Re: Every time we see racism it's the same kind of people and they hide in the Democrat party.

[Scout]

<retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dd3l98t6ackd77n12...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:53 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>My state screwed my kids out of their
>>>>education for which I paid for over ten years.....
>>>
>>>
>>>For the record, my kid had poor teachers and we had issues over the
>>>years with what and how they were being taught. But we sat with him
>>>and helped him with homework, talked to his teachers, talked to their
>>>supervisors, requested changes of teachers, and changes of principals
>>>and schools. We shepherded his education and got them what they
>>>needed.
>>>
>>>It's called parenting and taking responsibility.
>>
>>How does that make a shitty school system tolerable?
>
>
> I'd say the question is what do you want more, to help your kids get
> prepared or to bitch and whine.

So are you suggesting that ignoring the issue as long as his kids are taken
care of is the proper solution?

Seems to me that fixing the problem should be the long term solution and if
that takes bitching and whining to accomplish.....

[Scout]

<retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o96l98hb6rmbfficd...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:34:16 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> The question is "is there an injustice to correct". Simple enough.
>>
>>Excuse me, but how does engaging in additional injustice correct an
>>injustice?
>
>
> I won't waste time with ideologues and their circle jerks. Sorry.

IOW, you can't explain why we should engage in racism in order to
'compensate' for other racism.

I'm glad to see, at least, you realize that what you propose is a circle
jerk which doesn't solve the issue of racism...it only alters who is being
discriminated against.

So once again. Let me ask you the original question.

If a government program was enacted that favored whites over blacks...would
that be racist?

We've found that "is there an injustice to correct" isn't a proper answer,
so care to try again?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/7/2012 11:13 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 02:00:03 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> Obama killed/abandoned his Ambassador in Libya and the Democrats
>> re-elected(stole the office) for Obama....
>>
>>
>> It's like that Socialist Manuel Noriega in Venezuela, or Castro - they
>> can get rid of them either.
>
> Move.
I did.....


Now I'm looking outside U.S. bordersfor a free economy for my work and
wealth creation to live in.



Somewhere with fewer parasites.


--
*Welcome to Socialism*


-Kum bay ya-

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:7t-dnS9QOLSKOwTN...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:14qdnSiSZoKsWwXN...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> news:yPidnSr-pvr0igrN...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/4/12 12:53 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote in news:5095BD0...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible to be tried twice for the same crime, once by
>>>>>>>>>>> the feds and once by a state. It's not routine, and twice
>>>>>>>>>>> is the limit. Please support your contention with evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ["....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Amendment V
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
>>>>>>>>>> Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
>>>>>>>>>> forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
>>>>>>>>>> War or public danger;
>>>>>>>>>> *nor shall any person be subject* for the *same offence* to
>>>>>>>>>> be *twice* put in *jeopardy* *of life or limb* ; nor shall be
>>>>>>>>>> compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
>>>>>>>>>> himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
>>>>>>>>>> without due process of law; nor shall private property be
>>>>>>>>>> taken for public use, without just compensation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can cite the Constitution but you don't seem to understand
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cited it because you ignore it. What if the crime is murder,
>>>>>> you can't be tried for murdering the same person twice since you
>>>>>> can only kill them once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But You want to let the Feds prosecute and then let the State
>>>>>> also prosecute for the same murder.... but wasn't it you telling
>>>>>> us that Federal law always trumps State laws? You know "The
>>>>>> Supremacy clause"? So that would mean once the Feds take the
>>>>>> case on "then the State charging that person with murder is
>>>>>> violating the supremacy clause" like the Arizona law interfered
>>>>>> with Federal immigration law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are going to claim "The Supremacy Clause" to end
>>>>>> conflicting State and Federal laws then you have to use it
>>>>>> everywhere the Feds have Jurisdiction. Any time the Feds enter
>>>>>> the case then the State can NOT bring that person up on the same
>>>>>> charges as the Feds, just like immigration.... You can't break a
>>>>>> state and a federal law according to Liberals and their
>>>>>> "interpretation" of the Supremacy Clause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now if you want to drop the Liberal's own interpretation......
>>>>>
>>>>> Its a good thing OJ didn't kill a sailor or a postman along with
>>>>> his Ex and Ron Goldman, or he would have been tried three times,
>>>>> for the same crime.....
>>>>
>>>> He wasn't tried twice for the same crime. He was charged with
>>>> different offenses in the same incident. He was tried criminally
>>>> by the state for the murder of his wife, Nicole and Ron Goldman.
>>>> He was adjudicated not guilty. He was then charged **civilly** by
>>>> the Goldman family for actions resulting in the wrongful death of
>>>> their son, Ron.
>>>>
>>>> The charge of murder, brought by the State of California since it
>>>> is felony murder is a state crime, is a criminal charge which can
>>>> result in the death penalty or imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>> The charge of actions resulting in a wrongful death is a **civil**
>>>> charge, since it is a compensatory claim not a crime, which can and
>>>> did end in a financial settlement.
>>>>
>>>> Criminal charges usually result in the possibility of death or
>>>> imprisonment and civil charges are for financial compensation.
>>>>
>>>> Even the jury vote is different. In a criminal trial, a unanimous
>>>> verdict is required or you have a hung jury, in a civil trail, it
>>>> is preponderence of the evidence and a majority vote from the jury.
>>>>
>>>> Two different offenses, two different venues, in OJ's case, two
>>>> different results.
>>>
>>> The problem is, If he was not guilty in the first trial, then how
>>> can he be responsible for damages in the second. This is not
>>> logical.
>>
>> It most certainly is. He was found not guilty. He was NOT found
>> innocent. This means that the procecution failed in its job to prove
>> guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not that OJ did not commit the
>> crimes.
>>
>>> Logically, they should not be able to try him in cival court for
>>> responsibility unless he was found guilty in the criminal court
>>> before the fact. This is what I find so objectionable.
>>
>>
>> Why? Are you saying that because Ms. Clark screwed up and couldn't
>> obtain a conviction that OJ couldn't be sued in civil court?
>>
>> A just of his peers,
>>> after hearing all the evidence against him,voted UNANIMOUSLY against
>>> his guilt in the first trial. So give me the logic behind finding
>>> him responsible for their deaths in any subsequent trial.
>>
>> Part of the reason OJ got a "not guilty" verdict was rancor on the
>> jury against the LAPD for its treatment of blacks in general. That
>> included Fuhrman lying about his use of the term "nigger", one of the
>> detectives keeping blood samples in his coat pocket overnight instead
>> of taking it to the lab, and OJ's fame as a sports hero.
>>
>> Logically, I
>>> call this double jepordy.
>>
>> Logically, I call this a failure on the part of the LA county
>> prosecutor's office. The evidence was there but mishandled and some
>> possible signs of tampering.
>
> All of the above may well be true, and oersonally I believe he was as
> guilty as hell, but that isnlt my point. We have nothing to go on but
> our trial process, and it, for whatever reason, found OJ not guilty of
> the crime.

Yes, he was found not guilty. He was NOT found innocent. Goldman's
parents felt OJ had culpability in the wrongful death of their son so
they sued him for that. A civil jury agreed.

So, he can't logically be held responsible for any
> consepuences of that crime,

Yes, he can. He cannot be held responsible twice for the crime itself.
He wasn't.

but he was in a subsequent courtroom
> action.

Yes, different venue all together. The criminal trial had to a unanimous
verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to get that
and that was their only bite at the apple. They cannot try him again for
the **murder** of Ron Goldman or Nicole Simpson. The Goldman family sued
OJ for compensation in the wrongful death of their son. They won. They
didn't sue him for murder.....that is a criminal trial held by the state.
They sued him in civil court for monetary compensation.

I will have to call that double jepardy by definition of the
> term as I know it to be.

You can call it an elephant if you wish. You would still be wrong.

If the legal types give it a different
> definition, well, I can't help that.
>
>



--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:VZudnZtcqb21OgTN...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>> news:b6KdnY3OO78gVAXN...@giganews.com:

>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>> news:cZGdnUXLb_UsmQrN...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:ZLidnUbCXr5GLAjN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/3/12 6:48 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have, obviously, more than you have. Have you figured out
>>>>>>>>> the amendment process yet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liberals don't have to ame3nd the constitution. They have a
>>>>>>>> much faster and more efficient way of changing it. They just
>>>>>>>> have their SCOTUS reinterpret English until the way its
>>>>>>>> currently written says whatever they want it to say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See, RDS? I told you that you lost him at "read."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some folks get fixated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, "read" this. When the liberals get the guts to remove the
>>>>> second amendment the way the constitution provided for its
>>>>> removal,
>>>>
>>>> They won't.
>>>>
>>>> then I'll
>>>>> have a little (very little) respect for them.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to have any now. What change do you think will
>>>> happen?
>>>>
>>>> Until them, I will know
>>>>> that their constitutional republic is really just a scam, and its
>>>>> on its way down the toilet.
>>>>
>>>> With no changes?
>>>
>>> Of course there will be changes. The constitution will be chipped
>>> away bit by bit, year after year, until we are living like a bunch
>>> of ants in an ant colony with no freedoms at all. I am certain of
>>> this.
>>
>> Interesting. In 2009, RKBA (the right to keep and bear arms) was
>> recognized by the Court to apply to an individual with no reference
>> to a militia. Prior to that there were many in this country that
>> thought it was a militia right not an individual one. In 2010, the
>> Second Amendment protection of that RKBA was finally incorporated as
>> to apply to the states as well as the federal government.
>>
>>
>> My
>>> job, is not to stop it. That is impossible. but I can slow it down a
>>> little bit, and that's all I am trying to do....
>>
>> First you should learn a little bit about what is truth and what is a
>> figment of your imagination. I felt the same way you do but the
>> courts didn't until 2009 and 2010.
>
> What is really sad is that it took all that time for SCOTUS to decide

No, SCOTUS decided rather quickly. It took all that time for a case like
that to come before the Court. The Court cannot rule on any case that
isn't there. They cannot just grab a part of the Constitution and rule
on it. The right case did not arrive in front of the Court until 2009.
That was US v Heller.

> what Mrs. Hughes could have told them way back in 1945....:^)

Many of us felt that way, but many didn't. And until a case arose where
the Court could rule on it, nothing could be done at the SCOTUS level.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:E-ydnSS1g5WcNwTN...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>> news:h_OdnSA8ovEXVwXN...@giganews.com:

>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

>>>> news:S96dnWbLFZiVlgrN...@giganews.com:

>>>>
>>>>> On 11/4/12 6:16 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>>>>> news:19udnQ7yQ-38OQjN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The justice system will fail like the KKK because when they
>>>>>>>>>> turned to racism no matter what polite euphemism (Affirmative
>>>>>>>>>> Action) they choose to call it, it is an injustice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And we will oppose injustice in the end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You, Deep and Tonne should all get together and decide what
>>>>>>>>> color robes you should wear. Not everything is race based.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not5 everything is race based. But this country has been a
>>>>>>>> racist country all of my life. The very idea that you can give
>>>>>>>> someone something special because of their race, color, or
>>>>>>>> origin without taking that t5hing away from those who should be
>>>>>>>> treated equally ) and had nothing to do with what their
>>>>>>>> grandfathers did) is both mathematically impossible, as well as
>>>>>>>> grossely unfair. And yet my government (especially the
>>>>>>>> liberals) do this every chance they get. I am sick to death of
>>>>>>>> beint robbed of my earnings and restricted because of things my
>>>>>>>> ancestors did that I had no control over. Also, the people who
>>>>>>>> should have gotten these perks are long dead, and their great
>>>>>>>> grandchildren don't deserve anything at all. What gross
>>>>>>>> stupidity! And, it prolongs the hatred, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is one big reason I feel that Affirmative Action should be
>>>>>>> needs based, not racially or ethnically based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. All charity should be needs based. And the ones who are
>>>>>> currently in need should be the ones who currently get the
>>>>>> charity. Not their children, grandchildren and great
>>>>>> grandchildren.
>>>>>
>>>>> Affirmative action is neither charity nor perks.
>>>>
>>>> It's not intended to be. However, if you claim you don't know of
>>>> anyone who "plays" the system, I would consider you to be a lot
>>>> less than truthful.
>>>
>>> Many have played the system, and I have personally known them and
>>> suffered for it. So has my son, who got essentially no education at
>>> all because of affirmative action.
>>
>> Are you claiming that solely due to Affirmative Action, your son got
>> no education?
>>
>> I owned a house, and paid big house
>>> taxes for an education thast failed him miserably as a direct result
>>> of affirmative action.
>>
>> Just how did that education fail him? How did Affirmative Action
>> negate your son's education?
>>
>> It is just one more thing that makes me hate
>>> liberals.....
>>
>> Perhaps, you might find some of that problem by looking inward.
>
> I was s single father. I didn't spend a lot of time at my sonl;s
> school, or with school activities. I assumed that his school was just
> like my school when I was his age. One day, he brought home a class
> picture that was taken by a professional photograqpher hired by the
> school system. There were only two white people i the photo. My son
> and one other kid. The teacher, and all the other kids were black.

And you didn't know this until he was in what grade? Didn't you attend
any PTA meetings or meet with his teachers to check on his progress?
Where did his friends come from?

No,
> on the face of it this shouldn;t mean anything, but we lived in a
> neighborhood where about 90% of the families were white people. So, )I
> asked myself_ where did all those black kids come from. Turns out that
> they were bussed fro East Pwlo Alto on the other side of Hyway 101.

OK. Are you saying that they were all dumped in his class?

I
> went to his school the next day, and all the teachers, the prijncipal,
> 95% mofg the students, the secretaries, janitor and everyone else were
> black. I asked my neighbors where their kidsw went to school. Oh, we
> send him to private schoolm they said, /turns out that I was the only
> one who didn't know what had happened.

That should be a clue.

On talking to mast of the
> teachers in my sons school, I found out that they didn't know squat
> about anything. They were3 the dumbest bunch if idiots I ever saw in
> my life. So, I pulled him out of that school and put him in a local
> Catholic private school, but the damage had already been done.

What grade was he in?

> My mpother never had to go to my school. The school system worked fine
> when I was young. If I didn't show up and be sitting in my home room
> seat by 5 after, my mpm's phone would be ringing off the hook by 10
> after.... Neither of my parents hqad to bother with my school at all.
> I stupidly believed that my son's school would be the same way, and it
> was until AA set in.

No, it was until you ignored what was going on with and around your kid.

[deadrat]

On 11/7/12 11:18 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> On 11/7/2012 11:38 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> How about a government that busses all the black kids fro
>>> their respective schools to the school im my neighborhood, for no other
>>> reason than because they are black?
>>> I only expect the kids in my sons school to be the same colior as the kids
>>> who lived on our block and the surrounding blocke.
>> Separate but equal, huh?
>
> Regional but equal..... Do you force white people to move to Chicago
> to make it equal?
>
> Why then, would you bus children?
>
>
>
>
> Why do you think blacks living in their own community by choice

That's right, Beamy. Black just loves them some ghetto.

> aren't
> equal to whites living in their own community by choice?
> Thanks for the added example of MORE Democrat racism.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[deadrat]

On 11/7/12 11:20 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> On 11/7/2012 11:35 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:53 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> My state screwed my kids out of their
>>>>> education for which I paid for over ten years.....
>>>>
>>>> For the record, my kid had poor teachers and we had issues over the
>>>> years with what and how they were being taught. But we sat with him
>>>> and helped him with homework, talked to his teachers, talked to their
>>>> supervisors, requested changes of teachers, and changes of principals
>>>> and schools. We shepherded his education and got them what they
>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>>> It's called parenting and taking responsibility.
>>> How does that make a shitty school system tolerable?
>>
>> I'd say the question is what do you want more, to help your kids get
>> prepared or to bitch and whine.

> How does a bus ride or a skin color change in a teacher make your kids
> better prepared?
>
Yeah, let's see. How could it possibly help to take a bus ride from an
impoverished neighborhood with underfunded schools to a neighborhood
with working facilities and highly-paid staff?

Just can't see it.

[deadrat]

On 11/7/12 11:24 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 11/7/2012 11:34 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:14 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude

>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:47:07 -0500, "Scout"
>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If a government program was enacted that favored whites over blacks...would
>>>>> that be racist?
>>>>

>>>> It would depend on history and the facts. Under the current history
>>>> no.
>>> Give a hypothetical example of how this would not be racist.
>>
>> If whites were systemically excluded from a profession for a century,
>> it would be permissible to design a system that encourages entry into
>> that profession and rewards employers for hiring them, etc.
> In a Democrat-Socialist run society.
>
>
> Where we have equality and a Constitution it isn't permissible for
> government to be racists.

