if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Newscrap
by Lee
This is why I think that, by and large, Newsmax is worthless as a news site. I just got an email from them declaring that a new poll showed that Americans overwhelmingly supported Bush in his recent wiretapping controversy.
Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush’s authorization to the National Security Agency to tap the private conversations of U.S. citizens to search for evidence of terrorist activity, an exclusive NewsMax.com poll reveals.
In one of the largest responses to a NewsMax poll ever, more than 150,000 people across the Internet have made their opinions known about this controversy.
And they resoundingly say that the President was justified in taking this action to protect America.
Here is a breakdown of the poll results for several key questions:
1) Has President Bush been justified in tapping the conversation of U.S. citizens?
Justified – 80%
Not Justified – 20%2) Do you believe the President must have a court-approved warrant to conduct a wiretap?
Yes – 23%
No – 72%
Not Sure – 5%3) Do you believe President Bush’s claim that he undertook this action to protect America?
Yes – 83%
No – 17%4) How would you rate media coverage about President Bush’s actions?
Fair – 20%
Unfair – 80%
Pretty overwhelming, huh? The only problem is that it’s an internet poll, and internet polls are statistically worthless. The only thing you can claim for certain from these results is that 80% of the people who responded to their internet poll supported the president. If I put a poll on this website, it would be just as worthless. You cannot voluntarily ask a limited sample of people a set of questions and then extrapolate anything from the results. Newsmax knows damn well that this is the case, but they’re counting on the fact that the majority of the population doesn’t understand how this stuff works.
Comments
This smacks of authoritarianism. I really wish some Libertarians could get elected at the national level.
It wasn’t the act of “being gay” that got the preacher busted. It was the act of “soliciting a (male) prostitute”.
The motives behind the act ("just wanted to preach at them") can be argued in court to the jury, but there is probably an audio tape to explain away at the very least. Or the cops would never have arrested him.
I’ve seen plenty of preachers wanting to preach at prostitutes, but they do it in public, and they don’t offer the girls money to be in private, even to pray.
The legal charge does not involve money though. That’s the point. Regardless of what he was doing, the actual charge appears to have simply been related to offering to give the disguised cop a blow job. No mention of money is made in any of the stories I can find. The charge is not a prostitution charge.
It could be argued that offering to give someone a blow job is a lewd act, but it should obviously be appropriate in some circumstances…
That this asshole got snared by the exact type of unfair law he undoubtedly supports is priceless. I’m tickled pink.
but it should obviously be appropriate in some circumstances…
I’m betting that going to a well-known male prostitute hang-out (so well known that the cops are targeting it in sting operations) before making that offer is NOT one of those moments, though.
Even the sleaziest of lounge lizards will at least offer to buy them a drink first.
But that’s the thing. Times when it would be inappropriate to offer a blow job are essentially cases when it would be sexual harrassment. If you have reason to believe the party would be receptive and your proposition is not overheard by other people, then there shouldn’t be a problem.
Thus offering a prostitute free head, although a bit weird, should be perfectly legal.
Yeah, just ask George Michael.
Look, he offered sex to a prostitute, not a random stranger at a bar.
How does this preacher (or his co-religionists) stand on laws prohibiting prostitution? Casual sex?
Don’t know. Publically I’m sure he’d have to be for. Privately, unless he really was engaging in a strange form of preaching, you’d have to wonder. Perhaps he’d still be for it to help him resist temptation.
In any case, I agree that while prostitution is illegal that a law like this could reasonbly be used to assist in prosecuting individuals such as the preacher.
That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a fucked up law. I also wonder if they ever use that one while policing straight female prostitutes.
That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a fucked up law.
Laws against prostitution? You’re preaching to the choir, pal. I honestly think that any law prohibiting non-harmful behavior should be unConstitutional. IOW, an act must show a clear harm or risk of harm to a person (not a corporation) to be outlawed.
But I’m also not a hypocrite about things like that. Even if it shouldn’t be illegal, it would almost certainly have been a “sin”, especially to a preacher.
(Because it is the influence of the many churches here in America that has made things like prostitution and being drunk in public illegal in the first place.)
Oh yeah, I’m in no way on the side of religion here. I’m on the side of personal freedom. If the preacher was really just trying to give a blow job (and maybe pay for some action of his own once he’d ascertained that the prostitute was for real) they yeah he’s a hippocrate. But that’s no reason to arrest him. The law that they are pinning this guy with is a fucked up law.
So we’re mostly if not completely in agreement here it seems.
Jim,
You SHOULD put a poll on your site.
The EXACT same poll.
Then you could figure exactly what percentage of your readership is Rep/Dem. In fact, just a “do you support the Prez?” would do it.
Since it seems most of the issues argued right now are figured out along party lines, instead of actually figured out on their independant merits.
Josh
But...TEH NUMBERS!!!1!!!1
Speaking of preaching to the choir, there’s just not much to talk about here without going off topic. I don’t think any of us will argue with the utility of an Internet poll (except perhaps for the marketing folks of the site running the poll).
Well judging from the fact that Rasmussen did a poll that says 64% support it and from the fact that NOBODY ELSE IS POLLING THE QUESTION....I wonder why lol...shows that the poll is has some foothold in fact
If you know some ho on the street might give you some wicked disease or break up your family and you still choose to do it then rock on..but dont cry when you get wasted
Next entry: Flight 93
Previous entry: More Of the Same
In addition to being an Internet poll, Lee, let’s not overlook the fact that it was a poll conducted by NewsMax. Isn’t that about as valid as one of the Bill O’Reilly polls or a poll on the popularity of the President’s choice to invade Iraq - conducted by the New Tork Times or Newsweek.
At least the one national poll had some 64 percent favoring Bush’s actions to conduct surveillance on international communications.
Ya gotta be careful when reading any so-called poll conducted by any biased organization.