It is illegal because of religious based morality and society's general disapproval of it, or the thought that it is a form of adultery. In most countries where the main religion allows it, it is not illegal. Some of the blame also falls on the Mormons for pairing together young girls and old men, for adding to the negative stigma that polygamy (or more specifically polygyny - 1 man, multiple wives) receives.

Judging by the map that was linked above, you could go and get married in a country that allows it and then move to Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK where your marriage would be recognized.

In the US we allow first cousins to marry in 26 states, gay marriage in less than half that number, and 0 states allow polygamous marriage. I personally think marrying a relative should be considered more taboo, but I guess society would disagree.

No one is taking away your 2nd amendment rights, the gun bills were already voted on and 7 out of the 9 proposals were voted down. The only things that passed was a bill to improve mental health care and one to prevent state and local government from releasing gun owners information. Most gun owners I talk to think gun control is still being legislated and have no idea that it already failed. Because if you knew, you wouldn't keep buying guns and ammo at this high rate and for inflated prices.
The shortage is simply that, a shortage. It is what happens when demand outweighs supply and the manufacturers don't move to increase production to meet demand. People buying in bulk and stockpiling or reselling for inflated prices are causing this problem, not the government.

Everything is better with fire and screams of terror.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCtvP0pdPoA

The only person that was charged was Ariel Castro the guy in picture #7. He was formally charged with 4 counts of kidnapping and 3 counts of rape. The other 2 are his brothers. They were investigated and it was determined they had no knowledge of what Ariel was doing.
One of the women was pregnant at least 5 times and he would starve her for 2 weeks and punch her in the stomach until she miscarried.

I just made the brownie in a mug. It turned out pretty good, even though I didn't have the ice cream, it would have been much better with it.

I know that Fred Phelps the leader of the church has 14 kids, and 10 of them are lawyers. I imagine they also get funding from the members of their church that don't picket, as well as donations from outside fundamentalists that agree with them. They get paid for interviews and talk show appearances. They have a website that generates revenue. And they also sue anyone that assaults them, or they sue the city if they prevent them from picketing. The church also has tax exempt status.
One of the members said in a documentary that the church spends $200,000 a year on picketing.

You certainly have taken us on some interesting twists and turns through this discussion. We started out talking about breathalyzers and have derailed into google cars, computers, slavery, robotic cars driving in the desert, and the merit of the American justice system. I don't have the energy or desire to refute your points, to only have you bring up a plethora of unrelated new ones.

We will have to agree to disagree.

When google car is owned by a significant enough portion of US drivers to impact motor vehicle accident rates, please come back to update this thread. My guess is that will never happen within our lifetimes. Good day.

Can you afford the current $150,000 price tag of the Google car? I cannot and do not know many people that could. Most people can barely afford a used car and most drunks I know aren't exactly wealthy. It is a technology that won't be reasonably available to the general public for many years, until they get the cost down and/or are able to retrofit older cars. I also read an article a while back that said the driver still has to make sure that the car doesn't run stop signs or make other traffic mistakes, so it isn't entirely automated. And I question how it would handle on snow or ice, or react to situations that a human could foresee but a computer could not.

The logic of not making new laws because they will be broken is flawed and calls into question why we have any laws whatsoever. All laws will be broken, but we still have them.

Do I think tomorrow a law could be passed to require breathalyzers? No
Would it make the roads a bit safer by reducing the amount of drunk drivers? Yes, in my opinion

I just checked and his account still exists. He just hasn't been on in 2 months.

People often have a misconception about the concept of freedom of speech. It simply means that congress can't make laws to interfere with your speech. It doesn't give you license to be a douche and talk a bunch of shit, it just gives you the right to not have your speech limited by a law. If Cat wants to erase every comment you make, he can. As long as congress (in the case of the US) doesn't make a law that says you cannot publicly express your opinion.

If you think you truly have freedom to say whatever you want wherever you want, walk up to your boss and tell him/her to go fuck themselves. You will see that you have full freedom to say it, but consequences will follow.

I think the WBC is just getting bored since Obama signed the "Honoring America's Veterans Act". They are no longer allowed to protest military funerals 2 hours before or after the service and they have to remain 300 feet away. Now they just follow around celebrities signing parodies of lady gaga songs, it's getting pretty lame.

Hopefully they get the shit beat out of them or possibly stampeded but I imagine their protest will go the same way it always does. I don't think the funeral will be a public event so there most likely won't be a lot of fans there.

