The thought police and montana

[GrizPony]

AZGriz, maybe you and your buddy Bradley Manning can continue to crusade to make the government more transparent by revealing classified military secrets. I would say the same thing about any soldier or government employee with knowledge who reveals this information to the public, regardless of the political affiliation of the administration. There are just some things that we don't deserve to know. Most important among them are tactical decisions, movement of troops, technology advancements, etc. We the people aren't too bright, in case you haven't noticed, and we don't need to witness everything that goes on in our government.

Good to see you trust bureaucrats implicitly. That belief, coupled with the apparent self-assessment that "people aren't too bright", explains everything to me regarding your posts and who you are as a person. :?

 

[Grisly Fan]

I just LOVE situational ethics uke:

What is happening in the Whitehouse is OK to Democrats because it is their party in power. If a Republican was doing it then they would raise holy hell. Oh yeah, and because they think Bush was worse then whatever Obama does is OK. Guantanamo and waterboarding was a deplorable human rights tragedy but sending drones (a program escalated during the Obama administration) to kill anonymously sure hasn't raised the same ire amongst liberals -- only because their party is in power. As for the current Chicago-style tactics employed by Obama's staff, do the Demos really want to establish the precedent that whoever is in power should be able to use any and maybe all parts of the government as their political tools? Just wait until the conservatives get back in to power -- and they will be sooner or later -- then the sins of the father will be visited upon their sons.

Why is it people can't stop rationalizing current bad behaviors based on the past? The past is gone and we apparently can't manage to learn from it. I wish people would look at the present and decide, regardless of who is in office, if the current behavior is OK. If they can't do that then they had better accept that it will only get worse in the future. And they may be the next victim of a government run amok. (yeah but Bush's decision to invade Iraq was so much worse... )

 

[PlayerRep]

PR, you're getting liberal again in your interpretation. A right to a K-12 education is really not in dispute. Do you think that an 18 year old can sue the State of Montana for not being able to go to college, whatever the circumstances of her life may be? Is it an inherent right, or must it be fought for, like the right to party?

You are really grasping at straws when you honestly suggest that the BOR is "empowered" under title 10. Empowered to do what? Ensure that all students are able to go to college? That's not the responsibility of the state. That's up to each student on a case by case basis. If you are denied because of race, religion, or something else, that's a different issue, but it is not surprising you blend the two into one.

We're talking about the procedural due process afforded college students in University proceedings. Although the constitution does indeed apply to the proceedings themselves, the act of removing a student based on a less than reasonable doubt standard is not a constitutional violation.

You act like this innocent until proven guilty standard should exist everywhere, even in sports. A-Rod, Ryan Braun and other MLB players are about to be suspended from the game indefinitely because a key witness is going to testify against them. Note that he hasn't testified yet and also note that those players haven't had the constitutional right to confront their accusers. But they will be deprived of their right to play the game regardless, because, like a University education, there is no constitutional right to play baseball.

Why do you keep changing the discussion? On this particular point, the discussion went like this. You said there was no constitutional right to an education under the US constitution. I pointed the Montana constitutional provision, Title X, which, among other things in its 11 sections, says this in it's first two sentences: "(1) It is the goal of the people to establish a system of education which will develop the full educational potential of each person. Equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state." This provision clearly provides for certain constitutional rights to education in MT, which I confirmed with a member of the constitutional committee that drafted the MT constitution. I can't imagine that even you would disagree on this.

grizinbox then stated that the Title X of the MT constitution deals only with K-12 public education. I pointed out that Title X actually deals with more than K-12 public education and has sections on the university system.

