PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on January 26, 2024, 02:57:32 PM
-
Who is now probably the richest whore in the US/
-
Who is now probably the richest whore in the US/
Joe Biden? Not the richest person and not technically a whore, not even female, but the person who has been and still is whoring himself out to foreign governments and corporations for decades now.
-
Who is now probably the richest whore in the US/
My ex-wife(s).
-
So E Jean Carroll claims Trump raped her over 30 years ago.
She can't recall when.
She has no evidence.
The plot line is exactly like her favorite TV show.
The dress she claimed to have worn wasn't even designed at that point.
She is sex obsessed and claims "rape is sexy".
Her case has been funded by a democrat operative.
Lawfare.
-
Nancy pelosi.
-
Nancy pelosi.
Good thought, but Lucifer got what I was thinking.
-
The MSM is jizzing all over themselves with this verdict.
Reading this morning, they are fantasizing that Trump must "immediately" pay the crazy bitch, and they are interviewing her about how she's gonna spend her new fortune.
No mention of an appeal. Guilty guilty guilty.
And no mention of all the other men she has made wild accusations about. And they are downplaying the connections between the judge and the crazy bitch's lawyer.
Weaponization of the courts. Just another part of Biden's America.
-
Another troubling part of all this is how New York state legislature changed laws so this could be brought forward. Had been left alone, the statute of limitations had run out long ago.
The state is a train wreck, and the legislatures wasted time and resources to rewrite a law so this lawfare could move forward.
What other laws will be rewritten in order for activist courts to pursue political foes?
Again, this is yet another example of representatives refusing to work for the people in their districts, but rather working on behalf of a political party.
-
Betting Trump could get a lot of this donated. I would write a check and tell her is she passes a lie detector test the money is hers.
-
The woman is a nutcase. In any other circumstance, the case would have been tossed based upon her credibility, let alone no evidence.
-
The woman is a nutcase. In any other circumstance, the case would have been tossed based upon her credibility, let alone no evidence.
I don’t know what you mean by “tossed based upon her credibility”. The credibility of a witness is a matter for the jury at trial.
-
I don’t know what you mean by “tossed based upon her credibility”. The credibility of a witness is a matter for the jury at trial.
Witness credibility isn't solely for a jury to decide.
-
Since when has a democrat had any credibility?
-
Certainly seems like we now have these little kangaroo courts, especially in New York. Judge decides what evidence can be heard and considered and bingo the jury returns the verdict you desire. How do we get that stopped?
How could Trump have been held liable based on what we've heard about his case?
-
Maybe technically credibility is for a court to decide but in reality it is decided long before any trial by the media. “Believe all women” has been pounded into our heads for years now. They’re all credible.
But their stories don’t add up. How could Trump rape someone if he only has a “mushroom” as one of them claims?
-
Maybe technically credibility is for a court to decide but in reality it is decided long before any trial by the media. “Believe all women” has been pounded into our heads for years now. They’re all credible.
But their stories don’t add up. How could Trump rape someone if he only has a “mushroom” as one of them claims?
“Believe All Women, but only if they are liberal”.
-
“Believe All Women, but only if they are liberal”.
Of course, what was I thinking? Or maybe it's more like, "only if their accusee is not liberal".
-
Of course, what was I thinking? Or maybe it's more like, "only if their accusee is not liberal".
Tara Reade
-
(https://i.imgur.com/rPGwYHw.jpg)
-
https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fcolumns%2Fopinion%2F25-reasons-trump-wont-pay-a-dime-to-e-jean-carroll
-
https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fcolumns%2Fopinion%2F25-reasons-trump-wont-pay-a-dime-to-e-jean-carroll
Agree. I like Nate’s take on this:
-
Witness credibility isn't solely for a jury to decide.
I don’t what judicial procedure you are thinking of. One cannot win on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgement based on poor witness credibility. How else would it enter in?
-
I don’t what judicial procedure you are thinking of. One cannot win on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgement based on poor witness credibility. How else would it enter in?
If this was a real trial, the judge could have tossed it on 1) weak and non existent evidence and 2) the person bringing the case lacks credibility.
Ms Carroll has a history of claims of rape, all the same MO. Plus she has a long history of sex fantasies she’s written about. The judge would not allow that to be introduced during this trial.
-
I am not sure there are actual motions in court corresponding to what you are saying here.
The defendant could make a motion for summary judgement if the evidence, view in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, failed to support the plaintiffs motion. But there would have to be literally no evidence supporting the plaintiffs claims. Have you looked at the docket to see if Trump made that motion? I would assume he did and that there was enough evidence for the plaintiff to support the case.
If there is any small smidgen of evidence or credibility, the jury has to decide. That is what juries so - they weigh evidence and credibility. In our legal system the judge cannot do that unless the defendant has waived his right to trial by jury and the plaintiff agrees.
As to the judge allowing the other evidence, from what you say I am not sure I would agree with the judge there. The evidence would have to be substantive and bearing on witness credibility in this case. It sounds like that may be grounds for appeal.
Isn’t this one of those cases brought under the special extension of the statute of limitations - which was primarily intended for child victims? If so, typical unintended negative consequence. There is a reason for these statutes of limitations. Primarily that human memory is quite fallible.
-
Bottom line is there was zero evidence. None. From a crackpot who’s done this to others, and has serious mental issues.
-
Let's see.....
She can't begin to recall the year let alone a date.
The dress she presented as evidence wasn't even made when she said it happened.
That's just two of the many things that don't ad up.
-
Bottom line is there was zero evidence. None. From a crackpot who’s done this to others, and has serious mental issues.
Perhaps, but I am just trying to see how Trump’s attorneys blew it if the evidence is as you describe. They are rather highly paid.
-
Civil case so mere preponderance of evidence. His word against hers plus two other friends who confirmed she told them the story years ago. It didn’t help that a Trump had made the “grab them by the pussy” remark.
It just takes 50.00001 versus 49.99999 to win in a civil case.
Older but some facts here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/10/e-jean-carroll-v-donald-trump-how-civil-court-case-unfolded
It will be appealed. I am looking for the docket.
-
Original case was 1:22-cv-10016-LAK . It was appealed.
Trump tried to dismiss it for complete lack of facts. He lost that motion.
Court of Appeals Docket #: 23-793 2nd circuit
Trump’s redacted appeal is available there.
-
Bottom line is there was zero evidence. None. From a crackpot who’s done this to others, and has serious mental issues.
I have some defendants in a case who like to make the same statement - “how can this case even be allowed up to go on when these is zero evidence?” That unfortunately ignores the fact that there is plenty of actual evidence. Three witnesses plus several pieces of circumstantial evidence. It is their way of denying reality and their responsibility.
In this Carroll case there is some evidence, not none. It may be weak and old etc, but it is not “zero evidence”. What it might be more accurate to say and may have been intended is that there is zero external hard evidence.
Civil cases are decided by a mere preponderance. Perhaps Trump should have realized this and that objectively considered it might not tilt his way in front of a jury and not been attacking the defendant in public about ongoing litigation. That is usually a rather bad strategy.
He will evidently pay for it.
-
Perhaps, but I am just trying to see how Trump’s attorneys blew it if the evidence is as you describe. They are rather highly paid.
Seriously????
It’s called “lawfare”. It’s a crooked judge, in a highly partisan Democrat area. Trumps attorneys were FORBIDDEN to submit certain evidence. No matter what Trumps attorneys submitted, he was already guilty in the eyes of the court.
Oh, and add on the judge almost quadrupling the settlement.
-
I guess pete is desperate to draw attention away from the facts to support the lies.
Why else would any sane, non partisan person be so desperate to avoid admitting the fix was in and the scum bag judge is just as corrupt as the person or persons who poisoned the jury pool.
Here is the psycho, lying, mental, bitch in action.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/02/newly-resurrected-video-e-jean-carroll-her-90s/
-
Seriously????
It’s called “lawfare”. It’s a crooked judge, in a highly partisan Democrat area. Trumps attorneys were FORBIDDEN to submit certain evidence. No matter what Trumps attorneys submitted, he was already guilty in the eyes of the court.
Oh, and add on the judge almost quadrupling the settlement.
Maybe, but that didn’t get him a win on the appeal. Separate judges and he can even ask for an en bank review.
I regard it as the sort of case where it really does come down to the jury because there was no hard evidence on either side. But in a civil case there is no presumption of innocence. The jury must decide for the plaintiff or the defendant.
Given the old evidence, Trump should have realized it was going to be close, especially in that district. And thus he should have refrained from commenting on ongoing litigation, particularly in such a contentious matter. Very bad decision making on his part though consistent with his character. He will pay for it monetarily though I doubt it will matter much during the election.
-
I guess Trump can appeal the current award that is in the news. That he made the statements in question in the defamation case seems beyond doubt. I don’t know it is so clear that he knew they were false however.
-
BTW. All legal action is the use of violence and threats of violence. That is what the government and the legal system are about. But better it be “law fare” than warfare.
-
I must also say that from a memory research point of view, who knows? Carroll’s story about her recollection sounds an awfully lot like a false memory. OTO, Trump could easily fool himself into thinking it did not happen because he forgot and it is much more convenient to think it didn’t happen.
This is why laws allowing this sort of old case are such a bad idea. They were enacted to try and help childhood victims of sexual abuse, especially in light of the Catholic Church scandals. But as always, unintended consequences.
-
I must also say that from a memory research point of view, who knows? Carroll’s story about her recollection sounds an awfully lot like a false memory. OTO, Trump could easily fool himself into thinking it did not happen because he forgot and it is much more convenient to think it didn’t happen.
This is why laws allowing this sort of old case are such a bad idea. They were enacted to try and help childhood victims of sexual abuse, especially in light of the Catholic Church scandals. But as always, unintended consequences.
Agree. I was a juror in a trial involving this sort of thing. He said she said. From years in the past. Very difficult cases to prove one way or the other.
-
Let's also not forget it took NY passing a new law to extend the statute of limitations to make this case even possible.
It also said that her claims seemed to follow the plot of an episode of Law & Order.
-
Maybe, but that didn’t get him a win on the appeal. Separate judges and he can even ask for an en bank review.
I regard it as the sort of case where it really does come down to the jury because there was no hard evidence on either side. But in a civil case there is no presumption of innocence. The jury must decide for the plaintiff or the defendant.
Given the old evidence, Trump should have realized it was going to be close, especially in that district. And thus he should have refrained from commenting on ongoing litigation, particularly in such a contentious matter. Very bad decision making on his part though consistent with his character. He will pay for it monetarily though I doubt it will matter much during the election.
