Posts by mrsjtmedley69

Original Post by smashley23:

Instead of giving them welfare, take away their kid and give him to someone with money.  I'm not sure that this would be any better, but at least the kids would stop being a meal ticket for the irresponsible.

There wouldn't be enough "people with money" who wanted to take care of someone else's child...There aren't even enough "people with money" now who are willing/able to adopt.  Also, what about all the people who had money when they decided to have a baby, and then by unforeseen events ended up poor, should we take away their kids too?

I recomend trying to find things at the restaurant that fit into your eating plan but are still yummy...I was having the same problem.  My job gives me free lunch at the restaurant everyday..at first I was eating wahtever I wanted but I gained a ton of weight.  Now I always try to think about ways to eat the good food but with little adjustments to lower the calories.  For instance instead of eating flour tortillas I eat corn...I also ask for plain chicken so I don't get all the added calories from the oil.  Instead of refried beans I get black beans....instead of sour cream I get pico de gallo...you get the picture.  Just making small adjustments can add up to big calorie savings.

For instance if you want a burger try only eating half the bun and skipping the cheese, or using less chesse.  Use mustard or ketchup instead of mayo or even veggies to dress up the burger instead...  If you are craving fries see if you can get someone to put them in the oven instead of the fryer for you that'll save about 200 calories right there.

Another thing I would suggest is making sure you don't go to work starving, cause then you'll just go crazy...lol and try to only eat once at the restaurant that way even if you eat something a little high in calories you can adjust your other meals to balance it out...

Good Luck and remember feeling good about yourself and being healthy is definitly worth the sacrifices!

So I started the book and I agree it is written horribly.

Original Post by knowan:

I take the Harry Houdini approach to psychics.  Houdini was a strong, almost fervent believer in the afterlife and communicating with the dead.  He was also very attached to his mother.  But most of all, Harry was himself a trickster.  He was a famous escape artist to be sure, but before that he was also a magician, a "snake oil" salesman, and even a carnival sideshow psychic.

He visited every major psychic in the 1920's.  I mean every one he could find.  He very strongly wanted to speak to his mother, but he also very strongly wanted to not be tricked.

He visited well over 100.  He found them all to be fakes.

He offered a $10,000 reward (a huge sum in 1920) to any psychic who's tricks he could not reveal.  No one collected the prize.

So to top it off, I once had a girlfriend who did believe.  While we were in Florida she and her sister in law went to a famous psychic.  At the time her father had recently had a cancer operation, and her sister in laws parents had died less than a year ago.

She came back from her reading truly believing that the psychic revealed things that there was no way that she could know.  So I had her repeat what the psychic had told her.

I then used "cold reading" techniques to explain what the psychic had done.  I even played the part of the psychic and asked pretty much word for word the exact same questions that she had.  (perhaps I was channelling the psychic?).

And to top it off, the psychic told her that her father would make a full recovery and had many years left before entering the kingdom of heaven.  A week later he was told that his cancer had recurred and 6 months later he was dead.

Now this was apparently a world famous psychic.  She had published a journal, and had even founded a "psychic village" in Florida populated almost entirely by mediums.

There is a big difference between mediums and phsycics.  I believe in mediums but not phsycis.  I believe that it is possible for some to communicate with people who have passed on, but I believe that only God knows what the future holds and unless He gives you a prophetic word then your guess is as good as mine concerning the future.

I believe I know the show you are referencing and if that lady isn't truley a medium then her and everyone else on the show has some unbelievable acting abilities.

I also believe in the idea of some people being able to communicate with people on the other side because I completley believe in spirits, guardian angels, and the afterlife.  I have seen spirits and have had some intense situations that were unexplainable by anything other then a spirit.  I also have sensed a presence on multiple occassions.

With that said I do believe that a lot of people proclaiming to be mediums are not.

Congrats!!!!!!!!  You look great!

Original Post by mjsophia:

Sorry for the home loan questions, but i think these are 2 different topics.

 

Percentage wise, how much less did you offer a seller for a home/your home?

Did they accept?

What was the final purchase price compared to the asking price after negotiations?

They were asking $90,000.  We offered $78,000.  Ended up paying $84,000 and seller paid all closing costs.

Original Post by lysistrata:

Do you ever worry about encountering a dirty cop?

This article by Radley Balko got me wondering if anybody here has had a run in with a dirty cop.  I'm not sure how aware people are of the growth of civil forfeiture as a mechanism for funding police departments and operations.  Do you think this is troubling?  Or just something for people who break the law to be concerned about?

I realize my perception is skewed, situated as it is from behind the defense bar.  I'm just wondering exactly how skewed it is, though. 

I am concerned and have encountered a few different dirty cops...

When I was in high school I lived in a predominitly African American area.  My best friend lived in a particular area of town with her Grandma that was known for drug activity.  Almost every day, especially at night I was stopped by the police and asked "what was I doing in the area".  Every time I explained that my best friend lived there.  The town had a population of about 1500.  They knew me and by best friend by name, knew my car and they also knew we were in high school.

On a few occasions we were also pulled over and asked if we knew the whereabouts of certain people, also completely illegal.