As for the Board of Regents, here's section 9 of Title X of the MT Constituion: "Section 9. Boards of education. (1) There is a state board of education composed of the board of regents of higher education and the board of public education. It is responsible for long-range planning, and for coordinating and evaluating policies and programs for the state's educational systems. It shall submit unified budget requests. A tie vote at any meeting may be broken by the governor, who is an ex officio member of each component board.
(2) (a) The government and control of the Montana university system is vested in a board of regents of higher education which shall have full power, responsibility, and authority to supervise, coordinate, manage and control the Montana university system and shall supervise and coordinate other public educational institutions assigned by law.
(b) The board consists of seven members appointed by the governor, and confirmed by the senate, to overlapping terms, as provided by law. The governor and superintendent of public instruction are ex officio non-voting members of the board.
(c) The board shall appoint a commissioner of higher education and prescribe his term and duties.
(d) The funds and appropriations under the control of the board of regents are subject to the same audit provisions as are all other state funds.
(3) (a) There is a board of public education to exercise general supervision over the public school system and such other public educational institutions as may be assigned by law. Other duties of the board shall be provided by law.
(b) The board consists of seven members appointed by the governor, and confirmed by the senate, to overlapping terms as provided by law. The governor, commissioner of higher education and state superintendent of public instruction shall be ex officio non-voting members of the board."

This section is the constitutional authority for the Board of Regents. It is empowered to do various things, including supervising and controlling the university system.

Both the Due Process Clauses of both US and State Constitutions apply to public universities. While what is actually required is still being developed in the courts, it is absolutely indisputable that certain due process right are constitutionally required to be followed by universities in their honor code/court processes.

In addition, some of the case law involving lawsuits by students against universities, also discusses and uses a contractual right analysis. While I don't recall the exact analysis, I think it's something like this: once the student is in the university, he has certain contractual rights to an education. However, maybe that isn't quite right.

If you want to discuss or debate any point or statement that I've actually made, feel free to quote the statement, and perhaps we can have a discussion. Otherwise, I'm not going to discuss, debate or defend statements that I never made. Most of what you put forth above, is nothing I ever said or stated.

 

[Jerry Punch]

Not saying either president was or is worse than the other. Lacking context and an understanding of tax exempt entities, many attack the Obama administration for being complicit in political profiling of conservative non profit groups. Lacking context and understanding of the war in Iraq, many attacked the Bush administration for directly lying to the American people. There is a lot more to both stories, but this is America and we want instant justice without an explanation for why things happened or the context in which they occurred. Did justice lovers like GrizPony suddenly forget this important principle?

 

[GrizPony]

Not saying either president was or is worse than the other. Lacking context and an understanding of tax exempt entities, many attack the Obama administration for being complicit in political profiling of conservative non profit groups. Lacking context and understanding of the war in Iraq, many attacked the Bush administration for directly lying to the American people. There is a lot more to both stories, but this is America and we want instant justice without an explanation for why things happened or the context in which they occurred. Did justice lovers like GrizPony suddenly forget this important principle?

Do you even know what you are arguing at this point or has your head turned to mush?

 

[Jerry Punch]

Not saying either president was or is worse than the other. Lacking context and an understanding of tax exempt entities, many attack the Obama administration for being complicit in political profiling of conservative non profit groups. Lacking context and understanding of the war in Iraq, many attacked the Bush administration for directly lying to the American people. There is a lot more to both stories, but this is America and we want instant justice without an explanation for why things happened or the context in which they occurred. Did justice lovers like GrizPony suddenly forget this important principle?

Do you even know what you are arguing at this point or has your head turned to mush?

 

[GrizPony]

Jerry Punch: (i.e. Donkey Punch, dipshit, Cat fan)

That icon doesn't even make sense. You ramble in circles and love all things government, unless it was under Bush or any conservative. You are fine with using the IRS to bludgeon political rivals, as long as its Obama and not Nixon. You are all for due process and innocent until proven guilty on all crimes, except sexual assault allegations against UM football players. You are the most spineless, pathetic, equivocating and rudderless poster on this board. Please, kill yourself.

 

[PlayerRep]

Not saying either president was or is worse than the other. Lacking context and an understanding of tax exempt entities, many attack the Obama administration for being complicit in political profiling of conservative non profit groups. Lacking context and understanding of the war in Iraq, many attacked the Bush administration for directly lying to the American people. There is a lot more to both stories, but this is America and we want instant justice without an explanation for why things happened or the context in which they occurred. Did justice lovers like GrizPony suddenly forget this important principle?

Do you even know what you are arguing at this point or has your head turned to mush?