It will get tossed on appeal. One problem the leftist have right now while performing lawfare is controlling the appeal process. Same goes with the Leticia James scam prosecution and the upcoming Fanni Willis shit show.
-
I must also say that from a memory research point of view, who knows? Carroll’s story about her recollection sounds an awfully lot like a false memory. OTO, Trump could easily fool himself into thinking it did not happen because he forgot and it is much more convenient to think it didn’t happen.
This is why laws allowing this sort of old case are such a bad idea. They were enacted to try and help childhood victims of sexual abuse, especially in light of the Catholic Church scandals. But as always, unintended consequences.
They passed this law under the guise of it being used for victims of childhood sexual abuse, but the real reason was purely political.
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" is becoming very real in this country.
-
BTW. All legal action is the use of violence and threats of violence. That is what the government and the legal system are about. But better it be “law fare” than warfare.
No.
Lawfare is bad, and the tactic of totalitarian regimes. We must NEVER accept lawfare as the norm and rid ourselves of the bastards that promote this garbage.
Our country was founded on laws and equal justice for everyone. We have watched the leftist form a two tiered legal system and are now wildly promoting prosecutions as a means to advance themselves politically.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation….
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
-Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
-
I guess Trump can appeal the current award that is in the news. That he made the statements in question in the defamation case seems beyond doubt. I don’t know it is so clear that he knew they were false however.
Trump exercised his first amendment rights, and he's being persecuted for it. Could Trump go after everyone who has slandered and defamed him? Nope, under our laws he's a public figure, but so is E. Jean Carroll. He gets one set of laws used against him while she enjoys a separate set to benefit her.
-
Let's also not forget it took NY passing a new law to extend the statute of limitations to make this case even possible.
It also said that her claims seemed to follow the plot of an episode of Law & Order.
The other issue people don’t talk about enough, but is very relevant, is the change in societal norms. The definitions of things like sexual assault have expanded drastically. Men and women operated according to a different set of rules but now we are applying today’s rules retrospectively. That’s wrong.
Here is an example: You’re a hippie in 1969. Say at Woodstock. Everybody is high. A guy makes a pass at a girl, maybe in a tent, holds her down and tries to kiss her, feels up her chest, but she squirms and emphatically says, “Get off me,” and so he gets off her and goes away. That would be the end of it. It would never occur to anyone to make a legal case out of that. The girl would feel she successfully fended off a pass and the boy would be disappointed and hopefully conclude that it was a bad choice of time, place, or girl, and learn how to do better next time.
That is the normal dance between the sexes, part of how most species are propagated. Males attempt to mate but females choose to accept or reject. That scene is working as intended. The young man needs to refine his approach, and the young lady learns through experience how to say no.
Today, that would be considered criminal sexual assault. And worse, today, a 70 year old woman could recall that incident (accurately or not) and drag the poor guy, now an old man himself, into court over something that happened a half century ago. That’s what it’s come to and it is wrong on so many levels.
And there are terrible consequences to this. It’s destroying relations between the sexes. Men fear women, the data shows that male college students asking out coeds has drastically declined. The women are complaining they can’t get dates. The men have easy access 24/7 to porn at their fingertips (no need to go buy a magazine and have a mattress to keep it under) and so they have far less motivation to try to get into a girl’s pants and a huge reason not to, i.e. being labeled a sex offender for life.
And the women are being denied the real life experience necessary to handle male advances. If you reach your mid twenties and have never had a man try to feel you up, you have a very distorted understanding of the sexual game. You’re likely to freak out when a man finally does touch you, even in a benign if inappropriate manner, such as a friendly peck on the cheek or pat on the butt. Men are facing criminal charges now for such acts, done more out of poor judgment than malicious intent.
Furthermore, this abuse of the definition of “sexual assault” is damaging to the victims of real sexual assault and rape. When you lump in together a girl who was reluctant at first but ultimately consented to intercourse after some persuasion, with a victim of forcible unequivocal rape, you devalue the experience of the real rape victim and cause a backlash of disbelief against real cases due to the proliferation of dubious ones.
Unfortunately it’s part of a bigger overarching problem, which is driving wedges between all groups, racial, political, sexual, etc. for the ultimate purpose of destroying society and as in this case, leveraging law fare against enemies of this destruction.
-
Today, that would be considered criminal sexual assault. And worse, today, a 70 year old woman could recall that incident (accurately or not) and drag the poor guy, now an old man himself, into court over something that happened a half century ago. That’s what it’s come to and it is wrong on so many levels.
And then be sued for defamation when he says that it never happened, she's a nutcase, and besides, she's not his type. Having a biased judge and jury doesn't help. I'm VERY glad that I'm not dating in today's world. Can't ask a girl out or be hit with sexual assault. Can't tell if it's really a girl. Can't ask if it's a girl.
Before the second trial got underway, the judge ruled that Carroll was telling the truth about the assault, and that Trump's statements denying her claims were defamatory. The jury was tasked only with deciding what damages Carroll was entitled to receive.
-
Here is an example: You’re a hippie in 1969. Say at Woodstock. Everybody is high. A guy makes a pass at a girl, maybe in a tent, holds her down and tries to kiss her, feels up her chest, but she squirms and emphatically says, “Get off me,” and so he gets off her and goes away. That would be the end of it. It would never occur to anyone to make a legal case out of that. The girl would feel she successfully fended off a pass and the boy would be disappointed and hopefully conclude that it was a bad choice of time, place, or girl, and learn how to do better next time.
That is the normal dance between the sexes, part of how most species are propagated. Males attempt to mate but females choose to accept or reject. That scene is working as intended. The young man needs to refine his approach, and the young lady learns through experience how to say no.
<snip>
Today, that would be considered criminal sexual assault. And worse, today, a 70 year old woman could recall that incident (accurately or not) and drag the poor guy, now an old man himself, into court over something that happened a half century ago. That’s what it’s come to and it is wrong on so many levels.
Ok. Now you have me worried because that is exactly how I remember things.
But part of the situation you left out is that girl with the "emphatic NO" usually came back later with an emphatic "YES". I think they were mostly testing me about whether or not I would respect their NO. And I always passed the test when they said NO, even if they did have to say it several times.
-
Ok. Now you have me worried because that is exactly how I remember things.
But part of the situation you left out is that girl with the "emphatic NO" usually came back later with an emphatic "YES". I think they were mostly testing me about whether or not I would respect their NO. And I always passed the test when they said NO, even if they did have to say it several times.
True! Although for me not usually, but only sometimes. But it was never testing. It was that I was not attracted to them at first, but after getting to know them they become more attractive. I don't know if all women are like this but it seems different from men. Men can look at a girl and immediately know either he finds her hot or he doesn't, and it's simple, and based on physical appearance. (You men tell me if I'm wrong.) For me, a man can be merely average looking when he is a stranger, but if I get to know him, his way of speaking, mannerisms, personality, values, etc., he can become very attractive if all that other stuff floats my boat. Male attractiveness, at least to me, is not all about mere physical appearance but a nuanced, complex package of features and ideas. So if I said "no", I really meant it, but if later changed to "yes", it means my perception of him changed as I got to know him.
-
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" is becoming very real in this country.
This has been an increasing issue over several decades. The book “3 felonies a day” discusses this extensively.
-
No.
Lawfare is bad, and the tactic of totalitarian regimes.
How are you defining “lawfare” exactly? How is it different from people suing each other when they cannot agree on an injury and remedy?
Would you seriously not agree that “lawfare” is preferable to warfare?
-
Trump exercised his first amendment rights, and he's being persecuted for it. Could Trump go after everyone who has slandered and defamed him? Nope, under our laws he's a public figure, but so is E. Jean Carroll. He gets one set of laws used against him while she enjoys a separate set to benefit her.
In our society you do not have a first amendment right to defame people - that is knowingly make false statements that cause them injury.
Now some libertarians argue this is not a good law to have, but that is sort of a separate question.
Trump should have realized the legal risks of his behavior and acted appropriately. He did not and now he will pay for it. It shows poor judgement and a bit of recklessness.
No sympathy for politicians about this, sorry. Remember these are the people using threat of violence and violence to violate our natural rights. That includes Trump who has done so in numerous ways. Who cares if other people use speech they don’t like? In our society that is one of the costs of being a politician. He can live with it and it is his conscious choice.
-
How are you defining “lawfare” exactly? How is it different from people suing each other when they cannot agree on an injury and remedy?
Would you seriously not agree that “lawfare” is preferable to warfare?
I believe his using "lawfare" to describe the situation where crooked courts destroy innocent people whom they are afraid might beat them (or have beaten them) in a fair election. It is actually a real thing.
-
I believe he is using "lawfare" to describe the situation where crooked courts that are controlled by crooked politicians and billionaires are used to destroy innocent people whom they are afraid might beat them (or have beaten them) in a fair election. It is actually a real thing.
-
True! Although for me not usually, but only sometimes. But it was never testing. It was that I was not attracted to them at first, but after getting to know them they become more attractive. I don't know if all women are like this but it seems different from men. Men can look at a girl and immediately know either he finds her hot or he doesn't, and it's simple, and based on physical appearance. (You men tell me if I'm wrong.) For me, a man can be merely average looking when he is a stranger, but if I get to know him, his way of speaking, mannerisms, personality, values, etc., he can become very attractive if all that other stuff floats my boat. Male attractiveness, at least to me, is not all about mere physical appearance but a nuanced, complex package of features and ideas. So if I said "no", I really meant it, but if later changed to "yes", it means my perception of him changed as I got to know him.
Men aren't quite as simple as women think.
First, men are MUCH better at separating lust from love than women. Women seem to think they are the same thing.
Second, a man's opinion of hot can be directly proportional to how much beer they have drunk.
Lust can turn into love eventually, but without the lust it is more difficult. Over time, the lust can fade and the love remain, but that doesn't mean that a man might not still lust over a different hot woman and not feel that it effects the love they feel for the one they have.
See, that's all you need to know about men. (Ok, maybe we are that simple).
-
I believe his using "lawfare" to describe the situation where crooked courts destroy innocent people whom they are afraid might beat them (or have beaten them) in a fair election. It is actually a real thing.
So then this would only apply to cases where the courts are actually corrupt, the people are innocent, and one or both parties are involved in politics?
As I noted above, I inherently have little sympathy for politicians. Most of them are involved in violating our rights in one fashion or another and if for that they were violently punished, I would not have a problem.
