Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Okay, you're gonna act patronizing about this. $=speech has been your ONLY talking point against sfa and myself on this thread. I'm just logically stating that $ does not equal speech because speech is defined by the First Amendment. Guess what money is not mentioned. I can't believe I had to repeat this point.
Is the right to privacy not a Constitutional right then? Miranda rights aren't Constitutional rights too, right? That darned thorn in the Conservative judges side called substantive due process also not a Constitutional protection. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution through the lens of existing case law. Both these ideas are the foundation of our court system. So to say the First Amendment doesn't expressly say $=speech is irrelevant.
Uh, okay. Was this a homework assignment? Literally all those things are expressly written in the Bill of Rights, which is part of Constitution. Right to privacy is secured in the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, or effects against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". Miranda Rights, Amendment V "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Due Process of law. Amendments VI and VII such as "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State..to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation..to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process to have witnesses in his favor." www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html So $=speech is irrelevant argument is wrong sir. Like I've said many times, it's not expressly written in the Bill of Rights.
Hoots wrote [/quote]No there are SCOTUS cases and lines of reasoning that are, to me, obviously incorrect. But just because you don't agree with the implications of a decision does not mean that you can say that it was not founded properly in case law and the Constitution.
Here's a recent example of the SCOTUS deciding against "the power brokers in this country" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co. The fact is they make decisions on the legal arguments, not on whatever conspiracy theory grounds you have going. They have to say why they make decisions they make. This is why the Citizens opinion was over 100 pages. Here I'll try another link: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf You can't ctrl+f this one, but you can hopefully still read it. Feel free to google it if my link doesn't work. [/quote][/color]
There's always lines of reasoning to any argument, whether it be moral or immoral. So you're saying the Dred Scott Decision or Plessy vs Ferguson's foundation in case law overrides moral implications. Yes, SCOTUS is there to interpret the Constitution based on case law. But moral righteousness is another factor when it comes to interpretation. Does a decision uphold the civil rights and liberties given to the People according to the Bill of Rights? "An unjust law is no law at all" -St.Augustine of Hippo, also agreed by Martin Luther King Jr. I will agree that Caperton vs A.T Massey Coal Company's ruling was surprising. Considering they ruled in favor of Caperton even though Justice McGraw was against a Republican. Yet all the Democratic appointees voted against Mcgraw and his association with Massey. I was surprised the Republican appointees on the SCOTUS didn't find objections to the bias of McGraw's influence on Massey. To me it seemed like a clear case of an investment influencing judicial judgement.
One of the reasons I dislike the SCOTUS so much recently is their blindness concerning the moral implications of money and power. Why did the current SCOTUS decide to override McConnell vs Federal Election Commission or Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce to pass Citizens United? The issue was already settled, why override previous lines of judgement? They settled it by publicly upholding previous rulings but literally writing a new law. "Corporations an unions are barrred from using their general treasury funds for express advocacy or electioneering communications. They may establish, however, a "separate segragated fund (known as political action committee, or PAC) for these purposes. The moneys received by these segregated funds are limited to donations from stockholders and the employees of the corporation or in the case of unions, members of the union". So basically a corporation can just simply transfer funds from their treasury to a PAC. It's the same quacking thing, yet for some reason it's acceptable. The ruling is hypocritical.
