Geeto67

It's coming out now because this is when it is supposed to come out. These hearings are public for the specific reason of giving one last opportunity to air grievances against the nominee that would not have had the opportunity to have been addressed in the closed previous hearings for his lower court appointments. It's not coincidence, this is "the system" working as it should so you don't give an immoral shitbag a lifetime appointment to a government job in the highest court in the land. You are making the kind of statements that explain why 2/3 of sexual assaults go unreported at the time of the attack (and the number was likely much higher in the early 1980s). Why are you ignoring all the other times when it wasn't coincidental timing when it was just a victim trying to get on with her life. Do you just ignore those because now it is "coincidental" timing that isn't actually coincidental because this is exactly when these things are supposed to be brought up? Nope, no burden of proof here because this isn't a trial, it's a senate hearing. The burden that has to be met is can you convince a senator. It's not "beyond a reasonable doubt", it's not "Preponderance of the evidenc", "Probable cause", "reasonable suspicion", or any of the dozens of actual legal standards of proof we have built into the judicial system - It's "convince an old cranky white conservative senator that has already said publicly he made up his mind before the evidence has been fully presented that he is wrong". By the way, all this is a distraction from the fact that republicans have not released the majority of his records including those necessary to verify some claims believed to be false regarding his time with the W white house. There is a very real possibility that Kavanaugh may have lied under oath and instead of investigating it at all, the GOP has said: "nope sorry we are just going to keep that to ourselves".

Well if you are trying to prevent both things, shouldn't you be screaming about them? Oh you mean they do it when it isn't happening....except when it comes to racism they don't have to make anything up - calling out racism in our society isn't difficult because it happens on an ongoing basis everyday. As for rape, yeah this nomination is pretty much proving how little America values the experiences of women when it comes to sexual assault, except you don't believe her so you think this is exactly what she deserves. Why? Please explain this in detail. He isn't on trial so he's not going to be "proven guilty" like one would receive a conviction. There is no charge, there is no penalty of prison, and there is also no formal standard of proof that needs to be met other than to convince a bunch of senators that he did or didn't do this....which brings me up to the point I am trying to make: Many of the republican senators have already said that it doesn't matter what the testimony or evidence presented says - they are going to proceed with his confirmation either way. If it doesn't bother you that the party in charge has basically said we already made up our minds before the investigation and formal hearing are concluded - I don't know what to tell you.

kinda leaning with greg on this one...its only a both parties "do it" if you think these sexual assaults are made up.... 1) false sexual assault is kind of the male boogeyman. Most men fear that they will be accused falsely to the point where they are willing to assume that almost all are false until proven by an almost unreasonable standard of proof rather than face the fact that we live in a culture that penalizes people for being victims of it. 2) This seems to be a reoccurring theme for republicans and democrats but the troubling thing is that more often than not it seems either the republican party had reason to know, or it was easy enough to discover. Either they are really really bad at vetting people or they just really don't care and take the approach of "well let's see if people make a fuss over it". Democrats are usually surprised by this and take pretty immediate action, where as the republican line pretty much seems to be "eh, so what". Al Franken voluntarily stepped down for allegations that were much less sever than the attempted rape Brett K is facing, but Roy Moore just dug in with the slogan of well a "pedophile is better than a democrat". Both sides playing the game isn't a moral equivalency - so don't invent one where it isn't warranted. Supporting socialized medicine, unions, and public assistance is not the same moral plane as being a pedophile or attempting rape. anyway I was just looking for an excuse to post htis and now I have it: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-and-the-search-for-a-standard-of-proof/571063/

The evidence that has been made public so far. I understand it isn't a lot, but it isn't nothing. Explain to me why you don't think it is enough? if you need a primer on what's out there, this is pretty good (although I wish it was from a better source): https://www.vox.com/2018/9/22/17886814/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-deborah-ramirez

ok, to make it simple (and apparently use less words to help your comprehension). here are the questions I asked you directly: There is already evidence, why aren't you convinced by it? Why do you think he is innocent? is it just timing or something else? What system were you talking about when you said "its just the way the system works?

