You is all a bunch of poofs!

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17110
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10861

Post by Brive1987 »

Almost certainly, definitely, definitively true.


MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10862

Post by MarcusAu »

Turk

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5154
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10863

Post by KiwiInOz »

MarcusAu wrote: Turk
Greek

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10864

Post by Keating »

Italian

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10865

Post by screwtape »

Indeed I do. An old hand at squicking and felching.

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10866

Post by screwtape »

Bugger. Didn't realise we had started a new page. Replying to FT.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10867

Post by MarcusAu »


jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10868

Post by jugheadnaut »

MarcusAu wrote:
Probably best known as the end of the line for the Timothy Hutton as teen heartthrob/leading man experiment.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10869

Post by jugheadnaut »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Much as I'd like the Wuhan Lab theory to be true, maybe the internet should back off long enough for the truth to put trousers on.
Typically good stuff from Potholer, although I don't think the disappearance and scrubbing of Huang Yan Ling is completely dismissable as rumor-mongering. As primary evidence of a lab leak, though, it's extremely weak sauce. I feel bad about originally posting the Laowhy video, although in my defense I was highly skeptical of his translation of the 'terrible virus' job posting that he regarded as the smoking gun of the lab leak.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13065
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10870

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Washington Post recent hagiography of Stacey Abrams features this portrait:
Stacey-Abrams-super-hero-photo_full-length-WaPo.png
(629.35 KiB) Downloaded 389 times
and gushing, fawning tripe such as:
Pandemonium ensues as she walks to the far left of the stage, like a runway supermodel....
The only runway supermodel Abrams resembles is this one:
► Show Spoiler

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10871

Post by mordacious1 »

Ken Osmond died. One of my favorite subjects for jokes when I was a kid:

Eddie: Hi Mrs Cleaver. How’s the Beaver?

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10894
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10872

Post by Lsuoma »


Driftless
.
.
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10873

Post by Driftless »

Lsuoma wrote: Stacey C5Abrams...
Stacey M1Abrams

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... -war-77621

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5154
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10874

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote: Almost certainly, definitely, definitively true.

Give it time. It's only been around in humans for about 6 months. All those others have a head start.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10875

Post by jugheadnaut »

One of the better anti-SJW think pieces I've read recently, in the form of a review of a 2016 book called Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America which won a National Book Award for non-fiction.

The Social Justice Endgame

Among the many bad ideas poorly argued in the book is a call to institute something akin to a Handicapper General government agency:
In the most horrifying passage of Stamped from the Beginning, Kendi calls for “creating an agency that aggressively investigates the disparities and punishes conscious and unconscious discriminators. This agency would also work toward equalizing the wealth and power of Black and White neighborhoods and their institutions” (emphasis added). Lest we worry about the totalitarian implications of granting the state complete jurisdiction over our minds and property, Kendi reassures us that his Department of Anti-racism would only be staffed with “formally trained experts on racism” (such as himself, presumably) and “no political appointees.”
My general approach to the leftist intellectual book scene is to treat it like a cultural toxic waste dump, a malign thing that's out there but not meriting notice except to make sure nothing too crazy is going on. I don't really think there's a danger of a Handicapper General anytime soon, but I note how easy it was to eliminate due process rules on campus for males accused of sexual assault when the sort of people who gave this book a National Book Award had the power to do so under a friendly administration. So this probably does deserve noticing.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10894
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10876

Post by Lsuoma »

Harrison Bergeron.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10877

Post by Keating »

Speaking of government mandated handicaps, how's your recovering going Lsuoma?

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10878

Post by MarcusAu »

...or non-governmentally mandated handicaps such as death.

Not just in general, but rather specifically in the case of Fred Willard.

(I'm guessing that a government mandated handicap would be the other one - ie Taxes - which would seem to be more of a suggestion when it comes to Amazon).

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5154
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10879

Post by KiwiInOz »

... or golfing handicaps.

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10880

Post by screwtape »

jugheadnaut wrote: One of the better anti-SJW think pieces I've read recently, in the form of a review of a 2016 book called Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America which won a National Book Award for non-fiction.

The Social Justice Endgame
A very good and amusing review. I presume the author has been sent to re-education camp and a mob of freedom-loving SJWs has burned down the offices of the magazine in order to save it?

fuzzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 2044
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10881

Post by fuzzy »

A police interactions channel called Audit the Audit has just published a video about the Ahmaud Arbery shooting, already flagged by YouTube. It contains lots of details I'd never heard before.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10894
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10882

Post by Lsuoma »

Keating wrote: Speaking of government mandated handicaps, how's your recovering going Lsuoma?
Thanks for asking - slow, but no major problems.