Punch must have bad ADD or ADHD. He's all over the ballwork, moves from one subject to another and almost never stays on topic. Here's a typical discussion with Punch:

UM poster: "The Griz are going to beat the Cats this year."

Punch: "How can you possibly say that Weber is better than the Cats?"

 

[AZGrizFan]

Woah big fella! Relax. Read my post about how Americans have some of the shortest memories on the planets. I'll see you during the next Republican scandal. I hope then that I won't be as aggressive as you are here.

The key difference between Republican (of which I am not one) and Democrat scandals is the way the PRESS treats them. And if you are in denial about that, then you're truly beyond hope.

 

[PlayerRep]

Woah big fella! Relax. Read my post about how Americans have some of the shortest memories on the planets. I'll see you during the next Republican scandal. I hope then that I won't be as aggressive as you are here.

The key difference between Republican (of which I am not one) and Democrat scandals is the way the PRESS treats them. And if you are in denial about that, then you're truly beyond hope.

Agree on all counts, and I'm not a Repub either. The press is being much less harsh on Obama in the past month, than it would have been on Bush or a Repub. While not quite the same, the press has also largely given the Obama admin a pass on the missed step/signals in the Boston marathon bombings, but went after Bush on the bits of "missed" signs in the WTC/911 bombings--and Bush had only been the president for 8 months.

 

[Grisly Fan]

Not saying either president was or is worse than the other. Lacking context and an understanding of tax exempt entities, many attack the Obama administration for being complicit in political profiling of conservative non profit groups. Lacking context and understanding of the war in Iraq, many attacked the Bush administration for directly lying to the American people. There is a lot more to both stories, but this is America and we want instant justice without an explanation for why things happened or the context in which they occurred. Did justice lovers like GrizPony suddenly forget this important principle?

You apparently are not aware of the statistics surrounding the behavior of the IRS treating liberal orgs versus conservative orgs during the Obama administration. There is a clear and unmistakable bias. The Inspector General even said so. This has NOTHING to do with a contextual understanding of tax exempt entities. You sure like to talk out your ass.

 

[PlayerRep]

Not saying either president was or is worse than the other. Lacking context and an understanding of tax exempt entities, many attack the Obama administration for being complicit in political profiling of conservative non profit groups. Lacking context and understanding of the war in Iraq, many attacked the Bush administration for directly lying to the American people. There is a lot more to both stories, but this is America and we want instant justice without an explanation for why things happened or the context in which they occurred. Did justice lovers like GrizPony suddenly forget this important principle?

You apparently are not aware of the statistics surrounding the behavior of the IRS treating liberal orgs versus conservative orgs during the Obama administration. There is a clear and unmistakable bias. The Inspector General even said so. This has NOTHING to do with a contextual understanding of tax exempt entities. You sure like to talk out your ass.

Plus some in the Ohio IRS office, which handled c(4) applications, are now starting to indicate that they were acting on directions from Washington DC. The IRS targeting and treatment of conservative c(4) applications is very signifiant and a huge abuse. Had the IRS under Bush done this to liberal organizations, the press outcry would have been 10 times bigger.

 

[GrizPony]

You have to be stupid to not agree with Brian at this point. :thumb:

When you follow things like this up with a chintzy and cute icon, it really lessens your overall point.

We can have a debate about the Obama presidency without delving into his race, but don't let me interrupt the Klan party, bro. Carry on.

Yeah the icon is way worse than falsely race-baiting. P.S. There is no debate about who is worse - Obama by a mile. :thumb: :clap:

I'll take that one under advisement as I slowly count my earnings from the stock market over the past few years.

