https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJzb2GbkZ6I
Texas judge interrupts jury, says God told him defendant is not guilty (http://www.statesman.com/news/crime--law/texas-judge-interrupts-jury-says-god-told-him-defendant-not-guilty/ZRdGbT7xPu7lc6kMMPeWKL/)
QuoteA state district judge in Comal County said God told him to intervene in jury deliberations to sway jurors to return a not guilty verdict in the trial of a Buda woman accused of trafficking a teen girl for sex.
Judge Jack Robison apologized to jurors for the interruption, but defended his actions by telling them “when God tells me I gotta do something, I gotta do it,†according to the Herald-Zeitung in New Braunfels.
I wonder what God's voice sounds like? I bet it sounds a lot like the judge's voice...
The rules don't apply to the God Party.
Yeah, they obey a "higher authority."
Fortunately, the jury believed the evidence over God in this case. But that judge should face consequences for doing stuff like this. I hope he isn't allowed to do it again.
This isn't the first time this judge has screwed up, either. Texas judge reprimanded for improperly jailing man (http://www.statesman.com/news/local/judge-reprimanded-for-improperly-jailing-man/gafX599TjNc7gWgo2CH4IL/)
Hell, Judge Robison will probably run for office now that he'll have some name recognition.
Yee Gods! A judge hearing voices in his head, and influencing the jury. I feel compelled to make a snarky comment, but I'm speechless at the moment.
I guess that means you're not the voice in the Judge's head, SGOS?
A judge hears voices in his head - admirable pillar of the community
creationist preacher - let's teach both sides
probable child molester - at least he's not a democrat
nazi wannabe murders an American - well, there are good people on both sides
NFL player taking a knee - ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 21, 2018, 09:02:53 PM
A judge hears voices in his head - admirable pillar of the community
creationist preacher - let's teach both sides
probable child molester - at least he's not a democrat
nazi wannabe murders an American - well, there are good people on both sides
NFL player taking a knee - ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING
Buch of fools
*slowly backs away from his neighboring county*
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on January 21, 2018, 09:16:06 PM
Buch of fools
Unfortunately, the world belongs to the fools.
And theists wonder why atheists are so "mad".
Sorry theists, your beliefs do not live in a vacuum. They inform your actions. And those actions have real world, negative consequences.
Quote from: Simon Moon on January 23, 2018, 08:01:39 PM
And theists wonder why atheists are so "mad".
Sorry theists, your beliefs do not live in a vacuum. They inform your actions. And those actions have real world, negative consequences.
Yes, human actions have consequences ... atheist or theist. Is that you, Joe Stalin?
The question isn't are humans frustrating to live or work with ... they are.
The question is what are you going to do about it ... in humility. And it is really hard to love everybody, particularly the less lovable.
But yes, I hope we can build a transporter machine, so that people uncomfortable with X, can go off to their own planet, like Elon Musk wants to do with Mars and billionaires. But then, we could never learn to get along either.
Our anti-social tendencies are a stick in the eye.
Quote from: Simon Moon on January 23, 2018, 08:01:39 PM
And theists wonder why atheists are so "mad".
Sorry theists, your beliefs do not live in a vacuum. They inform your actions. And those actions have real world, negative consequences.
All throughout history, when rational thought meets superstitious thought, rational thought wins. I have yet to see an example where facts show superstitious thoughts to be correct. And theistic thoughts are all superstition.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 24, 2018, 01:41:31 AM
All throughout history, when rational thought meets superstitious thought, rational thought wins. I have yet to see an example where facts show superstitious thoughts to be correct. And theistic thoughts are all superstition.
All human culture, is invention. It isn't usually driven by logic. And the empiricism is iffy, because culture creates artifacts which justify the culture. Certainly this judge, isn't a mere theist, but is deranged (like George W). In particular ... politics is irrational, it is based on group dynamics and leaders who are able to catalyze these dynamics. Nothing Vulcan about that.
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2018, 01:53:37 AM
All human culture, is invention. It isn't usually driven by logic. And the empiricism is iffy, because culture creates artifacts which justify the culture. Certainly this judge, isn't a mere theist, but is deranged (like George W). In particular ... politics is irrational, it is based on group dynamics and leaders who are able to catalyze these dynamics. Nothing Vulcan about that.
Just a complete side observation... Do you own stock in a comma company? And you might want to try a semi-colon once in a while; those help comprehension.
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2018, 01:02:51 AM
Yes, human actions have consequences ... atheist or theist. Is that you, Joe Stalin?
The question isn't are humans frustrating to live or work with ... they are.
The question is what are you going to do about it ... in humility. And it is really hard to love everybody, particularly the less lovable.
But yes, I hope we can build a transporter machine, so that people uncomfortable with X, can go off to their own planet, like Elon Musk wants to do with Mars and billionaires. But then, we could never learn to get along either.
Our anti-social tendencies are a stick in the eye.
Here's the problem you may be missing.
Atheism has no doctrine, dogma or holy books that could lead an atheists to take a negative action. Theistic religions do.