Based on what exacly? Which system are we talking about exactly? I know how lower federal and state court judge appointment systems work and it's really easy for things like this to be missed because they aren't nearly as public. Being admitted to federal court to practice I can tell you I often don't hear about new judge appointments until after they are confirmed, and I am a member of the bar partly responsible for the vetting process. I am guessing you aren't talking about that system so let's be clear - which system are we talking about and how is it working exactly? Who is investigating this? not the FBI (whose job it is to do so as part of the vetting process). Do you know why? Because in situations like this, the protocol is for the executive branch to order the investigation. Why? because the FBI's autonomy extends to the investigation of federal crimes, they perform the background check as part of a standing order from the executive and legislative branches, to perform a one off investigation in this case the executive branch would need to order it. Under every preceding president this has been no big deal - HW Bush even ordered it for the Clarence Thomas hearings, and they order it all the time for similar situations of appointees facing allegations for positions that don't get a lot of press. What is unusual is that they aren't being ordered here. that basically leaves the committee to "investigate" it, and by investigate I don't mean actually collect evidence, just review whatever evidence is being presented. I don't know that you can say with objective truthfulness that the appropriate people are investigating this, because it's an undisputed fact they are not. I guess this turns on whether what you consider "evidence". To me, statements made to a neutral third party long before the president was in office and Kavanuagh was even a contender for this position is pretty compelling evidence that this isn't politically motivated. It creates credibility. In the context of in modern times 2/3 of sexual assaults going un-reported because of people being afraid of not being believed it is quite understandable why the only evidence might be statements made in therapy. But that isn't the only evidence, is it? Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge wrote a pretty thinly veiled memoir of both their time together when this incident seemed to occur and tells of a culture of heavy underage drinking, occasional light drug use, and general partying. Seems to establish a lack of credibility on the part of Kavanaugh who claims this is out of character for him. So...what evidence do you need to feel comfortable? Seems like this is more than just he said she said, but still falls short that TV ideal of photos of bruises and torn clothes and police reports. What's the line for you? As for this feels fishy because of the timing? well this is exactly when these sort of things come out, and in many ways is the reason for the hearings to be public.

Pretty sure the Democrats don't own a time machine, and if they did they probably wouldn't use it to setup future political opponents in honeypot sexual assault traps. I'd say it is pretty sad that the "republicans" don't see sexual assault as a reason to not appoint someone to a lifetime government position but then again it's not like they don't have a history of doing exactly that. Actually, making deals with the devil to put pedophiles, wife beaters, and rapists in power to suit an agenda seems pretty on brand for them (Roy Moore, Corey Lewandowski, Trump, Steve Bannon, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, etc...). Putting politics aside for a second - this boils down to whether you have a problem with people who abuse women holding political office. Either you do or you don't. If you do, then at the very least be willing to investigate this and withhold judgement and at least be open to the possibility that the appointee actually committed this act and see how the evidence pans out. If you don't, well then maybe you should re-check your moral compass. I hear a lot of "well this is just gamesmanship from one side" when in reality this is politicized by both parties. There is def some republican politicking in this too - esp considering how fast they want to railroad this through to the point where they are not doing a really good job of vetting. Put aside all the political pot shots for a second and really ask yourself whether you are ok with this or not.

Randy, it was awesome meeting up with you and Sxott. we had a great time watching the both of you work.

congrats about getting the ball rolling about this. You and I had been talking for a while at CCC about "fun" car hobby stuff and this def fits the bill. Good luck and keep the updates coming.

Womp Womp.