One night I went to get my friend late at night.  I had another friend drive because I had a restricted license and wasn't supposed to drive after 9pm.  We were promptly pulled over allegedly because my insurance was expired.  At the time I knew that was a lie because my father was paying my insurance and would not have forgot.  I called him to confirm this.  I told the police officer that that was not possible but he insisted it was.  Before I knew it we were surrounded by police officers.  As I was digging through my glove box looking for the registration one of the police officers opened my door, the passenger side.  He was looking all around the car with a flashlight and noticed a stack of ones I had from my waitressing job.  He then began asking me where all the money came from and if we had drugs in the car.  I told him where the money came from and that we did not have drugs.  They began asking to search the car and saying that the money was drug money.  I refused and after about 20 mins and some discussion between the officers they told me that they were letting me go, and that my insurance was fine they had just pulled us over to see what we were doing......

I also had a friend that got into some trouble for selling weed.  The police raided the home, took all the money and drugs in the house.  However, they only reported 1/2 of the money and drugs that they took.  During the raid the head detective was acting very strange like he was on drugs.  About 2 weeks after this happened the Head Detective over the case was arrested and discharged from the police department for DWI and possession of cocaine and drug paraphanalia.

Original Post by melkor:

Pretty sure the group who is going to be owing apologies start with the police who managed to create the appearance of a botched and biased whitewash job by the way they conducted themselves during the investigation all the way up to the point where they closed the investigation in a very abrupt and premature manner.

 It might end there too, for all anyone knows the FBI may investigate and determine that the police have accidentally come to the right conclusion through no fault of their own.

 That's sort of the point. Public trust is in a large measure dependent on justice being seen to be done, and that the procedure is seen to be equal for all under the law and not arbitrarily depend on whether you belong to a protected class of people or not. The police department failed massively there - even if they've come to the correct conclusion by letting Zimmerman off the hook, they haven't shown their work and as a consequence justice hasn't been seen to be served.

Is he guilty of more than the obvious? On that I have no opinion except to note that neither the kid's mother nor the shooter's friend are credible sources for determining who was screaming as they both have very strong incentives for making a determination a certain way. FBI's sound technicians are probably more trustworthy and they're more likely to make a correct determination of who's making what sounds on the recording. It's possible to play tricks with audio to change pitch and tone of the recording so as to make the voice conform to what you'd expect of each individual, which is why I don't think you can trust what anyone outside of the FBI forensic team puts out.

 Ccat's framing of the known facts into a story to conform to his expectations are an excellent example of confirmation bias, the interpretation of known facts to fit into a framework that leads to a desired outcome. Could be right, could be wrong, but Ccat's observer bias is so obvious that it detracts from his presentation of his observations. It's particularly glaring when he writes as if Treyvon, the dead victim was the larger and stronger of the two, when the armed shooter was in fact also the physically more imposing individual.

 Zimmerman weighs in at 250-260lbs, Treyvon, the dead kid was 140lbs. The very idea that a kid who is 100lbs lighter than his supposed victim could even budge Zimmerman, much less physically wrestle him to the ground is ludicrous. Martial arts, MMA and wrestling all operate with weight classes for a reason; more than a 5-6lbs of difference in muscle is such a decisive advantage that no amount of skill will make up for it.

'Course, there's a witness saying this is exactly what happened, but this witness is saying that a month later and after what other witnesses says was extensive coaching by police telling them what they should be remembering.

  I still have no opinion about guilt; there could be a factual explanation for events that would exonerate Zimmerman, and fear makes people do strange things so I suppose it's vaguely possible that Treyvon did indeed attack Zimmerman at some point. But it's simply not credible to suggest that there was any point where Zimmerman did not have such a decisive physical advantage over the kid that shooting Treyvon constitutes a reasonable use of force. The Concealed Carry forum regulars certainly don't think it was reasonable, at least.

 One could also wonder why someone with Zimmerman's arrest record including assaulting a police officer was still given a firearms license - but that's still down to shoddy police work and dubious prosecutorial conduct, not Zimmerman.

agree

Original Post by crazineko:

Original Post by mrsjtmedley69:

Original Post by caloricat:

I think once the details come to light...a lot of people are going to owe Zimmerman an apology...but I think most of them won't man up and offer it.

Eye witnesses put Zimmerman on the ground yelling for help.  His best friend said there's no doubt in his mind the voice crying for help was Zimmerman's, recognized it immediately.

If Trayvon WAS yelling for help...it was because at some point in his attack on Zimmerman, he realized Zimmerman had a gun...and that's a terrifying moment for any criminal, when you realize you just bit off more than you can chew.

Some witnesses support Zimmerman's story.  Other's say something completely different happened.  And still others say that they had a story to tell and the police did not give them the time of day.

As of now it's basically he said/she said.  No one but those two and God really know the truth.  However, IMO it comes down to the fact that none of this would have ever happened if Zimmerman would have minded his own business.  And if he truly felt the need to do something to protect his neighborhood he should have called the police and ended it there.

You can't start a fight, then kill someone because you're losing the fight and call it self defense.

You are making the broad assumption that this is what occurred.  You (and the rest of us) don't know this. 

Also, there is no shoulda/woulda/coulda law.  We all do stupid things that we believe at the time is the right course of action.  Sometimes bad things occur as a result.  That's life.  I'd imagine Zimmerman would love to go back in time and "mind his own business".  I mean, it's not like the guy could see into the future. 

 

Like I said previously this whole discussion is basically based on hesaid/she said.  However, it is proven via the 911 tapes and witnessses that Zimmerman followed the victim even after being advised not to.  Therefore, IMO that is the beginning of the confrontation that started the alleged scuffle.

And yes people do make mistakes and bad judgements, but they also are/should be punished for them.  Especially when their mistakes end a life.  No he could not see the future and I'm sure he would like to go back in time, but thats not an option.  The damage is done and now Zimmerman should have to face the consequences.  Is this not the root of our Justice system?