AndyBoyd

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    612

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by AndyBoyd

  1. AndyBoyd
    You are 100% right. I don't know why I bother getting involved with these guys.
  2. AndyBoyd
    And if the Appellate or Supreme Court ruled that courts could not consider Christian law, my guess is that you'd be upset. Look, you (and John Rich) are reading way too much into this opinion. All the court did here was to reject a law it found discriminatory. The court didn't say that Sharia law was "ascendant" over state law, the court didn't say that anyone had to "submit" to Sharia law, the court certainly didn't say it would be OK for Muslims in America to refuse to obey federal or state law and live under Sharia law. All the court said was that it is likely unconstitutional to discriminate against a group based on nothing more than their religious beliefs. If you subscribe to any religion (or none at all) I'd think you would agree with that. The sky is not falling here. The court simply ruled against needless discrimination. That's all. Edit to add: OK you seem to have read the opinion. My bad for making a faulty assumption.
  3. AndyBoyd
    If it wasn't a troll, and your comment was serious, then you need to read the opinion because you obviously don't understand what the court said. The court ruled against pointless discrimination against Muslims. The court did not rule "in favor of" Sharia law. When courts strike down laws that discriminate needlessly against certain groups, it doesn't mean the court is "in favor" of that group's beliefs. The Supreme Court has ruled that cross-burning is a constitutionally protected activity (unless it is done with the intent to intimidate). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black. In other words, if a bunch of rednecks want to burn a cross out in the woods somewhere by themselves, that's OK with the Supreme Court. That does not mean the Supreme Court was "in favor of" cross-burning in the sense that they approve of it or applaud it. In this case, the Appellate Court ruled against discrimination, not "in favor of" Sharia law.
  4. AndyBoyd
    Nice troll. Not taking the bait.
  5. AndyBoyd
    ?? Could you clarify what you mean?
  6. AndyBoyd
    If anyone cares to read it, here is the 10th Circuit's opinion. http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf The reasoning seems solid to me. As billvon accurately stated, this law tried to correct a problem that did not exist by singling out one group of people for discrimination. The law is flatly unconstitutional. Americans of any political view ought to be able to understand that.
  7. AndyBoyd
    http://www.freeweb.hu/playmate/html/6410.html
  8. AndyBoyd
    Chris Irwin has done this while coaching in the tunnel. Most people liked it a lot. He could give instant feedback instead of waiting until we were out of the tunnel. For me, I never could get the earplugs in right, and they kept falling out.
  9. AndyBoyd
    Manfred Mann - Do Wah Diddy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-y-50RW5Ng I like this version better -- from Stripes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZPIU0wGVkQ
  10. AndyBoyd
    I hate icing the kicker. My 2 cents -- the rule should be that if a team lines up for a field goal and everyone is set for the snap, and the defense calls time-out, the time-out is allowed, but the ball is moved 5 yards closer to the goal line. That would stop this stupidity at the end of the games. Full disclosure -- I am a Cowboys fan. Yes, 2 weeks ago, the Cowboys coach inadvertently iced his own kicker and it (partially) cost the Cowboys the game. This Sunday, it worked for the Giants coach. But I have seen coaches do this and the first kick goes wide, but the second one is good. The move can backfire.
  11. AndyBoyd
    Please note, this is not a slam against Rick Perry. But when I read this article, I thought it described what skydivers call "brain lock" perfectly. In essence, it's the brain's natural reaction to stress. http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/NEWS/2011-11-13-PNI1113preprint-perry-brainPNIBrd_ST_U.htm
  12. AndyBoyd
    Wow. Nasty case. Hard to believe the district court judge granted summary judgment for the cops.
  13. AndyBoyd
    safest thing is just to record/video the contact so that the police know they're being watched... Just a quick warning, recording the police in the line of duty is a felony in some states, including Illinois. Whether these laws are a good idea is a question that deserves its own thread. I'm just pointing this out to save anyone who might be tempted to do this some grief. http://www.switched.com/2011/01/24/record-a-police-officer-in-illinois-get-15-years-in-prison/
  14. AndyBoyd
    It warms my heart to see that we can all get together on something.
  15. AndyBoyd
    No, two wrongs make two wrongs. I'm not going to try to defend Holder.
  16. AndyBoyd
    Regardless of who the AG is, to call him or her a "piece of shit" exposes you as classless and juvenile. When a Republican president is elected and a Republican AG starts throwing his or her weight around like Gonzales did, I am sure you will applaud enthusiastically. Have fun.
  17. AndyBoyd
    Gonzales wasn't any better than Holder. The AG's office was every bit as political under Gonzales as it is under Holder. It's just that Gonzales shares your political views and Holder doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
  18. AndyBoyd
    To call the US Attorney General a "piece of shit" is classless and uncalled for. Grow up. Your buddy Gonzales was not exactly a prince either. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Politics/story?id=3421219&page=1 "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced his resignation Monday after months of growing criticism from Congress. Lawmakers blasted Gonzales after his department fired at least nine U.S. attorneys last year, and they accused him of misusing terrorist surveillance programs. Most recently Democrats said that Gonzales had repeatedly lied to Congress under oath."
  19. AndyBoyd
    Right. Just to clarify, every member of a team must be a USA citizen or a registered alien (i.e. green card). In other words, if even 1 member of a 4-way team is not a citizen or registered alien, that team is a guest team. That team may compete and earn scores, but is not eligble for medals. This is spelled out in the USPA competition manual. I don't have the link, but you can download it for free at the USPA website.
  20. AndyBoyd
    The problem of evil isn't really an argument against the existence of god(s) it's an argument against the existence of a couple of specific gods. Nowhere in the job description it states that a god has to be good or even interested in humanity. Yes, I agree. Go ahead and re-read my post. I put the important part in italics to help you out. And I wasn't making an argument against the existence of god. I wouldn't bother to get into an argument over a proposition for which there is no evidence one way or the other. I was simply answering the OP's question of why I became an atheist.
  21. AndyBoyd
    I rejected god because I couldn't square the idea of a good and all-powerful deity with a world in which little kids get cancer, and where earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters kill thousands of innocent people, and leave countless others injured, homeless, and suffering. There is simply way too much misery and pain in this world, misery and pain that has nothing to do with human choices or actions, for me to believe in god.
  22. AndyBoyd
    I understand that there are differences of opinion on this website. Surprise.
  23. AndyBoyd
    Go back and reread my posts. I'm not going to repeat myself for the 5th time.
  24. AndyBoyd
    Of course I want police officers to investigate possible violations of the law. There is a difference between investigating a crime and seizing an individual. And that's what a vehicle stop is -- it's a seizure of a person. And I think, to explain this for the 4th time at least, that in the specific situation that the OP outlined, it isn't right to give the police the power to seize individuals without more of an indication that a crime has been committed. And also for the 4th time, I concede that the law says there is probable cause in that case. I just disagree. To take my position and twist it into the idea that I don't want cops to investigate crimes is completely unfair and intellctually dishonest on your part. I've read your posts, and frankly, you are smarter than that. That was a thoughtless post. You can do better.
  25. AndyBoyd
    I agree that cops can pretty much pull over anyone for the slightest infraction. And that kind of power can lead to abuse as well. I guess all I'm saying is that we don't need to make it easier than it already is for cops to pull people over. At least in your scenario, the driver has clearly violated the law somehow. In the OP's scenario, the driver may or may not have violated the law, and the cop won't know for sure until he pulls the vehicle over. I'm not convinced there should be PC in that situation, but I realize the law says otherwise. I get it, I just don't agree.