a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050522015797157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-05 21:43:14 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
said:

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...



Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all
non-felons should be allowed to participate in it. snip

In what State are felons not permitted to marry?

--
Peter
I was speaking of the general fact that constitutional rights
are available to all non felons......

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that felons lose
their rights. And which rights are you talking about. Aside
from possibly some
under the Second Amendment, which has never been tested?

In many (if not most) states, convicted felons lose the right to
vote.

Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are
other
rights they don't have.

G. Gordon Liddy had an interesting comment on this. He said that
being a convicted felon (after Watergate) he couldn't own a gun,
"but my wife owns a
gun -- and she keeps it on my side of the bed."

That might work in Florida, or Virginia. In California the convicted
felon cannot have access to a firearm.
...but I don't think Liddy, or Mrs. Liddy visit California packing.

How exactly would that be enforceable, I wonder?

Suppose you had a large household which included one convicted
felon. Then none of the perfectly innocent and law-abiding folks
there could own a gun either? . . . I suppose if they have one of
those silly laws about all firearms being kept in a locked safe that
might take care of it, but then again it might not. Logically the
key to the gun safe would have to be locked up too, and then the key
to THAT locked up, and so on ad infinitum. "Jane, wake up! There are
men breaking in downstairs! Quick, where's the key to the key to the
key to the . . . "
Yes.....the California law is 1. Stupid. and 2. Grossly
unconstitutional, for a variety of reasons. The founding fathers knew

It's stupid enough; I don't know that it's unconstitutional.

and understood that everyone has the right to protect themselves. It
had to take a California liberal to trash that.

I love the new governor of Arizona....She just signed a bill into law

I love her too. Wish we had more governors like her, not to mention
congresscritters.

that gives all citizens the right to carry weapons concealed without
any licensing whatsoever.....It would seem that she can read and
interpret the very plain and easy to understand English of the second
amendment. I wonder why both she and my fifth grade teacher (Mrs.
Hughes) can understand simple English, but the US Supreme court
judges can't seem to be able to do it?

Easy now. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't made any all-encompassing rulings
on the Second Amendment, but what they've done in recent years has been
pretty good. They threw out the Washington D.C. handgun ban, don't
forget. If we got more justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas
we'd be in good shape. Obviously we're not going to get any more decent
justices while The Anointed One is in the White House, but the current
and soon-to-be Senate may be able to prevent any more Sotomayors.

Neither can the leaders of the
great state of California....:^)

The Left Coast is hopeless I think, not even salvageable. We probably
should give California back to Mexico, which it seems to have effectively
become part of anyway. Among other benefits giving it back would much
improve the electoral college.

The problem with that is that the left coast has the nicest climate in the
whole country.....After being born and raised on the East coast, and
spending 17 miserable Summers there, finding the Pacific coast was like
going to heaven. I hate the political climate, but I am still unable to
leave it. When California became intolerable, I moved to Oregon, and the
senior citizens up here are politically in pretty close alignment with me,
so I will probably end up staying here.....But the California philosophy
is creeping up here, and things are getting politically worse and worse. I
am sure they will start a sales tax in the next 10 years of so. (for
example) When I speak out against it to anyone less than 50 years old, I
can see their eyes glass over, and I know they can't understand a word I
say.....:^)

They must be aware of how things are going in California, though. I should
think that would serve as a powerful incentive not to turn left.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050819140939425-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-08 19:04:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


snip there was any proposition that passed on the California ballot in
the
40 years that I lived there that I voted for. Living in California was
just like being a convicted felon, even though I had a clean
record.....:^)

Bill, you are truly in denial, or ignorant, or both, of the true
geographic, political divide in California.
I guess you are unfamiliar with Orange and Kern Counties, just to name
some of the very "conservative" Californian hot beds.

Your bitterness seems to have no end.


Substitute "selfish lack of social responsibility" for "bitterness" and you
have a more accurate description of the man.


--
Peter

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news
Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...



Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.


Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?

Obviously, Sotomayor.

Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
do you object to?

Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.

The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.


That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
existed at the time of her decision.

What precedents?

The ones upholding affirmative action. I'm sure you were aware that in
Ricci she ruled against white and Hispanic firefighters. Acccording to my
notes, she is Hispanic. Your statement that she gave preferential
treatment to Hispanic people is contrary to the decision you are relying
on.

