patrick.net

WookieMan says

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

No judge...not even the most left leaning kook...would allow story after story of harassment by police during voice dire. One or two might start. Then it would be ended.

I luckily don't have to do jury duty due to my families involvement with the legal system, so I'm not fully aware of the process. But if you wanted to stick it to cops, wouldn't you stay mum about your past experiences with police so you could put them behind bars if it was a case involving a cop?

It defies logic to bitch about police at jury duty and get yourself kicked off the case. Defense attorneys would love to have a black person saying they love cops on a police crime allegation. I'm sure it was the public education system that gave them such great logic skills, that they continue to vote for people that love unions that then protect the people that kill them (very rarely mind you).

When selecting a jury, the judge and sometimes the attorneys are allowed to question the jurors. Usually they just write the questions on a board and the prospective jurors are asked to answer them out loud one by one.

Usually just general questions about where you are from, what work you do, etc. in one trial there was a specific question about the jurors opinion of guns. In another it was a question about if you could be impartial about a case involving child sexual abuse. I answered that I could not and was asked to elaborate. In retrospect I should have asked to speak to the judge in private but I spilled my guts about past social work I had done in front of the entire jury pool. The judge was not pleased. I was removed, and harshly admonished out of the sight of the jury pool.

Tim Aurora says

This was under oath.

It's impossible to prove the alleged "encounter" has never happened, so it's perfectly safe. Besides, I once saw with my own eyes as several witnesses lied under oath, were immediately exposed for it by hard evidence (phone records) and the judge simply let it go.

WookieMan says

Interested to see where Tim takes this.

I think we already know: “it’s all whiteys fault! Vote for the rich old white guy with a D by his name!”

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

When selecting a jury, the judge and sometimes the attorneys are allowed to question the jurors. Usually they just write the questions on a board and the prospective jurors are asked to answer them out loud one by one.

Usually just general questions about where you are from, what work you do, etc. in one trial there was a specific question about the jurors opinion of guns. In another it was a question about if you could be impartial about a case involving child sexual abuse. I answered that I could not and was asked to elaborate. In retrospect I should have asked to speak to the judge in private but I spilled my guts about past social work I had done in front of the entire jury pool. The judge was not pleased. I was removed, and harshly admonished out of the sight of the jury pool

That sounds like what I thought it would be. The two times I've been summoned have been recent. Almost any attorney, either defense or prosecution in my area will know of my dad and sister. All the judges would know them. So I've yet to actually even get to the physically showing up portion of jury duty. Part of me is pissed I'm not able to experience it. Especially now with nothing to do.

One thing I know about jury selection is that they LOVE teachers of any kind. My wife is an educator and she always gets selected.

When are we going to talk about African Americans refusing to form families and raise the children they create?

That is the genesis of ALL of their problems.

Until we have that discussion - BLM, Democrats and the rest of the SJW harpies can fuck off blaming their poverty and ignorance on racists in Democrat run cities.

Even today, the BLM manifesto praises the culture of not getting married and criticizes the nuclear family.

WookieMan says

Defense attorneys would love to have a black person saying they love cops on a police crime allegation.

Right, but the defence won't and they have their quota of jury candidates they can kick out.

I'm former military, and an engineer: that's two strikes for most defense lawyers. This guy is probably conservative and has half a brain. We might not be able to influence this character too easily. He might actually try to interpret the facts.
Dissssssss-Misssssed!

They too fucking dumb to vote, they think the police are at the polls, because there was an all points bulletin put out on them.
Must be from all of criminal deviant shit, they do, they have guilty mind and can't stand to look the gentry in the face.

Shaman says

One thing I know about jury selection is that they LOVE teachers of any kind. My wife is an educator and she always gets selected.

They hate PhD's in exact sciences...have never been selected, and neither have any of my colleagues.

rd6B says

They hate PhD's in exact sciences...have never been selected, and neither have any of my colleagues.

That makes sense. You might want to hear evidence and use reason rather than emotion in making a decision.

Spreading disinformation is always served with a sprinkling of truth. It is so effective, that it is used in spy vs. spy psyops, and even those trained in basilisk skepticism (as opposed to idiotic altruism) can't always tell the difference to sort out what is real from what isn't.

Best not to swallow the sprinkling of truth as bait for the poisoned bolus.

