VakAttack

Lol. This is just not true. Also I love the "if honest" remark as if you have any personal knowledge. He's renowned for being a tight-fisted bastard who doesn't pay people who do work for him, he's been sued for it numerous times. Prior to him becoming a political figure, everybody thought he was a buffoon who somehow managed to bankrupt a casino. He's got a niece constantly telling people what a piece of crap he is. A huge swath of the people that voted for him acknowledge He's a terrible person, but either they like that he's an asshole or excuse it because they like his policies. Now, it's quite the grouping that Bo has found himself in with, presuming LT is Lawrence Taylor from my beloved New York Giants, two people found legally liable in some way for sex crimes, but sure, a fine group. I do enjoy how the political side constantly screaming about how they don't want their sports figures or celebrities to involve themselves in politics change their tune so quickly when the celebrity/athlete seems to agree with their politics. Weird how that happens. Anyway, on with the weird "Trump is actually very well-liked" fantasy.

Yes, Mr. Black had a bit of a rap sheet prior to those charges. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Black Here's a fun nugget that doesn't even touch on his prior record, just the stuff he had going on at the.time of those federal charges: " On May 11, 2019, while preparing to perform at Rolling Loud Miami, Kodak Black was arrested on firearm charges before he could perform. He was arrested by Miami PD and Federal Officers, and faced state and federal charges. This was nearly a month after he was arrested while entering the United States from Canada.[111][112] Kodak Black was charged with two counts of making a false statement on a governmental form, this stemmed from January 2019, where he lied on the form while attempting to purchase firearms. He filed to use his $600,000 home as collateral for his $500,000 bond for the indictments and was granted the bond, being released. He reportedly faced up to 10 years in prison on the charges and pleaded not guilty on May 15. Federal prosecutors, however, attempted to revoke Kodak Black's bail, pointing to past violent crimes, such as a 2012 carjacking incident, and his possible connections to a shooting in March 2019. The arrest had the potential to cause his bond in the 2016 South Carolina rape case to be revoked. Federal prosecutors stated that he posed a danger to society due to his long history of criminal acts as well as his repeated violation of past probation rules. Kodak Black's lawyer stated that he voluntarily turned himself in upon hearing of a warrant and that he was not a danger to society due to the crime being non-violent.[113][114][115] It was reported by TMZ on November 13, 2019, that Kodak Black had taken a plea bargain and had been sentenced to 46 months in prison, a drastically shorter sentence than the 96 months that the courts had been considering as the rapper had been involved in a fight while incarcerated that involved injury to a prison guard.[116] On March 11, 2020, Kodak Black pleaded guilty to a firearms possession case he was charged with after being detained at the Canadian-American border with a Glock. With the sentencing set for March 24, the court considered between 2 and 7 years in prison, which would run concurrently with his 46-month sentencing for lying on federal paperwork.[117] In June 2020, Kodak Black was serving his federal sentence at United States Penitentiary, Big Sandy, a high-security prison in Inez, Kentucky. In October 2020, Kodak Black was transferred to United States Penitentiary, Thomson.[118] On January 19, 2021, President Donald Trump commuted Kodak Black's sentence for his 2020 conviction.[119] Kodak Black still faced charges of criminal sexual assault in Florence, South Carolina,[120] which prosecutors were looking to "aggressively" pursue."

Far more than the people who are released on their own recognizance (cashless bail), but to be fair, it's such a small number of people who are released on their own recognizance that it's not statistically significant. What's odd is that Florida statutes actually use language in favor of non-monetary release, but in practice, it doesn't happen.

Primarily each circuit w/in Florida seems to have a "bail/bond schedule" that gives suggested amounts for each charge, but the judge is allowed to alter it as they see fit. My personal experience arguing bond motions is that every judge I have been in front of has told me that a person is entitled to a reasonable bond, not an affordable bond (or some variation of that argument). When the judges are doing their analysis of the bond amount to be set, I've not one time heard them take into account an individual's financial resources. It's only enhanced by various GPS monitor programs which the individual is required to pay for themselves, and they have to pay an upfront fee. Typically it's $100 up front and then something like $12 per day. Within my circuit, the way it works is this, except for certain charges (domestic violence charges, DUI, or any arrest pursuant to a warrant that has no bond) a person has a bond as soon as they're arrested in most cases pursuant to the schedule. Then, at first appearances (typically the first morning after an arrest) a judge sees everybody and bond can be altered. We (defense attorneys) can file bond motions to have it heard, but at least in front of my current judge (I'm a Public Defender, so I'm in front of the same judge all the time right now), the bond is rarely ever modified unless it's being revoked totally.