You said "Nowhere in rights of the First Amendment are clearly defined FOR THE PEOPLE". You are right it's not mentioned clearly in the 1st Amendment, its mentioned clearly in the beginning for the entire Constitution. We the People of the United States, In order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America From Wikipedia: "Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). "A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
That is what I meant by an artificial person
[/quote] Actually, iirc, one of the problems with deciding Roe v. Wade was there was no clear enumeration of what is a person and what is not a person in the Constitution. Feel free to legally define what a person is, and I will change my mind. If you heard about the Prop 26 mess in MS, then you will know they were trying to get a Constitutional amendment to define personhood because there is no existing one. Still, Corporate personhood rights have existed in this country for over 100 years. There have been numerous liberal courts that did not overturn this Constitutional principle. The Court is insulated from outside pressure. All of the members graduated from Harvard, Yale, or Stanford law schools and are principled people, as is evidenced by their writings, and are all probably stupid rich based on the name next to their degree. I don't see any reason to think that they are influenced by money.[/quote][/color][/color] Money just happened to be a relevant along the last 100 years when the Gilded Age was replaced by the Progressive era. Hmm, so when corporations lost their influence on the people and the government they somehow became defined as people according to law. What a coincidence. Money also became relevant when federal elections became incredibly expensive due to "electioneering communication" ads on major networks. Also, a strange coincidence. Like you said it's expensive to get a law degree from Harvard, Stanford and Yale. Who would most likely be able to step in to help with that money?
Our forefathers kept state separated from religion because they wanted them to be separate from influence. As shown by the religious monarchies of Europe. Separating money from state is just as important because money in state results in aristocracy ruling government.
I define a person as " either a natural born or a naturalized citizen of America who makes America their home. The definition of personhood would also extend to foreign state officials who make America their home" So a corporation who decides to use a foreign country as their headquarters to receive tax breaks and exemptions. Your poop out of luck, plus I'd rather have illegals go through a naturalization process just like the previous immigrants who went through Ellis Island.
Last Edit: Nov 26, 2011 19:09:10 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
Uh, okay. Was this a homework assignment? Literally all those things are expressly written in the Bill of Rights, which is part of Constitution. Right to privacy is secured in the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, or effects against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". Miranda Rights, Amendment V "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Due Process of law. Amendments VI and VII such as "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State..to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation..to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process to have witnesses in his favor." www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html So $=speech is irrelevant argument is wrong sir. Like I've said many times, it's not expressly written in the Bill of Rights.
No no no no.
The right to privacy is not expressly written in the Bill of Rights. The right to privacy was first granted in Griswold. Here's a link to the wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut. Some mess about flowing from penumbras, but not expressly written. Miranda rights are called Miranda rights because they were first made to be read in the Miranda SCOTUS case.
No there are SCOTUS cases and lines of reasoning that are, to me, obviously incorrect. But just because you don't agree with the implications of a decision does not mean that you can say that it was not founded properly in case law and the Constitution.
Here's a recent example of the SCOTUS deciding against "the power brokers in this country" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co. The fact is they make decisions on the legal arguments, not on whatever conspiracy theory grounds you have going. They have to say why they make decisions they make. This is why the Citizens opinion was over 100 pages. Here I'll try another link: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf You can't ctrl+f this one, but you can hopefully still read it. Feel free to google it if my link doesn't work.
There's always lines of reasoning to any argument, whether it be moral or immoral. So you're saying the Dred Scott Decision or Plessy vs Ferguson's foundation in case law overrides moral implications. Yes, SCOTUS is there to interpret the Constitution based on case law. But moral righteousness is another factor when it comes to interpretation. Does a decision uphold the civil rights and liberties given to the People according to the Bill of Rights? "An unjust law is no law at all" -St.Augustine of Hippo, also agreed by Martin Luther King Jr. I will agree that Caperton vs A.T Massey Coal Company's ruling was surprising. Considering they ruled in favor of Caperton even though Justice McGraw was against a Republican. Yet all the Democratic appointees voted against Mcgraw and his association with Massey. I was surprised the Republican appointees on the SCOTUS didn't find objections to the bias of McGraw's influence on Massey. To me it seemed like a clear case of an investment influencing judicial judgement.
One of the reasons I dislike the SCOTUS so much recently is their blindness concerning the moral implications of money and power. Why did the current SCOTUS decide to override McConnell vs Federal Election Commission or Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce to pass Citizens United? The issue was already settled, why override previous lines of judgement? They settled it by publicly upholding previous rulings but literally writing a new law. "Corporations an unions are barrred from using their general treasury funds for express advocacy or electioneering communications. They may establish, however, a "separate segragated fund (known as political action committee, or PAC) for these purposes. The moneys received by these segregated funds are limited to donations from stockholders and the employees of the corporation or in the case of unions, members of the union". So basically a corporation can just simply transfer funds from their treasury to a PAC. It's the same quacking thing, yet for some reason it's acceptable. The ruling is hypocritical.
