- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wednesday's thoughts on Tuesday regarding Jack Smith.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 8:08 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 11/27/24 at 8:08 am to cajunangelle
Consider that with all SFP’s rambling he hasn’t once suggested what should happen to Jack Smith, assuming it is proven, with evidence, that he participated in a bad faith prosecution meant to demoralize the population and slander his boss’s political opponent.
I think Smith’s conduct is horrid, but I don’t think it is punishable by imprisonment. It should be punishable by civil functions - including disbarment, revocation of any privileges he obtained by working for the Federal government, and sued into bankruptcy for his participation in a scheme that violated the civil rights of not only Trump- but his codefendants all of whom were indicted on FAKE frickING CRIMES.
SFP hasn’t suggested any legal theory, or cited to any actual evidence germane to the actual question posed - he’s just tried to argue with people about his IQ. That’s not credible evidence of anything.
I think Smith’s conduct is horrid, but I don’t think it is punishable by imprisonment. It should be punishable by civil functions - including disbarment, revocation of any privileges he obtained by working for the Federal government, and sued into bankruptcy for his participation in a scheme that violated the civil rights of not only Trump- but his codefendants all of whom were indicted on FAKE frickING CRIMES.
SFP hasn’t suggested any legal theory, or cited to any actual evidence germane to the actual question posed - he’s just tried to argue with people about his IQ. That’s not credible evidence of anything.
2
Posted on 11/27/24 at 8:50 am to Wednesday
Well said. FINALLY a perfect summation. I will never get why smartassed contrarian trolls get white knighted? When SFP can handle his own in bullshite alone... Making the knight look like a trouble-making jackass to try to top SFP's assholery. 
Such a waste of and lack of: discussion, really.
BTW: In another thread. You were of course correct about Thune and the filibuster. The dems would do it so frick em, why can't the republicans ever play dirty?
This may not be the fight, agreed!. Turtle and the henchmen never fight for the Trump agenda. They seem to be a true uniparty. They are fake moderates just like Dems...So for once I wished for fight fire with fire even though it is unwise...
Anyways, I found the Mike Davis tweet
Can we discuss the boards that disbar being politicized and the good ole boys club? What exactly does: 'President of the law review'- mean in colleges? Obama President of Harvard Law Review
How are lawyers that decide disbarment chosen? Would it be a DC board of lawyers? In the same token, why does Andrew Weissmann get a pass? Do these awful lawfare types all get immunity from being lawfare dickweeds because they were once a DOJ lawyer?
Since Jack Smith was at the (ICC) because he was awful and struck down by SCOTUS so much.... Was this just a place overseas to shove him off to, avoiding disbarment /scrutiny in the USA?
Such a waste of and lack of: discussion, really.
BTW: In another thread. You were of course correct about Thune and the filibuster. The dems would do it so frick em, why can't the republicans ever play dirty?
This may not be the fight, agreed!. Turtle and the henchmen never fight for the Trump agenda. They seem to be a true uniparty. They are fake moderates just like Dems...So for once I wished for fight fire with fire even though it is unwise...
Anyways, I found the Mike Davis tweet
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Can we discuss the boards that disbar being politicized and the good ole boys club? What exactly does: 'President of the law review'- mean in colleges? Obama President of Harvard Law Review
How are lawyers that decide disbarment chosen? Would it be a DC board of lawyers? In the same token, why does Andrew Weissmann get a pass? Do these awful lawfare types all get immunity from being lawfare dickweeds because they were once a DOJ lawyer?
Since Jack Smith was at the (ICC) because he was awful and struck down by SCOTUS so much.... Was this just a place overseas to shove him off to, avoiding disbarment /scrutiny in the USA?
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:35 am to Wednesday
quote:
most evidence falls into the indirect category. SFP thinks that only the direct kind counts. Because he probably just tries DWIs.
And you gave a legal description of what can be allowed in a criminal trial.
But the dems - and SFP - apply that definition indirectly to casual conversation.
If I say that I was late for work because I had a flat tire - that would be assaulted by SFP et al as "an allegation without EVIDENCE" = which if course is TRUE - but it has no place in casual conversation.
