Manhattan Buckeye;1386618 wrote:"Obscene speech is directed at others when in the public setting. Obscene speech is not banned. Its access is only restricted to those of age that choose to hear/view it. "

Sometimes I log on here just to see some arguments being absolutely shot to the ground.

Majorspark > Boatshoes

Apparently Boatshoes doesn't understand the concept of obscenity in American Constitutional law. Most of us have had sex in our lives, that isn't obscene. But if I tape the action and show it to a class of 2nd graders, my guess is I'm going to prison.

LoL. Miller v. California determined that Speech that is erotic but not obscene may be protected by the first amendment but what is obscene under the 3 prong test gets no protection under the first amendment...So, if you could avoid things like Void for Vagueness, etc. a State could pass a statute outlawing the possession or production or distribution or utterance of speech that is considered Obscene under the 3 prong test in Miller.

I'm just guessing but it appears that it is you who doesn't understand the concept my friend. A videotape of you having sex is almost assuredly not considered obscene in most communities in the United States and showing it to 2nd graders has nothing to do with whether or that particular speech is protected or not as that's a wholly different issue.

BoatShoes;1386960 wrote:No, you are incorrect. It amounts to "obscene" and gets no protection anywhere if it violates the Miller Test. Pornography for example that you ahve to be a certain age to view is not considered "unprotected obscene speech". What amounts to "obscene" under the Miller Test gets no protection whatsoever.

Well the first prong of the Miller test speaks to community standards and the second as defined by applicable state law. What may offend the community in Provo, Utah or Bowling Green, Kentucky may differ greatly to what offends communities in San Francisco, California or Chicago, Illinois. The third is a check on the other two if there is a real value placed on it in a greater context. As in those listed values.

The Miller test basically affirms the states and the peoples authority. What may be banned in certain communities is available in others within a state. Its not a national test.

BoatShoes;1386960 wrote:A classic example that eventually got its own category is child pornography. In most states, a 16 year old can legally consent to sex with a 50 year old. However, if this was filmed, it would be deemed child pornography and it is one example of speech that gets no protection from the first amendment.

You have narrowly tailored yourself into a pretty tight suit. Kiddie porn and a two year window?

BoatShoes;1386960 wrote:There has also been efforts to make several other types of speech get no protection from the first amendment i.e. flag burning..

And it fails every time its been tried. As it should.

BoatShoes;1386960 wrote:It's analagous because just viewing "obscene" speech in your own private home gets no protection. Americans cannot privately possess or produce speech that is considered Obscene/Child Porn. So, you might not lawfully possess weapons that the American People come to believe are "obscene"

So Americans are going to come to the belief that privately possessed assault weapons are analogous to possession of kiddie porn?

BoatShoes;1386960 wrote:And, I'm not sure I've been "humping" a total ban...but if our national conversation lead us to be horrified enough by semi-automatic technology under a miller test type of analysis, I'd be ok with it.

Like I said the Miller test is not a national test. New York has taken action. California will follow. After that not so much.

majorspark;1387224 wrote:Well the first prong of the Miller test speaks to community standards and the second as defined by applicable state law. What may offend the community in Provo, Utah or Bowling Green, Kentucky may differ greatly to what offends communities in San Francisco, California or Chicago, Illinois. The third is a check on the other two if there is a real value placed on it in a greater context. As in those listed values.

The Miller test basically affirms the states and the peoples authority. What may be banned in certain communities is available in others within a state. Its not a national test.



You have narrowly tailored yourself into a pretty tight suit. Kiddie porn and a two year window?



And it fails every time its been tried. As it should.



So Americans are going to come to the belief that privately possessed assault weapons are analogous to possession of kiddie porn?



Like I said the Miller test is not a national test. New York has taken action. California will follow. After that not so much.

I agree that the Miller Test applies a "community standard" however there is no indication that such a community cannot be as large as the United States. The FCC for instance might regulate the broadcast of obscene materials in interstate commerce deciding what is "obscene" based upon a federal community standard. Or, for that matter, if Congress were to decide uttering the word "Fecterschmang" in interstate commerce was obscene because it couldn't pass the Miller Test, it could do so.