Why did the court overturn Austin and Plessy? It was because they were founded on faulty legal reasoning that was unconstitutional. I think they are on 100% solid legal ground, and I think the Austin was the hypocritical and potential dangerous decision. We could argue about the effect of money in politics, and it's quite obvious we have differing opinions, but when my argument that I have been making, when talking about the SCOTUS, is Citizens was properly decided. And I still do not think that the integrity of the court or the quality of the decision is up in the air. So once again I invite you to attack the legal arguments made in the Citizens' opinion.
Actually, iirc, one of the problems with deciding Roe v. Wade was there was no clear enumeration of what is a person and what is not a person in the Constitution. Feel free to legally define what a person is, and I will change my mind. If you heard about the Prop 26 mess in MS, then you will know they were trying to get a Constitutional amendment to define personhood because there is no existing one. Still, Corporate personhood rights have existed in this country for over 100 years. There have been numerous liberal courts that did not overturn this Constitutional principle. The Court is insulated from outside pressure. All of the members graduated from Harvard, Yale, or Stanford law schools and are principled people, as is evidenced by their writings, and are all probably stupid rich based on the name next to their degree. I don't see any reason to think that they are influenced by money.
[/color][/color] Money just happened to be a relevant along the last 100 years when the Gilded Age was replaced by the Progressive era. Hmm, so when corporations lost their influence on the people and the government they somehow became defined as people according to law. What a coincidence. Money also became relevant when federal elections became incredibly expensive due to "electioneering communication" ads on major networks. Also, a strange coincidence. Like you said it's expensive to get a law degree from Harvard, Stanford and Yale. Who would most likely be able to step in to help with that money?
Our forefathers kept state separated from religion because they wanted them to be separate from influence. As shown by the religious monarchies of Europe. Separating money from state is just as important because money in state results in aristocracy ruling government.
I define a person as " either a natural born or a naturalized citizen of America who makes America their home. The definition of personhood would also extend to foreign state officials who make America their home" So a corporation who decides to use a foreign country as their headquarters to receive tax breaks and exemptions. Your poop out of luck, plus I'd rather have illegals go through a naturalization process just like the previous immigrants who went through Ellis Island. [/quote] I don't think we're really arguing about anything here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But if you go to HYS you don't have to worry about paying your loans back, so that conspiracy theory is out. There is no clear legal definition of what a person is, so it doesn't matter what you, me, God, or the CEO of Goldman Sachs thinks what a person is.
Wolf, you're not going to convince me of anything obfuscating the definition of a person. I think it's fairly apparent that a corporation is not one.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Man has a Creator, be it divine or happenstance.
Corporations have creators, too... they're called men.
Corporations do not answer to the same Creator that man does.
Anyone who says that corporations are people is dangerously out of sync with the founding principles of this country, and should be treated as the traitor that they are.
Occupy Boston got a continuation on the restraining order preventing the city of Boston and the Boston PD from raiding the camp in Dewey Square. They have up to another two weeks of safety it appears.
Currently they have three ways of getting raided: outbreak of violence, fire, or medical emergency. That still continues.
In order to address some of the sanitary concerns, some people donated a sink to the Dewey Square camp - or until the Boston PD confiscated that. One person was injured, one was arrested, and protesters for a while were surrounding BPD trying to get them to free the sink. From what I seen on Twitter and Facebook, things might have gone down tonight - but everything looks ok now.
Yesterday we had one of the more ridiculous and outrageous moments in Occupy Worcester history:
To give you some background...
Our occupation is on the north side of Belmont/Highland, between Lincoln and Grove. The tent city, which we need to move out of in the next 24 hours, is in the church parking lot straight north of that - on the other side of the war memorial and the abandoned school.