Ordinary conversation is completely dominated with "allegations without EVIDENCE' if you apply that to common conversation.
NOW - I would have no problem with the "allegation without evidence" IF they applied it to BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
However, the 'journalism' profession NEVER does that - they put any statement that has not gone thru the trial process as 'without evidence' if it benefits THEIR side of the issue.
And I know SFP knows better, yet he often dabs his toe into the "without evidence" trope to avoid confronting the ISSUE at hand.
For instance, he has never - ever - responded to my continued admonition to him to DEFINE 'evidence' wrt to CASUAL CONVERSATION - where commonly known facts and logical observations are the coins of the realm - rather than the rigors of an entry into a felony trial.
and my REASON for harping on this is the OVERWHELMING reliance on this as a cause for just IGNORING common sense in arguing political issues.
One side can make ANY allegation they want "collusion with Russian, Trump is fascist & wants to be a dictator, death of democracy etc etc
And we have to live with it.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:41 am to Wednesday
quote:
SFP hasn’t
this is the preamble to almost every statement made by SFP here - he seems to view this board as a jury that HE is trying to convince to believe HIS point of view, without allowing ANY rebuttal that doesn't meet HIS definition of 'evidence' as it would be in a real trial.
That is how he claims to have "WON EVERY ARGUMENT" - he is the one keeping score and he is the only one who knows the 'rules' he uses.
Now - SFP could be a huge benefit to this board if he were only HONEST and engage and LOGICAL conversation.
I do not doubt he has an 'admirable' IQ - (could well be in the range of my own, but we will never know that.
) But he fails when he refuses to engage in common debate.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:44 am to ChineseBandit58
very well said! I am still awaiting SFP's definition of lawfare.
AND Judge Cannon's ruling on Jack Smith NOT being properly appointed being anything SFP argued over for days.
"It" depends on what the definition of "appointed" and "is" is.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:45 am to cajunangelle
quote:
crapped out all discussion and veered off topic.
I did not. Certain posters tried to derail it to make it about me.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:46 am to cajunangelle
quote:
still awaiting SFP's definition of lawfare.
Good you keep on his arse about that
- and I will continue my vigil of waiting for his definition of 'evidence' that is acceptable to be used in logical debate outside a courtroom.
I anticipate a long wait.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:46 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
ANY prosecution where the three conditions are met:
Gain a political advantage
Smear
Bankrupt
There was use of "or", FWIW, not just "and".
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:48 am to Wednesday
quote:
he hasn’t once suggested what should happen to Jack Smith
I don't know why something "should happen" to him.
quote:
assuming it is proven, with evidence, that he participated in a bad faith prosecution meant to demoralize the population and slander his boss’s political opponent.
You'd be better off using the other standards, like actually committing Brady violations. Then he should be prosecuted and disbarred. There is no real evidence he did that, though.
quote:
It should be punishable by civil functions - including disbarment, revocation of any privileges he obtained by working for the Federal government, and sued into bankruptcy for his participation in a scheme that violated the civil rights of not only Trump- but his codefendants all of whom were indicted on FAKE frickING CRIMES.
See you're making all of these assumptions without evidence.
quote:
SFP hasn’t suggested any legal theory, or cited to any actual evidence germane to the actual question posed -
Because the first step is proving all of these nefarious acts that would warrant punishment. If these actions don't exist, then no punishment is warranted.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
make it about me.
ONOZZZ - trying to make it about "me" -
You would lose every debate in a barroom where nothing is accepted but pure logic and common sense.
You need your artificial props of 'legal definitions' to justify your excusing yourself from debates with a smug insult about others' IQ.
Your freaking IQ is laughable when you cannot out-debate a barroom customer.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:53 am to cajunangelle
quote:
What exactly does: 'President of the law review'- mean in colleges?
Law review is basically an extracurricular activity that historically is only offered to the top students. You're supposed to produce publishable legal literature. President of Law Review typically means the top of that top cohort.