Yet we put up with for over 80 years. Go figure.

> We can't tell people what they shall think, but we can tell government
> how it treats citizens.

80 years of talking ourselves blue in the face finally worked.

[deadrat]

I think he's suggesting that whining isn't a solution at all.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:4f-dndmWwsPyNgTN...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in

>> news:5099052C...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

>>
>>> On 11/6/2012 3:47 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>>> news:nNydnYV-TpNBlQrN...@giganews.com:

>>>>>
>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>>>> wrote in news:5095BD0...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is possible to be tried twice for the same crime, once by
>>>>>>>>> the feds and once by a state. It's not routine, and twice is
>>>>>>>>> the limit. Please support your contention with evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ["....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amendment V
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
>>>>>>>> infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
>>>>>>>> Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
>>>>>>>> forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
>>>>>>>> War or public danger;
>>>>>>>> *nor shall any person be subject* for the *same offence* to be
>>>>>>>> *twice* put in *jeopardy* *of life or limb* ; nor shall be
>>>>>>>> compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
>>>>>>>> nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
>>>>>>>> process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
>>>>>>>> use, without just compensation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can cite the Constitution but you don't seem to understand

>>>>>>> it. What that amendment is about is double jeopardy and due
>>>>>>> process.
>> If
>>>>>>> you shoot a DEA agent and get charged with the state crime of
>>>>>>> murder and assault against a federal officer, those are two
>>>>>>> different crimes. In that case, being tried for both of them
>>>>>>> doesn't constitute double jeopardy. Double jeopardy would be if
>>>>>>> the state failed in its case of murder against you but after the
>>>>>>> trial new evidence showed up proving you were guilty, you could
>>>>>>> NOT be recharged and tried again for that crime of murder. They
>>>>>>> only get one bite of the apple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Due process is something you were asked to explain but you still
>>>>>>> haven't. Basically, what due process does is to safeguard both
>>>>>>> public and private rights against unfairness. It is a
>>>>>>> fundamental principle of fairness that all legal procedures are
>>>>>>> set by statute and court practice and must be followed for each
>>>>>>> individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will
>>>>>>> result in a court of law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So taking away that coach's retirement funds afgter he was tried
>>>>>> and convicted of child molestation isn't denial of due process?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoa!! For one to end a term of employment and garner a pension,
>>>>> one usually has to conduct oneself in a good moral sense. Do you
>>>>> think he did?
>>>>>
>>>>> And trying
>>>>>> OJ for responsibility in his ex's mkurder after he was found not
>>>>>> guilty of the same crime in the first trial isn't double jepardy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Two points.
>>>>>
>>>>> A determination of "not guilty" does NOT mean he was innocent. It
>>>>> simply means that the prosecution failed to secure a conviction.
>>>>> Innocence has nothing to do with a "not guilty" verdict.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, in the civil trial he was not charged with the crime of
>>>>> murder which he was in the criminal trial. He was charged with
>>>>> actions resulting in the wrongful death of Ron Goldman. IIRC,
>>>>> there was no claim in civil court for the death of Nicole Simpson.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does
>>>>>> that sound logical to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you nderstand the system, yes. One is a criminal trial seeking
>>>>> a death sentence or imprisonment, the other is a civil trial
>>>>> seeking monetary compensation for loss. Two different and
>>>>> distinct items.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I claim both were screwed royally by a
>>>>>> system that was never in the minds of any of our founding
>>>>>> fathers,
>>>>>
>>>>> You were there? You talked with them? The system we have here is
>>>>> based in English law which our founding fathers practiced before
>>>>> they came here.
>>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>>> has been transformed by idiots in the years between 1786 and the
>>>>>> present day. These idiots were not libertarians..........
>>>>>
>>>>> You think libertarians would never sue anyone? That is pure and
>>>>> simple what the second trial of OJ was. It was a simple law suit
>>>>> for monetary compensation for the loss of a life.
>>>>
>>>> I think a true libertarian would not sue anyone for a crime for
>>>> which that person had been tried and found not guilty of in a
>>>> criminal court. (assuming that that libertarian was of good moral
>>>> character) The logic is simple. If you are found not guilty, then
>>>> you are not responsible. If you are not responsible then you
>>>> shouldn't have to pay any damages.
>>>
>>> Unless they tried that person for murder that was "premeditated" and
>>> the jury said NO and they had no option but to find him NOT GUILTY.
>>> Then the prosecutor wouldn't be able to charge them with
>>> manslaughter which it may have actually been. And so your recourse
>>> might be to make them pay for the food and medicine for that family
>>> that relied on the person he killed.
>>
>> Which is essentially what happened in the OJ case. The jury in the
>> criminal trial adjudicated OJ not guilty. The Goldman family then
>> sued OJ for compensation for causing their son, Ron, to die in a
>> wrongful death. They won.
>>
>> The difference was that one was a criminal trial with criminal
>> penalties like death or imprisonment and it requires a unanimous
>> verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The other was a civil trial where
>> the only outcome would be monetary, requires only a majority verdict
>> on a preponderance of the evidence.
>>
>> Bill keeps trying to look at both OJ trials as criminal which they
>> weren't.
>
> Criminal, Schmimal, Cival, squival. Ypou can call thm whatever you
> want. (I'm sure George Orwell could come up with some real good names)
> My point is that he was tried twice for the same crime.

No, he wasn't. He was only tried for the crime of murder once. The term
crime indicates a criminal activity and a trial for which that may result
in a criminal penalty. He was tried **ONCE** for the crime of murder.
He was adjudicated not guilty. He cannot be tried for the murders of
Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman again. He could stand up and tell the
world he murdered both of them and no one can try him for that crime.
That is where double jeopardy applies.

The second trial was a civil proceding where OJ was adjudicated guilty
and has to recompense the Goldmans for the loss of their son.

Here is what the legal term of 'double jeopardy' means.

The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that,
"No person...shall...be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb."

This clause ONLY operates in criminal settings and prevents a second
prosecution, regardless of the outcome of the first trial (acquittal,
conviction, or mistrial) unless there has been an appeal from a
conviction.


And, this old
> student of Mrs. Hughes' fifth grade English class calls that double
> jepardy.....

Because that old student doesn't understand what the term 'double
jeopardy' means or how it is used.

[deadrat]

On 11/7/12 11:43 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o96l98hb6rmbfficd...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:34:16 -0500, "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The question is "is there an injustice to correct". Simple enough.
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but how does engaging in additional injustice correct an
>>> injustice?
>>
>>
>> I won't waste time with ideologues and their circle jerks. Sorry.
>
> IOW, you can't explain why we should engage in racism in order to
> 'compensate' for other racism.

This "compensatory racism" is a figment of your fever dreams. You've
invented a straw man, called it affirmative action, and knocked it down.

Meh.
<snip/>

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:BcqdnTgF6pSrMQTN...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>> news:mtidnfL-lPE-SQXN...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in
>>>> news:8dbe98hlr42ice369...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:35:14 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that the constitution is the primary law of the land.
>>>>>> It should apply to all US Citizebs equally, reguardless of which
>>>>>> state in which they live. the idea that each state can make and
>>>>>> enforce unconstitutional laws on its people is preposterous. If
>>>>>> that makes me a maniac, then so be it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay let's try it in plain English. It says Congress shall make no
>>>>> law. It says nothing about the states. It's about federal power.
>>>>>
>>>>> And as the 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the
>>>>> United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>>>>> States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
>>>>> people."
>>>>>
>>>>> So by the letter of the law States have authority to regulate
>>>>> arms. Now if you want a further understanding you need to read up
>>>>> on the 14th Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> And US v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.
>>>>
>>>>> One really needs to know one's government and laws if one wants to
>>>>> bitch about them and push your own interpretation.
>>>
>>> IMO, the second amendment applies to all citizens, reguardless of
>>> the states in which they reside.
>>
>> It has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v Chicago
>> (2010) that the Second Amendment applies additionally to the state
>> governments.
>>
>> It is a, "power delegated by the
>>> constitution to all the people".
>>
>> The Second Amendment was, and is, a right not a power.
>>
>> and, it says "the right of the people
>>> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
>>
>> Yes, and until 2010, that only legally applied to the federal
>> government.
>>
>>> I see no, "delegation of
>>> powers" about this amendment.
>>
>> Why would you expect to see that?
>>
>>> If SCOTUS saw one, then they were wrong.
>>
>> SCOTUS is the entity that in 2010 told everyone that the Second
>> Amendment also applied to the states. What "delegation of powers" do
>> you think that SCOTUS saw?
>
> I have no idea what SCOTUS sees. If it took them that long to decide
> that the bill of rights refers to all the people in the US,
> reguardless of which state they live in, then that tells me a lot
> about their worth and ability to think logically. - It doesn't
> exist.....

You have absolutely no idea how the government or the court system works.

[deadrat]

Somalia's the place for you. No government taxes, no government
regulations, no government to speak of.

I posted the flights to Mogadishu a while ago. Should I do that again?
I think you'll have a stopover in Khartoum. Is that OK?

Your leaving would be a win-win. You're obviously unhappy here, and as
for the rest of us, you'll be gone.

Let me know if you need that flight schedule.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:jo2dnQTMi9ogMQTN...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>> news:sKmdnY6Nbu6sSwXN...@giganews.com:

>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>> news:xp6dnSpjoY7yoQrN...@giganews.com:

>>>>
>>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:35:14 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe that the constitution is the primary law of the land.
>>>>>>> It should apply to all US Citizebs equally, reguardless of which
>>>>>>> state in which they live. the idea that each state can make and
>>>>>>> enforce unconstitutional laws on its people is preposterous. If
>>>>>>> that makes me a maniac, then so be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay let's try it in plain English. It says Congress shall make
>>>>>> no law. It says nothing about the states. It's about federal
>>>>>> power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as the 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the
>>>>>> United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>>>>>> States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
>>>>>> people."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So by the letter of the law States have authority to regulate
>>>>>> arms. Now if you want a further understanding you need to read up
>>>>>> on the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> One really needs to know one's government and laws if one wants
>>>>>> to bitch about them and push your own interpretation.
>>>>>

>>>>> So, in your opinion, it is perfectly all right for any state (or
>>>>> all states) to make their own laws that are repugnant to the
>>>>> constitution,
>>>>
>>>> Did you even read the information on incorporation of the Bill of
>>>> Rights you were presented with?
>>>>
>>>>> /they can set up their own totalitarian governmentsw and rel3egate
>>>>> all their people into slavery, because the US Constitution only
>>>>> applies to those states that have no laws? They can try anyone as
>>>>> many times as they please, as long as they use courts with
>>>>> different names. They can define "bear" to mean only carried
>>>>> outside ones clothing so nobody can carry a concealed weapon. they
>>>>> can do anything they want because the constitution only applies to
>>>>> some mythical government somewhere that has no state government to
>>>>> override it. Is that what you are trying to say?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> I.m sorry, but I don;t understand what you mean. Does the bill of
>>> rights not apply to all the people?
>>
>> Damn, let's try this again, although I don't think you will
>> understand it this time either. When the 14A was passed, many people
>> thought that it incorporated all of the Bill of Rights to apply to
>> the states. That was even a debate on the Supreme Court about that.
>> Justice Black thought it was a total incorporation, Justice
>> Frankfurter did not. In the discussions on the Court, Frankfurther
>> prevailed. That means that the BoR did not apply to the state on all
>> amendments or clauses. It was handled on a clause by clause basis.
>> This is a list of the rulings that applied each clause of the Bill of
>> Rights as to be incorporated to apply also to the states:
>>
>> First Amendment
>>
>> Freedom of Speech - Gitlow v New York - 268 US 652 (1925), Fiske v
>> Kansas - 274 US 380 (1927)
>>
>> Freedom of press - Near v Minnesota - 283 US 697 (1931)
>>
>> Freedom of Assembly - Dejong v Oregon - 299 US 697 (1937)
>>
>> Free Exercise of Religion - Cantrell v Connecticut - 310 US 296
>> (1940)
>>
>> Ban on Religious Establishment - Everson v Board of Education - 330
>> US 1 (1947)
>>
>> Freedom of Association - NAACP v Alabama - 357 US 449 (1958)
>>
>>
>> Second Amendment
>>
>> Individual Right - District of Columbia v Heller - 478 F. 3d 370
>> (2008)
>>
>> Right to Keep and Bear Arms - McDonald v Chicago - 561 US 3025 (2010)
>>
>>
>> Fourth Amendment
>>
>> Unreasonable Search/Seizure - Wolf v Colorado - 418 US 25 (1949)
>>
>> Exclusionary Rule - Mapp v Ohio - 367 US 643 (1961)
>>
>>
>> Fifth Amendment
>>
>> Just Compensation - Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad, Co. v
>> Chicago - 166 US 226 (1897)
>>
>> Self Incrimination - Malloy v Hogan - 378 US 1 (1964)
>>
>> Double Jeopoardy - Benton v Maryland - 395 US 784 (1969)
>>
>>
>> Sixth Amendment
>>
>> Assistance of Counsel in Capital Case - Peterson v City of Greenville
>> - 373 US 244 (1963)
>>
>> Right to Public Trial - Oliver, in Re - 333 US 257 (1948)
>>
>> Assistance of Counsel in All Felony Cases - Gideon v Wainwright - 372
>> US 335 (1963)
>>
>> Right to Confront Adverse Witnesses - Pointer v Texas - 380 US 400
>> (1965)
>>
>> Right to Impartial Jury - Parker v Gladden - 385 US 363 (1966)
>>
>> Right to Compulsory Process to Obtain Witnesses - Washington v Texas
>> - 388 US 14 (1967)
>>
>> Right to a Speedy Trial - Klopfer v North Carolina - 386 US 213
>> (1967)
>>
>> Right to Jury in Nonpetty Criminal Cases - Duncan v Louisiana - 391
>> US 145 (1968)
>>
>> Right to Counsel in Imprisonable Misdemeanor - Argersinger v Hamlin -
>> 407 US 25 (1972)
>>
>> Right to Notice of Accusation - Rabe v Washington - 405 US 313 (1972)
>>
>> Right to Unanimous Verdict If Only Six Jurors - Burch v Louisiana -
>> 441 US 130 (1979)
>>
>>
>> Eighth Amendment
>>
>> Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Robinson v California - 370 US
>> 660 (1962)
>>
>> Note: No Supreme Court cases addressing Third or Seventh Amendment
>> application to the state. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments should be
>> self explanatory.
>>
>> As you can, the BoR is mostly applied to the states now over a period
>> of years from 1897 to 2010.

Didn't read any of that, did you. Didn't learn a damn thing from it, did
you.

>>> Can a state nullify any amendment to the constitution it wants to?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>> Please explain what the bill of rights is good for....
>>
>> If you have no idea, I am sure that my explanation will make little
>> difference but here it is.
>>
>> It is the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution providing for
>> certain individual rights, freedoms and protections.
>
> To whom? The people? And to what people?

Already been answered. If you read responses, you would know that.

The citizens of the US? And
> in what state can/must these citizens reside?

[Joe Cooper]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:CpGdnZ92VqaoKAfN...@giganews.com:

The Supreme Court has disagreed, and found that affirmative action can
indeed be "compensatory racism" when race becomes the sole measure by
which a student application is judged.

The current consideration of Fisher v. University of Texas is raising
interesting questions from the Justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/us/a-changed-court-revisits-
affirmative-action-in-college-admissions.html?pagewanted=all


--

"The SEALs removed one threat to America,
now it's time for the voters to remove the other."
(Retired Navy SEAL Brad Nagel)

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:EMudndmXWK_fMATN...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>> news:baGdnfpDNcX8SgXN...@giganews.com:

>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in

>>>> news:voje98dfpv1a5jl92...@4ax.com:

>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:11:23 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So by the letter of the law States have authority to regulate
>>>>>>> arms. Now if you want a further understanding you need to read
>>>>>>> up on the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One really needs to know one's government and laws if one wants
>>>>>>> to bitch about them and push your own interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, in your opinion,
>>>>>

>>>>> This always prefaces a wild straw man.