Here is a tweet the WBC sent out after the Boston Marathon just to give you a taste of their logic in case you aren't familiar with them.
"Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals of those dead by Boston bombs! GOD SENT THE BOMBS IN FURY OVER FAG MARRIAGE! #praisegod"

I agree with some of your points. However, I do not agree that a breathalyzer is a bandaid to drunk driving, it would be a bandaid to alcohol abuse. It is a preventive measure to drunk driving, not something that you do after the fact to cover up the problem.

A car that drives you everywhere safely is far off, not many people will be able to afford such technology for many many years. That would allow you to be as drunk as you want and be able to travel, that is a bandaid solution to alcoholism as well.

The elderly couple that was killed had 5 kids, those 5 kids had 12 kids. My aunt had 3 kids and is a divorced single mother. That is 20 people that were instantly affected by a poor choice. If having a breathalyzer in her car is a bandaid, it would be the most effective bandaid ever. It wouldn't have prevented the problem of her alcoholism, but it would have prevented 2 deaths and the direct suffering of 20 people. I guess I am fairly biased on this issue.

Here is the 2nd part of the video where the cops showed up to arrest him. Looks like he has a decent lawsuit if the video would be allowed for evidence. The "cop" did ask him to leave, and refusing to do so is trespassing, but his initial reason for approaching him (thinking he was drinking alcohol) was not valid.

http://youtube.com/watch/…

I have a relative that is currently awaiting sentencing for killing an elderly couple while she was driving drunk. She drove out of her driveway in front of them. Her life is going to be destroyed by this, not to mention the other lives that she took and those affected by that.

I have no compassion for drunk drivers whatsoever. I do not understand the concept of bars where they are almost guaranteeing to put more drunk drivers on the road. Ever since I was a kid I didn't get that concept, "here have some drinks, then drive home".

I would be in favor of having breathalyzers in all cars. Cars should not be operated while drunk and there shouldn't be an opportunity for you to make a decision to do so while your judgement is impaired. A minor inconvenience or invasion of privacy is nothing compared to losing your loved ones or going to prison for the rest of your life.

When you are comparing statistics, the things you are comparing have to be on somewhat equal terms. In this case cars vs. guns. Their rate of use is drastically different. The amount of people here that drive a car for let's say 1 hour each day, would be in staggering contrast to the amount of people that fire a gun 1 hour each day. When you are on the road you might encounter several hundred other cars being operated. While each day you might rarely encounter someone using a gun, if ever. A poll I read shows that 90% of Americans operate a car on average 87 minutes each day. Just based upon their frequency of use, car deaths should be higher than gun deaths. There are more opportunities for cars to injure or kill, than guns are used to injure or kill.

If guns were fired with the same or greater frequency as cars are driven, gun deaths would be higher than they are, and potentially higher than car deaths.

Toasted sesame seed oil and soy sauce or rice wine vinegar in equal amounts makes a pretty good beef or chicken marinade. I mix in some different stuff like sriracha sauce, chopped garlic, or crushed red pepper flake. Throw in some honey if you want it sweeter.

I also like to do lemon juice and olive oil in equal amounts with rosemary, thyme, and garlic.

We don't trust a 5 year old to use a pointy scissors. Why the hell would you give a 5 year old a real gun, keep it loaded, and not secure it in a locking cabinet/case? This kid is going to be affected for the rest of his life by his parent's shitty choices.

Just to put this into perspective for you, the gated community had 260 townhomes. It would be more than unreasonable to assume that George knew every person that lived there. Most people only know a few of their neighbors.

He and his father were visiting with his father's fiance that lived in the gated community, he didn't break in. The only drug related thing that anyone knows about him is that they found a pipe and an empty baggy on him at school. If that makes you a drug pusher, then most of the people here are drug pushers as well. Zimmerman chased Martin down and confronted him, if not for Zimmerman's actions the 2 would have never crossed paths. It wasn't a gun fight, it was a scared little man that got beat up by a teenager and didn't have the skills to defend himself like a man and instead used a gun like a coward.

The video description is just what liveleak says. While I agree with his sentiment he did miss an opportunity to actually call the infowars guy out on the inconsistencies in his theory. I would have asked why would the government send out people in matching military-esque uniforms and have them stand in the middle of the street, if they were planning a bombing? To me it is common sense to disguise your agents if the goal is for no one to know the agents planted the bombs.

