tvc184

And if you can show me any legal precedent that says only people belonging to hate groups can be struck from juries and I will say that you are on to something.
 
I have sat on juries and testified in many trials. I have seen people struck and seen the defense attorney contest strikes based on race (Batson strike). In one jury pool the DA had three strikes that were contested. The DA countered that one had a spouse had been convicted of the same crime (I think it was DWI) so the potential juror might be prejudiced against the police (making for an unfair jury), one had been involved in a lawsuit based on the same crime from injuries and I don't remember the other reasoning but the judge ruled that all strikes were fair based on cause and not on race. 
 
A jury is supposed to be fair for both sides and the people serving need to go in with as much of an open mind as possible. In this case a woman is posting material on how to survive while driving black (The Negro Motorist Green Book). To me that appears that she believes that she might be targeted based on race and is even posting survival tips on how to stay away from cops. It doesn't even matter if she is correct, it a preconceived perception (prejudice) that is the problem. Nothing in that article that hippy posted or the others that I have read said that she was struck due to being an NAACP member. He also never claimed she was some kind of supremacist. 
 
I read several articles on this issue and found this as his statement... "It's not because of race. It's because in part she appeared to be an activist, and that's what we don't want. Just as if she was white, we wouldn't want a white activist or a white supremacist." The DA said that she appears to be an "activist", not a "supremacist" or "racist". Looking at her postings, she might very well be an activist for a cause. 
 
I see nothing wrong with his statement. 
 
So I will ask this, what if  the defendant was black as in this case and there was a prospective white juror that was not the member of any hate group. But maybe he had postings he had made on how to survive while being white in a minority neighborhood and had posted The Turner Diaries, just as this woman posted the book about black survival while traveling (published until the early 1960's)? The Turner Diaries was a novel written by a white separatist. Would you want this person sitting in judgment of a family member? Remember that he belongs to no group and just posts thoughts. 
 
Remember that the DA is an elected official and wanted to quickly stop something that might cost votes. That makes his firing political. That might even be within the law as an at will employee but let's call it what it is. I suspect that if a black assistant DA that made the same or similar statements and was fired, we would be seeing an opposite response. 

And if you can show me any legal precedent that says only people belonging to hate groups can be struck from juries and I will say that you are on to something.
 
I have sat on juries and testified in many trials. I have seen people struck and seen the defense attorney contest strikes based on race (Batson strike). In one jury pool the DA had three strikes that were contested. The DA countered that one had a spouse had been convicted of the same crime (I think it was DWI) so the potential juror might be prejudiced against the police (making for an unfair jury), one had been involved in a lawsuit based on the same crime from injuries and I don't remember the other reasoning but the judge ruled that all strikes were fair based on cause and not on race. 
 
A jury is supposed to be fair for both sides and the people serving need to go in with as much of an open mind as possible. In this case a woman is posting material on how to survive while driving black (The Negro Motorist Green Book). To me that appears that she believes that she might be targeted based on race and is even posting survival tips on how to stay away from cops. It doesn't even matter if she is correct, it a preconceived perception (prejudice) that is the problem. Nothing in that article that hippy posted or the others that I have read said that she was struck due to being an NAACP member. He also never claimed she was some kind of supremacist. 
 
I read several articles on this issue and found this as his statement... "It's not because of race. It's because in part she appeared to be an activist, and that's what we don't want. Just as if she was white, we wouldn't want a white activist or a white supremacist." The DA said that she appears to be an "activist", not a "supremacist" or "racist". Looking at her postings, she might very well be an activist for a cause. 
 
I see nothing wrong with his statement. 
 
So I will ask this, what if  the defendant was black as in this case and there was a prospective white juror that was not the member of any hate group. But maybe he had postings he had made on how to survive while being white in a minority neighborhood and had posted The Turner Diaries, just as this woman posted the book about black survival while traveling (published until the early 1960's)? The Turner Diaries was a novel written by a white separatist. Would you want this person sitting in judgment of a family member? Remember that he belongs to no group and just posts thoughts. 
 
