Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. On 4/20/2021 at 3:18 PM, Dbeasy said:

    A lot of the stars are stars because they have a presence on screen, not necessarily great acting skills. I put Wahlberg in that category. 

    I get this and somewhat agree.  He has been in some big productions and he does have a certain charisma and screen presence in those movies.  But those movies are designed to highlight his presence and minimize his acting range.  Like the Italian Job. I think it is a really fun movie but out of all of the actors in that movie, he is the worst.  Ed Norton, Sutherland, Charlize.  They dominated him from an acting standpoint.

    I think of Entourage and when he does a cameo.  He seems just like an athlete or similar that they stick in there who do not know anything about acting.  His acting is similar.

  2. On 4/20/2021 at 2:27 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

    Tom Cruise. He's a great movie star, but not a great actor. 

    He hasn't attempted a serious role since Collateral which in many ways is a an action flick. 

    At least Sandler is going for it in Uncut Gems. Cruise would rather make another Mission Impossible than an indie film. 

    What pisses me off about Wahlberg is that he plays a tough guy in every single movie. He hasn't played a vulnerable character since Boogie Nights. Even in The Fighter, he's not chasing any demons, but his messed up family is and he's just kind of there. I wouldn't suggest his co-star in another movie with Christian Bale or any actor of similar chops. 

    Cruise is an interesting one.  I actually think he is a very solid to great actor.  Obviously a number of his roles are cheesy and campy and he does cheesy and campy really well, but he also has some great roles where he is very good and he holds his own with some of the all time greats.  Color of Money was excellent and he showed great range and went toe to toe with Paul Newman.  Days of Thunder was as cheesy and campy as you get but he acted one on one in many scenes with Robert Duval and held his won easily.  It is hard to think of a movie he wasnt pretty good in.  Unlike Walhberg where he just flat out sucks in certain roles.

  3. On 4/20/2021 at 2:20 PM, Beau Vine said:

    Wahlberg was great in Boogie Nights.

    To me, this is a perfect example of what I see in Walhberg.  He was OK in Boogie Nights primarily because his role had little or no range and he could just be this mousy, soft spoken do gooder type role that he is good in.  But watch it critically when he is on screen with other great actors (and Boogie Nights had a shitload of great actors).  Seymour Hoffman, Julienne Moore, Ed Macy, John Reilly, Don Cheadle- I would consider all of them to be much better actors than Wahlberg but he is a bigger "movie star".  If you watch him in movies like Ted, The Gambler, Planet of the Apes, Italian Job, Daddys Home etc. his acting is pitiful.  Some of those movies were good and some were bad but his personal performance in them was almost cartoonish.  I think part of it is that he just isnt that intelligent.  

    But like I said, he is a bona fide movie star and I enjoy some of his movies.  He just is not a great actor.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  4. On 4/20/2021 at 2:19 PM, sidis said:

    wahlberg is a good one but this one depends a lot on the threshold for "stars."  i would submit cage, segal, sandler, stallone, and plenty of others.

    the a-list actress with the least amount of range based on my observations is kristen stewart.

    Did not expect this many replies.  To make it more objective (which is really hard- thats what she said) I look at actors specific performance based on the role they are cast.  Every actor has made a bad movie but that doesn't mean their acting was bad in it.  I also like to watch 2 actors together and it becomes apparent when one is better than the other.

    Agreed on Cage and Stallone and Segal just isnt what I would call a great "movie star".

    Sandler is a bit of an outlier.  It takes real acting chops to make it on SNL.  Plus he writes so many of his own movies and is clearly playing to a base.  He was pretty solid in Hidden Gems and he never gets over shadowed by other actors.

  5. Was having this discussion with a group the other night. We were talking about truly big time, bankable actors (even some Oscar nominees/winners) that are really just not very good at acting.  Of course, acting can be quite subjective.

