President Joe Biden

espola said:
Another of your tactics is personal insults when you have nothing material to back up your position.

Shouldn't a graduate of one of the top law schools in the country know better than that? How would a judge react to similar behavior in a courtroom?
Click to expand...

That's funny coming from the coocoo king. Pot meet kettle. Like I said, I never initiate things with folks. Your courtroom reference even implies a contest (hence the tactics reference) when that is nothing of the kind going on here.

If any thing, my jibes are giving you the benefit of the doubt. I've said every once in a while you have something lucid and clever to say. You are well-read if only partially understanding of what you read. I choose to believe and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are this loveable, confused, crazy curmudgeon rather than a no account troll who is just trying to score partisan points. You are the crazy uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table who we nevertheless love
 
Grace T. said:
That's funny coming from the coocoo king. Pot meet kettle. Like I said, I never initiate things with folks. Your courtroom reference even implies a contest (hence the tactics reference) when that is nothing of the kind going on here.

If any thing, my jibes are giving you the benefit of the doubt. I've said every once in a while you have something lucid and clever to say. You are well-read if only partially understanding of what you read. I choose to believe and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are this loveable, confused, crazy curmudgeon rather than a no account troll who is just trying to score partisan points. You are the crazy uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table who we nevertheless love
Click to expand...

A word of advice from an old curmudgeon: When you tell a lie about someone, they are the first to know that you are a liar.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
What did they convict Al Capone of? Charles Manson?
In 1971, he was convicted of first-degree murderand conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

a. Don't know too much about the Manson murder, but wasn't Capone convicted of tax fraud?
b. the house Ds didn't charge murder. They charged incitement which has a specific legal standard which has not been met here.
c. they could have charged a conspiracy to do something "x" but a conspiracy also has some specific requirements, most notably an agreement, which can be express or implied. The problem with that then is you have to get into not only Trump's intent but the intent of everyone involved in the so-called conspiracy to see if there was some sort of meeting of the minds.
d. That's stupid. You are beclowning yourself.
 
espola said:
A word of advice from an old curmudgeon: When you tell a lie about someone, they are the first to know that you are a liar.
Click to expand...

Very telling. Very profound. See, Magoo can sometimes pull it out of his little bowler hat.

Because were I to believe the worst of you, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. But I don't, so I choose to believe you are in a fog of confusion and can't make distinctions clear.

Poor Magoo <pat>
 
Grace T. said:
a. Don't know too much about the Manson murder, but wasn't Capone convicted of tax fraud?
b. the house Ds didn't charge murder. They charged incitement which has a specific legal standard which has not been met here.
c. they could have charged a conspiracy to do something "x" but a conspiracy also has some specific requirements, most notably an agreement, which can be express or implied. The problem with that then is you have to get into not only Trump's intent but the intent of everyone involved in the so-called conspiracy to see if there was some sort of meeting of the minds.
d. That's stupid. You are beclowning yourself.
Click to expand...

Many of the Capitol rioters have stated publicly that they went on their rampage because t told them to.
 
Grace T. said:
Very telling. Very profound. See, Magoo can sometimes pull it out of his little bowler hat.

Because were I to believe the worst of you, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. But I don't, so I choose to believe you are in a fog of confusion and can't make distinctions clear.

Poor Magoo <pat>
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that I have lied about you? If so, can you point out any such lies? Or is this another one of your "look it up for yourself" evasions?
 
espola said:
Many of the Capitol rioters have stated publicly that they went on their rampage because t told them to.
Click to expand...

If someone stated hypothetically that JD Salinger told them to kill Ronald Reagan, JD Salinger could not be convicted of the offense merely for writing the book unless he told the person expressly to kill Ronald Reagan notwithstanding whatever the shooter might have thought JD Salinger said. That's black letter law right there.

espola said:
Are you suggesting that I have lied about you? If so, can you point out any such lies? Or is this another one of your "look it up for yourself" evasions?
Click to expand...

Again don't think they are lies per se because I don't think you have any intent to alter the truth. I think you just get confused, like remember the entire "you said I supported Donald Trump" thing when really I said "your argument is defending him". Still don't get the distinction, do you? Thought so <head pat>
 
Grace T. said:
If someone stated hypothetically that JD Salinger told them to kill Ronald Reagan, JD Salinger could not be convicted of the offense merely for writing the book unless he told the person expressly to kill Ronald Reagan notwithstanding whatever the shooter might have thought JD Salinger said. That's black letter law right there.



Again don't think they are lies per se because I don't think you have any intent to alter the truth. I think you just get confused, like remember the entire "you said I supported Donald Trump" thing when really I said "your argument is defending him". Still don't get the distinction, do you? Thought so <head pat>
Click to expand...

Your Salinger analogy falls apart because J.D. never encouraged violence or promised to pay the legal fees of his supporters if they got rough with protesters at his rallies.

Also - today on Fox News is a report that t admitted some blame for the riot in a meeting with Kevin McCarthy ostensibly called to discuss impeachment defense strategy.
 
espola said:
Your Salinger analogy falls apart because J.D. never encouraged violence or promised to pay the legal fees of his supporters if they got rough with protesters at his rallies.

