<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I went to a Mike Lee &#8220;Meet &amp; Greet&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/</link>
	<description>Fast Forward the Future</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:08:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: HarleyPig</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-42062</link>
		<dc:creator>HarleyPig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:35:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-42062</guid>
		<description>You might be interested in the blog &quot;Photography Is Not A Crime&quot; http://carlosmiller.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might be interested in the blog &#8220;Photography Is Not A Crime&#8221; <a href="http://carlosmiller.com" rel="nofollow">http://carlosmiller.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete Ashdown</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-41782</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete Ashdown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 02:42:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-41782</guid>
		<description>Heads of state aren&#039;t under the jurisdiction of the United States when visiting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heads of state aren&#8217;t under the jurisdiction of the United States when visiting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-41776</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 16:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-41776</guid>
		<description>Pete - I am not sure who is not under the jurisdiction while in the US, but since the 14th amendment lists that as a criteria, I assume that the founders felt that some do not fall under the jurisdiction. Why else would it be listed as a criteria? It largely depends on what &quot;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot; means. I am sure that there are different ways to interpret that phrase.

I do not know enough about the 2 cases that went to the Supreme Court (or about constitutional law for that matter), to know why the cases were decided the way they were, whether it was proper application of law, or bench legislation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete &#8211; I am not sure who is not under the jurisdiction while in the US, but since the 14th amendment lists that as a criteria, I assume that the founders felt that some do not fall under the jurisdiction. Why else would it be listed as a criteria? It largely depends on what &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; means. I am sure that there are different ways to interpret that phrase.</p>
<p>I do not know enough about the 2 cases that went to the Supreme Court (or about constitutional law for that matter), to know why the cases were decided the way they were, whether it was proper application of law, or bench legislation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete Ashdown</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-41775</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete Ashdown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 13:42:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-41775</guid>
		<description>Jarvie, I&#039;ll be sure to ask specifically about the Patriot Act if there is another opportunity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jarvie, I&#8217;ll be sure to ask specifically about the Patriot Act if there is another opportunity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jarvie</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-41774</link>
		<dc:creator>Jarvie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 08:19:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-41774</guid>
		<description>Huh? Did you mean to respond with that stuff to me? I was the one asking about primarily the patriot act stuff. Did you confuse me? Or did I not understand your response in the slightest (2am will do that)

I think you should persist on asking him about the patriot act and write what you find, not just give up when he doesn&#039;t answer in an open forum.
&quot;the fact that he skipped over the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps, even though I asked about them as well.&quot;
I&#039;m pretty darn sure I already know his answer on the patriot act stuff but you seemed to want to know the answer, so if you really did use this chance, but perhaps you should ask him one on one if you&#039;re worried about him giving an audience response. (Sounds like they&#039;ll let you record it this time too)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Huh? Did you mean to respond with that stuff to me? I was the one asking about primarily the patriot act stuff. Did you confuse me? Or did I not understand your response in the slightest (2am will do that)</p>
<p>I think you should persist on asking him about the patriot act and write what you find, not just give up when he doesn&#8217;t answer in an open forum.<br />
&#8220;the fact that he skipped over the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps, even though I asked about them as well.&#8221;<br />
I&#8217;m pretty darn sure I already know his answer on the patriot act stuff but you seemed to want to know the answer, so if you really did use this chance, but perhaps you should ask him one on one if you&#8217;re worried about him giving an audience response. (Sounds like they&#8217;ll let you record it this time too)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: craig41</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-41773</link>
		<dc:creator>craig41</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 06:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-41773</guid>
		<description>why wouldn&#039;t he want his public meeting video?  i agree with what pete said in the video, you&#039;d think they would want his message out there for a larger audience (they are trying to win support here), and you can tell if a video has been edited.  it seems that the message disconnect from a few events over the weekend that bennett quickly pounced on have brought on this new policy, so i understand the hesitation from the campaign in having statements recorded, but running for senate by not letting someone video what you&#039;re saying to try and win support leads one to wonder at best if he&#039;s ready for the public scrutiny that will come with a seat in the senate, and at worst what his campaign is expecting him to say that they don&#039;t want on the internet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>why wouldn&#8217;t he want his public meeting video?  i agree with what pete said in the video, you&#8217;d think they would want his message out there for a larger audience (they are trying to win support here), and you can tell if a video has been edited.  it seems that the message disconnect from a few events over the weekend that bennett quickly pounced on have brought on this new policy, so i understand the hesitation from the campaign in having statements recorded, but running for senate by not letting someone video what you&#8217;re saying to try and win support leads one to wonder at best if he&#8217;s ready for the public scrutiny that will come with a seat in the senate, and at worst what his campaign is expecting him to say that they don&#8217;t want on the internet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete Ashdown</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-41770</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete Ashdown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 02:56:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-41770</guid>
		<description>Jarvie, I would put my concern squarely on the side of justifying partisan dissent by interpreting the Constitution in your favor.  The way he looks at term limits is simple hypocrisy and isn&#039;t as large as the other issue.  I believe I have a good understanding of the Constitution, but I don&#039;t pretend to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_15016069&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;be smarter than the Senate&lt;/a&gt; on it.  The Constitution was drafted by many individuals who thoroughly debated its content.  Amendments have been made through a similarly robust process, and yet mistakes (prohibition) have happened.  I think it is pure arrogance to say, &quot;My interpretation is more pure and correct than yours.&quot;  I&#039;ve had enough of arrogant politicians who close their offices and believe they need to be sequestered from their constituency.  I&#039;d rather see more humility from a candidate for office.

