StrangeSox

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) I think Zimmerman is walking. The prosecution has no case and they are looking like complete and utter fools. Now I know why people enjoy fiction so much like Law and Order. I haven't heard much aside from the knock-knock joke thing, but someone elsewhere just posted this: lol.

But deface a bank's property with sidewalk chalk and you can face over a decade in prison!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 01:53 PM) she couldn't read something she claimed to have written herself. I can't read my own handwriting sometimes. I'm writing some reports right now using field notes I took. I'm glad I have pictures to reference to know wtf I wrote in a few spots.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 02:26 PM) That's some of the most painful, tedious cross examination I've ever seen. I would have punched that defense lawyer in the f***ing face and you could tell she wants to. He's just doing his job, of course, but damn was that whole ordeal annoying. This is why I'm not going into law. "That's real retarded, sir." QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 02:40 PM) Anywhere we can see a video of it? http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/star_witne...n_martin_trial/

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 01:45 PM) Don't have access to the sound right now, but is this the "knock knock" joke I've heard about? yes QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 01:47 PM) Yeah. That is odd. Unless he was trying to make a point that they should be wary of bringing in outside information into their deliberations. But that was a weird way of getting to that point. if you have to plead with the jury for 45 seconds not to take your joke the wrong way and to hold it against your client...well, maybe you should rethink your strategy... it wasn't like it was some egregious or offensive joke, it was just really bizarre.

why on earth would the defense counsel think this was a good idea?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 11:22 AM) In the books i've read on Lincoln, i've never read that he believed that blacks were not equal with whites. He had a very realistic opinion that slaves were not going to be accepted into society and it was going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for them to fully integrate. And yes, he changed his mind on if slavery should be allowed in the south in order to preserve the union but that was because he knew that it would eventually die out. It was much more a "should we intervene in this issue or let it die out naturally" argument, not whether it was acceptable or not. As a teenager and young lawyer he wrote about how he believed slavery was awful. I'll check the book out and see what it says. He adamantly denounced the claims that he was a "n***** lover" or someone who pushed for legal and social negro equality. Whether it was his true feelings or political expediency, he's no different. People can debate bills and very strongly believe in something and, over the course of 17 years, change their mind. How do we know that it wasn't a political calculation to stay in office and keep upholding principles they valued even more than gay rights? That's hardly a stretch for the 90's (and even early-mid 2000's) political climate. That doesn't justify their votes or their willingness to trample over gay rights. This will always be a negative part of their and Clinton's legacies. But I'm still about ten-thousand times more outraged by the gutting of the VRA and by the conservative politicians who are standing by the principles of discriminating against LGBT people.

Up to 13 years for drawings in water-soluble chalk. Zero years for destroying the world economy, rigging international interest rates, massive foreclosure fraud, drug money laundering and who knows how many other crimes. It doesn't matter if it was BoA's property or not. That's not anything close to justice.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 11:09 AM) Most of these guys actually quoted probably didn't change their views from 1996 to now. But plenty of Americans did*. Numbers alone suggest some of those people who changed their minds are also politicians. Whether or not they're the same politicians who voted for DOMA is irrelevant, considering the broad brush you're painting all politicians with -- which is precisely why choosing this political issue is puzzling. *No, I don't have any data to support this. But there's enough anecdotal evidence that I'm comfortable saying it. Millions of Americans have changed their mind since 2003. For comparison, it took until the mid-90's before interracial marriages gained majority acceptance.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 11:06 AM) But he didn't genuinely change his mind that slavery was awful and blacks were not subhuman. He changed his opinion on how strongly he should advocate for the abolishment of slavery. That's entirely different that this issue where guys voted yes for something and now claim it was so awful to do so. He genuinely changed his mind on the idea that blacks were not equal to whites and could never live as free equals among them. He changed his mind on whether slavery should be confined to the south or abolished. He changed his mind on whether the federal government had any power to do anything about it in the first place. And he was hypocritical, overstating his devotion to abolition in previous years in later speeches. Seriously, go read that book, I think you'd really enjoy it. See I just can't really give a s*** about that when the first words out of conservative politicians' mouths were "now we're going to take it to the states!" and we had the shelby county atrocity the day before. People can and do change their minds. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. 17 years is a very long time for someone to change their mind. People did it in the 60's with civil rights and they're doing it now with LGBT equality. Millions of Americans can and did vote for ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments to oppress the LGBT community at one point but now wouldn't.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 11:02 AM) And for people planning just remember, the more complex plans get, the more chances of something going wrong. We went to a family friends' daughter's wedding last year. She had been posting about her wedding nonstop on facebook for about a year. For the entire wedding, she looked absolutely miserable and on the verge of tears because not everything was 100% perfect. I don't know why people stress themselves out so much.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 10:55 AM) And that explanation would still be bulls*** to me. You guys are smart, I can't believe you buy that crap. This issue isn't about a change in science or a change in understanding. They voted to keep homosexuals from being recognized as married under Federal law with the full knowledge of all of the arguments for and against. And now they're praising the SC decision as if they had no part in it. It's disgusting, and yes, there are a million other similar example of why politicians are awful human beings. This is just the latest example. Rob Portman used to be against gay marriage. Then he had a life experience that fundamentally changed his mind. Not everyone requires a close family member to come out to have their minds changed. I don't know why you think this is such an impossible task. And, again, that their statements on DOMA going down is what caused you to get outraged without saying a word about how outrageous DOMA and the continued conservative efforts against equality actually are says a lot.

