Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri (Page 48)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  53  54  55   
Author Topic: UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"When exactly do you think the 5th and 14th amendments were ratified or even just authored? "...

You are a Canadian, correct? I will grant that you could be somewhat back-woods, but are you under the impression Americans invented the concept of due process in 1789?

Don't bait and switch, noel; you claimed that the amendments themselves guaranteed the right for 1800 years. It isn't Donald's fault that you were wrong by more than 15 centuries.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam,

If you believe what you just said, then you are much slower than even I had given you credit for.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aww, you're taking half the "fun" out of it, Adam. [Smile]

Another of the goalposts that noel is trying to relocate is unbroken duration: his original claim ("has assumed an accused to be innocent until proven guilty for at least the last eighteen-hundred years") is clearly wrong in that for literally centuries during that period, the countries that could be considered the direct 'ancestors' of U.S. jurisprudence and constitutional thought practised the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well Donald, at least you have returned to the fold of the rational... but don't despair, the fun has only begun. [Wink]

You apparently have successfully switched hats with the historian, but actually still believe America invented due process. Would you include in the "countries" associated with our statutory legal tradition the Roman Empire?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Adam,

If you believe what you just said, then you are much slower than even I had given you credit for.

Do I believe that you claimed something that was humorous absurd? Its not a matter of belief, noel, here are your words:

quote:
The due process clause of the fifth, and fourteenth, amendment has assumed an accused to be innocent until proven guilty for at least the last eighteen-hundred years.
I'll let Donald stay on as your history teacher, and restrict myself to grammar: the amendments you name here (your sentence's noun) cannot possibly "have assumed" (verb) "an accused" (object) to be innocent for the last 1800 years. Those amendments can't actually have done *anything* for the last 1800 years; please consult Donald as to why this is the case.

You could just make the (rather simple) concession that you made a non-sensical claim, and wish to discuss the legal *tradition* instead of the specific items of legislation. Or not; in either case, its unseemly to project your embarrassment onto those who point out your mistakes.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam,

[Noel] - "The due process clause of the fifth, and fourteenth, amendment has assumed an accused to be innocent until proven guilty for at least the last eighteen-hundred years."...

If you believe I am talking about something other than "due process" itself, you are either slow, or intentionally obtuse. As for the history... it is probably a good decision on your part to remain a spectator.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/grand-juror-sues-mcculloch-says-he-mischaracterized-wilson-case
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This argument is rather silly. Are you both so stubborn that you can't admit:

1. noel made a statement that is a difficult to parse but it seems pretty clear that what means is that the idea of due process has been around for 1800 years.

2. Adam, are you really so intent on winning that you insist that noel thinks that the 5 and 14th amendments have been around for 1800 years?

Seriously get over it.

[ January 06, 2015, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: stilesbn ]

Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
This argument is rather silly.

Couldn't agree more; I never attempt serious dialogue with noel.

quote:
Are you both so stubborn that you can't admit:

1. noel made a statement that is a difficult to parse but it seems pretty clear that what means is that the idea of due process has been around for 1800 years.

"Difficult to parse" is a charitable way of saying "false, but people can probably guess what he meant". But whatever. Its clear *now*, after he's had a few posts to backpedal, but it was confusing as heck when he threw that assertion out there. I found it annoying to see him berate Donald for his own ineptitude, so I pointed out the fact that he did, in fact, make an inept statement. I could care less whether noel passed middle school social studies.

quote:


2. Adam, are you really so intent on winning

Winning what? The internet? I already won that when I posted a drawing of Optimus Prime punching Skeletor. Now I'm just doing victory laps. [Wink]

quote:
that you insist that noel thinks that the 5 and 14th amendments have been around for 1800 years?
I only insist that noel starts name calling when people can't parse his garbled sentences.

quote:

Seriously get over it.

Well, I don't expect to lose much sleep over it tonight...
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Couldn't agree more; I never attempt serious dialogue with noel. "...

Honestly Adam, I cannot recall a "serious dialogue" that you participated in...

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

Honestly Adam, I cannot recall a "serious dialogue" that you participated in...

Last word! [Razz]

p.s. wouldn't this be the perfect end to this thread?

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
This argument is rather silly. Are you both so stubborn that you can't admit:

1. noel made a statement that is a difficult to parse but it seems pretty clear that what means is that the idea of due process has been around for 1800 years.

