Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 9 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

    the bolded is literally a link to mcenany's statement.  There is no mention of the actual witnesses just that 8 have "debunked the story".  She supposedly brings up 2 new "witnesses".  The first, Derek Lyons a staff secretary, straight up says I was with the president the day after.  The second new witness, Dan Walsh, confirms the bad weather call and the helicopters weren't able to fly but thats about it.  Other than that they just gave personal opinions (lol) as to why they don't believe he'd say such a thing.  

    I've seen Huckabeef come out and deny it but if you want to call her credible when she has straight up lied or told half-truths during her press conferences while press sec, that is a strange one to take at face value.  I do know Bolton only said he didn't hear it but could see him saying it (this one probably hurts more than it helps).  Trump even slipped up (lol again) and said he even called Melania that morning back at the White House when she was there with him.

    This is not a personal attack as I don't typically do those here (swam is gone so we good now) but man this is reaching.  I agree with you on the fact that news reporting (even the Atlantic) has their fuck ups (probably too many than should be happening) and its beyond shitty when the correction doesn't get nearly as much traction as the original.  Also in complete agreement that there is shitty journalism on both sides and journalists should in fact be arbiters of the truth.  Keep the opinion pieces in the opinion section.

    On the Trump story being debunked, I cannot agree with you on that.

    Fair analysis.  And if you read what I have actually typed versus what people have accused me of typing, you would easily see that I never claimed the story to be debunked.  I even said it was quite possible it was true.  I wasn't defending trump nor was I trying to debunk the story.  I was calling out shitty journalism for printing a story based on anonymous quotes when there were plenty of people in the room at the time of the story (if you read the Atlantic story it is very specific on when the alleged quotes by trump were made) that were quite willing to go on the record with what they heard and they were ignored but the anonymous ones were not.  Honest journalism would have included the anonymous quotes and also added that the Atlantic reached out to Bolton, who recently released a book that is extremely critical Trump and Bolton said he never heard anything like that in the meeting, and we reached out to the Ambassador who was in the meeting and she said it never happened and we reached out to the chief of staff for Gen Kelly who was also in the room and he confirmed that the the secret service and Gen Kelly made the call to cancel the flight and that Trump never made any disparaging comments about the soldiers.  That would be good journalism.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 1 hour ago, Nivek said:

    Nice attempt of a deflection, but considering I used small words and used your own thesis against you, it makes sense you did not see how it failed and how hypocritical you are.  Shit was that too big of a word?

    I think you might be retarded.  Honestly.  Your analogies are completely worthless.  Sandusky and Hitler?  I very clearly said that taking the word of Trump or Melania or one of his closest allies was not relevant because they will always defend him.  I am saying there were many people in the room during the supposed comments, including people that have been extremely critical of Trump.  Why weren't they interviewed for the article?  They should have been if the Atlantic had any integrity.

    An appropriate analogy would be if Biden was meeting with 10 senators on something and Fox or Breitbart or even the Atlantic published an article that said four people at the meeting anonymously told a reporter that Biden said that black people who dont vote for him were uncle toms.  Hundreds of outlets then repeated the claim.  Then someone from Bidens camp denies it.  Then Lindsay Graham (no fan of Biden) comes out and says he was one of the senators in the meeting and Biden never said any such thing.  And then 6 other people that were at the meeting said the same thing on the record- that Biden never said such a thing.  Who are you going to believe?  I mean Biden did have the "you aint black comment" and he did author the crime bill that devastated the black community and he did say that if we use busing for school integration that his own children would "grow up in a racial jungle" and his own VP accused him of being racist in a national debate and he did co author legislation with Jesse Helms to combat school integration and he did ask a black reporter if he was a "junkie" and he did say the black community was not diverse (with notable exceptions) and so on.  Every one of those examples is true.  They could be taken out of context, but they are all true.  So if i said well because Biden said and did all of those things I believe the story- then I would be a hypocrite.  But I would never say that.  I would say Fox/Brietbart/Atlantic did a horrible job of journalism with the story because they purposefully ignored on record denials of the story by people at the meeting that were not sympathetic to Biden.  Journalism would be using both the anonymous quotes and the on the record quotes and letting the reader decide.

    As for Michelle Obama, I have never posted anything about her that I can recall and certainly not something about her trip costs.  Your delusional.