There are specific passages in just about every holy book, that can be interpreted to lead directly to negative consequences. There is no line that can be drawn between disbelieving in gods, to bad actions.
Your reference to Stalin (or any other totalitarian leader who was an atheist) as an example of atheism leading to negative consequences, is specious at best. Stalin's negative actions were not motivated by his atheism, they were motivated by bad dogma. As a totalitarian Communist dictator, he replaced the bad dogma of an absolute religious authority, with the bad dogma of an absolute State authority. Bad dogma leads to bad consequences.
Quote from: Simon Moon on January 24, 2018, 01:20:20 PM
Here's the problem you may be missing.
Atheism has no doctrine, dogma or holy books that could lead an atheists to take a negative action. Theistic religions do.
There are specific passages in just about every holy book, that can be interpreted to lead directly to negative consequences. There is no line that can be drawn between disbelieving in gods, to bad actions.
Your reference to Stalin (or any other totalitarian leader who was an atheist) as an example of atheism leading to negative consequences, is specious at best. Stalin's negative actions were not motivated by his atheism, they were motivated by bad dogma. As a totalitarian Communist dictator, he replaced the bad dogma of an absolute religious authority, with the bad dogma of an absolute State authority. Bad dogma leads to bad consequences.
You won't get much argument about that here. Thank You...
Quote from: Simon Moon on January 24, 2018, 01:20:20 PM
Here's the problem you may be missing.
Atheism has no doctrine, dogma or holy books that could lead an atheists to take a negative action. Theistic religions do.
There are specific passages in just about every holy book, that can be interpreted to lead directly to negative consequences. There is no line that can be drawn between disbelieving in gods, to bad actions.
Your reference to Stalin (or any other totalitarian leader who was an atheist) as an example of atheism leading to negative consequences, is specious at best. Stalin's negative actions were not motivated by his atheism, they were motivated by bad dogma. As a totalitarian Communist dictator, he replaced the bad dogma of an absolute religious authority, with the bad dogma of an absolute State authority. Bad dogma leads to bad consequences.
Everyone seeks political power ... got dictator? Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist.
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2018, 07:52:19 PM
Everyone seeks political power ... got dictator? Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist.
That is why Mr Kimchi is the god of North Korea.
O.P. It didnt turn out so well for George Bush either when he said that he “hears the voicesâ€. If the defense lawyer was on the ball, he should have made a motion for a mistrial. I wouldn’t want to have a judge that is half here and half somewhere else deciding my future.
Quote from: fencerider on January 26, 2018, 12:51:16 AM
That is why Mr Kimchi is the god of North Korea.
O.P. It didnt turn out so well for George Bush either when he said that he “hears the voicesâ€. If the defense lawyer was on the ball, he should have made a motion for a mistrial. I wouldn’t want to have a judge that is half here and half somewhere else deciding my future.
The defendant did call for a mistrial, but it was denied.
I swear I didn't tell him that.
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2018, 07:52:19 PM
Everyone seeks political power ... got dictator? Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist.
I don't, and never have, sought political power. Therefore, your statement is false.
Regarding "Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist", I am none of the above. Religion is merely superstition, The "State" is merely a cooperative agreement of the citizenry, and I am not an anarchist. More unsupported false claims you enjoy making.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 01:10:21 AM
I don't, and never have, sought political power. Therefore, your statement is false.
Regarding "Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist", I am none of the above. Religion is merely superstition, The "State" is merely a cooperative agreement of the citizenry, and I am not an anarchist. More unsupported false claims you enjoy making.
The greatest power is love. Got Beatles? And yes, it is clear you aren't an anarchist, just a little wild in your youth. And the State doesn't have my agreement, they don't need it, they have political power.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 08:59:36 AM
The greatest power is love. Got Beatles? And yes, it is clear you aren't an anarchist, just a little wild in your youth. And the State doesn't have my agreement, they don't need it, they have political power.
You suggest a State has power over you. Which State has power over you?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 09:11:40 AM
You suggest a State has power over you. Which State has power over you?
I am not Robert E Lee. I am Mr Lincoln's bitch. But absolute power corrupts absolutely, if as a polysci major, you don't understand that ...
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 09:45:14 AM
I am not Robert E Lee. I am Mr Lincoln's bitch. But absolute power corrupts absolutely, if as a polysci major, you don't understand that ...
Oh *I* do. The question was "Did you? The Confederacy was State Rights gone amok, and you were supporting State Rights.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 11:14:18 AM
Oh *I* do. The question was "Did you? The Confederacy was State Rights gone amok, and you were supporting State Rights.
Really? So where have I said that ... the States can nullify Federal law? Very tricky that. Particularly if the details are not enumerated in the Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause has not been revoked, but is often ignored. Facts on the ground and court decisions have refined what that all means.
If the Confederacy had left legally and peacefully, then it would have been no problem, except ideologically. But it wasn't explicitly legal (and lawyers can claim implicit legality until they are blue in the face). And it wasn't peaceful. Mr Lincoln hoped and allowed that the Confederacy would give him a causus belli, and the fools did. Ever listen to Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind? Arrogance in his young fellows, but not in him. People like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee may have had reason for arrogance, but not wisdom.
