(02-11-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work.

Not really speaking to your comment and not saying you would agree or disagree with what I'm about to say; this just came to mind while reading your comment.

While I agree with the principle, I'm not sure i always agree with the practice.

The free market at work is you choosing to frequent or not an establishment and even posting something online about 'why' or encouraging others to do so.

I'm not sure standing out front of an establishment and shaming those who choose to frequent it is....unless one argues that aggressively picketing an abortion clinic is 'the free market at work'.

Peaceful protests, no problem. SOME of these are there for the publicity and even the confrontation. One's 'passion' should not be allowed to restrict someone else's liberty

I don't believe that picketing abortion clinics in a peaceful manner has been made illegal, has it? I wouldn't necessarily describe it as "free market" because it's picketing a medical procedure itself, as opposed to the person providing the service.

If we want to do a direct comparison to CFA, the abortion picketing would be like people picketing at all fried chicken joints because people were choosing to eat chicken. Further, a lot of the push back against CFA was through the decision to get the same service (fried chicken) elsewhere.

But I think the overarching theme is pretty similar.

(02-11-2020 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work.

Not really speaking to your comment and not saying you would agree or disagree with what I'm about to say; this just came to mind while reading your comment.

While I agree with the principle, I'm not sure i always agree with the practice.

The free market at work is you choosing to frequent or not an establishment and even posting something online about 'why' or encouraging others to do so.

I'm not sure standing out front of an establishment and shaming those who choose to frequent it is....unless one argues that aggressively picketing an abortion clinic is 'the free market at work'.

Peaceful protests, no problem. SOME of these are there for the publicity and even the confrontation. One's 'passion' should not be allowed to restrict someone else's liberty

I don't believe that picketing abortion clinics in a peaceful manner has been made illegal, has it? I wouldn't necessarily describe it as "free market" because it's picketing a medical procedure itself, as opposed to the person providing the service.

If we want to do a direct comparison to CFA, the abortion picketing would be like people picketing at all fried chicken joints because people were choosing to eat chicken. Further, a lot of the push back against CFA was through the decision to get the same service (fried chicken) elsewhere.

But I think the overarching theme is pretty similar.

It is very much directed at the person themself as well as the procedure. It is an attempt to damage the practice of that doctor, in both senses of the word 'practice' in that context.

That is also why those abortion providers' homes are picketed.

(02-11-2020 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work.

Not really speaking to your comment and not saying you would agree or disagree with what I'm about to say; this just came to mind while reading your comment.

While I agree with the principle, I'm not sure i always agree with the practice.

The free market at work is you choosing to frequent or not an establishment and even posting something online about 'why' or encouraging others to do so.

I'm not sure standing out front of an establishment and shaming those who choose to frequent it is....unless one argues that aggressively picketing an abortion clinic is 'the free market at work'.

Peaceful protests, no problem. SOME of these are there for the publicity and even the confrontation. One's 'passion' should not be allowed to restrict someone else's liberty

I don't believe that picketing abortion clinics in a peaceful manner has been made illegal, has it? I wouldn't necessarily describe it as "free market" because it's picketing a medical procedure itself, as opposed to the person providing the service.

If we want to do a direct comparison to CFA, the abortion picketing would be like people picketing at all fried chicken joints because people were choosing to eat chicken. Further, a lot of the push back against CFA was through the decision to get the same service (fried chicken) elsewhere.

But I think the overarching theme is pretty similar.

It is very much directed at the person themself as well as the procedure. It is an attempt to damage the practice of that doctor, in both senses of the word 'practice' in that context.

That is also why those abortion providers' homes are picketed.

My point is that the procedure is the reason for the picketing - it's not like there are other abortion clinics that the picketers would prefer the service receivers use. They're not out there protesting Dr. Bob and saying that people should use Dr. Susan.

It's more akin to groups like PETA protesting the use of fur or eating animals, where they want people to stop a practice, not change who they do business with.

I think it's a subtle, but important distinction. But maybe saying the abortion protests aren't "free market" is putting too much of a gulf between the two.

Wondering what those with DOJ experience think about the Roger Stone news today. Business as usual or cause of concern?

(02-11-2020 07:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wondering what those with DOJ experience think about the Roger Stone news today. Business as usual or cause of concern?

I don't have DOJ experience, but i thought it was good news.

