Melllvar

All flags are an expression of opinion. Even the pride flag has different versions that include or exclude different sub-cultures and allies.

This is a case where it’s the government that’s wearing the proverbial cross necklace, not another employee.

Neither are a governmental function. I think that’s the operative comparison to be made here.

We are not an opinion, but I don’t think that’s really a fair summary of my position anyway.

I kind of have to take the plaintiff’s side. The government shouldn’t be flying pride flags any more than they should be installing Nativity scenes. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion being expressed, but about whether the government should be expressing an opinion at all.

And really all he asked for was to work remotely for the month the flags were up, not to have them removed. I think that actually might fall within the “reasonable accommodation” laws he’s invoking here.

political dissatisfaction

By framing it as mere “political dissatisfaction”, the author inadvertently exposes their ulterior motive. The discussion is actually about whether Trump is in his right mind.

Reminds me of the old trick on HTML forms where you use CSS to make one of the form fields invisible to humans and reject any submission that filled in that field.

Pirate King: HE DID?!? … oh… oh, yes so he did… I was there.

Ctrl-F “plato”

Required reading

?

Yet Trump can declassify documents by thought alone.

Reminds me of the internet legend known as The Forgotten Employee

Wouldn’t it be states 51-60?

The trial was already over. This was for the sentencing.

From a national security standpoint of the government, it absolutely does matter who has the data.

Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.

I’m not familiar with the idiom “spitting on the wrong horn.” Here’s the context of the quote:

But weigh this [the evils of liberty] against the oppression of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem [“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”]. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

I feel like you’re arguing a point I haven’t taken a position on. I’m only saying that arrests like this seem insane to an American sensibility.

The conservatives gave it the power to prosecute people for protesting climate change and made it inadmissible evidence for them to explain the reasons for their protest

But I will say that changing the law like that is also insane to an American sensibility.

It’s less about thinking she shouldn’t be punished for her speech, and more about thinking that the state shouldn’t have the power to punish speech. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

It’s not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.