Juror#8

The premise is the idea that one day a year, you can purge society of __________. I think that it is a really good idea conceptually to add substance to and make a good ahistorical fiction, or neo-noir type script. I would have loved to see Christopher Nolan work with the premise for a good 6 months. I can tell from the trailer that the movie is gonna absolutely suck. But I still like the premise. In that way it'll probably be 9MM. Anyway, just wanted to know if anyone would support the idea of one day a year, purging society. I guess not though. But that's probably a good thing...

The premise behind this movie is REALLY good, but it seems like they're gonna flub it up into some "The Strangers"-type horror angle. It would be MUCH better as a neo-noir type deal, but anyway... You can't help but think of the Boston tragedy with the whole bunkering up thing. Wish folks' could purge that Tsarnaev character. Conversation going on here at the office, if some kind of 'Purge' legislation was ever under consideration, would you support it?

At least the Bills have a discernable direction around what they need to do and how they plan to get there. It may not work, but at least there is a roadmap. So who is it this year, Tebow or Cantchez?

The talent this year seems so unexceptional compared to last year's draft class. I really hope that they can't find a way to trade down. I just don't think that there is any player that they would want at #8 that wouldn't otherwise be available at 28.

I'll wager his buddy drives a BMW - probably 7 series.

I will agree with you that Phil Jackson was the greatest NBA coach, possibly the greatest coach in any sport, ever. He won 50+ games with a Jordan-less Bulls team in 1994. I just can't agree with you that Jordan had a great cast around him. I am a firm believer that Pippen could just have easily been a nameless, unmemorable swing man (think JR Rider) except that he played alongside a great player like Jordan in his prime. The Bulls never had a good center. At any given time they had Luc longley, Bill Cartwright, Bill Purdue, Jason Campbell. And this was during the age of Robinson, Olajuwon, Ewing, Shaq, Manu Bol (J/K but you should read about him if you get a chance - sad story) etc. When Jordan left, who won those titles (Olajuwon and Robinson). Steve Kerr, Paxon, Hodges, and Armstrong were single-dimensional players who could just shoot. They were only good because Jordan accentuated their skill set. There were plenty of them in the league at the time - Ehlo, Hoiberg, Hornacek, Marjle, etc. but they weren't as effective because they didn't have the same time of gamer playing along side them. Horace Grant, and later, Dennis Rodman, were strong and instrumental power forwards. But Rodman couldn't score and Grant was a rebounding liability during those early Bulls runs. neither were well-rounded players at their position. In my estimation, the Bulls were comprised of the best player to ever play any sport as their 2 and a GREAT 3. That's it. Every one else filled a role. A shooter. A defender. A rebounder. A paint presence. But that's all they needed because Mike Money made up for every other deficiency. That 94 season when MJ left, they won 50+ games and went out in the second round of the playoffs. When he came back for his first full season, they won 72 games. That's 88% of their games and 20% better than the previous year. More importantly, though, they steamrolled the league and won the title. The next season, they won 70 games (I think). And the season after that they won 60 or 61 games. All on the strength of one player. The early-2000s Lakers would have won those titles without Kobe. Shaq was just that dominant in his 20s. The Bulls could not have ever won a single title ever without MJ. If those Bulls had Lebron, they couldn't have won a title in the 90s. They would have never made it out of the Eastern conference. Lebron would be too battered and bruised and scared from Anthony Mason, and Larry Johnson dislocated his ribs and Isaiah Thomas taking his legs out from under him when he tried to drive the lane.

I don't pretend to be the expert on his presidency, but I do know that the number of workers on the federal payroll increased by 70,000 (I imagine that many were mostly military and DOD), he bailed out Social Security (which, then, for the first time caused SS benefits to be taxed), and he added the Department of Veterans Affairs (instead of getting rid of Department(s) of Energy and Education like he promised during the course of his campaign in 1980). The VA move expanded government significantly and was disliked by many in the GOP. All in all though, he was a great president and should be memorialized on some kind of circulating currency. Not that anyone cares, but Regan was the first president that I saw in person. There was a time when the president would come outside onto the White House lawn and talk. I was probably 9 or 10 and my my mom took me and my siblings to the WH gates. I remember that there was a speaker box on the gate and after being there for a while there was an announcement to the tune of: "ladies and gentleman, Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Regan." Out came the president and the first lady, they waived for a few minutes, walked around on the lawn, chatted with some people who were on the premises. And then they went back inside. I wonder what happened to those days...

