AndyBoyd

Dude is ripped. http://www.queerty.com/aaron-schock-doesnt-want-you-to-know-his-office-decor-is-inspired-by-downton-abbey-20150204 Just sayin'.

Since 1996 if you overstay your visa it is automatically canceled and you are considered an illegal. Yes, correct. An individual who overstays his or her visa is an illegal immigrant and subject to deportation, which is a civil, not criminal, penalty. Overstaying a visa is not a crime. Border jumping is a crime. http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000781

One thing does not equal the others. If you are here illegally, then that is where you have to start. But lets play your way . . . They are a criminal, nothing they do can be legal, until they rectify their illegal status, simply by default, even If a person doesn't get a drunk driving conviction, that way they are not criminalized for both illegal acts. They are a criminal, nothing they do can be legal, until they rectify their illegal status, simply by default, if they weren't here illegally, they would have a social security card and could legally pay their taxes, and wouldn't be both a tax evader AND an illegal alien. They are a criminal, nothing they can do can be legal, until they rectify their illegal status, simply by default, if they weren't here illegally, they would not be a criminal for being illegal AND a criminal for driving an unregistered car. Many illegal immigrants have merely overstayed their visa. That isn't a crime, although it subjects them to deportation. Border jumping, though, is a crime. So many illegal immigrants are not criminals. That's logical flaw # 1. Logical flaw # 2 is asserting that everything the border jumping illegal immigrant does is a crime. It is not a crime for a border jumper to brush his teeth, to sit on a couch, to watch TV, to read a magazine, to walk down the street, to eat lunch..... These actions are not crimes regardless of who does them. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted for doing these things. Your assertion that everything an illegal immigrant does is a crime has two serious logical flaws. You are wrong.

Well, Ok, I guess you are using the term "consciousness" differently that I would. Thinking "outside the box" is significantly different from somehow moving beyond our consciousness, which I don't think is possible.

Some folks would argue that it is impossible to "extend beyond your sphere of consciousness." I'm thinking of the empiricists. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186146/empiricism Even if you could "extend beyond your sphere of consciousness," how would you know you were doing it? You would be aware of any "extension," so it would be part of your consciousness.

Is the italicized part bad in your view? What else would you base your decisions on, if not the available evidence? Guesswork? Speculation? Fantasy? Just wondering.

I couldn't agree more. I challenge both of you to write a sensible law covering an issue which has not yet been a problem. Do you understand sarcasm? Why don't you check my profile.

I couldn't agree more.

Everyone agrees that this guy did a scummy thing. For whatever reason, Oregon doesn't have a law that directly addresses this. The prosecutor was forced to use a law that didn't really apply, and the judge was forced to find the guy not guilty. The answer, obviously, is for Oregon to pass a law against this, like other states have. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/justice/massachusetts-upskirt-bill/ The problem is that these laws have to be drafted very precisely in order to survive judicial review. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-upskirt-law-overturned-20140919-story.html I'm sure the Oregon legislature will tackle this problem very soon, with all the publicity this case is getting.

I don't see how taking an upskirt" photograph falls under that statute. Am I missing something?

I have explained my reasoning numerous times in this thread. In some detail. Apparently you didn't bother to read my posts, or if you did, you didn't understand them. I'll try one more time, then can we agree to disagree? I think there were both financial and safety reasons to pull the movie. The financial reasons are that the public may have stayed away from the theaters, and all the movies in a given multiplex, due to concerns about the potential of a terrorist attack. Quade and Andy 9o8 made thoughtful and collegial posts challenging my assumptions as far as the financial part of my argument. I responded the best I could. The safety reason would be a terrorist attack. You responded to that part of my argument by calling my a pussy who absurdly thought that North Korea could pull off a terrorist attack in the USA. Can you see the difference between your posts and Quade's and Andy 9o8's? At any rate, it is far from absurd to think that North Korea could attack a movie theater in the US. All it takes is one lone suicide bomber. Happens all over the world. How is my thinking that could happen here absurd? It clearly is not. Look, I've explained myself as clearly as I can. I understand that you disagree. That's cool with me. I just get frustrated having to explain myself over and over again. There's nothing more for me to say on this topic. Have the final word, and we're done with this.