I was 60 in march, so I'm guessing I'll never get back to the four-minute mile. In fact, I never could do that, but when I was 18 I could cycle 25 miles in under 55 minutes.

BoxNDox
.
.
Posts: 618
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10883

Post by BoxNDox »

Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
This makes you sound like someone who has never actually engaged with the US justice system.

If agreeing to accept punishment for charges-- to avoid a worse outcome-- was punishable as perjury/ regardless of actual innocence-- then every defense lawyer would be
disbarred for knowingly helping a client commit a crime.
You're confusing/conflating a bunch of stuff here. First, when a defendant pleads guilty, their allocution (statement) is usually not made under oath. So if they lie it's not perjury.

Second, depending on jurisdiction, there can be alternatives to pleading guilty. A nolo contendere plea is one where the charge is not contested but guilt is not admitted. An Alford plea is one where the charge is accepted even though the defendant maintains his or her innocence. (Supposedly the main reason for doing this is to try and dodge the effect of a guilty plea on related civil matters.) What options there are and how they work vary hugely by jurisdiction, so even if Law and Order got it right don't assume it applies to you.

Third, lawyers who knowingly let their clients lie under oath and get caught cease to be lawyers. Which can lead to certain questions not getting asked.

Fourth, if I understand the situation correctly, none of this is relevant to the Flynn case. Flynn was specifically required to make a sworn statement admitting his crimes. This isn't the norm and says nothing about how things work for most people.

Finally, if you really give a shit about the legal theory behind allowing people to plead guilty even when they know they are innocent, I recommend reading North Carolina v. Alford.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1823
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10884

Post by justinvacula »

https://reason.com/2020/05/19/believe-a ... den-reade/

For a perfect example, see the journalist Susan Faludi in The New York Times: "'Believe All Women' Is a Right-Wing Trap," reads the headline on her article. Faludi accuses conservatives of inventing the idea that feminists were demanding that all women be believed. According to her, "the preferred hashtag of the #MeToo movement is #BelieveWomen. It's different without the 'all.' Believing women is simply the rejoinder to the ancient practice of #DoubtWomen."

"Good luck finding any feminist who thinks we should believe everything all women say—even what they say about sexual assault," Faludi continues. This directly contradicts her earlier admittal that she had in fact "encountered some feminists who seemed genuinely to subscribe" to the more extreme interpretation of the hashtag.

fuzzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 2044
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10885

Post by fuzzy »

Just curious, does anyone here actually believe in the piss dossier being anything like true in any major way?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10769
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10886

Post by free thoughtpolice »

fuzzy wrote: Just curious, does anyone here actually believe in the piss dossier being anything like true in any major way?
Some parts are false, some are true, and some are unproven.Steele presented it as raw information he had picked up from witting and unwitting sources. In other words, uncorroborated stories. As for what is true and what isn't there are several takes on this. Trump supporters claim none of it is true, many of his detractors believe it is all true, and some people like me tend to believe it is a mix.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics ... index.html

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10887

Post by fafnir »

fuzzy wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 1:36 pm
Just curious, does anyone here actually believe in the piss dossier being anything like true in any major way?
There should probably be an investigation.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10888

Post by jugheadnaut »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
fuzzy wrote: Just curious, does anyone here actually believe in the piss dossier being anything like true in any major way?
Some parts are false, some are true, and some are unproven.
But isn't this the hallmark of a source that has zero authoritative credibility, since one has to completely rely on outside evidence to determine the truth of any claim made in the source. And the 'truth' in the dossier is more in the vein of 'truthy', in that the specific claims about Trump campaign officials meeting Russians can't be corroborated, though in general such meetings did take place, even though subsequent saturation level investigation of such meetings could not support any claim of criminal activity.
free thoughtpolice wrote: Steele presented it as raw information he had picked up from witting and unwitting sources. In other words, uncorroborated stories.
Correct, because it was being prepared as an oppo research document for a political campaign, where even non-credible damaging hearsay information in the vein of 'some people say....' is desired. The question then becomes how such a document migrated to be used in FBI in law enforcement proceedings, especially in light of recent evidence they knew the nature of the dossier and that it had likely been compromised.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
.
.
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10889

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I don't give a fuck. New album releases in two days!

