How about that safe school Czar?
Posted by Amoo Daboo Dabutsu (+110) 12 years ago
Here's another of Obama's prize picks for council and advice, Kevin Jennings, a suporter of NAMBLA, a advocate for the "gaying of schools" and all around party guy.

It just gets more wierd each day, when I saw all the white coats in the rose garden I was sure they where there to round up Obama's Czars.

Go ahead and defend this guy in this position to me.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
It's all about diversity. Tolerance. Don't you get it?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
Or lies and bullsh*t.

http://mediamatters.org/r...0910050018

http://mediamatters.org/r...0910020016

Power Line's Hinderaker cited Jennings' speech, NAMBLA. In an October 1 post, Power Line's John Hinderaker noted Jennings' 1997 speech and wrote: "Obama nominee Kevin Jennings actually said that the founder of NAMBLA -- the North American Man-Boy Love Association -- Harry Hay, is '[o]ne of the people that's always inspired me,' " ... Hinderaker's claim that Hay founded NAMBLA is false. As the Associated Press noted in 2002, Hay "in 1950 founded the secret network of support groups for gays known as the Mattachine Society." Hay wrote in the Gay Community News (retrieved from Nexis) in 1994, "I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one."
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Are you sure he isn't the statutory rape czar? There are so many it is hard to keep them all straight.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
You didn't read the f*cking links again did you Richard? If someone's over the age of consent (and I'll type this very slowly so you don't get confused) it's not statutory rape.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Ricardo thinks that President Obama is a religious pirate of radical Islam and was actually born in Kenya.
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1284) 12 years ago
Bridgier your links are no less agenda driven than Sean Hannity I'm not sure either is being level with us. But I can't imagine this guy making it to this position without someone saying what the fu*k. If Jennings has any sense he will step aside ASAP, Obama needs another Van Jones like he need another war.

If I had children in school I would just as soon this guy was not involved at any point with policy, at any level.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
Yes, but my links have things like verifiable source citations.

I'm starting to think that Obama should have backed Van Jones a little more - once you've got once scalp, it encourages searching for more.

I'd never heard of Jennings before yesterday, and I'm willing to bet no one else on this site had either - it's a manufactured outrage.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
"You didn't read the f*cking links again did you Richard? If someone's over the age of consent (and I'll type this very slowly so you don't get confused) it's not statutory rape."

Umm... your links were not there so I could be "enlightened" prior to my post.

http://washingtontimes.co...-pleasure/

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (10/8/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
Except it turns out he was 16, and of legal age of consent in Mass. at the time. So no story, sorry.

And your post didn't exist when I posted, and I didn't check the timestamps when I replied. That said - they DID exist before you posted the Times steaming pile, so I'm not sure if you're off the hook or not.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 12 years ago
Maybe they should appoint someone from Halliburton, instead.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
I wonder if Ricardo knows who owns the Washington Times?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 12 years ago
Maybe Richard is a Moonie.

Here is a list of Senators who approve gang raping female employees and supporting the cover-up of said rape.

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton II (10/8/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Ricardo is a loony, but it's unlikely he's a Moonie
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
I'd never heard of Jennings before yesterday, and I'm willing to bet no one else on this site had either - it's a manufactured outrage.

And therein lays your problem Bridgier. You prefer to live in a vacuum.

Fox News has been reporting on the creeps and crooks in Obama's Administration and pack of "czars" for months. Dozens of bloggers have been posting on them for months before that. Apparently you prefer to be fed the pabulum being dished by the state media and what ever comes out of George Soros' arse.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
Here is a list of Senators and Representatives that support ACORN funding (as of September 14, 2009)


* Dick Durbin (D-IL)
* Roland Burris (D-IL)
* Robert Casey (D-PA)
* Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
* Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)