>>>>>
>>>>>> it is perfectly all right for any state (or all states)
>>>>>> to make their own laws that are repugnant to the constitution,
>>>>>

>>>>> Until the 14th Amendment the bill of rights applied only to the
>>>>> federal government and not the states. Plain and simple. Since the
>>>>> 14th its taken time to figure out which BOR provisions apply to
>>>>> the states.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the constitution. You should read it sometime.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's pretty simple reading to see "Congress shall make no law" is
>>>>> silent to the states and only limits Congress.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that wording only applies to the First Amendment. ;)
>>>
>>> What do you mean by, "Only apply to the federal government and not
>>> to the states?" Who is the federal government?
>>
>> You were a mathmetician and you have this much trouble reading? The
>> Bill of Rights is there to *protect* the rights of citizens from the
>> power of the fedeeral government by delineating what some of those
>> rights were.
>>
>> You mean only the senete
>>> and house of representatives could keep and bear arms? I don;t think
>>> so.
>>
>> I would hope not since no one is saying that. The Second Amendment
>> protected the right to keep and bear arms of the people from the
>> federal government. I explained why in another post to you which you
>> probably won't read so I am not going to rewrite it again here. It
>> had to do the arming of militias. Anyway, until McDonald v Chicago,
>> a Supreme Court case heard in 2010, the Second Amendment only applied
>> to the federal government. That meant that the federal government
>> could not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. Hell, until
>> 2009 in US v Heller, many thought you had to be in the militia to
>> even have that protection. Anyway, the Second Amendment did not apply
>> to the states. Now, it does.
>>
>> /'what did the founding rfathers mean by, "the people"?
>>
>> Same as what you think. That is not the end that your mind wanders
>> off on. It is the other end. The only government entity addressed
>> by the Second Amendment and prevented from screwing with your RKBA
>> was the federal government. Why? Because when the 14A was written a
>> selective incorporation policy was used to apply clauses from the
>> Bill of Rights to also apply to the states. That list of when each
>> occurred has also been presented to you a couple of times.
>>
>> I think
>>> they wrote the constitution with all the people in mind, reguardless
>>> of in which state those people resided. Just my gut instinct, is
>>> all.......
>>
>> And they did, BUT, the Constitution only addresses the central
>> government. It does NOT tell the states how to run. It tells them
>> certain powers are limited to that central government but does not
>> tell them that they are the only powers the states have. The
>> Constitution addresses the federal government.
>
> Does it say that the bill of rights doesn't apply to the people of the
> US reguardless of the state in which they reside? And if not, do you
> think that that's what the framers of that document meant?

You need to learn some history. You need to learn who the founding
fathers were and what they represented. Most of them were federalists
who felt that the central government should be strong. Some of them were
anti federalists who were afraid of a strong central government being too
strong and overriding the states and the people. The Bill of Rights was
NOT part of the original Constitution. The Constitution was only
ratified on a promise that the Bill of Rights would be included when
ratified.

Now, who does the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) apply to?
The federal government.....period. It spells out the how the federal
government will be structured, how it will work and what powers it has.
It does NOT address the states. They have their own constitutions. Now
the Bill of Rights is a set of limitations on the federal government. It
spells out what specific rights are protected from **federal** government
interference or transgression. It didn't address the states either. It
wasn't until the Fourteenth Amendment that any of this applied to the
states. The Supreme Court adopted a **selective incorporation**
doctrine to apply what parts of the Constitution also applied to the
states. That was been done on a clause by clause basis (posted for you
at least twice) showing what SCOTUS case decided what clause and when.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:comdnaNd7pJRMgTN...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in

>> news:50998EB...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>
>>> On 11/6/2012 5:18 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in
>>>>>> news:voje98dfpv1a5jl92...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:11:23 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So by the letter of the law States have authority to regulate
>>>>>>>>> arms. Now if you want a further understanding you need to read
>>>>>>>>> up on the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One really needs to know one's government and laws if one
>>>>>>>>> wants to bitch about them and push your own interpretation.
>>>>>>>> So, in your opinion,
>>>>>>> This always prefaces a wild straw man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is perfectly all right for any state (or all states)
>>>>>>>> to make their own laws that are repugnant to the constitution,
>>>>>>> Until the 14th Amendment the bill of rights applied only to the
>>>>>>> federal government and not the states. Plain and simple. Since
>>>>>>> the 14th its taken time to figure out which BOR provisions apply
>>>>>>> to the states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the constitution. You should read it sometime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's pretty simple reading to see "Congress shall make no law"
>>>>>>> is silent to the states and only limits Congress.
>>>>>>

>>>>> It then makes it a States right.....
>>>>>
>>>>> As per the 10th amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't like that then get an amendment passed that changes
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ["...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Amendment X

>>>>>
>>>>> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>>>>> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>>>>> respectively, or to the people.
>>>>>

>>>>> ..."]
>>>>
>>>> I do not believe the first ten amendments to the constitution were
>>>> meant by its framers to, "Only apply to the federal government and
>>>> not to the states". First off, who is the federal government?
>>>
>>> That's how many of them read.
>>
>> Bill is absolutely backwards on who those rights apply to and who
>> they limit. Don't be a moron and follow him.
>>
>> But then other show that our RIGHTS need
>>> protection from fellow citizens as well.
>>
>> Which is done by law, not amendments to the Constitution.
>
> Its the states and local courts that routinely deprive people of their
> constitutional rights.

If you find one that does, then you have a court case to take to the
Court. All you have to do is to show injury to have standing.

The first ten amendments to the constitution
> should apply to everyone and to all governmnents from the local city
> governments on up.

Most of them do by now.

I believe that's what the framers of the document
> had in mind when they wrote it.

The framers wrote the Bill of Rights to protect the people from the
*************FEDERAL************** government. The whole Constitution
addresses the ****************FEDERAL************* and how it will be
structured and operate and what powers it has.

[RD Sandman]

retro...@comcast.net wrote in
news:b1aj98dli9jhk5bv3...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:25:55 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>news:4eKdnbSMvvi_DwTN...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>> news:k796p8$jec$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>> wrote in message news:509811B...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in
>>>>>>> news:voje98dfpv1a5jl92...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:11:23 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So by the letter of the law States have authority to regulate
>>>>>>>>>> arms. Now if you want a further understanding you need to
>>>>>>>>>> read up on the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One really needs to know one's government and laws if one
>>>>>>>>>> wants to bitch about them and push your own interpretation.
>>>>>>>>> So, in your opinion,
>>>>>>>> This always prefaces a wild straw man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is perfectly all right for any state (or all states)
>>>>>>>>> to make their own laws that are repugnant to the constitution,
>>>>>>>> Until the 14th Amendment the bill of rights applied only to the
>>>>>>>> federal government and not the states. Plain and simple. Since
>>>>>>>> the 14th its taken time to figure out which BOR provisions
>>>>>>>> apply to the states.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the constitution. You should read it sometime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's pretty simple reading to see "Congress shall make no law"
>>>>>>>> is silent to the states and only limits Congress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It then makes it a States right.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As per the 10th amendment.
>>>>>

>>>>> Until the 14th Amendment was ratified at which point that state
>>>>> 'right' was repealed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Argue all you like but that's the result of the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which, FYI, was ratified simply because of what you talk about was
>>>>> occurring so clearly that sort of 'conflict' was exactly what it
>>>>> was ratified to address.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What conflict? The First Amendment clearly says "Congress shall
>>>> make no law....". It does not even pretend to address the states.
>>>> The First Amendment was never a states right from the get go.
>>>> Unless those clauses were also in the state's constitution, nothing
>>>> there addressed First Amendment clauses as applicable or not to the
>>>> states.
>>>
>>> It was a, "peoples" right, as was all the other bill of rights
>>> amendments. It didnlt matter what state the people lived in.
>>
>>That is true but not for the reason you believe. It is true because
>>it addressed the federal government. However, it also only applied to
>>the federal government. Free speech at the state level was either in
>>state constitutions or it wasn't.
>>
>>
>> I know
>>> this just as certainly as I know my own name. (And you must know it
>>> too, RD)
>>
>>I know that you, apparently, don't understand it. Free speech in the
>>US Constitution did not apply for protection from the states until two
>>cases titled Gitlow v New York (1925) and Fiske v Kansas (1927) were
>>decided by the Supreme Court. You should look those cases up. They
>>are available on the internet.
>
>
> It's scary that people with such ignorance about our fundamental
> documents, rights and government are voting.
>

Yes, and they exist on both sides of the aisle. One can only hope that
they offset each other.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:T-qdnYDwe7_qAATN...@giganews.com:

> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 4:06 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>> news:TeqdncVw7N7csArN...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:46:15 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Different crimes, different judgement systems, different
>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And double jeprody by any normal human beings logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Double jeopardy is about criminal law only. Sorry. Try again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not "trying" your stupid legal definitions. I am looking at
>>>>> it from the perspective of the guy who is charged with the crime.
>>>>
>>>> OJ was only charged with a crime once.
>>>>
>>>> The
>>>>> constitution was a document that was designed to protect the
>>>>> minority (like one guy) from the tyranny of the majority. (like
>>>>> the government).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and the second trial for OJ was not the government. It was
>>>> Ron Goldman's family.
>>>>
>>>> If you are charged with qw crime, and prove yourself not
>>>>> guilty in court, shouldn;t you be allowed to walk away a free man?
>>>>
>>>> And he did....from the crimes of murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron
>>>> Goldman. The state (government) failed in their case to prove him
>>>> guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>>>
>>>> Or
>>>>> do you think the framers of our constitution would say that you
>>>>> can be tried anain by someone else and found guilty and have to
>>>>> pay your entire retirement money and be in hoc for the rest of
>>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> That is a civil breach of contract by the coach not a crime against
>>>> the state. Molestation was the crime against the state. Moral
>>>> behaviour was the reason he lost his pension. He broke his
>>>> contract on moral grounds.
>>>>
>>>> You may
>>>>> call this whatever you please, but I am not a lawyer, and I call
>>>>> it double jepordy....
>>>>
>>>> You'd be wrong.
>>>
>>> So, lets get this straight. In your opinion its OK for someone to
>>> work for someone else for 30 years, and then, before he retires, to
>>> be caught committing a crime, be tried and convicted for that crime,
>>> punished and do the required jail time for that crime. and then,
>>> after his sentence, be denied his pension because he ahs a contract
>>> that says the commission of any offence of a certain tyope is great
>>> enough to be denied due process, and loss of retirement funds is
>>> permissible without said due process." IOW, the taking away of his
>>> constitutional rights by written contract is OK with you?
>>
>>
>> You don't have the power to give up your constitutional RIGHTS,
>> because that take an amendment that you can't pass alone.... you can
>> refuse to exercise your rights.
>>
>> So you can.... "NOT buy a gun" but you can never give up your RIGHT
>> to buy a gun.
>>
>>
>> A law can't take away a RIGHT unless the constitution allows for it
>> like it allows slavery and servitude if you are duly convicted of a
>> crime.
>
> But it is illegal to draft a contract with another person that takes
> away his constitutional rights.... Try to get a notary public to
> notarize such a contract. They won't do it. And any such contract is
> automatically null and void. That's why that coach could make a
> contract with his university employer that would take away his pension
> were he to be convicted of a felony. Such a contract gives away his
> right to due process, and as such is unconstitutional.
>
>

No, it doesn't. It is obvious that you have never run a business with
employees or managed one. Someone like a coach signs a contract with his
employer. Part of that contract includes a section on conduct with
others, treatment of others beneath you (if any) and any other terms of
employment with that entity. Violation of those forfeits your contract
and any pensions you thought you accrued other than vested interests or
rights.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:3aCdnROk0ZeNXQTN...@giganews.com:

> On 11/6/12 5:31 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>> news:iIydncUJbOqwCwTN...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>>>> On 11/5/2012 5:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote

>>>>> in news:5097F84B...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>>>>> news:yPidnSr-pvr0igrN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/12 12:53 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in news:5095BD0...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible to be tried twice for the same crime, once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the feds and once by a state. It's not routine, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twice is the limit. Please support your contention with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment V
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> service in time of War or public danger;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *nor shall any person be subject* for the *same offence*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *twice* put in *jeopardy* *of life or limb* ; nor shall be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without due process of law; nor shall private property be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken for public use, without just compensation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can cite the Constitution but you don't seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>> it.

>>>>>>>>> I cited it because you ignore it. What if the crime is
>>>>>>>>> murder, you can't be tried for murdering the same person twice
>>>>>>>>> since you can only kill them once.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But You want to let the Feds prosecute and then let the State
>>>>>>>>> also prosecute for the same murder.... but wasn't it you
>>>>>>>>> telling us that Federal law always trumps State laws? You
>>>>>>>>> know "The Supremacy clause"? So that would mean once the
>>>>>>>>> Feds take the case on "then the State charging that person
>>>>>>>>> with murder is violating the supremacy clause" like the
>>>>>>>>> Arizona law interfered with Federal immigration law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are going to claim "The Supremacy Clause" to end
>>>>>>>>> conflicting State and Federal laws then you have to use it
>>>>>>>>> everywhere the Feds have Jurisdiction. Any time the Feds
>>>>>>>>> enter the case then the State can NOT bring that person up on
>>>>>>>>> the same charges as the Feds, just like immigration.... You
>>>>>>>>> can't break a state and a federal law according to Liberals
>>>>>>>>> and their "interpretation" of the Supremacy Clause.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now if you want to drop the Liberal's own interpretation......
>>>>>>>> Its a good thing OJ didn't kill a sailor or a postman along
>>>>>>>> with his Ex and Ron Goldman, or he would have been tried three
>>>>>>>> times, for the same crime.....

>>>>>> Interesting choice... and yes he was sued for a crime he was
>>>>>> innocent of....
>>>>> No, he wasn't. He was sued for compensation in the death of
>>>>> Goldman's son and was NOT adjudicated "innocent" in the criminal
>>>>> trial.
>>>> I realized I used the word innocent after I posted it, and that was
>>>> wrong. OJ was found NOT GUILTY by the jury and it's a fine line
>>>> but it's true that he was NOT found innocent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was my error.
>>>>
>>>> I knew someone would catch that one, and will strive to NOT make
>>>> that mistake again....
>>>>
>>>>> He was
>>>>> adjudicated "not guilty" which is not the same thing. What his
>>>>> verdict indicated is that the jury did not believe that the
>>>>> prosecution proved its case and showed that OJ was guilty.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I agree and that was NOT actually what I meant, he is NOT
>>>> innocent, you are correct that OJ was NOT GUILTY.
>>>>
>>>> And I did point out that it was a suit about Ronald Goldman's
>>>> death.
>>>
>>> Now listen carefully. If the jury did not believe that the
>>> prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is
>>> possible that someone else murdered those two people.
>>
>> It's possible, however, the preponderance of the evidence said OJ did
>> it. Jury nullification, more than anything else, is what got him off.
>
> From what I've read this is untrue. Jury nullification would be the
> jury saying, "Yeah, he did it. Beyond a reasonable doubt. But we're
> going to acquit anyway."

Jury nullification can also include simply refusing a verdict for various
reasons. Bottom line is that the evidence was there that should have
convicted OJ but there were also questions including his hero status, the
feelings toward LAPD tainting testimony in the eyes of the jurors, the
lying about the use of the word "nigger" by Fuhrman, the staging of the
glove by Cochran, etc..


That's not what the jurors said. They said
> they didn't believe the police evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
> You may think that irrational, but it's not nullification.

It is if they said, "Fuck it, I don't believe the evidence and I don't
care."

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:Weydnf_Q4-P8JATN...@giganews.com:

> On 11/6/12 4:41 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> RD Sandman wrote:

>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>> news:k796p8$jec$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>> wrote in message news:509811B...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in
>>>>>> news:voje98dfpv1a5jl92...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>

>> amendments. It didnlt matter what state the people lived in. I know

>> this just as certainly as I know my own name. (And you must know it
>> too, RD)
>

> OK, here's a little history to illustrate the point. In 1927, a man
> named Jay Near published a newspaper called _The Saturday Press_ in
> Minneapolis. Near hated lots of people, including Catholics, blacks,
> and naturally, Jews, whom he accused of running the city. Near went
> after the county attorney, the mayor, and the police chief. The
> country attorney had the paper shut down under a Minnesota law banning
> public nuisances. Near took his case to the Minnesota Supreme Court,
> which took two opportunities to rule that the Minnesota constitution's
> guarantee of freedom of the press did not extend to rags like TSP.
>
> Got that? In 1927, it was perfectly legal in Minnesota to shut down a
> newspaper based on its content.
>
> Near appealed to the Supreme Court which invalidated the Minnetsota
> law in Near v Minnesota 283US697 (1931), based on the 14th Amendment.
>
> Got that? Not the 1st. The Court required the authority of the 14th
> to overrule Minnesota because without the 14th, the 1st applied on to
> Congress.
>
>
>

Bingo!!!