Remember that the DA is an elected official and wanted to quickly stop something that might cost votes. That makes his firing political. That might even be within the law as an at will employee but let's call it what it is. I suspect that if a black assistant DA that made the same or similar statements and was fired, we would be seeing an opposite response. 

And if you can show me any legal precedent that says only people belonging to hate groups can be struck from juries and I will say that you are on to something.
 
I have sat on juries and testified in many trials. I have seen people struck and seen the defense attorney contest strikes based on race (Batson strike). In one jury pool the DA had three strikes that were contested. The DA countered that one had a spouse had been convicted of the same crime (I think it was DWI) so the potential juror might be prejudiced against the police (making for an unfair jury), one had been involved in a lawsuit based on the same crime from injuries and I don't remember the other reasoning but the judge ruled that all strikes were fair based on cause and not on race. 
 
A jury is supposed to be fair for both sides and the people serving need to go in with as much of an open mind as possible. In this case a woman is posting material on how to survive while driving black (The Negro Motorist Green Book). To me that appears that she believes that she might be targeted based on race and is even posting survival tips on how to stay away from cops. It doesn't even matter if she is correct, it a preconceived perception (prejudice) that is the problem. Nothing in that article that hippy posted or the others that I have read said that she was struck due to being an NAACP member. He also never claimed she was some kind of supremacist. 
 
I read several articles on this issue and found this as his statement... "It's not because of race. It's because in part she appeared to be an activist, and that's what we don't want. Just as if she was white, we wouldn't want a white activist or a white supremacist." The DA said that she appears to be an "activist", not a "supremacist" or "racist". Looking at her postings, she might very well be an activist for a cause. 
 
I see nothing wrong with his statement. 
 
So I will ask this, what if  the defendant was black as in this case and there was a prospective white juror that was not the member of any hate group. But maybe he had postings he had made on how to survive while being white in a minority neighborhood and had posted The Turner Diaries, just as this woman posted the book about black survival while traveling (published until the early 1960's)? The Turner Diaries was a novel written by a white separatist. Would you want this person sitting in judgment of a family member? Remember that he belongs to no group and just posts thoughts. 
 
Remember that the DA is an elected official and wanted to quickly stop something that might cost votes. That makes his firing political. That might even be within the law as an at will employee but let's call it what it is. I suspect that if a black assistant DA that made the same or similar statements and was fired, we would be seeing an opposite response. 

You are going pretty far out to try and rationalize you statement.
 
You cannot strike for any reason as you started out with because you then follow up on race. Race here is not the issue but mindset. How do you strike a member of the KKK without bringing up race? It isn't because he is white but because he is prejudiced and not likely to act fairly by the evidence presented. 
 
An activist for a cause, valid or not, is still an activist. 
 
As far as your claim of fighting an allegation between advocacy and hatred (both to me should be disqualifiers) is meaningless because that is for the opposing attorney to raise and a judge to rule. That happens every day in this country in courtrooms. This isn't an election or popularity contest. It is a plea based on legal grounds and happens any number of times in a trial or the motions leading up to it. 
 
This ADA's termination seems political for various reasons. 

You are going pretty far out to try and rationalize you statement.
 
You cannot strike for any reason as you started out with because you then follow up on race. Race here is not the issue but mindset. How do you strike a member of the KKK without bringing up race? It isn't because he is white but because he is prejudiced and not likely to act fairly by the evidence presented. 
 
An activist for a cause, valid or not, is still an activist. 
 
As far as your claim of fighting an allegation between advocacy and hatred (both to me should be disqualifiers) is meaningless because that is for the opposing attorney to raise and a judge to rule. That happens every day in this country in courtrooms. This isn't an election or popularity contest. It is a plea based on legal grounds and happens any number of times in a trial or the motions leading up to it. 
 
This ADA's termination seems political for various reasons. 

They are crowing like they beat someone. One conservative replaced a less conservative one in a seat that will likely stay Republican. That new Republican might be a bigger thorn in the side of the Dems than the guy that is being replaced and they act and think it is a great deal. 
 