You still looking at newspapers to give you unbiased information? just shows how easy it is for you to quote ton of main stream media (left media), but only one on the right which is FoxNews! See for yourself, left is main stream, it owns most media, all social media, left owns this country. What does right have? Oh yeah Tucker Carlson who speaks for America, and a few bloggers who constantly find their content disappear from social media once left finds them and targets them.

Left tells us they are for women, but ignore and bash millions of women who are pro life. Left tells us they are for blacks, but ignore all blacks who are conservative or republican.

Welcome to dictatorship and censorship, left is winning, and left might win. But with that win, you as an American won't win, you'll lose just like the rest of us. Because eventually just like nazi's they'll "come for you too - and there will be no one left to speak for you".

Another way to get news is to simply look for opinions that do not match, and compare. Have to think for yourself as always. Media isn't anyones friend, they are manipulative mother fuckers.

FACEBOOK?

They censor. Fuckerberg works for the government. Think that little fucking thief is a genius? Don't you wonder why he's able to steal without consequences?

The point of Facebook is to gather as much information as possible on the public, and to censor what they are able to see. Try to find a Russian on Facebook to talk with. Try to find a Ukrainian. A Syrian, a Libyan.

Tim Aurora says

Really. You guys want to put up weird sites and Federalist and expect us to take that as news

The reason the Internet was created was so you could talk to ANYBODY on the planet, for nearly 0 cost.

The reason Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Twitter were created was to keep you in an unreality bubble - in a propaganda bubble.

You can't take anything as "news". Anything made as a claim is just a claim. For example when you read "The Mueller Report said X", if the author didn't give a page number, and a quote - ignore it. If you cannot comment on the article to the author - it's a lie. If there is a supposed quote and page number, check to see it is actually there, and it wasn't taken out of context.

There is literally a handful of journalists in the entire Western media. Almost all of them lie, nearly none of them provide references. People are still largely brainwashed and want to believe somebody else - the truth is, you can't trust anybody, and you shouldn't when you have the most powerful research interface that's ever existed in all of history in front of you now. What took me days of research in a library in 1990, takes me minutes today.

I thought people would know this back in 2000 - people are just becoming aware of it now. Taking fucking long enough.

There's no such thing as Fake News, there's only the Truth and Lies.

If the so called Alt-Right news sites were full of Lies, then the Liberals could easily call them out. But they can't so they use words of pre-qualify the potential reader or listener to self censor from reading.

The Federalist were one of the few sites that got the whole Russian Collusion B.S. correct early on.

Whereas the NYTimes got a Pulitzer (and plans on keeping it) for reporting all the Fake News claiming Trump was a Russian agent.

socal2 says

Whereas the NYTimes got a Pulitzer (and plans on keeping it) for reporting all the Fake News claiming Trump was a Russian agent.

Why not? Judith Miller won the Pulitzer Prize for taking everything Ahmed Chalabi told her at face value and reporting it as fact in the NY Times. The Bush administration would then cite the NY Times to bolster the case for the Iraq war.

The Pulitzer Prize is given out to best propagandist - not best journalist. It's been like that for decades.

In fact, prizes that are supposed to be well respected are given for the opposite of what they claim to be. Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize - then spent 8 years bombing 7 nations. George Tenet got the "Presidential Medal of Freedom" after he resigned from the CIA as head director, and took all the blame for the "mistaken intelligence" that brought the US into war over a non existent weapons of mass destruction program.

Tim Aurora says

Blogs and Facebook and Federalist should be banned from this site

.

Create your own site and ban whatever your want there.

FortWayneIndiana says

Another way to get news is to simply look for opinions that do not match, and compare. Have to think for yourself as always.

Thinking is hard...repeating soundbytes is so much easier.

socal2 says

The Federalist were one of the few sites that got the whole Russian Collusion B.S. correct early on.

Whereas the NYTimes got a Pulitzer (and plans on keeping it) for reporting all the Fake News claiming Trump was a Russian agent.

remember, he was freed of all charges...the case closed...but that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty...lol

Amazon Drivers, Delta Smelt, and Forest Box turtles, are protected species.

HEYYOU says

Stupid RepCons don't realize the race war they start will be between RepCons & all pissed off races in America.
Look at the variety of all the races that are protesting & they vote.
How many Racist RepCons will lose their jobs? You racist RepCons can't hide from video & audio.


https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/witnesses-say-warren-police-arrest-amazon-driver-for-parking-on-street-the-wrong-way

Really? Where’s the video and audio showing what happened?