The youtube video that was labeled a hoax by Seth Mcfarlane depicted both incidents happening at the same time.
The reporter says "Peter you won the Boston marathon. How did you do it?"
Then they cut to the clip that is near the end of the episode and show him setting off the bombs.
The way the episode originally aired, Peter driving through the marathon and the bombs being set off were separate. He won the marathon, they showed how in a flash back/clip. Then after he converts to Islam near the end of the episode he accidentally sets off 2 bombs. The bombs were not at the marathon, the marathon had already taken place. The hoax is splicing together the 2 clips to make it seem like Peter won the marathon by setting off bombs.

There are a couple things that I just can't logically get past in order for me to in anyway believe that this was a conspiracy.

Why would the government send out people in similar "uniforms" and backpacks, knowing that they would be captured on video and in pictures? Wouldn't it make much more sense to send out people that look entirely civilian, if they were trying to disguise their agents presence?

Also, why choose the marathon. It is a highly publicized event with thousands of television, newspaper, and cellphone cameras. Wouldn't they attack at an event that has less coverage, or perhaps the middle of the race where there aren't a bunch of cameras rolling? And if the government is in control of the media, why were we allowed to see the black backpack? Wouldn't they immediately cover that up and say no backpack was found, as it implicates their "agents" in the attack?

The whole thing wreaks of amateurish planning.

Maybe she is just excited about Walmart's everyday low prices.

The clothes and hair also do not match the picture of him being arrested. He was wearing jeans with a belt, a hooded sweatshirt, he had blood on his head, and his hair was kind of shaggy. He was taken from the backyard of a home, those buildings look like apartments.

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/kabc/…

It was staged. He returned all cleaned up and sane a year later to promote the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgRFZ_n2PEA

It wasn't really a documentary it was a mockumentary called "I'm Still Here". He kept himself in character for all of his public appearances. It was all staged and fake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

I think what she did fits very well with Florida's legal definition of stalking. She willfully, maliciously, repeatedly, harassed a minor.

What do you think she should have been charged with?

"Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; . . ."

Aggravated Stalking is probably the most applicable and most severe charge that they could throw at her, it is a felony of the third degree.

"It's because homosexuals WANT the word Marriage."

You brought up arguing semantics about a word. If you think gay people are going through all of this to just have a word you are misinformed. The word just so happens to be what is restricting the federal government from recognizing their unions/marriages and applying the federal provisions associated with marriage.

That is great for Massachusetts and couples that live there. Unfortunately, DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing their unions. Any right, benefit, privilege, or provision that is of a federal level that has a prerequisite of marriage, isn't given to couples in Massachusetts as well as any other state that recognizes gay marriage or civil unions.

They are only receiving their states benefits, they are not receiving the federal benefits. In order for them to receive federal benefits, either DOMA needs to be repealed, or its language needs to be changed to include unions.

Sam Kinison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA
George Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjVLJKR6g7U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw

Gay people have taken the first step in becoming equal which is trying to have DOMA repealed. DOMA is what makes words very important. The word "marriage" is defined by DOMA as being between 1 man and 1 woman. Any federal right, benefit, privilege, or provision that has a prerequisite of marriage isn't given to gay couples due to DOMA.

In order for what you are saying to work without the repeal of DOMA, it would require a rewrite of every federal right, benefit, privilege, and provision (there are over 1,000) that has a prerequisite of marriage, to include unions.

If anyone is making this about a word, it is the religious. Last I checked America isn't a theocracy and religion shouldn't have a bearing on law. You are also over simplifying the issue and suggesting a separate but equal resolution that history has proven doesn't work to make people truly equal.

Thankfully smell-o-vision isn't invented yet.

The surveillance video was just released on April 9th. He is currently suing the city of Portland for $545,000 for assault, battery, and negligence.

http://koin.com/2013/04/…

The president did try to close gitmo. He signed an executive order to do so in January of 2009 (just after he took office). A couple of months later the Democratically controlled congress passed legislation that prevented and is still preventing the prisoners from being released into the US or to other countries. The pro-gitmo people (both democrats and republicans) had a stronger political voice and people were afraid of releasing the prisoners to their own countries and even more afraid of transferring them into the US.

That is an intellectually dishonest statement. A company devises a plan to specifically deny their workers benefits, but somehow through being a good worker you can supersede their system to get the benefits that they want to deny you. A lot of companies do not allow you to "earn hours", you are at a set amount of hours so that their system of denying benefits works.

I worked at a small pizza place when I was in high school and I had friends that worked for Dominos and Papa Johns. The place I worked I made minimum wage (I think it was $5.15) as a delivery driver, + 1$ per delivery, and tips. I also had to answer phones, wash dishes, and make pizzas when I wasn't out on a delivery. The people that only answered the phones and did the dishes made $8.00 or more. This is very similar to the Dominos and Papa Johns system. I have never heard of "maintenance and insurance" being paid to the drivers. When my insurance company found out I was delivering pizzas my rate got jacked up and I had to quit as it wasn't profitable anymore. We have free delivery where I live, but in places where they have a delivery charge only half of it or less goes to the drivers.

