261–270 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many other 20-somethings can you name who have impacted the world for the better as much as he has?
None. But until Swartz committed suicide, I couldn't have named him either.
Interesting note -- the WSJ editorial report (a Fox show I doubt most HN folk regularly catch) had a segment on the Swartz case. One editor (Joseph Rago) came out strongly in his favor, speaking out against Ortiz and prosecutorial overreach. I think it was Sun Tzu who said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's important to realize there is still a strong strain of libertarian thought on the right, that is suppo…
I think that aside from a few very specific issues, no one supports civil liberties per se. They support civil liberties when their side doesn't have the presidency and oppose them when their side does have it. The real issue is executive powers, and you're obviously going to support more executive powers when your side controls the executive branch while opposing it when the other side would benefit from them. This…
What the Left fails to seem to realize is while they may love Obama to death, the Presidency is not any one person, it is an office. Obama's extension of executive powers is inherited by the next Republican president just like Bush and Cheney's were inherited by Obama.
This is probably another downside of the hyper-partisan tone of today's politics. Obama supporters stay quiet about his abuses for fear of weakening him in his zero-sum fight with the Tea Party. But this ends-justifies-means selective outrage is not a principled stance, and in the end the next Romney type who gets in there will reap the benefit of our collective silence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that aside from a few very specific issues, no one supports civil liberties per se. They support civil liberties when their side doesn't have the presidency and oppose them when their side does have it. The real issue is executive powers, and you're obviously going to support more executive powers when your side controls the executive branch while opposing it when the other side would benefit from them. This…
I agree that each side is apparently blind to the civil liberties abuses of their own proponents. If a president named Bush were doing what Obama is doing wrt drones, wiretapping, Justice dept overreach, deportations, and zealous prosecution of Marijuana laws (even when states have clearly taken a different path), I can only guess how many HuffPo articles a week would be foaming at the mouth. What the Left fails to s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep in mind that all federal prosecutors are 100% committed to putting (especially poor and minority) citizens in prison for years for the victimless crimes of drug possession and distribution. This practice has destroyed hundreds of communities and millions of lives. There are no good apples in this barrel. Every federal prosecutor should get some portion of the punishments they're so eager to mete out.
So I take it you have signed affidavits from every federal prosecutor to that effect? And proof that drug possession and distribution are always entirely victimless. The fact is that I generally support decriminalisation, and that I acknowledge the fact that prosecution tends to treat those of lesser socioeconomic standing (such as the poor and those belonging to minorities) badly. But blanket statements generally do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ortiz specifically has brought other cases that have made me furious. Check out this one where she is trying to seize a family owned budget motel. There is no complaint whatsoever against the owner, but about once every other year the cops bust some low-level drug deal. The motel is paid-off and owned by the son of the founder and is worth 1.5 million, therefore she saw an easy civil forfeiture target. She is out of…
Careful here. Any time you read a story like "government attempts to liquidate real property to fund police department", your first thought should be "that's not the whole story", because (for the most part) that's not how the federal government operates. So, some issues with this story: * This case is Sonya Rao, not Carmen Ortiz (though once again Ortiz oversees all the cases in her office). * The hotel is, let's no…
Despite the possibilty that they may reflect the truth, most of those reviews are obvious snark, written in the style of depilatory creme reviews http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R231U4ZG0YDNHD/ref=cm_cr_dp_t... ie: not to be taken seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful here. Any time you read a story like "government attempts to liquidate real property to fund police department", your first thought should be "that's not the whole story", because (for the most part) that's not how the federal government operates. So, some issues with this story: * This case is Sonya Rao, not Carmen Ortiz (though once again Ortiz oversees all the cases in her office). * The hotel is, let's no…
>and here's Yelp ("Please don't bring your kids here.") Despite the possibilty that they may reflect the truth, most of those reviews are obvious snark, written in the style of depilatory creme reviews http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R231U4ZG0YDNHD/ref=cm_cr_dp_t... ie: not to be taken seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I take it you have signed affidavits from every federal prosecutor to that effect? And proof that drug possession and distribution are always entirely victimless. The fact is that I generally support decriminalisation, and that I acknowledge the fact that prosecution tends to treat those of lesser socioeconomic standing (such as the poor and those belonging to minorities) badly. But blanket statements generally do…
...blanket statements generally don't help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...blanket statements generally don't help.
Okay, so sue me. How would you have phrased that sentence?