* Baldwin
* Becerra
* Brady (PA)
* Brown, Corrine
* Butterfield
* Capuano
* Carson (IN)
* Castor (FL)
* Cleaver
* Clyburn
* Crowley
* Cummings
* Davis (IL)
* DeGette
* Delahunt
* Doyle
* Edwards (MD)
* Ellison
* Engel
* Fattah
* Filner
* Fudge
* Green, Al
* Grijalva
* Hinchey
* Hirono
* Holt
* Honda
* Jackson (IL)
* Jackson-Lee (TX)
* Johnson, E. B.
* Kilpatrick (MI)
* Kucinich
* Larsen (WA)
* Lee (CA)
* Lewis (GA)
* Lynch
* Markey (MA)
* McCollum
* McDermott
* McGovern
* Meeks (NY)
* Mollohan
* Moore (WI)
* Moran (VA)
* Nadler (NY)
* Neal (MA)
* Olver
* Pallone
* Pascrell
* Payne
* Polis (CO)
* Price (NC)
* Rahall
* Rangel
* Roybal-Allard
* Rush
* Sánchez, Linda T.
* Schakowsky
* Scott (GA)
* Scott (VA)
* Serrano
* Sherman
* Sires
* Slaughter
* Stark
* Thompson (MS)
* Towns
* Tsongas
* Velázquez
* Waters
* Watson
* Waxman
* Wexler
* Woolsey
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
Yeah, they fixed ACORN real good didn't they? And by their standard, they'd have to defund most of the defense contractors as well. Ooopsie.

Jim, I've got better things to do then pretend that Fox news is anything other than the conservative bullsh*t factory. Teabagging anyone?
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
Bridgier,

Mediamatters.org? Man, you can't ever use Fox as the right wing whipping boy ever again. Mediamatters is bent left if Fox is bent right.

According to Media Matters for America, they monitor the news for misinformation as well as for reporting that which forwards the conservative agenda.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
it's not statutory rape

Mass does not define statutory rape per se. Media Matters is twisting the semantics to try to defend this creep.


Massachusetts

272 § 4


Criminal inducement to get a person under age 18 of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse


Up to three years in prison or up to two and one-half years in jail


http://www.cga.ct.gov/200...R-0376.htm


"NAMBLA walks with me," declared homosexual activist pioneer Harry Hay (left) - speaking of the "North American Man/Boy Love Association," which advocates the legalization of sex between adults and children. Hay, who died in 2002, formed the first homosexual activist group - and later was among a dissident group of homosexual activists who defended NAMBLA as a "responsible gay organization." Sex between men and boys has long been a part of homosexual history, as openly "gay" U.-Mass.-Boston history professor William Armstrong Percy III documents in his book, "Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece."

Here's a reference other than Media Matters that begs to differ with their stand on Hay and NAMBLA. He may not have formed it. He apparently didn't oppose it.

[This message has been edited by Jim Brady (10/8/2009)]

[This message has been edited by Jim Brady (10/8/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 12 years ago
"Obama nominee Kevin Jennings actually said that the founder of NAMBLA -- the North American Man-Boy Love Association

Dang....I always thought that NAMBLA stood for the North American Man-Beer Love Association....



Guess I better snip up my membership card......
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
Jim, I've got better things to do then pretend that Fox news is anything other than the conservative bullsh*t factory. Teabagging anyone?

"better things to do"....By your own admission, keeping your head firmly implanted in your arse.

No, you have the right, Bridgier, If you prefer to be an ignorant parrot for George Soros, that's your option. Keep the blinders on. It makes my day.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
Jim, did Jennings commit a crime? If he did, where is your proof? There seems to be proof that the allegations are false. If additional proof comes to light that Jennings commited a crime, then I would expect him to be prosecuted to the extent that the law allows.

If the allegations are false, then what are we supposed to surmise about the people who are pushing these allegations? They're either mistaken or duplicitous. Given that many of these are the same people that pushed death panels and kenyan birth certificates, I would have to say that they're probably the latter.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Yeah, but there WILL be DEATH PANELS and the KENYAN BIRF CERTIFICATES are REAL!!!!!!!


Just ask Ricardo!