I think that there have been tons of instances when the media hasn't ran a story because law enforcement or the government indicated that that publication would be deleterious to their efforts at resolution. If memory serves, the press had a lot of info about the Unabomber that they kept quiet per law enforcement admonition. Same with the Malvo people (DC Snipers). And I think I heard Woodward mention, when he was working the Sunday circuit, that Katherine Graham was known for sitting on a story if necessary. But then there are occassions like Nixon's Pentagon papers drama when the press went against government admonitions. I'm not sure that law enforcement can just say "FU!" But they can make a compelling case for restraint in releasing information that could adversely affect their ability to do their jobs effectively.

The states give money to individual counties and cities that then gets used for education purposes, school improvement, school infrastructural projects, etc. They just do. I don't care if you like it or not. It happens. If you need proof, call your local government administration building, comptroller, or revenue office, and ask. It's a free call and it will take you a minute of your time. If you don't like it, call your governor's office and complain. If a state mandates a program that requires that in order for impoverished families to receive public assistance from said state, their kids have to go to school and perform at a certain level, said state has an obligation to ensure that the place that they are mandating that the kids attend, in order to maintain funding, is not a death trap. That might just entail some basic improvements. But if the state enters into the arena of community education, they then obligate themselves, in a de facto way or otherwise, to ensure that the pieces are there for folks to be able to comply. And the more I think about it, I can think of a couple of ways that such legislation would legally compel a state to provide education funding in some capacity. I'm not talking about what you think is right or wrong, or what comports more with your vision of prudent tax appropriation; I'm only talking about what would likely HAVE TO happen IF the state mandated a metric/outcome-based academic policy tied to public assistance. If you really don't like it, like really really, then tell your state not to step into the community education arena at all.

I wouldn't think legally either. But I'll tell you this, if the state begins tying state welfare eligibility to school attendance/performance, it's going to implicate a de facto responsibility by the state to ensure that the cities and communities have the resources they need to facilitate a student's ability to fulfill that requirement. Most municipalities generate monies for school funding through tax revenue. In abjectly poor areas, and areas where public assistance is the main income source, it frustrates that locality's ability to care for the health of its school infrastructurally and otherwise. That is when the mayor and the local government administrators are on the phone to the Governor communicating the following message: "You're taking **** away from our people unless their kids go to school but the damn walls are crumbling in the classrooms and hoodlums are using the school annex as a place to slang rock because, since you cut county appropriation by 9%, we cut OT from the police force. Now kids are scared to walk to school out of fear of being bullied, beat up, forced to use drugs or conscripted into some crew, and those who do come to school are wondering which will come first, the bronchial condition, the school stabbing, or lunch." Once you begin understanding more about local government, you'll understand that states don't impose things, that have a proximate effect on the livelihood of their individual counties, without some promises and guarantees.

I think that it is a wonderful idea providing that there is some kind of exception for willfully truant children, or for parents who can demonsrate meaningful time and effort towards ensuring that their child attends school. The only way to assuage generational dependence on public assistance is to attack it at it's root - which is a lack of a quality education. But the state also has an obligation to provide an environment where kids can go to and from school safely, employ competent teachers, and have teaching environments that aren't repurposed utility closets with crumbling walls, using school text books from the early 90s. No child should have to endure Dante's first cantica to get an education. And those who think that is just as easy to go to Anacostia highschool as it is to go to Walt Whitman are fooling themselves.

Yes, it is the job of all hot nurses, even patient ones, to check out the overwhelming sexual power of attorneys.

