No, juries are NOT supposed to judge the law. That's what challenges, brought as necessary before voters (to change out the legislature to one that might change the law) or through constitutionality tests before courts (up to the SCOTUS) are for. The jury is supposed to do what the judge says: evaluate whether or not the prosecution has shown that the defendant broke the law. Period. That is the "exact function" of the jury, and we have other mechanisms in place with the "exact function" of changing laws or, if they are unconstitutional, dismantling them in whole or in part.
While I agree with much of what you say, and I do think they should throw the book at her.....
....there is Jury Nullification as an outside possibility for a juror to consider, although most of them don't know it.
I'm smoking the rest of a joint, even as I type this....Either way, no booze required. I don't even need to be drunk to want to put my penis in her, she's pretty cute.
Alcohol, marijuana...same type thing, both intoxicants.
Do ya'll or did ya'll get high the first times sleeping with each other?
No real big difference...what you get high on, lowering inhibitions is quite often helpful with women.
I"m not talking having them blasted out of their minds and not responsible, mind you...just nicely buzzed and letting down their screens a bit.
Intentionally taking a drug to remove inhibitions and slow motor control just because you think you like it seems pretty stupid. I could understand if it was being done for some therapeutic reason.
There is a huge therapeutic reason...GETTING LAID!!
BTW, the definition of units is poorly defined here. Below is a link to the UK web page that shows what they mean. For me, I would have to be on a drinking spree to drink 6L of lager a week. I enjoy alcohol but I tend to limit it to a couple of coolers at occasional BBQs and a couple of glasses of wine at special occasions and nights out with friends.
My thought is:
"BEER......it's not just for breakfast anymore....."
Supporting one politician and opposing another is not the same thing as supporting rape and opposing racial equality. The former will NOT keep you out of Harvard. Only the latter.
So...telling racially or sexually insensitive jokes, or making comments on such (no action on either)...should keep you out of any institution?
I sure hope we NEVER start basing security clearances on an individuals legitimate political beliefs because that would be what "McCarthyism" was all about.
Having a KKK march on campus is likely to creating a chilling effect on other students.
Err...there *HAVE* been KKK marches in recent history, and it didn't chill anything. If anything, it just exposed them more for how extreme and silly their views are for the public to see.
And...the world didn't stop because they did. You do know it isn't against the law for the KKK or other extremist groups to have public marches....right?
That's because that view is 100% correct. I don't understand why conservatives think there's a constitutional right to say whatever you want without consequences. it's almost as though they've never read the Constitution. The Founding Fathers never, under any circumstances, intended for there to never be any social consequences for your speech. Only that the State can't censor you for your content. Not everybody else.
The thing is...unless there is a societal foundation to support the governmental free speech laws, then you don't truly have it.
Rather than shout speech you don't agree with down, or try to keep it from being expressed, why not debate it, and the best way of thinking will surely win based on merit, no?
Just because someone isn't PC, doesn't mean they should be shouted down or blocked from access to schools...if that happens, then those feelings, thoughts and beliefs just grow underground and in the background, and become harder to address as times goes on.
Free speech and debate need to be supported on a public basis as well as by governmental law.
Yup...so much for colleges being a safe place for free thought, and the ability to vocalize and exchange ideas...even *controversial* ones.....
If you're not able to talk about such things, then the belief in them doesn't go away..it just goes underground, and festers.....and then they never get exposed to other points of view.
The free exchange of ideas, allows for beliefs to be put forth and discussed, and in such discussion, the better ones stay and the others fade.
They fade NOT because they are shouted down, or not allowed to be expressed, but by thoughtful conversation and making valid points to address the weaknesses of the weaker argument.
I was just watching an interesting video yesterday on Amazon Prime Can We Take A Joke", and it really puts an interesting light on what's happening on today's campuses.
Its interesting how in the past, saw with Lenny Bruce...that is was the far Right that had him arrested and shut down.