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:tTnms.454990$iq1.3...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:

> On 11/6/2012 8:28 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote

>> in message news:509875DD...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

>>> On 11/5/2012 7:13 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote

>>>> in news:50984D90...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

>>>>
>>>>> On 11/5/2012 5:25 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>>>> wrote in news:5098107A...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 12:47 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>>>>>> wrote in news:5097D5F1...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 12:35 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:11:23 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So by the letter of the law States have authority to
>>>>>>>>>>>> regulate
>>>>>> arms.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now if you want a further understanding you need to read up
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One really needs to know one's government and laws if one
>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to bitch about them and push your own interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, in your opinion,
>>>>>>>>>> This always prefaces a wild straw man.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it is perfectly all right for any state (or all states)
>>>>>>>>>>> to make their own laws that are repugnant to the
>>>>>>>>>>> constitution,
>>>>>>>>>> Until the 14th Amendment the bill of rights applied only to
>>>>>>>>>> the federal government and not the states. Plain and simple.
>>>>>>>>>> Since the 14th its taken time to figure out which BOR
>>>>>>>>>> provisions apply to the states.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> ["....

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amendment X
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>>>>>>>>> Constitution,
>>>>>> nor
>>>>>>>>> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>>>>>>>> respectively,
>>>>>>>>> or to the people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ..."]
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> That seems rather clear to me!
>>>>>>>> Well, since the Fourteenth Amendment postdates the Ninth and
>>>>>>>> Tenth, it would hold sway were there would be a possible
>>>>>>>> conflict.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but does the 14th conflict with the 10th amendment?
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If NOT then any
>>>>>>> subsequent case where the two conflict, the congress needs to
>>>>>>> address the problem and change it with a new amendment.
>>>>>> Not true. The only possible conflict would a new amendment to
>>>>>> the Constitution saying something different than the 9A or
>>>>>> 10A.....and if it did, since it is the newer amendment it would
>>>>>> override any conflict that arose. Remember when we took you
>>>>>> through that whole amendment process?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The courts can't fix it
>>>>>>> because they can't pass any amendments to the constitution.
>>>>>>> It's NOT
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> choice of which to side with when they conflict, it's a case of
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> no answer as all powers are equal and so the congress must amend
>>>>>>> the constitution to fix it.
>>>>>> Congress cannot amend the Constitution. Read Article V.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They initiate it....
>>>>>
>>>>> ["...The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
>>>>> it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution..."]
>>>> That is one way to initiate a proposal....not the only way and, as
>>>> I stated, Congress cannot amend the Constitution.
>>>>
>>> That's probably why they use the Supreme court bypass the amendment
>>> process. Keep it all in the federal government family, so to
>>> speak.
>>
>> Which Amendment has SCOTUS ratified?
>>
>>
> Abortion for one....

Hmmmm, which amendment is the abortion one?

> also amendments to get new commerce powers.

Which ones would those be?

> Yet they didn't need to get their amendments ratified.

Hmmmm, which other amendments did SCOTUS get passed?

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:jvpms.454992$iq1.4...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:

> On 11/7/2012 3:30 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote
>> in message

>> news:tTnms.454990$iq1.3...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

>> Really, and exactly what number is that Amendment?
>
> SCOTUS interpreted their power to be one that needs no numbering.

ROFLMAO!! What on earth are you smoking?

> In fact they interpreted their power to not require them to write it
> in the actual constitution.

They just pull it out of the sky?

> You did tell us that SCOTUS has the power to interpret their own
> powers?

No, SCOTUS has the power to interpret constitutionality of laws. See
Marbury v Madison (1803) for an understanding of that.

Until then, you are simply flailing away and splashing a lot of water but
making no progress.

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:5099D946...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

> On 11/6/2012 8:30 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote

>> in message news:509831E9...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

>>> On 11/5/2012 3:06 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>> wrote in message news:509811B...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in
>>>>>> news:voje98dfpv1a5jl92...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:11:23 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So by the letter of the law States have authority to regulate
>>>>>>>>> arms.
>>>>>>>>> Now if you want a further understanding you need to read up on
>>>>>>>>> the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One really needs to know one's government and laws if one
>>>>>>>>> wants to bitch about them and push your own interpretation.
>>>>>>>> So, in your opinion,
>>>>>>> This always prefaces a wild straw man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is perfectly all right for any state (or all states)
>>>>>>>> to make their own laws that are repugnant to the constitution,
>>>>>>> Until the 14th Amendment the bill of rights applied only to the
>>>>>>> federal government and not the states. Plain and simple. Since
>>>>>>> the 14th its taken time to figure out which BOR provisions apply
>>>>>>> to the states.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It's the constitution. You should read it sometime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's pretty simple reading to see "Congress shall make no law"
>>>>>>> is silent to the states and only limits Congress.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It then makes it a States right.....
>>>>>
>>>>> As per the 10th amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Until the 14th Amendment was ratified at which point that state
>>>> 'right' was repealed.
>>>>
>>>> Argue all you like but that's the result of the 14th Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Which, FYI, was ratified simply because of what you talk about was
>>>> occurring so clearly that sort of 'conflict' was exactly what it
>>>> was ratified to address.
>>>>
>>>>

>>> Does it change the 10th amendment or conflictwith the 10th
>>> amendment?
>>
>> Changes it.
>>
>> That is after all what an Amendment does.
> Amendments create NEW powers or delete old powers, and therefore they
> can't compete with old powers, if they do then the old powers have to
> be repealed so the new powers can do what they do.

The old "powers" get rewritten and are the old wording is no longer part
of the Constitution.

>> If you see a conflict then it's simply because you have refused to
>> accept and apply the changes the Amendment caused.
>
> So you're saying there's a change? and I'm saying that if they
> conflict,

Which they cannot do.

then there is no change there is just an added power that
> violates the old power until you resolve the conflict.

There is no conflict when the new amendment is written. The only
possible conflict is resolved when the new amendment is ratified since
the old no longer applies.

We took you through this process a few days ago. Didn't you read it?

It is short so here it is again:

Old wording in Constitution ----- old wording applies

Amendment proposed and written ----- old wording applies

Amendment voted on by Congress ----- old working applies

Amendment passed to states to be ratified ---- old wording applies.

Amendment ratified by states ---- old wording gone, new amendment
applies.


See how easy that was?

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:k7cdrp$uej$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1029B5AA...@216.196.121.131...

>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>> news:k796p8$jec$2...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>

>> Nope.
>
> So are you saying that Georgia could ban Catholic churches because
> it's a state 'right' that they can regulate religion?

No, I am saying it was never a "state right". That statement in the
First Amendment indicated that it applied to Congress.....

> Seems to me the 14th Amendment was enacted to prevent just such an
> exercise of state 'rights'.

The 14A was enacted to pass the protections of individual rights and
freedoms down to the state and local governments. The problem arose on
which "incorporation" process or doctrine was to be used. Total (favored
by Justice Black) or selective (favored by Justice Frankfurter and most
of the other Justices). Selective won. Therefore the First Amendment
got applied to the states in bits and pieces:

First Amendment

Freedom of Speech - Gitlow v New York - 268 US 652 (1925), Fiske v Kansas
- 274 US 380 (1927)

Freedom of press - Near v Minnesota - 283 US 697 (1931)

Freedom of Assembly - Dejong v Oregon - 299 US 697 (1937)

Free Exercise of Religion - Cantrell v Connecticut - 310 US 296 (1940)

Ban on Religious Establishment - Everson v Board of Education - 330 US 1
(1947)

Freedom of Association - NAACP v Alabama - 357 US 449 (1958)

As you can see, it took from 1868 (ratification of the 14A) to 1958
(NAACP v Alabama) for all of the First Amendment to be adjudicated as to
apply to the states.

>>> Argue all you like but that's the result of the 14th Amendment.
>>
>>> Which, FYI, was ratified simply because of what you talk about was
>>> occurring so clearly that sort of 'conflict' was exactly what it was
>>> ratified to address.
>>

>> The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to give the same protections to
>> state citizens that federal citizens had from the Bill of Rights.
>
> IOW, the state 'right' to regulate these areas was repeals.

The states could have more freedom in those areas than stated by the
First Amendment but could not abridge any of those "incorporated" as to
apply to the states.

>>The problem
>> was that the total incorporation doctrine was not adopted.
>> Incorporation was, instead, adopted on a clause by clause basis over
>> a period of almost two hundred and ten years.
>
> Agreed, and a separate issue that concerns SCOTUS not the Amendment
> itself.

Yes, but it certainly affected application of that amendment to the
states.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:k7d6ev$su9$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote
> in message news:5099C80A...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

>>> Seems to me the 14th Amendment was enacted to prevent just such an
>>> exercise of state 'rights'.
>>>
>>>
>>

>> Quote that part so I understand which part you are discussing.
>>
>>
>> I'm NOT saying it doesn't exist, I just want to see if we are on the
>> same page.
>
> "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."


Yep.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:14 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude

><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>

>>>On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:47:07 -0500, "Scout"
>>><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>If a government program was enacted that favored whites over blacks...would
>>>>that be racist?
>>>
>>>
>>>It would depend on history and the facts. Under the current history
>>>no.
>>
>>Give a hypothetical example of how this would not be racist.
>
>
>If whites were systemically excluded from a profession for a century,
>it would be permissible to design a system that encourages entry into
>that profession and rewards employers for hiring them, etc.

That would be racist.

I didn't ask what would make it "permissible" which is liberal-speak
for "tolerated."

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:53 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude

><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>

>>>On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>

>>>>My state screwed my kids out of their
>>>>education for which I paid for over ten years.....
>>>
>>>
>>>For the record, my kid had poor teachers and we had issues over the
>>>years with what and how they were being taught. But we sat with him
>>>and helped him with homework, talked to his teachers, talked to their
>>>supervisors, requested changes of teachers, and changes of principals
>>>and schools. We shepherded his education and got them what they
>>>needed.
>>>
>>>It's called parenting and taking responsibility.
>>
>>How does that make a shitty school system tolerable?
>
>
>I'd say the question is what do you want more, to help your kids get
>prepared or to bitch and whine.

You might say that, but you'd be wrong. The QUESTION is

>>How does that make a shitty school system tolerable?

Answer. It doesn't.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA10487EC7...@216.196.121.131...

Agreed, but some states seem to have felt they had such a 'right' hence the
14th Amendment.

However, it seems once again we agree just coming at it from different
angles.

"-)

<snip agreed upon material>

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:J8ednQAjGJtYCgTN...@giganews.com:

> George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 11/3/2012 5:01 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2012 7:15 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/12 3:34 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>>>> You violate the constitution.
>>>>
>>>> No private action can violate the Constitution.
>>>
>>> They do it all the time.
>>
>> No - impossible. The Constitution defines the parts, the
>> responsibilities, the powers and the limitations of *government*. No
>> *private* action by anyone can be unconstitutional - by definition.
>> If I set fire to my neighbor's house, I've committed a crime, but I
>> haven't violated the Constitution. It's impossible. Only someone
>> acting in a governmental capacity can violate the Constitution.
>
> Nonsense. Anyone who deprives someone else from the free exercise of
> their constitutional rights is in violation of the constitution and
> should be prosecuted for it.

Problem is that a a private party cannot deprive another of
constitutional rights. He can force the other to be unable to practice
that right for some period of time but he can't remove it. As far as
procecution that would be for some crime not a violation of
constitutional rights.

If my local court fines me more than $20
> with due process they are in ciolation of the constitution.

Wrong. With due process the government can take everything you own.
They have to do it under due process, however.

If my
> state refused to allow me to carry my pistol in my coat pocket, they
> in violation fo the constitutionj.

No, they are not. The Constitution says you have the right to keep and
bear arms, not that you have a right to have it in your coat pocket.
Mode of carry is up to the state....

This is what the founding fathers
> meant, and it is what I fervently believe.

You don't know what the founding fathers meant as far as mode of carry is
concerned. It may well be what you fervently believe but that doesn't
make it correct.

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:MsudnT8bSM6hXATN...@giganews.com:

> On 11/6/12 5:38 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

>> news:Baydne-z3bu5DgTN...@giganews.com:

>>
>>> On 11/6/12 3:59 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

>>>> news:9_ednbhNVpPIwAXN...@giganews.com:

>>>>
>>>>> On 11/5/12 12:10 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>>>> news:ft-dnV1lqIe7jQrN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At one time people took care of
>>>>>>> themselves. Then the government started doing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing the government gives me, I paid for and still do.
>>>>>> Oh, wait, I had one loan guarantee on a house through the VA.
Paid
>>>>>> it off in four years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Socialist.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, well.....I paid two hitches for that guarantee.
>>>>
>>>>>> Not saving for
>>>>>>> ones own retirement has become a national disease! This is
exactly
>>>>>>> what my father said was going to happen when Roosevelt started
the
>>>>>>> social security program. He was (as usual) right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Social Security as it exists today is going away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Social Security as it exists today isn't going away.
>>>>
>>>> You think the cap on the payroll tax will remain the same or even be
>>>> there?
>>>
>>> OK, so it won't be exactly the same as it is today.
>>
>> Which is what I said. Imagine that. ;)
>
> The cap has changed over the years. It's part of what Social Security
> is today.
>
>>>> You think the age of eligibility will still be 65 15 years from
>>>> now?
>>>
>>> It's not 65 across the board now. In 15 years, most of the Worst
>>> Generation will be dead, and the pressure will ease.
>>
>> Hmmmm, that must be why our population keeps increasing.
>
> Huh?
>
>>>> You think that in the future it may not be needs based versus
>>>> simply based on age?
>>>
>>> My guess is not.
>>
>> That's too bad, we could save some money there.
>>
>>>> Unless, of
>>>>> course, you assume we never get out of the current depression.
>>>>> Under conservative actuarial calculations, the system has enough
>>>>> money to pay all benefits through 2037.
>>>>
>>>> If it gets the money due it. The shortfall is being borrowed at
>>>> about 40 cents on the dollar today.
>>>
>>> It's all borrowed. The trust fund buys treasuries.
>>
>> You think that trust fund consists of piles of money just waiting to
be
>> placed back in circulation?
>
> No, I think it consists of treasury bonds.

And the money with which to pay them when they are cashed is borrowed.
It isn't sitting a pile somewhere.

>>>>> And 80% after that indefinitely.
>>>>
>>>> And it will continue to pay an increasing number of people on that
>>>> 80%?
>>>
>>> There aren't going to be an increasing number of people indefinitely.
>>> The plague that is the Worst Generation and its demographic bulge
will
>>> eventually go away.
>>>
>>>> You must be a Democrat..
>>>
>>> I don't have to be anything to read actuarial reports.
>>
>> Nor do I to see what is happening. Doesn't make much difference to
me.
>> I am in my 70's with a bad ticker and won't be around much longer.
>
> Say it isn't so! I can't do this all by myself.

Oh, well......carry on, my son......

>> Then it will be yours and your generation's to worry about.
>
> Mine is the Worst Generation, aka the Boomers. Bunch of whiners.
>
>> Good luck.....
>
> We'll need it.