    My contributions:

    Mark Wahlberg- He is basically rangeless.  In The Fighter, it is almost comical how much better of an actor Christian Bale and Amy Adams are compared to him. Also, he received a lot of critical Acclaim for his role in The Departed.  I watched it agin recently, admittedly I was high so the good was really good and the bad was really bad, but his scenes were almost comically bad. His range is so small it is amazing he is as successful as he is.  And seems like a genuinely good guy. 
     

    Scarlett Johansson- She is certainly a bona fide movie star and incredibly attractive.  But, like above, her range is very limited.  I do think she is getting better.   
     

     

  6. 3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Bless your heart.

    Thanks?

    Im curious though.  Do you think if we keep 2500-4000 troops in Afghanistan long-term that the “no casualties“ will continue?

  7. 20 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

    That's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about 2021.  In Afghanistan.  

    In 2021 Afghanistan, we're keeping 4,000 troops in country--without a fatality--in order to keep a foothold in a strategic area and preventing a Taliban takeover.  I think that's a good ROI.

    If you want to talk about history, we can talk history.  But I'm talking about the present and the future.  History can inform our decisionmaking.  But it's a poor substitute for analysis of current conditions.

    A good argument can be made for staying but the cost you speak of, specifically no casualties, is temporary.  The former admin made a deal with the Taliban to be out by May and, in return, the Taliban agreed to basically stand down.  
     

    But they , the Taliban, have already said they will go back to being the terrorists that they are if the May deadline is extended.  When Americans start dying again the cost/benefit isn’t going to mean much.   

  8. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    The Texags crowd would be much more ambivalent about the outcome if Floyd had been white.  Yes, they'd still be generally "pro cop," but they wouldn't have their passions raised to this level.  This picture appeals to the visceral, base instincts of the worst of America -- white cop, face of law and order, of what...you know.....REAL American society looks like, versus black thug, on drugs, criminal history.  It hits all the notes, and gets them worked up into a frenzy.  We know this about people -- tell them a story of the exact same conduct, but give the character a "black sounding" name vs. a "white sounding" name, and the description of the "black" character are more harsh, judgmental, etc.  Studies have literally been done on that sort of thing.

    Sure, the legal defense of Chauvin would be the same no matter what, because in court, you play the facts you've got.  But the passions of jurors....they can and do involve race, because the passions of some Americans on anything involve race.

    Oh, and I'm not suggesting that a racist/shitty juror on the jury sways the other members of the jury.  I'm suggesting that he holds out, resulting in a mistrial.  To the extent I suggested acquittal based on such a juror (I may have, didn't re-read all my posts), I'm actually suggesting a mistrial.

    I suppose it is possible.  I think an analysis of actual trials (not TV/movies) would show that the lone hold out thing is very rare (not simply hung juries but specifically lone hold outs).  It is a bit higher when considering multiple charges but still a very small number.  And even rarer are instances where a lone hold out caused a mistrial that 11 other jurors decided differently where the next trial did not result in a conviction or a plea that involved significant jail time.  It happens and that is just a part of our system.  But I do not believe that the racists you decry actually change justice.  They might delay it, but there are no where near enough to actually change anything.  

    Appreciate the debate.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Counterpoint: I'm not telling you what I believe or not.  I'm not putting any real spin on the belief I cited.

    1 -- Go read Texags.  And while they are just socially aware enough not to type the N-word out, read their collective posts, and there is zero mystery.  Race isn't the only factor in the psychotic tapestry they weave, but it's a big fucking thread.

    2 -- realize that people like that also live in Minnesota and were certainly in the jury pool.

    So, yes, potential jurors absolutely would acquit based on the kind of reasoning I pointed to.  They are flat-out saying so.

    Why is it so hard to believe that we have a material number of really shitty racist people in our society?  I know that we'd rather that not be the case, but that doesn't make it any less true.

    I will politely pass on Texags and take your word for it.  To your overall point, we just disagree on the size and scope and influence.  I certainly believe there are racists in society.  It is human nature.  There are racists among every type of humans in every society.