It was the more liberal colleges that pushed the greatest back then, IMHO, for true free speech...even controversial speech.
And now today...PC and such, are closing down speech again, but this time, instead of the right pushing it...it is the left.
I would posit the best way to get bad speech out of the way, it to allow it to be spoken, and don't shout it down, but speak against it and debate it.
The modern countries on this planet provide health care instead of selling it.
Why would anyone want to get into medicine, with all the headaches it involves...if they didn't stand to make a buck....in fact, a few of them considering all the insurance/litigation that comes with it, and if a Dr...all the years of study coupled with huge student debt bills to pay off, and shorter working life that most other careers.
You certainly don't go into that career for only altruistic reasons....you don't get the best people that way.
They've figured out that the regulations they're always pushing for make it near-impossible to compete with established companies and hurt innovation.
Yep....
I think the reply to them is pretty much, "Duh".....
That's the way it is with overly onerous regulations...it ONLY helps the big guys that can afford to fund a full department dedicated to only the regulation and documentation side of the business.
It is understandable in some respects, due to this being medicine...lives can be affected by errors, but the regulations aren't just targeted at direct patient interaction...but many other things.
It does bring up, however, questions as to how some parts are SO over-regulated, yet direct patient contact items, like heart regulators, insulin and other drug pumps are able to be put out there, without even *basic* encryption, so as to protect patients from being literally hacked, and possibly killed.
The government knows your social security number and freely surveils you, corporations track your spending and sell the data to each other, and your anonymity is a mirage.
Just because there is a LOT of info out there on you, doesn't mean you should go out of your way to help make it easier to gain even MORE data on you.
Hell, whenever I can, online or in meatspace, I try to give out disinformation about myself. When setting up accounts I give very erroneous "personal" info. And I don't give my SS number to anyone unless it is related to SS income. No, I don't give it to my Dr. or other office visits. Hey don't have any need for it.
Occasionally I get a weird look when I refuse, but I explain how many times in the past I'd had my identity stolen and they generally understand.
from how Trumpcare (grandiose over a House vote that is Dead in the Senate)
Well, they gotta do something, obamacare is failing under its own weight, and many voted to get rid of the damned thing, this is him trying to keep election promises.
Muslim Ban (Even aside from the issues in court, the sudden implementation was flawed)
Hmm...he was wanting to restrict travel from a small subset of countries with heavy terrorist activity, that was largely the same list the Obama administration restricted for awhile when he was in office?
Again, seems more common sense than acrimony or racism....it does happen these areas are largely muslim, but hey...if we have an upturn in terrorist Buddhists or Presbyterian activity, I expect to enact similar restrictions.
...we know we have another indication that he just wants to tear down Obama.
Well, a lot of people didn't like many of the things Obama did, and hence voted for someone to reign them in vs continue another 4 years of the same policies. Again...keeping election promises...
Hell, he could have scored more points by simply forwarding it to the Senate as a treaty.
OH just great..then it *would* have made it binding....no thanks.
The importance of this is that . . . (gasp!) . . . a man with non-white skin made this agreement! Unacceptable!
I think that is the most likely underlying reason this is so important to some people.
Seriously....?
Even this gets the racial card thrown out on it? Sheesh...
For me, a large part of it was the language that had the US pumping out about $3B annually to other countries with no strings attached, for them to "clean up" their act. Even if it had no binding obligations to the agreement....I'm willing to be the MONEY part would have been observed, and I'm tired of sending our tax dollars out when they could be put to much better use here at home.
...or 190 other nations in the world who signed the Paris Agreement? Well, maybe you should start asking yourself whether any other nation will want to ally with the US in the future if your country continues to go down that path...
Hell, everyone says the agreement wasn't binding in any fashion....so, WTF difference does it make if the US is in or out of it officially?
Also..shouldn't congress have voted on this anyway?
All the talking heads, like Kerry...saying "well this wasn't binding anyway".