Lincoln changed his mind on the issues of slavery and racial equality substantially over the course of his life. Certainly over the last four years, let alone the last 17. It was meant as an obvious example of people genuinely changing their minds. Jenks, what you're saying simply isn't supported by reality. Tens of millions of Americans have changed their mind on gay rights since the 90's. Why do you find it impossible to believe that one of the politicians also did so?

California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk Bankers who wrecked the world economy and have caused tens of millions to suffer for their own personal profit still face 0 years in jail.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 10:18 AM) They should have phrased it along the lines of "I have seen why I was wrong to enact DOMA in the first place" etc etc but I don't think it's as bad as you want it to be. Or rather, there are likely way better examples of dems and the GOP completely reversing course on something. Yeah, that's really the part that made me If you want to make a point about politicians sometimes voting for strategic political reasons instead of on their own personal principles*, why choose this topic to do it unless you yourself embrace the bigotry behind DOMA? There's plenty of other examples someone could choose. I don't doubt that, if marriage equality was a principle for these guys in 1996, it was a weak one and certainly fell far below many other principles. If voting against DOMA means you lose your seat in the next election and are replaced by someone who is against all of your principles, is that worth standing up for that one? I don't really have a good answer for that one. *is it bad in a democracy if a politician votes the way he anticipates his constituents want him to vote?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 10:05 AM) I mean come on guys, look at the quotes these guys are putting out there. "The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd." "By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union." The first one can be evidence of 1) a biased memory 2) not choosing to fight the marriage equality political battle in 1996 despite not agreeing with DOMA 3) silly pandering. W/e, I don't see anything here worthy of a post declaring these people "awful, awful human beings" while not making mention of Scalia's ridiculous dissent or the ongoing efforts by many conservatives to discriminate against LGBT. The second one is an accurate statement of fact. That could reflect not wanting to die on that political hill in 1996 or a genuine change of opinion. 17 years is a long time. A lot of life experiences and interactions can happen. Millions of Americans have made a similar shift in much less time than 17 years. Do you think you'll hold the same beliefs in 2030 that you do today? Will you be an awful, disgusting, unprincipled person for changing your mind on an important issue?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 09:59 AM) Yeah, it's pretty f***ed up that people would vote for something and then years later pretend like the biggest injustice in the world being overturned is amazing. GMAFB. You voted for it, own up to it. Stop pretending like you didn't. Sorry, I don't buy this bulls*** change of heart crap that you readily accept from your party reps, including the President. If you wanted to protect "marriage" 17 years ago, you should want to protect it now. But you and I both know that personal opinions/principles were set aside at both ends of this issue by these politicians. Either they were against it in the beginning and still voted for it to get votes, or they were truly for it and now are pretending like it was terrible to keep their voters happy. I've no doubt that, for some of them, it was a strategic political choice. DOMA was always horrible and bigoted, but that wasn't the hill to die on politically in 1996. Hell, in 2004 anti-gay measures helped give conservatives electoral victories. Others I don't doubt have genuinely shifted their position since 1996. The country as a whole has shifted their opinion pretty dramatically in just the last 10 years. It's not that I'm lovingly embracing Reid or Schumer here. It's that, if you're going to talk about politicians being "awful, awful people" who are disgusting and can't stand on principle, well, maybe you should choose a better framing than people who no longer support explicitly bigoted policy that infringed on equal rights. There's nothing principled about sticking to bad, dumb, harmful and hateful ideas in light of new evidence, experiences and thinking. The disgusting, awful people are the ones who kept defending DOMA and who are going to keep pushing for state-level discrimination. Do you still hold every idea you believed in 17 years ago? What is wrong with genuinely changing your mind on something, as millions of Americans have done on gay marriage and did on gender and racial equality in previous decades? And did on slavery a few generations ago? From reading a lengthy book on the subject of Lincoln's views on slavery and racial equality. Historian Eric Forner's The Fiery Trial is excellent. His speech about 'preserving the union without ending slavery' is better read as a primer to the forthcoming emancipation proclamation, an indication that, at that point, it simply wasn't possible to preserve the union without abolishing slavery forever. Regardless, however, his views over the years changed substantially. He was just as much of a 'flip-flopper' and dragged his ass for years before coming to support the 13th and dropping his colonization fantasy (which was rooted in a belief that blacks and whites simply couldn't live together as equals). He never came to embrace the ideas embodied in the 14th and 15th, though I think it's a fair assumption that he would have as Reconstruction went on. He certainly would have been a hell of a lot better than his replacement, though he was still going to go far too soft on the traitors.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) That's no good. You really do have to interview them like any other job hiring. You have to make sure they understand very clearly what you want. Like I said earlier, it is your day. Everyone else needs to be on board with that, especially a planner. When done right they really lighten your load. When done wrong, they turn into another whinny bridesmaid essentially. Actually I should clarify a bit. Our big reception was back here, but we got married down in Puerto Rico with a handful of close family and friends. We did have a wedding planner through the hotel down there and she was great. A big part of not really needing a planner back home was that we weren't doing anything fancy and really didn't want anything more than for everyone to have a good time. Nobody was obsessed with making everything 'perfect' and it turned out great.