Yep.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:EtOdnVZOzajfKQTN...@giganews.com:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>> news:xamdnQ8tz4HfFgTN...@giganews.com:

>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>> news:P86dndHA_rb53ArN...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 18:28:57 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sigh. That's a long way from any where near beginning to prove
>>>>>>>> your silly 1000/1 hyperbole. (BTW the actual cost of landing on
>>>>>>>> the moon was $24 billion.) That's what I'm talking about you
>>>>>>>> have no grasp of the numbers or the budget or the real facts.
>>>>>>>> You have a lot of impressions and shit you grab from your ass.
>>>>>>>> So once again until you get a basic understanding of the
>>>>>>>> reality of the numbers you're not really informed enough to be
>>>>>>>> able to whine in any meaningful way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 24 B i8n 1960 is more than 100 B today. It was a hell of a lot
>>>>>>> of money then. My father said, we were running way over the peak
>>>>>>> of the cost-benefit curve, and he was (as usual) dead right. But
>>>>>>> you know, I've discovered something about you liberals. You guys
>>>>>>> think that everything the government doew is the cat's whiskers.
>>>>>>> They can do no wrong in your eyes. That's another indication
>>>>>>> that you are a bunch of socialists. Socialists think their
>>>>>>> government can do no wrong either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where to start?(Putting on my tinfoil hat here) One, the space
>>>>>> program was not about going to the moon as much as it was about
>>>>>> developing technology for ballistic missiles, satellites, and
>>>>>> aerial surveillance of the USSR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. You enjoy a lot of technology that came directly out of the
>>>>>> space program and other federal spending (enjoying that Internet
>>>>>> connection?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Government does lots wrong. That's why we vote out the bums
>>>>>> every few years and have a Constitution that lets us sue them in
>>>>>> Court and try to make them obey the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike you, we realize the world is not one dimensional and
>>>>>> government does a lot of good too. Minimalist government is silly
>>>>>> empty rhetoric. What's needed is right sized government working
>>>>>> on the right things. we also realize anytime the government does
>>>>>> something its not "socialism".
>>>>>
>>>>> Who was bitching about the space program. Going to the moon was
>>>>> the Apollo program, and it was a gross waste of the taxpayers
>>>>> money. I approve of the space program, as well as the scientific
>>>>> program of investigating all the other planets in our solar system
>>>>> that the Apollo program delayed for like 30 years..... They should
>>>>> have investigated the moon with robots. Any scientist can tell you
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SOME scientists will tell you that. Most scientists will tell you
>>>> that using a robot or instruments won't replace touchy feely and
>>>> being there.
>>>
>>> We could have learned 90% or more about the moon for 10% ,or less
>>> money by sending robots there. This is well over the peak of the
>>> cost-benefit curve. It was a fiasco in any mans language.....
>>
>> When we first got to the moon, robots were no where near as
>> sophisticated as they are today.
>
> That's true. And sending robots to the moon instead of astronauts
> would have fixed that.

We couldn't send those robots to the moon. The cost would have
exhorbitant. A robot today that weighs 300 pounds back then weighed
tons.

Which is what we should have done.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:RtqdnfJTGaYOPATN...@giganews.com:

> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>> On 11/6/2012 2:03 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2012 5:01 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/2012 7:15 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> On 11/3/12 3:34 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You violate the constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> No private action can violate the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> They do it all the time.
>>>
>>> No - impossible. The Constitution defines the parts, the
>>> responsibilities, the powers and the limitations of *government*.
>>> No *private* action by anyone can be unconstitutional - by
>>> definition. If I set fire to my neighbor's house, I've committed a
>>> crime, but I haven't violated the Constitution. It's impossible.
>>> Only someone acting in a governmental capacity can violate the
>>> Constitution.
>>>
>>
>>

>> My RIGHT to privacy can be violated by anyone.... Everyone needs a
>> warrant to see my private papers.... As in recording my private
>> phone conversations. This is a 4th amendment violation by a person.
>>
>>
>> My RIGHT to freedom of religion can be taken from me by a private
>> individual that blocks or violates my Right to pray in any public
>> place or on my own property. A church violated peoples RIGHT to bury
>> their Military family members and the Judge had the power to put a
>> restraining order to stop the Church/Pastor from harassing the people
>> at the funerals.
>>
>>
>> People have Human Slaves and sex slaves, which violates the 13th
>> amendment.
>>
>>
>> The list can go on and on.
>
> In particular, the university who employed that football coach who was
> busted for molesting bous, couldn't make a contract with him in
> violation fo his constitutional right to get due process were he to be
> accused of a crime. So to take away his pension after the fact is a
> violation of his constitutional right to due process even if they had
> such a contract.

Bullshit. His contract and pension were voided due to misconduct with
students and bad behaviour. The fact that it was based on the same
incidents has nothing to do with crime. Crime is a state violation. He
lost his pension for violating his civil contract with the university.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:20:34 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>
>> I'd say the question is what do you want more, to help your kids get
>> prepared or to bitch and whine.

>How does a bus ride or a skin color change in a teacher make your kids
>better prepared?


Ask BG that. He's seems to think it sabotaged his kids education. And
you seem to agree.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:KPGdnUpi06XHJQTN...@giganews.com:

> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 7:51 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:49:31 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, why don't you grace us with your definition of, "racism"?
>>> How about someone who blames his kids poor education results on the
>>> fact his classroom and teachers were mostly black?
>>
>>
>> I can say that the really bad black teachers were no worse than the
>> really bad white teachers....
>>
>>
>>
>> But with "Affirmative Action", you end up with the total number of
>> really bad teachers increasing.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's simply because you lower the standards so you can bring in more
>> of some group by discriminating against another group, the only way
>> to do that is to take some that are less qualified. It is simple
>> math, at least it is if you had good teachers that weren't
>> affirmative action selected candidates.
>
> One day, my son brought home a mimeographed map of Africa. It had all
> the countries outlined in blue ink. Each one had a number in it. On
> the side was a list of all the African countries. He was supposet to
> put the number of the outlined country by its name on that list. I
> asked him to identify our town *menlo oark) on a map or California. He
> couldn;t do it. I asked him to identify California on a map of the
> United States. He couldn't do it. I asked him to identify the United
> States on our globe. He couldn;t do it. But those ass holes were
> trying to teach him where all the countries ib Africa were!
>
>

YOu have to start somewhere and Africa is where we all started. Unless
you believe that the Garden of Eden was just outside of Dusseldorf.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 12:33:37 -0500, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>> I'd say the question is what do you want more, to help your kids get
>> prepared or to bitch and whine.
>

>So are you suggesting that ignoring the issue as long as his kids are taken
>care of is the proper solution?


That would be his solution.

[RD Sandman]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:r_GdnVZNnolKIQTN...@giganews.com:

> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 7:51 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:49:31 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, why don't you grace us with your definition of, "racism"?
>>> How about someone who blames his kids poor education results on the
>>> fact his classroom and teachers were mostly black?
>

> How about a government that busses all the black kids fro
> their respective schools to the school im my neighborhood, for no
> other
> reason than because they are black?

None of them went to any other schools in your district?

> I only expect the kids in my sons school to be the same colior as the
> kids who lived on our block and the surrounding blocke. I didn't
> expect hem to come from any place else.

Didn't pay much attention to the news about busing I take it.

I pay house taxes for that
> school, and should have the right to send my kids to it

You do.

and not have
> them go to a private school in order to be with their friends.

That was his friends' parents' decision to do that. It had nothing to do
with taxes.

My
> state screwed my kids out of their education for which I paid for over
> ten years.....

I paid for kids' education in public schools all my life and had no kids
of my own there. What's your problem?

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:5099C719...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

> On 11/6/2012 8:43 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2012 7:51 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:49:31 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, why don't you grace us with your definition of, "racism"?
>>>> How about someone who blames his kids poor education results on the
>>>> fact his classroom and teachers were mostly black?
>>
>> How about a government that busses all the black kids fro
>> their respective schools to the school im my neighborhood, for no
>> other reason than because they are black?

>> I only expect the kids in my sons school to be the same colior as the
>> kids who lived on our block and the surrounding blocke. I didn't

>> expect hem to come from any place else. I pay house taxes for that
>> school, and should have the right to send my kids to it and not have
>> them go to a private school in order to be with their friends. My

>> state screwed my kids out of their education for which I paid for over
>> ten years.....

> Welcome to Socialism.
>
>

No, welcome to public school systems and taxes.

[RD Sandman]

retro...@comcast.net wrote in news:8hvk98djadf2uflko8090ash7i897k1l6m@
4ax.com:

> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>My state screwed my kids out of their
>>education for which I paid for over ten years.....
>
>

> For the record, my kid had poor teachers and we had issues over the
> years with what and how they were being taught. But we sat with him
> and helped him with homework, talked to his teachers, talked to their
> supervisors, requested changes of teachers, and changes of principals
> and schools. We shepherded his education and got them what they
> needed.
>
> It's called parenting and taking responsibility.
>

Yep..

[RD Sandman]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:a91l981bj43vusv3q...@4ax.com:

>>retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>
>>On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My state screwed my kids out of their
>>>education for which I paid for over ten years.....
>>
>>
>>For the record, my kid had poor teachers and we had issues over the
>>years with what and how they were being taught. But we sat with him
>>and helped him with homework, talked to his teachers, talked to their
>>supervisors, requested changes of teachers, and changes of principals
>>and schools. We shepherded his education and got them what they
>>needed.
>>
>>It's called parenting and taking responsibility.
>

> How does that make a shitty school system tolerable?
>
>

It helps to fix it rather than simply walking away and saying, Fuck it.

Parents need to attend PTA meetings, school board meetins, audit classes,
vote in school board elections, etc.. Take an active part in your kid's
education.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:13:53 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>Now I'm looking outside U.S. bordersfor a free economy for my work and
>wealth creation to live in.


Good luck with that!

And thank you.

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:rLwms.456442$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:

> On 11/7/2012 11:35 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:53 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My state screwed my kids out of their
>>>>> education for which I paid for over ten years.....
>>>>
>>>> For the record, my kid had poor teachers and we had issues over the
>>>> years with what and how they were being taught. But we sat with him
>>>> and helped him with homework, talked to his teachers, talked to
their
>>>> supervisors, requested changes of teachers, and changes of
principals
>>>> and schools. We shepherded his education and got them what they
>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>>> It's called parenting and taking responsibility.
>>> How does that make a shitty school system tolerable?
>>

>> I'd say the question is what do you want more, to help your kids get
>> prepared or to bitch and whine.

> How does a bus ride

This used to get some to better schools. I don't remember any buses
going the other way.

or a skin color change in a teacher make your kids
> better prepared?

Skin color is only an indirect cause. What you want is to get your kids
a good education. You do that by participating, taking a big interest
and doing all you can to ensure that your school board hires the best
teachers it can.

[RD Sandman]

retro...@comcast.net wrote in
news:4n9j98l64oq6ri78h...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:41:48 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Spoken like a rational person who knows the state ought to be
>>> colorblind.
>>
>>Not just colorblind, but also blind to sex, sexual preference,
>>religion, national origin and anything else that the individual had
>>little or no control over. I want my government to treat allpeople
>>equally, unless they overtly do something to wrong others that is well
>>within their control. I happen to be born white and from an upper
>>middle class family and neighborhood. But I had no control over my
>>ancestors or what they did, and no control over either my sex or
>>religion. If my ancestors wronged somebody else's ancestors, well,
>>that's too bad, but it is neither my fault or the fault of the person
>>that is alive today whose ancestor was harmed, and since there is no
>>way to go back in time and correct the wrong, I shouldn't have to pay
>>for it, and certainly shouldn;t have to pay anyone who wasn't harmed
>>by it.
>
>
> Also blind to injustice, history and reality.
>

No, just reasons why affirmative action should be needs-based not based
on race or ethnicity.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:53:50 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

> My
>> state screwed my kids out of their education for which I paid for over
>> ten years.....
>
>I paid for kids' education in public schools all my life and had no kids
>of my own there. What's your problem?

He also doesn't understand the state didn't manage his school. It's
local. You know, the level of government where you can have the most
influence and involvement.

[retro...@comcast.net]

It would seem he was more comfortable leaving his son's parenting to
the state. ;->

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:k7eg26$rgn$1...@dont-email.me:

That's usually how it works out. ;)

[RD Sandman]

retro...@comcast.net wrote in news:shjl9854ho421ftsvipqq7cci4a03qa7ng@
4ax.com:

Yep and pay those school taxes.

[RD Sandman]

retro...@comcast.net wrote in news:kmjl98tmsacvoj7fj22lkbla9t8f6rks9k@
4ax.com:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:58:38 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>news:rLwms.456442$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:
>>
>>> On 11/7/2012 11:35 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:53 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9

Actually, the locals.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

In secular terms it's the cradle of civilization and the fertile
crescent...... You don't want to call it something with religious
overtones.

--
*Welcome to Socialism*


-Kum bay ya-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/7/2012 3:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in

> news:jvpms.454992$iq1.4...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:

>
>> On 11/7/2012 3:30 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote

>>> in message
>>> news:tTnms.454990$iq1.3...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:28 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>>> wrote in message news:509875DD...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 7:13 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>>>>> wrote in news:50984D90...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 5:25 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote in

>>>>>>>>> news:5098107A...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 12:47 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote

>>>>>>>>>>> in news:5097D5F1...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 12:35 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:11:23 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So by the letter of the law States have authority to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulate
>>>>>>>>> arms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now if you want a further understanding you need to read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One really needs to know one's government and laws if one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bitch about them and push your own interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, in your opinion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This always prefaces a wild straw man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is perfectly all right for any state (or all states)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make their own laws that are repugnant to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until the 14th Amendment the bill of rights applied only to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the federal government and not the states. Plain and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple. Since the 14th its taken time to figure out which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOR provisions apply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the states.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ["....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment X
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution,
>>>>>>>>> nor
>>>>>>>>>>>> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>>>>>>>>>>> respectively,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ..."]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems rather clear to me!
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, since the Fourteenth Amendment postdates the Ninth and
>>>>>>>>>>> Tenth,
>>>>>>>>>>> it would hold sway were there would be a possible conflict.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but does the 14th conflict with the 10th amendment?
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If NOT then any
>>>>>>>>>> subsequent case where the two conflict, the congress needs to
>>>>>>>>>> address the problem and change it with a new amendment.
>>>>>>>>> Not true. The only possible conflict would a new amendment to
>>>>>>>>> the Constitution saying something different than the 9A or
>>>>>>>>> 10A.....and if
>>>>>>>>> it did, since it is the newer amendment it would override any
>>>>>>>>> conflict that arose. Remember when we took you through that
>>>>>>>>> whole amendment process?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The courts can't fix it
>>>>>>>>>> because they can't pass any amendments to the constitution.
>>>>>>>>>> It's NOT
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> choice of which to side with when they conflict, it's a case
>>>>>>>>>> of there
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> no answer as all powers are equal and so the congress must
>>>>>>>>>> amend the
>>>>>>>>>> constitution to fix it.
>>>>>>>>> Congress cannot amend the Constitution. Read Article V.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They initiate it....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ["...The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
>>>>>>>> it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution..."]
>>>>>>> That is one way to initiate a proposal....not the only way and,
>>>>>>> as I stated, Congress cannot amend the Constitution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's probably why they use the Supreme court bypass the
>>>>>> amendment process. Keep it all in the federal government family,
>>>>>> so to speak.
>>>>> Which Amendment has SCOTUS ratified?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Abortion for one....
>>> Really, and exactly what number is that Amendment?
>> SCOTUS interpreted their power to be one that needs no numbering.
> ROFLMAO!! What on earth are you smoking?
>
>> In fact they interpreted their power to not require them to write it
>> in the actual constitution.
> They just pull it out of the sky?
>
>> You did tell us that SCOTUS has the power to interpret their own
>> powers?
> No, SCOTUS has the power to interpret constitutionality of laws. See
> Marbury v Madison (1803) for an understanding of that.

That says they have the power to decide the courts jurisdiction relating
to laws that are within the constitutions jurisdiction.

In simpler terms, if a law is NOT within their jurisdiction no action
related to that law can be heard by the court. Because as far as they
are concerned that "law" doesn't exist, just as if it were written by
you or I and then used on citizens.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/7/2012 3:01 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in

> news:tTnms.454990$iq1.3...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:

> Hmmmm, which amendment is the abortion one?

Exactly......

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:IXAms.456481$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:

Why do you keep forgetting this part of the Constitution?

"


U.S. Constitution
Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme
Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior
courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at
stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not
be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the
United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more
states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens
of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands
under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens
thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the
Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,
with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall
make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by
jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the
trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have
directed.

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:pYAms.456482$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:

You are the twit who keeps claiming that the Supreme Court ratifies
amendments. Then when asked which one did they ratify.....you said
abortion. I asked which one that was.

Apparently you don't know.

[deadrat]

On 11/7/12 1:31 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:
> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

> news:CpGdnZ92VqaoKAfN...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 11/7/12 11:43 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:o96l98hb6rmbfficd...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:34:16 -0500, "Scout"
>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> IOW, you can't explain why we should engage in racism in order to
>>> 'compensate' for other racism.
>>
>> This "compensatory racism" is a figment of your fever dreams. You've
>> invented a straw man, called it affirmative action, and knocked it
> down.
>
> The Supreme Court has disagreed, and found that affirmative action can
> indeed be "compensatory racism" when race becomes the sole measure by
> which a student application is judged.

Thanks for making my point for me. Affirmative action doesn't make race
"the sole measure" of anything.