It really isn't that clear that's what noel meant, not least because due process has only arguably been a part of western jurisprudence, and even then only in part, for about the last 800 years (as opposed to the legal understanding that an accused should be considered as innocent absent compelling proof, a concept that does date back not just to Paul (Julius Paulus, 225-250ish CE), but arguably to Deuteronomy.)

Now, you can make a logical argument that an effective implementation of due process necessitates a presumption of innocence, but the concept of presumption of innocence does not necessitate that any particular jurisdiction had put into effect due process.

All that to say, if you believe that is what noel clearly meant, then you must also accept that what you are claiming that noel clearly meant is absolutely incorrect as well.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Aww, you're taking half the "fun" out of it, Adam. [Smile]

Another of the goalposts that noel is trying to relocate is unbroken duration: his original claim ("has assumed an accused to be innocent until proven guilty for at least the last eighteen-hundred years") is clearly wrong in that for literally centuries during that period, the countries that could be considered the direct 'ancestors' of U.S. jurisprudence and constitutional thought practised the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence.

The US still practices the presumption of guilt, most of the time

Nevertheless, we pay lip service to the principle innocent until proven guilty, and no, Donald, we didn't make that up

If you'd bothered to simply google the phrase "presumption of innocence," you would have seen that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#Roman_law

the presumption of innocence undisputably dates at least to the 6th century in Roman law, and the 6th century text attributes the principle to the 2nd and 3rd century

In Islam, the presumption of Innocence dates at least to the early 13th century

So Donald, Adam, you are wrong and Noel was right

The presumption of innocence appears to date to between 101AD and 299 AD

Not sure how a Canadian lawyer fell into the trap of assuming that such a universal human principle had its beginning in America

The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" was coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760–1840)

[ January 07, 2015, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, please. Re-read, and look for what our actual objections were (hint: Donald and I were taking issue with different things).
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bill of rights guaranteed a right that has been around for 1800 years precisely.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No Pete. Read more carefully again.

Re-read the post from 11:38pm as a start.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just clarifying a fact which seemed misrepresented on this page. Not interested in refereeing Adam's love fest with Noel.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So Donald, Adam, you are wrong and Noel was right
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Just clarifying a fact which seemed misrepresented on this page. Not interested in refereeing Adam's love fest with Noel.

You sure lost interest quickly. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not at all. I will never lose interest in the topic of presumed innocent until proven guilty or other bill of rights issues. In my eyes, it's the closest thing to holy scripture ever composed by mortal beings.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Just clarifying a fact which seemed misrepresented on this page. Not interested in refereeing Adam's love fest with Noel.

OK, but noel's issues with Adam notwithstanding, where did you get this?
quote:
Nevertheless, we pay lip service to the principle innocent until proven guilty, and no, Donald, we didn't make that up

If you'd bothered to simply google the phrase "presumption of innocence," you would have seen that

<snip>

Nevertheless, we pay lip service to the principle innocent until proven guilty, and no, Donald, we didn't make that up

If you'd bothered to simply google the phrase "presumption of innocence," you would have seen that

It seems like you just took something noel wrote as gospel without reading what I actually wrote...

As an aside, the only people who might assume that those NOT from the USA would assume that the presumption of innocence actually originated IN the USA would be, well, those from the USA. Of course, 'only' is an absolute, and one should never say 'never', but you get the gist.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DonalD, I decline your invitation to become your replacement pain toy now that noel has departed.

The only thing I read of Noel's was his disgust with how he was being represented. I was responding to the expressions of laughter over 1800 years and presumption of innocence, and thought, wow, for a conservative Noel gets a surprising number of facts right.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't assume it, I inferred it (correctly or incorrectly) from what you said.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's fine. Next time, though, you should probably not start with mockery as your default mode, then people might be more patient with your mistakes.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I was responding to the expressions of laughter over 1800 years and presumption of innocence,

Which is why two of us asked you to re-read: the amusement was explicitly over amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 1800 years. However close to holy scripture you find the bill of rights, they definitely weren't written by Saint Paul. [Big Grin]

Believe it or not, the fact that presumption of innocence predates our founding is not the mind-blowing, unbelievable revelation that you and noel seem to think it is. Donald especially is fairly entitled to object to such condescension, as he has actually contributed more substance on the history of the concept than anyone else on this thread. As for myself, I will not pretend any great respect for the posts that noel contributes, but that has nothing at all to do with their historical accuracy, or lack thereof.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
. Your persistence is a little creepy. Given the way the two of you have been writing this whole thread, it's hypocritical to whine about my mockery.

