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.

Messages - LetterRip

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 06, 2018, 12:51:11 PM »

yes there was.

Oh, well if his chief of staff says it in his defense, I'm totally sure that his chief of staff would never lie.

Here we see the review comments prior to the speech.  I really can't see how you can possibly characterize his presentation as anything but blatant lying.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 05, 2018, 03:34:28 PM »
Building the case that Powell lied relies on readers not being sophisticated enough to understand that there is always conflicting intelligence.

There wasn't conflicting intelligence.  He was told flat out that the content of his prepared speech were incorrect.  It is absolutely a lie when you state something you have been told is incorrect. He also fabricated parts of claimed intercepted communications during his speech - implying he was quoting from intelligence when it was actually not present in the communication.

when the speech was drawn from US intelligence and vetted by the CIA

The vetting of his speech prior to presentation - specific notes were written stating that those speech elements were wrong.  So he knew it was wrong.  It is only not a lie if the speech is 'vetted' and then you make corrections to bring the speech in alignment to correct the false information.  If you keep the falsehoods in there - it is lying.

If a company had a public communication with corporate information vetted before presentation, and a number of material facts were flagged as false, and the corporate officer then presented the speech without removing the falsehoods - he could potentially go to jail for fraudulent representation.

There was no US intelligence telling him that the tolerances were 'too tight' to be used for rockets, and there was specific intelligence that the tolerances weren't nearly high enough for centrifuges and that we used aluminum tubes of similar tolerances for rockets.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 05, 2018, 01:59:34 PM »

If it's about WMD, no.  That was clearly an error not a lie.

Powell clearly lied to the UN - he had been informed that the aluminum tubes were impossible to use for centrifuging uranium and were actually most likely for rocket bodies - yet he straight up lied to the UN.  He knew that the mobile weapons factory claim was also fraudulent and lied to the UN.  The inspectors were clear that that believed that Sadam didn't have WMDs.  So I'd say it was clearly a lie, not an error.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 04, 2018, 11:58:52 AM »

feel free to believe what you will. I really can't understand how you can reconcile your beliefs with the facts.  I've offered up evidence that he has committed multiple acts of perjury, you don't agree - that is fine - neither of our opinions matter much ultimately, and I'm certainly not going to convince you to change your opinion.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 05:48:57 PM »

for a 'more likely than not' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.
for a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.
for a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard - I think 90% of the time he would lose.

So I think an amazing lawyer might be rarely able to convince a jury that he didn't purjure himself 'beyond a reasonable' doubt upon occassion with the right jury.

I don't think we as the public should view it as anything other than he clearly purjured himself.

There is quite a difference between 'a skilled lawyer might be able to establish reasonable doubt' - and it being reasonable on the face of it to deny he perjured himself.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 04:39:35 PM »

the opinion that it would have fallen under a misdemeanor was the opinion of the ex-chief prosecutor - he seems likely to have the most informed opinion on the law at the time.

Regarding Kavanaugh and perjury,

this is the link I was refering to.

For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”

In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents.

Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats. Some of those emails went so far as to warn Kavanaugh not to distribute the Democratic talking points he was being given. If these were documents shared from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of normal business, as Kavanaugh claimed to have believed in his most recent testimony, why would they be labeled “not [for] distribution”? And why would we share our precise strategy to fight controversial Republican nominations with the Republicans we were fighting?

To me that seems a slam dunk on perjury.  I've no idea how you could consider it 'weak sauce'.

His recent testimony it would be harder to prove it is perjury, but I don't think there it can be reasonably believed that he didn't do so.  If you are talking about the difficult of building a case for his recent perjury, I'd agree it would be challenging.  My characterization as frequently deceptive or lying though I think is a perfectly fair characterization.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 04:15:38 PM »
I note, Ford still hasn't filed criminal charges

Probably because at the time the offense is alleged to have occurred, the crime he is accused of was considered a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of 1 year.