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10769
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10890

Post by free thoughtpolice »

re Steele dossier:
This is a bit of an old story so I'm going from recollection. The dossier w\as presented to the FISA court as what it was: raw material from opposition research so the judge(s) were able to decide if they would consider it.
The FBI included the document because some of it's content corroborated other information they had and they didn't depend on it as an initial source. Steele admitted when he presented to the FBI that some of the info was of questionable reliability and as any intelligence on Russia they needed to watch out for disinformation.
There were 35 pages in the dossier. I don't think it has been publicly released exactly what information in there was highlighted as material to obtaining warrants. To my knowledge, no information from the dossier has been found to have misled the FISA court.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10891

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 9:30 am
re Steele dossier:
This is a bit of an old story so I'm going from recollection. The dossier w\as presented to the FISA court as what it was: raw material from opposition research so the judge(s) were able to decide if they would consider it.
The FBI included the document because some of it's content corroborated other information they had and they didn't depend on it as an initial source. Steele admitted when he presented to the FBI that some of the info was of questionable reliability and as any intelligence on Russia they needed to watch out for disinformation.
There were 35 pages in the dossier. I don't think it has been publicly released exactly what information in there was highlighted as material to obtaining warrants. To my knowledge, no information from the dossier has been found to have misled the FISA court.
The Carter Page FISA application relied heavily on Steele. The FBI did NOT reveal important information regarding the veracity of the Steele report to the court, thereby deceiving them by omission. Take it up with Horowitz if you disagree.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5154
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10892

Post by KiwiInOz »

The Recant of Roe was brought to you today by the right wing evangelical network.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10893

Post by MarcusAu »

KiwiInOz wrote: The Recant of Roe was brought to you today by the right wing evangelical network.
Is this the part where the more reactionary contrarians start on about how the case was rammed through in defiance of states rights - and was a clear reinterpretation of the constitution?

For my part - the number of dead babies I'm willing to accommodate only shows my dedication to the cause and the extent of the sacrifices I'm willing to make.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10894

Post by jugheadnaut »

MarcusAu wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote: The Recant of Roe was brought to you today by the right wing evangelical network.
Is this the part where the more reactionary contrarians start on about how the case was rammed through in defiance of states rights - and was a clear reinterpretation of the constitution?
I highly doubt Roe opponents will use an event embarrassing to their cause as a catalyst for discussion of the case.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10895

Post by jugheadnaut »

As someone who has basically split their adult life between Canada and the U.S., I find the relatively small cultural differences between the countries interesting, especially the counter-intuitive ones. In that vein, I note the difference in mask policy between Costco U.S. and Costco Canada. Mask wearing at Costco is currently mandatory in the U.S., and voluntary in Canada, despite anti-mask sentiment being quite a bit larger and more voluble in the U.S. I strongly suspect the distinction boils down to differences in political polarization patterns.

Costco members in the US are stereotypically lefty-progressive, to the point many believe Costco membership is a reflection of their progressive values. The desire for strong regulation of personal behavior in response to COVID-19,of course, also shows sharp political polarization. Costco U.S. likely has incorporated their mask policy because they believe it will be popular among their customers, despite what broader opinion may be. In contrast, there is far less political polarization on both counts in Canada.

I haven't seen any actual statistics, but in my experience Costco Canada shoppers tend to be relatively affluent homeowners who see shopping at Costco as simply a savvy financial decision, and probably lean small-c conservative. Lefty-progressive types in Canada would tout shopping at small, independent shops as being reflective of their progressive values, not a Costco membership. Thus, Costco Canada shoppers are far less likely to support mask mandates in the warehouse than their US counterparts, and in both cases Costco is being guided by what they believe are customer preferences. My theory, anyway.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10896

Post by jugheadnaut »

Fascinating addendum to the Norma McCorvery payout revelation. Rob Schenck, the minister who is quoted in the news coverage as confirming the payout, is himself a side-switcher on Roe v Wade. He's apparently still anti-abortion, but has become pro-Roe as he believes it does more good than harm. This is the first example I've heard of a pro-life activist who changed sides without a full religious deconversion. And, once again, come on media, I know this is counter-narrative but it's highly pertinent to the story and should be mentioned.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10897

Post by Driftless »

jugheadnaut wrote: As someone who has basically split their adult life between Canada and the U.S., I find the relatively small cultural differences between the countries interesting, especially the counter-intuitive ones. In that vein, I note the difference in mask policy between Costco U.S. and Costco Canada. Mask wearing at Costco is currently mandatory in the U.S., and voluntary in Canada, despite anti-mask sentiment being quite a bit larger and more voluble in the U.S. I strongly suspect the distinction boils down to differences in political polarization patterns.