  3. 10 hours ago, Bullneck said:

    Yes, that's what I want you to post.  You made the comment, now back it up.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-became-police-abolitionist/613540/

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/21/the-atlantic-finally-admits-its-police-abolition-piece-is-based-on-a-false-narrative/

    https://www.kusi.com/breitbart-news-editor-in-chief-calls-out-the-atlantic-for-publishing-false-story-about-president-trump/

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/04/whs_mcenany_atlantic_report_on_trump_has_been_categorically_debunked_by_witnesses_clearly_fake_news.html

    https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/

    The reason i suggested you google the articles yourself is to get the scope of the issue.  The Atlantic story by Derecka Purnell was shared by hundreds of other outlets.  The whole narrative was a lie.  No one cared.  The Atlantic did not do even a basic amount of fact checking.  They didn't do any.  And then members of their senior staff forwarded it out on their own.  All under the banner of the supposedly righteous Atlantic.

    Same with the Matt Gaetz story.  Atlantic reporter tweets a story about Gaetz and a supposed conversation with Trump.  Hundreds of outlets run with the story.  It wasnt true at all.  Gaetz was talking to Ron Desantis not Trump.  No retraction from the Atlantic or the guy who made the tweet.  No reprimand.  

    I am not naive that this only occurs by one side of journalism.  I am sure it happens by most of them.  Trump lies.  All politicians lie.  From 100 years ago until today.  We need journalists to be the arbiter of the truth.  They are not.  This is not a Trump issue.  There will be Dems in the white house again and when it happens to them it will be just as big of an issue.

  4. 12 minutes ago, Nivek said:


    Based on your logic, if Jerry Sandusky declines and interview then the article is dead and should never be written. Oh wait that is easy. If Adolph Hitler denies the gas chambers then that article should never be written. Shit, Godwin’s law. So, if Trump denies the kids in cages story it shouldn’t be written? Oh, that was true? What about Snowden’s claims? True as well? Watergate? Fuck that was true? Wait, I understand now, if it is something negative against your team, then we need to exceed the preponderance criteria, past reasonable doubt, and move to the criteria somewhere between beyond all doubt and scientific theory?

    Speaking of misinformation and not checking sources, I seem to recall you posting fictitious costs for Michele Obama’s travel, because no one could be bothered to check the source or actually perform unit conversions, yet you readily repeat this famed propaganda networks spin on here.

    I seem to recall your propaganda and bullshit network lying over and over and no one really caring on the left, because well, we know the fable of the scorpion and the frog. And that’s ‘just the editorial’ side of the program.

    That is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever read.  Congrats. 
    Michelle Obama?  What are you talking about?  

  5. 25 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

    Would you care to cite your sources?  It would help to reinforce your argument that Trump is trustworthy and the Fake News Media isn't.

    Well I certainly never said Trump is in anyway trustworthy and I never even remotely made that argument. I think he is an immoral and abhorrent person and I wish someone else was potus.  I would really rather that person not be Biden but he is going to be the choice.

    What exactly do you want me to cite?  The July Atlantic article that was lies?   Just google “Atlantic Derecka Purnell”. It’s an easy find.  Same with the 21 folks on record that deny the Atlantic story.  Google is pretty easy to use.  There are many sources.  
     

    While you are at it, google “Atlantic Gaetz tweet dozere “. Another great example of the Atlantic doing a bang up job of fact checking.   Atlantic reporter tweets a supposed scoop. It gets picked up by dozens of media outlets. It is later determined to not be true. No one cares and the Atlantic never corrected the issue.


    Look, believe whatever you want.  if you want me to agree with you that I wish the president was more truthful and less of an ass then I am happy to agree.  My post was about the media.   How many examples of lying and misreporting by the media do you need to agree that there is very little integrity left.  
     

    As a person or an organization you are either principled or not.  Trump is most definitely not.  Allowing yourself to lose your own principles because someone else is not principled is your fault not theirs.   

  6. 1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

    So you can't read very well. I asked if Biden was saying that yesterday because the Trump team's statements were current news. You respond with "WHY INDEED YES CHECK OUT THIS STORY FROM TWO YEARS AGO." Whiff.

    Interesting.  So since, you claim, Biden only said it 2 years ago (which is already stupid because the quote I used is from July 2019 which is 14 months ago but you knew your response was going to be so fucking lame that you had to exaggerate it) then it doesn't matter if he meant it or not?  High bar but typical.  What exactly is your point?  You were curious if Biden said it "yesterday" as if that would be different from him saying it throughout the campaign?  I am pretty sure Trump said he would get out of the wars during his first campaign and he obviously didn't.  How is it any different?  The guys that immediately preceded Trump said the same thing and vowed to do the same thing and didn't either.  That was the point.