We replaced slavery to plantation with slavery to banks. But slavery it remains. And with the passing of the farm, we get slavery to employers.
So much is decided on a case by case basis .. will supporting or denying state's rights help my particular situation? It certainly worked in favor of the Feds, for Brown vs Board of Education, eventually. But if the case had been, the schools must indoctrinate with Marxism (what, we don't?) then most people would have eventually sited state's rights against it. So it all depends, most people won't site something on an abstract basis, but on how the specific application seems to them.
So here we are with legalized weed vs the Feds, and sanctuary cities vs the Feds. If you support state's rights, it all depends on how you fall on those issues ... not on some abstract constitutional law.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:29:00 PM
Really? So where have I said that ... the States can nullify Federal law? Very tricky that. Particularly if the details are not enumerated in the Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause has not been revoked, but is often ignored. Facts on the ground and court decisions have refined what that all means.
If the Confederacy had left legally and peacefully, then it would have been no problem, except ideologically. But it wasn't explicitly legal (and lawyers can claim implicit legality until they are blue in the face). And it wasn't peaceful. Mr Lincoln hoped and allowed that the Confederacy would give him a causus belli, and the fools did. Ever listen to Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind? Arrogance in his young fellows, but not in him. People like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee may have had reason for arrogance, but not wisdom.
We replaced slavery to plantation with slavery to banks. But slavery it remains. And with the passing of the farm, we get slavery to employers.
So much is decided on a case by case basis .. will supporting or denying state's rights help my particular situation? It certainly worked in favor of the Feds, for Brown vs Board of Education, eventually. But if the case had been, the schools must indoctrinate with Marxism (what, we don't?) then most people would have eventually sited state's rights against it. So it all depends, most people won't site something on an abstract basis, but on how the specific application seems to them.
So here we are with legalized weed vs the Feds, and sanctuary cities vs the Feds. If you support state's rights, it all depends on how you fall on those issues ... not on some abstract constitutional law.
The legality of any civil war depends on which side you are on. I learned the arguments of both sides, and quite frankly, both sides had good arguments. But the side that wins, wins...
Much as I like a unified US, I think the Confederacy had the better legal argument.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:36:16 PM
The legality of any civil war depends on which side you are on. I learned the arguments of both sides, and quite frankly, both sides had good arguments. But the side that wins, wins...
Much as I like a unified US, I think the Confederacy had the better legal argument.
Perhaps. Except for chattal slavery, the Confederacy would have had support from the British Empire, and the US would have been reconquered from Canada. It came this close ...
Abstract legal arguments, won't get most people shot. Both sides were self-righteous and aggressive as Hell. A sure "fire" combination.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:14:51 PM
Perhaps. Except for chattal slavery, the Confederacy would have had support from the British Empire, and the US would have been reconquered from Canada. It came this close ...
Abstract legal arguments, won't get most people shot. Both sides were self-righteous and aggressive as Hell. A sure "fire" combination.
No, there never was any real chance that the North would lose the war. There are just too many reasons to list here.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 03:17:02 PM
No, there never was any real chance that the North would lose the war. There are just too many reasons to list here.
Yes, the Confederacy without outside support (and Federal embargo on their ports). But the French or British Empire added in ... and France was already in Mexico. Britain was in Canada. They could have combined and carved us new orifices. As I pointed out awhile back, the Trent Affair was moderated by Russian Imperial support ... something I didn't know even a year ago. Got Czar!
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:31:22 PM
Yes, the Confederacy without outside support (and Federal embargo on their ports). But the French or British Empire added in ... and France was already in Mexico. Britain was in Canada. They could have combined and carved us new orifices. As I pointed out awhile back, the Trent Affair was moderated by Russian Imperial support ... something I didn't know even a year ago. Got Czar!
By the time Britain and France felt the loss of cotton, they felt the North's manufacturing more strongly. They had neither the navies or armies by then to embargo the North. They were already petrified by the Monitors, and The North was CASUALLY fighting indians in the west. They had more troops than they knew what to do with. There's more, but I don't want to duplicate a class paper.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 03:37:31 PM
By the time Britain and France felt the loss of cotton, they felt the North's manufacturing more strongly. They had neither the navies or armies by then to embargo the North. They were already petrified by the Monitors, and The North was CASUALLY fighting indians in the west. They had more troops than they knew what to do with. There's more, but I don't want to duplicate a class paper.
Yeah, but could Britain hired Indians, and the French ... Hispanics, to serve as cannon fodder? We had some interesting early technology, not just monitors but submarines. The European Empires had a hard time keeping up.
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:40:53 PM
Yeah, but could Britain hired Indians, and the French ... Hispanics, to serve as cannon fodder? We had some interesting early technology, not just monitors but submarines. The European Empires had a hard time keeping up.
Thank you for supporting my point. But the English and French had already tried using surrogates before. France lost Canada and The Spanish lost most of Mexico before that. And they were ALL worn out after Bonaparte.
(Hey, what do you call Napoleon in front of a cannon? "Blownapart" ROTFLMAO!) I crack me up...