Market is taking a major digger this week. Still counting? hahaha

 

[grizfromhel]

An interesting tie to some of the bizarre federal over-reach which we have witnessed in Missoula via investigations by the DOJ and the DOE-----some reporters gained access to the White House log and discov ered that the IRS Commissioner visited the White House a total of 157 times during 2012 and leading into the presidential election. The IRS Commissioner during the Bush Administration visited the White House a grand total of once. This stronly suggests that the highest levels of the Obama Administration, possibly including the President himself, were involved in the illegal targeting of so-called Tea Party groups. Here's where it gets interesting---- in reviewing the White House logs, it turns out that a federal employee had the third most number of visits during the period, and that person was the head of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the one and only Thomas Perez. Perez is the person who personally came to Missoula and held a press conference in which he basically stated that he was there because of the Obama Administration's desire to fight on behalf of women in the so-called War Against Women. Only Fred Van Valkenburg stood up to the big bully and refused to cooperate with the breathtakingly large assertion of federal authority. There is much more to come out about the IRS and the Justice Department, but the evidence is beginning to suggest that there was well-coordinated, White House centered effort to politicize federal enforcement efforts to serve the short-term political benefits of the Re-elect Obama effort.

Stay tuned folks, this could get very interesting.

 

[Grisly Fan]

Not saying either president was or is worse than the other. Lacking context and an understanding of tax exempt entities, many attack the Obama administration for being complicit in political profiling of conservative non profit groups. Lacking context and understanding of the war in Iraq, many attacked the Bush administration for directly lying to the American people. There is a lot more to both stories, but this is America and we want instant justice without an explanation for why things happened or the context in which they occurred. Did justice lovers like GrizPony suddenly forget this important principle?

You apparently are not aware of the statistics surrounding the behavior of the IRS treating liberal orgs versus conservative orgs during the Obama administration. There is a clear and unmistakable bias. The Inspector General even said so. This has NOTHING to do with a contextual understanding of tax exempt entities. You sure like to talk out your ass.

Plus some in the Ohio IRS office, which handled c(4) applications, are now starting to indicate that they were acting on directions from Washington DC. The IRS targeting and treatment of conservative c(4) applications is very signifiant and a huge abuse. Had the IRS under Bush done this to liberal organizations, the press outcry would have been 10 times bigger.

Liberal press outcry or not, the Democrats better start to try get this under control or they will succeed at what the Republicans failed in the last Presidential election -- galvanize the rank and file Republican electorate into a unified force. If there was a decent moderate running in an election for President tomorrow then I think the Democrats would be in serious trouble. Not only would the Republicans feel motivated (something Romney failed to do with his lack of charisma and vision) but they would be willing to compromise (something the Evangelicals were unwilling to do, i.e. vote for a Mormon) to ensure a Republican made it to office. There may be time to stuff the genie back into the bottle but my gut says that there are more damning revelations to come. I guess we'll see.

 

[CrunchGriz]

Not saying either president was or is worse than the other. Lacking context and an understanding of tax exempt entities, many attack the Obama administration for being complicit in political profiling of conservative non profit groups. Lacking context and understanding of the war in Iraq, many attacked the Bush administration for directly lying to the American people. There is a lot more to both stories, but this is America and we want instant justice without an explanation for why things happened or the context in which they occurred. Did justice lovers like GrizPony suddenly forget this important principle?

You apparently are not aware of the statistics surrounding the behavior of the IRS treating liberal orgs versus conservative orgs during the Obama administration. There is a clear and unmistakable bias. The Inspector General even said so. This has NOTHING to do with a contextual understanding of tax exempt entities. You sure like to talk out your ass.

Plus some in the Ohio IRS office, which handled c(4) applications, are now starting to indicate that they were acting on directions from Washington DC. The IRS targeting and treatment of conservative c(4) applications is very signifiant and a huge abuse. Had the IRS under Bush done this to liberal organizations, the press outcry would have been 10 times bigger.

Liberal press outcry or not, the Democrats better start to try get this under control or they will succeed at what the Republicans failed in the last Presidential election -- galvanize the rank and file Republican electorate into a unified force. If there was a decent moderate running in an election for President tomorrow then I think the Democrats would be in serious trouble. Not only would the Republicans feel motivated (something Romney failed to do with his lack of charisma and vision) but they would be willing to compromise (something the Evangelicals were unwilling to do, i.e. vote for a Mormon) to ensure a Republican made it to office. There may be time to stuff the genie back into the bottle but my gut says that there are more damning revelations to come. I guess we'll see.

Well, not to put a damper on anyone's wet dreams here, but the actual number of visits by Shulman (as far as researchers have been able to determine) is 11, not 157. He was cleared to visit 157 times, but a lot of people are cleared a number of times when they don't actually go. He only signed in to the White House 11 times.