    I am just going to believe that the scale of racist that you like to describe is very small.  I think the chances that a true racist could make it into the jury pool and be selected for this trial and pass through jury selection without detection and then have enough sway over the other jurors to get them to decide in a manner that they would not have otherwise is so small that it is not worth talking about.  I think the legal defense of Chauvin would be exactly the same if the only difference were that Floyd was white.  I do not believe (and really do not believe you do either) that people on the jury would vote in anyway diffferent than they will if Floyd was white or Chauvin was black.

    I think the dialog on sites like Texags would be identical if Floyd was white.  I think they are massively more pro police than anti black in their arguments and rhetoric.  Do you really believe that if the exact same circumstances existed but Floyd was white that a site like texags would be calling for Chauvin to be guilty?  I do not.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    Oh, if you're saying that the jury could bite on something that as a matter of law is irrelevant, I absolutely agree.  That's actually why I think there's a fair chance of acquittal -- the "scary big black guy with a criminal record who didn't obey all orders" angle.  It works.  See Texags.

    That is exactly what I am saying but not in the overtly racist way in which you are saying it.  I do not think the race angle you embraced will have much of anything to do with the outcome.  In fact your whole ridiculous statement "scary big black guy with a criminal record who didn't obey all orders" is worthless.  I don't think anyone on that jury would acquit based on anything related to your statement.  However, if a medical expert tells them that the amount of drugs found in the defendants system was capable of causing him to have difficulty breathing and was large enough to cause his death then I think any person would have to at least consider that.  And, as I pointed out, they would only consider it relevant if the other factors I outlined were also present.

    I don't think it will happen and I think the guy deservedly goes down.  I am just suggesting a scenario that could end in his acquittal.

  11. On 3/31/2021 at 9:20 PM, Dahobbs said:

    Everyone who has been to either? I swear y'all are purposefully obtuse. The whole issue of systemic racism is that it isn't overt and obvious, and it is probably not intentional.  Y'all think you're being personally attacked. That isn't the case. Stop focusing on you, start thinking about others. 

    There are so many problems with this simplistic line of thinking and reasoning.  

    As for sentencing differences, there are so many different factors involved that it is really impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from it.  Example- Defendant A slaps his girlfriend across the face because she cheated on him.  Pleads guilty to battery and serves 1 month.  Defendant B beats his gf bloody because he was high.  Pleads down to battery and serves 6 months.  When someone looks at the cases 10 years later all they see is 2 supposedly equal crimes with big differences in time served.  Maybe one was white and one black?  Maybe one was rich and the other poor?  But you should not draw any conclusions based on either race or economics in this case as the underlying facts were so different.  The economics or race were largely irrelevant in the sentencing but anyone can twist them.

    Also, people used Los Angeles as one of the offenders and called it systemic racism.  However, during the period in question (2010-2016), Los Angeles had a black woman DA, a supreme court that was 72% minority, an overwhelming number of trial judges that were democrats (hard to get a good count but estimated to be 85%) and more ethnic prosecutors than in anytime previous.  According to the studies that you presented, during the time in question, LA was one of the worst offenders of unfair sentencing.  You claim it was race based.  For that to be true, there had to be some kind of coordination between a black woman district attorney (who sets the standard for the entire department) and a bunch of democrat judges and a bunch of minority prosecutors and an appellate court that oversaw the entire system that was 72% minority that all colluded to give black and hispanic criminals longer sentences than whites for the same crimes.  I think that is virtually impossible.  So I think the answer lies elsewhere.  

    • Hook 'Em 4
  12. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    As explained above, point 1 is irrelevant unless it was the actual cause of death.  You can be on death's door, going to die in 10 minutes....but if I kill you in the next 5 minutes, it's murder.  "He was gonna die of something else pretty quickly anyway" is of no legal relevance.

    Point 2 would definitely be relevant, at the very least in supporting a lesser conviction like manslaughter.  From what I understand, there is not such evidence -- while the technique MAY have been allowed, what is not allowed is to continue to use it after the victim is subdued and no longer struggling.....which Chauvin did....for an awful amount of time.

    Point 3 would be support a complete acquittal -- if there is reasonable doubt that the act that allegedly caused his death did NOT actually cause his death, then yeah, that could support an acquittal.  But, again...I don't think that any credible expert can offer that testimony.

