User Profile: PubliusPencilman


Member Since: August 31, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [2] March 4, 2015 at 11:58am

    Traditional police are often required to live in the cities that they patrol. They receive decent pay and job security, which makes them an important part of the urban middle class–a class that conservatives claim to want to protect and promote.

    But here comes the private security rent-a-cop! He doesn’t live in the community–he commutes from an hour away because he doesn’t know where he’ll be assigned from week-to-week. He has little job security, so he has no incentive to “put down roots.” Not giving out enough tickets? You’re gone. And when SEAL renegotiates it’s contract, it will be in control of a vital civic function. Who’s going to argue with a few bonuses here and there?

  • [9] February 22, 2015 at 10:49am


    The vast majority of ISIS’s victims have been Muslims who refuse to conform to the groups beliefs. You have no idea what you are talking about.

  • [-2] February 22, 2015 at 10:48am

    It isn’t up to you to decide which religions are “accepted” and which are not. Sorry, but this is a free country.

  • February 22, 2015 at 10:47am

    They are stepping forward. You’re just ignoring them.

  • [4] February 22, 2015 at 9:28am

    Your response to my historical evidence amounts to a bitter, snotty “nuh huh!” Sorry, but that’s not an argument.
    In terms of Dr. Warner, he’s a Ph.D. in Math and Physics, not history or theology. He has no formal training in any aspect of Islam. Frankly, I just feel sad for you–living your life in your paranoid, small, dark world, feeding off of hucksters like this. Spreading hatred against others (include other American citizens) just to make yourself feel better.
    Maybe you should just sit down; you’re out of your league here. I don’t get my history from youtube links and blog posts.

  • [2] February 21, 2015 at 5:34pm


    Jefferson did not send the Marines to take on Islamists in Tripoli. He sent marines to help one Muslim unseat another. Jefferson had a deal with Hamet Caramelli to help him overthrow his brother Yussef, the ruler of Tripoli. William Eaton’s expedition included a few dozen marines, and hundreds of Muslim allies who supported Hamet.

    Yes, one of the most important events in Marine Corps history–the Shores of Tripoli–involved US Marines fighting alongside Muslims.

  • [-1] February 18, 2015 at 11:21am

    Ha! You folks are nuts. Fortunately, the public at large know it, so there is little damage your insane ranting here can do.

  • [-9] February 18, 2015 at 11:17am

    Haha. Not a legitimate president? He was elected, twice!

    But go ahead–invade the Middle East again. Ignore the idea that it was actually the last invasion that made ISIS possible. You spout nonsense about Hitler and Japan, as if you are teaching some masterful history lesson, but then you gleefully ignore the last ten years.

    Who is going to pay for this new invasion you two are scheming up?

  • [-11] February 13, 2015 at 4:13pm

    Bigotry? How so?

  • [-13] February 13, 2015 at 4:05pm

    Usurper? He won two elections. You’re nuts.

  • [-1] February 10, 2015 at 3:36pm

    “If you live in the United States you follow the laws of the United States, can it possibly be any clearer than that. ”

    They are following the laws of the United States. Is THAT clear? They are offering non-binding arbitration, just as many Jewish religious courts already do in the US.

  • February 10, 2015 at 3:34pm

    I find it sooo funny that Tea Party-ers like to wave the Constitution around, but have no problem denying Muslims their right to free exercise.

  • February 8, 2015 at 10:43pm


    You don’t quite get what this conversation you’ve jumped into is about, but it is funny to see you flailing around madly. You haven’t brought abortion in here yet. Maybe that could be part of your “argument,” although you did somewhat compare more liberal Jews and Christians to a notorious criminal.

  • February 8, 2015 at 10:39pm

    “‘long standing law’ also said noted that it was a ‘long standing law’ that marriage was between a man and a woman and that sodomy was illegal.”

    So now your argument seems to be that if any law changes, than all laws can change, so we can never change laws? It’s too bad we can’t go back to the early 20th century, because I would have loved to see you complain about women getting the vote.