But anyways, it was just an analogy as to how we as a nation might parse out our reasoning as to why we might ban certain firearms when we have a compelling interest to do so. It's basically a utilitarian analysis...is there a point where a the objective harms or offenses outweigh any objective positives or subjective value?

And don't get caught up in the idea that I'm suggesting child porn and certain firearms are a one-to-one. The point is that child porn could be considered speech...a rocket launcher or a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun could be considered an example of small arms. When it comes down to it, we say such speech should be get no protection because it is clear that the objective harms outweigh any oubjective value or subjective value.

We might, as a society, when we have a compelling interest to do so, reasonably do the same thing if the objective and/or subjective value of the ownership and distribution, etc. of certain firearms do not outweigh their objective harms.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/12/the-trouble-with-u-s-drone-policy/?hpt=hp_bn2

article raises some interesting questions

- If it's not constitutional to kill American citizens in America unless they're actively engaged in terrorism right then, is it constitutional to kill them when they're abroad, when they're not actively engaged in hostilities?

- shouldn't there be some process of decision making that involves Congress or courts? Should the executive branch be able to determine entirely on its own who is an enemy – American or non-American – and then summarily execute that person?

- The International Institute of Strategic Studies identified about 50 countries that are actively using unmanned aerial vehicles. If we do it, why can't they?

- what happens if and when weaponized drones fall into the wrong hands. What if the Taliban gets one? What if al Qaeda does?

- what if China starts using drones regularly against what it regards as terrorists and defends itself by saying, well, that's what America does.

Raw Dawgin' it;1381994 wrote:Do you live in an environment where you need a gun for self protection? If so i'd suggest you move.

Do you live in an environment where you need auto insurance? If so, I'd suggest you move.

Con_Alma;1382076 wrote:I disagree. The most significant point is the continued effort of keeping our finger on the pulse of the most volatile area of the world to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens and the stability of the world economy.

Finger on the pulse != injecting our own plasma and pushing it through the veins. Hell, ambassadors would keep our finger on the pulse.

Con_Alma;1382077 wrote:We should spend whatever it takes...and we do.

What say you if "whatever it takes" is more than we can afford, a la the USSR and its ruble?

Con_Alma;1383218 wrote:Nope. I understand it completely. That doesn't mean we are going to leave the area nor that we should.

It doesn't mean we will, no, but we absolutely should, sans perhaps ambassadorial presence.

Con_Alma;1384013 wrote:I don't have to want stability in the world economy because we have it....

Not nearly as much as we should, and the only reason we've seen reasonable stability in world economy is the growing ability to do business internationally because of developments in technology.

As for OUR stability within the global economy, let me direct you to the current value of the USD within the foreign exchange market.

Con_Alma;1384013 wrote:... partly because of our presence in one of the most volatile areas of the world.

The money wasted there more than compensates for any perceived stability. Would you spend $1000 to save a nickel? Neither would I.

Con_Alma;1384013 wrote:We can easily pay for the "hundreds of billions of tax dollars" it takes by cutting the social experiments we fund. If you think we will ever disband our presence around the world you are in for a lifetime of disappointment.

I'm not saying we WILL, and as such, it won't be that much of a disappointment.

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:If only it was that easy to remove ourselves from the rest of the world.

I don't think anyone is saying to withdraw commerce, travel, etc. from "the rest of the world." I think they're saying that our presence doesn't need to come at the other end of an M-4. Why is it assumed that removing combat military equates to removing all presence?

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:Civilians, yes are hurt, but which is better, 1-2 dead, a cruise missile that destroys a whole building leading to 10-12 civilians, or our boys going in and perhaps getting killed or lead to more casualties?

The point of our servicemen signing up is to protect the civilians, even at the cost of their own lives. If they sign up in a willingness to die to save the lives of civilians, or even a civilian, then it would seem insulting to treat them like some proverbial figurehead that needs protected beyond non-military civilians.