<snip/>

[deadrat]

On 11/7/12 1:46 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> retro...@comcast.net wrote in
> news:b1aj98dli9jhk5bv3...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:25:55 -0600, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>> news:4eKdnbSMvvi_DwTN...@giganews.com:

>>>
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:k796p8$jec$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>>>> wrote in message news:509811B...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:voje98dfpv1a5jl92...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:11:23 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So by the letter of the law States have authority to regulate
>>>>>>>>>>> arms. Now if you want a further understanding you need to
>>>>>>>>>>> read up on the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One really needs to know one's government and laws if one
>>>>>>>>>>> wants to bitch about them and push your own interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>> So, in your opinion,
>>>>>>>>> This always prefaces a wild straw man.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is perfectly all right for any state (or all states)
>>>>>>>>>> to make their own laws that are repugnant to the constitution,
>>>>>>>>> Until the 14th Amendment the bill of rights applied only to the
>>>>>>>>> federal government and not the states. Plain and simple. Since
>>>>>>>>> the 14th its taken time to figure out which BOR provisions
>>>>>>>>> apply to the states.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> It's the constitution. You should read it sometime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's pretty simple reading to see "Congress shall make no law"
>>>>>>>>> is silent to the states and only limits Congress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It then makes it a States right.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As per the 10th amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until the 14th Amendment was ratified at which point that state
>>>>>> 'right' was repealed.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Argue all you like but that's the result of the 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which, FYI, was ratified simply because of what you talk about was
>>>>>> occurring so clearly that sort of 'conflict' was exactly what it
>>>>>> was ratified to address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What conflict? The First Amendment clearly says "Congress shall
>>>>> make no law....". It does not even pretend to address the states.
>>>>> The First Amendment was never a states right from the get go.
>>>>> Unless those clauses were also in the state's constitution, nothing
>>>>> there addressed First Amendment clauses as applicable or not to the
>>>>> states.
>>>>
>>>> It was a, "peoples" right, as was all the other bill of rights
>>>> amendments. It didnlt matter what state the people lived in.
>>>
>>> That is true but not for the reason you believe. It is true because
>>> it addressed the federal government. However, it also only applied to
>>> the federal government. Free speech at the state level was either in
>>> state constitutions or it wasn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know
>>>> this just as certainly as I know my own name. (And you must know it
>>>> too, RD)
>>>
>>> I know that you, apparently, don't understand it. Free speech in the
>>> US Constitution did not apply for protection from the states until two
>>> cases titled Gitlow v New York (1925) and Fiske v Kansas (1927) were
>>> decided by the Supreme Court. You should look those cases up. They
>>> are available on the internet.
>>
>>
>> It's scary that people with such ignorance about our fundamental
>> documents, rights and government are voting.
>>
>
> Yes, and they exist on both sides of the aisle. One can only hope that
> they offset each other.

Fond hope. Ignorance is additive.

[deadrat]

On 11/7/12 1:57 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

> news:3aCdnROk0ZeNXQTN...@giganews.com:

>
>> On 11/6/12 5:31 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>> news:iIydncUJbOqwCwTN...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>>>>> On 11/5/2012 5:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote

>>>>>> in news:5097F84B...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>> news:yPidnSr-pvr0igrN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/12 12:53 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in news:5095BD0...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible to be tried twice for the same crime, once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the feds and once by a state. It's not routine, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twice is the limit. Please support your contention with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment V
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service in time of War or public danger;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *nor shall any person be subject* for the *same offence*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *twice* put in *jeopardy* *of life or limb* ; nor shall be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without due process of law; nor shall private property be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken for public use, without just compensation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can cite the Constitution but you don't seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>> I cited it because you ignore it. What if the crime is
>>>>>>>>>> murder, you can't be tried for murdering the same person twice
>>>>>>>>>> since you can only kill them once.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But You want to let the Feds prosecute and then let the State
>>>>>>>>>> also prosecute for the same murder.... but wasn't it you
>>>>>>>>>> telling us that Federal law always trumps State laws? You
>>>>>>>>>> know "The Supremacy clause"? So that would mean once the
>>>>>>>>>> Feds take the case on "then the State charging that person
>>>>>>>>>> with murder is violating the supremacy clause" like the
>>>>>>>>>> Arizona law interfered with Federal immigration law.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to claim "The Supremacy Clause" to end
>>>>>>>>>> conflicting State and Federal laws then you have to use it
>>>>>>>>>> everywhere the Feds have Jurisdiction. Any time the Feds
>>>>>>>>>> enter the case then the State can NOT bring that person up on
>>>>>>>>>> the same charges as the Feds, just like immigration.... You
>>>>>>>>>> can't break a state and a federal law according to Liberals
>>>>>>>>>> and their "interpretation" of the Supremacy Clause.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now if you want to drop the Liberal's own interpretation......
>>>>>>>>> Its a good thing OJ didn't kill a sailor or a postman along
>>>>>>>>> with his Ex and Ron Goldman, or he would have been tried three
>>>>>>>>> times, for the same crime.....
>>>>>>> Interesting choice... and yes he was sued for a crime he was
>>>>>>> innocent of....
>>>>>> No, he wasn't. He was sued for compensation in the death of
>>>>>> Goldman's son and was NOT adjudicated "innocent" in the criminal
>>>>>> trial.
>>>>> I realized I used the word innocent after I posted it, and that was
>>>>> wrong. OJ was found NOT GUILTY by the jury and it's a fine line
>>>>> but it's true that he was NOT found innocent.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That was my error.
>>>>>
>>>>> I knew someone would catch that one, and will strive to NOT make
>>>>> that mistake again....
>>>>>
>>>>>> He was
>>>>>> adjudicated "not guilty" which is not the same thing. What his
>>>>>> verdict indicated is that the jury did not believe that the
>>>>>> prosecution proved its case and showed that OJ was guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I agree and that was NOT actually what I meant, he is NOT
>>>>> innocent, you are correct that OJ was NOT GUILTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I did point out that it was a suit about Ronald Goldman's
>>>>> death.
>>>>
>>>> Now listen carefully. If the jury did not believe that the
>>>> prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is
>>>> possible that someone else murdered those two people.
>>>
>>> It's possible, however, the preponderance of the evidence said OJ did
>>> it. Jury nullification, more than anything else, is what got him off.
>>
>> From what I've read this is untrue. Jury nullification would be the
>> jury saying, "Yeah, he did it. Beyond a reasonable doubt. But we're
>> going to acquit anyway."
>
> Jury nullification can also include simply refusing a verdict for various
> reasons.

I'm not sure what "various" means here. Jury nullification is acquittal
while acknowledging the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt.

> Bottom line is that the evidence was there that should have
> convicted OJ

Bottom line is that the evidence was there that would have convinced you
to vote for conviction. This is different.

> but there were also questions including his hero status,

Let's phrase this properly: you have questions about the intellectual
integrity of the jurors when they considered the evidence against a
sympathetic celebrity.

> the
> feelings toward LAPD tainting testimony in the eyes of the jurors, the
> lying about the use of the word "nigger" by Fuhrman, the staging of the
> glove by Cochran, etc..

The jurors are the triers of fact, including the reliability of witnesses.

> That's not what the jurors said. They said
>> they didn't believe the police evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
>> You may think that irrational, but it's not nullification.
>
> It is if they said, "Fuck it, I don't believe the evidence and I don't
> care."

But they didn't. They essentially said, "Based on the testimony at
trial, we can't trust the people giving the evidence."

You've imputed lack of care based on how you would have voted.

[deadrat]

On 11/7/12 2:35 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

> news:MsudnT8bSM6hXATN...@giganews.com:

>
>> On 11/6/12 5:38 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

>>> news:Baydne-z3bu5DgTN...@giganews.com:

>>>
>>>> On 11/6/12 3:59 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in

>>>>> news:9_ednbhNVpPIwAXN...@giganews.com:

>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/5/12 12:10 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>>>>> news:ft-dnV1lqIe7jQrN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At one time people took care of
>>>>>>>> themselves. Then the government started doing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only thing the government gives me, I paid for and still do.
>>>>>>> Oh, wait, I had one loan guarantee on a house through the VA.
> Paid
>>>>>>> it off in four years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Socialist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, well.....I paid two hitches for that guarantee.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not saving for
>>>>>>>> ones own retirement has become a national disease! This is
> exactly
>>>>>>>> what my father said was going to happen when Roosevelt started
> the
>>>>>>>> social security program. He was (as usual) right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, Social Security as it exists today is going away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Social Security as it exists today isn't going away.
>>>>>
>>>>> You think the cap on the payroll tax will remain the same or even be
>>>>> there?
>>>>
>>>> OK, so it won't be exactly the same as it is today.
>>>
>>> Which is what I said. Imagine that. ;)
>>
>> The cap has changed over the years. It's part of what Social Security
>> is today.
>>
>>>>> You think the age of eligibility will still be 65 15 years from
>>>>> now?
>>>>
>>>> It's not 65 across the board now. In 15 years, most of the Worst
>>>> Generation will be dead, and the pressure will ease.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm, that must be why our population keeps increasing.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>>>> You think that in the future it may not be needs based versus
>>>>> simply based on age?
>>>>
>>>> My guess is not.
>>>
>>> That's too bad, we could save some money there.
>>>
>>>>> Unless, of
>>>>>> course, you assume we never get out of the current depression.
>>>>>> Under conservative actuarial calculations, the system has enough
>>>>>> money to pay all benefits through 2037.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it gets the money due it. The shortfall is being borrowed at
>>>>> about 40 cents on the dollar today.
>>>>
>>>> It's all borrowed. The trust fund buys treasuries.
>>>
>>> You think that trust fund consists of piles of money just waiting to
> be
>>> placed back in circulation?
>>
>> No, I think it consists of treasury bonds.
>
> And the money with which to pay them when they are cashed is borrowed.
> It isn't sitting a pile somewhere.

It certainly isn't sitting in a pile somewhere because the bonds will be
paid from future revenue streams. With money paid in taxes, fines,
tariffs or with money borrowed. Hard to say because money is fungible.
Problems don't arise merely because money is owed.

[Joe Cooper]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:ov6dnb2bUJKiaAfN...@giganews.com:

But there was a time when it DID, which lasted until the SC got involved.
The current case before the court has the plaintif alleging that it still
IS the sole measure in her case.


--

"The SEALs removed one threat to America,
damned shame the voters failed to remove the other."

[deadrat]

On 11/8/12 1:35 AM, Joe Cooper wrote:
> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
> news:ov6dnb2bUJKiaAfN...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 11/7/12 1:31 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:
>>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
>>> news:CpGdnZ92VqaoKAfN...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 11/7/12 11:43 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:o96l98hb6rmbfficd...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:34:16 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> IOW, you can't explain why we should engage in racism in order to
>>>>> 'compensate' for other racism.
>>>>
>>>> This "compensatory racism" is a figment of your fever dreams. You've
>>>> invented a straw man, called it affirmative action, and knocked it
>>> down.
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court has disagreed, and found that affirmative action can
>>> indeed be "compensatory racism" when race becomes the sole measure by
>>> which a student application is judged.
>>
>> Thanks for making my point for me. Affirmative action doesn't make
> race
>> "the sole measure" of anything.
>
> But there was a time when it DID, which lasted until the SC got involved.

Horseshit. SCOTUS has held that quotas and their equivalent are
illegal. That was time out of mind, the 1978 Bakke case.

> The current case before the court has the plaintif alleging that it still
> IS the sole measure in her case.

More horseshit. The plaintiff is alleging that the affirmative action
program at the U of Texas is illegal because it considers race at all.
This is an invitation to overturn previous SCOTUS rulings that allowed
race as a consideration.

[Scout]

<retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5hil98tfh0ta78s40...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 12:33:37 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> I'd say the question is what do you want more, to help your kids get
>>> prepared or to bitch and whine.
>>

>>So are you suggesting that ignoring the issue as long as his kids are
>>taken
>>care of is the proper solution?
>
>
> That would be his solution.

Actually, that would appear to be what you suggest for a solution.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> original *jurisdiction* . In all the other cases before mentioned, the
> Supreme Court shall have *appellate jurisdiction* , both as to law and fact,

> with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall
> make.
>
> The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by
> jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes
> shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the
> trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have
> directed.

NOT forgetting but using only when it applies....

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution,"

This line has a *QUALIFIER* and that is "as usual" at the end of the
sentence and is "arising under this constitution" which is saying that
judicial power is limited to "all cases within the jurisdiction of this
constitution" only it was less wordy the way the founders wrote it.



"UNDER this constitution" - means the cases that are within their
jurisdiction as per there being a constitutional(jurisdictional) power
from which the law was based and written and the constitution allows
for. That means you and I and the home owners association can't write
a law that is within the supreme courts jurisdiction "in essence we
can't write federal law". They won't hear a case unless it involves a
law written that relates in some way to their existing constitutional
powers.

Since there is/was no existing power to "interpret" the constitution
and give that interpretation the same constitutional weight as an
amendment, the power they gave themselves and all subsequent decisions
from that violation of the constitution are null and void and the
practice must be ceased immediately.


The word "unconstitutional is made up", it exists no where in the
constitution.... so they don't have the power to declare anything
unconstitutional. What they do have is the power to decide
jurisdiction which by the way is a power in the constitution. I
highlighted two instances of *JURISDICTION* in your quoted material
alone, and yet I see no instance of "unconstitutional" anywhere in the
constitution.

The way you "believe" as in your religion, is that the Supreme Court
rewrites the constitution on a daily basis and that trumps the actual
writing in the document it's self.... That is NOT and never was a part
of the constitution.

That was not written into the document.... instead they chose to write
in Article 5 that allows "written" amendments. NO other way to amend
the constitution is possible and they did that on purpose. NOT laws
and NOT treaties and NOT courts can rewrite the constitution and amend
it so NOTHING is equal to the constitution and the only way to change it
is through Article 5. We have one main document from which "ALL"
Federal government power is derived. If it's NOT "in" the constitution
it does NOT exist "in" the Federal Government. That means the
department of education is NOT a federal agency. They have no
authority to exist.

So I can simply ignore anything that is NOT derived from the
constitution, just like I ignore you writing a law in your mommies
basement and posting on the door because you have no power to make law.

[jim]

RD Sandman wrote:

>
> And the money with which to pay them when they are cashed is borrowed.
> It isn't sitting a pile somewhere.

Very little of what people consider to be their money
is sitting in piles. Maybe around 5% of what is regarded
as money is in a form that can be piled.

If the govt had been taking money from the economy
and piling it up somewhere there would long ago
have been no currency for anyone else to
put in piles.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:07:17 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>>
>> I was s single father. I didn't spend a lot of time at my sonl;s
>> school, or with school activities. I assumed that his school was just
>> like my school when I was his age. One day, he brought home a class
>> picture that was taken by a professional photograqpher hired by the
>> school system. There were only two white people i the photo. My son
>> and one other kid. The teacher, and all the other kids were black.
>
>And you didn't know this until he was in what grade? Didn't you attend
>any PTA meetings or meet with his teachers to check on his progress?
>Where did his friends come from?
>
> No,
>> on the face of it this shouldn;t mean anything, but we lived in a
>> neighborhood where about 90% of the families were white people. So, )I
>> asked myself_ where did all those black kids come from. Turns out that
>> they were bussed fro East Pwlo Alto on the other side of Hyway 101.
>
>OK. Are you saying that they were all dumped in his class?
>
> I
>> went to his school the next day, and all the teachers, the prijncipal,
>> 95% mofg the students, the secretaries, janitor and everyone else were
>> black. I asked my neighbors where their kidsw went to school. Oh, we
>> send him to private schoolm they said, /turns out that I was the only
>> one who didn't know what had happened.
>
>That should be a clue.


Another interesting point: he blames the "state school" though the kid
went on to private school "but the damage was done". LOL.

So they couldn't bring him up to speed? But they hold no culpability
for him, because that's the market place which is perfect, it must be
the gubamint's fault.

And certainly not his.

He was too busy lecturing usenet of the need for people to take
responsibility for themselves ala libertarian dogma.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:26:37 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>>> As you can, the BoR is mostly applied to the states now over a period
>>> of years from 1897 to 2010.
>
>Didn't read any of that, did you. Didn't learn a damn thing from it, did
>you.


But that's the state's fault!

[Bill Graham]

Clave wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:fOydnRoMR51iPgTN...@giganews.com...

