wolfriverjoe

So you don't think that the fact that Chauvin was kneeling on his neck, and Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe, and Floyd then demonstrated all of the effects of asphyxiation had no bearing on the cause of death? That's pretty much what the opening statement said. That Floyd died of asphyxiation, that he showed all the behaviors of someone being asphyxiated and the one who caused that was Chauvin. And none of the autopsy results I can find show a cause of death as drug overdose. There were drugs present in his system, but not at levels that would have been fatal. If you can show autopsy results that say different, please post them. And, again, how does any of this affect the fairness of the trial? If the defense attorneys can convince the jury that there is reasonable doubt that Chauvin wasn't responsible for the death, then he'll be acquitted. If the prosecutors can convince the jury that there isn't that reasonable doubt, he'll be convicted. Edit to add: This posted while I was composing my post (no notification for some reason): I really hope the jury only considers the facts of the case when deliberating. I would suspect that they are going to get clear instructions on that. I would also strongly suspect that the city is making a LOT of preparations in advance of the end of the trial. I expect a fairly large amount of unrest no matter what the verdict.

Nope.

Very true. But that has nothing to do with the 'fairness' of the trial. Issues with evidence, issues with witness testimony, issues with jury impartiality. Those would affect the 'fairness' of the trial. Again, just because it's pretty clear he's guilty and will be convicted doesn't mean the trial won't be 'fair'.

I don't expect to have actual dialog with trolls. I don't feed very many of them very often.

Why not? I haven't watched super close, but what I saw of jury selection seemed 'fair'. The evidence is going to be pretty tough for the defense to overcome. The fact that they have video of the entire death sequence is pretty damning. "Fair" means both sides get to tell their side of the story, to an impartial jury. When the prosecution has that strong of evidence, the accused often pleads guilty. Chauvin had a plea bargain set up, but then AG Barr shut it down (part of the deal was that Chauvin was to serve his sentence in federal prison, so Barr had to sign off on it). Just because the dude is clearly guilty and is likely to be convicted doesn't mean the trial won't be 'fair'. What specific part do you think is 'unfair'? (Honest question)

Well, one key indicator of a "banana republic" is the fact that a small minority holds control. They do whatever they choose, and hold power by preventing free and fair elections. Not necessarily by 'voter fraud', but by preventing opposition candidates from campaigning, suppressing voters, manipulating voting districts, that sort of thing. You know, just like the Rs are trying to do.

You aren't the only one.

Yeah, I tend to think things through and look up stuff as I'm composing the post. Fortunately, the new format notifies me of new posts and provides a way to read them while I'm still composing. I'm not in a competition with anyone who is interested in intelligent discourse.

Well, the words of the 1st A are: After seeing what the 'Church of England' did there, both as an 'established state religion and 'prohibiting the free exercise of other religions, the 'founding fathers were likely looking to avoid that. I'm not sure where you see that saying that they can't selectively apply rules to different religions. I agree on general principles that they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that they don't. There's been a lot of prejudice & favoritism over the years. A couple posts popped up while I was composing this one. First off, it was Jefferson who is credited with creating the 'wall' phrase. https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24441#:~:text=The expression “separation of church,Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut.&text=Jefferson introduced the Virginia Statute,which became law in 1786. And it was the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams that stated "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." There have been a few SC rulings that reinforced those concepts, as was noted above. I also can't find any specific reference to the idea that the country was founded 'under a Supreme Being'. But the Declaration of Independence makes reference to it. And while the actual religions varied, all of the founding fathers were believers of some sort or another. Atheism was very rare back then. Last, the 'In God We Trust' was put on the currency back in the 50s. The "One nation, under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance at about the same time. It differentiated us from the "Godless Communists" when 'ole Tailgunner Joe' was conducting his purges (strangely similar to commie purges). (and Billvon beat me to this by a couple minutes)

You really don't know what's going on, do you? The only administration that 'separated children from parents by policy' was Trump.