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:This is amazing how much people have flipped on this in the last 5 years.

I actually agree with this, but I see it as a positive thing.

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:What is the alternative? Removing our forces from the rest of the world is a fantasy, it is not going to happen as the world economy depends on our force protection. That is just the way it. Trying to deny that is trying to deny reality.

So what you're essentially saying is that the world would be economically tumultuous and bankrupt without our active policing of it? Well how generous of us to make sure we keep the rest of the neanderthals in check. I have to admit that it's amazing, then, that we are the first nation about which that has actually been true, then. I mean, any other country in history who has thought that was obviously incorrect, as the world continued to thrive after that nation's fall, but yes ... I'm sure we'll be the first.

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:So, since we have to project force in order to maintain stability ...

This wasn't even true on a less-than-global scale with the Pax Romana. Why do you think it true now?

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:If this was W, this would all be about protecting our troops and the homeland.

If this was W, it would be starkly similar, as I recall him campaigning on a platform of "no nation-building" during his first campaign.

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:Again, we have been doing stuff like this since 1941, it is now with the modern media that it is all coming to light.

Well of course. Nobody's saying it was acceptable back then.

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:If we knew what we know now during the Cold War, I'm sure there would have been the same outrage. But, folks, it helped end of the Cold War.

Yes, I'm quite certain that the decline of the ruble (starting with the restrictions on credit flow in the early '90s) had nothing to do with it.

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:International Affairs is dirty business. Sometimes you do not want to see how the sausage is made. It is power politics at its finest.

Is != should be. Just because that's how it is doesn't mean that's how it should be, nor does it mean that's the only way it can successfully be.

ptown_trojans_1;1385215 wrote:Back in 1998 if we had the technology to arm a Predator, we could have taken out Bin Laden. But, instead, we launched a cruise missile and missed him.

Perhaps we shouldn't have given him so much in the way of money and arms during the Cold War. We created our own enemy there by propping someone up. Although it certainly wasn't the first time our attempt at propping someone up failed.

+rep for o-trap, and to answer the OP, "we" don't pick targets for drone attacks. One man does.

O-Trap;1405879 wrote:...Finger on the pulse != injecting our own plasma and pushing it through the veins. Hell, ambassadors would keep our finger on the pulse....

It's not the same as being present and many, many past administrations agree.

O-Trap;1405879 wrote:What say you if "whatever it takes" is more than we can afford, a la the USSR and its ruble?...

I haven't seen us even come close to that. We have plenty of resources. We are just choosing to allocate them on social programs. If we don't choose to protect ourselves there will be nothing to save the resources for.

O-Trap;1405879 wrote:...It doesn't mean we will, no, but we absolutely should, sans perhaps ambassadorial presence...

I disagree and it's the defining point of the disagreement. Presence is always a greater impact both negative and positive.

Con_Alma;1405910 wrote: If we don't choose to protect ourselves there will be nothing to save the resources for.

Who is coming to take them?

Cleveland Buck;1405912 wrote:Who is coming to take them?

Take what? I didn't refer to anything being taken. Of course we won't know who if we aren't their with them.

Con_Alma;1405916 wrote:Take what? I didn't refer to anything being taken. Of course we won't know who if we aren't their with them.

Never mind. I misread your post.

Con_Alma;1405910 wrote:It's not the same as being present and many, many past administrations agree.

Nobody's disagreeing with the latter. We've been down this path for awhile.

As for the former, I'd like to know in what way having military pawn on the ground holding M-4s is better for keeping your finger on the pulse than having an ambassador rubbing shoulders with the actual decision-makers.

Ambassador is a finger on the pulse. Armed combat troops on the ground is more like boot on the neck.

Con_Alma;1405910 wrote:I haven't seen us even come close to that. We have plenty of resources. We are just choosing to allocate them on social programs. If we don't choose to protect ourselves there will be nothing to save the resources for.

