bobby. baby! what heat does this half-wit face that other competent presidents haven't? if walking away is the answer, let him keep walking! avoid it altogether. let him go back to courtrooms where his falsity is counted against him.

walk away?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6OquAcN6vI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnpmdVVK2-4

second-guessing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5Sre4tk5l0

(what makes one think we don't watch the full clip? if anything, just to watch him tail-tuck and sulk away?)

The defendant was equally calm, reasonable, polite and charming, just a couple of gentlemen squaring away an unpleasant incident. I'd actually watch a program that focused on a courtroom like that.

*quality courtroom behavior

Not as different as you think, when at least 1/3 and probably up to 1/2 of the people (100% wrongly) believe the constitution is not only based in Christianity, but was handed to Washington and Jefferson by Christ himself. The secular nature of the government the founders attempted to codify is eroding...we now have god on money, in our pledge of allegiance, in our courtrooms, etc. Religious rights/laws are on the rise, not decline.....at least Christian religious rights and laws.

The church is in decline, yes. Out of power, not by 1/2.

Yes, my point, it's not secular if being atheist disqualifies one from holding office. There is a religious test, not by law but in reality. That alone precludes true secularism, and it's not alone.

Well, of course there are other countries, but I only know how religion interacts with the government in my own country, and even then I freely admit there's much I don't know, both by their design of the system and from my own lack of interest. I can't speak with any first hand knowledge about how Europe is evolving (or devolving), how it's governments respond to religious pressures, or how their populations react. That's why I stuck to the US in my response, which is a place that the religious right describes as you did, totally secular and fast removing all power from Christianity, when the reality is you can't be elected here if you don't pray to Christ publicly and removing special privileges only granted to religion is considered a war against religion and an attempt to stamp it out...at least by 1/3 of us if not more.

As for perspective, you limited it to "the time we live in", but you want to counter my answer with "historically....", and YOU said "secular constitution", so I'm not sure how you translate that to "globally". To me, "secular constitution" strongly implies the US.
Clearly things are different in ANY democracy than under a theocratic dictatorship. That goes without saying....but I guess not to you, so now I said it, so now you can see the perspective that went right over your head.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Louisville-Woman-Brought-Into-Courtroom-Without-Pants

Louisville Woman Brought Into Courtroom Without Pants has been added as a related post - related requested by Mordhaus.

Your video, Louisville Woman Brought Into Courtroom Without Pants, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I find cenk and his crew difficult to listen to, but I watched long enough to listen to the actual 'meat' of their discussion (the first 20 seconds of video). They stated that the judge threw it out because the kid was unable to describe in detail what had happened. They then went on to describe how a kid that young might have a hard time testifying, and for the rest of the 12 minutes of video (I assume) added as much knowledge to the matter as any other group of people sitting around drinking beer.

IF cenk and his crew, the judge, the lawyers, or anybody in that courtroom had taken introductory level psychology in college (and I think they must have!), they would know that kids are the most unreliable witnesses possible. Their testimony should absolutely not be used as credible, because they will say whatever nonsense. For whatever deficiency anyone's college had in basic human psychology, if anyone had the computer skills to go to WIKIPEDIA, all of this could have been avoided: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory_(child_testimony).

With all the access people have to knowledge these days, the most tragic part is that nobody involved in this thought to actually verify their laymen ideas. The critical thinking skills displayed here is in high disproportion to the level of education.

The details of that judge fighting the public defender when the public defender refused to settle for a speedy trial and actually wanted to defend his client: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/03/30/panel-reviewing-evidence-in-brevard-courtroom-scuffle/70667488/ The judge was suspended for four weeks, but then reinstated. As of June 2, 2015 the case was being heard, I didn't follow the story deeper to see how it went from there...

I don't get your point.
Why could an officer be fired for going home and getting blown on lunch? It's on his time, in his home, and not in return for a promised dereliction of duty....COMPLETELY different from while he's on duty and in public in a public vehicle as a trade for letting someone go.
As for the officer making muscles, he was disrupting the courtroom, distracting the judge and/or jury with his antics. That's not only inappropriate, it interferes with the duties of the court, so it's totally proper for him to be dismissed....IMO. A warning would have also been appropriate, but some judges have no sense of humor, and they aren't required to.

Are some laws not unjust in and of themselves? Not that I disagree with you at all newtboy, in fact I don't. But I do not agree that we should follow all laws to their original intents. (And yes, when you say law enforcement should always follow the law, which you have, you create a culture where others believe it, even if you understand the nuance.)

Now here is the crux. I kind of do see Gorilia's point to some degree but not in the same madness. If a cop goes home and gets his dick sucked by his wife (or girlfriend or mistress)--on lunch--he could be fired. On lunch...on his fucking time off that is required to be given to him by law... This also applies to other things. An officer was making muscles for a kid in a courtroom (in a non-disruptive manner) and the judge dismissed him from working the courthouse ever again. Just for making a kid smile...

