While I recognize that most Republicans are grossly hypocritical when it comes to Freedom of Religion and the Free Exercise thereof, to be completely fair to the State of Iowa, the Republicans in its House seem to be divided on the issue.
I can't say that I totally disagree with Rep. Jon Dunwell's sentiments from this article from the Christian Post.
LINK: Satanic display in Iowa State Capitol stirs debate among GOP lawmakers: 'Outrage and disgust'
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
Constitution of the State of Iowa, codified.
Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings
hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and
establish a free and independent government....
Preambles don't have legal effect. What does have legal effect from that 1857 Constitution is Section 3 which says:
Sec. 3 Religion. The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry.
@raphjd said in More Racism of Low Expectations - it's so apropos:
He is literally saying that antic cheating policies harm blacks and latinXs.
Saying that anti-cheating policies harm blacks and Latinos (I refuse to use the word Latinx) isn't the same thing as saying "Non-whites can't do well unless they cheat or we remove the requirement to get good grades."
"Environmental regulations harm small businesses." =/= "Small business can't succeed unless they pollute the environment and kick babies." See how those aren't equivalent statements?
@raphjd said in More Racism of Low Expectations - it's so apropos:
"Non-whites, except those we hate, can't do well unless they cheat or we remove the requirements to get passing grades" is what the left keep saying.
Except that's not what THIS man was saying. And I suspect that isn't what most Leftists are saying when your side accuses them of it. You can't say your side has never cried wolf, because you literally just cried wolf here.
@raphjd said in Royse City Settles After Embarassing Deposition With "Expert Police Witness":
Why does every deposition video have;
"Objection to form" after every question except the most basic ones like: name.
Two major reasons:
Also, you shouldn't allow your client to answer compound questions, i.e., 2 or more questions jammed together. It can be confusing which question the answer is answering.
Bad questions happen frequently because lots of attorneys are bad writers and bad at forming questions. Other times, the opposing attorney is intentionally asking a poorly formed question because he's trying to slip it by and get the answer he wants.
His points:
Exam surveillance - He's talking about computer proctoring software, basically software that monitors that a student taking a test on a computer doesn't look away from the screen or go out of the picture (i.e., to cheat offscreen). He points out, quite correctly btw, that these shitty programs often have trouble recognizing ethnic or darker complexion faces. That's a real thing. I remember reading about ethnic students taking the Bar Exam and having to have their test footage manually reviewed because it reported them leaving the computer.
Zero-tolerance policies - Basically, he's saying that professors under zero tolerance regimes still have discretion to decide when to report, and when to overlook, a student having copied-and-pasted too many direct quotes. His point is that statistically, professors cut white students more slack than minority students, for various reasons, racism being a big one.
Fraternities and Sororities - Here's he's accusing frat boys and sorority bitches of getting an unfair advantage because minorities are, statistically, excluded from participation in Greek life (for racism, economic, etc. reasons) and, in case you didn't know, Frats and Sororities have huge databases of prior years midterms and final exams. If you're in a frat, then you can usually see the last decade's worth of exams for most of your classes and know exactly the kinds of course material that's likely to be tested and study accordingly. If minorities are less likely to be in Greek houses, then they don't have access to these databases.
As per usual, your racist Conservative twitterverse has sensationalized something that is, in fact, rather mundane observations.
@raphjd said in Douglass Mackey case: USA criminalizes memes. Literally.:
So, it's law-fare.
2 people do the exact same thing
So you can't read, apparently. They DIDN'T do the same thing.
One was a liberal comedian who posted a joke with no intent to violation anyone's right to vote.
The other was a conservative "comedian," who participated in sophisticated online groups coordinating efforts between themselves to have an actual effect on the election, with a stated goal within those groups being suppression of minority voter turnout.
Not the same thing. Prosecuting someone with both the necessary actus reus and mens rea isn't "lawfare."
@raphjd said in Douglass Mackey case: USA criminalizes memes. Literally.:
Like when Hillary destroyed 33,000+ emails that were under Congressional subpoena it was excused because she didn't have the "mens rea" (criminal mindset) according to the FBI. If a Repub tried that, they would be in prison for decades.