I daresay there aren't that many of "us" in the Middle East. Setting up our own puppet leaders and commandeering the resources owned by other autonomous countries is NOT "protecting ourselves."

I completely agree that we need to spend what is necessary to DEFEND ourselves. However, that's not what we're doing when we play global police.

Con_Alma;1405910 wrote:I disagree and it's the defining point of the disagreement. Presence is always a greater impact both negative and positive.

You say this based on what? Have you some definitive facts for this assertion?

And again, I ask how having an ambassador rubbing shoulders with decision makers is less of a presence than proverbial or literal foot soldiers present.

FatHobbit;1405722 wrote: If it's not constitutional to kill American citizens in America unless they're actively engaged in terrorism right then, is it constitutional to kill them when they're abroad, when they're not actively engaged in hostilities?.

Only during a declared state of war.

FatHobbit;1405722 wrote: shouldn't there be some process of decision making that involves Congress or courts? Should the executive branch be able to determine entirely on its own who is an enemy – American or non-American – and then summarily execute that person?

There is. Congress declares war and the executive executes it. Problem is the stern wording that congress was meant to use when "declaring war" and the formal state it was supposed to place the federal government in has become watered down. Its no longer a formal "state" of war but an authorization by congress giving the executive the power to use the armed forces of the military against an enemy in much more vague terminology. The federal government operates under a quasi war footing with ambiguous goals for achievement of victory. With the limited terms so has been our success.

The current war on "terrorism" has morphed into a perpetual blank check for the executive to use military force in an offensive manner as it would conduct it if operating under a formal declared state. God only knows what the DHS will evolve into.

O-Trap wrote:Nobody's disagreeing with the latter. We've been down this path for awhile.

As for the former, I'd like to know in what way having military pawn on the ground holding M-4s is better for keeping your finger on the pulse than having an ambassador rubbing shoulders with the actual decision-makers.

Ambassador is a finger on the pulse. Armed combat troops on the ground is more like boot on the neck. ...

They are two different benefits. One is a personal communications with the government. The other being present adds to a degree of stability of "lawlessness" in sometime unstable areas.

O-Trap wrote:41...I completely agree that we need to spend what is necessary to DEFEND ourselves. However, that's not what we're doing when we play global police. ...

Then we disagree. Being a "global police" can diminish a need to protect from volitile entitites that would otherwise have greater capability in doing so if the were permitted to run amok and build to such a level.

O-Trap; wrote:...You say this based on what? Have you some definitive facts for this assertion?

And again, I ask how having an ambassador rubbing shoulders with decision makers is less of a presence than proverbial or literal foot soldiers present.

The government communicating with a U.S. ambassador isn't necessarily the same entity as those in the streets where the "foot soldiers" are.

It is time that Congressmen and Senator home address become public information.

Please post them:

If you have to think about doing this for fear of government retaliation what does that say about the government. When did citizen be victims of their own government? Who’s running who?

Before I post this, I will say, I don't care for the UN at all however I also do not care for our world domination/policing strategy either as it will ultimately lead to our downfall.

http://news.yahoo.com/un-says-us-drones-violate-pakistans-sovereignty-083418602.html

At least 400 confirmed civilians dead in Pakistan. All this does is breed more terrorists. I sure as hell know if the Chinese were occupying my home town and "accidently" killing my family/friends just to get some suspected terrorists, I probably would want some sort of revenge or join the fight.

majorspark;1405958 wrote:Only during a declared state of war.



There is. Congress declares war and the executive executes it. Problem is the stern wording that congress was meant to use when "declaring war" and the formal state it was supposed to place the federal government in has become watered down. Its no longer a formal "state" of war but an authorization by congress giving the executive the power to use the armed forces of the military against an enemy in much more vague terminology. The federal government operates under a quasi war footing with ambiguous goals for achievement of victory. With the limited terms so has been our success.

The current war on "terrorism" has morphed into a perpetual blank check for the executive to use military force in an offensive manner as it would conduct it if operating under a formal declared state. God only knows what the DHS will evolve into.

