rangerx

Is the right to peaceful protest under the First Amendment being violated at Trump rallies? In recent days, there are increasing reports of peaceful protesters being removed for wrongful reasons. It seems T-shirts get under the skin of Trump supporters. In a piece I just read, there were a couple of you girls wearing Bernie and Hillary shirts. They were friendly with those sitting next to them even though they were Trump supporters, often exchanging comments in a civil, respectful manner. However, a group of rabble rousers were not content with these shirts in their midst. After numerous cat calls and threats, the befriended Trump supporters intervened and chastised the the rowdies. This led to a heated discussion where the Trump supporters were painted with the same brush as the Trump protesters, hence the girls were removed even though they never spoke to the rowdies or did anything else wrong. As they were being escorted out, Trump was yelling "GET OUT" over the PA system. All of the Trump supporters were allowed to stay. While I only gave one example, there seems to be a trend here and that does not sit well. Sure, some protesters being disruptive or inciting uncivil behavior are rightfully removed, but there appears to be an alarming tolerance for harassing and advocating violence toward otherwise peaceful attendees at these events. Trump cannot be blameless for this, after all he has the burden mitigating, not exacerbating unrest while organizing large gatherings in public spaces. While "I'd like to punch them in the face" doesn't rise to the level of actually punching anyone in the face, is this not disturbing if not inciting behavior? I wasn't there. Hell, I'm not even American, but it seems to me they were treated unfairly on their constitutional rights under the First Amendment while trouble makers were given special treatment for their political alignment. 1- Should the Trump protesters have been removed? They did nothing wrong. 2- Should the anti-protesters protesting the protesters have been removed? They were openly disruptive within the group. 3- Should the anti-protesters protesting the anti-protest protesters have been removed? They defended the Trump protesters rights, but were openly confrontational within the group. 4- Should all of the anti-protesters have been removed and the Trump protesters allowed to stay? 5- Should all have been allowed to stay under a condition to keep the peace? What should have been the fair resolution to this scenario?

Republicans love to claim theirs is the "Party of Reagan" Wasn't he the dude who without the consent of congress sold guns to Iran to secretly fund a war in Central America? Or called Osama bin Laden a hero? Or Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Didn't he appoint SCOTUS nominees in an election year? DHUD grant rigging? EPA scandal? Operation Ill Wind? Savings and Load Crisis? Conservatives seem to put a lot of revisionist history and hypocrisy in the drinking water these days.

Another classic example of how conservatives claim "their" money is sacred. They have no concept of general revenue coffers. If a liberal was to say... don't spend MY money on wars in the middle east, the conservative response would be something entirely different.

Nobody likes to Godwin the discussion, but in this case it's warranted. The second Trump opened his mouth about deporting 11 million people to where many will face persecution and resident muslims must carry special ID's, was a brown shirt short of Hitler Nazi-ism. There's no other way to explain it. Trump flew off the handle during tonight's CNN debate, claiming the former president of Mexico was not politically correct for saying "We are not paying for his fucking wall" then demanded an apology. His skin is thin as paper, especially when it comes to PC. That's no leader. Nobody likes anyone who cannot practice what they preach, unless maybe 2/3 of Republicans. He's just a loose cannon empowered by a deck load of "under-educated" and "over-medicated" cannonballs rolling around destroying everything useful in the meanwhile while cursing the port they'll never make.

Well... whether accurate or not, that's viewed by other countries as the slippery slope to fascism. I don't live in the USA, but where I live American fascism is much more insidious than pretty much anything Americans shake in their boots about.