Anyways, Toys for Tots collection people were yesterday standing on all sides of the Belmont/Lincoln/Taylor/Highland intersection, between us and the police headquarters. One of their collection people wasn't too fond of us, and let us know it easily.
I was coming down Belmont to get to the square, and was stopped at the red light. I was holding the Mass. state flag out the window, so when I drove by the protest on Highland I'd have the flag out and honk the horn and all that jazz. The unhappy collection person was yelling at me to "put that fucking thing away" among other things. Once he started cussing me out, I just cranked my stereo up real loud on Hatebreed. The guy runs around to the other side of my car, shaking the bucket at me. But I wouldn't even look at him. The light turned green, and off I went.
A few minutes later, the guy was walking around on the Lincoln St. side of the intersection, and an OW member wanted to hand a buck over for a donation. He wouldn't accept it, saying money from anyone in our organization wasn't welcome. After a little bit of an argument, the OW guy left and gave it to another collector. But the OW guy before leaving broke out a camera, asking why the collector wouldn't take the money. The collector used a homophobic slur against him, made comments where he was wanting to start a fight, then called the police because he was being recorded on camera.
Meanwhile down on the other side of this intersection, a second OW member was being harassed by a collector and a WPD officer watching over the scene. Basically the officer was threatening arrest to our member for being in the area of our protest in the first place. The cop even said that if he was on the sidewalk rather than private property (the college of pharmacy between Taylor and Main), she would have arrested him.
The WPD seems to be doing a great job in recruiting members for us. This guy joined us last week, when he also was threatened with arrest for something similar. He lives on Lincoln, but was walking home from somewhere down Main. The best way to his place is past our protest. The cops saw him walking near, and told him to keep moving or else he'd get locked up. Well, needless to say he stopped at our protest before coming home. Cops kept pushing him around and harassing him afterwards.
The new guy is a former criminal and gang member, but became a born again Christian on his last prison stint. So we're happy to have him, because he sees a lot of the injustice our government makes and how corrupt the system is. That and now we have multiple members as a result of random police overreaction against OW. People are curious as to what's going on, the cops threaten (or actually do) arrest in order to prevent us from growing, and then become hardcore members of the movement.
I equate the WPD to bouncers at a strip club. Setting the rules, people driving through Lincoln Square can look at us, but they can't touch. They can see us, throw things at us, but can't stay long enough to distract us from our little dance.
I'm not sure how long it'll be before I get arrested, but I bet it'll happen sometime.
I had the police called on me for photographing a woman's license plate in the course of collecting Walker recall signatures. She tried to get in my face and provoke a reaction, and at the end of it all got into a vehicle which matched a description of one whose driver had been shouting the exact same obscene phrase at volunteers in multiple locations around the county. I had been advised to be on the lookout to identify such a vehicle, and the encounter raised enough red flags that I took a picture. An officer came to visit me outside the public library. Got a statement from me with my side of the story. I showed him the picture, and offered to delete it right then and there. He said it wasn't necessary. He said that since I was documenting something that occurred on public property, I was within my rights to take that picture. No citation, no warning, no paperwork for me. Just FYI, you should have no legal issues filming people on public property assuming your laws are similar there.
Occupy D.C. Protesters shut down K Street Shutting down the lobbyist capital of the United States? Targeting a location which is closer to the root of the problem? Now that's more like it.
I have also been reading articles which suggest that other Occupy chapters are beginning to target homes in the process of being foreclosed upon by bailed-out banks. I also like that tactic.
The longer Occupy progresses, though, the further removed I feel like its tactics are from the Wisconsin resistance. That doesn't change my approval or disapproval, just my sense of relating to the movement as a whole. I actually think we're fighting the same war on different fronts, though.
There's a lot of fronts to cover, and a lot of people and places involved. What is priority for Madison and Wisconsin is not the same as what it is for DC, or Massachusetts, or Tennessee.