Ah, I see what you are asking. Ok so most charges, violent and non violent, have a parole eligibility date attached to them. When you hit that date your case may begin to be reviewed for a parole board for early release from your sentence. The board can be made up of criminal justice professionals but there is no requirement and un-saavy community members sitting on the board are not uncommon. They review your record of activity in incarceration, the status of your victim, the nature of your crime, and various other factors like job skills, education level, etc.. and allow you to make an argument in support of your release. There is no set guideline as to what certain things are "worth" in terms of parole eligibility, and no requirement that people do certain things (although some activities like job training and education do increase chances). The determination is completely subjective based on the opinions of the parole board members - even if a person has shown to have a spotless record and participated in every program offered, if the parole board doesn't like something he said at the hearing or how they look they can deny parole. It is also entirely likely you can not participate in any programs and just make a good argument and be granted parole, and in some cases parole boards will grant parole of convicts just because there isn't room in the system or other administrative reasons and they need to clear people out without reviewing their records. The measure seeks to take the subjective-ness out of sentence reduction and incentivize prisoners to take advantage of the programs by saying we will give you a half day off your sentence for every day of eligible program in which you participate. Overall it will: -reduce the workload of the parole board, - reduce the number of decisions they have to make for administrative or overcrowding reasons, - reduce racism in the parole system by applying a uniform approach to all prisoners, - while giving an incentive to prisoners to try and improve themselves. It's basically taking something that's bureaucratic and making it more efficient at a level of prisoner that has a reduced risk for repeat offense or violent crime. For violent offenders, drug traffickers, murders et al, they will still have the old parole system, but with less administrative considerations and more time to review cases, the parole board might be able to make better decisions with those cases as well.

you are mis-characterizing it, but yes their Doctor was a contributing factor. I don't think their Dr intended to get them hooked on a very addictive drug, just treat their pain with an effective pain killer. There is some evidence that the medical community was mislead by the pharma companies making and marketing these drugs. It's hard to argue with the numbers, the percentage of new heroin users that transitioned from legal opoids was hovering around 80% for the last decade or so. The roughly 20% that didn't is consistent with the overall numbers of users we saw in the 1990's prior to the wide marketing release of opoids as a prescription treatment in the US. So yeah, I firmly believe that the growth in heroin use is directly tied to use of prescription opoids. That's why it's an epidemic. Now, in the long term users the number introduced by legal opoids drops as those with the resources to seek treatment eventually do, but along that treatment journey are financial problems, survived overdoses, possible incarceration, and damaged health that requires expensive health care. As a final note how much "choice" can you say a person has when they are chemically compelled to do something? once the addiction takes hold - can a person be said to really have a "choice" when they are physically compelled and even become sick when they don't get their fix? This is just stupid, you are smarter than this. Your argument here is literally the person chooses to trust their healthcare provider that their pills are safe and fuck them for making that choice because the pills are not safe. Under this logic nobody would receive medical care because nobody should trust their doctors aka "people we go to who are experts at medicine because we are not." you really have no concept of how chemical dependency and addiction works, do you? It isn't just that they "like" and "want" the feeling the meds provide - it's that the absence of the medicine in this system makes them physically ill, and depending on the dosage, feeling worse than they did before they were taking them and can even kill them. We colloquially call this dope sick, but it's known as physically dependency withdrawal. Furthermore, some people don't actually heal from the original pain, so stack that pain on top of the new pain caused by the addiction and it's a hell on earth. People can and have died from heroin withdrawal - that's why for years it was treated with methadone programs. But no, according to you people voluntarily chose this and weren't compelled by a literal horror show of pain from dependency. The addiction doesn't magically set when you choose to take heroin over legal pain pills. It starts the moment any of these substances enter your body and gets worse the longer they are continuously introduced. Your LEGAL troubles start when you choose to go to heroin because your "legal" dealer, aka your doctor and pharmacy, cuts you off. You aren't framing the choice correctly. To someone with a chemical dependency it's not "go to rehab or keep feeling Groovy" it's: "Go to rehab, vomit a lot, potentially die, feel awful and in pain for a year (provided my original injury healed without pain otherwise feel pain for life) and then deal with the crushing cost of the rehab after and continued medical insurance costs OR keep taking this medication which is causing me to go broke and may kill me but makes the pain I feel bearable so I can at least keep my job and keep functioning day to day, and by the way my brain is chemically triggering cravings for it anyway so why fight it". Doesn't seem like such an easy choice now does it? Fuck you. Whether it is a disease or not medically is not at issue. Technically breaking your arm isn't a disease either but the best treatment is still medical intervention and not incarceration. This has become the corrupted "chant" of people who lack the knowledge to understand the psychical effects and want to just blame the victims of psychical addiction and incarcerate them. you don't bring this up to debate disease vs repetitive pattern behavior or some other intellectual scientific debate - you do this to say "fuck you not my problem" to you fellow man.