    Plus, that was just the quote I found in a 30 second search.  It is pretty hard to get current quotes from Biden since he rarely talks and even more rarely responds to questions.  But the platform he pledged to uphold at the DNC a mere 3 weeks ago said he would end the current wars.  Is 3 weeks current enough?

  7. On 9/6/2020 at 12:56 PM, Celery Man said:

    The Atlantic is known for being fanatical about fact checking,

    This is the main reason I wanted to post on this topic.  This current story is a microcosm of what is wrong with political journalism today.  This is NOT a defense of Trump.  He very well may have said what the Atlantic accuses him of.  My personal guess is that there is a kernel of truth in the reporting but that the anonymous quotes were put into a context to be seen in the worst possible light and the author is conflating comments Trump may have said about VOLUNTEERS in the Vietnam war and war veterans from WWI and WWII.  

    But this is the issue with political journalism.  First, the Atlantic certainly may have been fanatical about fact checking in the past but times change, and viewership changes, and subscriptions change, and money changes, and competition increases and the chase to be first is heightened and, as a result, the values that we attributed to a magazine like the Atlantic previously may not exist now.  Case in point, the Atlantic published an article from a woman in July of 2020 about her experience with a police shooting that, she claimed, caused her to become a police "abolitionist".   She claimed she was at a public park gym with her sister and that a cop burst in and shot a black "boy" for not signing into the gym register book.  She also claimed that the cop suffered no consequences.  In fact, the "boy" who was shot was over 18 (was the shooters cousin and the dispute had nothing at all to do with registering in the gym book) and the "cop" was actually an independent park security guard and the security guard was arrested.  So every main point in her story (child shot for no reason, cop did shooting, no repercussions to cop) were outright lies.  The Atlantic did not "fact check" anything.  And to make matters worse, an editor for the Atlantic tweeted the story under the Atlantic banner.  

    The only reason I found this story was I googled the Atlantic and any recent retractions/corrections because I was curious.  And I do not think this is specific to the Atlantic.  It seems to be in all forms of political journalism from both the right and left.  Hell, the head of the FBI (Comey) said in open congressional hearings that a recent story at the time from the NYT was a lie.  That story, shockingly, was also a hit piece on Trump that relied entirely on anonymous sources.  Again, not meant as a defense of Trump but as an indictment on political journalism.

    Now I do not think that Goldberg simply made up the quotes/sources he used in the report.  But this is the problem with journalism.  If we stipulate that Goldberg did in fact have sources who told him a variation of the story he wrote, then what is the role of the Atlantic as a "fact checker".  I do understand the need for anonymous sources but, the reporter has to try and corroborate the source.  And when no one is willing to go on record, then all you have to go on is the anonymous sources.  However, in this particular story, there were multiple people present when the supposed quotes by Trump were made and plenty of those folks were willing to go on the record and they were neither contacted by Goldberg nor used in the story.  Some sources, like Melania, would make no sense to even ask because they would never go against the potus but Bolton was there and said it didnt happen (no fan of trump) and Kelly's aid was there and said it didn't happen and said Kelly would have never let it stand if he did hear it (I actually applaud Kelly for taking a principled stand to not comment on a sitting president, for or against, and will say that it is highly, highly unlikely that Kelly's aid would tell a different story than Kelly). In fact, 21 different people that were present have gone on the record publicly that the quotes never happened. The Atlantic absolutely had a journalistic duty to talk to the other people present.  IMO, the only way the Atlantic can be considered non-biased and have any journalistic integrity, they should have presented both sides, one group willing to go on the record and one not willing to, and let the reader decide.  That is the true role of political journalism.  

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Fuck You 2
  8. 15 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

    Is Biden's team publicly chastising military leadership for endless wars today or are you just being silly again? 

    Trump and Associates: "Endless Wars! Why won't somebody do something?!?"

    People with Brains: "He's the Commander in Chief, he's the one who can do something."

    Anastasis: "But Obama! But Biden!"

    Do you genuinely not see the logical failure in that response? 

    Hilarious that this post received so many likes. 

    Biden on the campaign trail right now "Acknowledging those forces, Biden promised to “end the forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East” and terminate U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war. "

    So, yes, Biden is saying exactly that.

