- 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 10:12 am to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:12 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
smug insult about others' IQ.
Why do bum small town lawyers always have such an inflated sense of self worth?
1
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:14 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
So you admit that you are acting as the non-appointed rules of debate
No I didn't say that.
I'm more interested in correcting factual assertions. The dishonest and low-IQ rhetoric that's flooded this board recently is a distant second.
quote:
but with the exception you only demand absolute adherence to courtroom rules when you are 'debunking' a conservative argument.
I don't.
quote:
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.
Both evacuated in large amounts in 2019-2020 never to return.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:15 am to texag7
quote:
Why do bum small town lawyers always have such an inflated sense of self worth?
Why do you have trouble replying with relevant commentary.
You quoted something about IQ and respond with your own comments about "self worth"
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
You really need to humble yourself. Nobody cares you took AP classes in high school. Everyone fricking did
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:20 am to texag7
quote:
You really need to humble yourself. Nobody cares you took AP classes in high school. Everyone fricking did
Again, not a relevant comment
Nobody is discussing AP classes
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:24 am to SlowFlowPro
You’re extremely insecure about other people here being smarter than you. Everyone sees it
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but with the exception you only demand absolute adherence to courtroom rules when you are 'debunking' a conservative argument.
I don't.
The poster makes a valid point. I mean...just look at all the 20 page threads on here with him debunking leftists arguments.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:33 am to Wednesday
quote:
but prosecuting them on the same bogus crimes
The charges aren’t necessarily bogus both ways. They can be trumped up on one end (vs Trump) and legit on the other end (Smith).
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:34 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
.just look at all the 20 page threads on here with him debunking leftists arguments.
This board has effectively no leftists anymore.
And I used to do this with BamaAtl regularly. She's largely absent.
I did call out TigerDoc about muh Russia, too. Dunked on him after the Mueller Report routinely.
Who is left? Tarzana?
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
Add this to the statement you made some time back about being the "arbiter of truth" on this board, and you'll maybe finally understand why you're so disliked on here.
This post was edited on 11/27/24 at 10:37 am
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:36 am to prouddawg
quote:
The charges aren’t necessarily bogus both ways. They can be trumped up on one end (vs Trump) and legit on the other end (Smith).
Or vice versa
Posted on 11/27/24 at 10:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The charges aren’t necessarily bogus both ways. They can be trumped up on one end (vs Trump) and legit on the other end (Smith).
bullshite
The charges aren’t necessarily bogus both ways. They can be trumped up on one end (vs Trump) and legit on the other end (Smith).
quote:
Or vice versa
bullshite Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:08 am to SlowFlowPro
the legal profession has not changed over the last 50 years. The profession has failed to utilize the Information Age in its Quest for truth and justice.
1974 when I was a student at Loyola law school New Orleans , the learned professor proclaimed
when the law is on your side argue the law
when the facts are on your side argue the facts
when neither the law or the facts are on your side just argue
after getting 50 hours of law school credit , I bailed out of the bull sheeeet, and focused on the chemical engineering degree I received from LSU which is based on facts and analyses . Great career decision
1974 when I was a student at Loyola law school New Orleans , the learned professor proclaimed
when the law is on your side argue the law
when the facts are on your side argue the facts
when neither the law or the facts are on your side just argue
after getting 50 hours of law school credit , I bailed out of the bull sheeeet, and focused on the chemical engineering degree I received from LSU which is based on facts and analyses . Great career decision
Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:09 am to TD422
quote:
Add this to the statement you made some time back about being the "arbiter of truth" on this board, and you'll maybe finally understand why you're so disliked on here.
Not bloody likely.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:15 am to Trevaylin
quote:
The profession has failed to utilize the Information Age in its Quest for truth and justice.
I don't disagree with that, generally. I just had an attorney's office call and leave a message with my answering service saying they needed a call back (and listed the matter). I called, and the receptionist was like "oh that was me, we were just calling to let you know we were coming on board in this matter".
...an email could have sufficed.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not sure it exists.
