The Goat Pen

hedge wrote:Two balls? Jesus christ...

Heh

Professor Tiger wrote:Jared Kushner colluded with the Russians, on behalf of his father in law, to whack some Saudi guy! This is it!

Add this to the long list of impeachable offenses being compiled by Maxine Waters, ready if/when the Dem’s take back the House. Manafort and the Coffee Boy will surely spill the beans on this conspiracy, as well as Trump’s role in the JFK assasination, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, and blowing up of the USS Maine.

Take a break from that overplayed schtick for a moment, Saudi Arabia murdered that WaPo journalist as plain as day. Totally busted. They are an ally. That presents a problem for our mutual relationship moving forward. You get that, right?

Are you saying that theories of Trump colluding with the Russians to rig the last elections, and millennial hopes that Manafort and Flynn and the Coffee Boy and Stormy Daniels will flip and bring Trump down, are stale and unworthy of mentioning here (after all, we at PNN are held to a higher standard)?

If you admit that, then I won’t say another word about it. At least until the day Mueller releases his final report. Then I will ROFLMAO for awhile. But then I will let it all go.

As far as the Saudis whacking one of their own, that shouldn’t be too surprising. Those people are still living in the 7th century. Look at the way they treat their women. Medieval theocratic barbarism is what they do. Killing a reporter for writing something that offended the Royal Family is exactly what you would expect them to do.

South Park moment of the day...

After roughly 2 years of wrangling over who is and isn't a "Russian Bot" and them suspending or outright banning anybody on whom those kind of suspicions fell, Twitter has now decided to take a stand against "Dehumanizing Language" and is essentially banning references to a political satire meme which portrays liberals as NPCs. This will be interesting, this is Twitter stepping out and saying that "we don't like this political speech and so we think we can ban it." They are gonna become the judge and jury of what memes are acceptable and what crosses their imaginary lines? And their first foray is overtly political? Fascinating.

The assault on the first amendment and free speech has now metastasized from college campuses to Silicon Valley.

Twitter is a private company, so they can do what they want. But this might open up a new market for a competitor to Twitter that doesn't ban free speech. Maybe call it "Free Speech Tweeter."

Professor Tiger wrote:The assault on the first amendment and free speech has now metastasized from college campuses to Silicon Valley.

Twitter is a private company, so they can do what they want. But this might open up a new market for a competitor to Twitter that doesn't ban free speech. Maybe call it "Free Speech Tweeter."

I know you are a man of limited intelligence, but the first amendment / freedom of speech concerns government limitations on speech, expressions, assembly, religion, etc. That is a limitation upon the government.

Also, I know that you can't help that certain limitations have been placed upon you due to genetic shortcomings, which means you probably think that Kavanaugh was entitled to "due process"* during the confirmation process. However, you are wrong.

Due process concerns one's ability to utilize the justice system -- and rights pertinent thereto -- is not infringed upon by the government. Due process is not about the ability to be "heard" in a legislative hearing.

Wow, a lawyer who doesn’t think that the principle of “presumed innocent until proven guilty” should have applied to Kavanaugh hearings, because you don’t think the nomination to the Supreme COURT, conducted by the Senate JUSTICE committee, has anything to do with the Justice system?

I wish you the best in your career practicing law in Fayetteville NC, where your big cases are getting drunk soldiers, pimps and hookers out of jail.

Professor Tiger wrote:Wow, a lawyer who doesn’t think that the principle of “presumed innocent until proven guilty” should have applied to Kavanaugh hearings, because you don’t think the nomination to the Supreme COURT, conducted by the Senate JUSTICE committee, has anything to do with the Justice system?

No. This was a non-judicial hearing conducted by a legislative body carrying out a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent. Neither facts nor guilt were being determined by a judicial body, and beyond that, nothing from the hearing could be used as collateral estoppel or res judicata establishing the same.

Stick to wearing and opining about robes and funny hats.

Professor Tiger wrote:I wish you the best in your career practicing law in Fayetteville NC, where your big cases are getting drunk soldiers, pimps and hookers out of jail.

These groups -- and other persons. groups or entities with matters in the judicial system -- are the ones who have the right to due process protected by the Constitutions of this state and the federal government.

Request denied. Opine I will about the law. I seem to remember, not long ago, when you didn’t come to work on a Monday after a Friday hernia surgery, and your boss scolded you because another associate also had minor surgery on Friday, and HE showed up for work on Monday. The partner was basically accusing you of malingering.

