Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Nothing wrong with his leg, he's just b-boy limpin'. (RIP, MCA)
  3. We will see how far gone we are if they publicly execute him without a trial.
  4. I have turned away political aspirations a dozen times even told two higher level staffer / strategists no in one on one meetings. It wasn’t an all out pitch but more of a”you should think about it” and “well if you ever do decide, I can help” type conversations st a happy hour. I’ve thought about moving to settle in a district and then run, fuck to the fuck no. No way no how, I too don’t want to get murdered. And that fear is real right now among democrats.
  5. He will. The man who believes the civil rights act was a mistake is receiving our nations highest honors. This is their Reichstag moment.
  6. Kinda looks like someone I know.
  7. This. I’m a lawyer, and a litigator at that. We have in our statutes and case law things called “rebuttable presumptions” meaning things that are generally true in most cases, so the law presumes that is the case. An example that springs to mind and might be easy to grasp is the speed limit - if you drive at or under the speed limit there’s a rebuttable presumption you were driving safely. But if the conditions mean it would be dangerous to drive the speed limit you can be cited for unsafe driving and the police can testify about what facts led them to determine driving the speed limit was unsafe. However, it’s rebuttable - so if you show how the facts of your specific case don’t align with the presumption, it not only can be rebutted (like the speed limit), it literally no longer has any legal weight. You can just argue “but I was going under the speed limit,” you’d have to prove that your speed in those conditions didn’t create an unsafe situation. The judge or jury has to look at the facts and make an informed decision given those facts, and can’t give any weight to the speed limit on the road. I’m eating breakfast on my way to the courthouse this morning to go and do something similar - prove that my client’s bank accounts were inherited, and therefore rebutting the presumption that the funds in those accounts are community property. I have very little doubt the judge will look at the facts and stick with the presumption that all property owned by either spouse is community property, because the facts are so clear and the judge understands the application of the law on this point. Once I show the statements with “estate transfer” in them he will realize the community presumption doesn’t apply and look at the facts. If he messes up, I’ll appeal and I’m confident the court of appeals will get it right. Because that’s the way the legal system is supposed to work. However in too much public discourse, there’s no such thing as a rebuttable presumption. A person makes a determination based on a belief (flawed or not), and that’s it. It’s either black or white, true or false, wrong or right. It doesn’t matter if you show them facts that their determination was wrong, or perhaps there is an exception to it. They get locked in and refuse to engage. And while that’s fine for some things that don’t impact society as a whole (OU sucks, no facts will change my mind about that), it’s horrible for many others that extend beyond your own personal sphere of influence (I’m scared of needles, so all vaccines must be terrible). In other words, too many people aren’t willing to be persuaded that their position isn’t supported by the facts. My dad used to tell me “your rights end where mine begin” when I was being a little shit to him about one thing or another and claimed it was my right as an American to say what I want or what have you; and while it’s pretty simplistic, it’s also not too far off from the golden rule (which I also happen to think is a pretty good one). But that sounds a lot like empathy, which is also in pretty short supply these days
  8. To pile on my general shitty attitude this morning. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Kirk's body is going to lay in state at the Capitol Rotunda. Just another data point that it's over. The right won.
  9. @troph and I amongst others here have had this talk in the Democratic Party thread. Basically there are too many focus groups on the left to properly push narratives and a lot of times they can’t or won’t because it could cause one of the focus groups to become angry. But I maintain that to correct this country the Democratic Party needs to sets aside the focus groups to really fight for this country and our democracy. I am not saying they need to stop protecting them or whatever because I know that will be the counter. But if the democrats lose gen z and younger millennials that is bad news for the party. They need to be setting up and aligning the left wing media machine to move into this era of politics because if you can’t compete you can’t protect those groups you have have said you’d protect
  10. According to the ag forum, the accused (based on who they think was apprehended) is a card carrying member of the Communist Party.
  11. A few months ago I told a young professor friend of mine that he should start a podcast and become the left’s version of Charlie Kirk (minus the racism, homophobia, etc.) to fire up the base of young men on the left. He looked me right in the eye and said, “fuck no, I don’t want to get murdered. I’m already on the TPUSA professor watchlist.”
  12. That definitely sounds like a fucking groyper.
  13. Should have never talked about the cocaine and hookers parties.
  14. We’re going to get negative growth and inflation and we’re going to like it. My prediction is by 2028 we’re going to see double digit interest rates to control inflation, but maybe it is a little later. Inflation heading to 15 percent or so in two years.
  15. Hiedi Fleiss says hello.
  1. Load more activity


×
×
  • Create New...