-
In our society you do not have a first amendment right to defame people - that is knowingly make false statements that cause them injury.
I didn't look at all of Trump's comments about the woman in question. But "I didn't do it. She's a cow. She's not my type" doesn't fit the definition of knowingly false statements.
-
So then this would only apply to cases where the courts are actually corrupt, the people are innocent, and one or both parties are involved in politics?
As I noted above, I inherently have little sympathy for politicians. Most of them are involved in violating our rights in one fashion or another and if for that they were violently punished, I would not have a problem.
I would extend the definition of lawfare to anyone abusing the court system to ruin someone else. The government has very deep pockets (essentially infinite), and they can bring any charge against any person. And that person will spend thousands of dollars and years fighting those charges. Like the US government is throwing charges at Trump to derail his candidacy. He has to spend his own money fighting it while the government is spending OUR money fighting him.
-
So then this would only apply to cases where the courts are actually corrupt, the people are innocent, and one or both parties are involved in politics?
As I noted above, I inherently have little sympathy for politicians. Most of them are involved in violating our rights in one fashion or another and if for that they were violently punished, I would not have a problem.
Lawfare succeeds in places because the infected justice system has healthy segments too. We see justice done somewhere and feel good, then see total injustice and feel infuriated. It’s probably a degree of how thoroughly some areas have been filled with grifters and corrupt ticket takers. The federal government obviously is quite corrupt. At some level, I think therein lies the reason President Trump is so loved. He is us, if we resist and expose them.
-
Men aren't quite as simple as women think.
First, men are MUCH better at separating lust from love than women. Women seem to think they are the same thing.
Second, a man's opinion of hot can be directly proportional to how much beer they have drunk.
Lust can turn into love eventually, but without the lust it is more difficult. Over time, the lust can fade and the love remain, but that doesn't mean that a man might not still lust over a different hot woman and not feel that it effects the love they feel for the one they have.
See, that's all you need to know about men. (Ok, maybe we are that simple).
Not sure men are better at separating lust from love. Maybe, just maybe, lust and love combine in men, so they think they’re in love, but my observation through the years has been that men have a tendency to marry hot women with almost no thought to her other characteristics. I could be wrong. But I’ve seen it many times. There’s always a divorce.
-
So then this would only apply to cases where the courts are actually corrupt, the people are innocent, and one or both parties are involved in politics?
Remember, I was only surmising what I thought Lucifer was saying. I'm sure his own explanation would be more encompassing.
And I may be wrong about what he meant in the first place.
-
I didn't look at all of Trump's comments about the woman in question. But "I didn't do it. She's a cow. She's not my type" doesn't fit the definition of knowingly false statements.
I don’t think those are the remarks which are the basis of the defamation case. To really check one should read the complaint.
-
Here is an example: You’re a hippie in 1969. Say at Woodstock. Everybody is high. A guy makes a pass at a girl, maybe in a tent, holds her down and tries to kiss her, feels up her chest, but she squirms and emphatically says, “Get off me,” and so he gets off her and goes away. That would be the end of it. It would never occur to anyone to make a legal case out of that. The girl would feel she successfully fended off a pass and the boy would be disappointed and hopefully conclude that it was a bad choice of time, place, or girl, and learn how to do better next time.
A very thoughtful analysis, thanks. Of course, we do now have to wonder whether you are speaking from personal experience ;-)
-
I don’t think those are the remarks which are the basis of the defamation case. To really check one should read the complaint.
You're right. Just too many other things to do. But I did look at the Wiki (yeah, I know) of the issue. The basis of the defamation suit is Trump's Truth Social posting. I don't see anything in it that is defamatory. But I'm not a New York judge and jury.
This "Ms. Bergdorf Goodman" case is a complete con job ... I don't know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event. She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, "swooned" her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years. ... She has no idea what day, what week, what month, what year, or what decade this so-called "event" supposedly took place. The reason she doesn't know is because it never happened, and she doesn't want to get caught up with details or facts that can be proven wrong. If you watch Anderson Cooper's interview with her, where she was promoting a really crummy book, you will see that it is a complete Scam. She changed her story from beginning to end, after the commercial break, to suit the purposes of CNN and Andy Cooper. ... For the record, E. Jean Carroll is not telling the truth, is a woman who I had nothing to do with, didn't know, and would have no interest in knowing her if I ever had the chance.
-
A very thoughtful analysis, thanks. Of course, we do now have to wonder whether you are speaking from personal experience ;-)
That particular scenario is made up (I wasn’t at Woodstock) but yes I came of age in the 70s and had to fend off a few unwelcome advances. Nothing that rose anywhere near the level where I thought I should get the guy in trouble with the law over. They all stopped well before I felt I had been seriously assaulted. Which means none of them were actual sociopathic rapists. And if any of them were now billionaires or famous celebrities I wouldn’t dream of using the past to try to get a multimillion payout. Doing that is what's sociopathic.
-
You're right. Just too many other things to do. But I did look at the Wiki (yeah, I know) of the issue. The basis of the defamation suit is Trump's Truth Social posting. I don't see anything in it that is defamatory. But I'm not a New York judge and jury.
Imagine, claiming innocence when you’ve been accused of a crime is now “defaming” the accuser.
-
Imagine, claiming innocence when you’ve been accused of a crime is now “defaming” the accuser.
I think it really does merit reading the complaint before drawing this sort of conclusion.
-
How are you defining “lawfare” exactly?
Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights. The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money, or winning a public relations victory.
How is it different from people suing each other when they cannot agree on an injury and remedy?
E. Jean Carroll was supposedly raped 3 decades ago. Why didn't she go after Trump after the so called incident occurred? Trump was certainly a celebrity at the time and a public figure.
Why did she wait to emerge after 2015 when he announced his run for the presidency? Then, after he became president she continued to make her accusations.
Why did the legislature change the law so that the statute of limitations would be extended? Why did they use the Trump/Carroll accusation as the motivation?
Why is a high profile democrat donor donating his money to pay for her legal fees? What is his motivation and what does he expect in return?
How is it the lawyer for Carroll and the Judge have a personal relationship? Why did that lawyer, or for that matter the judge, not recuse themselves?
Would you seriously not agree that “lawfare” is preferable to warfare?
Lawfare is a breakdown of our legal system, a weaponization to be used against political opposition. Lawfare is practiced by totalitarian regimes. How do you seriously see nothing wrong with lawfare?
-
I think it really does merit reading the complaint before drawing this sort of conclusion.
Peter,
You are really off base here. You seem to want to legitimize the use of lawfare, and now you want to see first amendment rights taken away.
Like it or not, outside of a biased political court, E. Jean Carroll is a public person just like Trump. She garners no special treatment, and Trump like every other citizen has a right to free speech, even if politicized courts disagree.
Look at Trump. How many public people have gone into the media and called him names, made absolutely false statements and smeared him? If he took any of these people to court, with the evidence in hand of the defamation the case would be tossed out immediately.
-
Lawfare is a breakdown of our legal system, a weaponization to be used against political opposition. Lawfare is practiced by totalitarian regimes. How do you seriously see nothing wrong with lawfare?
I did not claim that. I just think that it is preferable to warfare, which is how political disputes are often settled when the political system breaks down.
-
Peter,
You are really off base here. You seem to want to legitimize the use of lawfare, and now you want to see first amendment rights taken away.
Like it or not, outside of a biased political court, E. Jean Carroll is a public person just like Trump. She garners no special treatment, and Trump like every other citizen has a right to free speech, even if politicized courts disagree.
Look at Trump. How many public people have gone into the media and called him names, made absolutely false statements and smeared him? If he took any of these people to court, with the evidence in hand of the defamation the case would be tossed out immediately.
Let’s avoid the attacks on the speaker, shall we. These are all strawman arguments.
-
I did not claim that. I just think that it is preferable to warfare, which is how political disputes are often settled when the political system breaks down.
And I never stated the opposite. But you put up a strawman argument using warfare as a solution.
-
Let’s avoid the attacks on the speaker, shall we. These are all strawman arguments.
What? Who is attacking anyone?
Oh, I do call bullshit on you stating my reply is a strawman. I stated facts of the case. You seem uncomfortable with that.
-
What? Who is attacking anyone?
Oh, I do call bullshit on you stating my reply is a strawman. I stated facts of the case. You seem uncomfortable with that.
Not at all. Let's be objective here:
How do you seriously see nothing wrong with lawfare?
I never said there was nothing wrong with it. Strawman.
You seem to want to legitimize the use of lawfare, and now you want to see first amendment rights taken away.
Two strawmen in that, each clause is a separate one. I never asserted either.
I also note that if one states an argument is a strawman and it is not, that is a logical error, but it is not a strawman fallacy in any direct sense.
-
What? Who is attacking anyone?
Oh, I do call bullshit on you stating my reply is a strawman. I stated facts of the case. You seem uncomfortable with that.
Making the claim that anything you disagree with is a straw man argument is how intellectual cowards avoid admitting that they are full of shit.
-
You seem uncomfortable with that.
Not at all. But I do note that I have not read the complaint in the defamation case and I suspect you have not either.
Thus the real problem here is that neither of us knows the exact legal status of the statements that were alleged to be defamatory or how the various motions played out. I would suggest it is best to know these things before becoming too upset about the issue one way or the other.
-
Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights. The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money, or winning a public relations victory.
I would add using these systems in a differential way. You only apply them to your enemies, while specifically allowing your insiders to get away with the same behaviors.
-
Not at all. But I do note that I have not read the complaint in the defamation case and I suspect you have not either.
Thus the real problem here is that neither of us knows the exact legal status of the statements that were alleged to be defamatory or how the various motions played out. I would suggest it is best to know these things before becoming too upset about the issue one way or the other.
Fair enough but I read the Truth Social post which I understand is the basis of the complaint. Am I wrong?
-
Fair enough but I read the Truth Social post which I understand is the basis of the complaint. Am I wrong?
Here is a summary of the original complaint from the appelate court in the second case - https://casetext.com/case/carroll-v-trump-2
I have not found the original complaint which was in New York Supreme Court.
This is actually somewhat complicated but interesting. As that article notes, the primary basis of the defamation claim is that Trump called her a liar. As they also note, whether that is a false statement depends on whether her allegation is true. If it is, then Trump calling her a liar is a false statement which could damage her reputation as an advice columnist and journalist.
Since she had won her second case back in 2023, the one including the claim that Trump assaulted and raped her, the court in examining the defamation case decided as a matter of law that Trump was making a false statement in his post calling her a liar, because the jury had found Trump guilty of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. The only judgement call involved in that is whether the jury finding him guilty of sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her constituted 'rape', the statement about which Trump said was lie.
