Jump to content

Lagunamadre

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1838
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lagunamadre

  1. 13 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    Imagine what would happen if all of the people who rally around the second amendment reacted similarly to threats to the amendment that comes right before it.

    The first amendment doesn't compensate for small penises though. 

  2. 1 minute ago, Chooky said:

    We're banning media outlets from summits about contaminated water.  The fucking EPA is barring media coverage for discussions on allowing an acceptable ceiling on chemical levels that have contaminated drinking water across the country.  Welcome to Zimbabwe.

    Ya, but only the pussy media people who believe in clean water and pussy shit like that. The fox guys were there, in the back, chugging oil. 

  3. 4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    This always becomes a natural extension of the free will discussion, along with quantum reality.  I'm not sure I believe it the way you want, but I can argue a number of viewpoints. 

    I've always thought theology and philosophy deserve their own board.

    Of course, free will is the opposite of predestination, you can't talk about one without the other. And I certainly agree that a deeper dive into the topic probably does not belong on a politics board. I would fully support a philosophy forum being created. 

    Although, if God has not predestined the eventually existence of the forum, we might be shit out of luck. 

  4. 27 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

    No, just reacting to the brain dead partisanship  others continue to post. Yeah, we know what Trump is - I said so when he announced he was running. IDGAF if he gets impeached & convicted, he's a deserving candidate for a prison cell - along with most of his crowd.

    What amazes me are those who think his political opponents are the answer to our country's ills. They are not, just as DJT never has been. They are as bad as he is but the blinders they hand out are working as planned for the cattle who support them (Both parties).

    I gave up on the republicans at the turn of the millennium. Why haven't you people done the same with your own corrupt slimeballs?

    So anarchy then? 

  5. 1 hour ago, yoladu said:

    Can anyone care to explain to me why it is so drastically higher in the United States?

    The rest of the world is obviously better at thoughts and prayers than we are?

  6. 43 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

    I think that is an important question. Why does the US have such a high refequency of mass shootings?

    I would add that another important, and actually IMO more important, question is why does the US have such a drastically higher rate of overall firearm-related violence when compared to other first world countries?

    The reason I think this question is more important is because it reflects a much larger amount of harm/death, e.g., mass shootings are not that common when compared to other instances of gun violence.

    The easy answer is the US has by far more guns than any other country, total volume and per capita. Literally more guns than people. Only country on earth that can come close to that claim. 

    If we had more hang grenades than people and they were extremely easy to buy, we would lead the world in hand grenade deaths. 

  7. 16 hours ago, XYZ said:

    BrickHorn:

    Please start a new thread and explain why you think there is no free will.

    Does anybody on here believe in predestination? I would love to have  civil debate on that, if so. 

  8. 1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

    So,  how is the Coup d'état going?

    I haven't watched much in the way of news for several months, just too much to process. looked at CNN a bit the other day, and they have Trump all but impeached and in prison for being a tool of the rooskies.  Then FauxNews has Mueller & his team guilty of  crushing the Constitution and being an arm of the DNC/Clinton camp.

    Wish they'd get on with it and get him out before football season starts. One entertainment at a time is about all I can handle these days.

    I have CNN on in my office nearly every day. The general consensus  is that he will likely not face impeachment and that he certainly will not be indicated, due to him being a sitting president and legal precedent. They DO on the other hand point out shady shit Trump and his cronies are up to and correct lies that he espouses, you know, cause that's kind of their job. 

    This is one thing in this current climate that pisses me off. When people come in painting a broad brush of bullshit to discredit their perceived opponent. i.e. "responsible gun control = they want to take away your guns" and "responsible border control = your racist". 

    Stop it with the hyperbole Armybrat, your better than that, I hope. 

    • Like 1
  9. 19 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

     

     

     

     

    You guys are amazing.  You are all actually so stupid or lazy that you do not even know what you are talking about.  I am guessing that none of you actually read any of Nataliya's testimony.  I know reading is hard and understanding it is harder but you guys should give it a try.  

    Here is the relevant passage from the NYT article:

    "But newly released emails show that in at least one instance two years earlier, the lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, worked hand in glove with Russia’s chief legal office to thwart a Justice Department civil fraud case against a well-connected Russian firm."

    For you uninformed (which is most of you) N was the lead attorney for a company called Prezevon that was sued by the US attorney's office for money laundering.  The US attorneys office requested information on Prezevon from their counter part in Russia (its a log name but we will call it the GPO).  When the GPO was asked by the US to provide information on Prezevon, the GPO contacted N to coordinate their response as she was the lead attorney for Prezevon.  Her only contact was as her capacity as the lawyer for Prezevon and all of the dealings with the GPO were in the Prezevon case.  This is absolutely common.  If IBM is being sued in Russia and Russia asks the Federal govt to give them info on IBM the first thing the Feds will do is call the US lawyers representing IBM in the case.

