Shotgun

I believe that most of the attendees had to purchase their own tickets, and probably provide for their own transportation. It's a fundraiser to give out scholarships to journalism students. I doubt that a significant portion of tax money was spent on the event. Though perhaps in the 92 years that it's been going on, a little has been spent... I sort of like the idea of taking an evening for the White House to lighten up a bit. I was never a supporter of Bush, but I recall enjoying some of his speeches at the correspondents' dinners.

I thought Obama was pretty funny, especially considering he's not a professional comedian. I thought he was funnier than Jimmy Kimmel, but that may have had more to do with the writing; some of Kimmel's jokes were a bit tasteless to me.

. . . CrazyIvan???

Don't think I've tried Marmite, but I'm pretty fond of Vegemite, on certain things. Not sure if I'm quite to the point of loving it though. ;) My cats like Vegemite too.

I'm looking forward to the new "It's Raining Men" policy.

I don't go around asking believers to prove that God exists, but many of them offer up "proof" regardless (as you see in many of these threads). And out in the "real world" (not on this silly forum), I tend to just leave it alone - hey, whatever gets you through the night..... Unless it's someone trying to convince me that I should believe too, or that I should change my behavior according to his/her beliefs. But that's rarely the case - usually it's just a friend expressing why he/she believes in God, and I've gotten where I don't have much interest in arguing about that.

"Ma'am, do you have any online screennames?" "Shotgun" " Thank you. You're excused." Hmm, yeah, a Texan with a nickname of Shotgun. Maybe the prosecutor wouldn't want me. But I look like an innocent little lady who would want to send that bad man to jail, so who knows...

I would probably make it past voir dire, but I wouldn't want to be a juror in this case, if it makes it that far. With this climate, there is going to be an uproar no matter what the outcome.

Don't know. How did "God" get here?

I can see it going either way. Although I don't think the prosecution has much of a case unless they come out with some spectacular piece of evidence that has not yet been leaked. Especially to convict him of second degree murder. I'm still not understanding why they went for that charge instead of manslaughter. Is it because the jury can still choose the lesser charge of manslaughter? Otherwise, it seems like going for the second degree charge is more likely to get the case dismissed??? (Not sure how all of that works.)

He wants to apologize for killing their son, perhaps? Why is that "WTH???"

I actually had not seen Rocky Horror (in its entirety) when I posted in this thread years ago, but now I have, and I might include it in my favorites. Still love "Singin' in the Rain" and "Cabaret." (And maybe I'll even agree with Paul now that Joel Grey was the shiniest star in that one.) And I seem to have forgotten "Tommy." Oh, so many musicals that I love..... but "Singin' in the Rain" will probably always be tops.

From the affidavit that was filed, the prosecutor does not seem to believe this was the case. The affidavit states that Zimmerman pursued Martin, confronted him, and then a struggle ensued. But I don't know what evidence they intend to use to try to prove this. Given the direct conflict with Zimmerman's 911 call transcript, I don't know either. What part of the call transcript conflicts with this? The call ends before any confrontation, so it seems to only confirm that Zimmerman pursued Martin, but it doesn't indicate what happened after that either way. I know Zimmerman's own story conflicts with this affidavit, but again, I don't know what evidence either side has to back up their case. (And of course, the prosecutor is the one who has the burden of proof.) The call indicates that Martin had broken contact and Zimmerman didn't have him in sight: "I don't know where this kid is" But it gives no indication as to what happened after the call ended, so it is not in conflict with (nor does it confirm) the affidavit. From the information that all of us rubberneckers have, we really have no idea who confronted whom. Sorta hard to pursue and confront someone you can't even see, isn't it? Yep. But maybe he spotted him again as soon as he hung up the phone. Who knows.... Zimmerman says one thing; Martin's girlfriend's statement of what she heard on the phone seems to conflict with Zimmerman's story. Who knows...

From the affidavit that was filed, the prosecutor does not seem to believe this was the case. The affidavit states that Zimmerman pursued Martin, confronted him, and then a struggle ensued. But I don't know what evidence they intend to use to try to prove this. Given the direct conflict with Zimmerman's 911 call transcript, I don't know either. What part of the call transcript conflicts with this? The call ends before any confrontation, so it seems to only confirm that Zimmerman pursued Martin, but it doesn't indicate what happened after that either way. I know Zimmerman's own story conflicts with this affidavit, but again, I don't know what evidence either side has to back up their case. (And of course, the prosecutor is the one who has the burden of proof.) The call indicates that Martin had broken contact and Zimmerman didn't have him in sight: "I don't know where this kid is" But it gives no indication as to what happened after the call ended, so it is not in conflict with (nor does it confirm) the affidavit. From the information that all of us rubberneckers have, we really have no idea who confronted whom.

From the affidavit that was filed, the prosecutor does not seem to believe this was the case. The affidavit states that Zimmerman pursued Martin, confronted him, and then a struggle ensued. But I don't know what evidence they intend to use to try to prove this. Given the direct conflict with Zimmerman's 911 call transcript, I don't know either. What part of the call transcript conflicts with this? The call ends before any confrontation, so it seems to only confirm that Zimmerman pursued Martin, but it doesn't indicate what happened after that either way. I know Zimmerman's own story conflicts with this affidavit, but again, I don't know what evidence either side has to back up their case. (And of course, the prosecutor is the one who has the burden of proof.)

From the affidavit that was filed, the prosecutor does not seem to believe this was the case. The affidavit states that Zimmerman pursued Martin, confronted him, and then a struggle ensued. But I don't know what evidence they intend to use to try to prove this.

Yes, of course. Now do any of those explain what a "prosecutor" is?

Why, is kallend a law teacher now?

Presumption of innocence is more for the judge and the jury. The prosecutor's job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is indeed guilty. I assume she believes Zimmerman to be guilty based on the evidence, or she would not be moving the case forward.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/zimmerman-affidavit.pdf

I don't have any children, but I'm pretty sure that my health insurance charges additional fees per child. Are there plans that cover an entire family regardless of the number of children?

By the time you are typing an "o," your brain is already thinking about typing a "p," so maybe it's just an accident, and some people don't check before posting? Or maybe they've seen it spelled that way so many times, they think that's how it's spelled??? I don't know.... Just one of the many great mysteries that make this life so interesting.....

I'm not really sure what your clients have to do with any of this. The fact that some homosexual people have sought counseling does not indicate that every homosexual person needs counseling. Just as not everyone who uses substances (many of the beer drinkers on here) do not need substance abuse counseling. Black people create problems too. Their lifestyle has produced movements such as the KKK. (Hey, they could have chose to remain slaves, or at least to stay away from whitey.) Wow, Ron. I can't even be nice here. That was one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen.

Not all of us do. But when it comes to same-sex marriage, the opponents seem to focus mainly on the sex aspect. A lot of people who are homosexual (the orientation is not a choice BTW) are fighting for the right to have the responsibility (and privileges) of marriage. You seem to have some skewed idea that their lives are easier by being with a same-sex partner. A relationship with anyone involves compromise and nurturing. Marriage is not all about sex. It's about making a commitment to another human being to live your lives together through the good and the bad. Our government has also made it a legal commitment with certain privileges and responsibilities. And if you want your Bible to dictate who can and cannot be together, feel free to live your life by that. But please don't use your Bible to dictate what others can and cannot do; it is nothing more than a man-made book to me, and I don't choose to live my life by it. If you want to, that is your choice, but you have no right to expect other people to live by your religion.

Probably about the same as your payoff for debating with them?