This sort of subtle difference in language and the potential legal meaning of one's words was why it was very unwise of Trump to reply, I assume without legal advice. I think a lawyer in denying the allegations would have used words like 'Mr. Trump completely denies Ms. Carroll's allegations or any wrongdoing" rather than saying she was a liar.
I actually think there is a meaningful distinction between 'rape' and 'sexual assault' so he may have decent grounds for appeal of the summary judgement on that. He will have some difficulty because of all the other statements he made, which while not defamatory, don't make him look like the kind of person trying to make this fine distinction.
-
I made a comment in another thread how the left is war gaming a strategy to deny Trump the WH in case he wins. That strategy is to start a slew of lawsuits in several states to litigate the elections and tie them up in court, thus when Jan 6th rolls around they cannot certify the election if neither party reaches the majority. Then on Jan 20th, The Speaker (likely Jeffries) becomes president until congress under the twelfth amendment elects the president and vice president.
If anyone objects, we will hear "What? You don't believe in the rule of law?" and also "You want to deny our constitutional process?"
Never mind they will use lawfare to establish the basis of this.
This lawfare business is a deadly game with no good outcome.
-
Here is a summary of the original complaint from the appelate court in the second case - https://casetext.com/case/carroll-v-trump-2
I have not found the original complaint which was in New York Supreme Court.
This is actually somewhat complicated but interesting. As that article notes, the primary basis of the defamation claim is that Trump called her a liar. As they also note, whether that is a false statement depends on whether her allegation is true. If it is, then Trump calling her a liar is a false statement which could damage her reputation as an advice columnist and journalist.
Since she had won her second case back in 2023, the one including the claim that Trump assaulted and raped her, the court in examining the defamation case decided as a matter of law that Trump was making a false statement in his post calling her a liar, because the jury had found Trump guilty of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. The only judgement call involved in that is whether the jury finding him guilty of sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her constituted 'rape', the statement about which Trump said was lie.
This sort of subtle difference in language and the potential legal meaning of one's words was why it was very unwise of Trump to reply, I assume without legal advice. I think a lawyer in denying the allegations would have used words like 'Mr. Trump completely denies Ms. Carroll's allegations or any wrongdoing" rather than saying she was a liar.
I actually think there is a meaningful distinction between 'rape' and 'sexual assault' so he may have decent grounds for appeal of the summary judgement on that. He will have some difficulty because of all the other statements he made, which while not defamatory, don't make him look like the kind of person trying to make this fine distinction.
Calling a public person a liar is not against the law. It's called free speech.
That's why this whole case is nonsense and without merit, being run in a biased court.
-
Calling a public person a liar is not against the law. It's called free speech.
That's why this whole case is nonsense and without merit, being run in a biased court.
I would agree with you if Carroll met the legal standard as a public person under 1st amendment jurisprudence. I don't believe she does as she is not a politician, but there are some exceptions.
Do you know if that matter was adjudicated in this case? I would assume Trump's lawyers would have tried to raise that as a defense.
-
Here is another point regarding "lawfare". Why aren't the Republicans doing this as often against a Democratic target?
I assume they are just as motivated by their political interests.
I would suspect it is because Trump is often reckless in his speech and actions. So he attracts these sort of lawsuits. Run his name through Pacer, I think he is named as a defendant in a new case about 20-30 times per month.
-
I would agree with you if Carroll met the legal standard as a public person under 1st amendment jurisprudence. I don't believe she does as she is not a politician, but there are some exceptions.
Do you know if that matter was adjudicated in this case? I would assume Trump's lawyers would have tried to raise that as a defense.
Of course she is. She was a columnist and writer, and known by the public. She's been in the media eye since 2015 when she started making allegations. She appears on numerous talk shows and news shows.
There was evidence that Trump's lawyers tried to introduce as evidence that the judge would not allow. The evidence would have sank her case, so the judge intervened. Ask yourself why?
-
Here is another point regarding "lawfare". Why aren't the Republicans doing this as often against a Democratic target?
Easy, no back bone and not willing to fight fire with fire. The republican party is weak and ineffectual. In 2015 they were on their last legs when they tried to promote another Bush for president, which would have given us Hillary.
I assume they are just as motivated by their political interests.
Republicans are gracious losers. They want to be the minority party.
I would suspect it is because Trump is often reckless in his speech and actions. So he attracts these sort of lawsuits.
So why are all these suits coming about in 2023 and 2024? The records case says the "crime" took place when Trump left the WH, yet they waited until 2023 (and after Trump announced his run) to seek indictments.
Run his name through Pacer, I think he is named as a defendant in a new case about 20-30 times per month.
He's a high profile public person, and has several businesses. So yes, he gets sued, a lot. Many high profile people get sued for anything and everything. Nothing new.
Can you provide a link or screen shot of the Pacer?
-
Of course she is. She was a columnist and writer, and known by the public. She's been in the media eye since 2015 when she started making allegations. She appears on numerous talk shows and news shows.
There was evidence that Trump's lawyers tried to introduce as evidence that the judge would not allow. The evidence would have sank her case, so the judge intervened. Ask yourself why?
I have not read details regarding the legal standard for being a "public person" under the law for 1st amendment purposes. I also have not read the motions in that case regarding the motion in limine. I suspect neither have you.
So speculating about motive strikes me as uninteresting.
-
So why are all these suits coming about in 2023 and 2024? The records case says the "crime" took place when Trump left the WH, yet they waited until 2023 (and after Trump announced his run) to seek indictments.
These cases have been going on for a long time. Lawyers have a saying "the wheels of justice grind very finely, but very slowly". The appellate issues had to be resolved before they could return to the defamation case.
He's a high profile public person, and has several businesses. So yes, he gets sued, a lot. Many high profile people get sued for anything and everything. Nothing new.
Yes, I don't know if this is atypical for someone at his profile level.
Can you provide a link or screen shot of the Pacer?
https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ . You need a sign in and they charge a bit per page but wave the fees under a certain amount. There is also the free http://courtlistener.com which has copies for many of the case of general interest.
-
I have not read details regarding the legal standard for being a "public person" under the law for 1st amendment purposes.
I have. Go start reading about slander and libel in the law. There are exceptions.
-
These cases have been going on for a long time. Lawyers have a saying "the wheels of justice grind very finely, but very slowly". The appellate issues had to be resolved before they could return to the defamation case.
Really? I believe you need to get our facts straight.
https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ . You need a sign in and they charge a bit per page but wave the fees under a certain amount. There is also the free http://courtlistener.com which has copies for many of the case of general interest.
You made the statement, you back it up.
-
So speculating about motive strikes me as uninteresting.
As does your speculation and assumptions, and narrow understanding of the law.
-
As does your speculation and assumptions, and narrow understanding of the law.
Focusing on the characteristics of the speaker again, rather than the issues at hand.
Really? I believe you need to get our facts straight.
You made the statement, you back it up.
Which parts of my prior statements are in error?
You are seriously disputing that Trump is involved in that number of lawsuits?
-
I have. Go start reading about slander and libel in the law. There are exceptions.
Yes, that is true there are exceptions. So which aspects of those exceptions would you say apply in this case specifically? And have they been adjudicated in this case? Please enlighten us based on your reading.
-
Apparently the original case was New York Times Co vs. Sullivan. This law firm has a brief explanation. https://www.chicagobusinesslawfirm.com/public-figures-vs-private-figures-which-one-are-you.html
I can see how one might argue Carroll is a public person as someone who " have achieved a role of special prominence in the affairs of society by reason of notoriety of their achievements or vigor and success with which they seek public's attention."
That is why it would be interesting to see whether or how this was argued in this case.
-
Focusing on the characteristics of the speaker again, rather than the issues at hand.
Nope. Just using the same tactic you used.
Which parts of my prior statements are in error?
You are seriously disputing that Trump is involved in that number of lawsuits?
I asked you to provide proof to back up your assertion. All you provided was a link (that cost) and asked me to do the research.
-
Yes, that is true there are exceptions. So which aspects of those exceptions would you say apply in this case specifically? And have they been adjudicated in this case? Please enlighten us based on your reading.
I did.
-
Nope. Just using the same tactic you used.
Where did I make an assertion about your state of mind, as you did mine?
Also, this is the tu quoque fallacy.
I asked you to provide proof to back up your assertion. All you provided was a link (that cost) and asked me to do the research.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were disputing that Trump had been involved in that many lawsuits. I thought you were just asking for some research resources. If you seriously want to dispute that Trump is involved in that many lawsuits, I guess I can easily get you a screen capture pretty easily. I don't think it costs anything at all to run the search but you do have to log in.
-
I asked you to provide proof to back up your assertion. All you provided was a link (that cost) and asked me to do the research.
Um, this isn't my fight, so I'm not going to go back and look, but didn't you ASK for a link?
-
I did.
Did you say how the exceptions applied in this case? Or how they have been adjudicated?
Those were the questions I was asking for enlightenment about.
-
Um, this isn't my fight, so I'm not going to go back and look, but didn't you ASK for a link?
I believe the quote was:
Can you provide a link or screen shot of the Pacer?
Thanks for noting that Little Joe. There is an 'or' in there so I tried to provide one of the requests.
It really is fairly easy to verify that Trump is involved in this large number of lawsuits. I honestly would not think anyone would question that.
-
I believe the quote was:
Thanks for noting that Little Joe. There is an 'or' in there so I tried to provide one of the requests.
It really is fairly easy to verify that Trump is involved in this large number of lawsuits. I honestly would not think anyone would question that.
What's the problem with questioning it?
Also keep in mind, as with any celebrity, most of those lawsuits are garbage with zero merit.
-
Did you say how the exceptions applied in this case? Or how they have been adjudicated?
Those were the questions I was asking for enlightenment about.
Let's see, I just did a google search and used "libel slander and defamation public figure". I got About 1,660,000 results (0.41 seconds)
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-figures-and-officials/
https://www.chicagobusinesslawfirm.com/public-figures-vs-private-figures-which-one-are-you.html
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defamation-defenses-scope-of-public-figures.html
And another 1,665,997
It would be easy to assume Trump didn't act in malice as he honestly believes Carroll is lying. And Carroll by all definitions is a public figure. Had the balance of justice prevailed, this case would have been dismissed.
The leftist want people to believe exactly what you believe, this was all on the up and up, and justice prevailed and the rule of law was not tainted by politics. You'll never find a leftist willing to admit to lawfare.
