The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[ewingxmanstarks]

This was a true abuse of power!

Blago Guilty on 17 of 20 counts


http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-20-Counts-of-Blagojevich-123629399.html?dr

[HarthorneWingo]

^^^ .... when was it that you worked in gay communities? what did you do? and, what significance is it that you "worked IN a gay community"? I had gay roommates in college and worked with gay people in my job.

Do you have any authoritative sources for anything you've said?

p.s. were you a top or bottom in college?

Oh, he got me sooooo good. Touche'

Now I know why I reluctantly always come back to this thread ... to get a good laugh.

[HarthorneWingo]

This was a true abuse of power!

Blago Guilty on 17 of 20 counts


http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-20-Counts-of-Blagojevich-123629399.html?dr

... and an arrogant one at that. I wonder how that hair is going to look after 10 years of taking it backside from Bubba.

[ewingxmanstarks]

^haha..yep, at least there's still some justice in the world.

[HarthorneWingo]

interesting case

http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-nat ... ideotaping

Im not trying to pick on you, but again nothing interesting about this story at all.

How would you feel if someone was recording you while you're doing your job? A very dangerous job might I add....knowing full well that they can edit whatever they record, and paint you in an unfavorable light..It would be a distraction wouldn't it?

They asked her to comply, and she didn't, so she got arrested...No big deal.

Aren't you a "Constitutionalist"? Don't you know that it's a First Amendment violation to prevent the filming of government oppression???? What's wrong with you?

I thought you T-baggers where all about "keeping your freedoms from government oppression." Are the police exempted from your "freedoms"?

The bottom line, like anything else regarding police conduct, it should be addressed with training, supervision and discipline. These are changing times for everybody. There are cameras everywhere impacting everyone's lives/jobs. Get used to it. If you don't like it, then don't be a cop. Besides, if you, as a cop, are following proper protocol (i.e. not beating the brains out of somebody with your metal baton), then no one should get hurt.

I represented the Philadelphia Police Department for 10 years, the local FOP for 2 years, and have been suing the police department for the last 16 years. I have one client - a very pretty 16 yr. old African American girl with no prior criminal record - who got punched in the mouth, had her front tooth broken, and then had her face rubbed into the gravel of the street leaving disgusting looking scabs all over both cheeks - because she was recording the police beating up a guy they had up against a fence. Then they charged her with a bunch of bogus "cover their a$$" crimes that, of course, never happened.

But, hey, these morons keep me in business.

[ewingxmanstarks]

I never claimed to be a constitutionlist, as you say, ur the one with the law degree...where in the constitution does it say we have the right to flim the police while they are conducting police business?

As a pratical matter, couldn't someone filming the police make officers uncomfortable?

Shouldn't a bystander respect the wishes of the police while they are in the process of doing their job?

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue of filming offers on duty has made the rounds into the court system?

If you are doing something to hinder a officers ability to do his or her job effectively, and are asked to stop..should the officer have no recourse?

[HarthorneWingo]

I never claimed to be a constitutionlist, as you say, ur the one with the law degree...where in the constitution does it say we have the right to flim the police while they are conducting police business?

As a pratical matter, couldn't someone filming the police make officers uncomfortable?

Shouldn't a bystander respect the wishes of the police while they are in the process of doing their job?

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue of filming offers on duty has made the rounds into the court system?

If you are doing something to hinder a officers ability to do his or her job effectively, and are asked to stop..should the officer have no recourse?

There weren't video cameras when the Constitution was drafted. You're funny.

And bystanders are not filming the police when they're just the job. They're usually filming them when they're beating the crap out of somebody with their nightsticks. Think of "Rodney King" and you'll get the general idea.

As for your question about "hindering" a police investigation, yes, that's a crime. Unfortunately, simply filming the police doing their job is not "hindering" it unless they're doing something unlawful or against police regulations, in which case they are not "doing their jobs."

[Pharmcat]

how is it hindering when they are off to the side on their own personal property?

if they are in the middle between them and the person in question, then yea its hindering....but being of to the side isnt

[ewingxmanstarks]

I never claimed to be a constitutionlist, as you say, ur the one with the law degree...where in the constitution does it say we have the right to flim the police while they are conducting police business?

As a pratical matter, couldn't someone filming the police make officers uncomfortable?

Shouldn't a bystander respect the wishes of the police while they are in the process of doing their job?

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue of filming offers on duty has made the rounds into the court system?

If you are doing something to hinder a officers ability to do his or her job effectively, and are asked to stop..should the officer have no recourse?

I don't know what kind of Kangaroo court you work in....I never heard of the amendment, granting rights to film the police.
There weren't video cameras when the Constitution was drafted. You're funny.

And bystanders are not filming the police when they're just the job. They're usually filming them when they're beating the crap out of somebody with their nightsticks. Think of "Rodney King" and you'll get the general idea.

As for your question about "hindering" a police investigation, yes, that's a crime. Unfortunately, simply filming the police doing their job is not "hindering" it unless they're doing something unlawful or against police regulations, in which case they are not "doing their jobs."