This is why you are mocked
lawfare = the use of the law to conduct warfare (activity undertaken by a political unit, to weaken or destroy another) against a political opponent. For you to say it doesnt exist, when its actually a legal defense (malicious prosecution - the filing of a lawsuit for an improper purpose, and without grounds or probable cause. The improper lawsuit may either be civil or criminal in nature.) is laughable
Lawsuits against Trump for an improper purpose (keeping Trump from being elected)
* Fla case - charged Trump with a crime, that no other president has faced. As well as his opponent not being charged for the same damn thing
* DC case - Brought a legal case hoping to use the 14th against him, AFTER the Senate chose not to remove him. Which is clearly defined in the Constitution that removal has to come first**
* Multiple jurisdictions - cases attempting to remove Trump from ballots via the 14th, when no 'violent' convictions had ever been handed down against him
* GA case - Trump supposedly interfering in an election because he asked them to be diligent in counting. Yet no one is being charged in Penn, Cali, Wisc for actually finding extra votes
* NY case - changed a law to a felony, having never before tried someone that way, and extended the statute of limitations to do so
* NY fraud case - Trump determined guilty because the judge inserted his own property valuations, even after lenders stated it didnt matter, and there was no money lost
* Sham impeachments - Over a phone call (if so, then Millie should be executed for his) and a rush to judgement about a "insurrection" that didnt involve a single weapon or death against the government that was being "overthrown"
quote:
** First, the Constitution states that, while the Senate can only remove a president from office and prevent their further election “convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” (See Const. Art. I, Sec. 3). This clause requires the Senate to remove the president from office before being subject to courts. Second, many argue that allowing a sitting president to be imprisoned would essentially be an impeachment as the president could not perform their duties in jail, and thus, the judiciary could unconstitutionally usurp the power of Congress. Another related argument is that members of Congress naturally have immunities given their embodiment of one branch of government, and thus, the Constitution limits the immunities of members of Congress in Const. Art. I Sec. 6 instead of granting them. Because no such limitations are given for the president, the president has full immunity as head of the executive from indictment and prosecution unless impeached.
You'll just have to understand after your above quote, that I will take this legal interpretation over yours
Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This board has effectively no leftists anymore.
Not true and you yourself could easily come up with 15 off the top of your head. The rest of us could add another 10.
You clearly believe this board has gone downhill and is filled with low IQ simpletons.
Perhaps your services as arbiter of truth and educator of the incorrect would be better appreciated if you took them to some left-leaning sites. Imagine how fun it would be to dunk on them with the multitude of topics on which you could school them.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 12:15 pm to kbro
quote:
Not true and you yourself could easily come up with 15 off the top of your head. The rest of us could add another 10.
25? no way. Regular posters?
Tarzana? Already said
Decatur is a moderate-left Democrat. He shouldn't even be considered a regular.
There's probably 5 more regular leftist posters on here. Not 25. Not until you start incorrectly labeling people like me or Rog as leftists (which is common).
Posted on 11/27/24 at 12:19 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
when its actually a legal defense (malicious prosecution
By this standard I don't think you can list any cases of "lawfare". That's the whole issue.
quote:
the filing of a lawsuit for an improper purpose, and without grounds or probable cause.
Again, with this standard, I don't think you can list any cases as "lawfare".
quote:
is laughable
You just posted 2 standards that produce effectively no results for "lawfare".
Typically, the next step in this digression is then attacking the legitimacy of valid civil suits and/or criminal prosecutions, and THAT becomes the deciding factor. Your subjective assessment of legitimacy, and not some standard. We'll see how you respond to the 2 above to see where this goes.
quote:
* Fla case - charged Trump with a crime, that no other president has faced. As well as his opponent not being charged for the same damn thing
* DC case - Brought a legal case hoping to use the 14th against him, AFTER the Senate chose not to remove him. Which is clearly defined in the Constitution that removal has to come first**
* Multiple jurisdictions - cases attempting to remove Trump from ballots via the 14th, when no 'violent' convictions had ever been handed down against him
* GA case - Trump supposedly interfering in an election because he asked them to be diligent in counting. Yet no one is being charged in Penn, Cali, Wisc for actually finding extra votes
* NY case - changed a law to a felony, having never before tried someone that way, and extended the statute of limitations to do so
* NY fraud case - Trump determined guilty because the judge inserted his own property valuations, even after lenders stated it didnt matter, and there was no money lost
Yup. No standard. Just your idiosyncratic attempt to delegitimize them. You just disproved your own definitions.
And we get back to square 1 without a set definition.
quote:
Sham impeachments
That's political, not really legal.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
25? no way. Regular posters? Tarzana? Already said Decatur is a moderate-left Democrat. He shouldn't even be considered a regular. There's probably 5 more regular leftist posters on here. Not 25. Not until you start incorrectly labeling people like me or Rog as leftists (which is common
Texridder
AggieHank
VOR
4cubbies
TMcgin
Mickey Goldmelt
Decatur
Tarzana
Oklahogjr
Boozie
That’s 10 off the top of my head. In typical SFP fashion you’ll go to the term “leftists” and argue that only 2 meet the formal definition. All of these posters plus many, many more that others can add are on the left.
You could educate them here, but you use the excuse that there are already enough threads in this echo chamber which do that regularly.
So what leftist or left leaning sites are you regularly posting on to educate the other echo chamber? The echo chamber that consists mainly of traditional liberal democrats, leftists, socialists and never trumpers.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News