    It's going to come down to whether one or two jurors think that Floyd was a bad guy who deserved it/don't question the hero cop who is constantly under life/death pressure.  And statistically, the chances of one or two jurors like that is uncomfortably high.

    Point 1 is not irrelevant for the jury.  Obviously the guy died.  The defense will absolutely have to provide something for the jury to blame the death on.  That is why I said all 3 things must be present.  If the defense gets a doctor to testify to #3 above then the jury will still have to have some reason that he died.  Just #3 alone I do not think will do it.

  13. Have only followed the peripherals but this guy needs to go down.  I think manslaughter is a better fit but idaf as long as he does significant time.

    IMO, the only way he gets off if is all three of these things happen:

    1) A credentialed medical expert testifies that the fentanyl/opioid levels in his system were high enough to cause his death

    2) There is some sort of cop manual that shows the technique he used is part of the training 

    3) A credentialed medical expert testifies that from the autopsy there was not any swelling/bruising etc on Floyd's neck/throat that indicated that the kneeling actually impacted his breathing

    I think it is unlikely all 3 are either true or can be proven, but if they are then I think he might get off.

  14. 17 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

     

     

    Facts present in thread with links 

    1. Spree Killer told police it was sex addiction 

    2. Eyewitness said killer said “kill all the Asians” 

    the rest is either poor reading comprehension or people taking the word of the murderer over the non-murder 

    Why is that?

    Maybe you can provide a link to these eyewitness's saying he said "kill all the asians".  Because I checked cnn, msnbc, fox, politico, AP, the police, the AG and anything else I could think of and I can not find a single source to corroborate these claims.  All I can find is one tweet from someone no one has ever heard of.  Amazing that folks come here and claim somone has a preconceived notion or bias that is influencing their thoughths on this deal and then use a non confirmed tweet as a "fact".  I am guessing that if the killer realy said that then all of the politicians and media calling this a hate crime would be all over it.  Because, if he did say that, then it would absolutely be a racially motivated act and a hate crime.  But somehow no one except you experts here are calling this a fact.  Maybe the inept police force and investigators forgot to talk to eye witnesses?  More likely they heard it and then locked the eye witness up in solitary so they can keep claiming this was not racially motivated.

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
  15. 21 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

    Fuck you and your bullshit excuses for this asshole.

    Its much more important to you to prove it wasn’t racially motivated than proving the guy was a murderer. That’s fucked in the head. 

    You are a large part of the problem because guys like you and the sack fail to recognize the truth and are just plain intellectual idiots and racists who refuse to recognize what you are.
     

    You will never admit that and I don’t give a shit. You are. 

    Too funny.  You are so unhinged you do not even realize that this response is exactly what I am talking about.  Lots to unpack here.

    "Fuck you and your bullshit excuses for this asshole."- What excuse did I make?  Do you even know what an excuse is?  I'll give you a hint, trying to understand why someone does something like this is not an excuse.  Understanding the guy had some fucked up religious and sexual ideas does not excuse anything he did you dolt.

    "Its much more important to you to prove it wasn’t racially motivated than proving the guy was a murderer. That’s fucked in the head. "- Well considering that I referred to him as a murderer and killer multiple times and that he was arrested and confessed to the murders I sort of assumed we had already "proved" he was a murderer.  Maybe you needed some additional proof?  Not sure.  As for the racial motivation, I am fully aware that you and your ilk do not care at all about actual truth or facts, but most people do.  We were fed a constant response from politicians and media outlets and activists that were falling all over themselves to be the first to call this racially motivated.  We then had multiple posters on here claim the same thing.  I, and a few others, merely pointed out that the actual facts as we currently know them do not point to this being a racially motivated crime.  