The reason that companies hire people to work less than 40 hours in most cases, is so that they do not have to give the workers health benefits, paid sick leave, paid vacation time, paid holidays, retirement benefits etc. Walmart is notorious for this practice. It is to cut their costs and maximize profits at the expense of their worker's benefits.

I watch it every week, I still had it on my DVR so I just skipped to the statistics.

Here is a Youtube video of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cuj83TzIQ

I just watched the same show. When someone makes $2.13 an hour, they break even after paying taxes. They get a paycheck that says "this is not a paycheck" and it has a sum of $0.00, they literally get no money from their hourly wage and survive solely on tips. 10 million people in America work in the restaurant industry, they have 3 times the poverty rate when compared to the rest of the workforce and are twice as likely to use food stamps. 90% of the workers do not get payed sick days (thanks to the National Restaurant Association), meaning they serve you your food while sick. The restaurant industry isn't hurting for money either, they on average make 4 to 5 times the profit margins of Walmart, they can afford to pay their staff more.

If you do not want to pay a little more for a product or services up front so that someone can make a decent wage that they can live off of, then you do not get to complain about people requiring assistance programs.

The DNA profile is stored in the Collected DNA Index System (CODIS). CODIS operates at a state, local, and national level. The FBI also has a database that is a collection of the information in CODIS, that is called NDIS. They do not need to keep the swab, your DNA would be in the system if collected for certain crimes, varying by state.

September 22, 1692 Last person hanged for witchcraft in US

September 22, 1823 "Joseph Smith, Jr. stated that he was directed by God through the Angel Moroni to the place where the Golden plates were stored."

September 22, 1863 President Lincoln makes his Emancipation Proclamation speech

September 22, 1888 The first issue of National Geographic Magazine is published

September 22, 1893 "The first American-built automobile, built by the Duryea Brothers, is displayed."

September 22, 1949 USSR detonates its first atomic bomb

The original reason that the Bush administration started detaining people at Guantanamo Bay in 2002, was due to the fact that it fell outside of the US legal jurisdiction, since it is territory that is in the sovereignty of Cuba. The detainees were not given US constitutional rights. By labeling the detainees as "unlawful combatants" rather than "prisoners of war" it allowed the Bush administration and Gitmo to operate outside of the Geneva Convention, which protects prisoners of war (amongst other things). Using Gitmo allowed Bush to detain the prisoners without cause, to prevent prisoners from having a fair and expedient trial, prevented habeas corpus, and to torture the prisoners during interrogations. etc

The Supreme Court has since ruled that the prisoners do have some constitutional rights and Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to them.

If I had to take a guess why the US has prisons outside of the US, it would be to deny the prisoners rights given by the US Constitution or the GC.

Loose lips sink ships, and they can also hold a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RvX9hSoGoY

I played baritone and alto saxophone in school for like 5 years. Marching band, jazz band, concert band. I still occasionally play my alto sax. I also played guitar and then bass guitar in a band with my friends. I never really learned to read the music for guitar, I just used tablature.

It seems that when a comment is rated with a Plus, it is registering in your "comment points (details)" as a Neg. You can see it when you go to your own page, and click on the "More" link next to your number of reputation points, then click on the "(details)" link next to the Comment Points.

You are drawing a correlation between sobriety checkpoints and immigration checkpoints. They are not the same thing. Sobriety checkpoints try to reduce drunk driving fatalities. Immigration checkpoints try to reduce contraband and illegal aliens from entering the US.

Sobriety checkpoints have been ruled unconstitutional in 12 states. They have to be setup infrequently, and almost always at night. Their location is temporary, they set them up and take them down on the same night.

Immigration checkpoints are not unconstitutional, although the activities they are involved with sometimes are. Immigration checkpoints can operate every day. They are supposed to be temporary and moved frequently. In spite of that, some permanent structures are built and they remain in the same place.

You might encounter 1 sobriety checkpoint a month in some states, if you travel down that specific road at a very specific time.

An immigration checkpoint you may have to encounter every single day of the week on your way to work.

