Only five bucks! For less than the cost of registering our car, you too can be a subversive group!

Just be a card carrying ACLU member – that ought to do it!

Does this mean that they are going to register all the Xtianists, white supremacists, radical anti-abortionists, militia types, and assorted other assorted violent rightwing extremists that infest the South?

Lisa!

That is not me, by the way. True, I do own the same outfit but my hairline has not receded that far (yet).

SCarolina simply has to be the stupidest state, bar none.

I mean, who is going to register?
Jenny Sanford probably will. She’s that dumb.

What idiot came up with this?

Nah, that is the guy they hire to enforce this new law.

Does the Republican Party fit into this catagory?

An idea so stupid it could only have come from South Carolina, land of lecher leaders and fifty-caliber gunbunnies.

Probably the state Republican caucus. None of them is bright enough have done it on his own.

Not sure, but at least some segments of the Tea Party definitely do.

But did they pass it in Klingon?

“fraternal” and “patriotic” groups are exempt from the law, but only if they don’t “contemplate the overthrow of the government.”

The form is hysterical (I linked to it); along with listing your bylaws and minutes and fundamental beliefs, you darn well better list your fellow subversives!

My mistake, I thought it was a Brazilian waxed Klingon.

Probably seccessionists should register.

I don’t think it makes sense in any language, real or imaginary.

I figured it would be someone I knew from on line…

Whatcha drinkin’?

What happens if a subversive group does succeed in toppling the Government and they hadn’t registered…? ;-)

Uhhh…wasn’t there an Argentinian woman who had complete control of a certain United States governor? She certainly “seized” him at least, so I expect she will have to fill out the forms.

The more salient question is:

What if the government in power actually is anti-American?

Merlot! Grazie!

Howdy, ‘pups.

Nah, Bush termed out already.

Jeezus christmas…what’s with that photo anyway?!!? I mean, why promote a guy with a fish fetish? That’s so wrong.

The State of South Carolina will charge them with violating the Act in question, hold an administrative legal proceeding, and fine their asses!

Slidin’ down the bar. Don’t forget to recycle the box. :-)

Hmmm, that sounds interesting.

Sounds painful to me. In more ways than one.

Therein lies the rub…

[Klingon] tlho’ vaD HIq

Translator here!

They will have saved at least $5 and maybe $25,000!

Actually, governments pull this sort of b***s*** periodically. When I lived in the Buckle of the Bible Belt (Topeka, Kansas), the State of Kansas passed a law taxing marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.

In order to sell these illegal drugs, you had to have a tax stamp. You could purchase said stamps from the State Treasurer’s Office. Of course, the Act didn’t prohibit the Treasurer from communicating the identity of stamp purchasers to the police authorities.

The whole idea of the act was not to increase revenue, but to give the District Attorneys another charge to lay on drug dealers.

Fun postscript: a friend of mine from high school and college is a philatelist. He branched into tax stamps along with postage stamps. He called me after the act went into effect and asked if I’d buy a set of drug stamps for him.

I asked an attorney friend at work about it, and she said, “Don’t even think that idea.”

Gives me a server error.

Works for me.

Ahh, don’t bother. You need to install a java runtime applet for Firefox (at least). It was just a giggle since I already had it.

To me, the most amazing thing about that is that Bush actually left quietly.

A few days ago on a different topic, Glenn Greenwald pointed out the case Brandenburg v. Ohio which remains the controlling decision on this issue. From wiki:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

With the current fascists on the Supreme Court maybe this would be decided differently today. But as things stand now, this law is unConstitutional on its face.

Yer ‘sposed to check his ID before you serve, RF.

The current Court does seem somewhat inclined to overturn precedent.

24 states have drug stamps.In South Carolina, the only ones sold have been to collectors, and the state has only made $115,000 or so from revenue enforcement on the stamps, despite lots of drugs being confiscated; law enforcement doesnt really bother letting the revenue dept know about what’s been seized.

There has been a federal Marihuana Tax Act on the books since 1937. Still used by prosecutors.

Newt-the-patoot is carrying on on the Daily Show about terraism-is-not-a-crime-it-is-an-act-of-war again.

Same tired old s***.

I wasn’t sure it would happen either.

Especially those protecting the rights of human beings, as opposed to corporations.