You are correct, but there were seventeen whites and ONE Hispanic. I had
forgotten the one Hispanic. Mea culpa. It was still mainly a ruling
against white firefighters, based on their race. And I don't know about
precedents "upholding affirmative action." Precedents have been mixed, I
think.

In any case her ruling was sublimely stupid and completely racist.




That decision doesn't make her a
racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.

I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she
downplayed her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of
agenda would.

At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.

I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score
lower on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been
pretty well debunked.

When? Citation please.

I can't provide you with any off hand; it is my impression from what I've
read about the subject over the years. IQ tests are not supposed to be
based on one's knowledge or schooling, and I am not aware of any proof
that they are, or on any other factor that would skew them in favor of
some race or other population group.

That's correct. An IQ test tests your ability to learn, and not what you
have already learned, or been educated in. As such, they are rather
difficult to create. Ideally, they should be language irrelevant, and
experience irrelevant, and this is not easy to accomplish, but the
psychologists have been able to come up with some pretty good ones in recent
years. I have trouble measuring my own IQ, because most every test I can
find has questions on it that I have seen in the past.....I did find one a
few months ago that I hadn't seen before, and I took it and it measured only
about 5 points less than the IQ I had when I was 10 years old, so I took it
as being quite accurate. (I am 74) I think a five point drop by the time you
are in your middle 70's is pretty reasonable.....

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news
Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...



Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.


Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?

Obviously, Sotomayor.

Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
do you object to?

Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.

The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.


That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
existed at the time of her decision.

What precedents?

That decision doesn't make her a
racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.

I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she
downplayed her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of
agenda would.

At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.

I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score
lower on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been
pretty well debunked.

If you are testing people for a specific job, you should ask questions
that are applicable to the job, and if the evaluator of the test results
does not know who took the test (is unaware of the race or color of the
testees) then the results should be fair to all races and ethnic groups.
If all this is true, and you still end up with an all white group of
firemen, then who can you blame for that?

Just so. In one large city (I forget which) a few years ago, not a single
black in the police department could pass the test for sergeant. I believe
they tried more than once, with the same result. So they just went ahead
and promoted some blacks to sergeant anyway, over whites who had gotten
passing test scores.

Now that is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes....But it is a sign of the times.....Part of the rationale for it, is
that when the children of those blacks come of age, they will have been
raised with the same income as the white kids, and will do as well on the
tests as the white kids as a result. But it doesn't answer the question as
to what's fair to the white kids today, does it?

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

To the vast majority of the world population, marriage continues to be
exactly what has been all along: the legal union of a man and a woman.
All your beliefs, theories and opinions to the contrary do not change
that simple fact one iota.

It would seem to me that, even if what you say is true, what are you going
to do when someone, with the body of one sex, feels that he/she is really
the other sex? And furthermore, no science, medical or otherwise, can
change this feeling within that person's mind. You can call this a
disease, but there are lots of people who, having a chronic and uncureable
disease, are forced to live with that disease.....(I, for example, have
psoraises, which is incurable, and I have to live with it) Why not
accomodate these people and give them their maximum opportunity to live
normal lives like those of us who are not, "sick"?

I agree with what you say, but still do not accept that a common and
centuries-old word should be redefined to suit the agenda of a small
minority, over their sexual practices which most of the world still regard
as a thoroughly unacceptable perversion.

I am not unsympathetic to homosexuals, but I believe there are other ways
around their problems than corrupting the institution of marriage, which is
how most people would see same-sex "marriage."

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:201005072013196853-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-07 19:27:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:201005070700181393-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-07 04:56:34 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On Thu, 6 May 2010 23:50:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a convicted
felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We don't need
another layer of government to decide if this convicted felon
should
or should not be treated differently from that convicted felon.

If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why
should they
not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.

1. Who is going to decide?

2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
released and is off parole and probation and based partially on the
person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or probation.
This
means the setting up of some sort of review board that does not
presently exist.

I should think at least the preliminary work could be done as part
of the
parole process. Whatever they need to consider during that, should
have some
bearing on the question of restoration of rights later.

You can't add to the workload without adding to the work staff.
Prisons are presently over-crowded and understaffed.

Most states are having trouble with the current budget in
providing
court personnel. There's no room in the budget to hire people to
evaluate convicted felons about whether or not they get the vote,
right to sit on a jury, or ability to run for public office.