Seriously, your example of politicians being awful, awful human beings is that some people who voted for DOMA in 1996 are now glad that it is dead in 2013? Lincoln opposed negro equality and supported colonization plans for freed slaves well into his Presidency. Then, after truly coming to terms with the horrors of slavery, he came much closer to the Radicals' ideals of racial equality legally and socially. What an awful, disgusting person, refusing to stand on principles!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 09:29 AM) They really do play a nice role in the fact that they know everything you don't. Ours were a big help. Ours was forced on us as a family friend and was generally terrible and useless. My wife, her parents and I independently arranged for the large tent, port-a-potties, catering, cake (another family friend but she's good at it), DJ, and flower arrangements. Really the only thing she did was the tables and chairs, which she screwed up.

Conservative legal scholar and judge Posner did not have kind things to say about the brand-new Constitutional principles found in Shelby. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol...law_is_all.html Maybe not Dredd Scott bad, but an overall completely terrible legal opinion with even worse real-world consequences.

http://crookedtimber.org/2013/06/26/it-was...hem/#more-29674 Roberts' opinion in Shelby makes an incredibly strong case for the idea of a "living Constitution"

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 12:47 AM) Dems in Texas sucessfully delay to end of session that was to end at 12 AM to stop anti-abortion bill from passing. Many reports coming out, though, that they held the vote after midnight. They are asking legislators to their faces whether they voted or it passed and nobody seems to know. Dustin Parkes ‏@dustinparkes 12m Sorry Miami Heat. After the buzzer sounded, San Antonio made ten straight buckets and are now NBA champs. #TexasRules http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/21/man-...ffice-in-texas/

Kevin Drum makes a very important point on the Shelby ruling Today, the Supreme Court decided Shelby County vs. Holder, an attack on the "preclearance" requirement of the Voting Rights Act. In 2006, Congress renewed the Act for 25 years, and after considering voluminous evidence decided not to make changes to the formula for deciding which states require preclearance for changes to their voting regulations and which ones don't. Nonetheless, the court overturned the law: Note the difference. In Crawford, where the target is a law that's likely to disenfranchise black voters, the bar for constitutionality is almost absurdly low. Regardless of what the real motives of the lawmakers are, or what the likely effect of the law is, it's valid if the state merely asserts a "neutral justification." That's it. But in Shelby County, where the target is a law designed to protect black voters, the bar for constitutionality is suddenly much higher. Even though the Fifteenth Amendment gives Congress the unconditional right to enact legislation designed to prevent states from abridging the right to vote "on account of race [or] color," the court ruled that, in fact, Congress is quite fettered after all. It cannot decide to simply renew a law that it thinks is working well. Instead, it's required by the court to update its formulas to satisfy the court's notions of what's logical and what isn't. So here's your nickel summary. If a law is passed on a party-line vote, has no justification in the historical record, and is highly likely to harm black voting, that's OK as long as the legislature in question can whomp up some kind of neutral-sounding justification. Judicial restraint is the order of the day. But if a law is passed by unanimous vote, is based on a power given to Congress with no strings attached, and is likely to protect black voting, that's prohibited unless the Supreme Court can be persuaded that Congress's approach is one they approve of. Judicial restraint is out the window. Welcome to the 21st century.

re: shelby http://www.salon.com/2013/06/26/this_supre..._is_a_disgrace/