If this was the case, they what difference does it make if we're in it or out of it?
I wouldn't mind going back into it, IF it was non-binding, AND we leave out the part about the US funding up around $3B a year to other countries for them to "clean up"...but that being money with no strings attached to it.
I'm tired of the US sending money we could use at home to the rest of the planet.
But back to original point...if it wasn't binding, then what real difference does it make?
I'd pay extra taxes to see New Orleans washed out to see, but that's just me
Well, it isn't just NOLA proper....but the whole area here hear the gulf.
If your wish comes true, say goodbye to about 1/3 of the US's supply of seafood....and if the oil spigot gets turned off here (all those oil rigs in the gulf and the processing plants inland associated with them), well, you'll get your energy change *VERY* quickly as that prices will shoot through the roof, long before your alternative sources are ready.
And sad....why is NOLA any less important that any other US city'? Should we abandon wide swaths of land in CA since it is so prone to forest fires? Are we to abandon NYC....that last hurricane was nothing, NYC has been a long time out from predicted city killer hurricane scenarios, just like New Orleans has hanging over its head. Another one is likely just around the corner.
Every city has its natural disaster sword of Damocles hanging above it. Not to mention, that NOLA the city itself is older that the US, and a lot of culture the US has came from this area....so, history alone is worth preserving a bit of, no?
hat followed a JetBlue announcement hours earlier that it is testing a program in Boston that will match pictures of customers' faces with the passport database maintained by U.S. Custom and Border Protections.
Err...what passport?
You don't need a passport unless you are planning on leaving the country. I don't have one and don't foresee the need for one anytime in the near future either.
Hell, with all the terrorist hits in Europe and other places around the globe, and all the drug slaughter in Mexico these days, I have positively no inclination to leave the US any time soon....there's plenty of stuff to see here and with such a wide geographic variety to choose from, I'll never see it all before I die...so, why would I ever need a passport?
I would posit that the vast majority of Americans do not have a passport.
Why does this negate the fact that the DNC needs to review their Data Analytical operation? After all, practically everyone who spoke about election predictions from the DNC had Clinton winning the Electoral College easily.
Well, I'd think any smart political party, would conduct a Data Analytical operation review each year, to learn from previous year, as that things are in constant change.
And it wasn't just the DNC that predicted her easy EC win...look at most all of the talking heads on TV, and most all polling companies....they had it wrong too.
What they didn't see and didn't take into account, were the folks that had been somewhat silent in past election years, those that aren't out shouting loudly about this social justice or this inequality....but lower-middle and lower income workers, that have seen and continue to see their jobs and way of life being ripped away from them. Yes, they may often be heterosexual caucasian too (hey, not that there's anything wrong with that)....and they see all the whoopla about every other minority, or possible category of sexual preference being elevated constantly in the discussions, and they were basically tired of being not only ignored, but in many ways persecuted for being what would previously been termed as "normal white American working families".
I also think that the liberal hive mind that is centered primarily in the northeast and far west of the country, somehow assumed that pretty much everyone in the US saw the country and path to the future exactly as they did, with little if any meaningful numbers of people disagreeing with them. I think this may also be due, somewhat, to what we see with the progressive side constantly shouting down more conservative speech....and this has been going on in a more subtle manner on the national news scene for decades now, so that you never really saw much conservative speech or opposing conservative thoughts on mainstream media, and hence...when you don't see it, you assume it isn't there at all.
I think many of these general thoughts were large contributing factors for many of the polling elite missing a hidden undercurrent of scorn for the more liberal progressive agenda being pushed.
And also...perhaps no one wanted to admit, that Hillary is just NOT a likable person, much less a charismatic candidate. Many assumed her coronation would be just that...that it was manifest destiny for her to be president.
This also kinda blinded them that not everyone thought that way.
Wow....I"m just amazed that she can't come to grips with the base fact that she was NOT a good politician, doesn't have a good public personality, and the charisma of a small soap dish.