And just FYI you can’t be arrested for an infraction, which is what parking the wrong way is. Even if the officers are making it all up, the arrest is not for parking the wrong way.

www.youtube.com/embed/yoy4_h7Pb3M

For someone who rallies against authority you sure love authority.

The Liberal coastal towns could use a 60 foot tsunami, so quit teasing us!

HEYYOU says

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/worlds-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-at-a-dangerous-unprecedented-rate-as-temperatures-rise/#app

I want to demonstrate something to you - I followed that link. The first link it refers to is:

https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48892

The first statement in that is:

The ocean represents 97% of the physical habitable space on the planet

Is 97% of the world covered in the ocean?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean

You'll get this:

Saline seawater covers approximately 361,000,000 km2 (139,000,000 sq mi) and is customarily divided into several principal oceans and smaller seas, with the ocean covering approximately 71% of Earth's surface and 90% of the Earth's biosphere.[6] The ocean contains 97% of Earth's water

That's where they probably got the 97% from.

The first reference given, is utterly wrong in it's very first sentence. Pretty fundamental error to confuse the proportion of water, versus the proportion of habitable space by a group of supposed scientists writing up a serious research report, don't you think? And in the very first sentence.

20 years ago, I read the same sort of hysteria. The oceans were going to be dead by 2015. Deoxygenation was going to kill us all. The plankton that provides more than 85% of oxygen was dying. Here we are.

Further, again from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48892 this is the first entry in the index:

1. What is ocean deoxygenation? (1.8 MB)

What kind of person wouldn't know what deoxygenation is? This wasn't written for the consumption of scientists, it was written as propaganda - and pretty sloppy propaganda at that. I remember when we used to have competent propagandists, now it seems just the sons and daughters or well connected people get the job - who are pretty dumb. Science is a bit difficult after all, AND it's work to do real research. They don't bother.

But I did! I love research.

I knew it!

Here I am, dead again.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/86978?xid=nl_mpt_blog2020-06-10&eun=g436715d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Packer_061020&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_Milton_Packer_Active

Apparently scientific journals are full of embarrassingly fake news as well.

rd6B says

Shaman says

One thing I know about jury selection is that they LOVE teachers of any kind. My wife is an educator and she always gets selected.

They hate PhD's in exact sciences...have never been selected, and neither have any of my colleagues.

As an aside, she has always voted to convict... science teacher 😝

komputodo says

FortWayneIndiana says

Another way to get news is to simply look for opinions that do not match, and compare. Have to think for yourself as always.

Thinking is hard...repeating soundbytes is so much easier.

I disagree.

Ignore opinion, and check facts. Form your own opinion.

When you encounter a lie, you will inevitably find it doesn't make sense in some way. When you encounter the truth, it entirely makes sense.

For example

The lie:

Remember when Assad was supposedly gassing his own people? He kept doing this when the US was supposedly about to leave, and ISIS was "about to be defeated". What an odd thing for Assad to keep gassing his own people even when the US warned him that if he did this, the US would bomb him. What was even odder is that Nikki Haley kept saying "we have intelligence that Assad is about to gas his own people" - then Assad would. How would she know? Why would Assad being announcing this in advance, to anybody?

What is even odder is that the Douma chemical attack had two instances of whistleblowers from the OPCW claim that it never happened, and the people who produced the report misrepresented their findings.

And then you get weird stuff like this:

www.youtube.com/embed/fBgViIGLo-w

A reporter, goes to Douma, sniffs a backpack, and concludes that a chemical attack happened? If it was Sarin the entire place is poison. What does a chemical weapons attack even smell like?

The truth:

The United States is concoting excuses to bomb Syria because they want Assad out of power. They are after the oil resources in the Golan Heights, because Genie Energy signed a deal with Israel to extract them in early 2013 - 9 months before the supposed Ghouta chemical attacks.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-02-21/israel-awards-first-license-to-drill-on-golan-heights-to-genie

As a bonus, Russia has their only base in the Middle East in Syria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad#Map

The US intelligence agencies, and media lie and thinks every civilian is a simpleton and trusts them. They are partially right. They are wrong about civilians being simpletons - they aren't, but they are very trusting and quite gullible. They are also ignorant because although people like me explain the situation, they never check to verify it is true. Check my claims, verify my sources, and find OTHER sources that make the same claims.

US news agencies lie a lot - but to cover their ass, they also tell the truth. It's just on page 15 of the Sunday edition in between an article about the joys of gardening and the importance of socks.