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
for that matter ask Fox News...they love to push that crap as well...
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
Just don't ask mediamatters. They don't push crap.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
Right you are, Media Matters doesn't push crap...They just expose it...
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
Right you are, Media Matters Fox News doesn't push crap...They just expose it...
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
Boring again Heath..You keep repeating things I say...Like some kind of goofy parrot...try having original thoughts...
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
Jim, did Jennings commit a crime? If he did, where is your proof? There seems to be proof that the allegations are false. If additional proof comes to light that Jennings commited a crime, then I would expect him to be prosecuted to the extent that the law allows

There seems to be no debate as to whether or not the underage sex took place and that Jennings had knowledge. Did it happen in New York? If so, then the incident was statutory rape. The age of consent in New York is 17. There is also a reporting requirement that makes it a crime not to report, if you have knowledge. If this is all true then, yes, Jennings did commit a crime.

Did it happen in Massachusetts? If so, the sexual encounter was a crime because the individual who contacted Jennings was under 18. So Jennings had knowledge of a crime but merely advised the youth to "use a condom". Was it a crime not to report it in Massachusetts? I don't know. If not, then legally, Jennings is off the hook.

In either case, is what the guy did, once he had knowledge of a sex crime involving a student, not a moral outrage, for Christ's sake? Is this the kind of scum bag you think is suitable in that position, Bridgier?

Can you guess what "school board" Jim would do with this guys application if he had knowledge of Jennings involvement in this situation?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
Except everyone seems to think that the act in question wasn't statutory rape.

Including a judge in Massachusetts:

http://masscases.com/case...ss521.html

1. Rape of a child. The offense of statutory rape, G. L. c. 265, Section 23, may be committed with or without any knowledge on the defendant's part of the age of the victim. Commonwealth v. Moore, 359 Mass. 509 , 514 (1971). The only elements the Commonwealth must prove are (1) sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, with (2) a child under sixteen years of age. It is undisputed that at the times of the alleged offenses the child was only fifteen years old. The defendant admitted in his testimony that he had sexual relations with her on "any number" of occasions. Therefore, there was evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant had committed the crimes.

Wendy?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 12 years ago
A statement from the *victim*

"Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody's concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my "well-being" and that of America's students, they'll be relieved to know that I was not "inducted" into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.

In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation's students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings' courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I'd be the proud gay man that I am today."

- Brewster

http://mediamatters.org/b...0910020029
http://mediamatters.org/b...0910020026
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
propaganda
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
So, if the alleged victim didn't even end up having sex with anybody, what's the issue here? Is it the icky icky gayness factor?
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
So, if the alleged victim didn't even end up having sex with anybody, what's the issue here? Is it the icky icky gayness factor?

No, I think it has more to do with good judgment, but then you apparently don't know anything about that, or you would have answered my question.

I won't even try to argue for or against anything that happens in the Socialist Republic of Massachusetts. For the right price, I'm sure there is a "Brewster" on every street corner. With only an "unidentified student" involved, Jennings has his pick of who to trot out.

I do find it curious that in his own words, Jennings made the statement that he told the student: "I hope you used a condom."

Interesting choice of tense.

[This message has been edited by Jim Brady (10/8/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Geez, Jimbo, I thought you wingnuts were for State's rights!?

Only when it suits you, like most everything else.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
So if there was no crime, what would "good judgement" have looked like?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 12 years ago
"propaganda" Heath said 'propaganda". AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
cough cough AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
When was it determined that no crime had been committed? Was that when Media Matters said so? Was that when an alleged "victim" emerged contradicting Jennings himself?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
Both of those have better documentation attached to them then your supposition.
Top
Posted by Matt - Schmitz (+167) 12 years ago
According to Bill O'Reilly himself, FOX news should get credit for "pushing" the story. I thought that FOX news was going to report the story, then let me decide? At least thats what they have been telling us all, ad nauseum, since what seems like before the dawn of time.
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1284) 12 years ago
Crime or not his advice as a guidance counselor was inappropriate at best. Just knowing there is a NABLMA gives me the creeps and if I was a parent of school age children I would go ballistic.

