It often takes years to show the effect of one administration’s policies? How do we know that Eisenhower’s policies didn’t “help” Kennedy job market ? Or that Obama’s policies didn’t “hurt” Trump job market? Picking two examples
This graph is too simple as there were also other macroeconomic situations at the time but this is interesting enough that I’d like to see a long article that expands on this one graph with other data
Sorry no it doesn't prove my half joking claim it only documents a single case of a high profile terrorist plot from a small group that was led by an FBI informant, containing another 4 informants and agents, and funded by the FBI in which they had trouble convicting several defendants (despite a 95%+ conviction rate normally) for some reason no clue why.
Where is the proof to your claim the FBI informant “led” the plot as opposed to being aware and involved in the same group (how informants work to get inside information)
The other two methods of heat transfer apart from radiation are conduction (through “touch”, adjacent molecules, eg from the outside of a chicken on the BBQ to the inside) and convection (through movement, eg cold air or water flowing past).
I don't know specifically, but it's a self-contained single file Go executable. It doesn't need much from a Linux system beyond its kernel. Chances are good that it'll work.
I lean more toward DOJ here. He knew in advance, showed up, and went inside. That’s participation. Not standing outside or peering through the door, but occupying the building. Having a camera doesn’t make that journalism. There’s no freedom of speech to defend here
Note, I'm not using my own judgement. I'm no lawyer. But the judge refused Don's arrest on grounds of no probable cause [1][2].
I agree it seems the protestors may have violated that law by forcibly stopping the service (though I think the judge only found cause for 18 USC section 241: conspiracy against rights), but it seems the judge applied some reasonable discretion to exclude a reporter only there to document it and interview those willing to speak to him. I'd be interested in reading his exact reasoning, but I'm not sure he's shared it.
> than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE
This is besides the point, but: it's not some secret, it's a fact. He works for ICE, and is a pastor.
> Federal charges are appropriate where federal law is violated, and the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal government has the right to bring them.
And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed.
> "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees.
They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution.
> If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response?
Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?
> Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event
The law is specifically written to protect religious gatherings from protest and harassment (in addition to the abortion harassment prohibition in FACE), so it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested.
> it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested
Just to be clear, this is the ad hominem, which is moot. Even if this is true, it has no bearing on the case being discussed and the question is a foolish one for this silly political game you describe: firstly, it can easily be turned around on the asker and, secondly, it has an extremely obvious game theoretic answer of "yes" because that's the only option to get one's interrogator to continue with the actual discussion. (Thanks for proving the point.)
While it has no bearing on the active case itself, within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case. Would they have a different opinion if the variables were tweaked a bit, but the action and violation of the statute was the same?
It’s always a good exercise to evaluate your opinion this way, it should help keep you honest about legal fairness.
> within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case
You say that it matters for these silly political "gotcha!" games. I say it therefore does not matter. It is an ad hominem attack which has no basis in the discussion.
I say it matters to illustrate how someone commenting on a topic can be so ingrained on one side that they can’t conceive, comprehend, or concede that sometimes a law can protect all sides.
If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine. Others want to open it up. You are not the gatekeeper to the discussion and what paths it might take.
> I say it matters to illustrate how someone commenting on a topic can be so ingrained on one side that they can’t conceive, comprehend, or concede that sometimes a law can protect all sides.
Sure, but to what end? What is the purpose of pointing this out? Even pointing it out to the person behaving in such a manner seems foolish: they're just as likely to change their mind as the person pointing it out.
> If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine.
It seems the act of disregarding the points being made by others so one can hint that their bias is clouding their judgement to see it the correct way shuts down discussions far more effectively than simply arguing from a certain perspective. As I said before, such an accusation can easily be turned around on the accuser; if you think through what happens there, the accuser just denies it the same as the accused would because that's the only option that moves on from the point which is only relevant to the political game. The entire game theory can be explained in a single sentence. It's not really an interesting game and the best outcome of it in the context of a greater discussion is for it to end as quickly as possible.
> Others want to open it up.
One might consider (perhaps by not being "so ingrained on one side that they can't conceive, comprehend, or concede") that the point of calling out a rhetorical ad hominem is to open the discussion to more critical thinking.
I realize that there are some people that don’t really want the first amendment to cover speech they don’t like and religions they don’t like, but it does. As it relates to the FACE act that includes interruption of those religious services they don’t like too.
Yes, I agree, and these statements do not refute anything I've written in this thread. Besides, what do they even have to do with the ad hominem point we've been discussing? Anyway, we can just move on from that, I guess.
> the first amendment
In this case, the first amendment, as a matter of law, isn't relevant in the context of those who had their religious service interrupted: the service in question was not interrupted by the government. The first amendment concern in this case is whether or not Don Lemon's right to journalistic freedom is being infringed since he's the one who's actually facing criminal prosecution for actions which seem a lot like journalism.
> the FACE act
It appears that Don Lemon did nothing which violates this Act. I guess if you disagree with the judge who found there was no probable cause of such a violation for an arrest warrant, you're more than welcome to explain why. (I mean, surely it's not simply because you disagree with Don Lemon's politics, that would be embarrassing.)
I am sure how from my comments you could have any idea what my opinion about Don Lemon in this situation would be…
But if you must know, I think it’s a long shot that he will be convicted, but he damn sure didn’t make it easy on himself. He should have followed his own advice on his livestream when he was in the car and said “I don’t think I should go in…”
reply