    "You are a large part of the problem because guys like you and the sack fail to recognize the truth and are just plain intellectual idiots and racists who refuse to recognize what you are."- Huh?  What truth am I not realizing?  The reality is that you and your ilk once again, are not even remotely as smart as you think you are.  It differs for everyone but you just seem like a massive jealous idiot that that gets his jollies off by coming to an anonymous message board and ripping on people you think you understand by assigning opinions to them that they don't have.  I guess you do it to make yourself feel better or something.  You remind me of the 5 year old that doesn't want your best friend to have any other friends so you rip on all of them to somehow try and make yourself look cooler when the reality is that you are just insecure, jealous and pathetic.  

    • Hook 'Em 6
  16. 4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

    Yes that is exactly why he would lie about and why he in fact did lie about it.

    Or maybe he went to an Asian massage joint to try to kill whitey, figuring they would be the customers and the Asians were the collateral damage. 
     

    Dude was obviously targeting Asians. It’s a mystery to me why anyone would try to deny that but I guess the outrage machine needs its fuel. 

    I’ll just reply to this post but it is targeted toward all of the other usual suspects that have the same rhetoric.

    Posts like these are the reason why the vast majority of educated people think that you are idiots. You jump to conclusions based on little or no facts and then, simultaneously, scold other people for jumping to conclusions opposite of yours with little or no facts.  You are so blinded by your preconceived notions and ideologies that you literally have become the people that you chastise.

    The murderer in question spent many months in 2019/2020 in a sex addiction rehab facility.  We can debate the whys and why not in another thread but it is an absolute fact that the overwhelming majority of massage parlors that offer sexual favors are employed by Asians.  This in no way blames the massage parlor employees. It is simply a fact that if you are a sex addict and you need an easy fix then an Asian massage parlor is a fairly inexpensive and relatively safe way to get that fix.  The murderer admitted that he visited these places multiple times and received sexual favors before he committed the murders. There is absolutely nothing in his past, his statements to police, the statements of his former roommate or anyone else that suggest that he was targeting agents. If the vast majority of massage parlors that offered sexual favors were employed by some other race, then that race would have been the ones that he killed because those would have been the people that he received sexual favors from. The dude was obviously mentally unstable. 

    • Hook 'Em 8
    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  17. 8 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

    Most people in this thread are dipshits. You have one group taking this stuff and saying "omg this obviously means we have massive amounts of anti-asian sentiment and hate in this country. Asians are being murdered by the truckload!" No, dipshits, they aren't.

     

    Then you have another group saying "well how do we KNOW this guy was targeting Asians? It could just be a sex worker thing!" No, dipshits, it isn't. This guy had a history of saying negative things about Asians and only killed Asian people. Do the fucking math.

     

    I'm so fucking tired of these stories getting covered in a way that just makes everyone extrapolate the details of whatever happened to fit their worldview. Some things are just bullshit topics to begin with.

    I know this makes me a bad person but these are my favorite types of posts on this website.

    When a self righteous and obviously self unaware poster scolds other posters for playing fast and loose with the facts and then plays fast and loose with the facts.  Unintentional irony is always the funniest irony.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. On 3/14/2021 at 6:02 PM, Sawbonz said:

    Honest it’s probably the latter. More likely than not you would have figured things out in the end had you stayed in public school. I have nothing against private schools I just don’t see it as judicious use of my money. Unless the Ivies are important to you, or certain fraternities or sororities at certain other schools, it just doesn’t matter if you have a high aptitude kid

    I haven’t read the last few pages so maybe this has been addressed, but I agree with you and disagree with you on this point. I will agree that a very high percentage of“High aptitude“ kids are going to do well academically wherever they go to school. I also think that someone can make a good argument that the sociological aspect of most public schools (usually a much more diverse group of students from a racial, economic and customs perspective) can be a benefit to kids.  
     

    but there are also very legitimate reasons to send kids to private schools. as mentioned above, it really depends on the particular school.  Of course you are going to have wealthy parents whose kids are dumb and entitled go to private schools. That’s just reality.  but private schools alsoOffer a host of positive benefits including:

    1) Religion- whether you happen to be religious or not, there are many, many people that are and do enjoy the fact that many religious-based schools teach religion and their sense of morality.  You may think the reviews are ridiculous but those are their views and that is a big factor when they decide on schools.

