Texsox

It seems to me, and I know y'all will correct me if I am wrong, that a socially liberal yet fiscally conservative party could do very well at election time. So will that ever happen? Will it be the GOP becoming more liberal on social issues or the Dems becoming more conservative with our tax dollars?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 01:37 PM) Again, this is exactly what the sit ins were. Black people sitting down at whites only counters just wanting to be served while the businesses refused to do so, while waiting for them to remove the people by force for wanting to buy lunch. Exactly. But connecting the dots leads to an quagmire. If we allow protesters who harm a business to be removed, and anyone can be a protester just by being themselves in the store, then laws like this are reasonable at worse or even unnecessary at best.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 01:41 PM) The difference being that those "safeguards" may or may not (probably not) drop the murder rate, whereas adding a 2nd person in the cockpit WILL prevent some lunatic pilot locking the door and crashing a plane. Ah, now the fun of that proposal. Cost - Benefit? How can we assure ourselves that the second person can overpower the pilot if necessary? How can we assure ourselves that the second person won't be the one to take over the plane and plan a control flight into terrain? The irony that we felt safer when pilots could insulate themselves from the other passengers. Now we want people on the outside to get inside.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2015 -> 02:01 PM) SAE president says they first learned the chant on a national leadership cruise organized by the fraternity's national organization. Shocking

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 03:52 PM) how can that be accepted, you are making a contradiction. it is legally fine and yet violates student rights??? get real Sorry LDF I know you are a smart guy so I must not be writing this clearly. You are confusing the system in place versus the decision that was made. The example I gave are laws that have been written that are overturned by the courts as violating constitutional rights. Remember the checks and balances? So a state government writes a law barring same sex couples to marry. The law gets overturned later and ruled unconstitutional. A state writes a law restricting abortion that is later overturned. We don't say the system that we use to write the laws is wrong and needs to be changed, do we? I'm surprised you can't follow that. Courts make decisions that get overturned on appeal because of constitutional issues. Do we then change the court system? The system didn't violate anyone's rights, the resulting decision did. In this case, if a universities system is all expulsions are adjudicated through the college president. How is that SYSTEM violating anyone's rights? I agree the decision probably was wrong and needs review by the courts. But any SYSTEM they had in place could still result in the same decision to expel. Name a system that could be in place that couldn't arrive at a decision that was unconstitutional? We can't even do that with our current legal system.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 11:46 AM) I dont know, your examples are involving situations where service isnt being refused, but access is. There is a lot to your example here that would complicate the situation. Is the racist walking around the store saying racist things and making people uncomfortable and causing them to leave? I would say that the Religious freedom law wouldnt even matter because this person is damaging your business by causing people to leave. Is he just a known racist who sat down quietly to have coffee and didnt bother anyone, but the store owner knows him and says "Get out, i know what you say when you are somewhere else". And yes, the law is much more sinister than what they are trying to spin it as. Sorry, my examples are confusing the question I was trying to ask. I was also discussing a tangent, should a business be allowed to refuse service? Can a person be a protester just by standing there doing nothing? If a shop keeper is known for refusing to serve a Muslim, would any Muslim person walking into the shop be in affect protesting?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 12:13 PM) I'm not sure I'd trust the pilot to be alone in the cockpit no matter who they were, and they receive a heckuva lot more training than we require of gun owners in many states now. 100% agree.

I know we never should have allowed Germany to reunite. We saw what they did last time they were together. Terrorism

