Bush at 29%

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

And you will probably not like what I'm gonna write, but there ARE no 'good guys' or 'bad guys' in court.

I agree, we agree, in principle. In practice I am arguing that the scales simply need recalibrating; they are NOT sitting equal at the outset. I think the BG has the scales leaning in his favor at the start. That is no more fair than what I suggest.

What needed doing, was to PROVE to the world that the perpetrator was a popular, handsome, rich fraternity president - and the charge came from someone without the world's greatest reputation.

As I see this, my argument would have tilted the scales a bit more in favor of your sister and your position leaves it where it is; in favor of rich frat boy.

As far as anyone was concerned - SHE WAS the 'bad guy'. No question. She was falsely accusing a man with an impeccable reputation. Everyone was sure that if Ted were found guilty, a *travesty* of justice would occur. But it didn't. When that affidavit came in, the judge was furious, to put it mildly, because the defendant was trying to pass himself as not only completely innocent of an outrageous crime, but trying to make the whole thing my sister's fault.

You're saying inconsistent things; If the judge was pizzed, then 'everyone' was not sure a travesty would occur if Ted the Perfect paid his price. Don't you think that judge felt chained to particulars that were used in the defendents benefit, to your sisters detriment, things that could be changed to make the sister fairer? Or, are you saying your sister was treated fairly and the outcome was just?

I didn't think so.

That judge knows damn well the cards are stacked against the victim. Things like sealing records. Things like not letting the jury know that lil' Ted was accused of assault a time or two before but the case settled before trial. Things like Teddy's well known violent streak that was ruled heresay and inadmissable because the law says so. Get off the 'Larry wants the law broken' kick. The law is already broken. I want it fixed.

Second case, which I mentioned - my roommate. Lived with his girlfriend for several years, had a child (which she had custody of, but neglected horribly - imagine driving downtown and finding your two-year-old walking the streets

You've presented me with two cases of what I think you would call miscarriages of justice. It seems I've lead you to reading my position as one in which accusers can run amok. Far from it; I want sanity in the court room. I want it to be known that the mom was neglectful and did this and that; things I'm damn sure were ruled as irrelevent. I don't want some 17 year old walking on an assault or murder charge because his records were sealed or because the cop didn't read Miranda in Espanol.

Wherever it is that I've given you the impression I want the innocent to go down and the guilty to walk, I'll endevor to correct myself.

And for the second - in the RARE instance of egregious crimes with clear evidence, and people getting off on a missed Miranda rights reading - yeah, that is sickening. It doesn't happen often.

How about the endless technicalities that lead to 6 out of 10 murders in DC leading nowhere? Bail. Communication with your lawyer. Average of 7 years ofr a conviction. Dropped gun charges. Lenient plea bargains. There is, as a matter of fact, a broken judicial system because these murders happen in front of people every day, the tree falls AND people see it, and nothing happens because the system weighs itself in favor of the accussed to such and extent that people are scared for their own lives to bear witness.

That is unjustice.

Actually, Furhman is probably making more money writing books these days. I do not KNOW any such thing. I think it is true - I think he did the crimes. And that's tragic. I also don't believe in mob rule or lynchings, either. I do think the falsified evidence HELPED OJ's case.

A jury doesn't KNOW any such thing either. They weren't there. They don't know anthing more than what evidence suggests. Three eyewitnesses will give three sets of details. I drop of blood could have gotten their by a conspiracy on the part of the authorities.

I am STILL not communicating with you. I do not advocate a Fuhrman planting evidence, breaking the law, bearing false witness. I advocate fixing the rules that are abused every day that lead to so many violent criminals on our streets. Saying you can't plant evidence is not a rule I want changed.

You may know that Adams *defended* the British - and most of them were found not guilty by an American jury. Because despite what everyone "knew"

Sam, so this is real simple; your sister was NOT raped and your buddy did rape that woman because the court said so, correct?