This is a good post.

majorspark;1405958 wrote:...The current war on "terrorism" has morphed into a perpetual blank check for the executive to use military force in an offensive manner as it would conduct it if operating under a formal declared state. God only knows what the DHS will evolve into.

The President almost always has authority to act Militarily when he sees fit. The current state is hardy a blank check. The congress approves the funding for defined amounts...as large as they might be.

The decaration of war is designed specifically to add additiona powers to the Commander-In-Chief..whcih it does if congress makes such a declaration. Not declaring war doesn't mean unable to act militarily.

Con_Alma;1406062 wrote:They are two different benefits. One is a personal communications with the government. The other being present adds to a degree of stability of "lawlessness" in sometime unstable areas.

Whose "law" is being enforced, since we're trying to prevent this "lawlessness?" If it is our own, then the nation we're in is not autonomous. If it is the host nation's, then it is their own responsibility to enforce said law.

As for volatility, a volatile nation elsewhere is not a threat by definition. Examples can be cited if you'd like.

Con_Alma;1406062 wrote:Then we disagree. Being a "global police" can diminish a need to protect from volitile entitites that would otherwise have greater capability in doing so if the were permitted to run amok and build to such a level.

Playing "global police" has never been proven to diminish that need, and I'd suggest that an ever growing homeland security budget would reflect the opposite.

Also, given the potential for blowback, a case could easily be made to say that it creates as many needs to protect as it does alleviate.

Finally, HAVING a capacity and attempting to USE it are two different things. We don't seem to have a problem with what we perceive to be our allies having that capacity at the moment, and yet, trying to manage that distinction has been the CAUSE of some of our biggest security problems in the past.

Moreover, when you consider the mobility of any "volitile [sic] entity," occupying a nation state really isn't all that fruitful even from a geographical perspective.

And this doesn't even take into account the fact that we are putting military personnel in harm's way for something that we have no way of knowing whether or not will actually become a threat or problem anyway. So we'll put them in harm's way to try to police other autonomous nations, but we won't put them in harm's way to try to avoid killing a 16-year-old American citizen? Really?

Con_Alma;1406062 wrote:The government communicating with a U.S. ambassador isn't necessarily the same entity as those in the streets where the "foot soldiers" are.

And with the mobility of any organized group, you'd essentially need them all over the world, and you'd need some way for them to not be treated like a cop in a bad neighborhood (where nobody will tell a police officer anything about anyone -- "nobody knows anything").

Decisions aren't being made at the foot soldier level, so the "pulse" there is nowhere near as effective pre-emptively as someone with political swing.

majorspark;1405958 wrote:The current war on "terrorism" has morphed into a perpetual blank check for the executive to use military force in an offensive manner as it would conduct it if operating under a formal declared state. God only knows what the DHS will evolve into.

Reps forthcoming.

O-Trap;1406255 wrote:Whose "law" is being enforced, since we're trying to prevent this "lawlessness?" If it is our own, then the nation we're in is not autonomous. If it is the host nation's, then it is their own responsibility to enforce said law.

In the case of most of the U.S. presence abroad case it's done with the understanding, approval and acceptance of the United Nations. Many time it is done to enforce UN resolutions.

O-Trap;1406255 wrote:As for volatility, a volatile nation elsewhere is not a threat by definition. Examples can be cited if you'd like.

...and our presence lends to ensuring that it remains a non-threat.

O-Trap;1406255 wrote:Playing "global police" has never been proven to diminish that need, and I'd suggest that an ever growing homeland security budget would reflect the opposite....

The homeland security budget may be as small as it is because of our presence elsewhere....even if it is growing. The demands could be greater.

O-Trap;1406255 wrote:Also, given the potential for blowback, a case could easily be made to say that it creates as many needs to protect as it does alleviate.

Blowback has and will exist as it relates to our activities abroad. It doesn't mean more or even greater security issues havn't be squelched because we have and will realize blowback.