I don't see budget as an excuse.

Of course it is. I don't know about your state, but my state is
cutting back vital services because of budget problems. Everything
from schools to the court system to emergency services is being cut
back because of budget problem.

Unless your state is very unusual, I'll bet there's still an awful
lot of
waste after all the cutbacks.

True, but any state that frees up budget by eliminating waste has
other areas that are more deserving of budget increases.


The last thing we want to do is add a government department to
review
the voting rights status of ex-felons. There is a system already
in
place whereby the convicted felon can apply for reinstatement. Let
the felon initiate the process instead of making the government
handle
it.

I agree with that, but if the felon initiates the process the
government
still has to "handle it," doesn't it?

They only have to handle the submissions made. If he felon doesn't
submit an application, nothing has to be done. An automatic review
would require that all released felons would have to be reviewed.

Most felons don't seem to be interested in regaining their voting
rights. Less than half of the people in any state vote anyway.

In California, with our 170K+ inmates we have about 30K foreign
nationals, 60-70K Lifers. So that would leave us a balance of
100-110K, with a current recidivism rate between 45-50% lets go with
50%.
So here is a current California monthly parolee population report,
which shows 136K parolees, of which 106K are active parolees.

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Resea...AROLEd1003.pdf


575

were deported.
14,668 are parolees at large (PAL), they have vanished and will
probably make up part of the revolving door group going back to
prison.
12,521 are parolees Returned to Custody (PRTC) some of those are
parole violators, and some are pending trial for a new crime.
2,716 pending review.
There are 92K sex offenders statewide, 11K are on active parole.

Standard parole is 3 years.

So that leaves us with about 60-62K who should successfully complete
parole each year. Part of the final documentation from the parole
agent could be a certificate restoring voting rights.

Those are very interesting numbers.

I have what I believe is the perfect solution to U.S. prison
overpopulation, which I modestly call the Harrington Plan. Here it is,
free, gratis and at no charge:

Our states arrange with some other country, preferably in South America
or perhaps Asia, to take our convicted felons. The benefits would be
enormous to all concerned (except the felons involved, of course). I
understand that each inmate of an American prison costs the taxpayer
more than $20,000 a year, perhaps much more than that in some cases.
I'll bet a country like, say, Ecuador would jump at the chance to take
them for $1,000 a year. This would help their economy a great deal
while saving the American taxpayers millions. It would also probably
stop gang leaders from continuing to run their criminal operations
while in prison. And the thought of doing time in an Ecuadoran prison
(or Indonesian, or whatever) might even serve as a useful deterrent to
crime.

Great, huh? (I really think a little applause would be appropriate at
this point.)

It is obvious to me that the liberals don't think of prison as a
"deterrent to crime". They think of prisons as simply a place where the
outlaws are separated from us honest people, and as such, it should be
just as nice and comfortable as where the average honest person gets to
live, only we honest people should have to pay for it.....

I can assure you the California prison system is hardly a "liberal"
concept. Even in the new prisons life is hard and not particularly
comforable. The lock 'em up and throw away the key "right-wingers" in
California voted in the "Three strikes Law" without considering the costs
of housing those inmates.

Those prisons are at 230% of capacity. Level I & II inmates housed in
dorms sleep in triple bunks with very limited space. Those housed in
cells are not bathed in luxury. The public is ignorant as to the reality
of life in prison, it is not as depicted in the movies or on TV dramas.
It is ugly nasty and dangerous.
The largest expansion of the California prison system took place under
the authority of two Law & Order Republican Governors, George Deukmejien
and Pete Wilson.
Because honest people like you choose not to have these criminals running
around victimizing the public freely, they are in prison, now those same
tax payers who demand their incarceration, resent paying for it. Most
Americans, on the right & the left are truly ignorant regarding life
behind those walls.
Maybe we should just take those inmates out behind the building and put a
bullet in the back of their heads. Is that what you would prefer?

I'm THINKING! I'm THINKING!

(It's an old Jack Benny line from his radio show. A robber holds him up
and says, "Your money or your life!" Benny doesn't reply. The robber says,
"I said, your money or your life!" Benny, whose cheapness was a standing
joke on his show, replies, "I'm THINKING! I'm THINKING!")