To me, that is stupid. 

Haven't Obama taught you anything. ..

That simply is not true unless you intentionally skipped two step raises in between $5.15 and $7.25. 
 
If you want to do it that way, the MW was $1.60 when I started working so it went from $1.60 to $7.25. 

That is not exactly true and they did not teach that in my school and I doubt any others. The founding fathers put taxes in the US Constitution in Article I and in fact in Section 2 they allowed income taxes where it says that there are "direct taxes" allowed.
 
The SCOTUS threw out income taxes in 1895 because Section 2 said that all direct taxes collected had to be "apportioned" throughout the states. Apportioned meant that the taxes collected had to be spent back at the same rate they were taken in by the states so if Texas sent in 25% of all income taxes, then 25% had to be spent back in Texas and not sent to where Congress wanted. It had to be "apportioned". 
 
Article I Section 8 clearly says that Congress has the right to levy taxes but does not mention apportionment like Article I Section 2 which only deals with "direct taxes".
 
So taxes were allowed and direct (income) taxes were allowed but with limitations. They were never listed as illegal and in fact the US government cannot run without taxes and everyone including the founding fathers knew that. The problem with taxes is not that they exist but that their spending is abused.
 
Since Article I is the very first section of the US Constitution and in two sections it clearly talks about taxes I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that the founding fathers thought that they were evil and somehow should not exist when the colonies all signed off on it. 
 
The apportionment problem was taken away with the 16th Amendment where it takes the requirement of apportionment away. 

Whatever the percentage, it pales in comparison to the people that oppose him for his horrible performance. 
 
Apparently the majority of his votes that were from whites in his first election and his poll numbers were very high weren't racist but they changed sometime during the next six years. I suppose they weren't racist when they voted for him the first go round but now it must be his skin color and not the terrible decisions, nominations, cover ups, criminal actions, etc., that are causing those feelings.

Ask for the GG meal card the next time you go there. You can also go online and register it and they will send you specials. If you do register, you can also look at a record of every time you ate there (date, time, receipt) and how many meals until your next free one. If you go with a friend and he/she doesn't have a card, you can put both meals (or however many) on it. I took my mother and wife and got three meals logged in one setting. 

Ask for the GG meal card the next time you go there. You can also go online and register it and they will send you specials. If you do register, you can also look at a record of every time you ate there (date, time, receipt) and how many meals until your next free one. If you go with a friend and he/she doesn't have a card, you can put both meals (or however many) on it. I took my mother and wife and got three meals logged in one setting. 

I have the GG card where you can get a free meal after 10 meals bought. So far I have gotten 4 free meals and working on my 5th. 
 

Twenty-three pages on a thread about an old white guy born in the early 1930's that made a private comment to his black girlfriend that he didn't like her hanging around publicly with black guys because he is seen with her in public also? 

Menu? We don't need no stinking menu!  :D
 
Yeah, there are a couple of items on the menu but the most common by far and best is to make your own. It is like going through the line at Subway or Freebirds but instead of a build your own sandwich or burrito, you build a grilled (kind of like stir fry but dry grilled on a large plate/grill. 
 
You pick the meat(s) you want (cubed marinated beef, shredded beef, sausage, ham, pork, chicken, and others), season it with a dozen powdered/granulated flavors (sea salt, pepper, lemon pepper, ginger, garlic, dragon salt, etc.), put in your vegetables from 15 or so to choose from and then pick your flavored sauce(s) to season it with. Give it to the guys/cooks doing the grilling lastly pick the base/bed (they call starch) like spiral pasta, udon noodles, white rice, brown rice, cabbage, fried rice or tortillas (tortillas?). 
 
You pick from small, regular or large bowls. I get the regular because I know how to really stack up the vegetables. You can fill your bowl with meat but you won't have much room left for the veges. Unless you are just a big time meat eater and ignore vegetables, it is better to go lightly with the meat on your first trip. I see newbies go through the line and get crazy and stack the bowls with meat (like a kid in a candy store), then figure out that they have room for about half a cup of vegetables that when cooked turn into about two tablespoons. Now if you are a meat eater and don't care about vegetables, load that sucker up. 
 