The charge of attempted rape was considered a misdemeanor at the time. As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor.

Regarding perjury, I provided a link for his past perjuries.  You may find his perjuries during the recent hearing debatable, but we have email directly contradicting his previous perjuries during testimony of his prior confirmation hearings.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 03:14:54 PM »
If that's enough to convict, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, then no man is safe no matter how innocent he is.

He was being interviewed to become a Supreme Court justice - lying under oath is generally considered disqualifying for that job, so when you do so - it is strongly suggestive that you are trying to cover up something more serious.  Almost no innocent men would lie under oath, so I'm not sure why you think 'no man is safe'.

There was much more in the Brian Banks case, even though he was totally innocent, and he went to prison for 5 years. At least he actually kissed his accuser, though it was consensual and there was no sex.

Brian Banks pled guilty.  We have no idea how evidence compares, since the accussations against Kavanauagh weren't investigated to any significant degree (namely neither Ford, nor Kavanaugh were interviewed by police/FBI)

I highly doubt Kavanaugh ever touched Ford or was ever in the same house as her.

You seem to have no reasonable basis for your doubt.  There is no evidence of maliciousness or other motivation for Ford to make the accussation, there is nothing to imply psychopathy which is almost universal in false accussations.  She made it quitely and only went public on it when forced to.

Without her false accusations none of the other stuff would ever have come into play at all.

Actually he had purjured himself in seperate testimony in his 2004 and 2006 hearings regarding stolen documents.

He seems to have further perjured himself during his recent hearings.

It's all fruit from the poisoned tree. Needless to say I didn't find his so called lies to be lies at all anyway. Just his version of the truth.

He pretty unequivocally committed perjury.  It isn't something subject to opinion.

Ford on the other hand seemed to be completely making all of it up.

There seems no basis for this belief - she seems to completely and sincerely belive her testimony.

Just my impression based on the evidence and lack of it. I suppose I could be wrong.

You almost certainly are.  Ford's testimony seems utterly sincere.  She could be confused, mistaken etc, all of the things that cause memory to be in error, but there is no rational basis to think she is lying.

But the point is if Ford can be believed, anyone can. We'll be hard pressed to find a woman making accusations with less evidence than Ford.

We actually have a lack of investigation, we don't know if there is a lack of evidence because the FBI was directed to avoid interviewing the two most important witnesses and further to avoid investigating.  If he was actually believed innocent by Republicans and that Ford were lying they would have insisted that Ford and Kavanaugh be interviewed. To me this is pretty indicative that Republicans believe that Kavanaugh perjured himself and believe that Ford is telling the truth.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 02:05:54 PM »
But what about all the people who insist that Kavanaugh isn't fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Maybe he should even be impeached.

Well I think he isn't fit and should be impeached.  Perjury should be an absolute disqualifier for any judge, let alone the Supreme Court.
That's where the believe all women comes into play. There is nothing more than Ford's word to go on and yet they are convinced he is guilty. Even now.

His frequent deception and lies to the committees suggest there was more there than Ford's word.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 12:31:14 PM »
Wait for an investigation?  What about believe all women?  Must be nice to be a member of the bien pensant, being more equal than others.

"Believe all women" - means that the police should believe and investigate; or you should believe a family member and not ask questions that imply it was her fault.  For Kavanaugh - it was requested that a vote be delayed until a proper investigation could be conducted.  So no double standard involved, merely your own lack of knowledge.

Also I've always held consistent opinions - that some people misremember/misinterpret events and people and our memories readily conflate things and can even adopt others memories or stories (or even recollections of fictional accounts) as our own.  Thus individuals are frequently not lying, but their beliefs are mistaken.  Also I've consistently held that a small subset of individuals are psychopaths who will make false accusations for their own reasons (revenge or advancement are common, though sometimes for entertainment).