But seriously, that's the way the Chinese do it with capital crimes,
according to what I've read. Instead of our system of lengthy and hugely
expensive trials, appeals, more appeals, etc., which seem to go on and on
for so many years that the most brutal and sadistic murderer on death row
is more likely to die of old age than of execution, . . . the Chinese
method is very simple, direct and to the point. One (usually rather short)
trial, rather quickly leading to a bullet in the back of the head as you
say. I think the whole process typically takes a couple of weeks. Then the
criminal's family is sent a bill for the cartridge.

For some of our worst criminals, I really wonder whether the Chinese
method would not be the more appropriate one.

A good method, were it not for the fact that a future DNA test might prove
that the guy really didn't commit the crime....After all, all those Chinese
look alike, don't they?

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



I can't provide you with any off hand; it is my impression from what
I've read about the subject over the years. IQ tests are not supposed to
be based on one's knowledge or schooling, and I am not aware of any
proof that they are, or on any other factor that would skew them in
favor of some race or other population group.

Yup! the operative word being "supposed."
As much as we say we are open minded, we cannot help but use our life
experiences in making decisions. IQ tests are based on ability to reason
and solve problems. People from different cultures go about solving
problems differently. When we use the standard in any culture, anyone
else will score lower, by definition.

I would like to see an example of someone solving a problem differently
based on his different culture, and losing points on an IQ test as a
result.

But I don't know why we're talking about IQ tests anyway. These were tests
for firefighters, which I would not assume to be IQ tests. Admittedly I
have no personal knowledge of the tests given, but logically they would
concern firefighting situations, procedures and techniques. Therefore
those with the highest scores would most likely be those who had the
ability to learn important things related to the work of fire fighting,
and who had worked hard enough to absorb those principles in a useful way.

If blacks are deficient in those capabilities, I would say it's probably
because many of them have not, from childhood into early adulthood, made
the best use of their educational opportunities and therefore are not
particularly skilled at learning things. Most of what I see in the news
about black-majority schools (violence, drug dealing, stealing, attacks on
teachers, rape, etc.) makes them look pretty bad. Who made those schools
that way? The black students themselves. Now THAT probably is a cultural
factor.




It's a major social problem. When I was a kid if a cop whacked me with his
night stick my father would tell me to behave better and I wouldn't get
whacked. Today............

Also, we have parents who do not encourage their kids to study. In our
assimilated Asian and Jewish cultures, parents work hard to make sure their
kids study and learn. Can't say this is true of all of our assimilated
cultures.
BTW did you read my cite on chimpanzee IQ?

--
Peter

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050808335939063-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-08 06:48:37 -0700, "Peter" said:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 May 2010 21:08:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Any drug can be abused. Certain drugs, such as crystal meth and H have
little or no known medical value. I also agree that substantial crime
is
associated with illegal drug use. While I can't cite statistics, I
think
that if distribution and use of certain drugs

That's the part that bothers me about legalization of marijuana. The
rules would creep. Once marijuana is legal, it would be easier to get
other drugs on the list.


Do you remember the Vietnam domino theory?

that have legitimate medical uses, such as marijuana,

C'mon, now. What's the real need for medical use of marijuana?
One-tenth of one percent of the potential users? Yeah, it's helpful
to glaucoma sufferers and chronic pain victims, but so are other -
legal - drugs.


Marijuana is the only substance that has been shown to provide a high
degree of relief from many of the side effects of chemotherapy.
I had a friend who had a fatal neurological disease that caused,
paralysis accompanied by chronic sever pain. He had a life expectancy of
no more than ninety days. Under medical guidelines he could only receive
moderate narcotic doses, because they did not want him to become
addicted.

They gave him 90 days, and were worried about him becoming addicted!
What were they smoking?
They should have just given him whatever made him comfortable, narcotics,
marijuana, a 19 year old hooker, everything.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

You wouldn't want Heaven to be full of narcotic addicts, would you?

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
t...
Peter wrote:
"Steve House" wrote in message
"Neil Harrington"

Judges change with the political winds. Unfortunately, supreme
courts do
as
well, but nothing in the U.S. Constitution supports the notion of
same-sex
"marriage." And I daresay it never will.

The Constitution does not "support" same-sex marriage nor does it
need
to. What is more important is it does not PROHIBIT same sex
marriage.
But it does prohibit the Federal and State from enacting laws
that
violate fundamental human rights.