O-Trap;1406255 wrote:...Finally, HAVING a capacity and attempting to USE it are two different things. We don't seem to have a problem with what we perceive to be our allies having that capacity at the moment, and yet, trying to manage that distinction has been the CAUSE of some of our biggest security problems in the past. ...

They are indeed two different things. I'll choose to relay upon the decision of many administrations who have detremined that the intentions of those with capabilities give us concern. To assume that those intentions weren't genuinely defined based on history and intelligence gathering is something you'll have to live with. I am comfortable with such decisions.

O-Trap;1406255 wrote:Moreover, when you consider the mobility of any "volitile [sic] entity," occupying a nation state really isn't all that fruitful even from a geographical perspective....

Geographic fruitfulness is hardly the concern. Smothering emerging threat capabilities associated with poor histories combined with gathered intelligence is.

O-Trap;1406255 wrote:...And this doesn't even take into account the fact that we are putting military personnel in harm's way for something that we have no way of knowing whether or not will actually become a threat or problem anyway. So we'll put them in harm's way to try to police other autonomous nations, but we won't put them in harm's way to try to avoid killing a 16-year-old American citizen? Really?...

Absolutely. The risk of not doing so can be significant.

O-Trap;1406255 wrote:...And with the mobility of any organized group, you'd essentially need them all over the world, and you'd need some way for them to not be treated like a cop in a bad neighborhood (where nobody will tell a police officer anything about anyone -- "nobody knows anything").

Decisions aren't being made at the foot soldier level, so the "pulse" there is nowhere near as effective pre-emptively as someone with political swing.

We have such mobility and in some cases we are shunned as a bad cop. IN others, we are not. Being viewed as a bad cop only leads me to believe even more that's a place we need to be. That's not an area we should withdraw from.

It's not political swing or presence. It's the combination of both in many cases.

Unfortunately Con_Alma, History and facts are not on your side. These policies you so highly speak are the reason why these terrorists popped up in the first place. So your idea is to continue to do what we have been doing . All our policing/interfering has come back to cost us more solider's lives and even our own citizens lives. Not too mention the ridiculous cost. Now as a Libertarian I obviously am not a huge advocate of all the social programs we have however I would gladly rather pay for our elderly/sick/children/poor than to waste money spreading our military throughout the world for a lost cause.

Con_Alma;1406455 wrote:In the case of most of the U.S. presence abroad case it's done with the understanding, approval and acceptance of the United Nations. Many time it is done to enforce UN resolutions.

Since when does the UN have any authority over the United States or any country for that matter?

Con_Alma;1406158 wrote:The President almost always has authority to act Militarily when he sees fit. The current state is hardy a blank check. The congress approves the funding for defined amounts...as large as they might be.

Congress has about as big of balls to cut funding for military actions the president may order as it would cutting domestic so called "entitlements". Cutting funding to troops that the president has ordered into battle would be seen as surrendering to the enemy.

Con_Alma;1406158 wrote:The decaration of war is designed specifically to add additiona powers to the Commander-In-Chief..whcih it does if congress makes such a declaration.

Exactly and when those additional powers were granted to the commander in chief the results were decisive military victories in achieving our objectives. Not so much when not. That was my point.

Con_Alma;1406158 wrote:Not declaring war doesn't mean unable to act militarily.

No one on this thread is arguing this.

pmoney25;1406571 wrote:Unfortunately Con_Alma, History and facts are not on your side. These policies you so highly speak are the reason why these terrorists popped up in the first place. So your idea is to continue to do what we have been doing . All our policing/interfering has come back to cost us more solider's lives and even our own citizens lives. Not too mention the ridiculous cost. Now as a Libertarian I obviously am not a huge advocate of all the social programs we have however I would gladly rather pay for our elderly/sick/children/poor than to waste money spreading our military throughout the world for a lost cause.

...and yet administration after administration regardless of political party continues to side with me. That's really all that matters an it isn't going to change anytime soon.