-
What's the problem with questioning it?
Also keep in mind, as with any celebrity, most of those lawsuits are garbage with zero merit.
No serious problem. However, the overall tone of that post certainly struck me as accusatory. Particularly since, as Little Joe noted, I had provided you with one of the things you asked for, namely, a link.
-
No serious problem. However, the overall tone of that post certainly struck me as accusatory. Particularly since, as Little Joe noted, I had provided you with one of the things you asked for, namely, a link.
I'm very familiar with Pacer, and my subscription lapsed long ago. The overall tone of your reply was "sure, spend the money and go find out for yourself". ;)
-
Let's see, I just did a google search and used "libel slander and defamation public figure". I got About 1,660,000 results (0.41 seconds)
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-figures-and-officials/
https://www.chicagobusinesslawfirm.com/public-figures-vs-private-figures-which-one-are-you.html
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defamation-defenses-scope-of-public-figures.html
And another 1,665,997
It would be easy to assume Trump didn't act in malice as he honestly believes Carroll is lying. And Carroll by all definitions is a public figure. Had the balance of justice prevailed, this case would have been dismissed.
The leftist want people to believe exactly what you believe, this was all on the up and up, and justice prevailed and the rule of law was not tainted by politics. You'll never find a leftist willing to admit to lawfare.
But do any of those address this case specifically? I assume either they don’t or you have not considered the matter at this level of detail.
The two important questions in terms of a legal ruling are clearly whether Carroll should be considered a public figure. And whether Trump needed to be acting knowing it was false?
I would be very interested to read how these were parsed in this case. I think I understand now what Lucifer’s opinion of it is.
-
I'm very familiar with Pacer, and my subscription lapsed long ago. The overall tone of your reply was "sure, spend the money and go find out for yourself". ;)
I am sorry you received it that way. I assumed you needed the link since you asked for one!
-
But do any of those address this case specifically? I assume either they don’t or you have not considered the matter at this level of detail.
The two important questions in terms of a legal ruling are clearly whether Carroll should be considered a public figure. And whether Trump needed to be acting knowing it was false?
I would be very interested to read how these were parsed in this case. I think I understand now what Lucifer’s opinion of it is.
Again, It's apparent this is nothing more than lawfare and a biased court. It will be tossed out on appeal.
-
Are we having fun yet? ;D
-
Again, It's apparent this is nothing more than lawfare and a biased court. It will be tossed out on appeal.
Are we having fun yet? ;D
Yes, I think in cases like this where there seems to be substantial differences in the certainty of outcomes based on the available evidence that it can be fun to have a friendly little wager.
So @Lucifer, you seem much more certain than I that this will be tossed. What odds will you give me that it is “tossed”? In other words, if it is “tosssed” I will pay you N dollars, and if it is not you pay me N x X dollars. What X would you propose?
Of course we need to define more precisely what “tossed” means and the N.
-
Yes, I think in cases like this where there seems to be substantial differences in the certainty of outcomes based on the available evidence that it can be fun to have a friendly little wager.
So @Lucifer, you seem much more certain than I that this will be tossed. What odds will you give me that it is “tossed”? In other words, if it is “tosssed” I will pay you N dollars, and if it is not you pay me N x X dollars. What X would you propose?
Of course we need to define more precisely what “tossed” means and the N.
Sorry, I don't gamble. And I'm using the legal definition of tossed. ;)
-
Sorry, I don't gamble. And I'm using the legal definition of tossed. ;)
Well, it’s not really gambling on a random chance outcome. But if you don’t want to, too bad, it would have been amusing.
-
Well, it’s not really gambling on a random chance outcome. But if you don’t want to, too bad, it would have been amusing.
gambling
noun
The act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning (including the payment of a price for a chance to win a prize).
An activity characterized by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance.
verb
Present participle of gamble. ;)
-
gambling
noun
The act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning (including the payment of a price for a chance to win a prize).
An activity characterized by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance.
verb
Present participle of gamble. ;)
There are multiple definitions. Some require purely chance to determine the outcome and others do not. That is why I qualified with “on a chance outcome..
But if you don’t want to put some friendly money on your level of certainty, obviously up to you.
-
This makes me curious, living near Utah, whether the Mormon prohibition of gambling includes wagers on an outcome like this? And can they purchase life insurance?
-
Also, does anyone else who feels strongly certain. About this want to take me up on the wager?
-
Like most liberals, pete is walking in circles demanding Lucifer wander senselessly with him.
The bullshit conclusions and arguments he makes are pure stupid and generally appear to be designed to avoid tackling his assertions head on.
What a waste of energy and oxygen.
-
{Various complaints without any real coherent point}
So put your money where your mouth is Number7. Otherwise you are just another one of those keyboard warriors writing under a pseudonym spewing their opinions they apparently don’t really believe in while constantly engaging in all manner of logical fallacies.
I am making an exception for you this evening since you have the opportunity to prove your sincerity.
If you guys are so certain this should be easy money for you. Instead we hear excuses excuses excuses.
-
The certainty of one's beliefs and convictions is not measured by willingness to wager.
-
So put your money where your mouth is Number7. Otherwise you are just another one of those keyboard warriors writing under a pseudonym spewing their opinions they apparently don’t really believe in while constantly engaging in all manner of logical fallacies.
I am making an exception for you this evening since you have the opportunity to prove your sincerity.
If you guys are so certain this should be easy money for you. Instead we hear excuses excuses excuses.
The problem you have, petey, is you think your pathetic attempts to sound superior and better informed actually fool anyone except other egotistical assholes, trying to cover their leftism by inserting bullshit.
As far as your keyboard warriors complaint, you have played that card so many times it sounds like a broken record, but it's all you have, so you keep pretending that it's all you need.
If your infinitesimal points matched your enormous ego you would already know that pretentiousness doesn't equal substance.
The world is full of demanding, little, men, playing at pretending to be tough warriors of unquestionably useless opinions.
...and for the record, demanding a wager to 'prove' your intellectual bravery makes you sound like a sexually insecure seventh grader threatening smaller children for their lunch money.
If you can't decide if you're queer or straight, try therapy instead of false bravado.
-
The problem you have, petey, is you think your pathetic attempts to sound superior and better informed actually fool anyone except other egotistical assholes, trying to cover their leftism by inserting bullshit.
As far as your keyboard warriors complaint, you have played that card so many times it sounds like a broken record, but it's all you have, so you keep pretending that it's all you need.
If your infinitesimal points matched your enormous ego you would already know that pretentiousness doesn't equal substance.
The world is full of demanding, little, men, playing at pretending to be tough warriors of unquestionably useless opinions.
...and for the record, demanding a wager to 'prove' your intellectual bravery makes you sound like a sexually insecure seventh grader threatening smaller children for their lunch money.
If you can't decide if you're queer or straight, try therapy instead of false bravado.
I will neither support nor dispute your charges of Pete’s pretentiousness or egotism, nor do I know who is right in the matter of the proposed wager, but in the matter of bravery, I will assert that he backs up his intellectual position on at least one subject with action that in my opinion indeed requires courage.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/doctor-charged-bringing-ar-15-phoenix-airport/
-
I will neither support nor dispute your charges of Pete’s pretentiousness or egotism, nor do I know who is right in the matter of the proposed wager, but in the matter of bravery, I will assert that he backs up his intellectual position on at least one subject with action that in my opinion indeed requires courage.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/doctor-charged-bringing-ar-15-phoenix-airport/
I know all about his protest and arrest. Though admirable on the surface, it does point out his need for attention and a desire to garner attention thru acting out and then acting offended.
-
I know all about his protest and arrest. Though admirable on the surface, it does point out his need for attention and a desire to garner attention thru acting out and then acting offended.
I don’t dispute that either. Whatever the mechanism that allows him to do such a thing (need for attention is a plausible hypothesis), as long as what he does is aligned with my values, I’m good with it. ;D
Kind of how I think Donald Trump is a narcissist, but if his narcissism drives him to build a legacy to his own honor that makes our country secure and prosperous again, I’m all for it. I’d never marry the dude though. He must be insufferable to live with. Besides, he requires his women to look like supermodels, which I did on my twenties, but can’t pull it off now in my 60s like Melania can, at least so far. She’s 53. And damn hot.
-
The certainty of one's beliefs and convictions is not measured by willingness to wager.
I think it is essentially a way to operationalize certainty with a sort of experimental protocol.
And it certainly is a way to separate those willing to take at least some action versus those who just like to spout off their opinions.
-
I don’t dispute that either. Whatever the mechanism that allows him to do such a thing (need for attention is a plausible hypothesis), as long as what he does is aligned with my values, I’m good with it. ;D
Kind of how I think Donald Trump is a narcissist, but if his narcissism drives him to build a legacy to his own honor that makes our country secure and prosperous again, I’m all for it. I’d never marry the dude though. He must be insufferable to live with. Besides, he requires his women to look like supermodels, which I did on my twenties, but can’t pull it off now in my 60s like Melania can, at least so far. She’s 53. And damn hot.
When petey lumps President Trump in with the likes of pedo joe and fat fuck schumer, as people who need to be punished for no other reason than he thinks EVERY political person is just as guilty as those fucks, I stop caring what he thinks about anything else.
He places himself above everyone else, and the only President in my lifetime that actually did the things he said he would do, shows a dramatic need for attention and aggrandizement.
-
I don’t dispute that either. Whatever the mechanism that allows him to do such a thing (need for attention is a plausible hypothesis), as long as what he does is aligned with my values, I’m good with it. ;D
I believe I have an older post on this very board in which I discussed this in greater depth and actually includes a link to a video where I discuss my reasoning behind it.
I think that any person who takes the proper moral action is to be more emulated, at least in those actions, than those who take none and just sit around spouting opinions all the time.
Speculating about others people’s motives is “motive mongering”. In truth we can’t really know another person’s motives very well and often people don’t even really understand their own very well.
This is why I always try and stick in this sort of discussion in public forums with the objective issues at hand. I don’t actually know most of the people in such forums so the risk of mis-interpretation is high.
-
And it certainly is a way to separate those willing to take at least some action versus those who just like to spout off their opinions.
And all you've done here is spout off your opinions. Trying to goad someone into partaking in something that's outside of their beliefs does not make you right or superior.
-
I think that any person who takes the proper moral action is to be more emulated, at least in those actions, than those who take none and just sit around spouting opinions all the time.
How do you know what others have done here and if they've ever taken "moral action"? It seems to me you want attention, for whatever reason.