No need, I know Kelly is fargin’ OLD. Older ‘n me (almost).

I was shooting pool in a local (campus) bar once when an octogenarian couple from the neighborhood came in. The man ordered a couple drinks and the bartender asked him for an I.D.. The cops had been raiding the campus bars a lot and she was evidently making no exceptions. He produced a driver’s license, then turned to me and said, “I haven’t been carded since 1939.”

In other words, the DA doesn’t care about the tax charges. It figures.

Newt’s head has long been permanently lodged between his cheeks.

Newt Gingrich can bite me.

Our bars have all adopted no ID, no service policies. It’s annoying.

There were a lot like that in my old neighborhood in Chicago (by Wrigley Field).

The current Court does seem somewhat inclined to overturn precedent

I do not think stare decisis means what they think it means.

You don’t want the course of antivenin and antibiotics that would be required.

I’m quite sure they don’t give a rat’s ass (sorry, RF) about the meaning of the term.

States have followed up as well, and this SC law is the same principle, extra enforcement of a fed law.

Tewwowist 1: Oh,hey brothers, we have guns, we have gel explosives, Gatoraid…

Tewwowist 2: We are now ready to overthrow!

T1: Are all our papers in order though?

T2: Papers? I thought you were going to file them..

T1: No, I told you to do it because you owed me five dollars for cheetos and Mountain Dew!

T2: But..

T1: Never mind, just never mind! Where are they, did you at least fill them out? Now our subversive violent acts of overthrowing will have to wait…

T2: Should I ordr pizza? There’s Friends marathon…

Not sure they could even treat it fast enough given the toxicity of that mouth.

Must be the Teabagger Liberation Front.

I did a rough calculation once that we have one campus bar for every 600 students. Most of the students are undergrads and underage, so somehow I don’t believe the frequent police I.D. checks are because the city cares about illegal drinking, they look at it as a revenue stream, otherwise they would simply issue fewer liquor licenses.

OT but..
New Mexico House Passes Sweeping Funds Bill 65-0 to move the states money out of big banks.

The clash between banks and credit unions over public fund deposits took an unorthodox twist with community banks and CUs teaming up to pass, 65-0, a milestone bill in the New Mexico House.

The bill enables a possible switch of $2-5 billion of state funds into CUs and small banks.

If enacted, the municipal funds bill, in the works since last year and still subject to a Senate vote, would represent a setback to large national banks, like Bank of America and Wells Fargo, which have had a lock on such funds.

Hope more states jump on the bandwagon and move their state funds…

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Speaking of teabags….

Now that you mention it, I am surprised that the city has not decided it is time to crack down on underage drinking here, given that they are facing budget shortfalls.

click the ling..hard to read that there’s one there.

Here’s hoping our Senate can pass it.

But I’m not holding my breath.

I clicked that with some trepidation, fearing it might be a Goatse link. I confess I had to stare at Forbes’ picture for a minute before I realized that it was not…

Here the crackdown is perpetual–and the situation is precisely as Ratfood describes. The council hands out liquor licenses like candy, pretends to be outraged at the level of student binge drinking, and rakes in the cash hand over fist on PAULA fines.

It’s a start

Our city council just passed a hands-free phone ordinance fine structure for Our Fair Pueblo.

First Offense: $25 + Court costs
Second Offense: $50 + Court costs
Third-and-subsequent Offenses: (wait for it)
Up to $500 + jail not to exceed 90 days
+ Court costs.

Wowza!

who needs goatse when you can have Forbes at a YR meeting

It is a despicable practice by the local government, however limiting supply would not reduce the demand, students would just have to drive somewhere else to drink and then drive back loaded. (sigh)

They are pretty laid back about it here most of the time, though there are periodic crackdowns. I suspect when somebody complains about it or the PD needs cash fast. Some bars are pretty good about IDing younger patrons, but several (where I NEVER go) are notorious for underage drinkers.

It’s nice to live in a state where the liquor licenses are state-controlled.

I tremble thinking what mischief our councillors could create if they controlled liquor licenses.

What exactly is a hands-free phone ordinance?

Here the state issues liquor licenses rather than the city, so they really have no control over that end.

You will turn blue for sure waiting..

Yep, putting a giant asshole in a suit and tie doesn’t really change anything. It’s contribution to society remains the same.

Same here.