I don't know what kind of Kangaroo court you work in....I never heard of the amendment, granting rights to film the police.

[ewingxmanstarks]

how is it hindering when they are off to the side on their own personal property?

if they are in the middle between them and the person in question, then yea its hindering....but being of to the side isnt

Your not seeing it from the police point of view,,,

Many times when the police are recorded...whats on tape doesn't show the whole story...Maybe the bystander selectively records things to paint a picture..

To the same point..with Technology now a days, one can edit what they record to incriminate the officers..

There job is hard enough...I don't think it should be illegal to record the police, but if they see you recording them, while doing police work, don't you think the right thing to do is stop recording?

Edit: When asked by the police

[HarthorneWingo]

how is it hindering when they are off to the side on their own personal property?

if they are in the middle between them and the person in question, then yea its hindering....but being of to the side isnt

Your not seeing it from the police point of view,,,

Many times when the police are recorded...whats on tape doesn't show the whole story...Maybe the bystander selectively records things to paint a picture..

To the same point..with Technology now a days, one can edit what they record to incriminate the officers..

There job is hard enough...I don't think it should be illegal to record the police, but if they see you recording them, while doing police work, don't you think the right thing to do is stop recording?

Edit: When asked by the police

Oh, I know the "police point of view." And that view is "don't film me while I"m beating the daylights out of this black (or hispanic) guy."

[HarthorneWingo]

I never claimed to be a constitutionlist, as you say, ur the one with the law degree...where in the constitution does it say we have the right to flim the police while they are conducting police business?

As a pratical matter, couldn't someone filming the police make officers uncomfortable?

Shouldn't a bystander respect the wishes of the police while they are in the process of doing their job?

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue of filming offers on duty has made the rounds into the court system?

If you are doing something to hinder a officers ability to do his or her job effectively, and are asked to stop..should the officer have no recourse?

I don't know what kind of Kangaroo court you work in....I never heard of the amendment, granting rights to film the police.
There weren't video cameras when the Constitution was drafted. You're funny.

And bystanders are not filming the police when they're just the job. They're usually filming them when they're beating the crap out of somebody with their nightsticks. Think of "Rodney King" and you'll get the general idea.

As for your question about "hindering" a police investigation, yes, that's a crime. Unfortunately, simply filming the police doing their job is not "hindering" it unless they're doing something unlawful or against police regulations, in which case they are not "doing their jobs."

I don't know what kind of Kangaroo court you work in....I never heard of the amendment, granting rights to film the police.

You know that was EXS's statement that somehow got mixed up with my response. Damn conservatives hacking my computer!!!!!! lol.

[HarthorneWingo]

I'm still waiting for the conservative contingent here to arrive at a consensus on a GOP Presidential nominee. And "no" you can't exhume Ronald Reagan's remains in order to have him run again. It's (as you know EXS) against the Constitution.

C'mon you guys. Let's hear it.

[ewingxmanstarks]

I'm still waiting for the conservative contingent here to arrive at a consensus on a GOP nominee. C'mon you guys. Let's hear it.

Its going to be Romney...

ever hear of this? Best indicator you can find


http://intrade.com/v4/home/

[HarthorneWingo]

I'm still waiting for the conservative contingent here to arrive at a consensus on a GOP nominee. C'mon you guys. Let's hear it.

Its going to be Romney...

ever hear of this? Best indicator you can find


http://intrade.com/v4/home/

You missed my funny edit about Reagan.

[HarthorneWingo]

By the by, Jon Stewart just administered a serious beatdown response in his ongoing and very entertaining tet-a-tet with Chris Wallace.

I think the replay is on at 2 a.m. EST and tomorrow at 8 p.m. EST.

[ewingxmanstarks]

By the by, Jon Stewart just administered a serious beatdown response in his ongoing and very entertaining tet-a-tet with Chris Wallace.

I think the replay is on at 2 a.m. EST and tomorrow at 8 p.m. EST.

beatdown to who?

[ewingxmanstarks]

I'm still waiting for the conservative contingent here to arrive at a consensus on a GOP Presidential nominee. And "no" you can't exhume Ronald Reagan's remains in order to have him run again. It's (as you know EXS) against the Constitution.

C'mon you guys. Let's hear it.

bring him back...what constitution?

[HarthorneWingo]

By the by, Jon Stewart just administered a serious beatdown response in his ongoing and very entertaining tet-a-tet with Chris Wallace.

I think the replay is on at 2 a.m. EST and tomorrow at 8 p.m. EST.

beatdown to who?

Wallace. Stewart's reply to Wallace's response. And, I have to say, I was pretty impressed. I thought Wallace might have had Stewart on the ropes. Nope a dope. lol.

[HarthorneWingo]

Isn't this great. Same thing happened with mugzi. We beat each other upside the head with 2x4s. Then we find our "common ground" - or lack thereof - and have fun. Like Charlie Murphy and Rick James ... byatch!

Now, we can "disagree without being disagreeable."