The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Orson Burleigh
About
User Name: Orson Burleigh
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation: Retired
Interests: Reading, Photography, Shooting
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Last Visit: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 10:45:57 PM
Number of Posts: 118
[0.01% of all post / 0.06 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: In the News - Should They Continue?
Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:38:30 AM
Hope123 wrote:
Despite Presidents Day, Protesters Give Trump No Respite

http://www.nbcnews.com/slideshow/despite-president-s-day-protesters-give-trump-no-respite-n723436

Peaceful Protests against US government policies are not going away any time soon, it seems. Several policies were highlighted in marches around the country. Bernie Sanders is working hard too from Facebook posts I've seen.

I would have put this "In the News" category but only Daemon can use that sub forum.

What do you think?

Should they continue? Is it doing any good or are they just being ignored?

Is being ignored why they are continuing?

Are they contributing to T's frustration?

Edited - I am curious as to how common protests were around the world or in the US in 2016 and previous to that. Is this a fairly new phenomenon, or have I just not been paying attention. I have heard of some in Canada but nothing very large. Perhaps the one protesting the taking away of liberties in Canada in fear right after 9/11 is the only one I paid attention to.





Protests should continue. The 'right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances' is a fundamental right, a right which should be asserted constantly and exercised often.

As to your questions: 'Is it doing any good or are they just being ignored? '
The protests and the protesters are obviously not being ignored. If pricked does Trump not metaphorically bleed? He does indeed - he metaphorically bleeds effervescently and in Technicolor. The man is a political haemophiliac.

If by 'doing any good,' you mean to ask if the protestors are going to drive Trump from office, the answer is: probably not. In the short term the current protests may well be solidifying support among those who enthusiastically voted for Trump. As an example of this phenomena, I would cite the Parti Québécois hardliner's protest against Pierre Trudeau during the June 1968 election campaign: their chanting, 'Trudeau au poteau!' while attempting to literally assault (with rocks and bottles) the grandstand where Trudeau was sitting almost certainly magnified Trudeau's Liberal election majority.

If by 'doing any good,' you mean to ask if the protestors are going to cause Trump to re-examine (or just to examine) his positions, policies, goals and tactics? Almost certainly, though not immediately and, in some cases, not with the effect that the protestors desire.

Having been elected, Trump must now choose among the contradictory goals of the various parts of the coalition that supported him. Some of the contradictions can be finessed, some constituencies can be ignored or duped. Other programmatic inconsistencies must be addressed: as President Trump will have to disappoint some groups of supporters. Beyond that, and more pressing, Trump will have to deal with the Congress. The ability to effectively work with the Congress has been the sine qua non of successful modern presidencies

In reply to your question about the seeming sudden advent of protests. Anti-Trump protests prior to election were less prominently reported, and were probably smaller than those protests have been since the election. Anti-Trump protests in relation to real estate deals and other allegedly improper business practices have been arranged at various places since the at least the early '90s.

In a more general sense, my dateable personal memory of political events, movements and assorted dissatisfactions only goes back to 1956. Waves of political protests of various sorts have occurred throughout that entire period. Causes have been identified and espoused by the Left (as identified at any given time), then lost, dropped and seemingly forgotten, only to be revived and fervently prosecuted by the Right (as identified at any given time).
Topic: Do You Know About Woolly Mammoth?(20)
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:49:37 PM
Signs warning drivers to beware of mammoths crossing the roads might well become a common sight in some of the world's more northerly areasThink
Topic: Hang in
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:23:08 PM
The ring-tailed bandit actually looks quite comfortable, in spite of the seemingly woebegone expression. Given the raccoon tribe's legendary proclivity for opportunism, a ride all the way to the land-fill might have been regarded as transition to the land of 'free bubble-up and rainbow stew.'Think
Topic: IMMIGRATION laws: Two viewpoints
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:44:53 AM
Lotje1000 wrote:
Orson Burleigh wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Those are very general viewpoints that don't even touch on the actual topics of debate: legislating immigration.


Please elucidate.


If one is to compare viewpoints, it seems relevant to compare more in depth than just "liberals like immigrants and conservatives don't", especially when the thread is posted in the legal subforum. For instance, a common argument used against liberals is "well you wouldn't let strangers into your house either". This argument mistakenly simplifies the situation and completely ignores the point that liberals don't necessarily oppose the vetting of potential immigrants.

It would be far more useful to compare legal views between, for instance, people who want little vetting (to, I don't know, protect privacy), people who prefer vetting the way it already is, people who want extremer measures where certain groups are completely excluded and people who don't want any immigration at all.

Simply saying "liberals like immigrants and conservatives don't", doesn't actually add any value to a discussion, in my opinion.

Does that answer your question, Orson?


Yes, you have addressed my request for elucidation. Thank you.

