Slog - Comments on That Swearing Ban, and Hillary http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1 That story about a town's attempt to ban swearing in taverns was misreported by the AP. Mark Brown of the Sun-Times was all over it today, and it turns out that Missouri law already bans swearing in taverns, but the law isn't enforced. Richard Veit, the lawyer behind the issue, is a tavern-goer, but is not happy that there is no way to shut down out-of-control bars. He went looking into the law, and found many things are illegal in taverns, including profane language. Money quote: "I did not expect it to get this attention," Veit admitted, explaining he was... Copyright 2008 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:46:00 -0800 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:31:31 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by Mr. Poe If I ever receive a "swearing ticket", I swear to Tim Gunn I'll never pay it.

]]> Mr. Poe http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894423 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894423 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:50:52 -0800 Comment by elenchos So you're saying Edwards is just a high class Ralph Nader? Yeah, probably.

]]> elenchos http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894424 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894424 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:52:20 -0800 Comment by Brian "more Democrats voted against her than for her"

The same can be said for every democratic candidate. In fact, it's even worse for the remaining candidates.

]]> Brian http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894427 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894427 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:53:58 -0800 Comment by huh? That logic makes absolutely no sense. You could say that about any candidate, including Obama, who, surprise, really did lose. She won. Get over it.

]]> huh? http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894428 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894428 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:55:39 -0800 Comment by ray ray @3

agreed. even in the iowa polls, more than half of democrats did not vote for obama.

]]> ray ray http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894429 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894429 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:56:35 -0800 Comment by Mr. Poe What #4 said.

]]> Mr. Poe http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894431 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894431 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:57:46 -0800 Comment by elenchos It's doesn't just depend on Hillary getting less than 50%. The theory also depends on the assumption that the second choice of the Edwards voters is Obama. Probably based on what we know happened in Iowa. If you think that's true, then it's a good theory.

I noticed there's like a thousand commends from the middle of the night last night. Was everybody up too late to think this morning?

]]> elenchos http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894434 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894434 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:02:46 -0800 Comment by Chicago Fan The logic is this: when the field is narrowed, who will the voters who chose neither of the two front runner go for? My instinct is that if a Dem wants Clinton to win, they're not voting for Edwards in the primary, they're voting for Clinton. But if voters in later states who would have voted for Edwards and have to choose between Clinton and Obama, they'll take Obama.

]]> Chicago Fan http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894435 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894435 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:04:03 -0800 Comment by Josh Feit Chicago Fan,

your Democrat thing is kooky. It was crowded primary. Of course more Ds voted against her.

Here's the stat you need to note: Hillary won among
self-identified Dems 45-34%. The majority of the remaining primary states don't allow independents to vote in the dem primary. This helps Hillary.

]]> Josh Feit http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894436 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894436 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:04:59 -0800 Comment by Fifty-Two-Eighty Most creative explanation yet for why Hilly won (from ABC News): Hillary's name was near the top of the ballot, Obama's was near the bottom. (Ballot position was determined ay a random drawing.)

]]> Fifty-Two-Eighty http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894447 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894447 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:12:06 -0800 Comment by and I'm pretty sure that New York and California will both go to Clinton on 2/5 and really, those are the only states that matter.

]]> and http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894450 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894450 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:15:19 -0800 Comment by i dont get it Why does Chicago Fan get to post anything here? The point about Hillary wouldn't even make it into the Seattle Times.

]]> i dont get it http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894453 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894453 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:18:13 -0800 Comment by NaFun @12

Because he's Dan's brother and occasionally posts about sports. Not that any of us give a shit about sports, but whatever.

]]> NaFun http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894480 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894480 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:39:27 -0800 Comment by SPOILER ALERT! And ALL the Republicans voted against the Democrats! Oh nos!

]]> SPOILER ALERT! http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894497 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894497 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:53:56 -0800 Comment by kim yeah, hillary got more dems and mccain got more independents. so much for obama's stronghold on liberals and moderates. and women.

]]> kim http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894747 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/that_swearing_ban_and_hillary_1#c894747 Nepotism Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:31:31 -0800