Her husband, was one of the best politicians ever....for some reason she cannot fathom that she is the polar opposite of that.
I grew up in AR with her as first lady of the state, and she was just as dislikeable (sp?) then as now. This is nothing new for her.
But I guess...ego won't allow for true self exploration, and she's having to try to blame everything and everyone external to herself to get through this.....
She can't deal with the fact that she is not a beloved person like her husband was (to a very broad swatch of the US), and even to an extent Obama was to her party.
After this loss, she should really fade away and allow the youth of the Democratic party to start coming up through the ranks to help try to get themselves back on target.
I'm not a Democrat, but even I can see that she and many in power are holding them back at this point, and that getting someone that *is* likable, charismatic, younger and can connect with the millennials out there would make them a very formidable party.
Hell, I really fear that as that they might really make successful pushes to get pretty far left progressive legislation through....so, I make these thoughts at my own detriment as that I don't agree with the extreme progressive agenda, but if that's what you want, then you most likely need Hillary to get off the damned public stage and bring in "new talent".
we are all on the same planet and what happens in one country affects another, pollution etc does NOT respect borders. if you help people in the their own country, you keep them there, if you do not help them then they start migrating to the places without the problem i.e. your doorstep
And THAT is when we *DO* start protecting our borders....
Frankly, I think it would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, if we helped train our snipers to watch for anyone trying to illegally cross out border, and um...."discourage" such actions.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with much of what you say, and I do think they should throw the book at her.....
Alcohol, marijuana...same type thing, both intoxicants.
Do ya'll or did ya'll get high the first times sleeping with each other?
No real big difference...what you get high on, lowering inhibitions is quite often helpful with women.
I"m not talking having them blasted out of their minds and not responsible, mind you...just nicely buzzed and letting down their screens a bit.
There is a huge therapeutic reason...GETTING LAID!!
Geez, I'll bet you are fun at parties....
[rolls eyes]
So....no alcohol, sugar or fat....what's left for pleasure?!?!?!
I mean hell, you might have said sex, but you generally don't get ready access to that without some form of alcohol, fat and even sugar.....
My thought is:
"BEER......it's not just for breakfast anymore....."
So...telling racially or sexually insensitive jokes, or making comments on such (no action on either)...should keep you out of any institution?
But...it can keep you out of Harvard....
I dunno...apparently if you get a sex change in prison, they let you out in about 7 years or so....
Maybe this is "Reality's" scheme....to get a free sex change operation on the tax payers dollar...?
It has worked before....
[rolls eyes]
I"ll bet the helicopter parents are *still* hovering just outside her door.
Err...there *HAVE* been KKK marches in recent history, and it didn't chill anything. If anything, it just exposed them more for how extreme and silly their views are for the public to see.
And...the world didn't stop because they did. You do know it isn't against the law for the KKK or other extremist groups to have public marches....right?
The thing is...unless there is a societal foundation to support the governmental free speech laws, then you don't truly have it.
Rather than shout speech you don't agree with down, or try to keep it from being expressed, why not debate it, and the best way of thinking will surely win based on merit, no?
Just because someone isn't PC, doesn't mean they should be shouted down or blocked from access to schools...if that happens, then those feelings, thoughts and beliefs just grow underground and in the background, and become harder to address as times goes on.
Free speech and debate need to be supported on a public basis as well as by governmental law.
Tolerance works all ways, eh?
If you're not able to talk about such things, then the belief in them doesn't go away..it just goes underground, and festers.....and then they never get exposed to other points of view.
The free exchange of ideas, allows for beliefs to be put forth and discussed, and in such discussion, the better ones stay and the others fade.
They fade NOT because they are shouted down, or not allowed to be expressed, but by thoughtful conversation and making valid points to address the weaknesses of the weaker argument.
I was just watching an interesting video yesterday on Amazon Prime Can We Take A Joke" , and it really puts an interesting light on what's happening on today's campuses.