Let's clear something up - Narcan kits are one of the cheapest most effective lifesaving items on the market today. Kits cost between $20 and $40. compared to an average cost of $30K per body to the municpality to clean up a dead body (regardless of cause of death) passing out even $10K worth of Narcan to prevent those deaths makes financial sense. It's addressing the problem in a preventative stage. You know what else the state gives out for free? first aid kits, why? because it shows to help reduce state health care costs as well. But you know what's not free? getting EMTs to administer Narcan. Most counties in ohio will offer people the kits to keep in their home so as long as you have someone willing to administer the kit and not charge you for it - yeah it's free. But so is a good Samaritan helping you out of that car wreck and driving you to the hospital. And by the way your injuries from getting in a car wreck because you were speeding is paid for by the state if you are an uninsured motorist who can't pay his hospital bill, and it costs way more than $20-$40 (and ohio has an uninsured motorist problem). If you fall off that ladder and don't have health insurance and can't pay the bill - sure they will try to collect and ruin your credit rating but the state eventually pays for the treatment. Yeah the majority of outcomes with speeding don't end in accident, and also the majority of drug taking doesn't end in overdose. Still car accidents are a problem, and the more people that are taking drugs the more overdoses are a problem. Betcha you have still burned yourself as an adult though, probably doing something without thinking or not even knowing that thing was hot. Same kind of situation we are in here - thousands of people took legal prescription drugs because they had faith in their medical professional and no reason not to trust them and ended up with nasty drug habits.

Here is a good primer on this that will probably explain it better than I can: https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Issue_1,_Drug_and_Criminal_Justice_Policies_Initiative_(2018) but yes and no, it does include some "breaks" for non-drug, non-violent offenders but not all provisions of the issue apply to each class of convict equally. from the above link: So non violent drug possession stops being a felony with long sentence (trafficking offenses are excluded) and non-violent convicts of any stripe can work to earn credits off their sentence by participating in programs. It's not advocating that all non-violent sentences be reduced to below felonies. most political opponents of this (like Mike Dewine) tend to confuse possession and trafficking charges saying the fear is "a drug dealer carrying enough fentanyl to kill 10,000 people would avoid jail time and be sent back onto the streets with just a misdemeanor charge – free to peddle their poison again" except 1) misdemeanor charges still have jail time, they just don't carry heavy time, I think the maximum is 6 months; and 2) someone carrying that much weight or being caught dealing would probably be charged under a trafficking charge which is excluded from Issue 1. I also personally don't like when people say things like "enough heroin to cause X number to overdose" because heroin and cocaine tolerance is a moving target, often increasing or decreasing with use (cocaine is notorious for actually decreasing a user's tolerance the longer it is used, where heroin tolerance increases with use, but drops significantly with discontinuation of use (hence why a lot of celebs who get clean OD on small amounts when they relapse). how does this stack up to other initiatives across the US? So far 9 states have passed similar measures, and Issue 1 is basically on par with them, most notably mirroring Mississippi, Utah, California, and Indiana's measures. Politically speaking it has been a mix of red and blue states, slightly favoring red states that have faced large epidemics. here is a good primer on measures in place: http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/drug-sentencing-trends.aspx

lol. All I'm saying is - if you are going to worry about the end value, then do the thing that maximizes the end value, keep it as original as possible with a few subtle mods that can be undone and drive it. If you aren't going to worry about the end value - go nuts, and understand that with old cars sometimes you have to hang on to them for a while for the value to go up again.