And again, there's the "spouting opinions" bullshit. You sir are "spouting" your opinions. What makes you believe your opinions are superior? Because you post under your real name?
This is a discussion forum. That's what's going on here, discussions. And typically in these forums when someone can't make a good argument on their behalf they start complaining ab out grammar, spelling or the fact someone wishes to remain anonymous.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat. This is nothing new.
-
And all you've done here is spout off your opinions. Trying to goad someone into partaking in something that's outside of their beliefs does not make you right or superior.
Actually of course I have offered a wager. If you object to gambling in this form, do you have a suggestion for another way you would like to demonstrate that you are sincere about your beliefs?
I would suggest telling us who you really are and some of your background. That usually also does a great deal to improve credibility.
You may have noticed that I continue the discussion with you. That is because you have remained civil, rather than engaging in wholesale attacks on the speaker. That also enhances credibility a bit.
-
How do you know what others have done here and if they've ever taken "moral action"? It seems to me you want attention, for whatever reason.
And again, there's the "spouting opinions" bullshit. You sir are "spouting" your opinions. What makes you believe your opinions are superior? Because you post under your real name?
This is a discussion forum. That's what's going on here, discussions. And typically in these forums when someone can't make a good argument on their behalf they start complaining ab out grammar, spelling or the fact someone wishes to remain anonymous.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat. This is nothing new.
Or they start attacking the speaker or raising strawmen.
I am always happy to civilly discuss the substance on an argument in a civil manner.
ETA - I think my arguments and opinions are in general superior because they are better supported by the facts and contain fewer logical errors. I believe my credibility is higher because I use my real name. I also have observed that people who are unwilling to do so are more likely to engage in attacks on the speaker and be rude.
-
Let me address the subject of pseudononymous posting and do doxxing a bit and express my view on it.
I regard the need to post pseudononymously as a sign of a mild lack of courage. Basically it shows a person is unwilling to be completely upfront about who they are. We do not yet live in a society where we need to fear the government taking violent action against us simply because of our expressed beliefs, at least not as average citizens.
It also prevents others from understanding where the poster is coming from. For example, we can’t know if they have really taken actions in support of their beliefs or they just like to spout on social media. Both of these these decrease my valuation of such postings.
I think doxxing people with legally obtained information is just fine. I really can’t see any good natural rights argument against it.
-
Been watching the J6 trials and imprisonments? A large number of those people held for trial and already brought to trial did nothing of a violent nature on J6. You might want to take back some of what you said.
Maybe you can explain the sentence for Ray Epps, who demonstrably was the ringleader on J6.
-
Let me address the subject of pseudononymous posting and do doxxing a bit and express my view on it.
I regard the need to post pseudononymously as a sign of a mild lack of courage. Basically it shows a person is unwilling to be completely upfront about who they are. We do not yet live in a society where we need to fear the government taking violent action against us simply because of our expressed beliefs, at least not as average citizens.
It also prevents others from understanding where the poster is coming from. For example, we can’t know if they have really taken actions in support of their beliefs or they just like to spout on social media. Both of these these decrease my valuation of such postings.
I think doxxing people with legally obtained information is just fine. I really can’t see any good natural rights argument against it.
So on your forum, are you now requiring an actual name and contact information?
-
So on your forum, are you now requiring an actual name and contact information?
No. We do suggest providing a real name in the real name field on the profile but it is in no way required.
Jim and I discussed that and we feel that the ability to block people both ways provides an adequate and customizable solution to the problem of obnoxious posters writing under a pseudonym. For example, I would simply block Number7 because of his constant name calling and attacks on the speaker and then we would not be dealing with each other anymore.
-
Been watching the J6 trials and imprisonments? A large number of those people held for trial and already brought to trial did nothing of a violent nature on J6. You might want to take back some of what you said.
Maybe you can explain the sentence for Ray Epps, who demonstrably was the ringleader on J6.
I do not understand what you think is incorrect, so feel free to elaborate.
I have only looked into the J6 prisoners issue a bit. My impression of it is that in general the sentences have been over the top, the treatment of them rather outrageous, and not even vaguely approaching a speedy trial.
Some of them did commit violence against law enforcement but most did not and even the violence was not generally of a serious nature. Unfortunately in our society any physical resistance to an arrest is now considered a felony assault on the LEO. Personally I would consider it moral, though extremely ill-advised, for people to go and break them out of prison.
-
Actually of course I have offered a wager. If you object to gambling in this form, do you have a suggestion for another way you would like to demonstrate that you are sincere about your beliefs?
I would suggest telling us who you really are and some of your background. That usually also does a great deal to improve credibility.
You may have noticed that I continue the discussion with you. That is because you have remained civil, rather than engaging in wholesale attacks on the speaker. That also enhances credibility a bit.
It’s laughable that you continue this charade that somehow people are being insincere because they don’t agree with you.
I have very strong beliefs. I don’t gamble. I also don’t consume alcohol. And there are a few other items, but one of the big ones is I don’t suffer fools and bullshit artist.
We have a free and open forum here, no moderation. We’ve never blocked or censored anyone, except the spammers who try to take over on occasion.
We all have opinions in which we are entitled. Some people have a difficult time with free speech, and a forum of this nature is difficult for them.
Peter, you’ve been on several forums and it always has the same outcome. Perhaps it’s time to realize it’s not everyone else, but maybe it’s you?
Now, you’ll take that as a personal attack, it’s not. It’s an observation.
-
No. We do suggest providing a real name in the real name field on the profile but it is in no way required.
Jim and I discussed that and we feel that the ability to block people both ways provides an adequate and customizable solution to the problem of obnoxious posters writing under a pseudonym. For example, I would simply block Number7 because of his constant name calling and attacks on the speaker and then we would not be dealing with each other anymore.
So the hypocrisy is a bit thick, huh?
-
I do not understand what you think is incorrect, so feel free to elaborate.
I have only looked into the J6 prisoners issue a bit. My impression of it is that in general the sentences have been over the top, the treatment of them rather outrageous, and not even vaguely approaching a speedy trial.
Some of them did commit violence against law enforcement but most did not and even the violence was not generally of a serious nature. Unfortunately in our society any physical resistance to an arrest is now considered a felony assault on the LEO. Personally I would consider it moral, though extremely ill-advised, for people to go and break them out of prison.
We do not yet live in a society where we need to fear the government taking violent action against us simply because of our expressed beliefs, at least not as average citizens.
The vast majority of those people are average citizens who felt the election was mishandled and fraudulent.
-
It’s laughable that you continue this charade that somehow people are being insincere because they don’t agree with you.
I have very strong beliefs. I don’t gamble. I also don’t consume alcohol. And there are a few other items, but one of the big ones is I don’t suffer fools and bullshit artist.
We have a free and open forum here, no moderation. We’ve never blocked or censored anyone, except the spammers who try to take over on occasion.
We all have opinions in which we are entitled. Some people have a difficult time with free speech, and a forum of this nature is difficult for them.
Peter, you’ve been on several forums and it always has the same outcome. Perhaps it’s time to realize it’s not everyone else, but maybe it’s you?
Now, you’ll take that as a personal attack, it’s not. It’s an observation.
Yes, I think you are focusing here on the personal characteristics of the speaker. This whole line of discussion is in some sense talking about the characteristics of the speaker, so that is ok for the time being.
I am not saying your beliefs are insincere, maybe I used the wrong word. Perhaps seriousness would be better. I am just saying that I regard you as being less committed about them because you won't say who you are and there is no evidence that you take any action in the real world in support of them.
If you look carefully I think you will see that I almost never bring up such issues. I do make an exception for users like Number7 who constantly engages in personal attacks on the speaker and similarly for others. Normally I prefer to focus on the substantive issues of the discussion.
Knowing how to civilly discuss an issue in a public forum is a difficult thing for many people. In part this is because it is easy to misunderstand what the other party is really meaning. That is why I think it best to avoid ascribing motive or particular thoughts to the other speaker.
I am indeed a strong supporter of free speech and run an aviation forum dedicated to it. But it cuts both ways. If people want to use their free speech to attack others and engage in logical fallacies, then I amongst others may use our free speech to point it out. I am not in any way suggesting that you moderate the forum or prevent others from speaking. I just generally don't care to speak to them and will occasionally note their errors when appropriate.
-
So the hypocrisy is a bit thick, huh?
What specifically do you think is inconsistent about that policy?
People should be free to post what they want (so long as it is not a direct credible threat of physical harm).
Other people should be free to either:
Block other people
Point out other people's errors
-
What specifically do you think is inconsistent about that policy?
People should be free to post what they want (so long as it is not a direct credible threat of physical harm).
Other people should be free to either:
Block other people
Point out other people's errors
Free speech is what you deem it to be, which is not free speech.
Don’t look now, but you’re using the same flawed logic the leftist are attempting to use.
-
The vast majority of those people are average citizens who felt the election was mishandled and fraudulent.
I see what you mean. I don't think it is at all right what was done with the vast majority of prosecutions so do not mean to suggest that here.
In terms of comparison to my prior statement I note that they weren't just "speaking out". They were, admirably in my opinion, taking direct concrete action. Unfortunately in the police state we now live in that will sometimes get you in trouble unless you are very careful how you do it.
If they were going to physically try and prevent the certification, I think they just should have planned better.
I suspect as you say most were just average citizens who were misled into thinking they were involved in a peaceful protest. A fair amount of the misleading may have been by government agents. The problem is that in these sort of undercover actions the government agents are allowed to lie and suggest to you that you take an action they regard as illegal to try and trap you. The legal standard is that if they can show you were otherwise "inclined" to take the illegal action, they can prosecute you.
-
Free speech is what you deem it to be, which is not free speech.
Don’t look now, but you’re using the same flawed logic the leftist are attempting to use.
I honestly don't understand how you can perceive such policies as not being free speech.
Having free speech doesn't mean that we have to listen to everyone. We should be free to choose whom we wish to listen to and converse. We should also be free to object to speech we think is flawed. Isn't that what free discussion is about?
Perhaps if you would provide a concrete example of how such policies would inhibit free speech in your view that would help clarify your meaning.
-
On open-mindedness and tolerance.
I think some of what Lucifer may be noting might be better described as tolerance. It is true, I am not very tolerant of logical fallacies and personal attacks in public discussions. I try to avoid them and will sometimes note their erroneous nature.
I am actually just flat out unwilling to discuss people’s non-falsifiable beliefs. And I tend to think that many people resort to personal attacks out of a strong emotional reaction when their non-falsifiable beliefs are threatened. Oftentimes that occurs even if involving indirect threats. Once I know that is the case, I will just note that the beliefs appear to be non-falsifiable and I don’t care to discuss them. I suppose that to many with such beliefs that appears intolerant.
