Jump to content

'stache

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12422
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by 'stache

  1. OKC fans have always closely resembled a college crowd. I don't know if they do it anymore, but they used to greet the team at the airport after road wins. I big part of it is that they moved in right around the time OSU basketball went to complete dogshit, so a lot of those rowdies I think are part of that crowd. They might have rubbed off on OU fans who have always treated Lloyd Noble like a mausoleum. 

  2. 35 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

    Can someone remind me, did she just willingly violate the NDA or did this become public some other way?

    How is it that she’s now talking freely about something that she, ostensibly, willingly signed and took consideration for agreeing to not talk about.

    I’m sure this has all been covered before but I just can’t remember how it all squares.

    I've always wondered what the remedy would be for violation of an NDA related to hush money. If a politician pays a women $1,000,000 to sign an NDA and not disclose her allegations of rape against said politician, she takes the money, and goes ahead and speaks about it publicly, does the politician then sue to recover the $1,000,000 plus additional damages? Does that go to a jury?

    "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the bitch took money and signed a contract to not disclose publicly that my client raped her, and she should be punished for said disclosure." Would a jury really punish a rape victim? I guess the defense would be that it wasn't really rape but to keep her from even making an accusation, but a trial on the matter is just as damaging if not more than what the NDA was meant to prevent. It also feels like an illegal contract. I'm happy I don't practice in this area. 

  3. Just browsed through some of that above, and it looks to me that Judge Merchan's primary objection is on the issue of consent, which makes sense, because the claim isn't about rape necessarily, and it could be prejudicial (set aside what we know of trump the person, in the context of trial, it makes sense). I also saw that the Judge "admonished" defense counsel for not objecting more, and their response was that they tried to exclude a bunch of the testimony pre-trial, but the judge let it in. That's about the most competent thing I've seen from his lawyer. I've been in that position as well. Judge gives you very ill defined limitations, but if you cross the line that is known only in the judge's mind, the judge gets mad and turns out you. I've experienced it mostly when it comes to expert witnesses in civil trials, very difficult to navigate. The rest looks like attacking her credibility and motives (money), all seems in bounds, but in line with having a pretty weak case on the facts. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    Compete bs if she's ultimately given a break about blatantly lying about meeting with world leaders especially such a unique meeting with Kim Jong Un. I could even forgive a book passage written by a ghost writer and she's too lazy to read her book. That's weak but at least honest. But presumably she spoke the words in the audio book. Either she thinks so little of the public that she openly spoke a lie and/or she read the words without having the ability to comprehend what she was saying. 

    She's a magat, lies are their brand, they all think little of the people they appeal to, because they know they are stupid trolls who eat it all up.

    • Drool 1
  5. Dotard loves Kim Jong, he saluted him, and said he admires his iron fist over his people. That's probably why she's backing off. She's a magat, the base loves liars, if anything the fact she's being called out on it makes them like her even more.

  6. 56 minutes ago, The Dog said:

     

    For those constantly arguing lack of repercussions, remember that the late notice of who is testifying on any given day is a direct repercussion for his inability to shut the fuck up about witnesses, and it makes it quite a bit more difficult for his attorneys. Don is actually correct that it’s pretty unprecedented sanction, because it is pretty unprecedented for a criminal defendant with broad reach to constantly bitch and moan and threaten witnesses. I think this was somewhat common in mob trials and not much since. It’s a significant sanction based on his inability to act like a normal human being.

    • Hook 'Em 7
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  7. Before we had kids my wife made us get this guy. Biggest mistake of our lives. Yeah he's cute, but he chewed up half our furniture, barked like hell when we tried to make him spend more time in the back yard, started clawing under the fence, and found a way to climb the fuck over it, and we live in a very heavily trafficked part of town. I still hate that dumb son of a bitch. We tried a trainer and they hated him more than I did. My wife found him a home with a work friend's cousin on a ranch where he apparently spent his time chasing rabbits and harassing the neighbors cattle through the fence. We live in the city and he was just not meant to live in the city. It's not that fucking hard to find a home for these beasts whatever their personalities. 

