Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
See definition of omnipotent. Or indeed could provide false "revelations" just to jerk the puppets around because they think it would be funny. Once you posit enough omni-s in one being most discussion about them becomes moot.Obviously nobody can possibly disprove that an omnipotent being isn't hiding himself really really well. Indeed an omnipotent being can easily create a universe that looks utterly as if it had no creator whatsoever.Such an omnipotent being then could also easily only hide from the people who use their free will to believe in the fiction that they own their own bodies.
That'd be mean, wouldn't it?
Unclear - see previous thread re. slavery in the bible as to what exactly a lack of condemnation might mean.I do not remember Jesus saying anything about LGBTQ other than "love your neighbor as yourself". Seems pretty clear.
You're saying that you think Jesus had no problem with homosexuality?
GA GOP leader is also a flat earther.That surely must be a parody piece? Please...
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/georgia-gop-chair-goes-full-170734553.html
For real. A Flat Earther.
My bad - failed to get when everything happens in the right order.You could also characterise Trumps twitter cutoff as being "shortly after he ceased being POTUS".
Only if you spoke falsely. Homeland-controlled pre-Elon telwutter cut Trump off while he was still POTUS. And while he was trying to defuse the situation, more people were getting killed.
Not to be that guy, jc44, but Google is your friend. Literally, next time you have a question like that, just type into Google your question. Anytime I have a question I immediately go to Google, for better or worse. It usually works out. Anyway, here are the results -Thanks for the info. Yes I could have looked it up but I really didn't feel the need to put in any effort to find out how exactly I was being insulted. Had it been part of something that looked like rational argument I would have tried.
"DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim -- or the whistle blower -- into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of "falsely accused" and attacks the accuser's credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation."
You characterized what I said like this:I didn't actually say that but I can understand why you might think that - sorry. It does seem to me that there are a set of people out there for whom that is true but I did not mean to necessarily include you in that set. I was musing somewhat on the topic.
“but I do find it hard to cope with the position that whenever Trump is accused of anything that it cannot be because he has actually done that thing.”
Your only basis for doing that was that somebody came up with an alternate explanation that was reasonable.
So turning that on me seems like DARVO.
I started out thinking you were discussing in good faith, but that last grotesque misconstuction makes clear that your whole object is to reduce me and anyone that disagrees with you to a caricature.Really no - on the whole I feel that it is you who is doing that to me now.
You’ve just said that anyone who has suspicions about this rape trial would defend Trump on any accusation at all. My response is there anybody that would use this trial as a touchstone of decency is either brainwashed or malicious. If you don’t think this trial leaves room to doubt, then I have no doubts about your villainy. 👋I didn't say that. The discussion we have been having hasn't in fact been about the trial - it has been about the creation of the law that enabled the trial.
Believe it or not I started off this discussion thinking you had at least half a point or at the very least a defensible position re. the legislation (less so re. the trial). Additional evidence was presented that you have not disputed that caused me to come down firmly on the side of the law being, at most, only tangentially related to "getting Trump".Remind me - what was your evidence? You brought up timing and scope - was there anything else?
I obviously cannot prove a lack of conspiracy as it is all but impossible to prove a negative - all that can be done is show that there are other reasonable, explanations and I feel that has been achieved.
I agree that there are other reasonable explanations. But I think it’s cowardly for you to abuse the word conspiracy, to pretend that my explanation is any less reasonable. There’s nothing secret about Progressive treating Trump, like he was some species of antichrist that needs to be stopped at all costs.
I am not asking you anything more than to recognize why many see this lawsuit as illegitimate, and don’t think any less of Trump because of it. I’m not asking you to change your position. Just to humanize those who don’t share it. Is that too much of a scary mental exercise for you?
