Jump to content

tantric superman

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    6,441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tantric superman

  1. The obsessive following of Trump's actions would be similar to throwing out fresh food out in the front lawn, such that he gets more attention from the family who you would think would want to keep him away. Don't feed the bear.
  2. I think in retrospect Biden would have done best focusing on the federal contractor executive order. The private sector OSHA order should have just provided information to employees about vaccinations and mask rules. The most important EO or EEOC guidance would have been that termination of employees who refused to get the vaccine by private sector employees would not be deemed to be a violation of any federal law (outside of ADA or religious accommodation).
  3. Eh, fuck it. I guess I just should have worded it this way: Trump - don't needlessly feed that fucking troll unless you fucking have to.
  4. As good as it would have if we didn't celebrate/freak out about his every utterance. Bizarre how any sort of nuance about an approach to dealing with Trump's media exposure riles you up. I think that kind of makes the point. Sorry he's not on twitter where you could follow him more closely.
  5. You think obsession is going to hurt Trump? Boy, do I have some bad news for you.
  6. That's not the take. The take is to stop dramatizing what he's doing. State the news but don't wallow in it. We need to focus on the people who actually hold office and stop overfeeding the Trump frenzy.
  7. Actually, what some people need -- especially the folks who claim to hate Trump -- is a reality show about him to make their world a better place.
  8. We don't have to obsess about him. Those 95% want you to obsess about loser Trump. They get their power from it. You let the law deal with Trump and don't trumpet his every move,they lose power, because without you and the press focusing on Trump, they got nothing to hold on to except their stupid ideas. The lose their figurehead, they've got nothing. Trump is 25% Republican obsession, and 75% media and liberal obsession. Sure, no issues with following up on his prosecution. But tell your wife about it. Don't tweet it and don't add to the circus. And limit it to this thread.
  9. That kid who was in Crocodile Tears. The one who played the bagpipes. Dude was hilarious.
  10. It's not a big deal. It's too bad more people don't think everything the loser does isn't a big deal because he's a fucking loser. Instead, the fucking reality tv morons who make up the bulk of this uneducated country make a big deal out of everything he does. We voted for Biden so we didn't have to deal with this fucker and you people can't leave it alone.
  11. 5th Circuit - if it is a rule that can be applied to increase safety outside of the workplace, it is therefore suspect if it can increase safety in the workplace.
  12. They [still] got a lot of nice girls, ah! Have mercy!
  13. Nope, just making the argument that the context of any person carrying a firearm could play into the issue of provocation. I'm going to give lots of leeway to a police officer who sees someone brandishing a firearm, depending on the context. I'll give less leeway to a non-uniformed civilian running into a high stress situation where others are brandishing weapons or the police are involved in crowd control. This is a case about specific laws, but it's also, a case about vigilantism in general. vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate. vigilante carlstroem:
  14. The simple act of doing a legal, or legal act, in context, could provoke any action. Depends on the context. Given what we should expect from this case with what we know, finding that a white kid with a weapon provoking anything is set at a pretty high bar.
  15. If you want to get your jollies from being misogynist, at least get the comparisons correct. 1) To compare a woman wearing provocative closes to Rittenhouse, you'd have to have her wear provocative clothes, and then cut off the penis of the guy who tried to rape her, establishing that she planned to engage in mayhem before she put on the provocative clothing. 2) To compare Rittenhouse to a woman wearing provocative clothing, perhaps you have him wear a t-shirt that says "I like to shoot N----" while he goes about Kenosha unarmed. THOSE are slightly more apt comparisons.
  16. Just googled self-defense/Wisconsin. Establishing the hypotheticals that would have led to an optimal non-death outcome would seem to a good way to show a jury the various ways that the accused was provoking an attack or could have avoided provoking an attack. (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant. (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. 939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
  17. Are your people going to be talking to her people when they call your people, trying to make something good come out of this?
  18. I read this as if Marial Hemingway said it. Back when people might have had a little faith in Woody Allen (4:50)
  19. I can't fucking read this thread anymore until they eliminate all but one of the fucking morons running in the Republican primary.
  20. Huffines: "Pretty soon they'll be using code words like "sexual harassment" and "qualified disabled person"".
  21. I meant to post this after the Arkansas game. Perhaps I waited too long...
  22. You seem to be under the impression that Jacob Blake didn't provoke everything.
  23. In retrospect, so much less painful to do a press conference explaining why you aren't going to press charges due to how fucked up Wisconsin's laws are. I don't think there will be a bigger impetus for yahoos to take their weapons to any protest/meeting throughout the US which is tangentially attended/related to minorities than the not guilty findings.
  24. I'm not saying Rittenhouse isn't going to win. I'm saying that it's a difficult case because Rittenhouse is so obviously in the wrong, and the laws will not find him as such. Sometimes you defend a case you are going to lose, and sometimes you prosecute a case you can't win. Because some things rise above the technicalities of the law.
  25. If Rittenhouse wasn't in the wrong, it would be an easy case.
×
×
  • Create New...