Free Republic

You could safely do away with most of the Clean Water Act verbiage by simply requiring all inlets to be downstream of its associated discharge. The owner of the facility in question would find it much easier to clean up the discharge than strain out the garbage at the inlet.

And in those areas where water resources are limited, I'd prefer to see solutions to expand supply rather than restrict use.

Let free enterprise do that. Where the demand exists, supply will appear--if you don't interfere with the marketplace.

OK, then.

You're saying that to keep a Free Republic, we're going to have to kill off or expel a large chunk of our population.

Aside from the obvious candidates (illegal aliens), who ya planning to vote off the island?

How would you propose rights to resources be allocated?

How about the old-fashioned way...by ownership and mutually agreeable trade by private parties?

At the very least, government involvement is necessary to resolve conflicting claims.

That's what we have a court system for.

In areas where water is less abundant, those claims are more hotly contested.

Well, DUH!

BTW, nuclear desalination is a nice, sensible solution to a difficult problem. HoweverComma there is a group of people who will oppose any and all sensible efforts as somehow "despoiling the environment."

I fail to see how someone can applaud a beaver's dam, built for a beaver's purposes, as "natural," while claiming that a dam built by man for man's purposes is "unnatural." We are a tool-using species, as a casual perusal of "Home Improvement" will show.

From small seeds come gigantic trees.

OYEZ, OYEZ, OYEZ!

1ST CYBERCIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE JUDGE LYNCH PRESIDING, IS NOW IN SESSION.

Your Honor, would you please tell the opposing pleadant to sit down and shut up.

Pleadant Spiff is now fined an additional $1,000 donation to FR.

I submit that beyond this single eyewitness's (earwitness's?) questionable and incomplete report of an alleged radio show (he's given no evidence that such a radio show actually exists or existed) upon which an unnamed, allegedly racist guest (he's given no name or date of this alleged incident) was allegedly treated to hospitably by Glenn Spencer that no concrete or credible evidence has been presented to support the allegations.

The pleadant Spiff has raised valid questions, but has not successfully disproven the testimony.

Further, even if that specific eyewitness testimony was corraborated, it would not come close to proving that Glenn Spencer is, in fact, a racist nor that his organization is, in fact, racist.

The court notes that the pleadant HoweverComma is not claiming it as fact--he is merely stating that it calls the motives of Mr. Spencer and American Patrol into question, which is entirely true.

Additionally, the Honorable Judge Robinson has seen fit to rule that American Patrol is not an acceptable source for Free Republic. The rules of evidence that apply to Judge Robinson's court indicate that the ONLY reason for banning an entire domain is unsuitable content, with unsuitability being restricted to racist material, material from the Washington ComPost and Los Angeles Slimes, material that advocates the violent overthrow of the US government, and exceptionally bizarre conspiracy theories. A cursory examination of the americanpatrol.com website shows that the latter three cases are not met. This Court notes that, under the doctrine of stare decisis, the pleadant Spiff needs to change to an appropriate venue, such as LibertyForum.com, in order to begin the appeals process.

I wish to remind the court that proving a negative is impossible.

True enough. But in cases of direct personal testimony, it should be relatively easy to verify the facts of the case from the public record.

Those making the allegations must prove their case and, given the breathtakingly negligent amount of actual, tangible, verifiable evidence, I submit that the accusers cannot and are instead engaging in baseless smears and perpetuating the false innuendo of the enemy and are not only wasting the court's time but are also engaging in activity which borders upon libel or slander (depending upon how your interpret statements made in an internet forum).

Pleadant Spiff raises an interesting question at this point. Mr. Dees is an attorney. Mr. Spencer is, under the criteria established in the Sullivan vs. New York Times case, a private citizen, and not a "public figure." Proving libel or slander as a private citizen is relatively easy--Mr. Spencer must simply demonstrate that an specific allegation is not true (i.e., either that Mr. Carto did not appear as a speaker at subject rally, or that Mr. Spencer did not appear, or some other major defect of fact), and he must do so in civil court, with its correspondingly lower standard of proof vis-a-vis criminal court. If Mr. Dees has actually libeled or slandered Mr. Spencer by allegations of Mr. Spencer associating with Mr. Carto et al at specific events, then Mr. Spencer would be entitled to rather large sums of money (plus all of his legal fees--which would no doubt be nontrivial in amount) by way of compensation for the damage done to his reputation. Said sums of money would be more than enough to bankrupt the SPLC. Mr. Spencer has not seen fit to file a civil suit against Mr. Dees and the SPLC over this issue.

Your Honor, I move that this case be dropped for lack of evidence.

Plea for summary judgement denied. Eyewitness (or, in this case, earwitness) testimony is relevant. Said testimony has not been rebutted. Pleadant Spiff's abject ignorance of the fact that Spencer actually did have a radio show shows that he shouldn't be complaining very loudly about a lack of evidence. Additionally, pleadant Spiff is hereby fined a $500 donation to FR for wasting the court's time by engaging in personal attack against two Freepers.

On a side note, I'm going to venture a guess that you hate "organized religion" for similar reasons.