I'm not sure that you read my post. If you had, you would have known that nothing that I mentioned trivialized his accomplishments or greatness as an NFL QB. Maybe you should give it another try instead of replying for the sake of replying. You just end up loud and wrong. Back on topic - for some reason I was under the impression that Nassib was more athletic that he actually is. I don't think he's slow. Doesn't seem very agile or evasive, but not "slow." He appears to have a gun for an arm, but doesn't have very good touch on the ball. He seems to have that Jake Plummer problem of throwing floaters when he should throw a dart, and throwing darts when he should put a little air under it. Not sold on him personally - not even in the 2nd. I think there are a few other project QBs with higher ceiling potential that can be had in the second or third round. I wouldn't be surprised if Barkley slipped to #41 at this point...

I'll never understand this fallacy. I've seen Brady whine, B word, moan, complain - to refs, to opposing players, to his coach - sulk, flinch, curse at Buffalo fans, be fired up, be remarkably animated during dropped passes, and whine and B word some more. He is a bigger baby than Danny Ainge was. But people always try to make him out like he's Purvis Ellison or something. Is the guy a winner? Absolutely! Has he engineered game winning drives? Yep. Has he done it cooly, calmly, and gracefully? No. Funny story...last year Brady was cursing at Buffalo fans after a TD drive. From what I can recall, a few plays into that drive, the commentators were falling over each other talking about his composure and discipline.

You have a much better understanding of the overall global financial implications that I do. I just feel that we can't trivialize real threats as "sabre ratlling," or "puffery." It makes us look weak and it emboldens the nations doing the threatening. They'll see how much they can get away with. They'll push the envelope more and more. And history is instructive here. There have been other comparatively small nations throughout history that have incrementally become worse threats because for years the international community never took them seriously. All of a sudden they're in league with other comparatively small nations and the discussion begins to change. Only in this instance China is North Korea's neighbor, biggest trading partner, and ally. That may sound doltishly slippery-slopish, but I can't help but think of those possibilities. Wasn't sure about Iraq. Thanks for clarifying that. And as far as Iran, I suppose that they have been threatening Israel and (likely) supplying assistance to the Palestinian forces there. The only way I can distinguish the two is that I feel that Iran is a more stable sovereign. That's not saying much because they're loopy themselves. But I don't get the impression that they would be aggressive just to make a point or garner attention.

1. Didn't Iraq go through tremendous efforts to tell us that they had completely abandoned their nuclear program? Weren't there Iraqi scientists who had sought asylum or were otherwise sojourning here in the states saying that the nuclear program had ended years ago. 2. Has Iran directly threatened the U.S. recently? I didn't think that they had since, at least, the Bush I administration. I'm asking because I am honestly unsure whether or not I'm misremembering these details.

North Korea may not have the capability to do any damage to our mainland, but they can target, and ultimately harm our allies and friends. Therefore, to me, they're a threat. I think that they should be neutralized. Sabre rattling or not, they're articulating their interest in launching missles in our direction while they're actively building and testing longer range missles and researching how to nuclearize them. I thought that sovereign nations were allowed to be 'nuclear nations' in an effort towards countervailing national defense ONLY and not as an offensive gameplan. To me their comments are enough of an excuse to intervene and at least make the case to the international community that they are too unstable to maintain even an iota of a nuclear arsenal. The WH needs to tool up and take NK seriously.

There are probably a good number of folks (both professional athletes and people reading these forums) who would rather spend their money injudiciously, being able to do whatever they want - spend, vacation, stock-pile ass in every conceivable zipcode, spend some more, blow rails, X out, buy rounds of Louis "trey," put smiles on their loved one's faces, bang 3 more smokin hot broads at the same time, make it rain in the club, be constantly pursued by women who want you to GGG them because you'll blow stacks on red bottoms, drive Murcielagos at reckless speeds while being "attended to," throw more parties, get your crew laid, party some more - almost every day for 10 consecutive years as opposed to... live modestly and comfortably and primarily enjoy the fruits of your labor at 60ish when you could POSSIBLY not be as.........virile. Seriously...I think there are quite a few broke athletes who would probably say that they wouldn't trade the last 10 years for anything.