I get it, and honestly, I'm a hot rod guy so I kind of find all this resto stuff kinda silly too in how extreme it gets some times (ask me someday about restoring corvettes to get NCRS Top Flite and Bloomington gold - silliness abounds). I went through this with my GTO, I bought a 60K mile car that was numbers matching with all paperwork and ripped into it and found out the hard way that things like seatbelts and exhaust manifolds are date coded and people will pay stupid money for what I thought was junk. I took a lot of shit from resto purists for hacking up what they thought was the perfect unmolested restoration candidiate (a 60K mile 1 family car with all paperwork that had never been hit and still had it's original paint, even though it was rusty and there was no way to save the original paint). Before that car I had no idea plug wires were date coded and that people will pay money for them or treat you like you raped their sister when you tell them you threw them away. As long as you are in it for the enjoyment of it and making something cool that's fine, even it it means you may take a loss with it (and there is a chance you will take a loss with it). the great part of the car hobby is that 99% of the problems out there can be solved with money. the 1% are things like originality, where it is only original once. This. Old paint is super durable and most of it can be brought back with a machine compound and buff. even the roughest stuff.

It's paint code 018 and it's listed as a 2002 color for 1976 and 1977. Rubinrot is German for "Ruby Red" and it was a really fine metallic color. Lighter than Malaga but darker than granatrot from the same year which was a really high metallic medium dark red. What made me think the car was Rubinrot was the door jambs which in daylight looked lighter than what I remember Malaga to be. But BMW puts the names of the color on a sticker in the engine bay so if he read it and it says Malaga then that is the color of the car. To do a bare shell, frame up restoration of a 2002 right it costs about $30k. And you have to document where all the stickers and labels go and be cognizant of the date coded parts. Or you can just put a new coat of the same color paint on the outside and keep all of that original stuff. It also takes about a year to two to do everything. When it comes to old cars, the high value cars are the most original ones and the ones that had nut and bolt accurate restorations. Anything else in between is a lesser car. People looking for original cars will overlook bolt on things like removing the ugly US bumpers, BMW wheels to get better access to tires, and changing out the carb to run better but won't care for color swaps or fender flares. The resto guys looking at a car that was bare shell will nitpick the details and how well you recreated them and reduce the value by how much they will have to "correct". Guys into modded 2002s will want to see engine work and custom suspension work to go along with the flares and such. Just having the flares and cosmetic stiff is nice but it doesn't drive the value. What you have is a nice original unmolested car. Your best value proposition is to clean up the outside cosmetics, put the new carb on to make it run right, and try to preserve the rest while you drive it around. At the end of the day it's your car and you are free to do what you want, I'm just here giving you friendly advice because the old car hobby is different from the modern "let's mod the crap out of everything" late model car hobby. The things enthuasists value at this level are different, a lot of them think of themselves as preservationists and caretakers of history rather than car owners. They made thousands of these cars and many of them were modded and cut up so getting an unmolested one is rare, appreciate what you have.

Malaga is a beautiful color when done right, it's hard to photograph because dark colors aren't easy to capture. Unless you are willing to take the car to bare shell to paint it, don't color change it.

If you don't want to kill resale, Paint it the original color that is on the car now (Rubinrot, I believe). Color swapped 2002s are a literal fortune to do correctly because everyone expects the jambs and engine bay and trunk to match. painting it the original red will mean you get to save on the jambs and trunk and engine bay plus you don't have to buy new warning stickers and everything. I'm telling you, paint the exterior the same color it is now, steam clean the engine bay and trunk, clean up the interior and put it on bring a trailer for $15k as an original "survivor" with cosmetic touch ups and watch the bids roll in E30 bottle cap wheels are a direct fit, cheap, and look factory while increasing tire size and options (14x6 for the e30 vs 13x5 for the '02). I had them on mine and you couldn't tell they weren't stock. I don't like those wheels you bought because they are too "boy racer"