Only the ones that engage in political activism as their primary focus--most religious groups do not have an innate need for a public policy problem to continue, unlike secular organizations, where success in achieving the declaratory goals equals financial disaster.

Just because the NAACP and the SPLC engage in perpetuation of their victim status to keep the cashing flowing does not mean that there is an ounce of proof that other organizations are doing it.

That's just the smart way to bet. How come all of these problems never seem to get solved?

Sorry, son.

My caveat is to put BOTH sides on the same footing--i.e., if you're demanding a blanket ban on one source because you CLAIM they only do baseless smears, then you have to accept a similar blanket ban on americanpatrol for any reason that comes to mind, as long as there is a shred of fact to back it.

Actually, it's interesting how much you kvetch about Morris Dees, and give Glenn Spencer a pass--when, from my perspective, they are in the same line of business (said business being the business of loudly trumpeting alarming stuff to their audiences and hustling donations from said audience).

Glenn Spencer makes a living from American Patrol. Just as much as any other interest group that is crying loudly about a particular problem, you have to ask (if you're being honest) what the motivation is. It's why I'm not a fan of single-issue organizations--because whatever the motivation WAS for forming the group, the leadership and staff usually want to perpetuate the organization's existence, because job-hunting is painful.

The NAACP will lose truckloads of money if racial issues disappear from the public radar screen; that explains why they keep finding "new" problems allegedly connected to "racism."

Groups devoted to "fighting poverty" will lose a ton of money if poverty really does decline significantly, so they are the "usual suspects" seeking to redefine poverty upward (even as they redefine "the rich" downward when it comes demanding more money from taxpayers--you gotta wonder what these idiots will do when the definition of rich and poor overlap significantly).

Groups like the SPLC that are dedicated to "fighting racism" (as opposed to merely redirecting racism like the NAACP) would go through a financial calamity if the white supremacist groups ever shut down; therefore, it doesn't surprise me that the SPLC has been caught subsidizing such groups.

Groups that are built solely around ending illegal immigration gain a vested interest in keeping illegal immigration an ongoing concern. This is basic organizational psychology. Once the perpetuation of the organization's existence becomes the prime concern, these organizations have a perverse incentive in getting themselves onto the SPLC s**t list, too, because it's obvious that being there lends them credibility in the eyes of some folks, while simultaneously making it less likely that the problem will go away, because anyone talking about it is going to get painted as a racist wingnut.

I just want the damn troops on the border yesterday. But as long as we have activist organizations with budgets and payrolls devoted to the issue, we're not going to get it solved.

I'll be happy to run down the details for you.

But you're going to have to be consistent. You cannot demand extreme consideration for YOUR preferred source (i.e., only a case-by-case ban) and then demand a blanket ban on sources you disagree with.

So if you don't like a given source, then you're just going to have to prove it FACTUALLY wrong in that specific case.

It wasn't Carto on the radio show. I didn't recognize the wingnut's name. However, the fact remains that Americanpatrol.com is on Mr. Robinson's list of sources that are NOT to be used or linked to. Perhaps he has more complete data on the subject.

I want this problem solved. If you're not doing anything effective toward achieving that goal, then please either shut up or start doing something effective, I really don't care which.

Look, it's been documented (even if you don't like the source) that Spencer has shown up at events attended or sponsored by Carto. I remember when his conspiracy wingnut showed up on his radio show. Before then, I thought the man was a sincere activist--after a twenty-minute monologue from his guest about how this abortion of an immigration policy Icame about via a Jewish conspiracy, I began raising the WTF flag.

The next week, his radio show was gone--apparently the management of the station decided that Mr. Spencer was off of the reservation.

I'm serious about securing the borders. I think we need to put troops on the border--as many as we need to shut down illegal immigration and smuggling. If we don't have enough troops to man the borders AND hunt down the terrorists overseas, I think we should bring back the draft. I think we should shut down H1B visas. I think that we should sharply restrict all visas in general--permanent resident, business and student, you name it. I think that business owners who wink at obviously false paperwork should get to do 20 years' worth of gravel-making, and that they should lose every thin dime they have.

But there's a very big community of vested interests that oppose this, and they will use any means available to shut this down. And when those who publicly advocate immigration reform hang out with Willis Carto and company, that just amounts to loading the rifle, handing it to the enemy, and then holding a bullseye over your chest.

I'm very PO'd that Glenn makes it easy for people to brand him (and anyone else who wants illegal immigration stopped) a racist. He isn't stupid. He just either doesn't give a damn if his efforts succeed or not, or he DOESN'T want to succeed. And having seen too many groups on the left that oppose any effort that might actually solve a problem and cut off the fund-raising gravy-train, I get really suspicious.

Go away before I unload on you...

And yet another change of subject from Joe Hadenuf...

Why? Because I told you I had never seen any of that on the American Patrol?

No, because you have consistently acted like a Democrat.

You ignore the real questions raised--namely, is Spencer a man who is serious about illegal immigration and just can't keep from hanging around with white supremacists, or is he just another hustler looking to play all ends for every dime he can milk out of them?