I think there was a lot of trumping up of charges against the likes of Stone, Manafort, and Flynn in particular. And Michael Cohen pled guilty to something that I'm still not sure is a crime.

(02-11-2020 08:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 07:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wondering what those with DOJ experience think about the Roger Stone news today. Business as usual or cause of concern?

I don't have DOJ experience, but i thought it was good news.

I think there was a lot of trumping up of charges against the likes of Stone, Manafort, and Flynn in particular. And Michael Cohen pled guilty to something that I'm still not sure is a crime.

So you follow the case close enough to believe that Stone’s charges are trumped up? What case particulars make you believe that?

I dont think Stone's charges were necessarily trumped up. The penalty sought was way on the right hand of the bell curve.

The sentencing recommendation appears not what had been briefed to the Department of Justice, and all the prosecutors have resigned immediately, and resigned from their representation of the United States in the case effective immediately. That says that there is a *real* big problem ---

(02-11-2020 07:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wondering what those with DOJ experience think about the Roger Stone news today. Business as usual or cause of concern?

No comment, other than that my internal dialogue is both screaming and dying. And I miss Jeff Sessions.

(02-11-2020 10:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think Stone's charges were necessarily trumped up. The penalty sought was way on the right hand of the bell curve.

The sentencing recommendation appears not what had been briefed to the Department of Justice, and all the prosecutors have resigned immediately, and resigned from their representation of the United States in the case effective immediately. That says that there is a *real* big problem ---

Do we know if the sentencing recommendation did not follow standard procedure? As in, typically it is sent up to X, Y, and Z, but this time it wasn’t? Or did it follow protocol?

Just heard an interview on NPR with a former, senior DOJ official that discussed the issue. He mentioned that the entire situation appears to be rather unprecedented and he is expecting that House/Senate investigations into the underlying cause of the change will start. His worry is that, if the change was political in nature, it will have a chilling affect on prosecutors within the DOJ, as they wouldn’t be able to operate independently if they are working on high-profile cases.

Also, it turns out one of the prosecutors resigned completely from the DOJ, which I assume is a pretty big deal.

(02-11-2020 09:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 08:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 07:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wondering what those with DOJ experience think about the Roger Stone news today. Business as usual or cause of concern?

I don't have DOJ experience, but i thought it was good news.
I think there was a lot of trumping up of charges against the likes of Stone, Manafort, and Flynn in particular. And Michael Cohen pled guilty to something that I'm still not sure is a crime.

So you follow the case close enough to believe that Stone’s charges are trumped up? What case particulars make you believe that?

My comment was more generic, about all of them taken as a group, and I think charges against all of them were skewed toward the max. Remember, the public narrative was that there was this massive conspiracy with Russia, and they were all prosecuted in that context. Except in the end, the conspiracy didn't prove up.

I've spent some time around the Washington establishment. Those people think they are God, invincible and unaccountable, and that they rule the world. Trump is an existential threat to their unchecked power, and they reacted predictably. I have very low belief in the integrity of any of them.

(02-11-2020 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work.

Not really speaking to your comment and not saying you would agree or disagree with what I'm about to say; this just came to mind while reading your comment.

While I agree with the principle, I'm not sure i always agree with the practice.

The free market at work is you choosing to frequent or not an establishment and even posting something online about 'why' or encouraging others to do so.

I'm not sure standing out front of an establishment and shaming those who choose to frequent it is....unless one argues that aggressively picketing an abortion clinic is 'the free market at work'.

Peaceful protests, no problem. SOME of these are there for the publicity and even the confrontation. One's 'passion' should not be allowed to restrict someone else's liberty

I don't believe that picketing abortion clinics in a peaceful manner has been made illegal, has it? I wouldn't necessarily describe it as "free market" because it's picketing a medical procedure itself, as opposed to the person providing the service.

If we want to do a direct comparison to CFA, the abortion picketing would be like people picketing at all fried chicken joints because people were choosing to eat chicken. Further, a lot of the push back against CFA was through the decision to get the same service (fried chicken) elsewhere.

But I think the overarching theme is pretty similar.

It is very much directed at the person themself as well as the procedure. It is an attempt to damage the practice of that doctor, in both senses of the word 'practice' in that context.

That is also why those abortion providers' homes are picketed.

My point is that the procedure is the reason for the picketing - it's not like there are other abortion clinics that the picketers would prefer the service receivers use. They're not out there protesting Dr. Bob and saying that people should use Dr. Susan.