A dead body doesn't make the nearest man guilty. One trial I was empanelled on, the defendant fled when ordered by the cops to freeze. The judge told us that flight does not equal guilt - we are allowed to weigh that into our decision, but that people flee for many reasons. A fallen tree only means the tree is fallen - it remains to be seen who felled it.

And...

but the reason some of these seemingly absurd procedures exist is to prevent abuse or to ensure rights - and it usually gets adopted because *someone* abused a weakness in the system previously.

Again, I am hearing you say that in your two cited cases, justce was done. Yes?

You and I have difficulty discussing things because we approach issues differently. I don't paint everything with the same brush. If 20% of cops don't do their job, it doesn't invalidate the work of 80% of them - and I don't know that 20% is the right number. I just know it doesn't take a lot to screw it up for everyone else. If just 5% of the kids at a high school are violent gang members - and 95% are good kids - that's maybe 4 dozen or more kids, and that's enough to make the place very dangerous.

Let's say I don't communicate so well, shall we?

 

[SamSpade]

He talked a good game but it's probably too late.

I think Vrai observed this earlier...

Bush's numbers are only tanking now, because people who were supporting him are beginning to pull support. Basically, they stayed at modest levels for a long time, because those who supported him, continued to support him.

Despite the pundits, this does NOT translate into Democratic votes. When a die-hard Republican decides he doesn't support the President, it's because he feels the President isn't doing what he voted him in to do. Ain't no way he'll vote in a Democrat on those grounds.

The Democrats BEST chance for success this fall and in 2008 is to run a moderate platform to get these disaffected votes. Because if they run a far-left platform on the idiotic premise that these guys have suddenly "seen the light" of their left-wing ideas, they are in fantasy land.

And if they run a moderate, it better be a real one, and not a repackaged Hillary. No die-hard Republican will vote for her.

 

[Wickedwrench]

And if they run a moderate, it better be a real one, and not a repackaged Hillary. No die-hard Republican will vote for her.

Most democrats wouldn't either.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bush's poll ratings mean...

Bush's approval rating.

I predict after last night, they'll go up a little.

Your thoughts?

...less than any second term that I can't think of because his VP is not the presumptive nominee for the next election.

As far as what the numbers do, I think they go down further. To sit there and propose that National Guard is going to go do typing and filing so Border Patrol desk jockeys can stand a post is worse than doing nothing.
It's like giving a hungry man a steak and no means of cooking it. Uncooked, it's useless.

Go defend the freaking border with armed military. Defend our Goddamn border. That will make a huge difference in the attitude of every one that something substantive is being done on an issue that is screaming out for substance. Deploy them, today. Right now.

It would instantly take us from an out of control situation to near zero of adding to the problem and give the problem of illegals already here time to settle down so we can actually see what is what.

 

[SamSpade]

Sam, so this is real simple; your sister was NOT raped and your buddy did rape that woman because the court said so, correct?

???
The court found my sister's rapist guilty - even though at the start of the trial everyone "knew" my sister was the "bad guy".

The court found my roommate not guilty, even though people CONTINUED to believe he got away with it.

In each case, yes, I believe justice was served. But it had a little to do with what I already knew about the case. Had the jury been presented with less than a full plate of evidence, it could have gone either way.

We are definitely talking different issues here.

It is not, nor ever, the court's job to reveal or discover TRUTH. You want truth, speak to your pastor. Their job is to detemine guilt or innocence, which is a completely different standard. And that is established by evidence and testimony. And there are rules to ensure that people can't be beaten into making confessions; can't be intimidated into testifying against themselves; can't be frightened into testifying on the stand by clever lawyers; can't be searched without probable cause - and so on. They do not find the truth; at best, they can find reliable evidence and facts.

Guilt or innocence isn't so easy; is a person 'guilty' of murder, when they are defending themselves against a violent attacker? There's a dead body. That is "truth". But what is 'guilt'?

Yeah, in order to ensure against jailing of the innocent, the rules protect a lot. I tend to support them because my experience has been, once it gets that far, fair decisions are usually the case.