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 02, 2018, 01:22:13 PM »
For those interested,

here is a description of the allegations at the patheos site,

Here is Tyson's response,

His responses and descriptions of events also seem perfectly reasonable and plausible and don't seem to be terribly different factually from the allegations but quite different in terms of perspective.

Hopefully an investigation will clarify the truth of the matter.

General Comments / Re: Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight...
« on: December 02, 2018, 12:56:41 PM »
This is true in the vast majority of robberies.  As long as the bad guy has no intention of shooting you, you can 'scare them off'.  In most robberies the gun is a means to increase the rate of compliance and to make the transaction go faster, it is not intended to be used.

General Comments / Re: What's the worst that could happen?
« on: November 26, 2018, 09:27:53 AM »
They are knocking out a receptor on white blood cells (many viruses enter the body via attaching to receptors, but most of the most widespread viruses enter through fairly critical receptors so this approach isn't generally worthwhile).   The main risk appears to be that this receptor plays a role in 'quieting' the immune system after an immune response finishes - so their immune systems could 'overreact' to other viral or bacterial infections.

The idea of editing CCR5 has been discussed by other scientists, so the idea isn't new, it is someone deciding that the risks are worth it.

I think CRISPR gene editing is inevitable so this doesn't really 'freak me out'.  Probably within a generation it will be common to do some sort of CRISPR editing of your offsprings genes to eliminate a disease or enhance health or intellect.  So yes 'GATTACA' is coming.

Personally rather than doing CCR5 knockout, I'd be interested in reactivating theta-defensins.  Somewhere in evolutionary history we (great apes) had a missense mutation that lost theta-defensins - an 'antimicrobial peptide' produced by the body by 'old-world primates' that protects against a variety microbes including retroviruses.  We have the gene present for it, but have a 'pre-mature stop codon' so it never becomes coded to protein.  Our body secrete defensins along the epithelial surfaces (skin, GI tract, urinary tract, eyes) as one of the first line defenses against microbial pathogens.  So restoring it might greatly reduce risk of HIV and other retroviral infections (as well as a variety of bacterial and fungal infections).

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 25, 2018, 11:37:49 AM »
The felony domestic violence charges - which was the reason for the arrest - have been dropped.  Referral to city attorney for determination of whether there should be misdemeanor domestic violence charges.

Someone in China watched an episode of Black Mirror and said "that's a great idea!",

Hangzhou rolled out its personal credit system earlier this year, rewarding “pro-social behaviors” such as volunteer work and blood donations while punishing those who violate traffic laws and charge under-the-table fees. By the end of May, people with bad credit in China have been blocked from booking more than 11 million flights and 4 million high-speed train trips, according to the National Development and Reform Commission.

According to the Beijing government’s plan, different agencies will link databases to get a more detailed picture of every resident’s interactions across a swathe of services. The proposal calls for agencies including tourism bodies, business regulators and transit authorities to work together

General Comments / Re: CNN needs a proof reader
« on: November 21, 2018, 02:34:51 PM »
Oh, I knew that. I just didn't know if you were taking about ornery publications or other wons. :)

Ah - well it is the same for me on Quora and on Arstechnica.  It is odd to me how often I seem to make errors.

General Comments / Re: CNN needs a proof reader
« on: November 21, 2018, 01:29:10 PM »
I totally agree that it is absurd that a professional news organization doesn't have good copy editing.  My comment and DW's were in fun, not seriously excusing their lack of copy editing.

Mine was also pointing out that Ornery writers copyediting probably isn't as good as you were suggesting.

General Comments / Re: CNN needs a proof reader
« on: November 21, 2018, 11:49:50 AM »
I usually have 3 post publication edits before I fix all the typos :)

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 20, 2018, 05:02:28 PM »

yep seems fairly credible to me, though it differs significantly from the initial report.  Does this lawfully qualify as domestic violence?  He probably should have called the cops to evict her rather than trying to do so himself.  But it doesn't sound like it could meet the definition of domestic violence in most jurisdictions.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 16, 2018, 12:05:23 PM »
I don't think the Police would have arrested him if there weren't a credible allegation.

