(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

(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.

(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.

(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?

(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.

(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?

(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 ---

(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?

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.