You can’t use your cell in your car unless you use a headset. Our ban specifically covers texting, too.

Requires drivers to use headset phones, Bluetooth or otherwise, or some sort of speaker phone (I think).

Drink slidin’ down the bar atcha.

We managed to ban texting, but they backed off a cellphone ban. Personally, I would like a total ban on driving while on the phone period. Most of the drivers around here are not competent to drive and chew gum at the same time.

My students are frightening enough sober. I don’t want to see them even one sheet in the wind.

Talisker??? (he said, hopefully) Thanks!

I do run into a few of the older ones in the few bars I occasionally go to, but have not had any problems. They have actually given one of my friends the silly notion that I am a pretty good teacher.

Can’t hold cell phone while driving.

Studies have proven that hand-free phones don’t reduce related accidents since the driver is still distracted. The ban on texting is good but seems almost unenforceable.

My theory is that drivers should be required to stow their phones in their ass while operating a vehicle. Still available in an emergency but uh, somewhat less appealing for the purpose of casual chatting.

I created a discussion topic on Blackboard about the Univ of Utah research on cells and driving.

What shocked me was the number of students who both admitted to texting while driving and insisted there was nothing wrong with doing it.

we passed hands free phones only before no texting while driving!

Yeah, I still see lots of them doing it despite the ban. Lots of our students are not able to walk and talk on the phone or text. Don’t know how many have almost run over me that way walking across campus.

I don’t use them in traffic. If the cruise control’s on, I’ll use the headset. Otherwise, that’s why I’ve got voicemail.

A nineteen-year old driver struck and killed a bicyclist here a few years back… while downloading a ringtone. It was her third phone-related accident in two years.

She got off with a $1000 fine.

can somebody loan me 5 bucks and a stamp ???

I got all yer names, an I’m assuming you know how to spell yer own name …

don’t worry folks

I’ll have our paperwork filed by the end of a month

Jan. 1st a similar law was enacted here in Hawai’i county…! First fine costs ya $75… Cost of Paradise…! ;-)

I have a cellphone that sits in the glove box turned off all the time. It is there for emergencies only. I hate the damned things (and am not all that fond of the land lines either).

I don’t understand how anyone can honestly believe that they can use a keyboard and drive a car at the same time.

I’m a touch-typist, but I need at least one hand for the wheel, you know?

The cyclist was not even on the road at the time, he was riding on a designated bike path next to the road. She swerved off the road to hit him.

Our anti-texting ordinance has a fine of a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $500.

Time for me to toddle off. More young minds in need of corrupting in the morning. Take care all.

I can’t figure out our fine structure. It’s like the first and second offenses are no big deal. Third time, and it’s off with yer head.

If I were a judge, given the intent of the ordinance, I’d waive the fine for anyone who showed up at the first offense with a hands-free device. And then I’d whack anyone with a second offense hard.

I happen to know that the research shows that the hands-free devices do bupkis for making drivers safer. But if the Council was paying attention to the research, they would have said “No phones on the road. Period.”

g’nite

Think I’ll head out too, early appointment tomorrow (1 p.m.). Splendid evening to all.

‘night, Dr. D.

The law actually requires that the group (not a single individual) intend to violently throw-up on overthrow the government. So unless there was one more individual involved, and it got kinky, then the Argentine firethe”cracker” gets off.

I had a cellphone like that. Didn’t use it for a year, then my younger son asked if he could use it. We found the number had been given away because they can do that (it’s in the fine print) if you don’t use your phone for 3 months or something.

… Are you fricking kidding me?

‘Dear Terrorists, please register here.’

Yeah, what an asinine law.

Still, the precedent is bad. I’m sure the law is more designed for political suppression than it is genuinely to fight terrorism.

Bureaucracies exhibits ot perpetuate themselves.

To quotes the situationist: I wil not rest until the last bureaucrat is hung fomr the lanp post of Paris

Its a pretty cool way to slam anybody you want in prison for ten years. Leave it to the state that started the civil war to come up with this.

LLN at the mothership…!

Nah, Jenny Sandford was just in picking up the paperwork to register Mark. She’s the get even type and that mistress was a foreign national, after all.

[E]very member of [...] an organization subject to foreign control [...] who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the [...] propriety of controlling [...] the government of the United States … shall register with the Secretary of State.

Would that include AIPAC?