    Further, Biden/Obama in 2010 or so said that all troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2014.  Biden was incensed that anyone would suggest it would not happen.   "We're starting it in July of 2011, and we're going to be totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014," Biden said on NBC in December 2010."

    Obama had at least 3 different "end the war in Afghanistan" promises during his tenure and we are still there.  Obama spent $866B on "war related initiatives" during his tenure (compared to $816B under Bush) even though he pledged every chance he could that he would end the high cost of war that was crippling americans.

    Trump is, indeed, an idiot.  I don't believe him and I didn't believe Obama when he said it and I don't believe Biden when he says it.  

    • Hook 'Em 5
  9. 1 hour ago, Newdoc said:

    Zipper merge is best

    I get your sentiment but the zipper merge appears to be best. I’ve adapted by slowing my speed in the lane I’m merging from, turn on signal well ahead of time and ease in as the lane markers narrow. That way you don’t look like an ahole zooming to the front and forcing your way into the continuation lane.

     

    50 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Oy vey zipper merging is what you're supposed to be doing. People going to the front of the line are doing it right. Traffic flows much smoother when people don't act like assholes, and block folks from merging the correct way.  Congratulation on being one of the assholes slowing up traffic.

    Lulz. Zipper merging.  This may work fine in theory or if people start it early but not in the situations I’m talking about.  There are state laws about late merging.  If the right lane is at a standstill and you blow by 50 cars to get to the front of the line then you are an asshole.  You going by me to try and merge late when no one is moving just fucks things up worse.   

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  10. I may have posted this previously but it doesn’t matter because he bothers me so much but, Howie Mandel ?  
     

    regarding traffic, it boils me when people don’t merge when they should and race down a long line of cars and wedge their way in at the front.  My wife is convinced that I’m going to get shot someday but I always pull over into the open lane and then keep my pace exactly even with the car on my right so that I block anyone from racing up to the front of the line. It is hilarious, at least to me, how furious people get when I do this.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 4 hours ago, thepop said:

    I guess I didn’t pay attention to battleground state polls in 2016. I didn’t know they were all that close.

    I was fooled by the national polls.

    Not really.  That tweet is pretty misleading.  The are comparing Biden% on 8/10 ish with Clinton% on 11/16.

    While I still think Biden will win, I do not think it is a slam dunk as so many here do.  Consider the following that shows poll averages for Trump and Clinton on this date (8/11 ish) in 2016:

    Ohio C +2, Final T +8

    Florida C+2, Final T +1.2

    Penn C +9, Final T +.7

    Wisc C +9.4, Final T +.7

    Texas C +2, Final T +9

    NC C +2. Final T +4

    Michigan C +8, Final T +.3

    Surely, Biden will not make the same mistakes Hillary did but you just never know in these things.  Lots of time left.  Polls are really fairly meaningless at this point.  Amazing how much they moved though in 2016 in some of these states.  Also still amazing how close it was in the end in Mich, Penn and Wisc.  Interestingly, in the RCP average poll, Trump never closed the gap in Michigan and Wisconsin literally until election day.  Clinton was up 6% the last week of polls in both states.  Crazy.

    It seems doubtful Trump hits all these again.

  12. 1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

    I think I have to agree. The picture was published and most ran with the way it appeared rather than what actually happened. It's the job of journalists to provide the actual story.

    The picture suggests a smug, entitled white boy confronting and dismissing the history of Native America

    I agree with a lot of your post and think it actually is representative of what politics, in general, and this board (cloak room), in particular,  have devolved into.  Even in your criticism of the media you still make a point to say that the picture of the boy suggests he is "entitled".  How?  Based on what?  The fact he is white?  Maga hat?  We have been told, repeatedly, that maga folks are dumb white trash.  He is wearing a $10 down jacket and has a bad haircut.  What, at all, suggests he is entitled by his picture?

    And it is not just you but many on here:

     On 7/27/2020 at 10:16 AM, wildcat09 said:

    It's not a "stretch," it's just a general frustration that the rich and powerful keep becoming richer and more powerful, and even when so many regular people are facing so much real pain we've still got entitled little shitsons of the most privileged finding ways to enrich themselves off of meaningless culture war bullshit that is dredged up to distract everyone from anything that matters.

     

    On 7/27/2020 at 11:12 AM, lemonlime said:

    Because he's a spoiled, rich, privileged white guy

     

    On 7/27/2020 at 1:52 PM, lemonlime said:

    Rich, entitled white guy who’s a prick to other people.