I searched youtube with "Russians flip car" and found it in a couple of seconds. I guess the guy was a road bandit that was demanding money from the truck driver.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE6VFH_bBkA

First let me say, I hate myself for knowing this. One Direction got their start on X Factor UK. They were all solo singers that failed to make the cut by themselves. The judges put them together and put them in the groups category. They didn't win the show but they got a record deal from Simon Cowell anyway. They didn't have years of training, in fact they weren't good enough to be in a talent competition on their own. They combined their shittyness and put them together to make a mediocre group.

A homeless looking woman with 1 arm tried to clean my windshield with a dirty rag at a stoplight. I felt really bad for her until she came up to my window and I could see she had her arm tucked in her shirt. Since then I don't give money to beggars no matter how shitty they look.

They might arrest you or try to charge you with violating recording laws. There are 12 states that are dual consent states, where all parties must consent to audio recording. Since the police do not consent they think they can arrest you for recording audio. Some people have been charged with felonies for violating the state wiretapping/audio recording statutes when they recorded the police. Although, the charges are seemingly always dropped in court due to the exemption of public places where you do not have an expectation of privacy.

There isn't a law in existence that requires you to answer police questions. The moment you are pulled over you are either being detained for suspicion of committing a crime, or you are free to go. If you are being detained, you have the immediate right to remain silent. Refusing to answer questions without a lawyer present is protected by the 5th amendments self-incrimination clause. Any lawyer will tell you not to answer any questions until you can meet with them.

If you were correct, this video wouldn't exist. Every stop where someone refused to give information or I.D. would result in them being charged with a crime (federal as you said), and that isn't the case.

That isn't entirely true. The ACLU started calling it the "constitution-free zone" because they are in several lawsuits to prevent this practice. The searches only apply to electronic devices and merchandise. The DHS doesn't get to operate entirely outside of the constitution. It is only the 4th amendment that they are allowed to operate outside of, due to a supreme court decision to allow exemption for border crossings. In order to detain you, strip search you, or destroy your property in a search; they must have probable cause or suspicion that you are smuggling contraband or that you pose a threat to the US.

In order to be in this 4th amendment grey area you have to have crossed the border recently. No one in the video had crossed the border, so they are not subject to the border exemption clause. If they had crossed the border, we wouldn't have seen them driving off freely.
You can read the congressional analysis report, it is long and boring.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf

A police officer/immigration official w/e does not have the legal right to stop you and prevent your travel without probable cause. If they do not give you probable cause or a reason you are being stopped that is legal, you are free to go. To prevent you from leaving is a violation of the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment protects you from unlawful search and seizures, which includes detaining a person without probable cause. A lot of these officers know they are in the wrong, you can tell by the way they allow the person to go when they say "am I free to leave". Their camera makes all the difference, without it I am sure some of these officers would have broken the law and forced these people to give up their 4th amendment protections.

This ACLU page tells you how to deal with cops.
http://aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-…

Oh,I see. So when someone makes a simple grammatical error that is a reflection on their intelligence or education that needs to be corrected. When you use the entirely wrong word, it is due to your fingers being fat.

Interesting superiority complex you have there.

Your school under the bridge failed to teach you the difference between "than" and "then".

India is a country located within the continent of Asia. Indians are Asians if you are identifying them by geography. The term Asian is used to describe over 4 billion people and is too broad of a term to define a race, nationality, or ethnicity.

With that said, it was needlessly unspecific for Unclegabby to use Asian rather than Indian.

That is a vivid hypothetical situation of a robbery that you created. However, criminals tend to conceal their weapons in their clothing and they do not often use holsters, that is what makes them effective when committing crimes. You also do not have to show your ID to a police officer unless you are under suspicion of committing a crime, which they have to tell you. If the cop were intelligent enough he could have used Terry v. Ohio , and been able to arrest him. Although he would then have to prove what crime he suspected the citizen committed or was about to commit. If you are driving a car, then you have to show your drivers license to prove you are a licensed driver.

Your analogy to a man carrying a gun in a state that legally allows him to do so, and an airport where it is legal to have a gun in a checked in bag (depending upon criteria set forth by the TSA and state laws), fails the test of logic. The reporters you mentioned must not have followed the TSA guidelines.

To your last point, I could link you hundreds of videos of people being randomly "Stopped and Frisked". Or stopped and asked to show their ID/papers to prove they are a US citizen. Both of which rely heavily on racial profiling, and often the person did nothing illegal.

You should never allow a police officer to "just do his job", when what he is doing is illegal and you have legal precedence for it.

This gives a new meaning to the term "cheap seats".