Respect for what? I have a lot of respect for the teachings of Jesus. Lots to admire and aspire to in there. However, Jesus the person almost certainly didn't exist. Historical & archeological evidence for his being 'real' is virtually non-existent. Evidence that much of the story is made up is abundant. So my 'respect' for Jesus the person is on par with Harry Potter. Lots of good life lessons in his story too. My level of respect for the people that claim Jesus as their "Lord and Savior" varies a lot. For those that do their best to actually follow the teachings, I have quite a bit. For those that pretend they can be 'saved' and still be hateful, selfish, bigoted pigs... No. None at all for those hypocrites. For those that use fear of death and the 'reward' of promised salvation and eternal life to fleece the gullible, scared fools... A genuine hatred. The fact that scuzzbuckets like Osteen, Graham, Falwell, Roberston and the like have not been struck down by lightning at some point is further proof that "God" doesn't really exist. Or that he doesn't care what is done 'in his name' down here.

I'm going to agree with this. (Short summary of the patent process follows for those not familiar with it, ignore it if you wish) The patent process protects 'intellectual property'. It gives the patent holder control over manufacture and use of the item. The patent holder can choose to (or not to) allow others to manufacture and use the design, either for a fee or not (licensing). Often, people not willing to obtain legal rights to use the device will develop work arounds. Many times those are designs that are fairly close, but not close enough to constitute an 'infringement'. Patent lawyers make a lot of money in this area. For the Collin's Lanyard, gear manufacturers found ways to make the gear work safely and correctly without it. I don't see anyone taking a 'step back' and adding it on.

They were right about that part.

Not sure what you mean by 'how long'. There've been a number of kids shot by cops for holding toy guns. Some were more 'understandable' than others.

There is/was an outfit called 'Guns Save Lives' that put up pro-gun ones in Illinois for a while. Most were pretty cliched, but some were clever. I haven't been down that way for a while. I don't know if they're still up or not.

I don't doubt he understands how it works. He just doesn't care about anyone else. One still unanswered question is whether or not vaccinated people can 'catch' the virus, be asymptomatic and then spread it to others. And many states are seeing a rise in reported cases. This isn't over.

It's pronounced 'Fronk-en-steen'.

Seriously? Are you that uninformed? You aren't aware that one of the Nazis killed someone by ramming a car into a crowd? Trump's response to that murder was that 'There are very fine people on both sides'. He was convicted and sentenced to life plus 419 years.

Didn't they already use that for a suit against Tucker Carlson? https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9

Well, at least around here that's a "Yes & No." Guns have gotten a lot harder to find. There's still some on the shelves, but the selection is a LOT less that normal. Ammo? Pfft. Try to find any. Which is pretty funny. I keep hearing 'background checks on all purchases'. I keep hearing 'ban AR-15s' (not any other military style semi-auto by name - apparently the AK-47 isn't as scary anymore). Pistols? Zip. Other rifles (AK, M1A, Mini-14)? Nada. Regulate ammo? Zilch. But the paranoia of the 'gun nuts' isn't rational, as you pointed out. We went through this sort of thing in 08, when Obama was likely to win. Again right after the Sandy Hook shooting. Again in 12 when Obama was re-elected. If what I'm reading/hearing is correct, there are a couple Ds in the Senate who aren't going to support this. Without that support, this is unlikely to go anywhere. Again.

John Bigboote

The only time I see flat packing is one or two places that pack tandems that way. Even reserves are packed in a way I've heard called "Pro-Pack on the floor". It ends up looking exactly like a pro pack, but it starts on it's side on the floor. I agree that laying it on it's side is a very good way to do a quick inspection of the canopy & lines.

I watched it live. Not edited or cut. I heard what he said and couldn't believe it at the time. The 'legal protesters' on the right were still Nazis & KKK. It was a KKK RALLY. Were the 'moderate right' the ones who didn't kill someone? Just marched around waving swastika & Confederate flags? The ones shouting racists garbage? That's 'moderate' to you? Yes, it's protected speech under the 1st A. Doesn't mean it's not despicable. Ok.

Trump pulled US forces out of Syria and allowed the Russians and Syrians to kill our 'allies', the Kurds. Trump tried to pull US forces out of Germany. The only people who thought that was a good idea was... The Russians.

You are aware that Trump actually said 'there are very fine people on both sides' in reaction to the Charlottesville KKK/Nazi rally, right? You are aware that Trump basically kissed Putin's ass for 4 years, right? That Putin put in a lot of work to get Trump elected and re-elected? I've seen a few claims that Trump was actually compromised by the Russians. Not sure any of it is for real. But Trump himself said that his golf courses were paid for by Russian money. The chances that Trump has been laundering money for the Russian mob are pretty good. Trump certainly did all he could to coddle Putin, reduce the sanctions on Russia and generally let Putin get away with anything he did.