     

    On 7/27/2020 at 3:53 PM, Bama Chick said:

    This snot nosed entitled shitshrub is just another Trump Era grifter.

    These are, presumably, grown people that are lashing out at a 16 or so year old kid with absolutely no basis in fact.  I would say shame on them but these people have no shame.  I certainly get it that 95% of the people on here are against this kids political leanings (as much as an 16 year old has actual informed political beliefs).  But he was just a random kid that did nothing wrong and nothing that is not absolute common behavior for teen boys.  If anything, he was pretty darn restrained.  But why "entitled, spoiled and rich"? 

    I was curious so I did a little googling.  Ted Sandmann, father, is a sales manager at a specialty truck body manufacturing plant.  Not exactly a hedge fund manager.  The median household income for the country is about $62,000.  Median household income for his community in Park Hills, Kentucky is $53,000.  He attends a private catholic school (which no one knew based on his picture) which has low tuition and provides scholarships and tuition assistance to any catholic kid in the area.

    2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    After the photo is published and misinterpreted, would I have listened to lawyers telling me there was money to be made? Likely so. I must be honest; easy money always has its appeal and the Washington Post won't miss it. I'm no parago

    Of course you would as would almost everyone on here.  You would do it for he money and for the damage done.  As everyone here knows, anytime you apply for college or for a job or almost anything, the people looking are going to search your name.  The things being said about this kid were horrible.  There should be zero question that his future would have been harmed considerably if the attacks against him went unchallenged.  

     

    2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    Would I self-hero-ize and snuggle up to MAGA? I can't see that. I'm vain, but not that vain. Even as a teenager, I think I would have avoided the indelible slime of Trump Jr. or the insanity of Q. I don't tweet now and doubt that I would have been moved to do so as Sandmann does.

    Of course you, personally, would not snuggle up to maga.  But that is just because of your beliefs.  If FOX or OAN would have been the ones that were sued and AOC or Biden or Michelle Obama reached out to you, especially at 16, I have no doubt that you would have easily been swept up in the hype.  Anyone would.  Thats just human nature.  

     

    2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    I guess the whole thing is sort of depressing in what it says about everyone involved. The kids look shitty, the Indian looks shitty, the black guys look shitty, and a great newspaper comes out shitty looking.

    Lastly, I really do not see how the kids look shitty.  They look exactly like kids have looked since forever.  And as for the "great " newspaper, I might say a formerly great newspaper. The number of corrections and retractions have increased exponentially in the last 10 years.  And not just the Post.  All media.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    Sheeeeeit, I am talking specifically about the man who was abducted by the unmarked van. He was at a protest and was detained because someone next to him pulled out a laser pointer and shined it in the eyes of a federal agent. He was detained by federal agents for being adjacent to a person of interest at a protest. 

    He is not the only case of this occurring, as DHS has "not arrested" dozens of people along the same lines and have charged fewer than a dozen with actual criminal charges, while releasing the rest due to lack of probable cause or chargeable offenses.

    I am using the dude in the van example because it has a clearly defined fact pattern, and even the a deputy DHS head admitted they did not have probable cause or reason to hold van man.

    You are being purposely obtuse and gish-galloping, and I am reminded why I ignored you. Have fun sheeeeeeeitposting.

    Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding.  You say you were just talking about the van guy.  Fair enough.  I was confused by the following:

    "Unidentified federal agents deployed into cities against their will to arrest people without probable cause, criminal charges, or a record of their detention is definitely on the that spectrum, jokes aside." 

    "BUT, people have been getting arrested just for standing NEAR someone else who did that."

    "The feds are arresting people to interrogate them for info about the person they were standing next to."

    "People have been getting illegally arrested for the act of being outside,"

    "Look, I'm not saying that the protesters are uniformly peaceful. I am saying that the feds are using the actions of a few people to justify collective punishment against that group"

    "Extrajudicial arrests by unmarked irregular military forces is a fucking notable current event, "

    "Guys, collective punishment is TOTALLY in alignment with the values of a democratic republic, GAWRSH! If you don't want to get brutalized by the police, just don't go exercise your right to free speech and assembly, and they won't arrest you in violation of the 4th amendment"

    I thought "people", "group", "arrests" and "collective punishment" were plural terms.  My bad.

     

  14. 16 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    Rioters should be arrested. Protestors should be left alone.