OK - then I'm confused by your "And/or. You don’t need both, silly." - I'll grant I mistyped by original question due to rewriting it a couple of times but I thought it was still parseable. I'll restate:OK - bear with me here - I don't understand the US system (I'm not sure I understand the UK system for this sort of thing either) - are you saying that if you don't turn up to court "all" that happens is you lose your bail money (which is what you seem to be implying)? I was assuming that you lost your money and you ended up being charged with some sort of "fleeing justice" offence.Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?
And/or
You don’t need both, silly.
Yes. In that sentence, the AND is appropriate. You lose your bail, and they write out an arrest warrant for you. And if you use the bail bondsman, then the bondsman hast to produce you, or loses a whole bunch of money.
OK - bear with me here - I don't understand the US system (I'm not sure I understand the UK system for this sort of thing either) - are you saying that if you don't turn up to court "all" that happens is you lose your bail money (which is what you seem to be implying)? I was assuming that you lost your money and you ended up being charged with some sort of "fleeing justice" offence.Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?
And/or
You don’t need both, silly.
I'm afraid that the requirements for that grade of global-conspiracy make it implausible to me. You are entitled to you views and you may be right of course, and the British royal family may indeed eat babies in secret tunnels under Westminster to retain eternal youth but I don't think so.QuoteThe fact that no one specifically said something to you or to me doesn't mean it wasn't in the open.Are you suggesting that if a bunch of people openly said, to the public, "Let's get this bill passed so we can hurt Donald Trump," no one in the media would have reported on that?
No. I'm saying that if anyone in the media had reported on that, Google probably would have made it disappear. So we're all crippled without L-N accounts.
I didn't move the goalposts and there was no mention of the proposed charge at the time you called it absurd. This is the first point in the discussion where the $5000 bail was "obviously" for a misdemeanour.That isn't exactly the argument you advanced previously ("Absurd") and if you had suggested that bail should be based on some % of total/usable wealth then that would nullify many of the points raised on this thread.No. If the restaurant shooter was a multimillionaire, then there would be a chance of him skipping bail, so the bail should be raised.So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?QuoteThere is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.
Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states. Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court. I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.
Pay attention to context & stop moving the goalposts. "Absurd" responded to the idiotic claim that a multimillionaire out on $5000 bail had no incentive to show up to trial. For a minor charge with a mere 5k bail, the arrest warrant on top of the bail would probably suffice. For a murder/Attempt murder charge, where the millionaire actually might have net incentive to flee, obviously wealth would need to be considered to balance that out.
That isn't exactly the argument you advanced previously ("Absurd") and if you had suggested that bail should be based on some % of total/usable wealth then that would nullify many of the points raised on this thread.No. If the restaurant shooter was a multimillionaire, then there would be a chance of him skipping bail, so the bail should be raised.So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?QuoteThere is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.
Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states. Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court. I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.
Then tell me why the law expires? Who changes civil procedure for lawsuits, but only leaves a 12 month window to do it in?scifibums post (this thread May 11, 2023, 09:17:51 PM) seems to address this point, at least to my satisfaction.
No one honest, that’s who.
So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?QuoteThere is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.
Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states. Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court. I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.
“ OK - I'm going to have to give you that the timing is almost certainly politically motivated. Hmmm... politicians doing politically motivated things who'd have thought that.”That isn't what I said.
Politicians managing one specific lawsuit from before it was filed—that’s a new level of dirty.
It means this whole farce was a show-trial not operating by the normal rules of lawNo. Trump did bad thing, Trump was convicted of doing bad thing in front of a jury with evidence given etc. It wasn't just a case of "Lock Him Up"!
OK - I'm going to have to give you that the timing is almost certainly politically motivated. Hmmm... politicians doing politically motivated things who'd have thought that.Ashley StClaire notes:And even if that is true - so what? It is impossible to pretend that there were no interested outside parties in the outcome of this trial. It can also be reasonably argued that adding cash to Carroll's side levelled the playing field (assuming that you believe that "justice" can be influenced by the amount of money you promise your lawyers) as Trump will have a bigger starting bankroll than her.
