Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About davos

  • Rank
    can't stop the signal
  • Birthday 10/29/1975

Contact Methods

  • AIM davos75
  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Madison, WI

Recent Profile Visitors

6,245 profile views
  1. US Election: It's a post-TrumpDay world

    I'm seeing the same thing from multiple sources. No good way left for the GOP establishment to deny Trump the nomination.
  2. Where to start with Rush

    I've been aware of Rush (the band) for many years and have always told myself I should give them a listen. I know a lot of people who's tastes I like that also like them. I also am to understand that this is a band that one can form an educated opinion on without putting some effort into listening to them. This is a problem as they have a rather massive catalog with several stylistic shifts along the way. Its also my understanding that, as is the case with many prolific artists, that they have several efforts that are not up to their usual standards. As know that there are several Rush fans that frequent these forums, my questions is this: where does the neophyte best put their effort to get a handle on what this band is about? Advise would be most welcome.
  3. U.S. Elections: We're All Qualified To Post Here

    Since they are using the public election apparatus, in states where primaries are conducted, the party has to abide by applicable state an federal election law in the conduct of that primary. Since the Caucuses are private events that do not utilize the public election apparatus,they bypass election laws and can be conducted however the party sees fit (though if they are conducted in public buildings, which they often are, I am not sure if those are provided to the party gratis or if they have to pay a rental fee for their use). Their is, to my understanding, not a legal issue with how the caucuses are conducted in regards to access and fairness because they are private events. the parties can ignore the results of the primaries. They could decide to chose their nominee by casting lots or reading the entrails of a goat sacrificed in the darkest rituals under the light of a full moon. I suspect if they just willy-nilly disregarded the how process prior to the election that they would be sued under various grounds. I suspect that the rules parties have established for how their nomination works could be regarded as a contract and would give both the candidates and those who voted in the primary/caucuses some grounds to fight them in court (though I am not a lawyer. If I am wrong on this count i'm sure our board legal minds will tell me). They are also restricted by what is politically possible. Yes, they have the freedom to chose their nominee by whatever selection process they chose, there would be serious political ramifications for changing the process drastically mid-stream. The nomination process in the US is a strange beast and really stands out compared to the rest of the democratic world. In many other countries the candidates are selected at party meetings without the complex preamble of primaries. This is a large part of the reason that the US presidential election process seems to go on for so long. What is in essence an internal party contest is conducted at great length in each state in the US, while in most countries this would occur without significant involvement of the general public
  4. US Politics: Scalia Dead at 79

    It's hard to understate how significant Scalia's passing at this juncture is, at least from the view point of US politics. Suddenly, Obama, who has largely seemed to settle into the role of place-holder,now faces making a vital set of decisions and to reenter battle with a quite hostile senate. At a time when the focus of the media and politically aware people was on the campaign trail, Washington suddenly jumps back to the fore. How this fight unfolds will in turn have potentially shaping influence on the course of the primaries and presidential election. It's very difficult to see how this all plays out. It is certain, though, that the game has just changed signficantly.
  5. US Politics: Scalia Dead at 79

    While the Michigan government is currently controlled by a bunch of vile human beings, this is not what actually happened. What did occur was that the state legislature passed a revision to the Michigan penal to better address animal cruelty. In the same section of the penal code was old language prohibiting sodomy. since they only revised theportion related to animal cruelty, thebill contained the unrevised portions of that section as well, including that pertaining to sodomy. While if would have been nice if the had removed the unenforceable sodomy language but the bill was related to something completely different. they weren't looking to clean out all the old junk on the penal code but to address one specific issue. the language should be removed but it is not new law and is not enforceable. Snopea has more details: http://www.snopes.com/michigan-senate-crime-against-nature/
  6. agreed. Should not have ever been called that way in the first place.
  7. not at that time. The occupation of the capital building occured in February and March of 2011. The law legalizing concealed carry was passed after the occupation had ended anddid not go into effect until November of 2011.
  8. very different situation. For the first several weeks of the occupation, the protesters were there legally. The state capital building is open to all anytime public business is being conducted (though that may have been changed in the intervening years). Democratic members of the state assembly kept hearings running around clock on Act 10 so as to delay a vote. The occupation initially started to provide a constant pool of people to testify at these hearings and grew from there. Once the assembly GOP found a way to force a vote, which was after several weeks, the legal basis for the occupation ended. The occupation continued, but remained nonviolentthroughout. While I can't say that none of the protesters we really carrying weapons, I spent a lot of time down there during these events and never saw any.There were no threats to use violence to resist expulsion and protestsstayed peaceful. The present situation is very different in that the occupiers have weapons, have never had a legal basis for what they are doing, and have threatened violence to resist attempts to remove them. If they did not have weapons and were indicating a willingness to use them, I would be OK with occuping the building as an act of protest even though I don't agree with them. I don't think force should be used to them. Comparing this to the occupation of the WI capital building is simply not valid, though.
  9. Yes, similar actions from the left should be equally condemned. A disruptive protest is ok if it is peaceful. Bringing guns is inherintly not peaceful and is not ok, regardless of who is doing the protesting.
  10. Trump 2016

    *mod hat* closing this thread as the topic is part of the US politics thread */mod hat*
  11. Two other candidates who had significant impacts on a presidential race while running under a non major party come to mind. First, Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. His presence in the race probably denied Taft a 2nd term and put Wilson in the white house. Second, George Wallace in 1968 took a significant part of the old south, marking the death of the old Democrat coalition and making Nixon's path to victory easier.
  12. Springtime for Hitler.......
  13. NFL 2015 Week Won cont: Return of the Honeybadger.

    unlesshe has an injury that's not currently public knowledge and that is readily treatable in the short-term , I think we are seeing the end of Peyton Manning's career. The question is how long it will take him and the Broncos organization to recognize this. and if the team realizes it before Peyton comes to terms with it, will they be willing to bunch him?
  14. It is evidence of how those whose support Mr Trump is vying for viewed what he said. And I am sure it is reasonable to conclude that, since Mr Trump is a media savy individual, that he knew exactly how it would be seen by his a good portion of his target audience. So he basically got away with telling a Hispanic to go back to Mexico and can defend what he said as it is not the literal meaning of his words, only the strongly implied ones?