As it stands now I don't care who you allow to influence your children but if you catch little Susie chomping on the wall to wall don't bitch to me. I'm just saying.....
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
Fox News doesn't report they push it right down your throat....It is like News for the Mentally Challenged...
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
mediamatters doesn't report they push it right down your throat....It is like News for the Mentally Challenged
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
there is that parrot again...He must think he is clever...How sad...
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
As it stands now I don't care who you allow to influence your children but if you catch little Susie chomping on the wall to wall don't bitch to me

I must need more coffee - it took me far to long to figure out Chuck's awesome metaphor this morning.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
I still am trying to decipher it...Wall to wall can be either carpet or facebook terminology...Please enlighten me...
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Try some more coffee.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
Why, Richard? Can't you explain it?
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
This thing will play out according to what's becoming the standard Obama script:

1) Obama makes a stupid appointment of one of his ideological cronies.
2) The story comes out about what a nut-case/crook/commie/pervert (take your pick) the individual is.
3) Right on cue, the radical Left (Media Matters, etc.) comes out with a bunch of lies to try to defend Obama's "judgment".
4) When the video tape shows up, the whole "defense" is exposed for what it is.
5) The Democrats are forced to eat crow and accept the person is a creep/crook/commie/pervert.
6) Obama throws them under the bus,(on a weekend) claiming the creep/crook/commie/pervert was smeared by Fox News.

The radical Left is so focused, they are incapable of not doing this to themselves. Here's a preview of up-coming events:

Going into the Fall Classic, the line-up is:

At bat: Kevin Jennings, "Safe" Schools Czar. (Next under the Bus) Thinks schools should not be allowed to promote "heterosexuality" with things like Romeo and Juliette and Proms.

On-deck: Cass Sunstein, Regulatory Czar. Thinks your dog should be able to hire a lawyer and sue you.

In the hole: John Holdren, Science Czar. Promotes forced sterilization as a good thing.

Up next: Carol Browner, Energy Czar. Card-carrying Communist.

So much to do. So little time.

Bridgier, if you had never heard of Kevin Jennings before, you have a lot of reading to do. Chuck did his.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
Oh dear howdy... how do I put this. Google "carpet" and "munch", and all will be revealed.

Jim - elections have consequences. I'm sorry that your generation's term on the school board has come to an end. I'm sure I'll be just as pissed and crochety when it's my generation's turn to hand things over.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
oh dear Bridgier...
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
I'm sure I'll be just as pissed and crochety when it's my generation's turn to hand things over.

Funny! You play the "youth" card, like your immune.

Frankly, Bridgier, if you do as good a job as my generation did on turning this Country into a Socialist State, I'm glad I won't be around to see what you have left to turn over. So far, all indications are that your generation will exceed ours, in spades.

Enjoy what freedoms you have left, while they last.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
I was being serious there Jim - I realize that I'm not immune to being on the wrong side of history.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+583) 12 years ago
Enjoy what freedoms you have left, while they last.

Could we have a serious discussion? Jim, do me the favor of naming a freedom, a single, constitutionally guaranteed right, that you have had taken away from you in the past thirty years or so. And it would be nice if you could proivide some sort of real evidence.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
Derf, there are some people who are still pissed about the new deal. The world is moving on, and Jim don't like.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Well, some people have been upset since the Civil Rights Act was enacted. Some of them post on this site.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
Well, Derf. Just off the top of my head lets start with the 4th amendment. Make several substantial cash deposits in your bank account. You would be surprised to know how much snooping in your personal affairs and papers this can produce. You have no privacy from the government in this area. If your financial affairs are "suspicious" it will spread to everyone you do business with. The bank will tell you the limit to report is $10,000. When you're drinking with the bankers, they will tell you they will report any amount of cash if you "look suspicious" to cover their butts. Your government encourages this and will support them.

You have a Constitutional right against self-incrimination under the 5th amendment. Try to use it in front of a Grand Jury. If you refuse to testify, you will be held in contempt without bail for as long as the judge wants to hold you. It's Gitmo right here in the USA

Get in a car accident with an injury involved. No death, just an injury. You have had a beer or two and refuse a breathalyzer. Explain to the nice policeman as they strap you to the gurney and forcibly take your blood, how your protection against self-incrimination is Constitutional. See if he listens.

Now, how about your access to public transportation like airports and airplanes and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures....Need I go further?

If you want hard concrete proof, Derf, I suggest you experience some of these things for yourself.