It's more akin to groups like PETA protesting the use of fur or eating animals, where they want people to stop a practice, not change who they do business with.

I think it's a subtle, but important distinction. But maybe saying the abortion protests aren't "free market" is putting too much of a gulf between the two.

To me, it's what you're willing to do as part of the protest, not what or why the protest.

Stopping somebody from buying chic-fil-a because the owner contributes to a certain charity that doesn't support your values or stopping somebody from getting an abortion becuase the practice doesn't support your values is fundamentally the same thing, regardless of any nuances one uses to justify the action. You disagree with the product being offered or consumed.

Any physical action towards someone with the purpose of discomfort, shame or intimidation is not acceptable nor is it 'the free market'. It's bullying.

(02-12-2020 01:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not really speaking to your comment and not saying you would agree or disagree with what I'm about to say; this just came to mind while reading your comment.

While I agree with the principle, I'm not sure i always agree with the practice.

The free market at work is you choosing to frequent or not an establishment and even posting something online about 'why' or encouraging others to do so.

I'm not sure standing out front of an establishment and shaming those who choose to frequent it is....unless one argues that aggressively picketing an abortion clinic is 'the free market at work'.

Peaceful protests, no problem. SOME of these are there for the publicity and even the confrontation. One's 'passion' should not be allowed to restrict someone else's liberty

I don't believe that picketing abortion clinics in a peaceful manner has been made illegal, has it? I wouldn't necessarily describe it as "free market" because it's picketing a medical procedure itself, as opposed to the person providing the service.

If we want to do a direct comparison to CFA, the abortion picketing would be like people picketing at all fried chicken joints because people were choosing to eat chicken. Further, a lot of the push back against CFA was through the decision to get the same service (fried chicken) elsewhere.

But I think the overarching theme is pretty similar.

It is very much directed at the person themself as well as the procedure. It is an attempt to damage the practice of that doctor, in both senses of the word 'practice' in that context.

That is also why those abortion providers' homes are picketed.

My point is that the procedure is the reason for the picketing - it's not like there are other abortion clinics that the picketers would prefer the service receivers use. They're not out there protesting Dr. Bob and saying that people should use Dr. Susan.

It's more akin to groups like PETA protesting the use of fur or eating animals, where they want people to stop a practice, not change who they do business with.

I think it's a subtle, but important distinction. But maybe saying the abortion protests aren't "free market" is putting too much of a gulf between the two.

To me, it's what you're willing to do as part of the protest, not what or why the protest.

Stopping somebody from buying chic-fil-a because the owner contributes to a certain charity that doesn't support your values or stopping somebody from getting an abortion becuase the practice doesn't support your values is fundamentally the same thing, regardless of any nuances one uses to justify the action. You disagree with the product being offered or consumed.

Any physical action towards someone with the purpose of discomfort, shame or intimidation is not acceptable nor is it 'the free market'. It's bullying.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't remember hearing news stories about throngs of CFA protesters physically stopping anyone from buying CFA, or even verbally assaulting CFA customers. My memory is more of boycotts/petitions against CFA advocating for people to not eat there.

My guess is that there were a few instances where in-person protests happened, but not sure how aggressive they were at shaming CFA proprietors. If they amounted to people holding up signs across the street, I don't agree with your evaluation. If they amounted to people standing by the door and yelling at people as they walked in/out of the CFA, then I understand your point.

(02-12-2020 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't remember hearing news stories about throngs of CFA protesters physically stopping anyone from buying CFA, or even verbally assaulting CFA customers. My memory is more of boycotts/petitions against CFA advocating for people to not eat there.

My guess is that there were a few instances where in-person protests happened, but not sure how aggressive they were at shaming CFA proprietors. If they amounted to people holding up signs across the street, I don't agree with your evaluation. If they amounted to people standing by the door and yelling at people as they walked in/out of the CFA, then I understand your point.

And the overwhelming majority of abortion protests have been peaceful as well....

You keep seemimgly trying to defend why one action is okay and the other isn't. If it didn't happen, then it's not part of the conversation. If it did, then it's wrong. PETA members certainly have literally assaulted people wearing fur etc.

ALL I am saying (and you seem to agree) is that I don't believe that ALL protests are part of a 'free' market. I intentionally chose topics 'dear' to both sides because I doubt you can find any issue, right or left, where SOMEONE hasn't gone overboard.