    2) Extracurricular activities- This is actually a huge one for many parents. If you live in an area with a large public school then your options to play football, basketball, drama, debate or just about any extracurricular programs are severely limited. You are now competing against a huge number of people for a relative few open spots.

    3) Expectations- I agree with everyone that parental involvement is a huge factor. But, the expectations of the institutions also play a huge role. The Baltimore school clearly did not have any expectations that even a large percentage of their students would graduate and go to college. as always, human nature is always going to be what it is and kids will be kids.  I don’t think it is arguable that a kid is more likely to fall between the cracks in a large public school versus a small private school.


     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  19. 2 hours ago, Tuco said:

    I'd say that's a distinction with little difference.  Pope Francis, for all his intelligence, earnest study, and fine moral character, does not understand anything beyond the outline and stereotypes of a mature, sexual relationship.  None of them do.  Not a single fucking one of them.  Yet, they set the rules on contraception, divorce, and gay marriage.  And people actually listen to them.  

    I was raised Catholic.  I credit a scholarship to a Catholic high school to give me the stability to get into a good college.  I've known a lot of priests, and even corresponded with one for a few years.  Like any other profession, some are really good people and some are assholes.  But I would never listen to any of them when it comes to real life relationships.  You might as well take fashion advice from a blind man. 

    Have to disagree with this specific point.  I agree the Catholic Church has made gross errors over the years.  I understand why they handled the sexual abuse scandal the way that they did but it still did not make it right. They should have been completely transparent in their investigations and should have admitted the issues publicly and routed out the bad offenders.

    but, what you are asserting is that learned, intelligent individuals like the pope shouldn’t be able to dictate church positions on sexual issues because they take vows of celibacy.  I completely disagree. There are literally thousands of scientific sociological studies that address virtually every issue that the church deals with in these matters.  In addition, they have an almost unlimited supply of anecdotal evidence to pull from in their literally millions of conversations with men and women and married couples and members of LGBT community.  
     

    I used to actually have pretty much the same opinion that you have. Especially when it comes to marriage. How would a priest know what it takes for a successful, happy marriage when they’ve never experienced it.  But the reality is, that they are actually more qualified than almost any other subset of people. The reason is that over thousands of years they have discussed marriage and marriage issues with literally millions of married couples. Certainly there are many common traits that are necessary for a successful marriage and Priess have heard all of the good and all of the bad.

    Mike Leach never played football and yet is considered one of the best offensive minds in football maybe ever.  

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  20. 5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    And I will have my Horns Up and sing it at the end of every game, just like I always do.

    The irony of this post is off the charts.  DD's claims:

    1) It is an absolute fact that the song has racist origins

    2) It doesn't matter if the song is actually racist or not if our black athletes think it is then we should respect their feelings and no one should get to tell them what they should be offended about

    "If you say so, but it's clear that the EOT is no longer a unifying tradition at the University of Texas."

    So after 100s of pages of telling people that the song is racist, that even if it is not racist it doesn't matter if it is or not if black people, especially black athletes, think that it is racist then we should do away with it.  You fully admit to having always sung the song after games and will continue to do so.  So you admit that continued to sing a song that you admit was considered offensive and racist by the players.  You continued to sing a song and will continue to sing it even though you claim it is "no longer a unifying tradition at the University of Texas."  Who is the fucking racist here.  As usual, you and your ilk have zero true principles and zero character.

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 4
  21. CSB time that shows how things can change pretty quickly.

    I was able to be in the living room when Mack was recruiting a highly rated black athlete in 2004 (single mother with no father present).  At one point during the pitch Mack asked the player/mother if they knew anything about the "Eyes of Texas Tradition".  They didn't say much.  Mack spent the next 15 minutes talking about the song and its meaning within the Texas community.  Really hyped up the family atmosphere of not just the team but the whole Texas experience.  He then turned directly to the mother and said essentially "and we sing that song and raise our hands whether we win or lose.  We are not going to win every game and is important to have character and part of character is doing things even when you dont feel like.  But we build men with character at Texas".   The mom was sold and the player eventually signed with Texas.