Costco members in the US are stereotypically lefty-progressive, to the point many believe Costco membership is a reflection of their progressive values. The desire for strong regulation of personal behavior in response to COVID-19,of course, also shows sharp political polarization. Costco U.S. likely has incorporated their mask policy because they believe it will be popular among their customers, despite what broader opinion may be. In contrast, there is far less political polarization on both counts in Canada.

I haven't seen any actual statistics, but in my experience Costco Canada shoppers tend to be relatively affluent homeowners who see shopping at Costco as simply a savvy financial decision, and probably lean small-c conservative. Lefty-progressive types in Canada would tout shopping at small, independent shops as being reflective of their progressive values, not a Costco membership. Thus, Costco Canada shoppers are far less likely to support mask mandates in the warehouse than their US counterparts, and in both cases Costco is being guided by what they believe are customer preferences. My theory, anyway.
You don't know how this works. Here is a much better theory: Costco, being a US-based corporation, values the lives of US citizens over Canadians. The face mask policy difference between US stores and Canadian stores is just one example of this.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10898

Post by Driftless »

Driftless wrote:
jugheadnaut wrote: As someone who has basically split their adult life between Canada and the U.S., I find the relatively small cultural differences between the countries interesting, especially the counter-intuitive ones. In that vein, I note the difference in mask policy between Costco U.S. and Costco Canada. Mask wearing at Costco is currently mandatory in the U.S., and voluntary in Canada, despite anti-mask sentiment being quite a bit larger and more voluble in the U.S. I strongly suspect the distinction boils down to differences in political polarization patterns.

Costco members in the US are stereotypically lefty-progressive, to the point many believe Costco membership is a reflection of their progressive values. The desire for strong regulation of personal behavior in response to COVID-19,of course, also shows sharp political polarization. Costco U.S. likely has incorporated their mask policy because they believe it will be popular among their customers, despite what broader opinion may be. In contrast, there is far less political polarization on both counts in Canada.

I haven't seen any actual statistics, but in my experience Costco Canada shoppers tend to be relatively affluent homeowners who see shopping at Costco as simply a savvy financial decision, and probably lean small-c conservative. Lefty-progressive types in Canada would tout shopping at small, independent shops as being reflective of their progressive values, not a Costco membership. Thus, Costco Canada shoppers are far less likely to support mask mandates in the warehouse than their US counterparts, and in both cases Costco is being guided by what they believe are customer preferences. My theory, anyway.
You don't know how this works. Here is a much better theory: Costco, being a US-based corporation, values the lives of US citizens over Canadians. The face mask policy difference between US stores and Canadian stores is just one example of this.
Wait, upon further thought it occurs to me that this means that Costco wants a genocide of Canadians! Print the signs and start the sit-ins.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10899

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
BoxNDox wrote: ....Flynn was specifically required to make a sworn statement admitting his crimes. This isn't the norm and says nothing about how things work for most people....
I'm replying because-- I just saw a tweet-- from the Ukraine whistleblower's attorney Mark Zaid-- asserting the same talking-point as FTP. Zaid described the FBI's handling of Flynn as:

"routine law enforcement interview tactics and by no means undercut General Flynn’s prior admissions of lying to the FBI–a felony–and accepting full responsibility for his actions."

Missing from Zaid & FTP's version-- is Flynn formally-filing four-months-ago to have his guilty plea withdrawn. On what basis? Flynn's attorneys asserted that the govt had broken their plea agreement with Flynn. And the govt had acted in bad-faith. And with personal vindictiveness toward Flynn. Those assertions are fortified by more-recent revelations about govt conduct in the case. So it's kinda weird to wave-around this 'perjury' talking point, but overlook Flynn having-withdrawn his guilty plea.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10769
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10900

Post by free thoughtpolice »

A little long, but covers in good detail the Flynn saga from start to finish:

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10901

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote: A little long, but covers in good detail the Flynn saga from start to finish:
0m51s "...despite the prosecutor's change of heart, the judge has the final say over all this..."

