jmdrake
Member

Thanks for sharing! My first (and only really) exposure to the merchant marines was that episode of Taxi where one of the cabbies temporarily joined them. This was their "sea chanty."

Oh I'm sure sailor impressment carried great emotional weight but it had far less effect on the entire country. It's like how the for African Americans who got kidnapped by the Mexican drug cartel was a bigger story than all of the people dying every day from fentanyl. You had Republicans threatening to invade Mexico. And I'm sure the families of the two survivors were appreciative of the pressure because the cartel returned the captives pretty quickly after the public pressure and even turned over some patsies...I mean "kidnappers." As for the verse not mentioning a race....ummm....seriously that's your argument? By that time white slavery had been abolished in the U.S. I even remember reading about a southern town that almost rioted because they thought a very light skinned black slave was actually white. As for the slow communication part, it came after the war was declared but before the invasion of Canada. This would be like the U.S. declaring war on Mexico, not knowing the kidnapped victims were freed, and then finding out they were freed and going along with the invasion anyway. A SEAL Team Six extraction of the kidnapped victims would have been justified. A full on invasion, not so much. Look at this from the point of view of the individual Canadian frontiersman who's now defending his home from U.S. invaders over something he had nothing to do with. I can see killing British sailors trying to board U.S. ships. But killing Canadian frontiersman over British sailors boarding U.S. ships? Yeah...not buying that.

I would not dispute that. There was already a legal age for entering a nudie bar. What about the beach? What about a straight biological woman wearing string bikini at beach or walking thru town? What about Miss USA doing swimsuit competition on live TV. Didn't they recently do away with the swimsuit? Why? What about ABC televising Arnold? I am simply asking you to define how far your particular term applies. Is it appropriate for a straight biological male to be walking around town in a speedo? Okay what would be deemed appropriate? Is it okay for a straight buff biological male to be going for a run wearing only shorts and no shirt? Is it okay for women to walk around topless? As the OP pointed out, things need to be more clearly defined.

I'm curious that with the mugger having a Spanish angle you ruled out the race angle. Anyhow, the real motive here is obvious from the article. Foehner said nothing to reporters as he was led from the 102nd Precinct in handcuffs late Thursday afternoon after Queens prosecutors filed weapons charges including, criminal possession of a weapon and criminal possession of a firearm. Police then confirmed later in the evening that Foehner was charged with 26 counts of criminal possession of a weapon, but not charged in the fatal shooting. It comes after a search warrant recovered more than two dozen firearms, which included pistols, shotguns, rifles, three assault rifles, an AK47, 153 loaded high-capacity magazines, and two body armor vests. Foehner has a license for five rifles. Foehner told prosecutors, "I pulled the gun out of my pocket. It didn't go off accidentally. I pulled the trigger. I emptied the revolver. Last night I was carrying a firearm because of the crime in the city...I've had it since the 1990s. I obtained it in a bar one night. The firearms are mine and mine alone."

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

Is it possible these are false flags? Maybe the underlying message is to scare good people away from guns for fear of incarceration. Oh and don't carry pepper spray, a knife, or use your martial arts training either. Just take a beatdown and watch your attacker go free.

I guess all those health and legal experts got it wrong. They usually do. It seems that being a skeptic of whatever the narrative, is a wise choice.

An illuminated light on the dashboard or code on a computer should have nothing to do with the passing or failing of a test measuring particulate matter exiting an exhaust system.

I have not been to the beach in a long time. I remember back in the 80's or 90's String Bikini's were a big thing. Would a beach with beautiful women wearing string bikini's be considered "prurient interest"? What about a nude beach? Is it the clothing, lack of clothing, or the behavior that is in question? Would wearing a string bikini away from a lake, swimming pool, ocean beach be "prurient interest?" If skimpy clothing is allowed at the beach/lake/swimming pool, would it not be okay for same person to wear same clothing around town? Arnold Schwarzenegger wore nothing but a speedo when posing in early years. Was that "prurient interest"? What about the old days of swimsuit issues of Sports Illustrated when they were not woke? Or going into Joe's garage where near naked beauties were on the calendar behind the owners desk? Is it okay for the strutting around in skimpy clothing with child in tow person committing an illegal act if they do it in their own home with their own child? I have no answers to the previous questions. I think if something is to be determined to be illegal there needs to be clear understanding of exactly is unlawful. Is it the clothing or lack thereof? Is it the attitude? Is it the biological gender of the person wearing the clothing? Is it wrong for a parent in their own home to walk naked across the room with the door open?

Yeah, same thing(blank post) with a lot of posts in the pic thread. Any thoughts?

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.

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

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."

A few years ago a radical feminist started tweet "A day without men" that trended. Women around the world would imagine how wonderful it would be to not have to worry about men. "I could run in the park at night in shorts without worrying about being accosted." Or "I could post a sexy picture of myself in a bikini." (That's pretty stupid because if there's nobody to comment on how good you look then how is it even sexy?). I did a thought experiment "What happens if men say the identify as women and show up to your day without men?" Well....turns out that's happening. Part of me doesn't feel sorry for the feminists.

You know Paul's letter originally was not broken up into chapters right? Here's the very next part of the same letter. 2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism. 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Now, consider the testimony of Joshua Bassett. He took flack this year for praising Jesus at an awards show. He joined a conservative megachurch that, among other things, promotes "conversion therapy" which is the (supposedly controversial) idea that sexual orientation is not fixed and that people can be delivered. Josh was attacked by his fans because Josh is gay. Note I didn't say was gay. He is gay. And guess what? While I'm not gay I have my own sin struggles. We all do. Somehow Josh found enough love at a conservative church that he gave his life to Jesus. But he still has a sanctification process to go through.