Its interesting how in the past, saw with Lenny Bruce...that is was the far Right that had him arrested and shut down.
It was the more liberal colleges that pushed the greatest back then, IMHO, for true free speech...even controversial speech.
And now today...PC and such, are closing down speech again, but this time, instead of the right pushing it...it is the left.
I would posit the best way to get bad speech out of the way, it to allow it to be spoken, and don't shout it down, but speak against it and debate it.
Surely the best side will win on merit?
Why would anyone want to get into medicine, with all the headaches it involves...if they didn't stand to make a buck....in fact, a few of them considering all the insurance/litigation that comes with it, and if a Dr...all the years of study coupled with huge student debt bills to pay off, and shorter working life that most other careers.
You certainly don't go into that career for only altruistic reasons....you don't get the best people that way.
Yep....
I think the reply to them is pretty much, "Duh".....
That's the way it is with overly onerous regulations...it ONLY helps the big guys that can afford to fund a full department dedicated to only the regulation and documentation side of the business.
It is understandable in some respects, due to this being medicine...lives can be affected by errors, but the regulations aren't just targeted at direct patient interaction...but many other things.
It does bring up, however, questions as to how some parts are SO over-regulated, yet direct patient contact items, like heart regulators, insulin and other drug pumps are able to be put out there, without even *basic* encryption, so as to protect patients from being literally hacked, and possibly killed.
Just because there is a LOT of info out there on you, doesn't mean you should go out of your way to help make it easier to gain even MORE data on you.
Hell, whenever I can, online or in meatspace, I try to give out disinformation about myself. When setting up accounts I give very erroneous "personal" info. And I don't give my SS number to anyone unless it is related to SS income. No, I don't give it to my Dr. or other office visits. Hey don't have any need for it.
Occasionally I get a weird look when I refuse, but I explain how many times in the past I'd had my identity stolen and they generally understand.
Well, they gotta do something, obamacare is failing under its own weight, and many voted to get rid of the damned thing, this is him trying to keep election promises.
Hmm...he was wanting to restrict travel from a small subset of countries with heavy terrorist activity, that was largely the same list the Obama administration restricted for awhile when he was in office?
Again, seems more common sense than acrimony or racism....it does happen these areas are largely muslim, but hey...if we have an upturn in terrorist Buddhists or Presbyterian activity, I expect to enact similar restrictions.
Well, a lot of people didn't like many of the things Obama did, and hence voted for someone to reign them in vs continue another 4 years of the same policies. Again...keeping election promises...
OH just great..then it *would* have made it binding....no thanks.
Seriously....?
Even this gets the racial card thrown out on it? Sheesh...
For me, a large part of it was the language that had the US pumping out about $3B annually to other countries with no strings attached, for them to "clean up" their act. Even if it had no binding obligations to the agreement....I'm willing to be the MONEY part would have been observed, and I'm tired of sending our tax dollars out when they could be put to much better use here at home.
Hell, everyone says the agreement wasn't binding in any fashion....so, WTF difference does it make if the US is in or out of it officially?
Also..shouldn't congress have voted on this anyway?
All the talking heads, like Kerry...saying "well this wasn't binding anyway".
If this was the case, they what difference does it make if we're in it or out of it?
I wouldn't mind going back into it, IF it was non-binding, AND we leave out the part about the US funding up around $3B a year to other countries for them to "clean up"...but that being money with no strings attached to it.
I'm tired of the US sending money we could use at home to the rest of the planet.
But back to original point...if it wasn't binding, then what real difference does it make?
Well, it isn't just NOLA proper....but the whole area here hear the gulf.
If your wish comes true, say goodbye to about 1/3 of the US's supply of seafood....and if the oil spigot gets turned off here (all those oil rigs in the gulf and the processing plants inland associated with them), well, you'll get your energy change *VERY* quickly as that prices will shoot through the roof, long before your alternative sources are ready.