Speaking of Mass., Boston's probably going to get evicted sometime soon. I'd be shocked if they're waking up in Dewey Square on Monday morning.
Hartford got evicted on Tuesday. After all the recent drama, including theft, drug use, the sexual assault, and the random guy on the street waving a gun ... it's not a surprise. Still sad though.
I think most cities should and will evolve beyond this camping in public parks phase and into something much more targeted on the issues. Not that I have a problem with that.
So um... I spent way too much time in Boston last night. I just got home at 6:30 am, just for the sun to start coming up.
I got to Dewey Square at like 4 this afternoon, and some people were disassembling tents. Library was already gone, as was Food. Media was partially down. Logistics, Info Tent, and Medical were in progress of coming down. Anything that was important was taken away by Uhauls so the city of Boston wouldn't throw it in the back of a garbage truck. Spirituality tent was left behind, as was some other stuff.
The City of Boston gave a midnight deadline for people to leave Dewey Square, and many people packed up. If you look now, maybe 25% of the tents are still there. But a few hundred people were around Dewey Square at midnight, maybe a little over 500 at its peak. People from all over New England were flooding into Boston to help defend the occupation. 20-25 from Worcester, a couple dozen from New Hampshire, a bunch from Providence, some from western Mass. Around 12, the place was like a carnival scene. There was a jazz band playing, dance parties, people just having a good time. Morale crazy high for the situation.
I left for a little while between 12:30 and 1:15 to move my car from Cambridge to Boston. When I got back, people were setting up tents in Atlantic Ave. right in front of the Federal Reserve building. There was a huge party in the street. People with drums and buckets just hammering away, and a dance party in the streets. Hundreds still were around, but numbers were slowly fading as time progressed.
By around 3 am, people were realizing there wasn't going to be a raid on the camp. News came in that Occupy DC was sending a busload of people to Boston and was in route north. The crowd probably dropped to 150. BPD cleared Atlantic Avenue, and most responded and got back to the sidewalk and in the park. Two people were arrested for refusing to leave the last tent in the street.
I ended up leaving Boston around 4 am, drove back to Worcester. Dropped one of our guys off, then slept for an hour in a nearby parking lot. Then went the last bit home. Got a lecture from my father already, about how doing this is bad for my career. How I shouldn't be doing this if I ever wanted to be promoted to higher status at my company. He's one those people who believes the job is the most important thing you can have, doesn't understand the movement or its arguments at all.
" He's one those people who believes the job is the most important thing you can have, doesn't understand the movement or its arguments at all"
Isnt the lack of work for young graduates/people part of the reason you are involved in this movement? If so, why are you putting that at risk? I dont think your father is totally off base. The fact of the matter is that only a small percentage of the people involved in the movement "understand the movement". Im not knocking what youre doing by any means at all, but what is YOUR reason for being part of the occupy movement? I guess a better question is "what would you say to your father to make him understand the movement/its arguments and why you are a part of it".
My family considers work and family to be the only two things that matter - and to hell with anything else.
I have a job though, and I'm pretty good at it too. I've reached high performance ratings every month this year, including the top ranking 5-6 months in a row. But I work in a warehouse for a big box store - and it frustrates me to see that 90% of the stuff is made in China, and very little is being made in the United States. We just buy and sell the crap that's made by near slave labor in third world countries. Once these free trade agreements were put into place back in the 80s and 90s, it destroyed the Made in USA label.
Oh, and I only got this job I went to a state agency and basically begged for help - since I was unemployed for almost a year, then followed it up with a couple temp jobs before this gig.
My father worked at a textile mill for 30 years before getting laid off. The company couldn't compete with Chinese made goods, and Walmart (which accounted for 60-70% of its sales) demanded lower prices. So they shut down the factory in Massachusetts and moved operations to China and Pakistan.
So - the fact that companies are willing to sell out fellow Americans and exploit people in second and third world countries just to fatten their wallets.