Oh, you mean like the approximately 5,000,000 missing official emails from the George W. Bush administration because government officials were using email servers owned and possessed by the Republican National Committee, which came to light during the US Attorney firing controversy.
Or are we still ignoring that and chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!" even though Karl Rove was a MUCH worse offender than Clinton?
@raphjd said in Douglass Mackey case: USA criminalizes memes. Literally.:
Why was a Trump supporter prosecuted, but a Trump hater was not?
I imagine they didn't prosecute the liberal comedian because she wasn't part of multiple online propaganda groups full of witnesses willing to come forward and testify that she did not, in fact, intend the meme as only a joke, but, in fact, did intend to affect the election and deprive some voters of their franchise. You know, evidence like they had against Mackey.
@blablarg18 said in Sandra Day O'Connor dead at 93:
Again, only one who tried to make Sandra's passing political is u, when u posted it there.
I assumed because she was the decisive vote on cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (upholding Roe v. Wade), Grutter v. Bollinger (allowing colleges to use affirmative action in admissions), or and several cases upholding separation of church and state; that one or more of you numbskulls would turn the post into a political discussion.
I forgot that you're an idiot and probably had no idea what her jurisprudential oeuvre included.
As far as I can tell, the arguments being made by Mackey's attorneys on appeal are related to venue (i.e. was the Eastern District the correct court within which to prosecute Mackey) and certain Brady violations (i.e., alleging that the government did not properly or timely turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the Defense).
I suspect that the reason he's being granted bond pending appeal is because the court believes they could possibly be successful on the Brady violations, which might have resulted in a conviction for a period of time shorter than the sum of time already spent incarcerated and the length of the appeals process. I mean, even as convicted, he was only giving 7 months. Maybe the appeals court believes he would have only gotten a couple of months had the evidence been properly handed over to the Defense.
Bond pending appeal here doesn't necessarily mean the appeals court believes he didn't commit conspiracy with the Internet posts.
@blablarg18 said in George Santos likely getting the boot...:
Santos' key legal infraction was, I believe, a paperwork thing worth like $500.
Santos lied on the FEC paperwork to make it seem like he had raised over $250,000 from third parties in a single quarter so that he could fraudulent get money from the national GOP party.
He also lied and said that he donated $500,000 personally to his campaign so that he could use donations to his campaign to reimburse himself for that personal loan.
He also stole several of his campaign contributors' identities in order to make multiple unauthorized charges to their credit cards/bank accounts, some of which went to his campaign, but many went directly to himself.
He also set up front companies to launder donations into his personal bank account. Basically, those companies solicited political donations to themselves, and then the companies paid out those funds directly to Santos.
@blablarg18 said in USSA watch: for J6, “All of the videotapes of all depositions are gone":
Transcripts don't mean shit if you can't prove they're correct as well as complete.
Because video is un-editable. Gotcha.
@raphjd said in Sandra Day O'Connor dead at 93:
I respect @hubrys for putting it in Politics & Debate because it could turn into a political discussion.
That was my thought process.
@blablarg18 said in George Santos likely getting the boot...:
Gays Against Groomers doesn't draw any connection between gay & pedophile.
LINK: Sandra Day O’Connor, First Woman on the Supreme Court, Is Dead at 93
I wasn't a fan of a lot of her jurisprudence, but still, RIP.
Bibi's main political message has been "I'm the only one who can keep you safe," so a dangerous Hamas is good for business to him and his party. It looks like Israelis are getting tired of Israel's far-right nonsense.
It will be ironic if he's attacked by some white supremacist homophobes while in jail. Who would ever believe him now?
Which witness information do you need? You can go read the thousands of pages of transcripts. Here, go help your friends in the GOP since they don't seem to be very good doing searches for information. That "news" article you linked is fucking retarded.
@blablarg18 I'm against both pedophiles and homophobes, which is why I DON'T support groups like Gays Against Groomers. It's nothing more than a Ron DeSantis fan club run by self-hating lesbian Jaimee Michell. She's a far-right political troll.