I am actually even stricter about religious beliefs. And I suspect many posters here have a strong faith so this will likely offend them. I simply will not discuss those beliefs per se. One time, when some relatives were in my house and insisted on continuing a religious discussion after being asked several times to stop it, I told them they had to leave. I regard such talk in many forms as essentially gibberish and I don’t want to have to listen to that in my own house or have my children exposed to it.
-
petey has a huge problem with anyone that chooses not to agree with him, but hates those who speak up about it.
It also seems like he is utterly clueless about the things he spouts off on the most often, then gets his ego in a pout because people see thru him.
Apparently censorship of those he disagrees with the most is the only solution he can handle, but his need to constantly explain why his censorship policy is so 'right' is a reminder of how hypocritical it is.
IF he was as thoughtful, informed, and superior as he claims, he wouldn't need to constantly try and remind us of it.
To each his own.
His blind devotion to bullshit on the subject of President Trump and January 6th exposed his real agenda very quickly.
-
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
And Number7 is a coward full of hot air. Anything which vaguely threatens his lord and savior Donald Trump causes him to become irrational and nearly incoherent, lashing out at the speaker.
He resorts to such petty tactics as using diminutives for the other speaker and is constantly engaging in logical fallacies. Perhaps he was flunked out of school so doesn’t know any better. Or perhaps he is impaired in his ability to express himself. He is afraid to tell us who he really is perhaps because he is just a nobody and has never accomplished anything in his life.
Or perhaps he is simply a dying old man who is cranky because he can’t sleep. Who knows?
-
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
And Number7 is a coward full of hot air. Anything which vaguely threatens his lord and savior Donald Trump causes him to become irrational and nearly incoherent, lashing out at the speaker.
He resorts to such petty tactics as using diminutives for the other speaker and is constantly engaging in logical fallacies. Perhaps he was flunked out of school so doesn’t know any better. Or perhaps he is impaired in his ability to express himself. He is afraid to tell us who he really is perhaps because he is just a nobody and has never accomplished anything in his life.
Or perhaps he is simply a dying old man who is cranky because he can’t sleep. Who knows?
Somebody hasn’t had his prunes today, I see…
So, petey…
When I suggested you were full of shit I didn’t mean literally… but maybe that too.
-
Turnabout is fair play.
Well then Number5, I suppose you better invest in an anchor, because hot air rises.
I do believe they are readily available in Florida.
-
Turnabout is fair play.
Well then Number5, I suppose you better invest in an anchor, because hot air rises.
I do believe they are readily available in Florida.
Honestly, I should have known you would drop all pretense and head straight to full on hypocrisy.
I’m sure you get the worship you believ due at the pilot s place where full on communism is the rule.
-
Honestly, I should have known you would drop all pretense and head straight to full on hypocrisy.
I'm afraid "your excuses are lame, thin, and silly." There is nothing hypocritical here. You are simply receiving what you dish out. How are you enjoying that dish?
I’m sure you get the worship you believ due at the pilot s place where full on communism is the rule.
Again, you just have no idea what you are talking about. I don't even have an account there.
-
Are you two married to each other? ;D
-
I'm afraid "your excuses are lame, thin, and silly." There is nothing hypocritical here. You are simply receiving what you dish out. How are you enjoying that dish?
petey your mask slipped the second I mentioned President Trump and you outed yourself.
No amount of bullshit will at it back in place.
Run along and play your pretend game on someone that has a slight chance of falling for it.
-
petey your mask slipped the second I mentioned President Trump and you outed yourself.
No amount of bullshit will at it back in place.
Run along and play your pretend game on someone that has a slight chance of falling for it.
Well Number 5, you mean your Lord and Savior Donald Trump? No criticism of his holiness can be tolerated of course. Blasphemy!
Strange about the mask thing you know given that giant paragon of consistency Number 7 said "I am very happy to see that Donald Trump is losing ground to Ted Cruz, day by day, and that ever day, more people take off the blinders and wake up to his shenanigans."
Wait, who is wearing the mask here? I can see that one might need to spout bullshit to cover up such conflicts, quite understandable.
Nothing pretend about it but it does seem like you are devoting a lot of time to the defense. Is that "falling for it"?
-
I preferred Ted Cruz to Donald Trump. What of it?
Only a dedicated progressive, egotistical asshole like yourself thinks that is a problem.
This is America where we are supposedly free to choose our preferred candidate and change our minds once that person leaves the race.
For someone as sad and pathetic as you it shouldn’t surprise me that you are not be capable of understanding something that simple. Your ego and blind devotion to the sound of your own voice would make that impossible.
As for your hypocrisy, you spent that last year bragging about your antipathy for personal attacks, but that goes out the window when your precious ego is at stake.
I laughed for ten minutes when you channeled your inner steingar and attacked my education and intelligence as a way to bolster your personal devotion to your immense brilliance. When steingar bragged about having a triple digit IQ, something he claimed none of us had, he outed himself as petty, self-centered, and a terribly shallow hypocrite, just like you.
-
I preferred Ted Cruz to Donald Trump. What of it?
If y’all are talking about 2016, I too didn’t like the Donald. I didn’t vote for him in the primary. Sensing Florida was getting ready to lean red again, I voted for Marco Rubio. I wasn’t crazy about any of the choices. To my mind, anybody but Hillary, and for some reason I thought Rubio could beat her. I was probably wrong, and never imagined Trump would win. That election night was the happiest of my life. I suppose I should say, excepting my wedding night or the birth of my children.
-
If y’all are talking about 2016, I too didn’t like the Donald. I didn’t vote for him in the primary.
So as the lawyer's like to say: "were you wrong then or are you wrong now? How are we supposed to tell?"
That election night was the happiest of my life. I suppose I should say, excepting my wedding night or the birth of my children.
I assume it was in that order, although in today's world that order is generally reversed.
And the reason the wedding night is the happiest is often because it is all downhill from there.
-
So as the lawyer's like to say: "were you wrong then or are you wrong now? How are we supposed to tell?"
I assume it was in that order, although in today's world that order is generally reversed.
And the reason the wedding night is the happiest is often because it is all downhill from there.
Honestly, those three days were full of stress and hard work. If you don’t think getting into a wedding gown isn’t hard work, you’ve never tried it. Then there was all the socializing at the reception which for an introvert like me is stressful and draining, even though I appreciated the love from everyone. Then driving away from the reception we were rear-ended and had to go to the ER, and we were both in neck braces on our wedding night.
I don’t think I need to explain how labor and delivery were stressful and hard work. So yeah, all together, election night 2016 beat them out if you’re talking about net euphoria. (Happiness minus stress/work) All I did that day was drive from Dallas to Austin, get a hotel room, order dinner and, left to myself in peace, watch the returns. When they called it for Trump, and the lefty pundits lost their shit on camera, that was a thrill unmatched by little else in my life. Maybe when I jumped, and the moment my chute opened and I realized I wasn’t going to die came close.
-
Keep in mind I still wasn’t sold on Trump. The thrill was that someone other than Hillary won. Trump had yet to prove himself which he did during his term. He wasn’t perfect, but he was a hell of a lot better than the Dems, and even the Uniparty. Very refreshing.
-
Keep in mind I still wasn’t sold on Trump. The thrill was that someone other than Hillary won. Trump had yet to prove himself which he did during his term. He wasn’t perfect, but he was a hell of a lot better than the Dems, and even the Uniparty. Very refreshing.
My biggest disappointment is, I wish he hadn't gone along with so much Democrat spending and had actually vetoed something. That, along with being bamboozled by Fauci during COVID. He caught on far too late which then brought the massive spending by sending everyone money and giving businesses free govbucks.
-
My biggest disappointment is, I wish he hadn't gone along with so much Democrat spending and had actually vetoed something. That, along with being bamboozled by Fauci during COVID. He caught on far too late which then brought the massive spending by sending everyone money and giving businesses free govbucks.
That pretty much covers his biggest flaws. The business free bucks was massively abused. Not being an experienced politician or a government insider he did not foresee the problems that arose by not have a mechanism to ensure rules compliance. They’re now trying to root out and prosecute cheaters but the horses already fled the barn and it’s massively expensive chasing those down.
The stimmy checks were also badly implemented. They were not nearly large enough to help those truly hurt by lockdowns, who lost jobs and businesses, and were totally unnecessary for those who kept their livelihoods. I believe Trump had good intentions, but he didn’t understand that, and he also didn’t foresee that he set precedent for Biden to continue with more stimmy money, which along with other factors caused inflation to explode.
And he trusted Fauci. Again, not being an insider, he didn’t know not to. Who did? Who knew about Fauci’s gain of function research, funding China, etc, and who knew about the CDC “pandemic plan” filed away in a drawer that had been the high school project of the 14 year old daughter of a bureaucrat? That the CDC would recommend something so destructive and with no scientific basis whatsoever, while Trump and many others couldn’t be blamed for assuming the CDC somewhat knew what they were doing in the way of policy recommendations. Turns out they didn’t- at all!!!
So yes, Trump screwed up in those ways but hindsight is 20/20. He knows better now and if he gets another term, won’t be fooled by them again. One hopes.
-
Number 7, I think you may be missing an important point here. I thought this would have been pretty clear from my prior headlines and commentary, but I guess I need to be more explicit.
You have a choice of how I will treat you in one of two modes:
Number 5 mode. This is where you are treated basically like you have treated the other posters here over the last 9 years. The focus is on personal attacks as a way of avoiding the issues at hand and to try to belittle the other speaker and anger them.
Civil mode. This is where you are treated in a civil manner even in the presence of strong disagreement and the focus is on facts and reason.
I will deliberately use the mode appropriate to how you demonstrate by your behavior how you would like to be treated.
Your choice. How would you like to continue?
-
If y’all are talking about 2016, I too didn’t like the Donald. I didn’t vote for him in the primary. Sensing Florida was getting ready to lean red again, I voted for Marco Rubio. I wasn’t crazy about any of the choices. To my mind, anybody but Hillary, and for some reason I thought Rubio could beat her. I was probably wrong, and never imagined Trump would win. That election night was the happiest of my life. I suppose I should say, excepting my wedding night or the birth of my children.
I was positive that Donald Trump would win in 2016 after hilary made her basket of deplorable pronouncement. Nothing was funnier than surfing around the networks watching anchors in tears.