James, that begs the question, who exactly is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while in the United States?  So much effort has been put into Guantanimo to specifically keep the detainees out of US jurisdiction (a practice I don&#039;t agree with).  Two cases have been brought to the Supreme Court on naturalized citizens through birth.  In both cases, it was upheld that they were citizens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jarvie, I would put my concern squarely on the side of justifying partisan dissent by interpreting the Constitution in your favor.  The way he looks at term limits is simple hypocrisy and isn&#8217;t as large as the other issue.  I believe I have a good understanding of the Constitution, but I don&#8217;t pretend to <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_15016069" rel="nofollow">be smarter than the Senate</a> on it.  The Constitution was drafted by many individuals who thoroughly debated its content.  Amendments have been made through a similarly robust process, and yet mistakes (prohibition) have happened.  I think it is pure arrogance to say, &#8220;My interpretation is more pure and correct than yours.&#8221;  I&#8217;ve had enough of arrogant politicians who close their offices and believe they need to be sequestered from their constituency.  I&#8217;d rather see more humility from a candidate for office.</p>
<p>James, that begs the question, who exactly is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while in the United States?  So much effort has been put into Guantanimo to specifically keep the detainees out of US jurisdiction (a practice I don&#8217;t agree with).  Two cases have been brought to the Supreme Court on naturalized citizens through birth.  In both cases, it was upheld that they were citizens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GOP State Delegate</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-41769</link>
		<dc:creator>GOP State Delegate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 02:44:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-41769</guid>
		<description>Hi Pete,

Long time supporter.  Despite being active in the Republican party, I voted for you against Hatch (and would again).

I&#039;m a Republican State Delegate who is planning to support Mike Lee at the convention on Saturday and, most likely, on the ballot in November.  Given my choices, he&#039;s the candidate I like best.

But I agree with you; despite some rather obnoxious (and fairly mitigatingly obvious imho) editing on the part of Bennett&#039;s campaign and others, they really should allow recordings.  If he gets elected, he can&#039;t (and hopefully won&#039;t try to!) control that kinda thing.  Recording him now is a fair test of his &#039;diplomatic&#039; skills, if you will.

I actually think he&#039;s pretty impressive on his feet.  He&#039;s much more likely to say something thoughtful and substantial when thrown a curveball than most politicians I&#039;ve studied.  Even when I might disagree with him.  And that&#039;s saying something.  He should tout that strength, not cower from the challenge.

That said, in this crazy week, I get where the campaign was coming from.  I&#039;m glad, however, that they&#039;ve issued apologies so quickly.

The thing I was most impressed about was how you handled getting your video shut down and that you actually stayed and asked the candidate questions despite all the hullabaloo.  You rock!

Best of luck.

-- Spanish Fork GOP Delegate</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Pete,</p>
<p>Long time supporter.  Despite being active in the Republican party, I voted for you against Hatch (and would again).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a Republican State Delegate who is planning to support Mike Lee at the convention on Saturday and, most likely, on the ballot in November.  Given my choices, he&#8217;s the candidate I like best.</p>
<p>But I agree with you; despite some rather obnoxious (and fairly mitigatingly obvious imho) editing on the part of Bennett&#8217;s campaign and others, they really should allow recordings.  If he gets elected, he can&#8217;t (and hopefully won&#8217;t try to!) control that kinda thing.  Recording him now is a fair test of his &#8216;diplomatic&#8217; skills, if you will.</p>
<p>I actually think he&#8217;s pretty impressive on his feet.  He&#8217;s much more likely to say something thoughtful and substantial when thrown a curveball than most politicians I&#8217;ve studied.  Even when I might disagree with him.  And that&#8217;s saying something.  He should tout that strength, not cower from the challenge.</p>
<p>That said, in this crazy week, I get where the campaign was coming from.  I&#8217;m glad, however, that they&#8217;ve issued apologies so quickly.</p>
<p>The thing I was most impressed about was how you handled getting your video shut down and that you actually stayed and asked the candidate questions despite all the hullabaloo.  You rock!</p>
<p>Best of luck.</p>
<p>&#8211; Spanish Fork GOP Delegate</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Utahn for Transparency</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-41768</link>
		<dc:creator>Utahn for Transparency</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 01:13:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-41768</guid>
		<description>Next time wear a wire or drop a small recorder in your pocket. You don&#039;t need anyone&#039;s permission for that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Next time wear a wire or drop a small recorder in your pocket. You don&#8217;t need anyone&#8217;s permission for that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/05/05/i-went-to-a-mike-lee-meet-greet/comment-page-1/#comment-41767</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 23:37:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=313#comment-41767</guid>
		<description>Pete - I am not sure the Lee is not correct on the anchor baby issue. the 14th amendment says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Since it explicitly says &quot;and subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot; as criteria, it seems logical that there are &quot;persons born or naturalized in the United States&quot; that are NOT &quot;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete &#8211; I am not sure the Lee is not correct on the anchor baby issue. the 14th amendment says:<br />
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”<br />
Since it explicitly says &#8220;and subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; as criteria, it seems logical that there are &#8220;persons born or naturalized in the United States&#8221; that are NOT &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