My favorites are the shredded beef for protein and spiral pasta for the bed. I like all of the sauces but usually pick Honey Soy, Chili Garlic or Ginger Citrus. 

Menu? We don't need no stinking menu!  :D
 
Yeah, there are a couple of items on the menu but the most common by far and best is to make your own. It is like going through the line at Subway or Freebirds but instead of a build your own sandwich or burrito, you build a grilled (kind of like stir fry but dry grilled on a large plate/grill. 
 
You pick the meat(s) you want (cubed marinated beef, shredded beef, sausage, ham, pork, chicken, and others), season it with a dozen powdered/granulated flavors (sea salt, pepper, lemon pepper, ginger, garlic, dragon salt, etc.), put in your vegetables from 15 or so to choose from and then pick your flavored sauce(s) to season it with. Give it to the guys/cooks doing the grilling lastly pick the base/bed (they call starch) like spiral pasta, udon noodles, white rice, brown rice, cabbage, fried rice or tortillas (tortillas?). 
 
You pick from small, regular or large bowls. I get the regular because I know how to really stack up the vegetables. You can fill your bowl with meat but you won't have much room left for the veges. Unless you are just a big time meat eater and ignore vegetables, it is better to go lightly with the meat on your first trip. I see newbies go through the line and get crazy and stack the bowls with meat (like a kid in a candy store), then figure out that they have room for about half a cup of vegetables that when cooked turn into about two tablespoons. Now if you are a meat eater and don't care about vegetables, load that sucker up. 
 
My favorites are the shredded beef for protein and spiral pasta for the bed. I like all of the sauces but usually pick Honey Soy, Chili Garlic or Ginger Citrus. 

Not likely since almost no one is ever killed for a tv. 

And why shouldn't they be? 
 
Wow, the Republicans would be against anyone that is against Obama. Stunning right?
 
But you make the point very well. It is politics that drives the masses, not race. What Dr. Carson would do if he supported Obama would give the Democrats another chance to scream that race is driving the disagreements..... but as we have seen, that is not the case. You use the term "any blacks" like the Republicans only support anti-Obama people if they are a dark skin color. It is a simple truth that the Republicans have a strong dislike for Obama but they even impeached Clinton. Does that strong dislike count or only when it is a different race? 
 
You might not have noticed it but the Republicans aren't very fond of white people that support Obama either. It doesn't matter how much melanin is in their skin but where they stand politically. 

And why shouldn't they be? 
 
Wow, the Republicans would be against anyone that is against Obama. Stunning right?
 
But you make the point very well. It is politics that drives the masses, not race. What Dr. Carson would do if he supported Obama would give the Democrats another chance to scream that race is driving the disagreements..... but as we have seen, that is not the case. You use the term "any blacks" like the Republicans only support anti-Obama people if they are a dark skin color. It is a simple truth that the Republicans have a strong dislike for Obama but they even impeached Clinton. Does that strong dislike count or only when it is a different race? 
 
You might not have noticed it but the Republicans aren't very fond of white people that support Obama either. It doesn't matter how much melanin is in their skin but where they stand politically. 

And why shouldn't they be? 
 
Wow, the Republicans would be against anyone that is against Obama. Stunning right?
 
But you make the point very well. It is politics that drives the masses, not race. What Dr. Carson would do if he supported Obama would give the Democrats another chance to scream that race is driving the disagreements..... but as we have seen, that is not the case. You use the term "any blacks" like the Republicans only support anti-Obama people if they are a dark skin color. It is a simple truth that the Republicans have a strong dislike for Obama but they even impeached Clinton. Does that strong dislike count or only when it is a different race? 
 
You might not have noticed it but the Republicans aren't very fond of white people that support Obama either. It doesn't matter how much melanin is in their skin but where they stand politically. 