-
Number 7, I think you may be missing an important point here. I thought this would have been pretty clear from my prior headlines and commentary, but I guess I need to be more explicit.
You have a choice of how I will treat you in one of two modes:
Number 5 mode. This is where you are treated basically like you have treated the other posters here over the last 9 years. The focus is on personal attacks as a way of avoiding the issues at hand and to try to belittle the other speaker and anger them.
Civil mode. This is where you are treated in a civil manner even in the presence of strong disagreement and the focus is on facts and reason.
I will deliberately use the mode appropriate to how you demonstrate by your behavior how you would like to be treated.
Your choice. How would you like to continue?
Good idea, but good luck with that anyway.
Can a tiger change its stripes or a leopard change its spots?
-
Good idea, but good luck with that anyway.
Can a tiger change its stripes or a leopard change its spots?
Why not. Men can be women now.
-
Why not. Men can be women now.
I gave that a like because it was funny,
But I actually hated it because it is true.
-
Number 7, I think you may be missing an important point here. I thought this would have been pretty clear from my prior headlines and commentary, but I guess I need to be more explicit.
You have a choice of how I will treat you in one of two modes:
Number 5 mode. This is where you are treated basically like you have treated the other posters here over the last 9 years. The focus is on personal attacks as a way of avoiding the issues at hand and to try to belittle the other speaker and anger them.
Civil mode. This is where you are treated in a civil manner even in the presence of strong disagreement and the focus is on facts and reason.
I will deliberately use the mode appropriate to how you demonstrate by your behavior how you would like to be treated.
Your choice. How would you like to continue?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........
Oh, you clown.
I guess your ego really does rule your brain.
-
I guess your ego really does rule your brain.
Number 5,
I suspect that is better than one’s brain being dominated by the Id, as yours appears to be.
Is that because your brain was damaged during your stint as paid killer for the Federal government in the jungles of Vietnam? Or was it later during an easier assignment as just a boot licker?
-
Is that because your brain was damaged during your stint as paid killer for the Federal government in the jungles of Vietnam? Or was it later during an easier assignment as just a boot licker?
So you view veterans as "paid killers"?
-
So you view veterans as "paid killers"?
No, I view veterans in a more nuanced way. Please remember that that post to Number7 was in "Number 5 mode". See above for the goals of that mode.
You can ask for a further description if you like.
-
No, I view veterans in a more nuanced way. Please remember that that post to Number7 was in "Number 5 mode". See above for the goals of that mode.
You can ask for a further description if you like.
Why thank you for allowing me to ask. ::)
So tell us your "nuanced way" view of veterans.
-
Why thank you for allowing me to ask. ::)
So tell us your "nuanced way" view of veterans.
::) My pleasure.
It actually depends on when they became veterans as well as a number of individual factors which it would be difficult generally to judge in this sort of forum.
If they became veterans during a period of conscription, a nice word for government enforced slavery, I view them to some extent as victims of our government's immoral policy. This is even if they, as one of my uncles, "volunteered", because they are under an indirect threat.
More generally of course young males are evolved to be the warrior class. And as younger males they tend to minimize risk. In some circumstances in the modern world, this is a trait we still badly need. I think the government often takes advantage of this to entice them into the military service. Of course for many young males, such as a brother in law, this is actually an excellent career opportunity.
OTOH, when volunteering for military service one is swearing an oath to follow the orders of some other person, potentially in dangerous situations, and with our current interventionist foreign policy, often in morally questionable (at best), circumstances. I would not presently recommend it to anyone given the huge size of our military in any case.
Since it is difficult to know these sort of details for an individual in an online forum, I normally reserve judgement until I know more about the person.
-
::) My pleasure.
It actually depends on when they became veterans as well as a number of individual factors which it would be difficult generally to judge in this sort of forum.
If they became veterans during a period of conscription, a nice word for government enforced slavery, I view them to some extent as victims of our government's immoral policy. This is even if they, as one of my uncles, "volunteered", because they are under an indirect threat.
More generally of course young males are evolved to be the warrior class. And as younger males they tend to minimize risk. In some circumstances in the modern world, this is a trait we still badly need. I think the government often takes advantage of this to entice them into the military service. Of course for many young males, such as a brother in law, this is actually an excellent career opportunity.
OTOH, when volunteering for military service one is swearing an oath to follow the orders of some other person, potentially in dangerous situations, and with our current interventionist foreign policy, often in morally questionable (at best), circumstances. I would not presently recommend it to anyone given the huge size of our military in any case.
Since it is difficult to know these sort of details for an individual in an online forum, I normally reserve judgement until I know more about the person.
So back to the "paid killer" comment. During Viet Nam we had a draft going. Over 50,000 lives were lost in SE Asia. The majority of those were enlisted draftees. Explain your "paid killer" description of these soldiers, sailors and airmen.
-
So back to the "paid killer" comment. During Viet Nam we had a draft going. Over 50,000 lives were lost in SE Asia. The majority of those were enlisted draftees. Explain your "paid killer" description of these soldiers, sailors and airmen.
The primary explanation is of course that this comment was made in Number5 mode.
More seriously with regard to such people it is as I said, I regard people drafted or even under the threat of the draft as victims of our government's immoral policies at that time. Those 50,000 were really victims and paid the ultimate price. Many others who were not killed were maimed, either physically or mentally. This is one of the main reasons our government's policies were so immoral.
-
The primary explanation is of course that this comment was made in Number5 mode.
More seriously with regard to such people it is as I said, I regard people drafted or even under the threat of the draft as victims of our government's immoral policies at that time. Those 50,000 were really victims and paid the ultimate price.
So you owe a huge apology to veterans for the "paid killer" comment.
BTW, I went in the military voluntarily after the draft rescinded. What category does that place me?
-
So you owe a huge apology to veterans for the "paid killer" comment.
BTW, I went in the military voluntarily after the draft rescinded. What category does that place me?
I don't know. I didn't call anyone other than Number7 a "paid killer" - did I? Please review the purposes of Number5 mode above. At present, that mode is only applied to Number7.
Well, as I said my overall view of your service would depend on many individual factors which I don't know. But if you were not under the threat of conscription, then you wouldn't automatically get the view as a victim.
-
I don't know. I didn't call anyone other than Number7 a "paid killer" - did I? Please review the purposes of Number5 mode above. At present, that mode is only applied to Number7.
Number7 is a veteran as I am and a few others. The paid killers comment tells us a lot about you.
Well, as I said my overall view of your service would depend on many individual factors which I don't know. But if you were not under the threat of conscription, then you wouldn't automatically get the view as a victim.
Sorry, I never play the victim, others are so much better at it.
-
Why thank you for allowing me to ask. ::)
So tell us your "nuanced way" view of veterans.
He can't help it when his mask slips and the real petey is exposed.
Like a good fascist progressive, petey hates veterans, patriots, and everything good about America. His hatred drives his disturbed personality to loose control and show the little dictator living inside and pulling his strings.
It was so easy to unmask him and I LOVE owning real estate in his petty, arrogant, brainless, bigoted, tiny, little mind.
-
Number7 is a veteran as I am and a few others. The paid killers comment tells us a lot about you.
Well I hope it does reinforce the following. I am not willing to sit by and be the subject of endless abuse by another poster. When such a person persists, despite many attempts at civility and warnings, I am perfectly willing to engage in tit for tat.
Rest assured, if you don't do that sort of thing and remain civil, you will not be the subject of such remarks.
-
Well I hope it does reinforce the following. I am not willing to sit by and be the subject of endless abuse by another poster. When such a person persists, despite many attempts at civility and warnings, I am perfectly willing to engage in tit for tat.
Rest assured, if you don't do that sort of thing and remain civil, you will not be the subject of such remarks.
Point 1. No one is required to respond or even read what someone else has written. There are threads and post on this forum to which I don't respond or participate. It's rather easy.
Second, stop with the condescending "if you don't do that" bullshit. My response to you had to do with your smear of veterans.
-
Point 1. No one is required to respond or even read what someone else has written. There are threads and post on this forum to which I don't respond or participate. It's rather easy.
Yes, you are of course correct. I don't feel as though responding is required. I choose to because of the constant abuse Number7 engages in and has over the last 9 years. I agree it would be easier to ignore, but I choose not too given the extent of the abusiveness involved.
Second, stop with the condescending "if you don't do that" bullshit. My response to you had to do with your smear of veterans.
I am sorry if you received that as condescending. It was merely intended as an assurance to yourself and others.
-
Well Number5, "For the most part, you've said nothing."
Your aggressive response all makes very good sense in terms of your brain being dominated by your Id.
You truly are the "Ego less" man.
-
Well Number5, "For the most part, you've said nothing."
*** ****** **** ******* **** **** **...
One day you will have to share your arrest record with everyone here.
I'm sure it will be entertaining.
-
One day you will have to share your arrest record with everyone here.
I'm sure it will be entertaining.
Number7, since that is not an abusive response, I will answer.
I actually only have 1 arrest record presently.
I was arrested as part of a Federal sting operation and charged with running an unlicensed money transmission business and conspiracy to do so. The allegations were basically failure to fill out some paperwork and keep the required records. All charges were subsequently dropped because there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part.
I would be a bit surprised if you were to find that particularly entertaining since it represents the worst parts of the Federal regulatory police state we have now as well as their tendency to use excessive force. I imagine you might find it interesting.
ETA - I realize I have written about it here before in http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=5810.msg101953#msg101953 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=5810.msg101953#msg101953)
-
I have little trust int eh federal branch. That has been well documented here.
Though i appreciate your response, what I wanted to know more about was the weapons charge at the airport.
Airports ave become some kind of no mans land, where the law is bent, twisted, cut, folded, spindled and mutilated by by overzealous, under trained neanderthals, intent on removing any semblance of constitutional protection whatsoever.
-
I have little trust int eh federal branch. That has been well documented here.
I share that distrust with you.
Though i appreciate your response, what I wanted to know more about was the weapons charge at the airport.
Ah that case. The arrest record was formally cleared by the court because the arrest was so ill founded. I was actually never even charged.
I have written about that here at http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=5809.msg101938#msg101938
That post contains a link to a video of a talk I gave about it.
Airports ave become some kind of no mans land, where the law is bent, twisted, cut, folded, spindled and mutilated by by overzealous, under trained neanderthals, intent on removing any semblance of constitutional protection whatsoever.
Hear, hear!. That is exactly what that protest was about.
-
Why not. Men can be women now.
I'm waiting for when we can be some type of forest creature. Until then, I'll stay whatever I am now.