I guess that begs the next question. Are these people in the majority? Doing the rough math in my head, half by virtue of being liberal, no. Then among conservatives themselves, how many actually believe this nonsense? Half? Less than half? More? Surely there must be level headed conservatives think women should not be incubators for the state, or that church and state remain separate, that immigration show flexibility on a case by case basis or gun laws be applied to mentally ill individuals. Yet voting conservative contradicts those values, to what end? How is subjecting women to government regulation superior to personal freedom or universal health care? How is persecuting one religion superior while imposing another for the good for religious freedom? How is rounding up and deporting tens of millions of otherwise decent people to violently corrupt countries more compassionate than offering a safe home, job and liberty? Those people are often accused of not being conservative enough. That's why the party has become a dinosaur and the laughing stock of the rest of the planet.

Sure. Hence the checks and balances work themselves out. When any leader gets to big for their britches, the electorate snubs it. Where Trump will fail, is because he's already too big for his britches in the public specter. Besides that, being a liberal in a neocon's clothing, who in their right mind actually thinks he will actually live up those promises?

BS. Here's a prime example of doubling down on stupid. Making shit up so as to be accusing the other of what one party is actually doing for real. The guilty dog always barks first. Nope... I read back but didn't see where you've repudiated David Duke for his racist comments earlier today. Total hypocrisy demonstrated. Thank you. And on the other point, Hillary has not been indicted, charged or found guilty of anything. All you've been parroting is a witch hunt. Nothing more. That is why conservatives will not run the continent again for a very long time. And I laugh.

Clinton has not been charged with anything. Four years of witch hunting by Fox News and mewling republicans does not make it so.

Last time I checked, there are no criminal charges whether standing or alleged regarding Hillary. Fox News parrot much?

Guam too I suppose. Here's a little Republican incompetence d'jour for everyone. Maybe they won't need that wall on the northern border after all. Eminent domain? http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2016/02/15/vancouver-skyline-featured-in-marco-rubios-morning-again-in-america-campaign-ad/

Anyone using the word wall and immigration in the same sentence isn't competent to become a candidate for POTUS. Seriously, are Republicans and their followers so moronic as to think a wall is the magic bullet to end illegal immigration? I mean really? Are they so narrow-minded where things like tunnels, boats, planes and cars and Canada are nonexistent in their world? Or not a factor? Is it not true the greater percentage enter legally while on student/work visas, vacation, business, weddings and funerals etc., but don't leave when supposed? [sarcasm] Who cares about animal migration? Most are just homeless, inedible and shit everywhere anyway. Florida will look terrific with wall around it. So will California, Oregon and Washington states. I suppose the Carolinas, eastern seaboard and New England would have to follow suit to avoid illegals going around too. Tourists will enjoy the warm sunshine while looking at paintings of sea scapes and the TRUMP name in neon lights on the wall just mere inches from the real sea, knowing they're safe from the evil Cubans who only want to escape communism and live the American dream. Fishermen would simply clear customs daily to report for work from any port. Think of the new jobs created within the border service by this new massive government program Republicans so vehemently espouse to be safe from evil doers. No point in half measures though. May as well put one along the 49th parallel too. All 4000 miles of it, Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes included. Make Canada pay for it. They have universal health care. You know that slippery slope to the gulags. Far be it Canadians want's illegals from America once the civil war starts. Vietnam was their trial by fire for draft dodgers. Let's not forget Alaska. Sarah Palin wouldn't have to see Russia anymore. Then and ONLY then will America be free to enjoy the exclusivity of the English language (which they invented), the land where Jesus was born and killing each other in peace, with their own guns. [/sarcasm]

Without a diagram? If you can't draw it, you can't build it. If you haven't built it, you can't test it. If you haven't tested it, you can't claim it works. You can't even claim it works on theory on paper, because you haven't drawn it.

Mitch McConnell was first out of the chute to politicize it. The candidate's assertion to "show some respect" is nonsense. In fact, it shows total disrespect for the constitutional rights of the president. Robert Bork was nominated in an election year, but that didn't stop the Republicans from doing it anyway. Ultimately, Bork was rejected and Justice Kennedy was seated unanimously. Republicans will politicize the shit out of this, ad nauseam. Mark my words.