(02-12-2020 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't remember hearing news stories about throngs of CFA protesters physically stopping anyone from buying CFA, or even verbally assaulting CFA customers. My memory is more of boycotts/petitions against CFA advocating for people to not eat there.

My guess is that there were a few instances where in-person protests happened, but not sure how aggressive they were at shaming CFA proprietors. If they amounted to people holding up signs across the street, I don't agree with your evaluation. If they amounted to people standing by the door and yelling at people as they walked in/out of the CFA, then I understand your point.

And the overwhelming majority of abortion protests have been peaceful as well....

You keep seemimgly trying to defend why one action is okay and the other isn't. If it didn't happen, then it's not part of the conversation. If it did, then it's wrong. PETA members certainly have literally assaulted people wearing fur etc.

ALL I am saying (and you seem to agree) is that I don't believe that ALL protests are part of a 'free' market. I intentionally chose topics 'dear' to both sides because I doubt you can find any issue, right or left, where SOMEONE hasn't gone overboard.

I think you're reading into my posts if you think I said that one action is not OK. I said I thought there was a difference between the protests against CFA and picketing abortion centers.

Is there a difference between this driver and the one in Charlottesville?

Somebody has to take a stand

(02-12-2020 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there a difference between this driver and the one in Charlottesville?

Somebody has to take a stand

Pretty much the exact same. If he was attempting to hit the people at the tent, the exact same.

(02-12-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there a difference between this driver and the one in Charlottesville?

Somebody has to take a stand

Pretty much the exact same. If he was attempting to hit the people at the tent, the exact same.

Thank you, Mr. Lad.

(02-12-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there a difference between this driver and the one in Charlottesville?

Somebody has to take a stand

Pretty much the exact same. If he was attempting to hit the people at the tent, the exact same.

I think we can all agree that it takes a disturbed individual.

Not trying to be catty, lad, but with your response I am reminded of the more than one time you have indicted an entire gathering at charlottesville for the actions of the individual there.

(02-12-2020 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there a difference between this driver and the one in Charlottesville?

Somebody has to take a stand

Pretty much the exact same. If he was attempting to hit the people at the tent, the exact same.

I think we can all agree that it takes a disturbed individual.

Not trying to be catty, lad, but with your response I am reminded of the more than one time you have indicted an entire gathering at charlottesville for the actions of the individual there.

In this situation, it sounds like there wasn't a protest or counter protest, or anything linking this terrorist with any other group. So I'm not sure why you bring this up.

Plus, we've rehashed all of our opinions on the quality of people at Charlottesville multiple times. Not sure we're gonna make any progress on it.

(02-12-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you're reading into my posts if you think I said that one action is not OK. I said I thought there was a difference between the protests against CFA and picketing abortion centers.

I don't think I'm reading anything in...

You said abortion protesters and CFA protestors weren't the same because it wasn't as if abortion protesters are out there saying don't see Dr Bob, but instead see Dr Smith. But CFA protesters weren't saying 'don't eat CFA, eat KFC'... instead they were saying, don't eat CFA because the business supports values that you don't support. In my mind, that's more similar to what abortion protesters were saying as well.

It wasn't until a year or more later when Popeye's I think came out with a challenge to CFA's chicken sandwich to capitalize on it. They sure weren't promoting McDonald's chicken as being better or whatever else.... The Genesis of the picketing had nothing to do with the quality of the chicken sandwich whatsoever. It had to do with the 'values' being exhibited by the owners of the company.

Remember the guy in the drive-through that tried to shame the girl taking his order? That's an example of what I'm talking about. Legal, sure... but not 'free market'. Peaceful protests at CFA encouraging people to choose plant-based food or even KFC because they don't support social programs you disagree with? Free market. Peaceful protests at abortion clinics encouraging people to choose adoption because adoption centers don't support social programs (abortion) that you disagree with? Free market. Blocking doors, making customers uncomfortable, tying up traffic lines or the time of employees in an effort to depress business? Not free market.... regardless of whether the product is a chicken sandwich or a medical procedure.

assault in ANY form is a crime of some sort. Certainly bombs are far worse than throwing paint... but both are (or should be) illegal. This is where some PETA protesters came in because there were no CFA crimes that I'm aware of, but there has been PETA and certainly abortion crimes.