>> Clave wrote:
>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote

>>> in message news:50995C2F...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>> On 11/6/2012 12:11 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:54:23 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>> <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> They act like the lower cost of a house is making my inflation
>>>>>>> less and yet I get no benefit from cheaper housing..... MY
>>>>>>> inflation is going up and up while someone buying a house this
>>>>>>> year sees their inflation at
>>>>>>> 2.3% mine is at 5-7%.
>>>>>> Yes. My jars of vasaline (for my psoriasis) are a good example.
>>>>>> They used to
>>>>>> be a one pound jar, for like a dollar a jar. Then they became 15
>>>>>> OZ. Then
>>>>>> 14, 5then 13 and of course the price crawled up too. Today they
>>>>>> are like 12.5 oz, each, and they cost around $2.50 a jar. And,
>>>>>> its funny
>>>>>> how the brand name doesn't matter... No matter what the brand,
>>>>>> all the jars are the
>>>>>> same size and roughly the same price. I am contemplating buying a
>>>>>> 55 gallon
>>>>>> drim of it and storing it in my basement.....
>>>>>
>>>>> A "mathematician" should know the difference between anecdotal
>>>>> evidence and broad statistical data.
>>>>
>>>> Obama is a Harvard constitutional scholar and he's ignorant of how
>>>> it works....
>>>
>>> ScottyL00n thinks he's smarter than Barack Obama.
>>>
>>> And has no clue just how hilarious that is.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> A lot of people are smarter than Barak Obama. As presidents go, he
>> is not very smart...
>
> LOL -- you're so cute when you pretend you know what you're talking
> about.
> Jim

Anyone with any common sense, whether mathematician or not, should know
better than to accept any statistical conclusions without seeing the raw
data, and knowing where it came from, how it was obtained, and what
questions were asked and to whom. (If questions were asked) There is far too
much hanky-panky with "stastistical data".....

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:46:29 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>> It's scary that people with such ignorance about our fundamental
>> documents, rights and government are voting.
>>
>
>Yes, and they exist on both sides of the aisle. One can only hope that
>they offset each other.

In my youth I drove taxi in a large city to pay for college. I
remember standing in line to cash out one day with all the immigrant
drivers, while an angry BG type was bitching about the taxes that were
being taken out of our take for the day. He started bitching about how
we needed a revolution.

This Iranian fellow turned on him and said "Who are your state
senators?"

"I don't know".

"Who's your Congressional representative?"

"I don't know"

"Who's on your county council?"
"I don't know"

"City Council?"
"I don't know".

"You don't even know what you would be revolting against. Go learn
something."

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> On 11/6/2012 8:43 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2012 7:51 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:49:31 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, why don't you grace us with your definition of, "racism"?
>>>> How about someone who blames his kids poor education results on the
>>>> fact his classroom and teachers were mostly black?
>>

>> How about a government that busses all the black kids fro
>> their respective schools to the school im my neighborhood, for no
>> other reason than because they are black?
>> I only expect the kids in my sons school to be the same colior as the
>> kids who lived on our block and the surrounding blocke. I didn't
>> expect hem to come from any place else. I pay house taxes for that
>> school, and should have the right to send my kids to it and not have
>> them go to a private school in order to be with their friends. My

>> state screwed my kids out of their education for which I paid for
>> over ten years.....

> Welcome to Socialism.

Yes. I shouldn't be surprised. Its just another way to screw the rich. I am
angry because they screwed my kids out of what was rightfully theirs....

[deadrat]

On 11/8/12 3:30 AM, K Wills wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:18:39 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/12 3:40 AM, K Wills wrote:
>> <snip/>
>>>
>>> If Democrats weren't so determined to claim minorities can't make
>>> it on their own (projecting these minorities are somehow inferior),
>>> the world may well be a far better place.
>>
>> Seems dem stoopid minor'ties made it to the votin' places shonuff.
>>
>
> In typical Democrat fashion, you see minorities as being stupid.
> Why do you lot see minorities as inferior? Serious question.

Do I have to mark these posts as ironic so you can follow? Because I
will if it will help you understand.

First of all, you can't cite a single Democrat who makes the "claim"
that "minorities can't make it on their own." Given the makeup of the
Democratic coalition, that would be political suicide. So I'll assume
that you mean that's what Democrats really think and that's what
Democratic policies betray.

Over 50M people voted for the Democratic candidate for President. The
collective noun "Democrats" is a useful shorthand, but only a fool
imputes thoughts and motivations to an abstraction, thoughts and
motivations that only individuals have. Are there some Democrats who
see some minorities as "somehow inferior"? I suppose. How do you gauge
the extent of that vision? You never even try, possibly because you
realize it's impossible to do or possibly because you're not making a
serious allegation of fact. Who knows?

The same argument goes for minorities, another abstraction, or even
worse, a collection of abstractions. Over 90% of black voters and over
70% of Hispanic voters voted Democratic. Do they see themselves as
somehow inferior? Or do they see as inferior only the minorities to
which they don't belong?

Or are you only talking about white Democrats? Or only white Democratic
policy makers? Or only white Democratic political strategists? I doubt
even you know what you're talking about.

My guess is that you've projected your own feelings into these
abstractions to reify them into something you can attack. Examine your
thought processes and get back to me.

That dialect response was made to ridicule *you*, not minority voters,
who defied Republican efforts at voter suppression, sometimes standing
on line for hours to vote. They made it to the polling places on their
own and they voted their political interests on their own. And I doubt
they identified those interests with anyone who would "claim" they were
inferior.

Is this becoming any clearer,because I'm typing as slowly as I can so
you can follow along. Go back and read it again if you have to. Sound
out the words if necessary.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:05:04 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>> Jury nullification can also include simply refusing a verdict for various
>> reasons.
>
>I'm not sure what "various" means here. Jury nullification is acquittal
>while acknowledging the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt.

Not really. It means disregarding the evidence or the law.

A jury that doesn't think marijuana laws should exist could let a
person off without regard to the sufficiency of the evidence based
solely on their feeling of the invalidity of the law.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:06:40 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>
>In simpler terms, if a law is NOT within their jurisdiction no action
>related to that law can be heard by the court. Because as far as they
>are concerned that "law" doesn't exist, just as if it were written by
>you or I and then used on citizens.

Can anyone make sense of this?

[Scout]

<retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b7rn981gojs9k9ds2...@4ax.com...

He believes that he can write laws that all other people have to obey, and
doesn't want SCOTUS sticking their nose in?

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 8:57 PM, deadrat wrote:

>> On 11/6/12 5:31 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>> news:iIydncUJbOqwCwTN...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>>>>> On 11/5/2012 5:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>>>> wrote in news:5097F84B...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>>>>>> news:yPidnSr-pvr0igrN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/12 12:53 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in

>> going to acquit anyway." That's not what the jurors said. They said

>> they didn't believe the police evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
>> You may think that irrational, but it's not nullification.
>>

>> <snip/>
>>
> Of course NOT <WINK> <wink>

If there was, "reasonable doubt" in the criminal trial, then he shouldn't
have to pay any damages for the crime anywhere else, and/or in any
subsequent trial. This is simple logic. Responsibility wasn't proved.
Period.
You may do all the hand waving you want..... Ready? - GO!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

And I said "Exactly..." I was asking which amendment is abortion in?
There is no abortion anywhere in the constitution and if you say it is
privacy then why is my health care NOT also privacy like a woman's
abortion health care? Why is my reproduction not protected by privacy
like a woman's and why is ObamaCare telling us both that we shall have
insurance for our own private reproductive parts? They aren't private
if the government is telling us whet we have to do and limiting CHOICE.


For instance..... Now that we have ObamaCare, is a woman forced to
buy separate health care for the baby in her uterus? Or is the baby in
her uterus private to her so that a woman needs no insurance on her
reproductive system? If the government can't tell her what to do with
here body how is it that they are forcing the woman to buy insurance for
medical treatment of her body, that suggests that medical treatment is
also required? And that is a bunch of old men in black robes taking
control of the woman's body and limiting her CHOICES.

Welcome to Obamaland.

and

[Bill Graham]

K Wills wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:39:26 -0800, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 00:56:31 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Unless it isn't consistent with current GOP dogma, in which case
>>>> the truth is a left-wing conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> It wasn't libertarians who conceived and implimented the
>>> affirmative action program.... And this is a prime example of a
>>> government sponsored racist program if I ever saw one.
>>
>>
>> Your "solution" has one group promulgate rules where they accumulate
>> all the wealth off of slave labor and pass it on to their offspring.
>
> Please provide evidence that Bill has ever had a slave. Next,
> provide evidence that any wealth his children may have is a result of
> Bill's ownership of a slave.
> Unless you've been proved wrong in your assertion, you should be
> able to offer something.
> I've known Bill on Usenet for a few years. Nothing I've seen
> would support a claim that he's ever owned a slave, or that his
> children have any accumulated wealth as a result of his having owned a
> slave.
>
>> Then one day unlock the shackles and say "Sorry about that. You're
>> free now. Here's your equal opportunity. Good luck".
>
> And in spite of the efforts of Democrats, many make it.
>
>>
>> The notion that a people can be deprived of freedom, education,
>> rights and wealth, and then expected to compete for their
>> opportunity for happiness and success with 300 years of handicap
>> with the privileged and that this is fair, is absurd, naive, and
>> frankly stupid.
>
> If the Democrats weren't so determined to keep minorities
> subjugated, very little, if any, of the problems you list would exist.
>
>>
>> Now if you wanted to talk about whether affirmative action has gone
>> on long enough or is it's time done or should be fine tuned - that
>> might be a meaningful conversation. But the notion that society owes
>> nothing to a group its systematically imprisoned, oppressed and
>> stolen from for centuries is obnoxious.
>>
>
> Punish people because of something done by others in the past is
> wrong.
> I can assure you no member of my family has ever owned a slave
> going back as far as records show. It's possible Tuk-Tuk enslaved
> Ugg-ugg. Tuk-Tuk may have forced Ugg-Ugg to sweep out the cave, of
> course.
>
>> It's dressing up bitterness and self serving desires in a veneer of
>> bogus "philosophy.

>
> If Democrats weren't so determined to claim minorities can't make
> it on their own (projecting these minorities are somehow inferior),
> the world may well be a far better place.

I believe this. The minorities I have known who did well came from families
who were somehow able, in spite of government give-away programs, to
convince their kids that they were just as able as everyone else and could
make it anywhere without outside help. I wish the liberals would see this
and act on it.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:31:12 +0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<contr...@126.com> wrote:

>The Supreme Court has disagreed, and found that affirmative action can
>indeed be "compensatory racism" when race becomes the sole measure by
>which a student application is judged.

Nah, "compensatory racism" is merely spin and code for a certain set.
The supreme court never uttered the phrase.

It's a cheap way of encapsulating your position without having to
actually look at what they said.

[Bill Graham]

K Wills wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:17:59 -0800, "Clave"
> <ChrisC...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
> [...]

>
>>>>> It wasn't libertarians who conceived and implimented the
>>>>> affirmative action program.... And this is a prime example of a
>>>>> government sponsored racist program if I ever saw one.
>>>>

>>>> Spoken like a bitter old white male.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> Bitter or not, I address the facts...
>>
>> Another clown who doesn't know the difference between fact and
>> opinion.
>
> Please provide the evidence that libertarians conceived and
> implemented the Affirmative Action program. Bill's possition, as seen
> above, is that they did not. He's not offering an opinion.

My contention is that such programs do more damage than good, because they
teach minorities that they are really inferior and can't make it on their
own in the siciety, but have to have extra help from the government in order
to survive. This is a terrible thing to teach anybody. In fact, there are
even non-minorities who have come to believe this, mostly (I believe)
because of these government give-away programs. It only promotes and
prolongs racism in the society.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/7/2012 5:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> news:pYAms.456482$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:
>
>> On 11/7/2012 3:01 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>> news:tTnms.454990$iq1.3...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:28 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote
>>>>> in message news:509875DD...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 7:13 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote
>>>>>>> in news:50984D90...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 5:25 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote in news:5098107A...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 12:47 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in news:5097D5F1...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 12:35 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:

NOW back to... the amendment process and why the courts have no powre
to amend the constitution.


The courts use these "decisions" to create unseen and unwritten powers
like their power to rule on abortions. The only way they can even rule
on it is if there is a power that allows laws on abortion and the only
one I can see is our right to life, liberty and property.

That one would suggest that government taking a life would violate those
amendments, they are 5th and 14th.

I see no amendment that would allow it since your right to privacy is
NOT a right to take a life in private rather than public.

Or a right that suggests that your right to life supersedes other right
to life due to geography or age.



--

*Rumination*
#47 - ObamaCare is like a box of Cracker Jacks, you had to buy it to
find out what the surprise inside was? It was Slavery "surprise".

[deep]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 12:43:09 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:


>> You are the twit who keeps claiming that the Supreme Court ratifies
>> amendments. Then when asked which one did they ratify.....you said
>> abortion. I asked which one that was.
>>
>> Apparently you don't know.
>>
>>
>
>And I said "Exactly..." I was asking which amendment is abortion in?
>There is no abortion anywhere in the constitution and if you say it is
>privacy then why is my health care NOT also privacy like a woman's
>abortion health care? Why is my reproduction not protected by privacy
>like a woman's and why is ObamaCare telling us both that we shall have
>insurance for our own private reproductive parts? They aren't private
>if the government is telling us whet we have to do and limiting CHOICE.
>
>
> For instance..... Now that we have ObamaCare, is a woman forced to
>buy separate health care for the baby in her uterus? Or is the baby in
>her uterus private to her so that a woman needs no insurance on her
>reproductive system? If the government can't tell her what to do with
>here body how is it that they are forcing the woman to buy insurance for
>medical treatment of her body, that suggests that medical treatment is
>also required? And that is a bunch of old men in black robes taking
>control of the woman's body and limiting her CHOICES.
>
> Welcome to Obamaland.
>
>and
>
>
>*Welcome to Socialism*
>

Where did you get to be such a complete dumbass?

>
>-Kum bay ya-

[Bill Graham]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My state screwed my kids out of their
>>> education for which I paid for over ten years.....
>>
>>

>> For the record, my kid had poor teachers and we had issues over the
>> years with what and how they were being taught. But we sat with him
>> and helped him with homework, talked to his teachers, talked to their
>> supervisors, requested changes of teachers, and changes of principals
>> and schools. We shepherded his education and got them what they
>> needed.
>>
>> It's called parenting and taking responsibility.
>
> How does that make a shitty school system tolerable?

I was a single parent, working full time, and raising my son too. I only
expected the school system to work as well as it did when I was young. My
parents didn't have to spend any outside time supervising either me or my
teachers. I was paying for a functional school system, just like the one I
was raised under. I had no idea that it had been destroyed by the liberals.

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> On 11/7/2012 11:38 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> How about a government that busses all the black kids fro
>>> their respective schools to the school im my neighborhood, for no
>>> other reason than because they are black?
>>> I only expect the kids in my sons school to be the same colior as
>>> the kids who lived on our block and the surrounding blocke.

>> Separate but equal, huh?
>
> Regional but equal..... Do you force white people to move to Chicago
> to make it equal?
>
> Why then, would you bus children?
>
>
>
>
> Why do you think blacks living in their own community by choice aren't
> equal to whites living in their own community by choice?
> Thanks for the added example of MORE Democrat racism.

Yes. I never got any reason from the school district as to why they bussed
all the black kids from East Palo Alto to my son't school in Menlo Park. Had
they kept the same teachers, they may have been trying to see if the
teachers in East Palo Alto weren't doing their jopb. But they didn't.
Apparently, they bussed them to my school also. So the only thing that
really changed was the building and rooms themselves. - It didn't make any
sense at all.

[retro...@comcast.net]

All of the above is pure nonsense.


Try and read something true:
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a3

This explains it well.

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:JGPms.459370$iq1.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com:

You and I and the homeowners association can't write or enact ANY law.
So much for that.

They won't hear a case unless it
> involves a law written that relates in some way to their existing
> constitutional powers.

Under the Constitution means anything that the Constitution has sway
over. They are pretty well spelled out in that paragraph and the next
one.

> Since there is/was no existing power to "interpret" the constitution
> and give that interpretation the same constitutional weight as an
> amendment, the power they gave themselves and all subsequent decisions
> from that violation of the constitution are null and void and the
> practice must be ceased immediately.

Who do you think should interpret what the Constitution says? Obama and
his administration? Nancy Pelosi? How about Harry Reid? You? Me?
How about your bowl of Rice Krispies? The group who logically do that is
the judicial one as it has no ax to grind or agenda to meet. I take it
you have never read Marbury v Madison or the history behind it.