I have gotten into the habit when researching medical information to go to pg.15 on the searches, to bypass the captive Pharma and baleful fake news influences/infomercials disguised as advice.

On the beginning two pages at the start of the search, I came across an LA Times article that equated 'Statin Denialists' with 'Global Warming Denialists', just people who didn't know "The Truth" and what was mandated to be good for them. That was a refreshing cross pollination of nonsense equivalency for agitprop purposes from our depraved legacy press.

Ceffer says

On the beginning two pages at the start of the search, I came across an LA Times article that equated 'Statin Denialists' with 'Global Warming Denialists', just people who didn't know "The Truth" and what was mandated to be good for them. That was a refreshing cross pollination of nonsense equivalency for agitprop purposes from our depraved legacy press.

I have a suggestion - try using http://www.yandex.com instead of google. They are Russian so, since they have sanctions, they cannot be paid to promote US propaganda. They can be paid to produce Russian propaganda though.

Here's a challenge - find a paper that demonstrates a correlation between statin use, and longevity compared against a control group that foregoes statins.

Statins are evil - they do remove cholesterol, but guess what part of your body needs cholesterol - your brain. It protects your nervous system. My mother was put on statins then started to have difficulty remembering. My parents now live in a retirement community when they are near friends, and have ready access to doctors. I was so fucking pissed off that my brother - a nurse - didn't know about statins. I directly challenged him to find a paper that showed statins increased longevity - precisely because I know there is no such paper - but I dunno, i not in the medical profession, and it's not like I know everything. He couldn't find anything though.

I'll never take statins.

richwicks says

Statins are evil - they do remove cholesterol, but guess what part of your body needs cholesterol - your brain.

My brain doesn't need cholesterol. It just needs frequent pictures of lissome babes writhing in wanton lust.

Ceffer says

richwicks says

Statins are evil - they do remove cholesterol, but guess what part of your body needs cholesterol - your brain.

My brain doesn't need cholesterol. It just needs frequent pictures of lissome babes writhing in wanton lust.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cholesterol/2012/292598/

In the off chance you thought i was kidding.

Statins treat a test result, for those who totemize the significance of test results. A lot of men are terrified of heart attacks, especially if they had fathers or close relatives who have died of them. I know doctors who take statins because they fear heart attacks.

Internist tells patient 'You have this horrible test result and it means you are at higher risk of heart attack" "What do I do?" "Well, take this statin and it will bring the test results down and reduce your risk!" This often takes place with the doc minimizing the risks and side effects of the statins themselves, which are quite diverse and even can be life threatening. I think they tried to cover up a study that showed that statins overall not only didn't save lives statistically OVERALL (due to side effects of statins) but that in the study group that did not take the statins, there was even evidence to suggest the overall fatalities were very slightly lower, in spite of the modestly lower risk of heart attack per se that existed in the group who took the statins.

So If I were to pick my poison, i would opt to go without statins and endure the modestly higher risk of heart attack rather than the side effects of statins. My test for fats are all normal, anyway. However, they are one of the things that Pharma would like to have everybody on chronically.

Sort of like Covid logic: We are SAVING LIVES, when what you do kills more than it saves, but everybody is paralyzed by fear, so the fear is addressed rather than the reality.

HEYYOU says

Scientists say climate change is turning coastal Antarctica green "

Well I say it ain't!

Glad that's settled.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch says

Are you bayonetting the post man or do you hate AMERICA! ?

I am, he trampled flowers in my front yard!!!

Yes. He hurt my dog's teeth with his leg.

Ceffer says

Yes. He hurt my dog's teeth with his leg.

did he also steal your pellet by carrying it away in his back?

Ceffer says

I think they tried to cover up a study that showed that statins overall not only didn't save lives statistically OVERALL

I've heard the same thing.

Me? I'd rather have the heart attack then be a vegetable although I could be a vegetable either way. I've seen slow mental deterioration of older people on statins.

My grandmother was on a bunch of drugs - she was as sharp as a tack. Brilliant woman, she used to have times when she just felt exhausted and so would lie down. Doctor said she was having heart problems - so the drugs started. She slowly lost her mind and lived that way for 20 years. She broke her hip one day, and basically the conclusion was "it's time", so she was removed from the drugs.

She was back, sharp as a tack, completely coherent for weeks - then she died.

So.... I don't have much faith in being on 15 drugs to live, if you can call having no long term memory for 20 years as "living".