    Becks 002.jpg

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  8. 54 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

    The judge never explicitly warned Trump he would be jailed if he did it again until the hearing on the nine contempt charges. The judge then spent time saying what was appropriate and what was not, so there would be no mistake about what he expected.   This is all a precursor to the inevitable jail time, but was absolutely necessary to remove multiple avenues of appeal.  

    I’ve already explained that there were contempt allegations brought before the judge told Trump what he could and could not do - and that he would be jailed if he did it again.  Today’s contempt allegations could not be considered in jailing him because they were all turned in before Trump was warned by the judge and told in detail what would not be allowed. 

    Your post where the judge tells Trump three times do it again and you are  going to jail - and then doesn’t - is bullshit.  Just don’t make up stuff about the trial.  Others read this thread for actual news. 

    I will bet a C-Note right now that Trump gets jailed before this thing is over. Feel free to accept. Loser donates to Surly. 

    I don't think he'll get jailed. He consistently dances just around the outskirts violating the gag order, but not specifically issuing threats. I think he only gets jailed if he expressly calls for violence i.e. "The only way to end this sham trial is for a true patriot to take out Cohen/Judge Merchan/Juror No. __." I think that would get him jailed, but not much short of that. 

  9. I looked up an article about the true Pop-Tart story and had no idea that the Kelloggs employee that Jerry's character is modeled after is a guy named William Post, who worked for Kellogg, but was not related to the Post family of the Post company. Such a bizarre coincidence. The movie writers originally planned to use his real name for the character but thought it would be confusing. They wrote a joke about the name deal but determined the payoff wasn't nearly worth the hassel of the confusion, and I completely agree. I don't consider this a spoiler since the article was written months ago when William Post passed away.

  10. 6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    Judge to defendant- I can’t really put you in jail for these repeated contempt acts because of who you are, so don’t you worry about that.  

    You don't think there's a little bit of truth to that? This is truly unprecedented. The logistics of putting a former president in jail, even long term, much less temporarily, is astronomically difficult. He knows it to some extent which is part of why he keeps pushing it, and the judge knows that, and is in a horribly difficult position. I don't blame the legal system dealing with this nonsense as much as I do the 80 million voters who thought it was a good idea to make a man in his 70s with the emotional intelligence of a toddler president of the fucking United States. All this could have been avoided if these assholes among us had done the right thing and chosen a regular right wing idiot to run for president. It probably would have been way better for don himself who could have continued doing cheesy tv shows and go down as something other than one of the most reviled people in U.S. history.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  11. 10 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    I liked it better than I thought I would. 

      Reveal hidden contents

    Funeral scene was the best part. The widow's line, "You people make cereal! Why did my husband explode??" had me rolling.

     

    For me

    Spoiler

    The ending re Jan. 6, and the reveal about Mar-a-Lago being named for Marjorie Post was great (I had to look it up to confirm that their statement that it was true, was true, which it is).

    The parts I thought could have been cut back was the romantic tension between Gaffigan and Schumer and the living Ravioli thing.

    The kid actors, the girl in particular, cracked me up. 

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. I hate having to rank thinks that are hard to distinguish, so tiers.

    Community/Parks n Rec/30 Rock (All terrific all time greats)

    Modern Family (never took a deep dive into this one but the ones I’ve seen were pretty good)

    HIMYM (really enjoyed the first few seasons then it went downhill and at this point I feel kinda guilty for liking it at the time because it’s pretty lame on rewatch)

    Big Bang Theory is pure trash, only saw a few episodes and they were awful.

    That said, Aways Sunny dominates them all, and Arrested Development is in the top tier above. I’m a Seinfeld fan but it’s hard to rank because on rewatch I still like it but it has a lot of flaws. The best of that show however is top tier.

     

×
×
  • Create New...