Perhaps I read too much into your analogy, but like a clock, the pendulum must never be touched by the hand lest we'll be stuck in time. Our obligation to democracy is to agree to wind the clock alternately to allow the pendulum to swing naturally. Republicans, by being "the party of no" and claiming candidates are "not conservative enough" are only interested in hiding the key and wedging the pendulum to the right whilst clinging the the fallacy that being right twice a day equates to being right all day. This forces the president's hand to extricate the pendulum from it's mooring to allow it to swing freely again. Not necessarily pinning it to the left as Republicans would have you believe.

A good reason why healthcare should not be split from the discussion. The example being, Willie71 making valid points to flaws in the Canadian system. He did well to criticize, but not deride or demean. It's not a perfect system and could be managed better, but gets to the heart of the matter with a few well-framed sentences. This is not what Republicans do though. Instead, they'll cook up an insidious boogieman. The recent attacks on Planned Parenthood are a perfect example. Clearly that video was fake and the producers were indicted because of it, yet the battery of Republican presidential candidates parrot it's rhetoric as though it were true. Fiorino (who's now out) spouts it verbatim. Rubio makes no bones about forcing women to be incubators for the welfare state in every case. The rest waffle political correctness or rule of law as it suits the last thing they said. In campaign platforms, they make no bones about overturning Rowe v Wade on one hand while insisting the 2nd Amendment is carved on stone. Off the table. Taboo. It's the height of hypocrisy. These outbursts are not legal interpretations by scholars, they are dogmas by fabricated by malcontents. So long as Americans conflate them as one, the entire discussion id dead in the water the moment it's launched. I mentioned climate change earlier. Democrats are not above this either, but definitely not to the degree of outright denial by Republicans. I don't deny climate change (I see changes in my work, some natural, some not), but am driven by science and understand the differences accordingly, yet it's been my impression many things are frivolously laid at the feet of man made climate change in the absence of evidence (the insidious boogieman thing mentioned earlier). This is why I choose to target pollution instead. It's tangible to the issues at hand, but chips away at the bigger issue in the long term. Canada's former prime minister took the position that conservatism trumps science. He gagged federal scientists and burned the Department of Fisheries research libraries without digitizing them, as to fast track pipeline and tar sand projects. How does a person even remotely consider this reasonable? no less a compromise or concession? It's not. It's fascism, dictatorship and corporate welfare. He was thrown out on his ass in disgrace after the last election. He tore a page out of the Bush - Cheney book only to end up the same way, as the worst leader in the country's history. The Republican take on religion is the same double standard. Excluding religion and race whilst imposing religion and race is something they'll do at the drop of a hat as though the marriage of church and state is the rule of law. Some conservatives will concede to political correctness, but at the end of the day it remains on the agenda. In fact, it's expected and mandatory to the doctrine. "Not conservative enough" has become the meme for extremism being the only alternative to any political stripe. Once again, in every discussion demonization rears it's ugly head. The modus operandi in any hot button issue.

That would be true if gun laws were excluded from the discussion, but it's not. Some liberal takes on the 2nd Amendment are every bit as hysterical as conservative views. Pro or against. Truths lay somewhere in the middle. Guns are a huge problem in America and it is not limited to Republicans. People die needlessly because of it, hence the parallel was drawn. This is why demonization is America's biggest problem, because it encapsulates any issue.

