But here you are, when it suits you, begging the question of that same initial clause, because you don't like the idea of a universal right to keep and bear grenade launchers for some reason.

If the 2nd Amendment is universal; if the right to "keep and bear arms" is a universal claim that can not be justly infringed; then the the government can not justly or rightfully infringe the right to grenade launchers, or suit case nukes. "Arms" don't end with extended clip 9mm hand guns, after all.

If the government can justly and rightfully infringe on the keeping and bearing of arms such as grenade launchers and suitcase nukes it is incumbent upon gun enthusiasts to explain why "assault rifles" and extended clip 9mm handguns are different in case and class than grenade launchers and thus freely kept and bourne by the citizenry at large.

This isn't a political gothcha, Joey. This is basic ####### logic.
   8792. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4304594)
Yikes. And liberals complain that conservatives skip over the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.
Shorter JoeK: Arms should be well-regulated, except by liberals.
   8793. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4304597)
So... was hoping you'd answer that question. Again, besides grenade launchers and nukes, what other weapons can be banned without selling out second amendment principles?

I don't have a comprehensive list, and I'm sure some items on such a list would be cause for debate. The point is simply that taking guns away from murderers and mentally deranged people — i.e., the "well regulated militia" — doesn't remotely constitute "selling out" Second Amendment principles, nor does a ban on private ownership of nuclear weapons exist on the same Second Amendment "well regulated" continuum as a flat ban of *all* firearm possession by *all* people.

Sam claimed he wasn't playing a "gotcha" game in #8707, but that's precisely what he was doing. The idea that "no nukes today" somehow leads to "no guns tomorrow," and that the latter wouldn't conflict at all with the rights inherent in the Second Amendment, is not only absurd but it's entirely contradicted by over two centuries of practice and precedent in the U.S., including practice and precedent that preceded the Second Amendment itself.
   8794. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4304600)
Ray: So when do you think that this should have been made public? And by whom? Should the president or the Atty. General call a press conference to announce every finding of every investigation, even if (as it turns out) it involves no real threat to national security?


Answer: The minute you (Holder) learn that the CIA's mistress was in possession of classified information, inform the President, who should then decide whether to at least temporarily relieve the director of his duties, pending the investigation. Suspending the Director would of course be a public action. And short of that, the public at least had a right to know that the CIA director's mistress was found with classified documents, and the President had decided not to suspend him.

The way it fell out: the President played no role, and therefore was completely unaccountable, because he made no decisions. Accountability and executive decisionmaking are what elections turn on. As it turned out, Obama was no more informed on the matter than Joe The Plumber was. To me, that makes the President look foolish and ineffective, and raises questions as to whether he has an AG who made a political decision to keep him in the dark.

   8795. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4304604)

When we got to that point. What point? The point where we made the determination that a threat to national security existed.

No, Ray. If you read the entire transcript of Holder's remarks, he is clear that they determined there was *not* a threat to national security.

Well, I would say that with regard to that issue, what we did was conduct the investigation in the way that we normally conduct criminal investigations. We do so in a way that they can be seen as being done in an impartial way.

We follow the facts. We do not share – outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI – the facts of ongoing investigations.

We made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security.

Had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would, of course, have made that known to the President and also to the appropriate members on the Hill.

But as we went through the investigation, looked at the facts and tried to examine them as they developed, we felt very secure in the knowledge that national security threat did not exist that warranted the sharing of that information with the White House or with the Hill.

When we got to a point in the investigation – it was very late in the investigation – after a very critical interview occurred on the Friday before we made that disclosure – when we go to that point where we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so.


(emphasis added)

He is pretty clear in the bolded part that they never determined a national security threat existed. "That point" simply refers to what comes after in the sentence - the point when they thought it was appropriate to notify the President. He did not explain what made it the appropriate time.
   8796. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4304605)
Shorter JoeK: Arms should be well-regulated, except by liberals.