Now, as with most things in education, it's been watered down a bit. Law schools offer multiple law reviews that aren't as stringent academically.
quote:
How are lawyers that decide disbarment chosen?
It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but ultimately the Supreme Court of each state jurisdiction makes the final determination.
There are often intermediary regulatory bodies (in LA it's the ODC) who do the investigation, build the record, and can offer deals. But if the deal is too lenient, the LASC will disagree and impose their own sanction. I don't recall off the top of my head the opposite scenario.
quote:
In the same token, why does Andrew Weissmann get a pass?
You have to find the unethical conduct, first, and not just imaginary/perceived offenses.
quote:
Do these awful lawfare types all get immunity from being lawfare dickweeds because they were once a DOJ lawyer?
No.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:54 am to Wednesday
quote:
SFP thinks that only the direct kind counts. Because he probably just tries DWIs.
I don't try DWIs
And "indirect evidence" is not "insane ramblings of echo chamber content creators trying to trigger their audiences emotionally via rage bait"
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:55 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
One side can make ANY allegation they want "collusion with Russian, Trump is fascist & wants to be a dictator, death of democracy etc etc
And we have to live with it.
Your whole post is correct. That's why I tell some here that, regardless of their excellent verbal articulation or learned knowledge, at the end of the day..... they are no different than I am, just a guy in a message board.
Also, generally speaking, most of the discussions here are common sense reasoning. Simple is always better.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:56 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Now - SFP could be a huge benefit to this board if he were only HONEST and engage and LOGICAL conversation.
quote:
he seems to view this board as a jury that HE is trying to convince to believe HIS point of view, without allowing ANY rebuttal that doesn't meet HIS definition of 'evidence' as it would be in a real trial.
No. I treat this board as an opportunity to educate people who are posting incorrect, incurrent, or insane content.
If they don't want to listen, that's on them. Doesn't mean I won't keep trying to educate them.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:56 am to Wednesday
Smith was doing exactly what his bosses directed him to do, so who else gets disbarred and blackballed with him?
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:57 am to cajunangelle
quote:
I am still awaiting SFP's definition of lawfare.
Like with other malleable terms (globalism), I'm not sure it exists. Why would I grasp at straws to create a definition of a term that I'm not sure exists?
It's not my term and I don't use it (other than sarcastically).
quote:
AND Judge Cannon's ruling on Jack Smith NOT being properly appointed being anything SFP argued over for days.
People think that I'm sad that Smith dropped theses cases b/c of impacts to trump (of which I do not care at all), but I'm only sad because we didn't get to see the 2nd Circuit embarrass Cannon for the 2nd time.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 9:59 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Your freaking IQ is laughable when you cannot out-debate a barroom customer.
Only if that "barroom customer" decides what is and isn't fact. That's the typical problem on here these days.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:00 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Smith was doing exactly what his bosses directed him to do, so who else gets disbarred and blackballed with him?
Nobody has posted any facts that would warrant disbarment. So if that applies to Smith, it would apply up as well.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I treat this board as an opportunity to educate people who are posting incorrect, incurrent, or insane content.
I call bullshite - (I certainly don't need your idea of 'education')
So you admit that you are acting as the non-appointed rules of debate, but with the exception you only demand absolute adherence to courtroom rules when you are 'debunking' a conservative argument.
Your instances of applying that standard to 'progressive' argument is slim to non-existent.
NEWSFLASH to SFP = we don't need your opinion on debate - we all (mostly) live in the real world where we discuss issues based on common sense and logic.
in those cases where we may be hauled into court to defend ourselves against some indictment of having broken a LAW, we will willingly submit our 'evidence' that supports our claim to the definitions as outlined by Wednesday.
WE will rely on truth and logic in our daily conduct of our lives - with or without your permission.
BTW - I was well into my 80s before I ever took notice of your obsession. I'll go forward with my same approach to life. I do not need your guidance until I am hauled into a courtroom for the first time - I may give you a call when that happens.
Good day sire - and congrats on your IQ -
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:09 am to SlowFlowPro
Look at this shocking take!
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News