 

[SamSpade]

As far as what the numbers do, I think they go down further.

Honestly? I'm not sure they're accurate any more. It's rare for any President to be this unpopular for ANY reason, for this long.

Rasmussen has his approval rating hovering around 39% and generally, they've been around that level for quite a while.

This is the outfit that predicted the election outcome within a tenth of a percentage point.

Contrast this with the two recent polls by ABC News and USA Today which, taken a single day apart, show that Americans both approve of the telephone database by a 2-1 majority, to disapprove by a majority, showing about a 20 point swing. Absurd. Someone doesn't know their statistics.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

Honestly? I'm not sure they're accurate any more. It's rare for any President to be this unpopular for ANY reason, for this long.

Rasmussen has his approval rating hovering around 39% and generally, they've been around that level for quite a while.

This is the outfit that predicted the election outcome within a tenth of a percentage point.

Contrast this with the two recent polls by ABC News and USA Today which, taken a single day apart, show that Americans both approve of the telephone database by a 2-1 majority, to disapprove by a majority, showing about a 20 point swing. Absurd. Someone doesn't know their statistics.

100% of 'voters', assumig the polls are of actual voters.

To start;

48% Kerry
52% Bush

We're down to about 30% approval, so, presumably, all the Kerry voters are not supportive so he's lost over 40% of his original supporters. I think that is amazing in and of itself.

Social Security? Nothing

Iraq? At least half of his supporters would sayhe's not doing a good job but for different reasons than his oppenents.

Energy? need I say a word?

Terror? Well, we haven't been attacked but there is all these abuse scandals and Gitmo and Osama supposedly still alive and Saddam still above ground.

Illegal immigration? Yike.

I think 30% approval is amazing.

 

[vraiblonde]

Honestly? I'm not sure they're accurate any more. It's rare for any President to be this unpopular for ANY reason, for this long.

I believe it. Bush is neither here nor there - he's trying to walk straight down the middle, which doesn't garner support from his base. Democrats are an automatic "disapprove", no matter what Bush does.

 

[dems4me]

I believe it. Bush is neither here nor there - he's trying to walk straight down the middle, which doesn't garner support from his base. Democrats are an automatic "disapprove", no matter what Bush does.

:shrug: Pesronally, I didn't like him, not to mention the election fiasco, then I thought he was ok for a hot second, and then I came to the conclusion lately he's even too left for me :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

Pesronally, I didn't like him, not to mention the election fiasco, then I thought he was ok for a hot second, and then I came to the conclusion lately he's even too left for me

Quoted so you can't delete it before 2A sees.

 

[dems4me]

Quoted so you can't delete it before 2A sees.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...less than any second term that I can't think of because his VP is not the presumptive nominee for the next election.

As far as what the numbers do, I think they go down further. To sit there and propose that National Guard is going to go do typing and filing so Border Patrol desk jockeys can stand a post is worse than doing nothing.
It's like giving a hungry man a steak and no means of cooking it. Uncooked, it's useless.

Steak tartar?

Go defend the freaking border with armed military. Defend our Goddamn border. That will make a huge difference in the attitude of every one that something substantive is being done on an issue that is screaming out for substance. Deploy them, today. Right now.

It would instantly take us from an out of control situation to near zero of adding to the problem and give the problem of illegals already here time to settle down so we can actually see what is what.

Amen.
And deport those that are here illegally. No. There is not another "right" way meaning correct and not political leaning. Sure. It will take a while. They did not get here overnight. Start the deportations with families with loss of everything and watch the others sell out and scurry home before being labeled a felon and destroying any chance of legal immigration.

 

[2ndAmendment]

See. I told you you are a closet Republican. Embrace it.

 

[SamSpade]

Amen.
And deport those that are here illegally.

Sure. Give us a list of their names and where they live, and we'll get started.