If you are stupid enough to speed while driving a car, then why are we supplying you with a free trip to the hospital? Fuck you... you die If you are stupid enough to fall off your ladder while cleaning the gutters, well you knew the risk that ladders present why are we providing you with healthcare for that fall? Fuck you...die on your lawn If you are stupid enough to cut your wrist because your wife left you, well we told you she was a bitch and you didn't listen, why should you get bandages and treatment? Fuck you...you die you sad sack of shit See what a slippery slope this kind of nonsense attitude is? The hard fact is that putting someone in jail doesn't address their addiction. There are drugs in jail - all jail does is add a schedule and structure to getting high. It doesn't address that the largest drug problem this country is facing right now is because there is an industry that is allowed to turn law abiding citizens into junkies through the legal prescription for pain gateway - putting the victim of that scheme in jail doesn't solve that problem. Only 5% of violent offenders committed their offense to obtain money for drugs. So it's not a significant gateway to violent crime, but 71% of individuals put into jail end up committing a second offense. What's the value in putting them in jail where it is likely they will end up career criminals, when the root cause can be addressed.

I am not sure where you are getting this "free pass" thing. People in possession of Heroin face harsher penalties than Marijuana possession and are about on par with Cocaine possession. The thing is with heroin users, a lot of them are in medical distress when discovered and charged which delays the process. Heroin possession: Up to 1 gram: 5th degree felony, 6-12 months in prison (in favor of community control) 1 to < 5 gram: 4th degree felony, 6-18 months in prison (in favor of community control) 5 to < 10 grams: 3rd degree felony, 9 months to 3 years in prison (in favor of community control) 10 to < 50 grams: 2nd degree felony, 2-8 years in prison (mandatory). 50 to <250 grams: 1st degree felony, 3-10 years in prison (mandatory). 250 grams or more: Major drug offense (MDO), 11 years in prison (mandatory). Marijuana Possession: Less than 100 grams: Minor misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $150. 100-200 grams: 4 th degree misdemeanor punishable by 30 days in jail; $250 fine. 200-1,000 grams: 5 th degree felony punishable by 6 months to 1 year in prison; community control presumed. 1,000-5,000 grams: 3 rd degree felony punishable by 9 months to 3 years in prison; no presumption of prison. 5,000-20,000 grams: 3 rd degree felony punishable by 9 months to 3 years in prison; prison time presumed. 20,000-40,000 grams: 2 nd degree felony punishable by 5-8 years in prison (mandatory). More than 40,000 grams: 2 nd degree felony punishable by a mandatory 8 years in prison. Cocaine Possession Less than 5 grams: 5th degree felony punishable by 6-12 months in prison (in favor of community control) 5-10 grams: 4th degree felony punishable by 6-18 months in prison (in favor of community control) 10-20 grams: 3rd degree felony punishable by 9 months – 3 years in (in favor of community control) 20-27 grams: 2nd degree felony punishable by 2-8 years (mandatory) in prison 28-99 grams: 1st degree felony punishable by 3-11 years (mandatory) in prison 100 grams or more: Major drug offense (MDO), punishable by 11 years in prison (mandatory) Where they might see leniency is in sentencing, the risk profile tends to support rehab and treatment because 90% of new users came into it from legal prescription opoids, whereas the majority of cocaine/marijuana is recreational. By the way, I applaud you supporting this, and more importantly I applaud you for supporting leniency for non-violent offenders.

So, what are you advocating? NOT giving out Narcan? we shouldn't provide care to people in medical distress? The point of measures like the one being discussed is to free up resources to devote to preventative measures like rehab and current treatment like emergency care. There are drugs in prison too, can't keep that stuff out, so we are paying the healthcare cost for prisoners on top of incarceration. At least this way we can take some of the incarceration money and put it into preventative care.

and....less than 24 hours: https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/09/20/infowars-3d-printed-gun-maker-cody-wilsons-arrest-underage-sex-charges-obvious-set/221389

Just because YOU think prostitution should be legal doesn't make it automatically legal, maybe just not immoral. I'd be a little careful about calling her a bitch, considering we are talking about something that concerns "at risk" children. She was (is?) in counseling and it was her counselor who found out and reported the incident. I would say maybe the website that promotes younger women with older men and a transactional relationship (even if it isn't prostitution) should put a little more effort into age verification before I blame a 16 year old girl for "bringing this on herself".