    So, now you morons (who clearly have not read the testimony) say this is evidence N lied in her testimony.  Not only is it not a lie, she admitted it and talked about it in her testimony.  

    First, she admits in her opening statement that she worked for the GPO early in her career:

    "My name is Natalia Vladimirovna Veselnitskaya. I am a citizen of the Russian Federation. I am a lawyer and a managing partner at Kamerton Consulting, a law firm, and I am licensed to work as an attorney-at-law in the Russian Federation. I operate independently of any governmental bodies. In 1998, I graduated with honors from the Moscow State Legal Academy. Upon graduation, I started working at the Central Administration of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Moscow Region where I ended up being promoted to the position of the head of the department for control over legality of the legislation adopted by the legislative bodies of the Moscow Region (the Governor, Government and the Duma). I have been practicing as a private attorney since the spring of 2001. In 2003, I established a private law firm, Kamerton Consulting. I specialize in representing clients that are parties to civil (arbitration) and criminal cases primarily associated with economic disputes or violations."

    Second, she fully admits she worked with the GPO in her formal capacity as a lawyer (Chaika is he head of the GPO):

    "22. What is your relationship with Chaika, his office, and/or his representatives?

    I have no relationship with Mr. Chaika, his representatives, and institutions, other than those related to my professional functions of a lawyer. As a lawyer of Denis Katsyv, since 2013 I have sent several appeals to the Russian Federation General Prosecutor's Office requesting documents within my legal powers, and also filed applications to verify the information about Mr. Browder’s activities in Russia that resulted in the wrongful seizure of my client's assets in the USA and Switzerland, received answers, analyzed them and addressed them anew, should I be refused answers or provision of documents – I appealed to the court. I was also invited several times to explain the contents of my applications for documents that I collected in the framework of my legal procedure. Similar work was done by me as a lawyer in the Investigative Department of the RF Ministry of Internal Affairs. Several times I was formally received by the Prosecutor General of Russia. I have interacted with the RF Prosecutor General several times in the capacity of a lawyer. For example, this summer, I was granted an audience with the RF Prosecutor General, Yu. Ya. Chaika, to deliver an official statement in connection with my defending an American citizen and a member of the US Jewish community who had been arrested in Moscow in the spring of this year for importing forbidden items. The young man was facing up to four years in prison. I accepted him as a client on his family’s request when I was still in New York. And despite the fact that the US Embassy refused to participate in the fate of the American citizen (I spoke with the US Consul in Moscow several times asking the embassy to submit a petition to the RF Prosecutor General’s Office which the embassy never bothered to do), thanks to the well-coordinated cooperation with US lawyers and experts, members of the Moscow and CHARLES E. GRASSLEY November 20, 2017 Page 23 of 52 US Jewish communities, once Mr. Chaika had heard out the arguments of the defense and instructed that they be verified, the case was closed; my client was ordered to pay a small court penalty and allowed to return home to his family. I have no right to identify the client but the case is well known to the US Embassy in Moscow."

    So gee maybe once again you sheep were fooled by the media and NYT.  N never lied at all in her testimony and she actually admitted under oath the exact thing that you dorks said she lied about.

    I have no idea how you will spin this one, but it would be nice if just once one of you had the balls to admit that you were either wrong or at least admit that you were relying on a news story that was wrong.

    So how do you square that testimony with this part of an interview from Natalia that came out after the testimony. "“I am a lawyer, and I am an informant,” she said. “Since 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor general.”

    In her own words, so you don't claim fake news: 

     

  10. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    What's the charge?

    There COULD be some laws imposing criminal liability on gun owners who allow their guns to fall into dangerous hands, but there's really not much in the way of such laws now.

    Think the NRA would let us pass any such laws?

    Yeah, me neither.

    Thoughts.  Prayers.  Full stop, that's all that's allowed.

    All these prayers seem to be falling on deaf ears. 

  11. 14 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

    Put his fucking dad in jail for allowing this kid to get his guns. Make an example out of him 

    I would like to see that law put in place. Make people liable if their guns are used in a crime. That would incentivize people to lock up their guns. 

    • Like 1
  12. 14 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

    I’ve pointed that out to him several times.  He just never replies. I imagine he will wait a few pages to reply and skip over it again.  And if someone asks, he will won’t another link.  

    It's possible he's walking around with an undiagnosed case of selective amnesia. Seems to be a common ailment within Trump's base. 

    • Haha 1
  13. 6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    In fairness he probably read the Russian lawyers testimony months ago so he had his talking points ready to go. The rest was just a bunch of bullshit. 