Now you can argue all you want that society needs these regulations to protect itself from "bad guys" but they are all violations of the individuals right under Constitution and right is only a right if it is absolute. Anything else is a limited freedom granted you by your government.

[This message has been edited by Jim Brady (10/9/2009)]
Top
Posted by LG (+195) 12 years ago
What's so wrong with being a member of the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+583) 12 years ago
Jim, I asked you a simple question. I didn't ask for paranoid and delusional rantings posted under a pseudonym. Next time, try to get real.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Get in a car accident with an injury involved. No death, just an injury. You have had a beer or two and refuse a breathalyzer. Explain to the nice policeman as they strap you to the gurney and forcibly take your blood, how your protection against self-incrimination is Constitutional. See if he listens.

The 5th Amendment does not use the words self incrimination. In short it says:

No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .

The US Supreme Court held forth on this issue in Schmerber v. California in 1966. According to the Court the 5th Amendment does not protect against the taking of this kind of evidence. It protects testimonial types of evidence. The Court likened blood tests to fingerprints and photos which certainly may incriminate the defendant but which do not violate the 5th Amendment.

This decision came during the Warren Court, a period where the Court was actually expanding civil rights, not restricting them. Many states, including Montana, have statutes that make it clear that when you drive a motor vehicle you consent to having a BAC taken. These statutes have been held to be constitutional. Try again.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
But it's my right to travel upon the king's road in any manner that I see fit!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Well, Derf. Just off the top of my head lets start with the 4th amendment. Make several substantial cash deposits in your bank account. You would be surprised to know how much snooping in your personal affairs and papers this can produce. You have no privacy from the government in this area. If your financial affairs are "suspicious" it will spread to everyone you do business with. The bank will tell you the limit to report is $10,000. When you're drinking with the bankers, they will tell you they will report any amount of cash if you "look suspicious" to cover their butts. Your government encourages this and will support them.

----------

Jim:

Please explain how this is an infringement on your Constitutional rights.

Are you prohibited from making large cash deposits or withdrawals from your friendly (or not-so-friendly) financial institution?

I'll answer that for you. No.

The bank is required by regulation to log certain cash transactions and complete a Currency Transaction Report for cash transactions over $10,000.

If you're not laundering money or evading income taxes, you'll have no problem.

HINT: Don't "structure" transactions - i.e. take out or deposit cash just under the limits. Your bank will file a "Suspicious Activity Report" if they suspect structuring. Banks likely reported Eliot Spitzer ($$$ to buy prostitutes) and Rusty Limbaugh ($$$ to buy painkillers).

Don't be Eliot or Rusty.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
BTW, Jim - I believe that this reporting began on/about 1970 after passage of the Bank Secrecy Act (signed by Richard M. Nixon).

I'm also pretty sure that SARs began as a result of legislation signed by Ronald W. Reagan.

I could be mistaken, just going from memory here.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 12 years ago
public transportation like airports and airplanes

Really? When did the airlines become nationalized?

You're old enough to remember back in the good old days Jim: when hijackings were a fairly common occurrence? Why has that changed?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Geez, Bridgier. You've gotta pick your battles.

According to Mr. Jennings' own description in a new audiotape discovered by Fox News, the 15-year-old boy met the "older man" in a "bus station bathroom" and was taken to the older man's home that night. When some details about the case became public, Mr. Jennings threatened to sue another teacher who called his failure to report the statutory rape "unethical." Mr. Jennings' defenders asserted that there was no evidence that he was aware the student had sex with the older man.

However, the new audiotape contradicts this claim. In 2000, Mr. Jennings gave a talk to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an advocacy group that promotes homosexuality in schools. On the tape, Mr. Jennings recollected that he told the student to make sure "to use a condom" when he was with the older man. That he actively encouraged the relationship is reinforced by Mr. Jennings' own description in his 1994 book, "One Teacher in 10." In that account, the teacher boasts how he allayed the student's concerns about the relationship to such a degree that the 15-year-old "left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated."


It would be one thing to argue whether he should go to jail.

Are you seriously arguing that this guy should be our country's Czar of safe schools?

