Jump to content

Serak The Preparer

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Serak The Preparer

  1. 16 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    Long before that. Like immediately after the place was cleared of insurgents. 

    And immediately afterwards Congress was let back in without any other controls. At that point, do you think there was literally any evidentiary value left in the crime scene? Any conceivable situation where anything wouldn't be spoiled in court? Even if nobody in Congress picks something up, can it be shown that the chain of custody is clear?

    "Well your honor, it is true that someone might have brought this in from the outside, or someone might have touched this, but we didn't see anyone do it so are super sure it is cool to enter into court". 

    Anyone casting any aspersions, criticism, or blame on anyone in Congress for helping to clean is looking for something to criticize. Crime scenes aren't crime scenes once non-police are waling around willy-nilly. 

  2. 1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    It was a crime scene and should’ve been treated as such. No congress members or staff should have been touching anything. Bring in the FBI to process the scene. Photograph everything, collect and catalog every piece of evidence to aid in the criminal prosecution of Trump’s goons who attempted to overthrow democracy. 
     

    Probably not realistic to think that could happen. But it seems like that’s what should’ve happened. 

    It certainly should have been a crime scene, but it wasn't. The second the cops let Congress back in, it ceased being a crime scene. For fuck's sake, imagine a single piece of evidence being brought to court after the way everyone was let back in in an uncontrolled manner. Imagine how many objections there would be. 

  3. 3 hours ago, Restinmybones said:

    I'm new and I've already discovered the pervasive lemming like mindset here. You should never think much at all when posting at this site, other than to fit in. It reflects the general population. Drinking heavily would help when posting here. Essentially, you need to assume that this site consists of 13 year old boys divided into two or three cliques. 

    Ah yes, we need more deep thinking like:

    Capture+_2021-01-08-11-33-46.png

    Please stop with you bullshit "oh I am such a deep thinker, everyone here is too quick to judge."

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  4. 41 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    Not sure where to put this but I still have 5 neighbors who had full dotard flair flying in front of their houses.  

    Last night I ordered 5 blue yard signs that have "TRAITOR" written in red in large letters.  Before I put them in their yards; am I breaking any laws?  I can place the  signs in their yards w/out ever stepping on their property.  Just checking. 

     

    30 minutes ago, Bookman said:

    Yeah dude that's a trespass.

    Not a lawyer but isn't it only a trespass if they tell you to leave? Otherwise UPS would be trespassing every time they drop off a package. In short, do it my man!

  5. 22 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

    This may have been asked and answered but why the difference in votes cast, both in total and for candidates?    I guess Georgians can stomach Perdue better?

    I am far from an expert on GA (or any) politics, but from I've read there are essentially four reasons.

    In no particular order:

    - Purdue is a big name in GA politics so expected to do better on that regard

    - Loeffler had not been elected, but appointed, so presumably had less incumbency advantage

    - Warnock is better known / had longer political background than Ossoff, so he had a bit more of an advantage over Loeffler

    - People are more likely to vote for a man than a woman, so even absent all of the above expect to see a bit of differential

    I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but this is my understanding of key reasons.

  6. 1 hour ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:
    1 hour ago, Getafix said:
     
    Interesting that players needed to be reminded of those things.
     

    They're 18-22 years old. Half of them need to be reminded not to put their dicks into light sockets  skip Texas games to watch Twilight movies in search of pussy.

     

  7. 1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

     

    The problem with Giuliani et al is that what they are doing is ultimately speech.  It is false and dangerous speech, but, unfortunately the First Amendment protects such speech in most cases.  The disciplinary arms of most state bars are going to be state actors and will not be able to abridge their speech, even under the notion that lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

     

    Calling Giuliani's actions "free speech" is bullshit. I am sure that it is 100% correct, legally, but it is also 100% bullshit. If he just gave a press conference and ranted on Fox / Twitter then sure, it's speech. But filing lawsuits is different. That requires legal defense, generally requiring time and money. So not just false and dangerous but explicitly financially costly to the state and taxpayers.

    It is obvious that I am not a lawyer but I've never read about a lawsuit and thought "That's some mighty fine Free Speech!"

  8. On 11/11/2020 at 10:36 AM, Hate said:

    Nobody has supported violence against elected officials. I don’t know what you are talking about.

    Has anyone supported property damage either? This is not rhetorical, I sure as shit haven't read all 100 pages, but I don't recall anyone saying "Fuck yeah, burn that building!". Certainly there's been view that it's not surprising, that it's a natural reaction to oppression, etc., and these views are certainly debatable, but that is different than support of property violence.

  9. 21 hours ago, Enchubben said:

    "Who built the cages, Joe?" Do you think the separating of illegal immigrant children from their parents started with Donald Trump?

     

    18 hours ago, Serak The Preparer said:

    Yes. It sounds like you don't, probably because you are misinformed. Let me ask you, do you think the separating of illegal immigrant children from their parents started with Donald Trump?

    Hey @Enchubben, just asking questions and all, but do you think the separating of illegal immigrant children from their parents started with Donald Trump? Several people answered you but I can't seem to find a response from you for some reason.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    I'm pretty sure she called him to concede on election night. 

    She may have called him that night, but I don't think so. She delivered concession speech the next day. And to be clear, the vote was close and I see absolutely no fucking problem with her waiting till the next day, I just remember laughing when I saw Lobo pissed that she waited so long.

×
×
  • Create New...