I mean a publicly credible allegation.  We don't know who made the allegation, what the specific allegation is, etc.  We know that the initial reporting is that it was his estranged wife, but she has publicly denied it.  I'm not saying it definitely didn't happen, but at this point all we know is that an arrest was made and he is out on bail.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 16, 2018, 11:28:43 AM »
Avenatti is alleging it is a false allegation by those acting on behalf of Jacob Wohl - the individual who conspired to have false allegations made against Mueller.

So much for believing women. The irony of this is sublime.

There is no irony at all, since I've never help the position we should believe all women for any and all accusations - indeed my public (and personal) position has always been that about 2% of the population are psychopaths - and women psychopaths use false accusations as a tool (revenge, as way to gain leverage in a legal dispute, as a threat etc) - and thus we can expect a reasonable percentage of accusations to be false, and we should evaluate the individual merits of the accusation and what we know of the woman's character and the man's character.

If a credible accusation is made, we can then judge it on its merits.  At this time though - since we have strong evidence that republican operatives have sought to purchase false allegations against political opponents in the past, and there is no public allegation, it isn't unreasonable to wait for more information before drawing conclusions.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 15, 2018, 03:04:37 PM »
It wasn't clear to me why he got wall to wall coverage for representing Stormy Daniels either, other than it was a story the media wanted to sell.

A presidential candidate committing a federal election crime is fairly significant news.  A lawyer committing a crime on behalf of a presidential candidate is also fairly significant news.  Someone threatening violence against a woman's child to prevent her from going public about the behaviour of a presidential candidate is also significant news.  A President lying about breaking the law is also significant news.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 15, 2018, 02:28:10 PM »
It isn't clear to me why it should even make national news, let alone get significant coverage.  He is about as important as other celebrity gossip.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 15, 2018, 12:26:25 PM »
Avenatti is alleging it is a false allegation by those acting on behalf of Jacob Wohl - the individual who conspired to have false allegations made against Mueller.

Given that Mr Wohl has engaged in such behavior previously, it is plausible that that is the case.

Of course if Mr. Avenatti has engaged in such behavior then he should certainly be punished.

Pete, also it looks like the police are investigating the anarchy spray painting as a "possible hate crime",

I don't consider them 'freedom fighters' - I consider them clueless morons.

So intimidation and property damage are ok so long as no doctor gets killed?

Actually he was condemning them equally.  They shouldn't be allowed regardless of who does it, but it is consistent with past treatment of anti-abortion protestors.

Something vague like "we know where you sleep" isn't sufficient to rise to the level of threatining or intimidating under the law.

The property damage was a spray painted anarchy symbol.  I hope the police pursue it.  There is no evidence that they aren't, but determining who did it is non trivial unless the police are on the scene when it happens.  The police did question some people on it.  The claimed damage to the door appears to have been a false statement by Carlson.

Because IIRC an antiabortion murderer is the only recent US case to receive an expedited death penalty with next to no news coverage. Even the anti death penalty folks were deathly quiet up to that execution.

If these people start murdering people, and then are convicted you will have a point.  But it is currently irrelevant to the current conversation.

I’m glad to hear it claimed that the wrongs are parallel but imho no one should have their home threatened like that.

Well he didn't have his house threatened.  But I agree - but as I said this has long been done by abortion protestors so apparently it is legal.

[quote[Crowd members should have been detained for questions no. Protesting outside the house of a non public figure without a permit is imho suspect activity sufficient imo for arrest and questioning.[/quote]

Sorry, you can't make ad hoc law.

When terrorism occurs, everyone manifesting sympathy for the cause after the act , within sight of the terror strike, and potential to have physically committed the act, satisfies 4a for detention and questioning.