  • February 8, 2015 at 10:33pm

    “PUBLIC accommodation, IE government, NOT, Joes convenience store which has the right “to refuse service to anyone”.
    And once again if this law is applied to peoples private business like their stores that they paid to set up and the risk of losing their money they (not government) took, then that law is unconstitutional.”
    Haha. That’s not what “public accommodation” means. As it says, the Federal Civil Rights Act itself includes a definition, which you apparently ignored. For example:

    “any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;”

    These are your “private businesses,” all considered legally places of public accommodation. Since the CRA is focused specifically on segregation, its list is a bit more limited than other anti-discrimination laws on the books at the state level, including in Oregon.
    So I guess you are arguing that the CRA and every other anti-discrimination law is unconstitutional because you don’t understand the concept of public accommodation, which has a long history in American law and English Common Law before it. In that case, I’d say your legal opinion about what is and isn’t unconstitutional doesn’t mean squat.

  • February 8, 2015 at 10:20pm

    “Yes the unconstitutional arbitrary liberal laws.”

    Haha. Very nice. I think it’s quite funny how you can simply dismiss a very longstanding legal distinction as somehow arbitrary (and liberal, for that matter). Sorry, but that’s not a refutation,despite all your crowing.

    I already offered you a very specific way in which sexual consent and medical consent are different. Anyway, this seems entirely unproductive. You seem to want to argue about abortion, but that’s entirely beside the point. From the beginning, I have pointed out that same-sex marriages do nothing to threaten the age of consent, and therefore have no connection to pedophilia. That’s simple legal fact.

    It seems that you are very upset about older men being punished for having sex with underage girls. Sorry, but that’s the law. Perhaps you might vent your little lolita complex somewhere else.

  • February 8, 2015 at 2:23pm

    Ahhh.. I see. So you do at least acknowledge that public services may not discriminate. So then your confusion is a result of the fact that you define businesses as absolutely private, when in fact US law defines them as places of “public accommodation.” This definition has its roots in English Common Law:

    Now, the Federal Civil Rights Act explicitly outlaws discrimination by such places of public accomodation:
    “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

    So, you can claim that this is unjust all you like, but your understanding of what a business is runs contrary to the historical definition in both American law and the English law on which are legal system is based. So if either of us is offering a radical proposition contrary to what America is or means, it’s you.

    And, not for nothing, but your dismissal of de facto (as opposed to de jure) segregation in Chicago is entirely unconvincing.

    But, to answer your question:
    2) Yes. Anti-discrimination laws do not protect hate speech or obscenity. In fact, they are very clear about what they protect, usually enumerated as sex, religion, race, etc.

  • February 8, 2015 at 2:05pm

    “and it is not following the Jewish religion, no matter what some fraud calling himself or herself a”

    Well, fortunately neither Jews nor Christians are restricted to following your particular theological views. I know many Jews who would disagree with you.

  • February 8, 2015 at 2:02pm

    “that means they may not force a business to cater to anyone that business chooses not to cater to.”

    Your argument is circular, since you are assuming that one of these privileges or immunities is the ability to discriminate at will. It is not. In fact, the Federal Civil Rights Act says exactly the opposite:

    “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

    States like Oregon have added provisions to protect sexual preference as well. So clearly the ability for a place of public accommodation (a business) to discriminate is not a federally afforded privilege or immunity, and is in fact explicitly outlawed.

    And, as for your other point, in terms of consent–medical consent is handled fundamentally differently than the sexual “age of consent.” That’s a longstanding legal principle. After all, sexual relations with a minor who has not reached the age of consent is still illegal even if the parents offer consent.

    If the sexual age of consent and medical consent were handled in the same way–as you want them to be–then it would be perfectly legal for a parent to offer consent to have a pedophile abuse their underage child. Fortunately, this is not the case. I’m not sure why you want it to be.

  • February 8, 2015 at 10:49am

    “You’re ignoring the fact that the vast majority of businesses don’t wish to discriminate against potential customers. ”

    I am not ignoring that the government enforced segregation through legal codes, but you are making a huge leap here. I’d like to see some proof for your claim here.

    Take, for example, housing segregation in Chicago. Landlords did not discriminate against blacks because the law told them to–they did it to keep blacks out of certain neighborhoods and to push them into areas with fewer resources and more exploitation. The legacy of those practices is painfully evident today. So tell me again how the removal of anti-discrimination and fair housing laws would solve this problem?

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love