The stoner (Kai) was hitching a ride with a guy who thought he was Jesus. Jesus admitted to raping a 14 year old girl in the Virgin Islands. To prove his Jesus powers he then crashed his car into a pedestrian, pinning him between 2 cars. Kai jumped out of the car and took the keys. Jesus got out of the car and grabbed a woman who was trying to help the man that was pinned by Jesus's car. Kai then took a hatchet to Jesus's head. Kai also wants you to know everyone is lovable and deserving of respect. Kai enjoys surfing, drugs, and anything he can get for free. His turnoffs include haircuts, pedophilia, "policy" enforcers, and I am going to guess deodorant.

The most pathetic part of this is the guy walking the circle of people like he is trying to start a mosh pit.

I think this is the second time I have fixed this quote. It was originally said by Steve Weinberg, a Nobel Peace Prize winning physicist.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

The full quote doesn't really work for what you are saying, but I understand your sentiment.

I guess it would work if it was said like this. "Gun laws are an insult to human dignity. With or without gun laws, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things."

The phrase "justice is blind" originates in Egypt where the pharaohs held court in rooms without light so that only facts impacted a case. It is a symbolic statement not a rule or law.

Lady justice regardless of having eyes or being blindfolded sees:
Prior convictions, Intent, Remorse/attitude, Your danger to society, Potential risk of flight, Severity of the crime committed etc.

Every case is different and your punishment relies heavily on yourself, the details of your case, and the severity of your crime. If you think everyone that gets busted with Xanax will get the same cookie-cutter sentencing, you do not know much about the court system. Legal language for sentencing/punishments are left intentionally vague and are open to the discretion of the court.

For example: This bitch might get any combination of 5 years probation, UP TO 5 years in prison, and pay NO MORE than $5,000. She might get all of those things or she may have some of them reduced, depending upon the circumstances of her case

If you think giggling through a trial where you face prison time, refusing to answer questions, flipping off the judge and saying "fuck you" is appropriate behavior, I don't think a list of rules is going to help you.

However, the rules of court are found on the internet or by request from the court. They do not need to post a sign at every store front saying it is illegal to shoplift, in order for me to know that is illegal. Ignorance of the law, is no excuse. These are the rules of the courts in my state: http://www.mncourts.gov/rules/general/grtitlei.htm#g2
The judge was absolutely legally right to find her in contempt of court.

The woman speaking at the beginning is what we call a prosecutor. They inform the judge of your charges and your criminal background. She also told the judge what the standard bond is.

As far as her having an attorney, listen closely at 1:25. A man says "Judge, I will make this easier for the court respectively. I'll accept appointment at this time". That is a public defender trying to save her by being appointed to her case, so her dumb ass doesn't have to explain her assets. The judge then says "I'm not going to appoint you, she has a substantial amount of jewelry. You can sell your jewelry for a private attorney". Which would mean she doesn't have a public defender and she has not yet hired a private attorney.

1. Lying under oath = perjury
2. Withholding evidence = obstruction of justice, impeding a police investigation, or accessory to a crime. You can also be charged with contempt for doing this as it shows disobedience to a courts request/order.
3. Bribery = a felony
4. Threatening an official = severe felony.
Contempt of court is a slap on the wrist compared to the punishment for the things you listed.

Contempt of court is used to punish those that show disobedience to the rules and orders of the court, or those that show open disrespect for the rules of a court. (amongst other things)

Also, the reason they asked her about her assets is to determine if she is able to pay for her own attorney or if a public defender is necessary. The judge does not get any financial gain if she hires an attorney or not.

If it was my job to judge criminals I would have little to no toleration for someone laughing at me and avoiding my questions. I would have sent her out to give her a moment to compose herself with a stern warning that when she comes back she treats the moment seriously. Maybe inform her that she is facing prison time and fines she can't afford. Lets face it, if you are in an orange jump suit you should know better than to talk back and act a fool.

Illegal possession of Xanax in Florida is a 3rd degree felony. She could get any combination of: 5 years probation, up to 5 years prison time, and a fine up to $5,000. Her drivers license will also be taken away for 2 years if she is found guilty. A felony is not a good thing to have on your record, this will follow her for quite some time. She may be able to get it expunged from her record if she applies for it and passes all of the criteria.

It is interesting that the monkey they shot into space doesn't look like the one that they said came back. Several news outlets are saying they faked it and the monkey Iran showed us that they launched had a large mole on his eyebrow and had different hair color than the monkey they shot into space. I say shenanigans.

[image]

Good find, that is crazy. I thought the house looked bad on the outside . . .

For a fleeting moment, she thought she was going to be awesome.

They are hoping for the cover of Crack House magazine.