There was no terrorism.  There was petty vandalism along with a quite lame protest.

General Comments / Re: She’s Back! Stacey Abrams run-off
« on: November 12, 2018, 01:33:57 PM »

Kemp directed Malone to recommend that the Democrat polling locations be closed,

Mike Malone, a longtime Kemp associate, consulted with the Randolph County Board of Elections following a recommendation by the Secretary of State’s office earlier this year. A known Kemp donor, Malone says he was directed by Kemp to travel around the state to “recommend polling closures.”

In a statement, Brian Kemp claimed to oppose the Randolph County polling closures.

However, new audio evidence highly suggests that Kemp himself directed Malone to recommend the very same polling closures Kemp now claims to oppose. Both in the audiotape and during the presentation, Malone makes it clear that the polling closures come “highly recommended” by Kemp himself.

In his statement, Kemp made no mention of why he had recommended those closures therefore in the first place, if he was now opposing them. When asked about the contradiction, a spokesperson simply repeated the earlier statement and insisted that his position “is crystal clear.”

That sort of sinks Erickson's credibilty.

Here is a description of the protest at Tucker Carlson's from someone who was there.  Paints a drastically different picture that what Carlson has claimed.

There is no way that the 'door was cracked', the 'pipe bombs' wasn't a threat - they were protesting the pipe bombs that had been sent to Democrats, and the attack on Synagogues.  They were in fact protesting, and they did in fact have specific things they were protesting.

I still don't approve of the tactic of protesting at peoples homes, but the truth is a far cry from what has been suggested by Crunch.

General Comments / Re: She’s Back! Stacey Abrams run-off
« on: November 12, 2018, 11:05:34 AM »

thanks for posting that clarification - I'm aware of that but it seems like most people are not.

General Comments / Re: She’s Back! Stacey Abrams run-off
« on: November 11, 2018, 05:28:18 PM »
Hmm nothing in the news on this yet - you sure it isn't for other runoffs?

General Comments / Re: The Invasion
« on: November 09, 2018, 02:55:56 PM »
This seems like a reasonable law - Does Trump have the power to make laws in this way?

He doesn't have the power to do so.  Also our treaty obligations probably don't have such an exception.  It is something that is certainly worth considering (although how this would handle people who arrive by plane or boat seems problematic) and seeking an addendum to our treaties.

Executive orders can only relate to prioritization of enforcement, they can't contradict domestic law and treaty obligations (international law).

That doesn't make it okay to do it to someone else.

I wasn't saying it was okay - I was merely pointing out he is discovering something as objectionable, that apparently he hasn't noticed has been regularly occurring by conservatives for more than 30 years.  I also find his 'well it was done by liberals, so of course they weren't arrested' - rather annoying since conservatives engaging in this BS haven't been arrested for 1000's of such similar incidents, so his trying to spin it as if this were a liberal tactic and being excused because they were liberals is frankly absurd.

Abortion groups have a long history of similar harassment to doctors.

As part of that effort, it’s not uncommon for anti-choice activists to picket the homes of individual doctors who work at hospitals that still provide the service. In fact, home pickets are one of the explicit strategies detailed in Closed: 99 Ways To Stop Abortion, the unofficial handbook instructing activists on how to end legal abortion in the U.S.

Everything that you are upset about (protesting at their home; publicizing their home addresses; pounding on their doors; etc.) are so common from abortion protestors that they almost never even make the news anymore.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 05, 2018, 02:57:48 PM »
LR, why do you think that is "mistaken" the woman in question, lived in Kentucky, was decades older than Kavanaugh, was a left-wing activist, admitted it wasn't her and said she claimed it was because the issue needed more attention.

She didn't make any accussations herself, she just falsely identified herself as the author of a letter sent to the committee.  The article falsely states that she made accussations, instead she falsely took credit for someone elses accussations.

It was clearly a tactic to try and derail the confirmation, are you objecting to the idea that she "made it up"?