Dr. Carson is guilty of the sin of being a highly intelligent, successful and respected black to have the audacity to state the obvious. That is that a welfare system that allows people to take without any need to put in any stake in the process is doomed to the failure of allowing most people to languish is poverty. When there is no incentive to succeed, most people will not and only demand that other people pay for their lack of desire and then complain when they do not get enough handouts.
 
He is not a hypocrite. He is a person that is degraded and ostracized by his own race for being successful. How dare you come from a poor household in a black community and not demand more welfare, while trying to get people to strive for success and being self sufficient. 
 
In rebuttal, many people only can point out that he had some help in the past and that somehow makes his statements wrong or hypocritical for his mother being on welfare more than 50 years ago. Maybe it allows him to speak the truth because he has seen it from the inside. His detractors spit out labels like hypocrite like it somehow hurts him or baffles his supporters. 
 
What Dr. Carson has done is yet again show that race does not matter, political stance does. Many and maybe even a majority of the same people that hate Obama would vote for Carson tomorrow. 

I don't think an alcohol related arrest means anything for any media celebrity or even politicians from any network or party. 
 
It means nothing to either side's issues. 

Dr. Carson is guilty of the sin of being a highly intelligent, successful and respected black to have the audacity to state the obvious. That is that a welfare system that allows people to take without any need to put in any stake in the process is doomed to the failure of allowing most people to languish is poverty. When there is no incentive to succeed, most people will not and only demand that other people pay for their lack of desire and then complain when they do not get enough handouts.
 
He is not a hypocrite. He is a person that is degraded and ostracized by his own race for being successful. How dare you come from a poor household in a black community and not demand more welfare, while trying to get people to strive for success and being self sufficient. 
 
In rebuttal, many people only can point out that he had some help in the past and that somehow makes his statements wrong or hypocritical for his mother being on welfare more than 50 years ago. Maybe it allows him to speak the truth because he has seen it from the inside. His detractors spit out labels like hypocrite like it somehow hurts him or baffles his supporters. 
 
What Dr. Carson has done is yet again show that race does not matter, political stance does. Many and maybe even a majority of the same people that hate Obama would vote for Carson tomorrow. 

Dr. Carson is guilty of the sin of being a highly intelligent, successful and respected black to have the audacity to state the obvious. That is that a welfare system that allows people to take without any need to put in any stake in the process is doomed to the failure of allowing most people to languish is poverty. When there is no incentive to succeed, most people will not and only demand that other people pay for their lack of desire and then complain when they do not get enough handouts.
 
He is not a hypocrite. He is a person that is degraded and ostracized by his own race for being successful. How dare you come from a poor household in a black community and not demand more welfare, while trying to get people to strive for success and being self sufficient. 
 
In rebuttal, many people only can point out that he had some help in the past and that somehow makes his statements wrong or hypocritical for his mother being on welfare more than 50 years ago. Maybe it allows him to speak the truth because he has seen it from the inside. His detractors spit out labels like hypocrite like it somehow hurts him or baffles his supporters. 
 
What Dr. Carson has done is yet again show that race does not matter, political stance does. Many and maybe even a majority of the same people that hate Obama would vote for Carson tomorrow. 

Dr. Carson is guilty of the sin of being a highly intelligent, successful and respected black to have the audacity to state the obvious. That is that a welfare system that allows people to take without any need to put in any stake in the process is doomed to the failure of allowing most people to languish is poverty. When there is no incentive to succeed, most people will not and only demand that other people pay for their lack of desire and then complain when they do not get enough handouts.
 
He is not a hypocrite. He is a person that is degraded and ostracized by his own race for being successful. How dare you come from a poor household in a black community and not demand more welfare, while trying to get people to strive for success and being self sufficient. 
 
In rebuttal, many people only can point out that he had some help in the past and that somehow makes his statements wrong or hypocritical for his mother being on welfare more than 50 years ago. Maybe it allows him to speak the truth because he has seen it from the inside. His detractors spit out labels like hypocrite like it somehow hurts him or baffles his supporters. 
 
What Dr. Carson has done is yet again show that race does not matter, political stance does. Many and maybe even a majority of the same people that hate Obama would vote for Carson tomorrow.