cjm
Member

Interesting. I wonder what bluetooth headphones do? They have a much less powerful signal. Of course the cell phone in my pocket all the time next to my junk my sterilize me but I've had all my kids already.

The videos I posted are pretty clear. It's illegal in most states to take your 12 year old to the "nudie bar" as the infamous Al Bundy called it. Just because the girls at the nudie bar used to have, or still have, a penis shouldn't magically make that legal. This ain't complicated.

Oh I know cases like that have happened and have left me scratching my head. Yeah I can't think of a specific one. I found this law review article that covers this issue. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=nlj Some of the relevant parts to what you're talking about: Many scholars have critiqued the Court’s Fourth Amendment standing doctrine for a variety of reasons,8 and I join the chorus with my view that the Court has developed an unduly narrow vision of standing (and thus, the Fourth Amendment) that fails to take into account the collective, regulatory objective of the Amendment and of its primary remedy—exclusion. However, the main focus of this Article is the Court’s collapse of the standing inquiry into the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim, a doctrinal move that, while noted by scholars, has not generally been the primary focus of analysis.9 I hope to demonstrate that with this move, the Court not only effectively restricted the scope of the Fourth Amendment, but helped ensure that its narrow, individualistic view would endure. To form a backdrop against which this argument can be developed, it is necessary to begin with a few thoughts on judicial activism in general and with respect to criminal procedure rules in particular. In an excellent article, Professor Stephen F. Smith provides a highly useful, ideologically neutral definition of judicial activism, in both its substantive and procedural dimensions.10 According to Professor Smith, substantive activism is implicated when a court reaches a decision at odds with the text or structure of the constitutional or statutory provision being adjudicated, when a court overrules precedent without proper justification under relevant stare decisis rules, or when a court distinguishes or limits precedent on tenuous grounds.11 Procedural activism, on the other hand, may be suspected when a court chooses to reach the merits of an issue despite justiciability rules that would (or should) otherwise restrain the court from so doing, or when a court decides more than is necessary to dispose of the case before it.12

So what you're saying OP is that corporate media is giving him attention? And yes, "alternative media" is included in this definition now if they aren't banned or suppresed. Never forget the "social media summits" held by both DJT and Biden. They co-opt anything they can't control using the money (and ego) printer.

I testd it on YT a few days ago in the comments on a new Taylor Swift video. Vapid (advertising bot) comments made days after my comment received thousands of likes and hundreds of comments, mostly from other obvious bots. My comment got zero of either. No interaction whatsoever. Speech yes but reach no. My account, or at least the keywords I used in my comment, is shadowbanned. .................... They don't consider Musk far right. They just hope you might. Overton window...

'Tis the King's fish and taking King's fish without permission is against the rules, hence a license (legal definition: permission to break the rules) is required. This country has been re-royalfied (feudal) through finance and legal brainwashing.

Ugh. I will never forget Bishop telling my LP candidate friend (in the same race) that he didn't "invest enough money" to be included in local debates, standing 10 feet from us. Bishop spent $250,000 out of his own pocket to win that special election. Once you are close enough to these people to see how they really roll, it becomes very clear what their mindset is. It is not to be a conscientious executor of the public trust. All he did was saturate the local tv with stupid commercials mocking AOC and regurgitating Fox News talking points at debates, which of course no one remembers anything about now. But there he is on the same Fox News now giving interviews about fiscal issues like he gives two shits.

Perhaps some comparisons to a cbdc and communism can be drawn.

Why The West Should Leave Ukraine | Part Of The Problem 1001 On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Robbie take a look at what the drone attacks on Moscow mean for the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. This Show Was Recorded on 6.1.23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG-klH27Yjo

Is there any other kind? :confused:

I stumbled upon this thread again. Sadly many of the photos and videos are no longer available, but thankfully this one still is! And....hate to admit it...but I never hear this song before. It's awesome though! Gun youtuber Brandon Harrera tested a Luty. It wasn't very accurate but I wonder how it would do with a rifled barrel?

Okay. I SMILE every time I hear that song. Just can't help it. Love the Lego version.

True. You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree. They got paid more than the people F.S. Key threatened in his song.

The regardless part isn't attached to the term "prurient". It's attached to the word "consideration". In law "consideration" means "for payment." So a sexually arousing performance (prurient) is off limits for minors regardless if its being done for payment or not. Last time I was at Hooters the waitresses really weren't that hot but the wings were pretty good. And Hooters waitresses dress pretty tame by today's standards. But going by your Hooters example, if the waitress that you found hot came out topless with nothing but pasties on would you find that more or less arousing? You know that there was recently a story on this forum about a 6 year old that raped another child right? Now 6 is 2 years past 4, but I'm willing to bet that a child who's moved on to rape 6 was probably exposed to sexually explicit material at 4 or 5. Is your argument that 4 year olds should be able to go into adult venues because they are too young? Not a good argument.