I appreciate your having clearly outlined four major immigration control issues: the appropriate level of vetting and control; the sorts of people who should or should not be excluded; the standards for admission; and the number of people, if any, who should be admitted by any given country.
Topic: IMMIGRATION laws: Two viewpoints
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:47:19 AM
Lotje1000 wrote:
Those are very general viewpoints that don't even touch on the actual topics of debate: legislating immigration.


Please elucidate.
Topic: TNT is the bomb.
Posted: Saturday, February 11, 2017 5:51:44 AM
TNT : trinitrotoluene (Tri-Nitro-Toluene) is an explosive compound which does not usually react to normal handling and which is normally stable when in contact with iron or ferrous alloys. TNT requires a detonator to cause it to explode, so it can be handled and transported safely under normal conditions. TNT is therefore a component of many bombs, an explosive material favored by many bomb makers.

As to number 2 'TNT is the bomb' - 'the bomb' is a slang expression used in recent years to emphasize a speaker's enthusiastic designation of some person, place, process or object as among the best of its type. This might take the form of the description of some singer or actress: 'She the bomb.' It is possible that some bomb maker or bomb user might colloquially and punningly express a preference for the use of the relatively safe TriNitroToluene, saying: 'TNT is the bomb.'
Topic: The US Constitution
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 12:30:15 PM
Hope123 wrote:
Orson Burleigh wrote:
Boo hoo! The likelihood that two, three, or even four Supreme Court Justices might be replaced during the next four years was one of the primary motivators for many who very reluctantly voted for Trump. Mrs. Clinton's disregard for the Bill of Rights is well known and the wide spread apprehension regarding potential Clinton Supreme Court picks was well-founded.


Meaning that they want Conservative Judges, not ones that will uphold Roe v Wade and equal marriage rights, and gun possession regulations tweaked.

Hillary doesn't matter anymore as the election is over but here's a comparison on Civil Rights. How Bill of Rights and Civil Rights compare, I don't know, but it is a start.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Civil_Rights.htm


Anyhow, here I thought Supreme Court Justices were supposed to be for the law and above politics as Tuna says. Silly me.

And yes, Tuna, it is scary for the rights of people the way things are shaping up - except to Conservatives who love it.


The Bill of Rights is 'the Law' and it ought to be upheld by U.S. courts, in particular by the Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights is generally held to be the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, though the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are of equal importance in delineating specific rights of U.S citizens and residents, rights which ought to be recognized and upheld by all U.S. courts. Though U.S. civil rights law is substantially based on the rights specifically enumerated in Bill of Rights, other individual civil rights, such as those you cite, have been established statutorily or by common law/judicial precedent. The primary task and duty of the Supreme Court is to ensure that Statutory Law and Common Law (as defined and developed by judicial precedent) are consonant with Constitutional Law. In that sense 'Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be for the law.' Progressives, as self-identified, were quite happy to have established during the Great Depression of the 1930s that Supreme Court justices were not 'above politics.' The U.S. Constitution provides two methods for amendment. The fact that there have been 27 amendments proves that it is possible to make Constitutional changes. U.S. Supreme Court Justices do not have legal authority to amend or to disregard the written Constitution.

I don't really expect to persuade you to change your views, but you might take ten or twenty minutes to read the U.S. Constitution in its entirety or five minutes to read the Bill of Rights.

With regard to your suggestion that Mrs. Clinton 'doesn't matter any more,' it is certainly true that the election is over and that the experiment of a Hillary Clinton Presidency won't be run. However, Mrs. Clinton was the candidate chosen by one major party. She was chosen in accordance with applicable primary-election laws and procedures and in accordance with the customs of the Democratic Party. Many people are now attributing Trump's election to Mrs. Clinton's inadequacies as a candidate, some suggesting that almost any plausible Republican candidate could have won against her: That is another experiment that won't be essayed. Now we shall have to see how this experiment turns out. (Funny thing about governmental/political experiments in a somewhat democratic republic: they are subject to a great deal of nudging along the way)

'Extremists voted for Trump so they could have the chance to stack the bench with extremists? Say it ain't so!'
Extremists voted for Clinton hoping that they would have the chance to stack the bench with extremists! That is certainly the case!
Topic: The US Constitution
Posted: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:28:54 AM
Boo hoo! The likelihood that two, three, or even four Supreme Court Justices might be replaced during the next four years was one of the primary motivators for many who very reluctantly voted for Trump. Mrs. Clinton's disregard for the Bill of Rights is well known and the wide spread apprehension regarding potential Clinton Supreme Court picks was well-founded.
Topic: Dear liberls, from a Trump supporter.
Posted: Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:49:13 AM
I wonder what percentage of American voters approached their voting booths with a sense of impending doom, having seen their choices unfathomably narrowed down to the ship-breaking certainty of Scylla and the unpredictable whirl of Charybdis.
Topic: wide across
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 3:00:35 PM
Fruity, you are right to question the necessity of the redundant across. 'Not very wide' was sufficient to convey the meaning and 'across' was not necessary.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.