Also - today on Fox News is a report that t admitted some blame for the riot in a meeting with Kevin McCarthy ostensibly called to discuss impeachment defense strategy.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see any evidence of Trump directly encouraging violence at the Capitol or promising to pay the legal fees of people who invaded the Capitol.

If true, it's a good thing that Trump admitted some blame for the riot. I think he does share some blame for the riot. In particular, I think he was way too slow and too weak in his calls telling them to stop. It doesn't make him guilty of incitement, which is what the Ds legally need to prove, and haven't.

Once again, dear Magoo, you are confusing morality and law....they are 2 separate things.
 
Grace T. said:
I have yet to see any evidence of Trump directly encouraging violence at the Capitol or promising to pay the legal fees of people who invaded the Capitol.

If true, it's a good thing that Trump admitted some blame for the riot. I think he does share some blame for the riot. In particular, I think he was way too slow and too weak in his calls telling them to stop. It doesn't make him guilty of incitement, which is what the Ds legally need to prove, and haven't.

Once again, dear Magoo, you are confusing morality and law....they are 2 separate things.
Click to expand...

If you continue to narrow your objections, you soon won't have any.
 
Grace T. said:
What narrowing. My position has been entirely consistent all along: Ds haven't proven incitement. Once again Magoo you are seeing things that aren't there. Put on dem glasses
Click to expand...

You didn't dispute that t had advocated and supported violence at his rallies. Your response is that that can be ignored because in your "legal" opinion he didn't advocate violence at his last rally. Other people have different opinions about the meaning and intent of his words including those who bragged about their actions during and after the riot.

Whose name is on all these flags and banners?

 
espola said:
You didn't dispute that t had advocated and supported violence at his rallies. Your response is that that can be ignored because in your "legal" opinion he didn't advocate violence at his last rally. Other people have different opinions about the meaning and intent of his words including those who bragged about their actions during and after the riot.

Whose name is on all these flags and banners?

Click to expand...

You are making several fallacies which show you are lost and don't really know what you are talking about:

a. Assuming, arguendo, Trump did advocate and support violence at his rallies, it's really an irrelevant towards the charge of incitement Otherwise, Biden, for the punch in the mouth comment about Trump, could be held legally responsible if someone later took a punch or shot at Trump from here on after (if so, he better hope no one does in the next 4 years or he'll have to resign). To constitute incitement, he would have had to have told his supporters at such rallies to seize the Capitol or something equivalent.
B. You can't hold a political leader responsible for the actions of their fans. Otherwise Kamala needs to be removed for the actions of the Antifa rioters and Bernie for the Scalise shooting.
C. It's irrelevant if Trump's name is on the banner. If they had been holding Magoo banners, you wouldn't be held legally responsible either.
D. There's a difference between morality and law which keeps eluding you. They aren't the same thing.
 
Ahh... so I understand that as expected Pelosi and Schumer managed to totally bungle the Trump impeachment. Seems to me the failure to find any agreement with Mitch to protect the filibuster (which dems don't have the votes to remove anyway) was the missed opportunity to provide any political cover for Republican moderates thinking of voting to impeach Trump. But hey, the progressives would have been upset (like usual)- so I guess no results are sort of par for the course from democratic leadership.

In other news, here in NYC the Gov has decided that the way to fill the empty Time Square office space (and the $2.4 billion drop in property taxes revenue) is to fill the empty offices with subsidized low income housing. Not that I'm against subsidized housing... but yikes.


nypost.com

How Cuomo would undermine his own smart offices-to-housing plan

No one can say for sure, but as few as 12 percent of Manhattan office workers are physically at their desks. There are cities with somewhat higher rates of office return, but the work-from-home wav…
nypost.com nypost.com
 
espola said:
This woman is a t supporter now serving in Congress --

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1354436920965783558
Click to expand...

You guys have just gone to a new low with this post, lol. David Hogg, lol. That's like me posting a video of Laura Loomer. LOL.

Funniest part is that the Congress woman actually makes an excellent point!!!

In other news, a man was arrested and charged by the Biden DOJ for memes spreading disinfo (otherwise known as his opinion and free speech...)

www.newsweek.com

Florida Man Charged With Election Interference by Spreading Disinformation

"There is no place in public discourse for lies and misinformation to defraud citizens of their right to vote," the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York said.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
MARsSPEED said:
You guys have just gone to a new low with this post, lol. David Hogg, lol. That's like me posting a video of Laura Loomer. LOL.

Funniest part is that the Congress woman actually makes an excellent point!!!

In other news, a man was arrested and charged by the Biden DOJ for memes spreading disinfo (otherwise known as his opinion and free speech...)

www.newsweek.com

Florida Man Charged With Election Interference by Spreading Disinformation

"There is no place in public discourse for lies and misinformation to defraud citizens of their right to vote," the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York said.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...

What excellent point did she make?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top