From someone on the outside looking in, demonization is America's biggest problem. Ever since "America, love it or leave it" was coined, concession and universality went out the window. Republicans claim that complaining about the government is patriotic, yet when liberals do it they are labelled as unpatriotic. So long as opposing war rises to the level of "why do you hate our troops?" you folks will always be snookered before breaking the rack. For fear of appearing weak, Americans have a propensity to double down on stupidity. Saying something even more stupid does not erase the lesser stupidity. It only makes one appear twice as stupid. How about "make this country great again" as to suggest you are currently not great? Isn't that admitting to the world you're weak? How about "take this country back", as though one party owns governmental rights, but not the other irrespective of elections? That flies in the face of of democracy for selfishness and espouses imperialism. When Obama became president, conservatives decreed to be the party of no. Not because he was black or liberal (though some believe), but because of a minority imposing it's will on the rest of the populous to spite a democratic process. To refute everything and anything as "checks and balances" is divisive, nonsensical bullshit. I don't need a ton of bricks to fall on my head to know your congress is the height of dysfunction. Guilty until proven innocent is not the rule of law, but certainly commonplace. To a large portion of the population, killing each other with your own guns seems an acceptable consequence of one's own paranoia, that women should be incubators for the state, banning religious expressions while imposing others or that torture is acceptable. These are draconian practices which remain pervasive in the so called land of the free. I'm not defending liberals either. In fact they ought to get off the maybes of global warming and get back to the business of curbing pollution locally, regulating resource extraction and championing human rights. Only then, is the bigger issue addressed properly. So long as some humans are oppressed while others are given carte blanche, the environment will continue to suffer on each other's behalf. I'm seeing quite a pileup on contributor tar. While I don't agree with his viewpoints on most things, he's grounded in his beliefs. I'm sure if he were my neighbor, he'd look out for my interests in my absence irrespective of whatever alignment he might perceive of me for the sake of the community and as a humanitarian. The word bigot got kicked around, but I doubt he wakes every morning thinking about which minority he can abuse or which war he can get us into. On health care, he's just plain wrong on every level. He's unable to see past his own borders or alignment, because much to his chagrin, healthcare is actually workable in numerous countries. He's unable to grapple the concept of harm reduction or preventative medicine so long as there's a dollar to be made doing something less effective. MigL makes an excellent point on this issue, but the long arm of corporate indoctrination prevents the issue from even entering the discussion. Likewise, "trickle down" is not the keystone of the economy insomuch as it is a meme spouted by control freaks. When disaster strikes, America is often the first looked upon for help. Why is this? It's because the country on the whole is affluent and benevolent.That is common ground which most everyone stands upon, although it's often derailed or insulted by a minority of those who invoke "a culture of dependency" drivel. Largely, Americans approve of providing international aid and security. Most countries respect the standing of the USA, even many of the uncivilized ones, but it's not the first choice of refuge either when things go bad. It definitely would not be my first choice. Not for lack of opportunity, but for excessive pettiness, partisanship, horrid health care and misguided security issues. Your veterans are treated poorly (or not at all) and it's reprehensible that charity is only solution to proper rehabilitation. Thoughts and prayers mean squat, they are only cop outs. Both side of the house need to fight tooth and nail to even begin to return the sacrifices made on their behalf, but instead are used as political footballs and places to slash spending. At a humanity level, it's pathetic to the nth degree. Americans are not intellectually superior or technologically advanced as other countries as they'd like to believe either. The sun does not rise and set on America exclusively and not god's (not capitalized) gift to the rest of the world. Sure, the country has astute institutions and multitudes of scholars, inventors and innovation, but those tend to be only accessible to the minority of classes, exclusive to elitists and lag internationally overall. Most Americans can't point to Iraq on a map or pronounce it correctly, no less know what's right or wrong for them socially. After gaining independence, the US dismissed a long standing, still used parliamentary system for whatever you call this one. In case you hadn't noticed, the recent election campaign is the laughing stock of the rest of the planet as little more than a dog and pony show. It's embarrassing to say the least, especially witnessing how gullible people are to it. Definitely not anything others would aspire toward (even though they do dumb shit other ways). I don't see anyone rushing out to change their constitutions according to the American model. Historically, America deserves credit for one thing though. Once they (as allies to others) defeat a country, they'll give it back on a promise to rebuild if they behave accordingly. Japan and Germany are good examples how countries fall into line then move on to succeed, but Iraq failed that test (virtually no allies) because it started a civil war. By claiming national security for attacking Saddam, they ultimately undermined it instead. That is a fact, after the fact. which has has absolutely nothing to do with pacifism as the necons would have you believe. Live by sword, die by the sword. Period. The idea of "American Exceptionalism" is also a joke to anyone outside the US. Americans are every bit as guilty (if not more) as many other countries for imposing their own flawed versions of moral purity, double standards and preemptive dismissal of others. I mirror Ten Oz's opinions for the most part, but not to the degree of dismissing tar's anecdotes as irrelevant. While most of you are entrenched in your opinions, tar is not intransigent in his viewpoints, but in fact conceded on some points. To that end this discussion has made some progress, so it's best to not belittle it. Likewise, he owns up to having a blind eye in some cases. Can the rest of you? I know I'm guilty of it, albeit to a different degree or issue. In America, liberal and conservative have become the sunni and shiite of the western world and the constitution or bible is wielded like the quran is to the jihadist. "Y'all" need to get over yourselves in this manner, or it will ultimately lead to your own undoing.