Is 1000 km with the range of even U.S. territories? I don't know much on this topic outside of what I read about North Korea every few weeks online. This is my concern: "After a speech in Singapore, Mr. Gates said, "With the continued development of long-range missiles and potentially a road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and their continuing development of nuclear weapons, ... North Korea is in the process of becoming a direct threat to the United States." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/5/north-korea-making-missile-able-to-hit-us/?page=all

Hasn't North Korea been boasting that they have the nuclear capability to reach the mainland US? Read somewhere about a KN-08 (or some permutation of those letters/numbers) a few weeks back. I'll try to find the article. Apparently it is long range capable and can reach the mainland. Also unconfirmed reports say that Pyongyang some time ago figured out the nuclear miniaturization process to actually equip the long range missles. We need to go in heavy militarily.

One of the few things that deters nuclear capable nations from going all Strangelove is the idea of M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction). "You launch yours, we'll launch ours; it will be deleterious to us both." But when the leadership of a rogue nation has no predilection towards self-preservation, the psychological barrier that M.A.D. represents is no longer an inhibitor. And that is a scary prospect. I once had a conversation with Dino Brugioni (singularly the best and most deeply intellectual geopolitical conversation that I've ever had) at a UVA event and he was very big on the m.a.d. idea and the psychology around reciprocal destruction. He said that two rational actors would never push the button because they would understand that such an action would inevitably result in their own demise as well. He said that the real psychology that led to Cuban missle crises being averted was less Kennedy's patience under pressure, but rather Nash equilibrium 101. The problem is that I'm not sure that Pyongyang is comprised of a bunch of rational actors. I don't think that there is a Nash equilibrium principle with them. Therefore, I think that the U.S. should go in heavy militarily and relieve any temptation that they might have.