    Just amazing to me that something that now is being used as a negative to UT and a perceived slight to Black players was used as a closing recruiting tool to Black players just a few years ago.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  22. 35 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    Ok, now you are claiming the Sidney Powell defense.  Yes, Sidney Powell said pretty much the same thing above, and was Flynn’s lawyer after he fired the other lawyers he lied to.  Really, Sidney Powell?  Incompetence is no defense.  Flynn knew what he was doing. So do you. Liar.

    To clarify, the filing under the LDA was due to Flynn et al lying about what they were actually doing, and who they were doing it for.  And Sidney Powell became his lawyer.  Release the Kraken!

    Man you are strange.  I’m not claiming any defense.  
     

    The FBI and the associated Mueller investigation tried to use FARA as leverage against Flynn. All Powell pointed out is that Flynn complied with the law as written by registering with Congress via the LDA.  Powell, rightfully, pointed out that if Flynn violated FARA then every single entity that registered with Congress via the LDA also violated FARA.  It was a bullshit claim by the FBI.

    The point that continually sails above your head is that you and others keep trying to imply that Flynn got caught somehow or that he was trying to hide his activities somehow. It is absurd to suggest that he was trying to hide his activities when he specifically reported those activities to Congress.  Under the LDA, Congress can, at any time, refer any particular foreign activity of a registrant to the DOJ for further scrutiny.  Flynn followed the law as written. Now you may not like that law and I may not like that law but that doesn’t change the fact that it was the law.  

    FARA was written back in the 1930s and the LDA basically modernized the law. as mentioned earlier, Biden’s current pics for secretary of state, secretary of defense and Director of national intelligence formed a lobbying/consulting company that cater to foreign businesses and foreign governments. They registered the entity with Congress via the LDA.  Their firm is doing the exact same thing that Flynns firm was doing which is using their government contacts as leverage to atttact business.  
     

    it will be quite telling if/when those individuals are forced to retroactively register as foreign agents if you will have the same opinion of them as you have of Flynn.

    • Fuck You 2
  23. 1 hour ago, immamac said:

    This is bullshit trolling. You aren't being intellectually honest about the comparison here or you are just plain stupid. Neither is acceptable for continuing the discussion. 

    If you think that the elected president of the United States cant talk about rainbows butterflies and what ifs with the president of a neighboring country post election to give both countries population a vote of confidence regarding alignment, then you are fucking stupid. 

    Flynn went beyond well wishes and talking about hypotheticals. He straight asked them to do shit. Just shut the fuck up with your nonsense. 

    It is not bullshit trolling and you are misrepresenting my stance and taking the argument out of context.  
     

    As I have said multiple times now, I have absolutely no problem with Biden talking with the president of Mexico about whatever he wants to talk about.  The issue is with other people that claimed that anyone speaking to a foreign government before they were sworn in was undermining US policy.  You keep saying things like butterflies and rainbows as if the conversation was completely generic and devoid of policy implications.  That is just false.  JuSt as one example, there is the issue of the current treatment of asylum seekers. The current administration, rightly or wrongly, has made a stipulation that those waiting for asylum must do it in Mexico. That is the official position Of the current US government. Biden flat out told the president of Mexico that he was going to change that policy.  You obviously do not seem to think that that is a big deal. I also do not happen to think it is that big of a deal. But it is, in fact, discussing changing current US policy with a foreign government.  Using your own words, that is beyond well wishing and hypotheticals. That is straight up telling another country’s leader that you are going to change the current US policy towards that nation to a position that is more favorable to that country’s president.  And again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Biden doing that.

    Flynn did not tell the Russians that the Trump administration was going to change anything. He asked them to temper their response to the Obama administration‘s latest round of sanctions and embassy personnel closings. Unlike the above I do not see any issue with Flynn or anyone asking a foreign government to temper their retaliation against the United States. You seem to think that Flynn asking them to temper their retaliation was somehow nefarious.  

    • Fuck You 1
×
×
  • Create New...