Did Mary Kay Letourneau have too many tax skeletons to nominate or what's the deal?
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
For a long time I've been debating which of you is the biggest phony that posts here. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Derf. Seeing an alleged "man of God" accuse me of "paranoid and delusional rantings" reminds me of why I left the Catholic Church when I was 18. What a sad, laughable, sorry lot you are.

You asked a question and I answered it. You should have saved us both the time and effort and delivered your response before you asked the question, because no matter what I said, you had your response ready to go. I'm not a lawyer and I don't claim to be so I answered from experience and "off the top of my head."

You on the other hand, claim to be a preacher and a pastor, no less. Here's some unsolicited advice for you: If you're certified to give the flock counseling with something other than a mail-order diploma, get some Professional Liability insurance. If you choose to ignore reality and believe in spirits, who's the delusional one, Derf?


As I said before, by definition, a right is only a right if it is absolute. Anything else is a limited freedom granted to you by your government. The document in the Constitution is labeled the "Bill of Rights". Not the "Bill of Limited Freedoms Granted" The facts are that we are not secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and warrantless searches and seizures and calling me "paranoid and delusional" doesn't change that. I don't need proof, Derf. I've had the discussions with people on both sides of the issue.

Wendy. As a tax attorney, your silence on this issue was quite noticeable. You picked your fight. Any comment about the collusion and warrantless searches? Any comment about suspension of a persons rights before a Grand Jury?

Since some of the greatest erosion of our freedoms came out of the Warren Court, it doesn't surprise me any to see you use the decisions of that Court to make your point. The "great advances in "Civil Rights" argument is just Leftist smoke and mirrors to disarm criticism of the Warren Court for trampling all over the Constitution during their tenure. Your own example back at 'ya.

Arguing that strapping a person down and sticking a needle in their arm to extract body fluid without a warrant is not compelling that person to be a "witness" against himself, uses semantics to ignore intent.

Taking a persons fingerprints is not an invasive procedure and is little different that taking a persons cloths for evidence. Needles are somewhat invasive and the procedure begs the question: why is it then, that a warrant is required to compel a person to give a DNA sample against their will?

Clue: It's because it's invasive and raises the possibility of additional incrimination for which there is no probable cause.

I'm sure if the technology had been around during the Warren Court they would have taken care of that "problem" as well. (I see that some lower courts {Indiana} are using the "limited searches" definition from the Warren Court to try and get around the privacy issues, so the dominoes continue to fall)

Hey Derf! I'm going to go now.....and...and..count my guns again!

Moran.

[This message has been edited by Jim Brady (10/10/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
Jim, why did you sign your name Moran?? Calling names isn't nice no matter to yourself or others IMO...

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/10/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Jim, I'm not a tax attorney. I'm an attorney who once practiced criminal law. I no longer practice law so I may be a little rusty but I can read case law.

Anyway, your interpretation of the 5th Amendment smacks of reading into the language something that is not there. Conservatives generally frown on that. As far a search and seizure goes the state is allowed to do a search without a warrant as long as it is incidental to the arrest and exigent circumstances require it. This means that evidence could be destoyed if the state doesn't do something immediately to preserve it. Alcohol in the blood is eventually metabolized and disappears. Time is of the essence and the officer does need probable cause to believe that alcohol is involved in the accident before requesting a test. Sounds to me as though you're just bitter because you got caught.

I believe that it was during the Warren court that the Right to Privacy was recognized. I would argue that this is the most significant right we have under the Constitution.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
Since driving is a privilege and not a constitutional right, we have to protect that privilege by going by the rules of the state such as not drinking and driving...
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
Sounds to me as though you're just bitter because you got caught.

Well, you're wrong because, to date, I have never had a DUI.

I have been present during enough of them to give me my opinion on the Constitutionality of the process.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Some company you keep, Jim.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
Well, I'd rather hang with real people who sometimes have problems, than the self-righteous, who's problems are everybody else....
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Jim:

You'd be fun to have a couple of drinks with.

I'm not being facetious.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 12 years ago
I'd like to have a couple of drinks with Jim too, but I'm not driving.
Top