“Also super odd that Democrat & Jeffrey Epstein pal Reid Hoffman poured cash into Carroll’s lawsuit.”
In response to your question, so what, here’s more information about the involvement of others in this case:
On January 6th, 2021, the first day Trump was no longer President, a bill was introduced in New York that would allow victims of sexual abuse to file civil suits between November 24, 2022 and November 24, 2023.
On November 24th Elizabeth Jean Carroll filed a suit against Donald Trump at the urging of Trump hater George Conway. Her legal expenses were partly funded by democrat mega donor and billionaire Reid Hoffman.To the second part - not really. See the whole #metoo thing. Filing on the first available day isn't suspicious given about 8 months notice that the window was opening and see my previous comment re. funding.
Nothing suspicious there?
Ashley StClaire notes:And even if that is true - so what? It is impossible to pretend that there were no interested outside parties in the outcome of this trial. It can also be reasonably argued that adding cash to Carroll's side levelled the playing field (assuming that you believe that "justice" can be influenced by the amount of money you promise your lawyers) as Trump will have a bigger starting bankroll than her.
“Also super odd that Democrat & Jeffrey Epstein pal Reid Hoffman poured cash into Carroll’s lawsuit.”
Thanks - brain failure on my part. Well I guess I'm living up to the Ornery maxim of being wrong.Does that generally work on Cro-Magnons? It makes me feel uncomfortable. Set up red flex.How are we meant to know? I thought they were extinct but maybe you know better?
Neanderthals are the one who are supposed to be extinct, until I found out, I was one of them. The rest of humanity or Cro-Magnon, with a little mix of homo erectus & other variants.
Does that generally work on Cro-Magnons? It makes me feel uncomfortable. Set up red flex.How are we meant to know? I thought they were extinct but maybe you know better?
Looks like neither of you read the full quote very carefully or were indulging in hyperbole (a risky activity on Ornery). Those 225 cases were split into a number of failure modes not all of which were lack of standing, the rest were (to paraphrase) simply bo**ocks.Really guys? Two hundred and twenty five times you need to ask the same question with an equal lack of standing?
Maybe the better question is why no one had standing to enforce a Constitutional requirement.
These transfers violate Geneva Convention standards on the treatment of prisoners.But the Geneva Convention doesn't apply unless there is a war going on that these people are somehow involved in? And yes - I do know that you've never said that the GC actually could be applied here.
What I said in 2008 about Obama’s birth certificate is the saying that I say today, they both sides, or being hypocrites, because both of them would be saying what the other side or saying, if Obama was Republican.Even were that true, and the whole Birther thing seems to me much more a GOP than Dem thing - it doesn't make it right. Dem's would have found a behavioural infelicity to latch onto.
OK - did you or did you not say?:Then until one of us or someone else produces a New York Times article that says such a thing, we are at an impass.On the whole, the onus would seem to be on you Pete as you are the one who claims to have read such an article or if that wasn't your claim to clarify your statement.
Since I never said that I read such an article, I carry no such onus. It’s easy enough for you or anyone to look at what I actually said on this thread. If you can get that right, then I’d be happy to explain what I meant.
The only thing that I trusted the New York Times for this year was evidence that the Biden administration is involved in human trafficking. Again, admission against interests.If you didn't say that then fair enough but I'm confused.
Then until one of us or someone else produces a New York Times article that says such a thing, we are at an impass.On the whole, the onus would seem to be on you Pete as you are the one who claims to have read such an article or if that wasn't your claim to clarify your statement. As you are well aware it is all but impossible for Drake to prove that no such article exists.
Oh, I am already fully domesticated. My cat will state at the water glass on my night stand when it is empty, and I will go refill it immediately so she can have a drink. I gave up long ago.Heh! Nice to know that there is another cat (besides mine) that does that to their human. Cat water bowls are for inferior beings.
Now the little criminals are trying to convince me to adopt a tiny one.And I've fallen for that one too... I'm doomed.