Which CLAUSE says that?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment

No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the
equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment

The Ninth amendment is not a source of rights. It is a rule about how
to
read the Constitution.

Nonsense.

read the Constitution. See Lash, Kurt T. (2009). The Lost History of
the
Ninth Amendment. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195372611. Then after
you
have read that book, report back and apologize.

Gullible idiot.



About the level of intelligence I should have expected from you.

Bye

BTW If you had the same response after reading my references, I might
have respect for you.

Peter, you should have no thought of respecting Ray Fischer -- he is a
complete nincompoop and a waste of time. He's been in my kill file for
a year or so and he belongs in yours too.

Ray has been in my kill file for over a year, and Peter has recently
joined him.....:^)

Oh, why Peter? He doesn't seem like a bad sort.

Only because he keeps referring to me as some kind of a tightwad/skinflint
because I don't like my government stealing my money away from me and
giving it to whatever charity they think is important. - I kind of like
supporting my own charities....Local ones where I can drop in from time to
time and see what they are doing with my money. I was very unhappy when
they took several billion dollars of my money and used it to give a dozen
ass-naughts a round trip ticket to the moon, (for example) I don't think
the Helpers homes for the mentally retarded in San Francisco was any
better off for that expenditure, and I give them money every month. But
Peter doesn't seem to be able to understand things like that, so after a
bit, I became discouraged with his assholeism......


No good can come from any science. \end sarcastic tag
Try backing up your quoted "facts."


--
Peter

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:201005081920201669-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-08 18:37:15 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050720255140977-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-07 19:38:48 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050709260286357-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-07 09:09:23 -0700, "Peter"
said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050708481825228-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-07 08:18:58 -0700, "Peter"
said:

A power hammer would have the same effect. Indeed, something
similar is used in slaughter houses.

Aah! The "No Country for Old Men" system.

Anyway the "...or any instrument which a reasonable person would
believe to be capable of being used as a weapon as defined in Penal
Code 12020;" should cover any hammer, baseball bat, golf club,
hockey stick, ski pole, etc. Given what an inmate learns with regard
to fabricating weapons while in prison, a pencil could fall into
that category.


Wonder if a statute written so broadly is really enforceable. It
seems to me that your ordinance would prohibit parolees from working
in the construction industry. In NYC enacted an ordinance that as so
broadly written the women in Central Park would have been prohibited
from knitting. The ordinance was quickly determined to be
Unconstitutional.
My Leatherman has a blade longer than 2".

It becomes a catch all, and gives a cop, or parole agent broad
discretion when dealing with a parolee who is being an asshole.
...and they can be assholes. There are, however a handful of parolees
who are sweet misunderstood souls.

--
Regards,

Savageduck


And, since when is, "enforceability" any requirement for liberal laws?
As a matter of fact, this is one of the requirements for my decision as
to whether to obey a law or not.....If it is unenforceable, then I
believe I am obligated to break it....:^)

Why do you consider this a "Liberal" law?
It still seems that anything you disagree with, you just liberally throw
"Liberal" at it.
It is enforceable when the subject encounters a law enforcement officer,
or parole agent , and he/she has violated any of his conditions of
parole, or has committed another crime.

What is "Liberal" about denying convicted felons access to weapons?
What is "Liberal" with compelling arsonists, registered drug offenders &
sex offenders to register and limit where they can live and work?
What is "Liberal" about sentencing a "third striker" to 25 years to
life, even if the third strike is not a violent crime?
There is nothing "liberal" about crime, or the means of controlling it.

You need to recognize what is, and isn't Liberal" before you label
everything you disagree with as "Liberal!"

--
Regards,

Savageduck

I only speak from experience.....In my experience the liberals just love
unenforceable laws, so it's perfectly natural for me to refer to such
laws as liberal laws.....Even if the conservatives happen to like them,
they are liberal laws to me.

...and you prove beyond doubt, that you have no idea what is "liberal"
"conservative" "left-wing" "right-wing" or any other political flavor. All
you are prepared to accept is what suits you, and then you throw "liberal"
at everything else, you either disaprove of, or don't understand.
...and that seems to be just about everything.
There is something very disturbing about your take on reality.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

No matter...I have escaped to the wonderful land to the North....I will
leave you guys to stew in your own, "Liberal" juice. by the time your poison
creeps up here, I will be peacefully 6 feet underground and finally free of
the idiocy.