That's not to ignore all the other arguments which the OWS movement has made. The banking system is corrupt to the core, needs to be salvaged and replaced. The corrupt businesses and corrupt politicians scratching each others backs - it has clearly hurt the average American in the last few decades. Why should my tax money go to someone getting multimillion dollar bonuses for tanking the economy on bad or just downright immoral decisions they made?
Occupy Boston's last prank at Dewey Square on the Boston PD - the half ton paperweight which was at the sign tent. I saw this on Thursday night and just started laughing. Once they saw it Saturday morning, they must have felt the same way.
So there's a dozen Occupy Hartford people and 4-5 from Occupy New Haven in a Walmart - and you can probably guess what happens in that video.
My cell phone camera video came out like crap, so I'll link the "official" one here.
I'm not disagreeing with the movement or anything these occupiers are saying. In fact I choose not to shop at Walmart because of all the sad truths that make the place a corporate devil worshiper.
HOWEVER-- these and many demonstrators like this are ASKING to get the cops called on them. this is not a peaceful example. people are trying to shop! I work in retail and if they busted this out in our store, like hell I'd let them to continue to do that. that is illegal and they are in PRIVATE PROPERTY. that bugs me. if you believe in something, I think you should have the right to share your beliefs with whomever will listen. but take it outside, not infringe on MY constitutional right to not care about politics for one second while i pick up my quacking groceries.
here's what really irks me... I tried to comment nicely on this youtube page about this, and I doubt my comment will be posted because it has to get "approved by the uploader". And the occupiers say THEY are the one's being censored? just throwing it out there...
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get involved with Occupy this month. I was scouring the area for a job since I finished work for the contractor and jobs with the Union are a little thin right now. One seasonal job i got was basically opening and cooking Christmas hams, it paid minimum wage and I smelled like fuckin pig after work. I left that place and now I'm working as a call center rep for a car dealership. So with money being in a crunch right now, I haven't been able to make it to the DC sites this month. Once I get more financially stable, I'll try to do what i can in January.
Haven't been able to visit this thread that often, but if any of you are wondering what Occupy's plans are, I'll gladly show you.
I hope a lot of you plan to attend. This is your chance to be part of history, and really attempt to change something. Paul Revere this shit. Facebook, Twitter, and even physical flyers would help. Let everyone you can know that January 17th will be a day to remember.
Once again, get out and vote. You have your own opinion, but I suggest voting against any long-time incumbent first and foremost. We can protest all we want, but until the politicians actually have to deal with some real damage, they won't listen.
New Haven has a bus running down there and back. It'd be a brutal trip to say the least... It leaves NH at 2:20 am on the 17th, and returns around 1:40 am on the 18th. It's also an hour and a half away from me.
If I was much closer to DC, I would. Instead I'm going to Manchester, New Hampshire for the Occupy the Primaries stuff. I probably can't skip that much time from work anyway.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Jan 3, 2012 17:24:12 GMT -5
I'm not very happy with the occupy movement because they did'nt target the right place in the first place. Going to wall street just ensured the politicians denied the friend request of there wall street buddiues for a while. Occupy should have opened there history books because the civil rights marches went to the sorce to get there opinions heard not only by the media but the very people whom were the cause of and then solution to there main problem. Our main problem is that our law makers are allowed to do insider trading and as Martha Stewart is well aware of the ordinary citizen is not. The problem is not enough of US the 99% show up to vote. Yet you can be assured ALL of that 1% does or they make the contribution to there winnig canidate.
That would be Mark from Occupy New Hampshire - Manchester. This guy is freaking everywhere. And ONH is becoming a nightmare to politicians. And quite frankly, I'm loving all of it. It's not enough. Need to keep raising some hell.
If I can get next week off from work, I might go to DC. Only issue I had was... the New Haven bus leaves DC at 7 pm and is there just 10 hours. Would like to be there a little longer.
Its like 7 hours to DC from here. I could take a bus down from New Haven. But its only there for 10 hours before the return to Connecticut. Would love to stay longer, but that's much more pricey with logistics and whatnot.