And as a religious person, I am really offended by this law and it does not represent my beliefs or any of the beliefs of my friends who would also identify as religious. It seems more in that crazy world of Politico-Religion.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 11:23 AM) You arent refusing service to protesters that are disrupting business. They dont want to eat what you are providing, and they dont want others to eat it. They are trying to harm your business. I dont think this analogy is applicable at all. That was my final question. Can you be a protester by just being yourself? I don't want to bog down into specific groups but sit ins were basically blacks protesting by wanting to be served. They weren't really protesting other than being in a store where they were not welcomed. Now we all know I'd rather be on the side of inclusion. But if you are a black business owner and the local racist idiots decide they want to just walk around your store, shouldn't you be allowed to have them removed? Even if they aren't doing anything? If you are a conservative store owner with a conservative customer base and your regulars leave without buying when that ABC person is in the store, isn't that the same? Again, I am talking hypothetical, I believe we know this law is much more sinister in focus.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2015 -> 10:22 AM) The idea that in both situations someone can cause the death of someone else. 99% of the time it doesn't happen, but 1% of the time it does. Balta likes to point to the 1% with guns and say "see look how dangerous, ban them all!" Yet with planes and depression he's willing to give a pass apparently because it doesn't happen that often. The logic in the reaction isn't consistent. I believe a key difference between being a passenger on an airplane and a customer in a store is the different level of trust. I don't trust the clerk at Starbucks with my life, I do with the pilot. I would hope the screening would be much different. Interesting is Balta and I are making the same connection but coming with much different conclusions. I'd rather they keep their guns than fly a plane. he'd rather take away their guns and give them an airplane. Of course we both would rather they receive quality health care* and be fine with a gun and an airplane. *We should not differentiate between mental health and other health.

As much as I really dislike this law, I do wonder if stores should have the right to refuse service. On a theoretical point, imagine a group of protesters inside a steak restaurant chanting against eating meat. Obviously we all agree the owner should have the right to remove the group because they are harming that business. Now, what if you have a really messed up business (IMHO it is messed up) that caters to a very anti-XX crowd. A large group of XX show up just to drive away the core customers. They will be gone next month along with the regulars. Can you protest by just being you?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 01:04 PM) Thats why I clarified, its funny that its finally getting out of US soil. I mean dont they know most of the south is bigoted as hell? I didn't think Indiana and Kansas were southern states? It's a lot of northern states that demanded the border wall be placed in Texas.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2015 -> 03:16 PM) Interesting viewpoint given your opinions on guns and how everyone with them is a menace to society capable of killing. Setting aside the obvious baiting aspect, this is a very good question. I believe one of the categories we should treat as a distinct group are those jobs where you are responsible for other people's lives. I am not certain the connection between guns and depression is.

I forgot my log in and the reset keeps referring back to my original Yahoo account. Can someone post the standings. I want to know if I have hit last yet.

