StrangeSox

Here's an article from 2008: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8022702635.html

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 04:44 PM) In all honesty, it makes me wonder why they waited to do these things...it's not like repealing these subsidies is a new idea...so why didn't they do it when they had huge majorities in both houses of Congress? Why'd they wait? I know this is the conspiracy theorist in me talking, but this is the exact type of behavior that makes me believe they don't actually want to pass these bills, but they want to put on a show to make us think they do. Because it still took 60 votes and there was a decent number of blue-dog conservative Democrats.

I don't care what it was meant to solve other than to stop giving companies making record profits tax subsidies. But the point was that the bill failed 51 YES - 47 NO.

The Senate failed to repeal oil subsidies 51-47. I love our broken Senate.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:45 PM) Yes, but shots like that can be very deceptive...that just happened to be a really good day to have been taking pictures. I was just looking at the overhead map of the complex to get an idea of the terrain and the google street view of the entrances.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) Right, and I don't understand what he's talking about with Kennedy's assumption...one has to do with state powers, one does not. It has to do with whether or not a mandate suddenly changes a citizen's relationship to his or her government. When the state exercised this novel power (the state had not acted this way before, much as the federal government hadn't), did the relationship change with its citizens? It does not appear so, but this is simply something to weight against Kennedy's concerns. It was not a declaration that "no, it wouldn't change" and wasn't a complete dismissal of the idea. In fact, in the very next sentence, he beings to address Kennedy's concern from a different angle. Anyway, it's a minor part of a fairly lengthy article and not central to his arguments.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) That doesn't help, whatsoever. It doesn't recreate the scene at the time in any regard. It was darker, it was raining, etc. I was curious and thought others might be as well. That's not the mental image I had in my mind.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) The state and federal governments don't have the same powers in any regard...so the comparison is invalid to begin with. It wasn't an argument for the legitimacy of the powers. It was to address Kennedy's assumption.

The passage doesn't indicate any confusion over that issue. It's meant to address Kennedy's question, not to make a legal argument in favor of Constitutionality. His contention is that the relationship to that state government wasn't fundamentally changed, so it isn't necessarily appropriate to assume that the relationship to the federal government would change, either.

Here's the ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf I don't like that anyone processed into the jail is strip-searched without reasonable suspicion.