    You mean the Senate testimony where she claimed she didn't have a relationship with the Russian government? Until emails between her and Russian government officials came out and she had to admit she lied in her Senate testimony? 

    Sheeit must have missed that in his extensive research. 

  14. 13 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

    how about a link?  especially that she is a lobbyist for the KGB.  it will be a neat trick since the kgb dissolved in 1991.  and i did not know that intelligence agencies had lobbyists.   

    She works with Rinat Akhmetshin. Feel free to read up on his past. And the KGB didn't dissolve, they just changed their name to the Federal Security Service. 

  15. 18 hours ago, sheeeit said:

    I am not aware that Nataliya, Ike or the interpreter have ever been proven to be liars but I could be wrong.  I don't think Goldstone was a proven liar unless you count the fact that he embellished the reason for the meeting to Jr in order to actually get a meeting.  A meeting that his one and only client at the time asked for him to set up personally, so he needed to come through.

    Of course I do not think they would sit down and admit to illegal activity.  My guess would be they would simply refuse to testify.  I do not think the US senate can compel foreigners to testify in hearings.   Maybe they can.  I dont know.

    But, again, it doesnt matter what anyone thinks it only matters what someone can prove.  Trying to get people to stick to a lie is really hard if everyone is in cahoots in the deal.  But certainly Ike and Goldstone and the interpreter had nothing to do with any of this.  many of them met each other for the first time that day.  I do not believe that someone would be able to get all of them to blatantly lie under oath and I do not think they could keep their story straight if they tried to lie.  

    Your wrong. She has already been caught lying about a meeting with Simpson from Fusion GPS. She also is a lobbyist for the KGB. Sadly Trump kool-aid chuggers like yourself have more confidence in the integrity of the KGB these days than they do of the FBI and CIA. The Trump Republicans are a sad, sad group of people and will ultimately go down in the history books as traitors. 

    • Like 1
  16. 2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

    Another beauty.  Makes perfect sense in some worlds.  

    Pods- The trump tower meeting was specifically about lifting sanctions in exchange for election help.

    Pods- Kushner furious that meeting was not about lifting sanctions in exchange for election help.

     

    Your basing your impression of the meeting based on the testimony of those in the meeting, which is fair. But 1) they've all proven to be liars who constantly change their stories as more news is shed and 2) If they sat their and talked about smoking gun type of shit, do you think they would just admit to that? 

    • Like 1
  17. 2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    A meeting about the lifting of economic sanctions on rich and powerful Russians with the promise of "dirt on Hilary Clinton" has nothing to do with a conspiracy. That is the definition of a quid pro quo. 

    Coincidentally, Wikileaks started to release the hacked emails (gifted by Russia) a couple weeks after the Trump tower meeting.   

  18. 3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

    Well point out a specific lie and I will be happy to address it. 

    My guess is that the meeting was such a nothing that it was largely forgotten about until more details came out.  Then it just looked embarrassing.  When I google about the lies, the main thing I find is that people say Jr was lying when he said the meeting was about adoptions.  Well, based on the testimony now available of everyone at the actual meeting, it was about adoptions.  That is clearly not what Jr thought it was going to be about.  It certainly had exactly zero to do with any kind of conspiracy between the russian govt and trump et al to help in the election.

    A meeting about the lifting of economic sanctions on rich and powerful Russians with the promise of "dirt on Hilary Clinton" has nothing to do with a conspiracy. That is the definition of a quid pro quo. 

  19. 55 minutes ago, Amobie said:

    So no long catting..

     

      Reveal hidden contents

     

     

     

    All of this would kinda make sense if you operated on the premise that 1) political campaigns are above the law. 2) the FBI didn't have credible evidence that multiple people within the campaign were breaking the law. 

    As to 1) no reasonable person would think that. As to 2) the multiple indictments and guilty pleas prove that to be the case. 

    What is it that you think the FBI does? I'll give you a hint, what does the "I" in "FBI" stand for? 

  20. 20 hours ago, JBJ said:

    The real conflict is between Hamas and the PLO.  Nothing will get resolved until they get figured out internally.

    Agreed. Hamas/PLO as well as the left/right in Israel have to come together to formulate one voice for each side before anything that resembles peace is possible.  

  21. 2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    My argument is that we can do without the massive diversity and inclusion bureaucracy - that it's hurting the university. That's the only argumenty I'm making.

    Can you give a real-world example, actual or hypothetical, of how investing in diversity and inclusion hurts the University or any University. 

  22. 23 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    I support this.  I don't support vast bureaucracies with Deans of Diversity and Inclusion.  Berkeley needs one person at $70K to go around talking to high school kids.  They don't need a $20 MM budget with a zillion programs.

    Maybe all they need are some donuts, maybe you could help them out. 

×
×
  • Create New...