    Trumps private army invading an American city with tear gas wearing no marks and camo should be opposed by all sides. 
     

    It’s bizarre that it’s not. 

    Cats and dogs living together! I actually agree with this completely.  I think it was wrong to send in the feds.  I don't think it was illegal but I think it was wrong.

     

     

  15. 7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Ooh. The police declared anti-police brutality protests to be "riots?"  You don't say.  Did the mayor of Portland declare "riots?"

    Also, once again, the pics were not current, and some weren't even of Portland. BabaYaga is a liar. You are a well known liar. And both of you are fascists. 

    LOL.  I love the cloakroom sometimes.  Maybe Baba is a liar.  What is not in question is you being a liar.  And the irony is fantastic that you called out another poster for lying by lying yourself.  I truly did laugh out loud, which is always fun.

    Your direct quote once again:

    "Peaceful protests resumed nationwide.  Today is July 28.  The feds arrived in Portland in early July in order to attack peaceful protests.  They did not arrive in response to anything you posted, all of which occurred 2 months prior."

    Just bizarre.  In the 3 days leading up to the feds arrival, riots had been declared twice.  

    If someone else (this is my last response to you) wants to have a debate on the merits of declaring something a riot, that would be a good debate.  But the law is very clear right now.

     

  16. 5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    So your points are funny, because the person arrested by the van was someone arrested because they were previously (15+ minutes ago) standing next to someone who started being violent. Shit, I even CITED the relevant case law supporting my argument that you cannot arrest someone for only being adjacent to a person of interest. Which is the case for the man getting disappeared into a van by the feds.

    I truly hope you are just pretending to be a lawyer.  I specifically agreed that the arrest of the dude in the van was bad.  Are really that stupid? 

    The case you cited has absolutely nothing to do with people currently at a protest being detained or arrested.  Maybe you are channeling George Costanza who always wanted to pretend to be an architect and always wanted to pretend to be a lawyer.  You posted, multiple times, that people getting detained at a protest was unconstitutional and illegal.  I merely pointed out that you are dead wrong on the constitutionality and legality of those detentions and arrests.  Read any of the reports from all media.  In the cases of people being detained and/or arrested (again with the exception of the dude in the van) the police acted legally.  Once any type of violence occurs- breaking glass windows/doors, starting fires, using fireworks, throwing bottles etc- the cops have the legal right to call the protests riots and unlawful assemblies.  They did that.  They announced it over loud speakers.  They waited for people to disperse and, when they didn't, they legally cleared them out.

    I do not like what is happening on either side of the protests.  I am not making a judgement on the morality of the situation.  I can see good arguments on both sides.  Protesters going too far and law going to far.  But the law folks did it legally under our current laws.

  17. 46 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    All your photos date back to May.  At least one of them is from Eugene.  Another one is from, I believe, Minneapolis.  Sure, in May and early June, there were several days where riots destroyed property across the USA.  Temporary curfews were put in place and then lifted.  Peaceful protests resumed nationwide.  Today is July 28.  The feds arrived in Portland in early July in order to attack peaceful protests.  They did not arrive in response to anything you posted, all of which occurred 2 months prior.

    Lulz.  https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/portland-protests-continue-thursday-after-police-contract-vote-calls-for-change.html

    Portland police declared protests "riots" on the day before the feds arrived and the day the feds arrived.   

  18. This is such a weird and interesting topic.  Especially from the lawyers that selectively cite the law.

    Dude getting arrested by the van, definite problem and he most likely had his rights broken and should get some justice.

    But, it is hard to even have a debate when people keep making obvious lies about the law, especially when they claim to be lawyers.

    On 7/23/2020 at 1:18 PM, Captainant said:

    It is established case law that being adjacent to someone committing an unlawful act does not create probable cause for detainment, even temporary detainment.

    On 7/23/2020 at 12:32 PM, Captainant said:

    This is making excuses for unlawful and unconstitutional arrests.

    More authoritarians on this site than I would have thought. 

    This is just not true at all.  To be clear, I am not saying what the cops/feds are doing is right, I am saying that it is legal (with the caveat of the case I cited above with the van).  Just standing in a protest actually can be grounds for being detained or arrested in many instances and the case law is unambiguous.  Just off the top of my head you have the following:

    1) As soon as a protest becomes violent or dangerous, the police can clear the area and arrest those involved.  This one has some grey area to it and "violent and dangerous" are subjective terms but, legally speaking, the police can act, including detaining.