That wasn’t even a judicial hearing (like the Kavanaugh hearings obviously were), but at that moment the principles of due process and “innocent until proven guilty” were EXTREMELY important to you. And if the other “good” associate had told your boss, “I saw DS playing golf on Monday,” and your boss fired you without giving you a chance to defend yourself, I don’t think you would have said, “That’s fine. This wasn’t a judicial hearing, so I really didn’t deserve due process and presumption of innocence. I will now leave quietly, maintaining my judicial temperament and all.”

Professor Tiger wrote:Request denied. Opine I will about the law. I seem to remember, not long ago, when you didn’t come to work on a Monday after a Friday hernia surgery, and your boss scolded you because another associate also had minor surgery on Friday, and HE showed up for work on Monday. The partner was basically accusing you of malingering.

That wasn’t even a judicial hearing (like the Kavanaugh hearings obviously were), but at that moment the principles of due process and “innocent until proven guilty” were EXTREMELY important to you. And if the other “good” associate had told your boss, “I saw DS playing golf on Monday,” and your boss fired you without giving you a chance to defend yourself, I don’t think you would have said, “That’s fine. This wasn’t a judicial hearing, so I really didn’t deserve due process and presumption of innocence. I will now leave quietly, maintaining my judicial temperament and all.”

North Carolina is an at-will employment state.

If there was no violation of applicable law, I would be shit out of luck.

So you’re saying if your boss had summarily fired you based on lies told by the other associate, and you never had the opportunity to defend yourself, you would have been fine with that, just because it was “not a legal proceeding” (like the Kavanaugh hearing was)?

Oh I think you would have jumped all over due process and innocent until proven guilty stuff, They would have had to drag you out of there, kicking, screaming, cursing and threatening the whole way. You would have definitely lost your “judicial temperament, forever making you unfit to be a judge. After all, you lawyers are “held to a higher standard.”

Professor Tiger wrote:So you’re saying if your boss had summarily fired you based on lies told by the other associate, and you never had the opportunity to defend yourself, you would have been fine with that, just because it was “not a legal proceeding” (like the Kavanaugh hearing was)?

Oh I think you would have jumped all over due process and innocent until proven guilty stuff, They would have had to drag you out of there, kicking, screaming, cursing and threatening the whole way. You would have definitely lost your “judicial temperament, forever making you unfit to be a judge. After all, you lawyers are “held to a higher standard.”

Would I be upset by the facts? Yes. Would I be upset about non-existent rights being violated? No.

I know you struggle with the concept of living by the rule of actual law, but it is what it is.

Run along, burn some incense, wear a funny robe, put on your hat and do whatever else you do while living off of the government tit.

"They would have had to drag you out of there, kicking, screaming, cursing and threatening the whole way."

It would take a 12 oxen team to drag DS out of anywhere...

Whoever has been advising Elizabeth Warren in the past few weeks needs to be fired.

Indeed. But Warren was dumb enough to take the extremely bad advice to tell the world, "Look! My DNA test says I might be as much 1.5% Native American! I told you I was an Indian, but some of you didn't believe me! Don't you doubters feel silly now!"

Maybe Corey Booker will say,"My DNA test says I am 72% Spartacus!"

hedge wrote:"They would have had to drag you out of there, kicking, screaming, cursing and threatening the whole way."

It would take a 12 oxen team to drag DS out of anywhere...

A six oxen team would suffice...

eCat wrote:Whoever has been advising Elizabeth Warren in the past few weeks needs to be fired.

The person or persons running her show are as incompetent as UNC's football staff, and just like Warren, it looks like Fedora will be back next year...ugh...

I believe that if the Democrats run a traditional candidate against Trump, they'll lose.

I anticipate the Democrats getting gains the mid term - that is to be expected and would no indication of the countries appetite for change in the white house.

Who knows what the economy will be doing in 2 years, however if the country is stable and they run an established candidate they are going to lose.

Out of desperation they may run Corey Booker to guarantee the AA vote but it would be a race war as a result, and if Trump were to get re-elected, the streets in urban areas would burn.

If they go that route, I would much prefer Kamala Harris over Booker...

If Trump gets re-elected, the Democrats will riot and burn no matter who their candidate was.

Last I checked, the Democrat with the strongest polls against Trump is Biden. You can’t get much more established than him. He’s a full-fledged member of their ruling Politburo.