I can only comment on Florida, but that is not how the Florida system works at all.

Because rich people can afford to pay bail and poor people can't. And when people can't bail out, they take plea deals to get out of jail, even on weak cases, because they can't afford to wait the minimum of 6 months in jail to get to a trial to defend themselves.

Cash bail system is a scam designed to force poor people to take plea deals. It's inherently biased against poor people. It should be cashless bail for people accused of almost any misdemeanor or low level non-violent felonies.

His posts today make it seem to my uneducated opinion that he's less likely to transfer to Iowa, but what do I know?

There are plenty of great movies coming out, most of them just aren't making it to theaters because the only thing people pay to see are tent pole IP projects. Which I watch but have to admit have largely dropped in quality.

...are there not numerous things the penis is referred to other than a penis?

I told you, I found the bonus hole language silly. That ends my interest, though. I didn't "intimate" anything, I just commented directly on the "bonus hole" thing you posted being a nothing-burger (IMO). There has definitely been a push to shift some language, and I see that as a natural thing with how we interact with language. Like my predecessors, some of it I listen to and think "sure that makes sense" and sometimes we have things like my kids calling a hot dog a "glizzy" and I think "man, that's stupid."

Language has changed throughout the history of the world. We use different language now than we used when I was born in 1983, which was different than language we used when my father was born in 1954, which is different from when his father was born, and so on and so forth. I'm not being disingenuous. I don't care. You might care, and that's fine. Different strokes. I'm far more concerned with other things in the world.

This obviously doesn't even make logical sense. He won't paint the word "dick" because he doesn't believe in trans people? You straining to find some chink in my armor is weird. I'm sure I have hypocrisies somewhere in my belief system. I'm a human being.

What hearing are they doing today? is the Wray hearing?

By saying no, you're still not discriminating against them base on any of the protected classes. ...because of *gestures at American history* all of this.

No, because if the painter refuses to work with you, they're not discriminating against you based on a protected class.

It's not compelled speech is the problem, it's discriminating in who you offer your services to based on sexual orientation.

What does that have to do with refusing to provide a service? If she made the website for the fictional gay couple's wedding, is she now gay? What part of her religion allows for this discrimination. Near as I can tell, prior to her sudden desire to make wedding websites, she was working on political campaign websites. You telling me none of those folks ever committed a sin?

Yes. If one is a widespread religious belief and one is an individual person's belief, that holds more weight with me as to the allowances I'm willing to make to organized religions which I don't believe in. The tenet of "not making websites for gay people" is made up.

and SCOTUS had ruled that way. But they purposely mischaracterized to reach their desired outcome. Prioviding someone a service is not the same thing as adopting that speech and thus forcing them to speak. If I hire a painter to put a mural on the side of Willie's house saying "VakAttack is the greatest internet poster in the world" that does not mean the painter of said mural has adopted that speech as his own. For a more real world example, if a restaurant owner ordered a sign made that said "John's Restaurant: World's Best Hamburger" the sign-maker does not necessarily believe that John's Restaurant makes the world's best hamburger, he's providing a service. This woman wanted to be able to deny her (at the time fictional) services to an apparently fictional gay couple.

Where did I exclude a Muslim? Are you talking about comparing producing an image of Mohammed, a well-known central tenet of Islamic practitioners no no, vs. this woman's wish not to provide services to gay people? Should are laws be subjected to each individual's sincerely held religious belief, even if that doesn't conform w/ the widespread practice of that religion? Where does that stop? What if this same person claims she truthfully believes based on previous interpretations of Genesis 9:18-27 that black people are inferior to white people, should she be allowed to discriminate against them as well in terms of making a wedding web site?

Sure, that bonus hole thing sounds ridiculous, but from what I can tell it comes from one random charity in England where they offered it in their literature as a suggested alternative to check w/ people if they'd be more comfortable with that language, not a demand from the medical community that the language be changed for everybody all over the world. So yes, it sounds stupid to me, but it's a tiny thing from one group offered as a suggestion, not a "rebranding of the vagina." If we're going to get mad about every dumb thing someone says in the world...

Is that a serious question? Yes, I would have a problem if anybody, Muslim or not, discriminated against another group. If anybody has the idea that I prefer any organized religion over another, please allow me to dissuade you.

Nobody asked me a question.

The persecution complex some of y'all have is adorable