Thing is, we can only estimate the number based on past experience. We have no idea where these folks are.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Sure. Give us a list of their names and where they live, and we'll get started.

Thing is, we can only estimate the number based on past experience. We have no idea where these folks are.

Come on Sam. Yes we do.

When I was in N.C. about a week ago, INS raided a business. They arrested ~250 illegals and a bunch of others were seen running through the woods getting away. It is not hard. Go where they go. Suprise! Show me your Social Security card or Green Card. Oops. You don't have one? Get on the bus; the one with the bars on the windows.

 

[SamSpade]

Come on Sam. Yes we do.

When I was in N.C. about a week ago, INS raided a business. They arrested ~250 illegals and a bunch of others were seen running through the woods getting away. It is not hard. Go where they go. Suprise! Show me your Social Security card or Green Card. Oops. You don't have one? Get on the bus; the one with the bars on the windows.

You DO know who I work for, right? No, we *don't*. We can possibly find a lot of them, but we do not know where 12 **million** illegals are.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You DO know who I work for, right? No, we *don't*. We can possibly find a lot of them, but we do not know where 12 **million** illegals are.

Yes we do. Not with a list but with reason. Parking lot of 7-11 about 7AM and the like. Cheap apartment where it is observed that more than 10 people live in one. Deduction. I can look around and know who I would ask. You mean INS agents can't?

Also use local and state police. Driving without a license? Green Card or SS card? No? Hands behind back. Probably cause; check the rest of the occupants.

Emergency room. SS card or Green Card. No? OK, wait here for the nurse. Call INS.

Seems easy to me.

 

[SamSpade]

Yes we do. Not with a list but with reason. Parking lot of 7-11 about 7AM and the like. Cheap apartment where it is observed that more than 10 people live in one. Deduction. I can look around and know who I would ask. You mean INS agents can't?

I work for the Census - and no, we don't. Repeat - we don't. (We also don't know how many homeless there are, either. Just because you can walk downtown and see a few doesn't mean we have a national database with accurate figures). You can find a few hundred here and there, but we can't even come up with a good statistical model to accurately guess - some estimates are as low as 7 million and some go as high as 20.

We have a hard enough time just counting Americans, and I know, because I did a few weeks of field research in deep rural South. Some things we're astonishingly good at, but illegals? No, we don't know where all (6-20 million) of them are. You seem to think we have their addresses or something.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I work for the Census - and no, we don't. Repeat - we don't. (We also don't know how many homeless there are, either. Just because you can walk downtown and see a few doesn't mean we have a national database with accurate figures). You can find a few hundred here and there, but we can't even come up with a good statistical model to accurately guess - some estimates are as low as 7 million and some go as high as 20.

We have a hard enough time just counting Americans, and I know, because I did a few weeks of field research in deep rural South. Some things we're astonishingly good at, but illegals? No, we don't know where all (6-20 million) of them are. You seem to think we have their addresses or something.

Sometimes you can be so ....

I said:

Not with a list but with reason.

Do you see anywhere I said you or anyone had a list? I don't. So you work at the Census. Another useless, inept (by your own admission you don't do the job well) agency.

 

[SamSpade]

Sometimes you can be so ....

I said:

Do you see anywhere I said you or anyone had a list? I don't. So you work at the Census. Another useless, inept (by your own admission you don't do the job well) agency.

I didn't say we don't do the job well. For a self-proclaimed Christian, you can be an incredibly obtuse. I'd bet anything that off the top of your head, you only have the vaguest idea of what we do. We pretty much ARE the government when it comes to statistics regarding everything from housing starts to Consumer Price Index.

The fact that we don't count illegals very well however, invalidates EVERYTHING else we do, and makes us "inept".

I'm sure Wall Street would shudder to learn THAT.

Reason. Logic. How do you think you create a statistical model? Lincoln Logs?
Did you ever take a single course in statistics?

But I'm sure YOUR way is the perfect national approach to rounding up 6-20 million illegals - sit in 7-11 parking lots and wait for them to show up.