I've conceded four fucking times that I may have been wrong. You then essentially called me a pussy. And you still won't let up. You won this one, Jakee. Congrat's.

Maybe I and the suits at the theater chains at Sony were wrong on this one. I am aware that the movie is in limited release at independent theaters, and available for rent or purchase on Google. The movie still is not in wide release in big chains, though. Maybe that will change. I can see that you have very strong feelings on this issue and that's cool. My original position, however, has not changed. Given that the US State Department knew the hacks came from North Korea, if I were corporate counsel for Sony or a theater chain, I would have advised them to pull the movie at that time. If that means you think I'm somehow living my life in groveling fear, well, that seems a bit extreme to me, but I can live with whatever you think of me.

I heard that CSC (Rochelle, IL) was going to have a C-182 on call if there were nice days over the winter. I haven't talked to any DZ staff since the season ended, so I can't say for sure if that's still the plan. Here's their contact info: http://www.skydivecsc.com/contact/

***Nebraska and Okie are a bit silly here. Agreed. The whole suit is a bit silly. But it'll be kind of fun to watch this play out.

You and Andy 908 are of course correct that I have no "hard data" to back up my claims, nor do I know for sure how significant the financial hit would be. However, the people who's job it is to know these things, corporate counsel and other suits, decided to pull the movie. I thought it was a sound decision for the reasons I've previously expressed. And the people with access to the "hard data" decided to pull the movie. Maybe we're all wrong. But, the people insisting that Sony and the movie theaters show the movie are asking those corporations to take a huge financial risk. It's really easy to do that with other people's money. Not so easy when you work for Sony or a movie theater chain, and it's your job on the line. Not to mention the (outside, I'll concede) chance of an actual terrorist attack.

I didn't say it wouldn't potentially lose some money. I said there would be no repercussions against a theater who decided to run the film by other other studios as you had suggested. Skydekker said that, not me. What I said was that allowing this movie to be shown would have a significant negative financial impact on the movie studios and theaters, which you appear to concede.

If you have detailed information that would shed light on this issue, let's hear it. Maybe I was wrong. It happens every couple of months.

My view is that Wickard was wrongly decided. On that Court's reasoning, virtually anything falls under the heading of "interstate commerce." I still remember discussing that case in law school.

I agree with the professor's comments. Thanks.

Yeah, seriously. I stand by what I said. No corporate counsel in his or her right mind would advise a movie theater chain to show that movie. That's why it got pulled. And the reality check is it did get pulled. So it looks like I was right. Now if Sony and the theaters change their minds, I'll have egg on my face. But as it stands, I'm right on this one.

And take the financial hit when people stay home and don't go to the movies for 3 weeks or a month and a half while this film is playing? With all due respect to the First Amendment, you are asking the movie theater corporations to: (1) risk hundreds, if not thousands, of lives; (2) risk unending lawsuits that would utterly destroy their corporations; (3) risk ruining the turn-out for every other movie for approximately a month and a half, costing your corporation millions of dollars? You would not last a week as corporate counsel. And your decisions may well wind up getting hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people killed. Good luck with your career, and your conscience, after that. I repeat my initial comment. This movie never should have been made. Idiotic beyond all human comprehension.

If you were corporate counsel for Regal Cinemas, knowing that the North Koreans were behind these cyber-attacks, and knowing that a Christmas Day attack, although unlikely, would kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians, and would destroy the corporation you represent, what would your legal advice be?

Yeah, fair point. I'd just hate for this to be the first time....

Start WWIII over a Seth Rogen movie? Millions of people dead over a dumb-ass comedy? Well, I guess that's one way to respond.....