The list goes on and on about stupid protocols that law enforcement has to face that are utterly stressful and ridiculous...

If that's a problem for him, he shouldn't be initiating physical skin-to-skin contact with other people. Or, he *could* give him a pat on the back.

I'm not a fan of the fist bump. I feel it's too ghetto and impersonal. I haven't taught my kids to do that. Every time someone tries to give them a fist-bump I explain they don't do that and to please shake their hand instead if they must do something.

I wouldn't want my boys entering a board room and greeting the CEO with a fist-bump. [Feel free to exchange "board room" with "operating room" or "courtroom" and "CEO" with "patient" or "judge."]

You said Eric Holder can get it (ending racism in the police) done. What else could that mean besides this one democrat heading a federal agency is expected to have abilities never exhibited by any human before him? EDIT: ...and he's expected to do this during a period of political obstructivism and discord that's halted progress on nearly every issue at hand.

Kind of. Most laws are actually written by lobbies, and voted in by our 'representatives' (that don't represent us on any side, but represent the lobbies instead). Some few states have 'ballot initiatives' that allow direct voting on issues, but I think most don't.
(As an aside, I wish we would follow what I've read was the original draft of the constitution that 11-12 of 13 colonies ratified, but was discarded in favor of the one we follow today, which said clearly that lawyers can't hold public office outside the courtroom).

Common sense says if you are non-criminal only 99% of the time, you are criminal 1%, so at least once per day if not more often. If you don't understand that, or wish to continue to ignore it, you are insane or severely learning deficient. You can't even argue against that reality, so you turn to personal insults....so by your own rules, you loose.

I'm describing personal experience and long standing repeating investigations showing the same thing. When you're theory has been proven right, you are no longer a 'conspiracy theorist'. I didn't come to my conclusion until long after it had been proven true in many many cases (not all).

Yes, easy, and you would think that would matter, sadly not. It happened here in N Cal. 3-5 years ago, white kid even. No question the kid was shot in the back, and had no weapon, but the cop claimed he 'thought' he saw a weapon and feared for his life, and that the kid had quickly turned away right as he shot, and that's pretty much where it ended. Not the first stupid unarmed kid shot here, won't be the last with that outcome.

That is as factual as any of it. If people enter hell because they don't worship the correct god in the correct way, but have no way to tell which way/god is correct, or if any is, that is no fault of their own. If your proclaimed system was fair, god needs to come to each person and make them KNOW his truth, then offer them the choice to reject it. That's not what happens, no matter how many rainbows and sunsets you see.

I won't go to hell then, and neither will any real atheist. I've never seen/heard/read anything convincing about any religion...ever. I don't 'know there's a god' or right way to worship, it seems far more likely there isn't. I say this with all honesty and not because it's somehow convenient or I'm 'angry at god'. I did not 'reject' him, I don't think he exists to reject.

Mathew 7:14 seems to repeat what I said, it's incredibly hard to find the way into heaven and most people won't find the way...according to your brand of religion. It's not that they reject the way, they can't find it, even though many looked with vigor.

No, it's like some guy telling you in the courtroom hallway that the judge will say that, but no one has ever seen it happen, or even seen the judge or what happens after your case is heard, there are no ex cons at all anywhere. This is the same guy that's telling you what the law is, but make no mistake, he's not a lawyer and he's telling you things that make no sense at all (like the judge will let you off for murder if you just SAY you won't do it again).
I don't think even the most hard core murderers and rapist have NO remorse, only the true psychopaths and they're rare.

When I die and god and Jesus are there asking me questions and telling me what the rules really were, I'll believe in them and say so clearly, and admit I was wrong. Not a nano second before they prove themselves though.

Ahhh, but did we have a flat EKG and brain scan on Jesus to prove he even died? ;-)
Also, yes, 3 days later! If you eat poorly prepared blowfish you can go into a total paralysis that looks like death, and come out of it 3 days later +-! It's how Voodoo practitioners probably made 'zombies'. That doesn't happen every day, but often enough that you can't bury people in Japan right away if they eat sushi.

Still sounds like a logical fallacy to me, with some people shoving their heads in the sand to avoid seeing it. I say you can't have it both ways, the punishment is eternity in hell and Jesus should have stayed no matter how special he and his pops are, and since he left (after less than 3 days? pussy!), he didn't even take the punishment he expects humans to, forget taking that amount of punishment for each person. Saying he's 'special' so he didn't have to is ridiculous and shows the mind bending mental acrobatics you must do to make sense of this. It reminds me of the 'I'm too rich to have to go to prison' defense.

Oh, I see, I misunderstood what you were saying about the soul.