What she made up was her claim to be the author of a letter, sent by someone else.  The accussation which she was proclaiming authorship of, we have no idea what it's provenance is.  What the article was proclaiming was that she was the author of the accussations, and that she is admitting that the accussations are false.  What she is actually admitting is that she isn't the author of the accussations.  Those are dramatically different things.

She did indeed falsely claim authorship.  But that isn't what the article was accussing her of.

Honestly, you should denounce this woman.  There should be no room - at all - for lying in these processes.

Please reread what I wrote and what the paper wrote.  The paper appears to dramatically have misreported the issue.  I fully agree that there is no room for lying.  Her false claim of authorship is reprehensible.  It is also reprehensible to suggest that she did something she didn't.  A false claim of authorship is quite different from filing a false claim.  We have no idea if the letter that was sent to the committee was legitimate, all we know is that she isn't the author of it.

I have no idea what the charge could be.

Fair enough.

  It seems like everyone but Ford owes Kavanaugh an apology for this process.

I think she is a terrible person for falsely claiming authorship and she should have whatever charges are reasonable brought against her.  There doesn't seem anything to suggest that Kavanaugh is owed an apology except by this woman.

If it is shown that the actual allegations made against him were false, then those making the allegations absolutely own him an apology.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 04, 2018, 06:03:26 PM »
"One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court."

That seems mistaken.  There was a letter sent to the committee by someone else anonymously.  When the anonymous author failed to step forward, she claimed that she had was the 'Jane Doe' who sent the letter.  We have no idea if the letter itself was made up, only that it didn't originate with her.  I don't think that she provided a 'lurid tale of backseat car rape' (I can't find any source that suggests she did) - rather there was one in the letter sent to the committee; and she claimed credit for the letter - but didn't provide any other elaboration, etc.

Also she can't have committed obstruction of justice or obstruction of a criminal investigation as far as I can tell (unless there was/is an criminal investigation into Kavanaugh - it seems that the only investigation was civil).  Also AFAIK she didn't lie to the FBI.  She could perhaps be charged with contempt of congress.

Actually it appears it is upholding the right of countries to legislate to restrictions on religious related speech.

They similarly upheld laws that are contrary to Sharia law,

The ECHR has a history on ruling on sensitive issues related to Islam, often upholding measures that contradict Islamic practices. In 2014 and 20017, the court upheld French and Belgian bans of burqas and other Islamic garments that fully cover women’s faces. In 2017, it also endorsed a decision by Swiss authorities that Muslim schoolgirls had to take compulsory swimming classes.

and there have been stronger penalties for unflattering depiction of Jesus,

Austria is among several European countries that have so called blasphemy laws in their penal code. The Austrian caricaturist Gerhard Haderer was sentenced to six months in prison by a Greek court in 2005 for depicting Jesus as smoking marijuana and surfing over the Sea of Galilee.

So basically they are consistent in upholding countries ability to determine their own rules regarding issues surrounding religious speech and doesn't appear to have anything in particular favoring Sharia.

I've heard this too. But then just say so and not make the optics about the Halloween remarks. Especially if her termination has nothing really to do with that, they should be upfront and say so and be clear.

Because the contract almost certainly specifies 'for cause', otherwise they'd be on the hook for the full amount.  If they publicly provide a reason other than the 'for cause' reason, I suspect she would have a case for breach of contract on their part (pure speculation on my part, my depth of knowledge on contract law is pretty weak).

But since that incident is probably the legal maneuvering room they need to fire her, their intention becomes largely moot and the final result is that the public (at least those that don't look into the matter) will understand that she was fired for saying something un-PC. Don't you think? What are the odds that this won't be associated with other events like Roseanne's firing?

I agree that people will interpret it that way. 

Should there be required disclosure for paid protestors?  Or similar paid lobbying and influence campaigns?  (Paying people to contact and try and persuade senators, etc.)