They are testing out the new external airbag feature.

Wow, I made you degrade yourself to childish insults after asking 1 question in a neutral comment devoid of insult. I would have thought you had thicker skin than that.

Here is the list of atheist/agnostic scientists. I couldn't fit it in my other comment. Don't hurt your hand scrolling through the extensive list of people and their amazing contributions to science. The foundation they laid forms the science that you believe in today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

The percentage of atheists/agnostics as scientists is much higher than that of the general population. Did you seriously not know that ?

"don't believe in anything". Atheism only applies to the belief in gods, they might believe in many other things, such as science. They usually do believe in science and use it as a basis for their understanding of the world.

You answered my question by quoting Einstein. Here is another Einstein quote for you where he identifies himself as an agnostic (thanks for proving my point about brilliant scientist atheists and agnostics by the way):

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

He didn't believe in personal gods. His thought that knowledge of a god is beyond our knowledge and understanding, makes him agnostic.

Congratulations! That is one of the most poorly constructed ramblings I have ever read here.

"Those that say that there is no God, and say it with conviction and passion are believers of a different sort, and obviously know something the rest of us don't."

Anytime someone makes a claim to knowledge or a lack of it, that is when the terms Gnostic and Agnostic come into play. Theism/Atheism pertain to belief, Gnostic/Agnostic pertain to knowledge.

Gnostic is also a word that comes from Greek (gnosis), it means "knowledge".
A= without
gnostic=knowledge

A Gnostic Atheist would say:
I have knowledge or I think it can be known that there isn't a god, I don't believe in him.

An Agnostic Atheist would say:
The existence of god is unknown and unknowable, I don't believe in him.

An Atheist is as you described above. They don't make a knowledge claim, they just do not believe.

I think I am starting to see that your problem is with the gnostic theists/atheists. The people that make a claim to know for certain or that it can be known, if there is or is not a god. Maybe not so much the gnostic theists, but the people that kill for their god are most likely extreme gnostic theists.
Here is a link to explain it better, I suggest you check it out.
Link

I prefer the Oxford dictionary definition.

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

If you want to get real technical the word has its origin in the Greek language. It comes from the word "atheos", which means "without gods".
A=Without
Theos= Gods

That is also where the word Theism comes from.
The= shortened from Theos
Ism= A distinctive practice,system, or philosophy.

Your comments confuse me. Exactly what are your religious beliefs? If you "don't believe in any religion", that would most likely mean you don't believe in any gods. If you don't believe in gods, that is the definition of an atheist. All that atheism means is a lack of belief in god(s), nothing more.

If you believe in science you must be aware that some of the past and present brilliant scientific minds, were/are atheists or agnostics. That is contradictory of your comment I am replying to, and the above comment that atheists are lame and have a low I.Q.

The whole time I was thinking she was going to accidentally light her hair on fire or that flag behind her, I was disappointed.

Ganesh is also depicted as being an elephant, that was what I was going for.

How rude. He sneezed and no one said Ganesh bless you.

Okay, well you show me those other lists if you want and I will explain them to you. : p
Btw, I didn't neg any of your comments.

To argue with that would be to argue against statistics. I accept and agree Europe has the most educated people in terms of completing college. I never argued against that list being a list of countries by college completion, in fact I pointed it out first.

I will argue the ability to go to school is based upon economics and geography. If you live in Denmark and get paid to go to school, you have a huge advantage in becoming a college educated person. As opposed to a country that doesn't offer you assistance, where schools are far away and few in numbers, or where schooling is very expensive.

My entire point is that college does not necessarily make you smart. With the information and list you gave, you try to draw a strong correlation between the two. Millions of dumb frat jocks have partied their way through school, didn't retain any information, and didn't use their degrees. They are counted in the statistic of educated people, but they aren't necessarily very smart.

The article also says this about how education data is measured:
"The Education Index is measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio (with one-third weighting). The adult literacy rate gives an indication of the ability to reading and writing, while the GER gives an indication of the level of education from nursery (UK & others)/kindergarten (USA & others) to post-graduate education."

The same information over and over again.

You might not realize this because you didn't actually read that or didn't understand it, but you are reiterating the same information about college completion. College completion is based on socioeconomic factors and geography like I said above, and that article shows that.

In the first paragraph of that article it says:
"The United Nations publishes a Human Development Index every year, which consists of the Education index, GDP Index and Life Expectancy Index. These three components measure the Educational Attainment , GDP per capita and life expectancy respectively."

Educational attainment (if you click above) is a fancy term for the highest degree of education that someone has completed. For example, completion of a college degree. So it is measuring the same thing that your original list and first link shows.