Also, White House visitors' records cover the entire White House complex -- the big famous white building, along with the freestanding Eisenhower Executive Office Building inside the gated compound and the New Executive Office Building, which is up 17th Street and outside the White House gates. And the vast majority (118) of the visits for which Shulman was cleared were for visits to other people in the other buildings in the complex, not with Obama and not to the White House itself.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-irs-commissioner-and-the-white-house/276399/

And just a small question about this scandal: What in the world does it have to do with University of Montana athletics? (I probably should have posed this question first.)

 

[tgreseth]

And just a small question about this scandal: What in the world does it have to do with University of Montana athletics? (I probably should have posed this question first.)

That's an excellent question. All of the political jibber jabber appears to be some type of dick measuring. Isn't there a politics forum for this bullshit? I have no f*cks to give for your politics or blame game. Anything to share regarding Griz football?

 

[EverettGriz]

I have no f*cks to give for your politics or blame game

:clap:

It's always been my position that those who strongly promote a political position are almost always:

1. Wrong
2. Ignored by 99.7% of the rational people.

 

[PlayerRep]

You apparently are not aware of the statistics surrounding the behavior of the IRS treating liberal orgs versus conservative orgs during the Obama administration. There is a clear and unmistakable bias. The Inspector General even said so. This has NOTHING to do with a contextual understanding of tax exempt entities. You sure like to talk out your ass.

Plus some in the Ohio IRS office, which handled c(4) applications, are now starting to indicate that they were acting on directions from Washington DC. The IRS targeting and treatment of conservative c(4) applications is very signifiant and a huge abuse. Had the IRS under Bush done this to liberal organizations, the press outcry would have been 10 times bigger.

Liberal press outcry or not, the Democrats better start to try get this under control or they will succeed at what the Republicans failed in the last Presidential election -- galvanize the rank and file Republican electorate into a unified force. If there was a decent moderate running in an election for President tomorrow then I think the Democrats would be in serious trouble. Not only would the Republicans feel motivated (something Romney failed to do with his lack of charisma and vision) but they would be willing to compromise (something the Evangelicals were unwilling to do, i.e. vote for a Mormon) to ensure a Republican made it to office. There may be time to stuff the genie back into the bottle but my gut says that there are more damning revelations to come. I guess we'll see.

Well, not to put a damper on anyone's wet dreams here, but the actual number of visits by Shulman (as far as researchers have been able to determine) is 11, not 157. He was cleared to visit 157 times, but a lot of people are cleared a number of times when they don't actually go. He only signed in to the White House 11 times.

Also, White House visitors' records cover the entire White House complex -- the big famous white building, along with the freestanding Eisenhower Executive Office Building inside the gated compound and the New Executive Office Building, which is up 17th Street and outside the White House gates. And the vast majority (118) of the visits for which Shulman was cleared were for visits to other people in the other buildings in the complex, not with Obama and not to the White House itself.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-irs-commissioner-and-the-white-house/276399/

And just a small question about this scandal: What in the world does it have to do with University of Montana athletics? (I probably should have posed this question first.)

Thanks. However, to be more accurate, even the article you cite does not conclude that he attended only 11 meetings. It says that White House in-out records do not show he went to 157 meetings: "That does not mean that he did not go to other meetings, only that the White House records do not show he went to the 157 meetings he was granted Secret Service clearance to attend."

Even the White House records are not consistent on how many meetings he likely attended: "White House records only provide time of arrival information -- confirming that he actually went to them -- for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period, and time of departure information for only six appointments."

It looks like there's nothing that actually requires people to sign in and sign out.

Why would he get clearance to attend so many meetings, but attend so few of them? I wonder if that is common.

 

[PlayerRep]

I have no f*cks to give for your politics or blame game

:clap:

It's always been my position that those who strongly promote a political position are almost always:

1. Wrong
2. Ignored by 99.7% of the rational people.

My theory is that people with small dicks tend to call things dick measuring contests, probably they are so insecure. I've never understood why some people think discussions and disagreements are dick measuring contests.