While defining PC might be difficult, it doesn't seem hard to recognize that many people are going to object to an atmosphere where even a liberal person on a liberal channel can't speak her mind in an informal chat on a topic.

I''m curious on what basis you consider her a liberal?  I've never seen anything to suggest that is the case and mostly what I've seen suggests the opposite.  Anyone who asks a gay man if 'Will and Grace' turned him gay, is a fairly clear sign of not being liberal.  Indeed I'm unaware of a single public statement or question that would imply she has any liberal leanings.

Also she is probably being asked to depart because NBC isn't getting 70 million worth of value from her contract and this just offers sufficient justification to meet a clause in their contract for termination (It is a 3 year contract, and they are half way through it - but it is likely that much of the money is designated for upon completion - so they could save a ton by getting rid of her early).  If she were making them good money I seriously doubt they would be interested in ending the contract.

General Comments / Re: Cory Booker sexually assaults someone
« on: October 22, 2018, 01:44:17 PM »
So then you found Kavanaugh as credible as Ford?  I think the confirmation hearing, brought to light that many people confuse "credible" with "possible."

No.  His credibility was greatly damaged by his lying under oath.  This is especially damaging given that he is a judge.  Something that is damaging enough to risk a federal crime, likely involves covering up of other crimes.

How is that any different than the I know it when I see it standard I flagged above?

I can easily operationally define my standards, they could be carried out with a computer algorithm. Indeed we could bypass 'consistent behavior' with 'confirmed DNA testing'.  No subjectiveness is required.

We already know that anyone using the standard you laid out above is going to be pre-disposed to find people they agree with more credible and people they agree less with less credible.

Nope.  As I said a computer could be used.

Heck even the presumably well meaning people at Harvard consistently ranked Asian applicants as lower on "personality" which oddly just happened to coincide with their need to reject more Asian students proportionately.

It is quite common for Asian applicants to actually disproportionately have poorly developed personality.  If you have parents that desperately want you to get into a top college and force you to spend all of your time on test prep and studying from a young age, rather than allowing engagement in socializing, it is an unsurprising result.  Unfortunately people from nations that use entrance exams as the sole criteria for job and school placement tend to force their children to exclusively focus on getting good exam scores and ignore social development and being well rounded.

General Comments / Re: Cory Booker sexually assaults someone
« on: October 22, 2018, 11:39:18 AM »
Of course that's the most likely explanation.  It's almost certainly what it is.

That said, you don't seem to be putting out a very clear line.  It seems to be "I know credible when I see it" while denying the other side's "I know when something isn't credible when I see it."

For me, credibility is a continuum.  When someone comes forward publicly and testifies under oath, that is far more credible.  It also depends on the character and history of the person making the accusation and what they have to gain or lose by he accusation.  For instance I would almost never give credibility to the accusation made by someone who shows patterns consistent with being a psychopath without very strong supporting evidence.  It also depends on the character and behavior of the accused.

General Comments / Re: Cory Booker sexually assaults someone
« on: October 22, 2018, 10:16:43 AM »
It is a tweet from a brand new account.  Since troll accounts that make blatantly false accussations are pretty common on twitter - there is no reason to think it is credible.

Someone could create an account and accuse you of being a pedophile and a rapist - would you then consider that to be credible?  An anonymous twitter post is the opposite of 'credible' - it is the least credible possible source.

Indeed trolling campaigns by those on the far right are quite common.

We were just discussing the NPC trolling campaign.

"A group of users on Reddit’s largest pro-Trump forum — r/the_donald — then took the NPC meme campaign to a new level last week by creating dozens of bogus Twitter accounts, the Times reported. Although it started primarily as a joke, some of the accounts began posting inaccurate information about the upcoming election, encouraging Democrats to vote on Nov. 7, or a day after polls close."

So by far the most credible explanation is that it is another internet troll.