Also, the chart on that article shows very clearly that your list above is incorrect. The countries tied for first place in education are New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Australia, and Cuba. Like I said, school in Finland is free and they pay you to go in Denmark. Canada shows up as #6. That data is also from 2007 and the measure for the education data has since been changed in 2011.

I have seen that list before. It ranks countries by the rate of which people finish college, just as I said. It also says "smartest" and gives some arbitrary varying reasons as to what makes them "smart". When they say "most educated" that means finishing college not that they are the most intelligent.
People attending and finishing college is due to many factors besides intelligence. There could be an absolute genius somewhere in an impoverished country that doesn't have a college close enough or doesn't have the money to attend. In Norway and Finland college is free and in Denmark they pay you to go. Many more people will have degrees in these countries due to those factors.
People drink and do drugs all through college, cram for tests and graduate. It doesn't make you smart, it just means you are "educated". George W. Bush went to Yale and Harvard, if intelligence were dynamite he wouldn't have enough to blow his nose (in my opinion), but he is well educated.

That is not a list of the smartest countries, it is a list of countries by the rate of college completion. Have you ever met a stupid person that completed college? I certainly have. Attendance to college is also impacted by socioeconomic factors and geography.
If you look at IQ scores, Asia has the first 5 countries in the top 10. But that information isn't the best either because they didn't test every individual person they just averaged it out. There is no accurate way to say which countries are the smartest.

I was hoping the video would end in a necklacing.

I thought you were joking, but you weren't.

Well it looks like you do know some information that I wasn't fully aware of, or rather Wikipedia does. :p I will concede my statement that Jesus wasn't a real person that existed, I will say that it is likely true that he did.

However, I stand by my original comment about imaginary friends. The Jesus that is worshiped, written about in the bible, and is pictured above is mostly imaginary. That version is classically portrayed as a white, miracle working, speaking to you from beyond the grave, supernatural being. We agree that is bullshit. (not sure if that fool comment was directed at me)

If he didn't perform miracles and wasn't extraordinary in any way, then what makes him worthy of being worshiped? Because he was such a nice guy that wanted peace and love? Those concepts are not unique and did not originate from him. Many people have lived wanting the same, but were not worshiped for millenniums.

In my opinion, it still boils down to being an extremely glorified imaginary version of a person that lived.

How can you just discount all of the magic and miracles that he worked as being false, but still think the person existed? To me they go hand in hand. Unless you know some amazing factual non-biased information that I don't know, I don't think it can be proven that he was a real person.

There are religions older than Christianity that had a figure very similar to Christ, we call them myths now. They are so similar in fact that when you read about them it seems like Christianity simply took several different religions savior stories and combined them. Virgin birth, performing miracles, being crucified, dying for the sake of mankind, resurrection after 3 days, birth near or on the winter solstice, eating the body as bread, a carpenter father, a lapse in records from teenage years to age 30, none of these things are original or unique to Jesus. Check out Zoroastrianism's savior Zoroaster and the stories of the Egyptian's god Horus as well as many many others.

It wasn't a fail. Some people just take their imaginary friends way too seriously.

Someone needs to get that bitch some parenting classes and a wardrobe stylist ASAP.

She should have just waited a couple of years until they perfected facial fillers and laser treatments.

[image]

I am starting to think she wasn't actually sorry.

I would have put money on the big blonde and I would have lost it. She has the height and weight advantage but I guess that doesn't do much if all you are doing is pulling hair.

Here is the backstory.

1) Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi after a hurricane.
2) Car accident in Pattaya, Thailand. 5 killed on Christmas Eve.
3) Wood County, Texas. 1 killed 3 dead. Car collided with cement divider.
4) Sheqi County of Nanyand City, Henan province of China. 11 people in the bus were killed on impact with the Semi.
5) New Jersey. A 6th grader was killed on impact when a stolen Mercedes struck the back of the car ripping it in half.
6) Oregon. The driver of the VW was 60 years old, he died in a head on collision with a 71 year old man who was injured.
7) Singapore. 7 passengers of the car dead, when the car tried to pass a bus and crashed head on into the truck.
8) Apeldoorn, Netherlands. 4 killed, 5 seriously injured, and 8 minor injuries. A car plowed through people in a parade for the Royal Family.
9) Newport Beach, California. TapouT founder Charles "Mask" Lewis killed in his Ferrari.
10) I don't know the details of the crash but the picture was taken by Arnold Odermatt.

I live in Minnesota. The Vikings suck.