Okay. I see your point. I need to look up the briefings in this case because I don't know how the plaintiffs had standing. One can argue for standing based on a "chilling effect" argument meaning "I can't do what I want to do for fear that I'll be arrested for doing it." I believe there's been a recent challenge by a gun store over Biden's pistol brace ban under that theory. In this case the plaintiff's were a gay playhouse that included a female Elvis impersonator. I don't see that as prurient. In fact at the conservative Christian academy I went to in the 1980s one of the girls did that for a talent show. That's my feeling on this. This law has been mischaracterized in the media as a ban on drag shows. Drag shows were no more banned then are heterosexual strip shows. You can get a lap dance in Nashville, you just can't take your kids to watch.

Problem? What problem? SWLODs will be submitted. What more could you want? Some hotheads might suggest voting hard - but I don't think a relatively minor incident like this really warrants such extreme measures. (We should keep that as a "nuclear option" for when we really need it as a last resort.)

Future NGLCC kommissar: "Are you not certified? Do you not rub your customers' noses in your sexual preference or gender identity? No? Well, then, I'm afraid we're going to have to dock your ESG score for that. No credit line for you, comrade!"

Today i learned LGBT owners of businesses who just want to mind their own businesses might not be "certified".

What the Tennessee law was actually trying to stop. Little girl allowed to rub on drag queen's crotch in Chattanooga Tennesse. Minnesota drag queen at "story hour" exposing crotch to children. Anti Federalist posted a thread about this back in 2019.

And...that's the "justification" for the 20 year Afghanistan fiasco. Ron Paul warned against that and nobody listened. Letters of marque and reprisal would have been the correct response, not a land war which we basically lost.

The actual text of the law: BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding the following language as a new subdivision: "Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration; SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1407, is amended by adding the following language as a new subsection: (c) (1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance: (A) On public property; or

h/t unknown: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?562609-CDC-Director-Walensky-steps-down&p=7175733&viewfull=1#post7175733 https://twitter.com/LauraPowellEsq/status/1664663237542162438 1664663237542162438

You "ced children's education, First Amendment Rights, and library access" the moment you enrolled them in a "public" (i.e., government) school. This is all just a déjà vu of the old fight over Creationism vs. Evolutionism. Somone's ox is getting gored - at the expense of the ox owner (and even uninvolved bystanders). The only question is whose ox it will be. Welcome to "public" education.

Kind of sounds like how we ended up in Afghanistan for 20 years. Please explain why I'm wrong for thinking that.

Just to be clear, the cops suck. The first amendment should protect people in Confederate uniforms singing Dixie if that's what they want to do. And who the hell traumatizes kids like that? That said, I still think it was a douche move on the part of Francis Scott Key to threaten people for wanting freedom. The British impressing black seaman (and paying them) into temporary service sounds like the Union impressing black freeman to build Ft. Negley in Nashville. (I've walked around that fort a few times. Interesting experience.) And before someone says "See! Lincoln was a tyrant!" the south was FAR worse not just to black people but to poor whites. The rich Southern planters forced poor whites to fight for them while exempting themselves from service based on how many slaves they owned. Still waiting for an answer as to why invading Canada was justified. Funny enough the U.S. best success was fighting at sea. Which...goes back to my earlier point. The U.S. could have simply better equipped U.S. vessels to be able to defend themselves from whoever was attacking them. Would have had the same result. But then we wouldn't have gotten a national song I suppose. Kind of the Ron Paul "letters of marque and reprisal" proposition that he offered as opposed to a land war in Afghanistan. And we see how that ended up.

LOL. Jimmy Dore and pals strike again! I can't stand Rachell Madcow anymore.

The judge that made this ruled was appointed by Trump dannno and Swordsmyth.

The U.S. should have freed and paid the slaves to fight against the British. That and the U.S. had no just cause to invade Canada.

We invaded Canada after England ended the blockade. And....why didn't the U.S. offer freedom to slaves willing to fight against the British? Rhetorical question I know. OMG! White sailors being force to work (for pay) for the Brits! Clutch muh pearls. How many Canadians were grabbing U.S. sailors off ships? Wouldn't the simpler solution be to have more marines on U.S. ships to defend them from being boarded? Hey, maybe that would be a good job for the black slaves that you want to free (if you want to free them). But...nah. Start a land grabbing war with Canada that you basically end up losing. Then watch the British overplay their hand and try to invade the U.S. and when you push them out declare that a "victory." Sounds like when Saddam invaded Iran, got pushed out, then ended up at a stalemate and declared "victory." Anyhow, thanks for the correction for which verse is which. Tecumsah was the real hero of the War of 1812 which is why, even though he was on the other side, the U.S. built a statue of him at Naval Academy.

Anti Federalist, that tweet mentioned they were stopped when singing the second verse. You know that verse is actually racist right? Benn Swan covered this years ago. The second verse of the National Anthem threated the killing of slaves who were considering England's offer to fight for them in the War Of 1812 in exchange for their freedom. Oh, and the United States actually started the War Of 1812 by invading Canada. And that's today's episode of "Things they didn't teach you in school but are true nonetheless."