General Comments / Re: Cory Booker sexually assaults someone
« on: October 21, 2018, 06:31:14 PM »
Booker has previously admitted to sexually assaulting a girl  when he was a teen.

Actually the account he wrote about his behavior as a 15 year old in 1992 is not sexual assault, you really should learn what a word or phrase means before you use it, it can save a great deal of confusion.

Given that history, this is a credible accusation that must be believed and Booker should resign. It is detailed and recent, establishing a serial attacker.

There is nothing to suggest this is a credible accusation.  Again, you seem to lack an understanding of what the word credible means.  I suggest you get a english tutor to help you - it seems like you often misuse words in ways that suggest you have a poor grasp of the english language.

General Comments / Re: Elizabeth Warren and being native American
« on: October 19, 2018, 11:51:06 AM »
She never claimed to be Cherokee, she claimed to have Cherokee ancestry.  I claim to (likely) have blackfoot ancestry, but I don't claim I'm a blackfoot indian.

Tribes have generally decided that they don't want membership defined by ancestry (since it would drastically increase the number of 'members' and it would be largely people without cultural ties to the tribe) and instead have defined membership by shared culture and geography.

I have no problem thinking that Warren is crazy for classifying herself as Native American on an application or directory.

She never did so.  She answered a survey question that asked if any faculty had any native american ancestry.

General Comments / Re: endian ideas
« on: October 17, 2018, 03:41:36 PM »
Back in to parking or back out? This one surprised me. I am a strong supporter of back out. I get aggravated waiting for someone to back in, but not at all for someone to back out.

In some parts of the the oil and gas industry we are required to back in, so that emergency situations evacuations can occur faster and with less risk of accident.

General Comments / Re: Elizabeth Warren and being native American
« on: October 17, 2018, 11:07:29 AM »
Even with a full blooded native american grandparent you could end up with 0% native american DNA.  People only get a certain percentage from each generation of relatives on average, but it can be anywhere from 0% to 100%.  So her .1% only cofirms that she has been passed on enough DNA to confirm she has a native american ancestor, it doesn't tell us how many generations ago.


actually the true allegations doesn't work as well, since true allegations are almost always against serial rapists (I vaguely recall they average something like 10 rapes), whereas false allegations aren't likely to cluster.

Someone on facebook had posted a meme claiming that a man had a ".00321%" chance of being falsely accused of rape.

So I figured I'd do some back of the envelope estimates.

Lower bound estimate is 2% of rape reports are false allegations, most credible studies are in the 10-20% range, and there are 100,000 criminal allegations per year. 10- 20% * 100,000 = 10,000 to 20,000 false allegations per year - and if you use lifetime risk (say age 16-66 a 50 year span) 50 years * (10-20,000) = 500,000 to 1,000,000 men falsely accused in their lifetime.  And US adult male population in that age range is about 100 million, that is about a .5-1% lifetime risk of a false allegation.

That is only criminal allegations - false accusations are far more likely in the unreported allegations.

General Comments / Re: Elon Musk's Problems
« on: October 06, 2018, 01:19:30 PM »
He's trying to position himself to where he can call a random person a pedophile for no good reason and it be forgiven as banter.

This is what he emailed to a journalist,

"I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what's actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you f**king a**hole. He’s an old, single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years, mostly Pattaya Beach, until moving to Chiang Rai for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time," Musk wrote. "There's only one reason people go to Pattaya Beach. It isn't where you'd go for caves, but it is where you'd go for something else. Chiang Rai is renowned for child sex trafficking."

I think he was entirely serious in his belief that the man is a pedophile, and may be trying to goad him into coming onto US soil.

Buzzfeed suggests that they have done investigative journalism refuting Musk's claims.  So who knows what the truth is.  Perhaps Musk got bad information, perhaps he confused the man with information he had on someone else, or alternatively perhaps Buzzfeeds investigator got things wrong.  Regardless - it doesn't appear to be an insincere belief.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12