1111 Retreat View Cir, Sanford, Seminole, Florida 32771 http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rlz=...ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg Long Oak Way and Twin Trees Lane listed as nearest intersection at start of call.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) And note that just because they CAN strip search someone, does not mean they will...my brother has hundreds upon hundreds of arrests and zero strip searches to speak of...despite having the right to perform them on every arrest. You don't see a very serious potential for abuse here?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Even for a simple arrest they have to search you for the reason(s) I laid out in my previous post...that said, they won't strip search 99.99999% of their arrests unless they have a very specific reason to do so. But they can strip search you for any offense and for no reason at all. I find that appalling.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) In fairness I live on a dead end street, so it's a little different than most blocks. But still, there are a ton of kids on my block that play outside and my 1st is about to be one of them in the coming years. I don't think it's all that unreasonable to want to know what happens in your neighborhood. It's not unreasonable to want to know what happens in your neighborhood. On the other hand, it is unreasonable for someone in my neighborhood (it's large and I wouldn't know many people on streets I don't frequently travel) to approach me and demand information or to call the police simply because they don't recognize me.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) The last 6 weeks there was a string of burglaries in my neighborhood (Clearing, IL...not far from Midway), two "dark skinned" males were said to be robbing houses and using a non descriptive "green van" to get away. No make, no model...just a green van. Rumor around my "hood" was that they'd first case the street they were looking to hit, separately, on foot before returning on a weekday when people were at work and hit a house when they knew nobody was home. A few weeks ago I saw a dark skinned Latino walking down my street...and I know, I'm a f***ing racist...but I grew suspicious as to why! OMG, I know...how low and racist of me to profile like that. After he walked past my house, I walked out there and watched him walking about, seemingly aimlessly...and I asked him what he was looking for. So he turned around and it turns out he was looking for a specific address, because his family lived there...who shortly after spotted him and came out to greet him and me... You know what would have made me REALLY suspicious? If he suddenly put his hood up when I asked that question and started walking faster, you know...to get away from me. AGAIN, as a final disclaimer. I'm NOT defending what Zimmerman did. I'm simply trying to tell you how and/or why Zimmerman had the right to be suspicious, DESPITE your claim he had no reason to be. Yes, he did. Just like I did. I would have simply called the police (and went to get my brother who lives across the street, who is the police), rather than arming myself and chasing him down...but I'm not Zimmerman, and I don't live in a place that let's me carry. I'll back up a bit and modify what I was saying since I almost added that exact scenario to an earlier post. I don't see anything wrong with what you did there. But you did not take the same actions Zimmerman did. You didn't follow this man from a distance around the neighborhood for several minutes. The two scenarios, "hey buddy, you look lost, can I help you out?" and following the guy around are very different. You'd have reason to be suspicious of a couple of black guys driving a green van based on crimes that recently occurred in your neighborhood and a description of the suspects. You wouldn't be reasonable to be suspicious of any black person walking down the street.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) TOTALLY depends on the neighborhood, which is why I find it hilarious that you're supplanting your own assumptions onto what Zimmerman was doing/thinking at the time. When I lived in the city, sure, I wouldn't think twice about it. I live in the burbs now where it's rare to see any random person walk down the street. And I know everyone on my block. So if I saw someone I didn't know walking down my street, I'd sure as hell wonder what the deal was and I'd be watching him/her, regardless of color or dress. If my neighborhood had an increase in crime, including a shooting, I'd do more than just watch. I'd do exactly what Zimmerman did, especially if the cops weren't patrolling the area as frequently as I would like them to. You sound paranoid. I also live in the suburbs.

Here's a pretty good article making a case for a minimalist way to uphold ACA: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/04/bounded...uphold-aca.html

Getting arrested happens to law-abiding citizens every day, yes. But it's cool you're on board with strip-searches for any offense, no matter how minor.

I wouldn't be suspicious of someone walking down the street in front of my house. People do it all day, every day. I've never stopped anyone to question why they were in the neighborhood. Zimmerman never approached or questioned Martin until the final altercation, though. He followed him around the neighborhood for several minutes, which, from Martin's point of view, is reasonably suspicious behavior. I know I'd be looking for alternative escape routes if someone was following me around.

Any person arrested for any reason can be strip-searched. But universal health care is destroying the last shred of freedom.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 11:05 AM) God forbid I try to remain neutral and see it through Zimmerman's eyes instead of just assuming that he's a dirty, gun-toting racist looking to kill a black kid! Do gated communities have "public" sidewalks? Zimmerman is not responsible for nor has knowledge of every individual within the community and those who may legitimately be there as guests regardless of whether the community is otherwise open to the public. There was no reason to suspect Trayvon Martin of having done anything wrong. His actions were not reasonable.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) The guy lives in a gated community and has taken over the neighborhood watch program. If anything seemed out of the ordinary, he would know it, and that's what raised his suspicions. Whether or not those were prejudicial or flat out racist is irrelevant. He has every right to see what was going on in his neighborhood and to watch what people are doing if he feels it is out of the ordinary. Merely following someone isn't instigating conflict. Nor is it, as Balta apparently believes, the first step towards inevitable murder. You're simply deferring to Zimmerman's judgement, which is assuming your conclusions that he acted reasonably. I do not see anything reasonable about stopping the teen to question him in the first place to be honest, let alone following him through the neighborhood with a loaded firearm. It's not really Zimmerman's business who's walking around the public sidewalks in the neighborhood.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) why does the gun have anything to do with this? is there evidence that Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed? We're discussing Zimmerman's actions here. Is it reasonable to chase a teen through your neighborhood with a loaded weapon simply because he "doesn't belong" in the area as far as you are aware?

How is it reasonable to chase a teen around the neighborhood with a loaded weapon when you have no knowledge of a crime being committed and no reason to suspect the teen?