I read this entire thread before responding to it and a few others. Do you ever get to the point on any matter without saying dumbass shit? Apparently not. As to the first point my only response is if you think this is some grand shadow conspiracy by people pretending to be reasonable and rational to take everyone's guns away, then you're even more batshit than your posts allude. And the second. You clearly don't know jack about your own country's laws, no less others. As a debater you're an epic failure.

Fascinating, really. Without straying from the topic, I'll get back to the point in a moment. I'm an amateur radio operator and spend much of my time monitoring and communicating through space objects, including Mir before it was re-entered and the ISS. I was particularly glued to my equipment when the Soviet Union fell and Cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev (U5MIR) was forced to a longer duration flight. I have several recordings, where he (and other cosmonauts) would speak candidly about about the government emergencies and his orders from flight controllers. In one instance he was talking about growing crystals in metallic ampules which results would "be investigated on earth" but went on to mention he was having some trouble with his oven, so he was starting new experiments. Hydrodynamics. http://wh03.droa.com/~c1706149/audio/U5mir.mp3 Do you think this would have been about fuel transfers?

Thank you for your response and links. I agree the Soviets and subsequent Russians became adept at refueling the orbital station Mir in micro gravity and yes it was small scale from Progress to the end use. What was the propellant tinvolved? Hydrazine? It's already been discussed, but without considering the cost of things I'm inclined to think the moon is a better platform for up-scaled storage and transfer depots. Would you agree some gravity is better than micro gravity? It seems a lot simpler than dealing with shielding, heating, cooling, instrumentation and other physical boundaries. Then again, I supposed you'd have the added burden of building landers. In that vain, Space-X has been successful in re-entering a rocket recently. Would this be more practical than orbital stations? As to micro meteriorites and other space debris, would the moon (or other planet) based operations be much safer than orbital stations in this regard? I guess the next question would be the type of use? I suppose there are two. One being a single use craft sent in advance of the main launch which would rendevous along the way then be abandoned and the other being a service station for multiple spacecraft on an ongoing basis. The latter would undoubtedly be more elaborate than the former even though the internal mechanisms are the same. Likewise, orbital objects require "launch windows". Would lunar launches have longer windows of opportunity? Sorry to discuss with so many questions, but as an amateur space buff I find this topic intriguing.

