Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
jberryhill
jberryhill's Journal
jberryhill's Journal
February 20, 2016
When asked about marijuana, Bill Clinton famously said he experimented with it, but he didn't inhale.
The point is that, of course he was around it, and engaged in an act that looked just like he was actually smoking marijuana. BUT - he didn't inhale.
By having the marijuana, lighting the marijuana, and drawing a puff, it looked just like smoking marijuana. But by not inhaling, he avoided any of the actual effects of marijuana which, for most people, is the point of smoking it in the first place.
I think what we should realize is that Hillary is correct when she denies the implication of graft. Yes, it looks like they gave her a large quantity of money in order to curry favor, since that is the usual recipe for curried favor. But we are failing to realize that, just like Bill and marijuana, she insulated herself against its effects.
Yes HRC gave the speeches, but she didn't inhale
When asked about marijuana, Bill Clinton famously said he experimented with it, but he didn't inhale.
The point is that, of course he was around it, and engaged in an act that looked just like he was actually smoking marijuana. BUT - he didn't inhale.
By having the marijuana, lighting the marijuana, and drawing a puff, it looked just like smoking marijuana. But by not inhaling, he avoided any of the actual effects of marijuana which, for most people, is the point of smoking it in the first place.
I think what we should realize is that Hillary is correct when she denies the implication of graft. Yes, it looks like they gave her a large quantity of money in order to curry favor, since that is the usual recipe for curried favor. But we are failing to realize that, just like Bill and marijuana, she insulated herself against its effects.
February 20, 2016
If there was a technology that could, literally, read your mind, then should it be available to law enforcement subject to a warrant?
Now, before you say "that would be self-incrimination", understand that medical physical procedures can be ordered. You can be compelled to give blood, gene, hair and other samples on probable cause. You can have your metabolism tested, your fingerprints taken, you stomach pumped and your cavities examined. You can have your urine, feces, and respiration tested.
You will not be compelled to give them information. You will sit in a chair, a device pointed at your head, and it will download the contents of your memory.
You don't have to be suspect, you could just be a witness.
Should such a technology be used for law enforcement, or should it be off limits?
If possible, would you support a brain scan warrant?
If there was a technology that could, literally, read your mind, then should it be available to law enforcement subject to a warrant?
Now, before you say "that would be self-incrimination", understand that medical physical procedures can be ordered. You can be compelled to give blood, gene, hair and other samples on probable cause. You can have your metabolism tested, your fingerprints taken, you stomach pumped and your cavities examined. You can have your urine, feces, and respiration tested.
You will not be compelled to give them information. You will sit in a chair, a device pointed at your head, and it will download the contents of your memory.
You don't have to be suspect, you could just be a witness.
Should such a technology be used for law enforcement, or should it be off limits?
February 20, 2016
And, yep, Scalia upheld their right to do it.
Obligatory Westboro Baptist funeral announcement
And, yep, Scalia upheld their right to do it.
February 18, 2016
Who thought this was a good idea?
Why, on God's green planet is this going on?
WTF is this crap?
Who thought this was a good idea?
Why, on God's green planet is this going on?
February 17, 2016
Joe Biden was the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee when Scalia was nominated to the court.
It is unusual for both the president and vice president to attend a public event together on short notice, for security reasons.
Joe Biden is going, because Joe Biden had an important role in Scalia's Supreme Court career.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4046024/bidenscalia-1986-confirmation-hearing
A note about attendance at Scalia's Memorial
Joe Biden was the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee when Scalia was nominated to the court.
It is unusual for both the president and vice president to attend a public event together on short notice, for security reasons.
Joe Biden is going, because Joe Biden had an important role in Scalia's Supreme Court career.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4046024/bidenscalia-1986-confirmation-hearing
February 16, 2016
Some weeks ago, the story was that Bernie was suspect as a Democratic candidate, because he attracts a certain element of libertarian GOP and independent voters.
Do I correctly now understand that we should not nominate a candidate that Republicans don't like?
A while back it was "Bernie attracts GOP voters"
Some weeks ago, the story was that Bernie was suspect as a Democratic candidate, because he attracts a certain element of libertarian GOP and independent voters.
Do I correctly now understand that we should not nominate a candidate that Republicans don't like?
February 13, 2016
I don't care what the Hillary Hate Club here says. I think she would make a superb Supreme Court justice.
I support Hillary for Supreme Court nominee!
I don't care what the Hillary Hate Club here says. I think she would make a superb Supreme Court justice.
February 13, 2016
Fastest Game Show Ever
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Delaware
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
Number of posts: 62,444