Glenn's made his bed. He gets to lie in it. And I think he's just another guy who sees a problem, and decides that he's got an opportunity to make a living off of it. And that means the LAST thing Glenn wants--his personal protestations be damned, because talk is cheap unless you're hiring a lawyer--is for that problem to ever get solved. Closing the border would be a financial disaster for American Patrol.

You get known by the company you choose to keep. Glenn's made his choices. He's a smart man. I don't doubt for a second that he doesn't know what the people he chooses to associate with are up to.

I don't want to hear anything about Marines operating in some sweet young thang's booty...that's THEIR business, not ours.

How is it that you keep saying this and keep completely missing my point? I'll try again:

Because you're the one missing the point.

JimRob can't legitimately be accused of "associating" with undesirables simply by not deleting threads that may have come from a source related somehow to an undesirable.

Wrong, as I will demonstrate below.

This is because JimRob runs a public forum where diverse points of view are posted by members of the public and not by Jim himself.

You are missing the key point: JimRob controls the membership and the content of the forum, and has explicitly stated that certain posts will not be tolerated.

JimRob routinely (as you have apparently found out on this thread) deletes material he finds objectionable. If poster repeatedly puts up objectionable material, that poster will find his profile reading "This account has been banned."

If he allows a post to stand, it is a clear indication that he does not find the material objectionable.

I must have missed all the racism on that site. Really. Could you just post a few of those racist American Patrol articles? Oh, damn that's right you can't, there banned. How about just a link or better yet, could you secretly freep mail me those racist articles. I am serious. I have never seen anything like that on that site.

It's becoming rather obvious that you would make a concerted effort to not see any racist material, even if it was shoved in your face.

That was a nice little bit of selected snipping and cutting you did.

Here's the part you posted, with the final portion you deliberately cut out added in bold italics:

Glenn at least HAD a radio show at one time.

He may have gotten booted off of all stations (he got booted off my local station) after he had a Holocaust denier as a guest (not a listener calling in, he had the guy as a featured guest) who spoke about how the current immigration policy was a Jewish conspiracy.

Now that I've added some needed context, I'll continue. BTW, why did you find it necessary to delete the portion I stuck back in? It's not merely that the guy is a Holocaust denier, it's the added fact that (a) Mr. Spencer didn't bother to check him out, or decided to let him on anyway, and (b) that the guy's wingnuttiness extended to his thoughts on immigration.

Jezzz, big deal. Do you always judge a public figure by the someone that may be on their show as a guest or a caller?

In general, yes. When someone has a GUEST (not just some random wingnut who happened to call in, but someone brought on with advance planning) who spends twenty minutes of airtime discussing how our immigration policy is really a Jewish plot, and doesn't challenge a single word the guy says...well, Joe, what is anyone supposed to conclude about Glenn Spencer's agenda? Am I to take it at face value, and conclude that Mr. Spencer is an anti-semite? Am I to not take it seriously? If the latter, then just what material of Mr. Spencer's am I supposed to take seriously, and which am I to ignore? It's all offered with the same tone of seriousness and urgency, after all.

For crying out loud, even Rush has some idiot people that are regular callers that claim some flying saucer is waiting to take all the black people to some freaking mothership,

Whom he ruthlessly ridicules.

and another guy that wrote a cookbook using road kill etc etc etc.....Was Spencer only suppose to have people on that marched in lock step with his every thought?

No, but when Spencer hands the microphone over to someone like that, and doesn't challenge a single word the wingnut utters, it says something about Glenn Spencer and American Patrol, whether or not Mr. Spencer intended it to.

Besides, what in the hell does the Halocaust have to do with this immigration crisis?

Ask the WIQ (Wingnut In Question), he's the guy who makes the linkage.

Do you think American Patrol or Spencer has plans on gassing all the illegals?

I'm guessing that American Patrol and Spencer has NO plan whatsoever to seriously address the illegal immigration crisis, because AP's reward (and, by extension, Mr. Spencer's reward) would be to lose donations. It's why the Sierra Club never does anything serious about protecting the environment, why the Children's Defense Fund never does anything serious about protecting children, and why government programs aimed at "reducing poverty" never seem to do so--because all of the players understand that the only way to keep the dollars coming in is to keep the problem around forever. Look at what happened to the military after they won World Wars I and II, along with the Cold War and the Gulf War. Many soldiers' got a thank-you note--their RIF notice.

If you look at American Patrol as just another outfit looking to hustle donations from the perpetually concerned, Mr. Spencer's strategy makes a little more sense. He appeals to the racist wingnut fringes and the other members of the anti-immigration choir, thus ensuring that he maximizes his donation revenue; meanwhile, he keeps American Patrol from being an especially effective agent for changing our bankrupt immigration policy, thus guaranteeing that the problem continues--as do the donations.

Does Glenn Spencer have a radio show? Because, I've never heard of it or seen it.

How does one "see" a radio show? :o)

In all seriousness, yes, Glenn at least HAD a radio show at one time. He may have gotten booted off of all stations (he got booted off my local station) after he had a Holocaust denier as a guest (not a listener calling in, he had the guy as a featured guest) who spoke about how the current immigration policy was a Jewish conspiracy.