While certainly not apocolyptic, you did paint the gun control advocates on this forum with a wide brush. You've suggested they're solely motivated to change the world and little else. There's nothing wrong with trying to protect people from needless violence. If it were terrorism, they'll scream from the roof tops that the president isn't doing enough, yet gun violence kills more Americans than terrorists ever will. Those are some seriously fucked up priorities, imho. You've also suggested that any facts presented by them are solely intended to "twist" the discussion, but on the other hand provided a single link from a single study for a single year (seven years ago). Do you understand that others might see that as twisting something narrow into something broad, especially as to suggest there is no problem overall? I respect your right to buy a gun for whatever lawful reason. I would never suggest otherwise, unless of course you had mental or criminal issues. It's that simple. Why does the gun lobby not take that at face value from reasonable people, instead to conflate it into something it's not? If you must, I know very few, even among extreme liberals who think all guns need to be taken away. If anything, many are right up there with the right wing crazies in this delusion. I'm not directing this at you personally, but broadly speaking the mere suggestion that expanding current laws or wider enforcement is a slippery slope to the gulags and insisting Obama is acting like a king is craziness. Crazy is what gets guns taken away... not because rights are infringed. Really, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Any judge would laugh someone out of court for suggesting the two are related, yet it remains in the public specter nonetheless. We only need to look at the 1st amendment of your constitution to reveal a whole lot of hypocrisy in the gun lobby's way interpreting the the 2nd. "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Gun violence is a valid grievance issue. Hence the claim "inalienable" cannot possibly stand as absolute to the individual, but to only to the state. The state always had reasons to take away guns, hence nothing changes by the president's current proposal. Nada, zilch... zip. If this huge percentage of gun advocating self-declared patriotic yankee doodle dandies are so concerned about breaching constitutional amendments, they only need to repudiate Donald Trump who is openly advocating acts contrary to the 1st amendment. Instead, they applaud it. Hypocrites, all of them. BS. Do not presume to know what my safety concerns are or how they apply to law of land where I live, when clearly you have no idea.

Perhaps the answer you seek is in mother's milk. Milk is basically water, sugar, fat and protein. Most animals need all these things, but some need more of one than others. Whales and seals live in the water and need fat layers to protect them. This is why whale and seal milk is rich in fat. Cows grow fast especially in muscle mass. This is why cow's milk is rich in protein. Humans are highly intelligent. This is why human milk is high in sugar, to feed our developing brains. As you probably already know, too much of one or another is not better for us, it's worse. If we tried to be like cows, our joints would crystallize with uric acid. Too much sugar, our teeth rot, pancreas overworks and we become obese. Too much fat, we stress our liver, gain weight and gather cholesterol. Nine months of pregnancy in humans is not long. It's normal. Six weeks gestation in dogs and cats is not short. It's normal.

How is this any different from the ideologically driven meme "Obama wants to take our guns" for simply trying strengthen background checks and licensing of businesses?. The majority of gun owners including yourself support these changes, but are they content to overlook right-wing craziness so as to keep the issue untenable? Why would they not repudiate these fools and get behind their president to protect it's citizens from needless gun violence and accidents? Besides that, most of the civilized countries the world already have gun control and live far more safely than the USofA because of it. For anyone on the outside looking in, it's the American gun lobby that expects the world to change something. Outside of the US, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean diddly squat. In fact it's quite laughable how it's interpreted.

Space Shuttle Endeavor (STS-57) conducted what was called: Super Fluid Helium On Orbit Transfer (SHOOT) experiment to investigate resupply of liquid helium containers in space. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880018700.pdf I gather the main problem they had to overcome was the managing the residual volume of gas in each the donor and recipient containers. In micro gravity, these mix rather than separate and give rise to cavitation. Apparently it required a lot of different instrumentation to measure. Even then accuracy was an issue and they often depended upon estimations rather than hard data. The test concluded by suggesting it's mission goals were "to verify components and techniques that have not been demonstrated in space before and cannot be demonstrated on the ground". That said, we need a lot more missions just to test this, no less perform it in a reliable or viable manner. I suppose once we figure out where we want to go into deep space we'll try harder, but in the meanwhile it seems rather expensive and complicated to learn something in the absence of an objective. Even something as routine as resupplying the space station is not without it's perils and cost. It's a terrific topic for discussion, though. Thank you for the OP. Added note: by "these mix", I meant to say liquid and gas, not both containers.