And sad....why is NOLA any less important that any other US city'? Should we abandon wide swaths of land in CA since it is so prone to forest fires? Are we to abandon NYC....that last hurricane was nothing, NYC has been a long time out from predicted city killer hurricane scenarios, just like New Orleans has hanging over its head. Another one is likely just around the corner.
Every city has its natural disaster sword of Damocles hanging above it. Not to mention, that NOLA the city itself is older that the US, and a lot of culture the US has came from this area....so, history alone is worth preserving a bit of, no?
Err...what passport?
You don't need a passport unless you are planning on leaving the country. I don't have one and don't foresee the need for one anytime in the near future either.
Hell, with all the terrorist hits in Europe and other places around the globe, and all the drug slaughter in Mexico these days, I have positively no inclination to leave the US any time soon....there's plenty of stuff to see here and with such a wide geographic variety to choose from, I'll never see it all before I die...so, why would I ever need a passport?
I would posit that the vast majority of Americans do not have a passport.
Well, I'd think any smart political party, would conduct a Data Analytical operation review each year, to learn from previous year, as that things are in constant change.
And it wasn't just the DNC that predicted her easy EC win...look at most all of the talking heads on TV, and most all polling companies....they had it wrong too.
What they didn't see and didn't take into account, were the folks that had been somewhat silent in past election years, those that aren't out shouting loudly about this social justice or this inequality....but lower-middle and lower income workers, that have seen and continue to see their jobs and way of life being ripped away from them. Yes, they may often be heterosexual caucasian too (hey, not that there's anything wrong with that)....and they see all the whoopla about every other minority, or possible category of sexual preference being elevated constantly in the discussions, and they were basically tired of being not only ignored, but in many ways persecuted for being what would previously been termed as "normal white American working families".
I also think that the liberal hive mind that is centered primarily in the northeast and far west of the country, somehow assumed that pretty much everyone in the US saw the country and path to the future exactly as they did, with little if any meaningful numbers of people disagreeing with them. I think this may also be due, somewhat, to what we see with the progressive side constantly shouting down more conservative speech....and this has been going on in a more subtle manner on the national news scene for decades now, so that you never really saw much conservative speech or opposing conservative thoughts on mainstream media, and hence...when you don't see it, you assume it isn't there at all.
I think many of these general thoughts were large contributing factors for many of the polling elite missing a hidden undercurrent of scorn for the more liberal progressive agenda being pushed.
And also...perhaps no one wanted to admit, that Hillary is just NOT a likable person, much less a charismatic candidate. Many assumed her coronation would be just that...that it was manifest destiny for her to be president.
This also kinda blinded them that not everyone thought that way.
That and I don't want to pay any "world taxes" either, I"m playing plenty enough for the US fed/state/local as it is.
Her husband, was one of the best politicians ever....for some reason she cannot fathom that she is the polar opposite of that.
I grew up in AR with her as first lady of the state, and she was just as dislikeable (sp?) then as now. This is nothing new for her.
But I guess...ego won't allow for true self exploration, and she's having to try to blame everything and everyone external to herself to get through this.....
She can't deal with the fact that she is not a beloved person like her husband was (to a very broad swatch of the US), and even to an extent Obama was to her party.
After this loss, she should really fade away and allow the youth of the Democratic party to start coming up through the ranks to help try to get themselves back on target.
I'm not a Democrat, but even I can see that she and many in power are holding them back at this point, and that getting someone that *is* likable, charismatic, younger and can connect with the millennials out there would make them a very formidable party.
Hell, I really fear that as that they might really make successful pushes to get pretty far left progressive legislation through....so, I make these thoughts at my own detriment as that I don't agree with the extreme progressive agenda, but if that's what you want, then you most likely need Hillary to get off the damned public stage and bring in "new talent".
And THAT is when we *DO* start protecting our borders....
Frankly, I think it would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, if we helped train our snipers to watch for anyone trying to illegally cross out border, and um...."discourage" such actions.