Adam, seeing how you just distorted what I said, I don't need to look back a page. I know what you do on this forum. Please get off my leg and stop trying to drag me into your cruel little game.

[ January 08, 2015, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll let you come back with the last word here, but I have to request (again) that you refrain from accusing people of trying to copulate with your leg. This is the second time I've seen it in two days; rude I can deal with, but the image here is so seriously foul. Please, consider another way to goad people. Anyway...
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really? When was the last time I used it in the last two days, Adam? Please link.

I very rarely bring that idiom out, and only when someone is being very persistent in goading me. Last time I used it was August 2014. It's a foul image, but apt when accurate, and it tends to bring a rapid stop to the behavior that I am complaining about. It's an effective safe word.

[ January 08, 2015, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's an effective safe word.
No, I think it makes people tire of talking to you more quickly, is all.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, SciFi. You have told me that six times. And in response I've cut down my usage to twice a year. And for the fourth time I ask you, please do not publicly plunge into my personal quarrels with others unless you are willing to address both sides

Is that a more polite way to.say it? How about please stop nagging: repetition does not make you more persuasive? Is that as effective as my four word special?

[ January 10, 2015, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure, that's far more polite. I don't know about accurate in its premises, but more polite, yes.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Sure, that's far more polite. I don't know about accurate in its premises, but more polite, yes.

That's why I say that to you, when you won't get off my ... case about something that we have already settled. Because I would rather put up with your incessant nagging on that topic than lose you as a conversant forever on all topics. When I do say the other phrase, it's because I am so sick of the unsolicited invasion of my will (would you could you in a tree?) that I am willing to lose the interlocutor permanently just to terminate the particular piece of verbal unsolicited buggery.

[ January 11, 2015, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/informer-not-neighbor-complaints-led-up-to-fatal-tampa-pot-raid/2187316

This article describes a typical no-knock raid for drugs where the white occupant was shot and killed by the officers, who subsequently found a grand total of $2 of pot in his place. The police were tipped off about the 'drug operation' by an 'informant' (even though the police lied about it having begun by neighbors' complaints). The police say they were defending themselves because the victim was holding his handgun; the irony being that the police had previously cautioned him to be sure to draw his handgun in case of a home invasion.

We can see here a good example on how the war on drugs is an equal opportunity oppression system, and also how both police militarization and no-knock raids are an endemic problem and not particularly a system of racial discrimination.

Based on the events described in the article I even begin to wonder whether there was some feedback loop at work, where a police 'informant' sets up any kind of lead for them, gets his kickback, and then the police get whatever reward they get for executing a successful raid. It reads more like a scam than over-zealous pursuit of law enforcement to me, as if somehow there is a racket involved. Then again, I've been hearing so much lately about various insanity in Florida law enforcement that perhaps this is just par for the course.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No knock warrants are truly despicable and contrary to the rule of law. Many are executed at wrong addresses and get innocent people injured and killed. It's coming to the point where the only defense against them is if you have enough money creating a giant wall/fence around your property with 24/7 private security who will alert you to the police coming and who might be able to stop them and check to see if they even have the right address!
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At the least you'd get some warning when the cops shoot the private security.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We can see here a good example on how the war on drugs is an equal opportunity oppression system
Its actually NOT equal opportunity. Yes, it affects everyone, but not nearly equally.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
We can see here a good example on how the war on drugs is an equal opportunity oppression system
Its actually NOT equal opportunity. Yes, it affects everyone, but not nearly equally.
That's true - it disproportionally affects low-income criminals.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...and blacks, whether criminals by the terms of the war on drugs, or not.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Same could be said of child protective services, domestic violence and associated mandatory minimum sentencing ... both disproportionately affect minorities and their families.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why yes, yes they do...including those minorities who would not be affected by those services and policies were they white. This is, in fact, what all of us talking about racism and white privliege mean.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  53  54  55   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1