Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'll try to be an impartial observer of the recent exchange between Hack and talent. Absolutely nothing said in the exchange broke any forum rules. It's interesting and no parsing is necessary.

    I thought Geezer made a decent post when he said ....... I think the above (below in my post) is a more accurate statement of progressive thinking...... in response to this post by Hack:

    ......These are our courts. They should reflect us, and not some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality. The courts system is sick. It allows obvious criminals who are likely traitors to run the country....

    talent's been very clear:

    (a) obstruction as a legal concept is clearly defined if we're talking crimes; and (b) obstruction as a political concept is a different animal with political repercussions at the polls.

    I'm not sure I understand the position Hack seems to be staking out reflected in the words, in italics above, attributed to Hack and that were part of a larger post he made.

    The Courts are there ostensibly to insure justice, you know, Lady Justice. The courts, IMO, aren't "ours" as you state. They are there to dispose of a case justly where there are two opposing sides who argue the merits of the case according to the law. There's typically no grey area and I do find the sort of arguments progressives like to make about how the law can be and frequently is interpreted depending on circumstances to be flawed from a legal standpoint.

    We make the law, the laws are ours. Now you may argue that the laws might appear to be "some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality," but that's a tough row to hoe to make your case. That is because a law, when it is written, is going to be interpreted only as that specific law is applied in the cases that come before a court over time. That view, and I believe it is the correct one, is a far cry from what Hack seems to saying.

    I'm certainly open to being shown I'm wrong on this take I have on the territory Hack appears to be staking out. Having said that, the bottom line for me is that no one has yet made the case that Trump has obstructed justice from a legal standpoint. Mueller may find that he has committed a crime, so, TBD. I'm also becoming more and more convinced that if DJT hasn't committed a crime, undertaking the impeachment process is a bad idea. Better for America and democracy for him to be ham strung or removed from office by the voters.
    Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.

    Comment


    • Talent and hack's exchanges are like that scene in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damon's character absolutely obliterates that long haired preppy douche at the bar...

      ...just sayin'...
      Shut the fuck up Donny!

      Comment


      • Hack:

        Shut the fuck up Donny!

        Comment


        • I am confused about what Buchanan was trying to say, but the application of law to facts is always a hazy situation. If everyone could agree how it works out, there would be no need for a legal system. The entire purpose is to allow neutral third parties determine what happened and whether it was a violation of law.

          I think the disconnect between Hack and Talent is that talent is using Obstruction of Justice as shorthand for violation of a specific us code (I don't know the cite). Whereas Hack was using it to mean that the president tried to obstruct justice as those words are used by normies! There is some overlap between the concepts but it is not necessarily a complete overlap.

          In this case the President tried to stop the FBI from investigating his buddy. Clearly he was trying to "obstruct" that investigation,and therefore "justice." I don't know that it meets all of the elements to show a violation of a statute though. That's why we have a special investigator looking at things.

          I do take issue with this idea that people and the press have been asserting there was collusion. I haven't heard much of that. I have heard lots of "there are questions to be answered" and IMO that is correct.

          Right now though, the Senate apparently trying to jam through a healthcare bill without anyone seeing it is disgusting.

          Tell me again how the Dems were the first to do that?
          To be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" Kobayashi

          Comment


          • Trump throws the House Republicans under the bus. Tells Senate moderates the House Bill is way too harsh and unpopular; he wants the Senate to make it better. Love to be in the Freedom Caucus' offices when they heard about this.

            Also, Lisa Murkowski clearly thrilled to have gotten seated next to Drumpf



            Comment


            • Jeff Sessions does not remember. And what he does remember must be kept secret to protect future invocations of executive privilege.

              Comment


              • Over the past year over 70% of Trump property buyers used shell companies to do so. That compares with only 4% in the previous 2 years.

                Comment


                • Jeff this is one of several instances in which talent has told me I don't know what I'm talking about only to have another lawyer on the board suggest that things aren't as simple as talent makes them out to be. Whatever the issue is, however, is not really the point. We don't have to agree on things. Nor do we even have to respond to each other. The point for me is that I've gone out of my way to treat the guy with kid gloves, and to defend his presence here. He should be a decent enough guy to reflect that, but isn't. I don't appreciate the insult-and-run approach. That's just not right. I disagree with talent plenty, but don't think I've called his posts ``the worst of centrist-establishment thought" or somesuch. If he doesn't like my ideas he should be man enough to explain why. If he can't do that then just ignore me.

                  That said, I am not complaining. I think talent should act like a gentleman like most everyone else does here, but that's out of my control, and doesn't impact my presence here either way.
                  Last edited by hack; June 13, 2017, 06:47 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
                    Jeff Sessions does not remember. And what he does remember must be kept secret to protect future invocations of executive privilege.
                    He's from the South. It's the North that remembers.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by THE_WIZARD_ View Post
                      Hack:

                      Wiz I think it's great that, now that we have memes, you have the ability to use big words like apples that you wouldn't be able to spell on your own.

                      Comment


                      • FTR, I asked SLF for his take on obstruction and for him to apply the facts to the statutory language. He declined. If and when he wishes to make his case, I'm all ears. It's a standing invitation.

                        I realize hack will surely take this post as yet another opportunity to opine on me. It's as if 3 separate posts isn't quite enough. Obsess away.

                        I've refrained from expressing my thoughts on hack as a poster and will continue to do so. I do think unequivocal statements of all-knowingness do represent the worst of prog thought. I also think think the notion that Courts should interpret the law in accordance with opinion polls is stunning.

                        Anyway, I'm finished with him. He has to floor to carry on his slander for as many more posts as he feels he needs.
                        Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                        Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                        Comment


                        • [talent's been very clear
                          Thank you, Jeff. Of course I have. But there's really no need to break this down. It's remarkably straight-forward to anyone paying attention.
                          Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                          Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                          Comment


                          • I also think think the notion that Courts should interpret the law in accordance with opinion polls is stunning.


                            But I didn't say that, nor did I slander you. I did my best to do precisely the opposite, even after you slandered me. I can see that it does no good. I can see I will not get back the respect and courtesy I've given. You can be finished with me -- that's fine. Maybe you should just put me on your ignore list. I'm comfortable with my own conduct and won't change it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
                              Thank you, Jeff. Of course I have. But there's really no need to break this down. It's remarkably straight-forward to anyone paying attention.
                              I haven't been paying attention. But from what I gather, Talent is of Scottish heritage and indulges in 9 bottles of Glenfiddich a week, administrating a failing hospital in Ogallala, Nebraska. SAD!

                              Comment


                              • Heh. Well-played, DSL.
                                Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                                Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X