Hey........I see what you did there........ In the most voluble way possible, you made two points: 1. You told me that in my most recent response post to you, I argued a point other than my initial statement. It should be mentioned that you didn't take any exception to any of the subtantive points that I mentioned in that response post, you appear to have just tried to distinguish the issue that I was arguing. 2. Believing that you deciphered my original point, and ignoring my response post (because to you it was irrelevant and not applicable to my original thesis), you began arguing around the periphery - substituting your own thoughts where necessary so that you could augment your points (presumably for histrionic value). You then care-package those items with some whimisical asides to give the impression of vacuousness and BAM - you have a little diddy of a contrivance. But let's see what's really there, shall we... See the bolded point above. Thank you for agreeing with me. You're trying to distinguish my two posts but it's not working. If you agree with my response post, then you agreed with my original one as well. Thank you for that. Read on... Look, I know it's easier to both create and argue a position - because then you always have at least a modicum of creative insight, but it looks bad when you quote my points, and then say that they say what they didn't say. For example, I said: And then I supported that statement. I introduced to you support for the proclamation that the statement of a witness who has character challenges has more probative value than the affirmative declarations of the defendant. Probative adjective 1. serving or designed for testing or trial. 2. affording proof or evidence. It is both a factual and anedotal reality that the statement of a defendant witness is given less evidentiary strength than does the statements of any other witness. The defendant is on trial and endeavoring to successfully allay the charges against him. In order to do this, the defendant rebuts the prosecution's case with evidence tending to make his claim of innocence believeable to the finders of fact. The defendant is not obligated to say or do anything in his defense, as the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if the defense decides to offer proof that the defendant didn't do what the prosecution said that the defendant did, the defendant's statement itself can't be the proof - (unless it's an alibi supported by, you guessed it, another witness). There is a logical incongruence to the idea that the defendant's position can be both the plea and the proof. If Zimmerman were relying on "Stand your Ground" defense, Zimmerman doesn't have the luxury of saying that Martin attacked him so he shot him and his proof of that is that Martin attacked him so he shot him. There will have to be some witness testimony to bolster that claim lest it be an affirmative declaration and, therefore, an extension of the plea itself. Conversely, the statement of a non-defendant witness holds more probative weight with respect to their assessment of events. They're tending to prove one side's averments. They are not the averments themselves. So while you were waxing poetic about free property right of horse and carriage from 1798, you were circumnavigating the issue and trying to score points by way of false attribution and argumentum verbosium. You appear to be a smart person, so I'm surprised that you're taking that course. Just for your edification on this "probative value" issue, check out Simeneh Kiros Assefa's treatise on Criminal law and procedure. I became a fan in law school and he speaks to this issue in decidedly clear terms. If you're interested in an edifying discourse, as opposed to scoring points on a football message board, it may be worth the read for you. 1. You cite the Florida statue as proof that what you say is true. Let's bring it front and center for the purposes of ease of access: 3.9©; DEFENDANT TESTIFYING The defendant in this case has become a witness. You should apply the same rules to consideration of [his] [her] testimony that you apply to the testimony of the other witnesses. You said that the above is what the Florida Supreme Court has to say about assessing the credibility of defendant witness testimony. Well here are the "Rules" around witness testimony in CT and I believe they're nearly identical in NY (I'm licensed in both locations and North Carolina). I think it's like 2-2.4 but not sure: 1) was the witness able to see, or hear, or know the things about which that witness testified? 2) how well was the witness able to recall and describe those things? 3) what was the witness's manner while testifying? 4) did the witness have an interest in the outcome of this case or any bias or prejudice concerning any party or any matter involved in the case? 5) how reasonable was the witness's testimony considered in light of all the evidence in the case? and 6) was the witness's testimony contradicted by what that witness has said or done at another time, or by the testimony of other witnesses, or by other evidence? But all that notwithstanding, what Florida's rules are or what they're not, the issue is what I said it is above - the probative value of a defendant witness statement. 2. You bring up my experience as if I was using that to make the point that 'skepticism of defendant's testimony is real.' You're making up a point, attributing it to me, and then arguing it. When did I ever say that I've even heard a witness take the stand in his own defense? You won't hear that because I haven't. My experience has been arguing constitutional issues and, rarely, new evidence. I brought up some background info to establish bona fides...in an effort to show that at least I've been there and have some modicum of insight about the process, what a jury pool is thinking, what a judge is thinking, and what other legal professionals have to deal with during the process. You may too. But instead of debating with some intellectual honesty, you'd rather make this about "Darryl" and a banjo and feign unfamiliarity and pedestrianism as a debate tactic. Don't craft my argument for me and then argue it. I didn't say anything about my former clients being my basis of knowledge on the issue of defendant-witness testimony. 3. Yes, they throw the junior associates to do habeas work. No, it's not glamorous legal work. What does that have to do with what we were discussing? "Aviator Crew we're fliest round here..." So I bolded, italicized, and underlined your first point above which is instructive - you agreed with me. You then spent a bunch of time subsequent to that trying to distinguish what you felt was my original point, from my subsequent point (that you're on record as agreeing with). My points were consistent. I've explained how and why. Try again?

I agree with 90% of what you said. I just can't agree that at this juncture we know who attacked whom. We know that there was a fight but we don't know who precipitated it. It may have been Martin; it may have been Zimmerman. We just don't know. What we do know was that Trayvon was winning and then was shot.

See outside of everything else that I've said, and as a purely personal feeling unrelated to my thoughts on this case, I feel the same way. IF some kid in a hoody approached me talking ****, and tried to put his hands on me, there would definitely be a misunderstanding. I would whoop his monkey ass. I don't play that ****. I haven't forgotten Barry Farm.

Hey........I see what you did there......... You basically just spent a paragraph saying the same thing in different variations - that we can't assume that the girlfriend made the comment that she was alleged to have made. You, very smartly, stayed away from arguing with me about the substance of my point and stuck to some ancillary points about whether or not she made those contentions in the first place. Ok. I'm going to assume that the "mouthpiece" of a family spokeperson is telling the truth and that she said what she was alleged to have said. You can prolong the inevitable and hold on to that last vestige of argument. And your mentions about the diagram of the community just leads to some highly-opinated rant about what Trayvon would have done if he was really running scared... I'll stick to the little facts about the incident that I know at this point. Those facts tell me that, at this point, I have no idea what happened between those two other than at one point, Zimmerman appeared to be persuing Martin. You continue thinking that you know more and with the opposite side of your mouth blaming the media for jumping to conclusions.