> The word "unconstitutional is made up", it exists no where in the
> constitution....

Hmmmm, the word "undead" is simply another way of saying "alive". "Un
eaten is simply another way of saying that no one has chowed down on that
item. What do you mean "unconstititutional" is made up? Who do you
think made it up?

so they don't have the power to declare anything
> unconstitutional. What they do have is the power to decide
> jurisdiction which by the way is a power in the constitution. I
> highlighted two instances of *JURISDICTION* in your quoted material
> alone, and yet I see no instance of "unconstitutional" anywhere in the
> constitution.

You wouldn't because you don't understand what you are reading.

> The way you "believe" as in your religion, is that the Supreme Court
> rewrites the constitution on a daily basis and that trumps the actual
> writing in the document it's self.... That is NOT and never was a
> part of the constitution.

Where in hell do you get these ignorant ideas? You have no idea what I
believe, or what my religion, if any, is or that I think the Supreme
Court rewrites the Constitution on a daily basis.

I will tell you, however, what I do believe. I believe that you are so
ignorant about life, the Constitution, the legal process, etc.. that you
are a lost cause. You don't show any propensity to learn anything nor
any desire to do so.

> That was not written into the document.... instead they chose to
> write in Article 5 that allows "written" amendments. NO other way to
> amend the constitution is possible and they did that on purpose.
> NOT laws and NOT treaties and NOT courts can rewrite the constitution
> and amend it so NOTHING is equal to the constitution and the only way
> to change it is through Article 5. We have one main document from
> which "ALL" Federal government power is derived. If it's NOT "in" the
> constitution it does NOT exist "in" the Federal Government. That
> means the department of education is NOT a federal agency. They have
> no authority to exist.
>
> So I can simply ignore anything that is NOT derived from the
> constitution,

You don't even understand the consitution....no wonder you ignore it.

just like I ignore you writing a law in your mommies
> basement and posting on the door because you have no power to make
> law.

And, you, apparently, have no power to learn anything. You must have
homeschooled yourself.


--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:52:35 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>
>

>"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
>arising under this Constitution,"
>
>This line has a *QUALIFIER* and that is "as usual" at the end of the
>sentence and is "arising under this constitution" which is saying that
>judicial power is limited to "all cases within the jurisdiction of this
>constitution" only it was less wordy the way the founders wrote it.
>
>
>
>"UNDER this constitution" - means the cases that are within their
>jurisdiction as per there being a constitutional(jurisdictional) power
>from which the law was based and written and the constitution allows
>for. That means you and I and the home owners association can't write
>a law that is within the supreme courts jurisdiction "in essence we
>can't write federal law". They won't hear a case unless it involves a
>law written that relates in some way to their existing constitutional
>powers.

Reality check in detail:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag14_user.html#art3_sec2

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 11/7/2012 11:35 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:

>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:53 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:43:51 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My state screwed my kids out of their
>>>>> education for which I paid for over ten years.....
>>>>
>>>> For the record, my kid had poor teachers and we had issues over the
>>>> years with what and how they were being taught. But we sat with him
>>>> and helped him with homework, talked to his teachers, talked to
>>>> their supervisors, requested changes of teachers, and changes of
>>>> principals and schools. We shepherded his education and got them
>>>> what they needed.
>>>>
>>>> It's called parenting and taking responsibility.
>>> How does that make a shitty school system tolerable?
>>

>> I'd say the question is what do you want more, to help your kids get
>> prepared or to bitch and whine.

> How does a bus ride or a skin color change in a teacher make your kids
> better prepared?

I am not saying that my kid got a bad education because his teachers and
classmates were black. What I am saying is that he got a bad ecucation
because both his teachers and his classmates were stupid. I verified this by
going to the school and talking to them. I still wonder where all the
intelligent teachers that used to be there went. He was going to a school
with strange kids from another neighborhood, and full of idiots who called
themselves teachers but who couldn't think their way our of a paper bag, and
they were trying to teach him things that he had no use for and would never
have any use for.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:37:00 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>

>If there was, "reasonable doubt" in the criminal trial, then he shouldn't
>have to pay any damages for the crime anywhere else, and/or in any
>subsequent trial. This is simple logic. Responsibility wasn't proved.
>Period.
>You may do all the hand waving you want..... Ready? - GO!

So when someone does damage to your house or car, you're okay with
having to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and not just a
preponderance of the evidence? (If you knew what that meant you
wouldn't but I suspect you can't tell the difference.)

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:KeGdnaQaZK2sagfN...@giganews.com:

> On 11/7/12 1:57 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
>> news:3aCdnROk0ZeNXQTN...@giganews.com:

>>
>>> On 11/6/12 5:31 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> news:iIydncUJbOqwCwTN...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>>>>>> On 11/5/2012 5:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>>>>>>> wrote in news:5097F84B...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:yPidnSr-pvr0igrN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/12 12:53 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>

>> Jury nullification can also include simply refusing a verdict for
>> various reasons.
>
> I'm not sure what "various" means here. Jury nullification is
> acquittal while acknowledging the sufficiency of the evidence of
> guilt.

To nullify, the jury does not have to state that the evidence was
sufficient. They just have to return a verdict of "not guilty" despite
the appearance of the evidence in the eyes of others.

>> Bottom line is that the evidence was there that should have
>> convicted OJ
>
> Bottom line is that the evidence was there that would have convinced
> you to vote for conviction. This is different.

Somewhat. If it convinced me, it should have convinced the jury. It
didn't.

>> but there were also questions including his hero status,
>
> Let's phrase this properly: you have questions about the intellectual
> integrity of the jurors when they considered the evidence against a
> sympathetic celebrity.

I did phrase it properly. You just wanted to rephrase it.

>> the
>> feelings toward LAPD tainting testimony in the eyes of the jurors,
>> the lying about the use of the word "nigger" by Fuhrman, the staging
>> of the glove by Cochran, etc..
>
> The jurors are the triers of fact, including the reliability of
> witnesses.

No shit? Really? That is what they are supposed to do. Do they always
do that? No.

> That's not what the jurors said. They said
>>> they didn't believe the police evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>> You may think that irrational, but it's not nullification.
>>

>> It is if they said, "Fuck it, I don't believe the evidence and I
>> don't care."
>
> But they didn't. They essentially said, "Based on the testimony at
> trial, we can't trust the people giving the evidence."
>
> You've imputed lack of care based on how you would have voted.

Not at all. I have no problem with them nullifying. That is one thing
jurys can do. How I would have voted makes no difference, particularly
when I saw evidence that they didn't. Heard courtroom conversations that
they didn't.

[RD Sandman]

retro...@comcast.net wrote in
news:i1rn98h4gv6h9d5jn...@4ax.com:

Yep.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:11:47 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>>> I'd say the question is what do you want more, to help your kids get
>>> prepared or to bitch and whine.
>> How does a bus ride or a skin color change in a teacher make your kids
>> better prepared?
>
>I am not saying that my kid got a bad education because his teachers and
>classmates were black. What I am saying is that he got a bad ecucation
>because both his teachers and his classmates were stupid. I verified this by
>going to the school and talking to them. I still wonder where all the
>intelligent teachers that used to be there went. He was going to a school
>with strange kids from another neighborhood, and full of idiots who called
>themselves teachers but who couldn't think their way our of a paper bag, and
>they were trying to teach him things that he had no use for and would never
>have any use for.

We call that scapegoating.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:59:53 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>>> It's called parenting and taking responsibility.
>>
>> How does that make a shitty school system tolerable?
>
>I was a single parent, working full time, and raising my son too. I only
>expected the school system to work as well as it did when I was young.

Looking at your posts, I have to conclude the problems seems to be it
may just have.

[RD Sandman]

retro...@comcast.net wrote in news:sdqn989bgd577o76hr7g802u4mkoktg1h9@
4ax.com:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:07:17 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I was s single father. I didn't spend a lot of time at my sonl;s
>>> school, or with school activities. I assumed that his school was just
>>> like my school when I was his age. One day, he brought home a class
>>> picture that was taken by a professional photograqpher hired by the
>>> school system. There were only two white people i the photo. My son
>>> and one other kid. The teacher, and all the other kids were black.
>>
>>And you didn't know this until he was in what grade? Didn't you attend
>>any PTA meetings or meet with his teachers to check on his progress?
>>Where did his friends come from?
>>
>> No,
>>> on the face of it this shouldn;t mean anything, but we lived in a
>>> neighborhood where about 90% of the families were white people. So, )
I
>>> asked myself_ where did all those black kids come from. Turns out
that
>>> they were bussed fro East Pwlo Alto on the other side of Hyway 101.
>>
>>OK. Are you saying that they were all dumped in his class?
>>
>> I
>>> went to his school the next day, and all the teachers, the
prijncipal,
>>> 95% mofg the students, the secretaries, janitor and everyone else
were
>>> black. I asked my neighbors where their kidsw went to school. Oh, we
>>> send him to private schoolm they said, /turns out that I was the only
>>> one who didn't know what had happened.
>>
>>That should be a clue.
>
>
> Another interesting point: he blames the "state school" though the kid
> went on to private school "but the damage was done". LOL.
>
> So they couldn't bring him up to speed? But they hold no culpability
> for him, because that's the market place which is perfect, it must be
> the gubamint's fault.
>
> And certainly not his.
>
> He was too busy lecturing usenet of the need for people to take
> responsibility for themselves ala libertarian dogma.
>

Yet he didn't for his own child other than to move him to a private
school. I would bet that he spent no time with any teachers or board
there either.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:59:53 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> My

>parents didn't have to spend any outside time supervising either me or my
>teachers.

You may have benefited if they taken an interest.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:59:53 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>I was a single parent, working full time, and raising my son too. I only
>expected the school system to work as well as it did when I was young. My
>parents didn't have to spend any outside time supervising either me or my
>teachers. I was paying for a functional school system, just like the one I
>was raised under. I had no idea that it had been destroyed by the liberals.

And the private school couldn't replace your responsibility either,
huh?

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 11/7/2012 11:34 AM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:14 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude

>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:47:07 -0500, "Scout"
>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If a government program was enacted that favored whites over
>>>>> blacks...would that be racist?
>>>>
>>>> It would depend on history and the facts. Under the current history
>>>> no.
>>> Give a hypothetical example of how this would not be racist.
>>
>> If whites were systemically excluded from a profession for a century,
>> it would be permissible to design a system that encourages entry into
>> that profession and rewards employers for hiring them, etc.
> In a Democrat-Socialist run society.
>
>
> Where we have equality and a Constitution it isn't permissible for
> government to be racists.

But our government is racist. The Native American programs are racist, /they
single out these people (who are biologically just human beings like the
rest of us) and put them on reservations and treat them differently than the
rest of us, just like they were some different species of animal. And, with
the affirmative action program, the government also does much the same with
black people and other minorities. If these people were the ones harmed in
the past, well that might be OK. But they aren't! It was their ancestors who
were harmed, and the people alive today weren't even the ones who harmed
those ancestors. IOW, it is gross stupidity. Not only that, but it is
promoting more racism in the future.

[RD Sandman]

retro...@comcast.net wrote in news:7oqn98dvd57jol3850nnpq8is1d8rjgeq0@
4ax.com:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:46:29 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> It's scary that people with such ignorance about our fundamental
>>> documents, rights and government are voting.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, and they exist on both sides of the aisle. One can only hope that
>>they offset each other.
>
>
> In my youth I drove taxi in a large city to pay for college. I
> remember standing in line to cash out one day with all the immigrant
> drivers, while an angry BG type was bitching about the taxes that were
> being taken out of our take for the day. He started bitching about how
> we needed a revolution.
>
> This Iranian fellow turned on him and said "Who are your state
> senators?"
>
> "I don't know".
>
> "Who's your Congressional representative?"
>
> "I don't know"
>
> "Who's on your county council?"
> "I don't know"
>
> "City Council?"
> "I don't know".
>
> "You don't even know what you would be revolting against. Go learn
> something."
>

;)

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:30:49 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Yes. I shouldn't be surprised. Its just another way to screw the rich. I am
>angry because they screwed my kids out of what was rightfully theirs....


Involved parenting?

[Bill Graham]

RD Sandman wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

> news:7t-dnS9QOLSKOwTN...@giganews.com:

>
>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>> news:14qdnSiSZoKsWwXN...@giganews.com:

>>>
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in

>>>>> He wasn't tried twice for the same crime. He was charged with
>>>>> different offenses in the same incident. He was tried criminally
>>>>> by the state for the murder of his wife, Nicole and Ron Goldman.
>>>>> He was adjudicated not guilty. He was then charged **civilly** by
>>>>> the Goldman family for actions resulting in the wrongful death of
>>>>> their son, Ron.
>>>>>
>>>>> The charge of murder, brought by the State of California since it
>>>>> is felony murder is a state crime, is a criminal charge which can
>>>>> result in the death penalty or imprisonment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The charge of actions resulting in a wrongful death is a **civil**
>>>>> charge, since it is a compensatory claim not a crime, which can
>>>>> and did end in a financial settlement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Criminal charges usually result in the possibility of death or
>>>>> imprisonment and civil charges are for financial compensation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the jury vote is different. In a criminal trial, a unanimous
>>>>> verdict is required or you have a hung jury, in a civil trail, it
>>>>> is preponderence of the evidence and a majority vote from the
>>>>> jury.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two different offenses, two different venues, in OJ's case, two
>>>>> different results.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is, If he was not guilty in the first trial, then how
>>>> can he be responsible for damages in the second. This is not
>>>> logical.
>>>
>>> It most certainly is. He was found not guilty. He was NOT found
>>> innocent. This means that the procecution failed in its job to
>>> prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not that OJ did not commit
>>> the crimes.
>>>
>>>> Logically, they should not be able to try him in cival court for
>>>> responsibility unless he was found guilty in the criminal court
>>>> before the fact. This is what I find so objectionable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why? Are you saying that because Ms. Clark screwed up and couldn't
>>> obtain a conviction that OJ couldn't be sued in civil court?
>>>
>>> A just of his peers,
>>>> after hearing all the evidence against him,voted UNANIMOUSLY
>>>> against his guilt in the first trial. So give me the logic behind
>>>> finding him responsible for their deaths in any subsequent trial.
>>>
>>> Part of the reason OJ got a "not guilty" verdict was rancor on the
>>> jury against the LAPD for its treatment of blacks in general. That
>>> included Fuhrman lying about his use of the term "nigger", one of
>>> the detectives keeping blood samples in his coat pocket overnight
>>> instead of taking it to the lab, and OJ's fame as a sports hero.
>>>
>>> Logically, I
>>>> call this double jepordy.
>>>
>>> Logically, I call this a failure on the part of the LA county
>>> prosecutor's office. The evidence was there but mishandled and some
>>> possible signs of tampering.
>>
>> All of the above may well be true, and oersonally I believe he was as
>> guilty as hell, but that isnlt my point. We have nothing to go on but
>> our trial process, and it, for whatever reason, found OJ not guilty
>> of the crime.
>
> Yes, he was found not guilty. He was NOT found innocent. Goldman's
> parents felt OJ had culpability in the wrongful death of their son so
> they sued him for that. A civil jury agreed.
>
> So, he can't logically be held responsible for any
>> consepuences of that crime,
>
> Yes, he can. He cannot be held responsible twice for the crime
> itself. He wasn't.
>
> but he was in a subsequent courtroom
>> action.
>
> Yes, different venue all together. The criminal trial had to a
> unanimous verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed
> to get that and that was their only bite at the apple. They cannot
> try him again for the **murder** of Ron Goldman or Nicole Simpson.
> The Goldman family sued OJ for compensation in the wrongful death of
> their son. They won. They didn't sue him for murder.....that is a
> criminal trial held by the state. They sued him in civil court for
> monetary compensation.
>
> I will have to call that double jepardy by definition of the
>> term as I know it to be.
>
> You can call it an elephant if you wish. You would still be wrong.

On the contrary. I am the only one who is right. My logic trumps your law. I
know this because of my logical mathematical background. I am an engineer,
and we are the only ones who know what is really right and what is really
wrong. Your law may override my logic, and you may trmp everything I am and
have ever hoped to be. But, there iswe one thing you can never do. And that
is take away my knowledge of what it true. I may not be able to write it,
speak it or make anyone else believe it, but I will always know it. Legally,
it may not be double jepordy, but it really is double jepordy.....