Even simpler I believe the university's process was legally fine. I also believe that process may have resulted in a decision that violates the student's rights. Just like some same sex marriage laws were passed in a legally acceptable way but the outcome were later ruled unconstitutional. No one says the process was bad, just the result. Because we sometimes write unconstitutional laws we don't demand to change the way we write laws.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 25, 2015 -> 03:00 PM) you really do not know what due process means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process now, the school admin arbitrarily took it upon themselves in dealing, rather harshly with the situation, thereby creating, what i would assume be a huge civil actions. that admin, while trying to do good, screwed the pooch. those students, i do not care for what reasons, have rights, which the school admin did not follow. i am sure they school board will deal with that at a later time. You don't really understand my question. What is the process for a student to be expelled? You keep saying they have rights. I agree. Their current right is now a civil matter with the court system. Students get expelled for grades, there is a process that is followed. Students get expelled for other actions on campus, a process is followed. What right do you believe the students have in this case before being expelled? Each university establishes the process for their school to expel students. Arbitrary? I assume then that you know the process that is established at that university, could you please let us know what it is? Depending on the infraction at my university the matter is referred to either a faculty committee, Dean of the College (if appropriate), Academic Dean, or in extraordinary circumstances, to the University President. Having the issue decided by the president doesn't violate any of their rights. His decision may have been wrong, even illegal, but again, the process the university used did not. Do you believe there is some other process that every public university student is legally entitled to and what is that? Do they have to assemble six tenured faculty members? Call a special meeting of the board? Bring in a federal judge before expelling anyone? The due process that is now available to the students is a civil matter where they may sue the school for readmission. But any court action happens after, not before the expulsion. The process at a university to expel someone doesn't need to include a trail. Now if you want to change the discussion to did the school violated the student's rights and unfairly expelled them, I believe the kids have a better than average chance to win. But the process at the school is fine. Someone has to make the decision at the school. If the decision made violates a student's rights, then the student has a legal avenue. But I don't see anywhere in the decision making process violated any of the students rights. Laws get established that are later overturned on constitutional grounds, courts make decisions that are later over turned. The law or action being judged may violate someone's rights, but the process to pass the law or the prior court case isn't the process. And the process the university used does not as well.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 10:58 AM) Maybe they need to allow air marshals to have a deadbolt release on the cockpit door for emergencies. Then in theory the air marshal could be forced to allow in a terrorist. I'm not certain what a flight attendant may have done besides getting killed faster by a pilot wishing harm on the aircraft. I realize this could be taken in a manner I did not intend. What I mean is the pilot would just shoot/stab/strangle the flight attendant before they could unlock the door.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 22, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) that due process is establish and govern by the constitutions of the land, back by the supreme courts and enforced and protected by the police. those appeals process has nothing to do with civil liberties. there is a reason why the governing body in the country back in the time of the establishment of the laws, thought, people does not have the ability to govern themselves and that is why a separate but an equal branch of the country is needed. to fairly judge the situation, without bias and prejudice. What due process has been established to expel someone from a university? Are you suggesting it becomes a civil matter for a court to decide? If not the courts, then it would be the university. What law established who at the university judges the case?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 25, 2015 -> 11:38 AM) Constitutional rights trump the rights of public universities to operate as they wish. It's really that simple. A university can't decide to exclude blacks, women, etc just because their local rules say they can. Not sure what you're missing here. I completely agree with your points. Schools expel students all the time and it is not a civil matter in court. So any due process does not require any court involvement. So again I ask, who sets the due process for the University of Oklahoma? As long as the process they select protects the constitutional rights of the student it is ok. What law would be broken if the due process is a decision by the university president? Who at the university should make the decision? The school would not be adjudicating this in a court room initially. Legally I'm not certain if there is a difference in a due process of a faculty committee, school board hearing, or school president hearing before action. These are not the first people to ever be expelled from a public university, there should be prior law to establish that covers this. But to suggest that this should follow a due process similar to our court system isn't necessary. Constitutional rights of speech are not you can say anything, anytime, and anyplace without penalty. What due process do you think is legally required in expelling a student from a university?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2015 -> 02:38 PM) They also have the right to challenge that ruling in court and allow a court to judge those actions. The university as a state-organized institution will have some bylaws written into their rules by the state and the exact text of those rules will outline whether or not the university has that ability. That is the due process they would have access to. I agree. Isn't that what I have been saying?

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 22, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) that due process is establish and govern by the constitutions of the land, back by the supreme courts and enforced and protected by the police. those appeals process has nothing to do with civil liberties. there is a reason why the governing body in the country back in the time of the establishment of the laws, thought, people does not have the ability to govern themselves and that is why a separate but an equal branch of the country is needed. to fairly judge the situation, without bias and prejudice. What I believe you are missing is the university selects who is allowed to enroll in that university. The qualifications are set by the university not the constitution. Likewise, the university is allowed to establish a series of local rules to allow you to continue to attend the university, or not. Again, that is not set in the constitution.

Again, who defines the due process? What if the due process is the President has final decision? Or a committee of three reviews the available information and makes a decision? I imagine there is an appeal process in place that would be available to the student. Is that process enough? Placing the burden on the students to appeal? Seems like an efficient way to manage these situations. I do not believe they have a legal right to attend that university. If they did then the university would not be able to set any standards for admission.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2015 -> 09:31 AM) "Zero tolerance" policies are often dumb as well. It's not like your choices are zero tolerance or allowing public university administrators to kick people out without due process over private speech. You are correct. Who defines "due process"? Remember we are beginning with a process that excludes certain individuals from this public university. The university is not a public square that anyone can enter. If these guys had been employees of a company and fired over the behavior what would the "due process" be? They are not being prosecuted and thrown in jail, the due process for a legal procedure. There have been no efforts by the university to prosecute them in a court of law. I'm not certain what due process you are creating here. And I'm not certain how you are deciding this is private speech or why you are drawing a distinction.

It seems that during every season there is a time when you just need to get lucky. Throw all the names in a hat, pull one out, and the odds feel about the same of getting a quality start out of them. After expansion every roster is thin in spots, usually pitching.