If a right is "regulated" to the point it becomes impossible to exercise, then it ceases to be a right. This is a very basic concept.
   8797. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4304610)
Once again, Joe, this is why people treat you like an idiot. Because you act and post like an idiot.

If I were to say "the 2nd Amendment isn't universal, and the Congress is well within its rights to regulate the purchase and availability of so-called 'assault rifles;' it's all part and parcel to keeping a well regulated militia" you'd have a #### fit.

If I were to say "the first clause of the 2nd Amendment specifically notes that the right to bear arms is connected with militia membership; in the modern world militias don't exist and have been replaced by professional armies. As such the 2nd is itself fundamentally archaic and out of touch with modern times" you'd probably have a coronary.

But here you are, when it suits you, begging the question of that same initial clause, because you don't like the idea of a universal right to keep and bear grenade launchers for some reason.

If the 2nd Amendment is universal; if the right to "keep and bear arms" is a universal claim that can not be justly infringed; then the the government can not justly or rightfully infringe the right to grenade launchers, or suit case nukes. "Arms" don't end with extended clip 9mm hand guns, after all.

If the government can justly and rightfully infringe on the keeping and bearing of arms such as grenade launchers and suitcase nukes it is incumbent upon gun enthusiasts to explain why "assault rifles" and extended clip 9mm handguns are different in case and class than grenade launchers and thus freely kept and bourne by the citizenry at large.

This isn't a political gothcha, Joey. This is basic ####### logic.

If that's your idea of "basic logic," I'll leave you alone to continue spewing your philosobabble.

Absolutely no non-deranged person, ever, has claimed that the Second Amendment is absolute or that it allows for private possession of nuclear weapons. And to whatever extent you believe that's a concession (which it isn't), it's assuredly not a concession that puts the entirety of the Second Amendment at risk of being dead letter.
   8798. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4304617)
Absolutely no non-deranged person, ever, has claimed that the Second Amendment is absolute or that it allows for private possession of nuclear weapons. And to whatever extent you believe that's a concession (which it isn't), it's assuredly not a concession that puts the entirety of the Second Amendment at risk of being dead letter.


You are incapable of basic reasoning. Probably mentally deranged. As such, you may not have weapons.
   8799. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4304626)
.
   8800. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 16, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4304628)
Typical Sam Hutcheson: Can't ever win an argument with his philosobabble


Dude, circle up the jerk reaction all you want, but I assure you, you are just not following basic logic and concepts of structured debate here. If that is because you're stupid, well, come to grips with your limitations or whatever.
Page 88 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3033 - 7:22am, Jul 25)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(54 - 7:20am, Jul 25)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(915 - 5:53am, Jul 25)
Last: MikeOberly

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(382 - 5:25am, Jul 25)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(90 - 5:07am, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogSurprising Sports Stars – Guided by Voices’ Robert Pollard
(3 - 4:44am, Jul 25)
Last: Alex meets the threshold for granular review

NewsblogYadier Molina serves his brother crackers on a plate — home plate
(43 - 3:59am, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogBucs Dugout: Manel: Pirates getting creative with defensive shifts
(8 - 3:53am, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogTwitter / Ken_Rosenthal: Mariners announce acquisition of Kendrys Morales for RHP Stephen Pryor.
(16 - 3:37am, Jul 25)
Last: Jeff Francoeur's OPS

NewsblogA's designate Johnson for assignment
(20 - 3:28am, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(31 - 3:23am, Jul 25)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(80 - 3:16am, Jul 25)
Last: Red Menace

NewsblogFivethirtyeight: Billion-Dollar Billy Beane
(21 - 2:42am, Jul 25)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: 7-24-14
(59 - 1:56am, Jul 25)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogEx-MLB star Chuck Knoblauch accused of assaulting ex-wife
(21 - 12:26am, Jul 25)
Last: Ray (RDP)

Page rendered in 0.8982 seconds
52 querie(s) executed