    2) Once the cops declare a protest dangerous, they can legally declare it an unlawful assembly.  They have to announce it, but once announced, if you do not leave, you can be detained and arrested legally.

    3) Curfew- Portland is and has been under a curfew at different times.  8 pm.  I do not know the exact dates of the curfews and how they correspond to arrests.  Again, not claiming an action is right or wrong morally, but legally you can be detained and arrested for violating a state imposed curfew. 

    At almost all times in the Portland saga, one or more of these scenarios existed.  Perhaps the law should be changed, but it is current law.  So yes, if you are just hanging out in a protest that has turned violent or dangerous or that the police have determined is unlawful assembly, you can legally be detained and arrested.

  19. 1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

    I absolutely agree. I just think legally, it might be more technical than this. The driver obviously will argue self-defense. He will have to state a case of his life being in danger. Were people surrounding his car, banging on his car, a person legally carrying a weapon enough to prove his life was in danger? The state will have to disapprove his life was in danger. If the state or jury determine his life was in danger, then so be it.

    I'm concerned about the implications of this case legally. I think this case has large implications to the application of Texas open carry law and subsequent case law. If a citizen legally may carry a rifle, and approaching another citizen with that weapon is grounds for another citizen to fear for their life, and thus is legally allowed to use deadly force, then that changes my understanding and I'm sure many people's understanding of the law. 

    Is it possible to approach another citizen with an open carry weapon? How close can you get?  Can you only walk and not run? Where is the line of deadly force?

    Do you see what I'm getting at? Yes, the driver turned the corner, and might of realized he got into some shit. He sees a dude with a weapon. At what point in that situation allowed him to use deadly force? I want to find that line, legally, that is. 

    I get your point and agree to some extent that it is a fine line.  However, imo only, the caveat is his finger on the trigger and him approaching the car.  Lets take a situation where someone is sitting in their car and, for whatever reason, the car can't move.  If some stranger is approaching with their finger on the trigger of their rifle, I would never fault the driver of the car for shooting them.  However, if the gun/rifle were holstered or slung over their back, the situation would be different.  But when you put your finger on the trigger, there is no grey area imo.  

  20. On 7/21/2020 at 12:52 PM, PilotsError said:

    I stopped going to theaters for a while, and then they brought in recliners and reserved seating, and it changed the game.  Going to movies became much less of a chore and I started going to more. 

    Agreed.  Some films are just better at the theater.  I like going but only seem to find 3-4 movies a year I am into.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  21. On 8/9/2018 at 2:11 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    Rounders did a bad job explaining how Mike went from starting with 10K in the final game to winning over 60K.    KGB obviously must have kept buying back in to stay in the game because Mike had zero additional money.  Mike stated that he finished at >60K  so KGB was responsible for >50K.  Would KGB wouldn't be quite so cocky.    KGB was being destroyed.  

    How much did Mike have before the final hand?  It had to have been a minimum of 30K since he looked to fully covered KGB's all-in and Mike says he ended up with over 60K.   going into that hand, he owed KGB 15K, the law professor 10K and 5K to the Chesterfield.  he was a fool to play it.  Pay off the debts, and get a job/money from Knish to start building up the bankroll again.    Otherwise Mike could have easily run into bad luck and had Grama kick his ass or worse.    Mike didn't really learn a thing from the first scene.  Worm was right in that Mike was delusional in thinking his [Mike] moves were noble and smart.

    And of course, the most inexplicable part of Rounders is when Mike turns down Petra (Famke Janssen) when she was at the top of her game.  Kicks her out of his apt after his girlfriend had dumped him.  

    Watched this again a few nights ago.  Thought about this old thread.  The only explanation I can find for the $60K total is that at one point Mike tells KGB to feel free to reload at anytime.  Presumably KGB took out another $20K.  In the last hand, Mike had KGB covered but not by that much.  I'm guessing the stacks were around $33K to $27K or so.  If Mike loses the hand he is not out obviously but down to $6K and he owes $15K to KGB and KGB would have a huge stack advantage.  Great flick.  And Petra looked just as good.

  22. 5 minutes ago, TexLonghorn said:

    So no regard for the teachers, custodians, administration, bus drivers, etc?  Just grandparents and compromised care givers.

    That was fully addressed above.  I was responding to a specific post. 

    In short, there is no greater risk to school staff than any other profession.  We still have regular bus drivers going to work.  We still have almost all businesses open for work.  

×
×
  • Create New...