This video is 43 minutes long. I'm less than a minute in-- and Hunter Biden has just said something I don't believe to be true.

According to what I've read-- the controlling precedent in U.S. v. Fokker Services B.V.-- says that the decision whether to prosecute or drop a case-- lies with the Prosecution. And the judge may not "usurp" that decision. And Ruth Bader Ginsberg's recent opinion in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith-- sez a judge may only judge the case as has been presented-- not take a prosecutorial role to reshape the case into a version the judge wishes had been presented. Both precedents were cited in a Flynn amicus brief.

So-- if I keep listening-- will Biden-fils address the gap between these precedents & Judge Sullivan's handling of the case?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10769
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10902

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Service Dog wrote:
According to what I've read-- the controlling precedent in U.S. v. Fokker Services B.V.-- says that the decision whether to prosecute or drop a case-- lies with the Prosecution. And the judge may not "usurp" that decision. And Ruth Bader Ginsberg's recent opinion in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith-- sez a judge may only judge the case as has been presented-- not take a prosecutorial role to reshape the case into a version the judge wishes had been presented. Both precedents were cited in a Flynn amicus brief.

So-- if I keep listening-- will Biden-fils address the gap between these precedents & Judge Sullivan's handling of the case?
I don't recall if he addresses those specific points. Do any of the precedents you cite apply to cases that have already been resolved and were waiting for sentencing?
Nolle prosequi,[a] abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue".[3][4] In Commonwealth and US common law, it is used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered;[5] it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.
Early in the video he makes the mistake of saying that the GRU is the new nym for the KGB. Infact, the GRU is military intelligence and has been called that for a long time whereas the KGB which was the federal security is now called the FSB. Is that hte mistake you're talking about?

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5154
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10903

Post by KiwiInOz »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: I don't give a fuck. New album releases in two days!
Woo hoo. :banana-rock: :banana-rock: :banana-rock: :banana-rock: :banana-rock: :banana-rock:

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10904

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Is that hte mistake you're talking about?
No. I was talking about this quote: "...despite the prosecutor's change of heart, the judge has the final say over all this..." I interpreted that as a 'mistake' because of the 2 cases I cited: the prosecutor has say over prosecuting. The judge's role doesn't include prosecuting. But-- since Judge Sullivan didn't defer to the prosecution dropping the case-- I guess we'll eventually find-out whether Sullivan acted inappropriately/ or whether a valid new loophole has been established.

mike150160
.
.
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:17 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10905

Post by mike150160 »

Service Dog wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 9:56 am
free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
BoxNDox wrote: ....Flynn was specifically required to make a sworn statement admitting his crimes. This isn't the norm and says nothing about how things work for most people....
I'm replying because-- I just saw a tweet-- from the Ukraine whistleblower's attorney Mark Zaid-- asserting the same talking-point as FTP. Zaid described the FBI's handling of Flynn as:

"routine law enforcement interview tactics and by no means undercut General Flynn’s prior admissions of lying to the FBI–a felony–and accepting full responsibility for his actions."

Missing from Zaid & FTP's version-- is Flynn formally-filing four-months-ago to have his guilty plea withdrawn. On what basis? Flynn's attorneys asserted that the govt had broken their plea agreement with Flynn. And the govt had acted in bad-faith. And with personal vindictiveness toward Flynn. Those assertions are fortified by more-recent revelations about govt conduct in the case. So it's kinda weird to wave-around this 'perjury' talking point, but overlook Flynn having-withdrawn his guilty plea.
I still don't follow. I accept that a guilty plea may not be made under oath but I thought that Flynn's statement of culpability was. In that case he's lying at least once, either when he said he was guilty or when he withdrew the statement of guilt.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10906

Post by Service Dog »

CNN & NY Times report that Tara Reade lied about her academic credentials in Domestic Violence-- while serving as an expert witness in a decade of Domestic Violence cases.

As Tara Reade’s Expert Witness Credentials Are Questioned, So Are Verdicts

Tara Reade, who has accused Joseph R. Biden Jr. of sexual assault, served as an expert witness in domestic violence cases for nearly a decade.

By Lisa Lerer, Jim Rutenberg and Stephanie Saul
May 21, 2020

Defense lawyers in California are reviewing criminal cases in which Tara Reade, the former Senate aide who has accused Joseph R. Biden Jr. of sexual assault, served as an expert witness on domestic violence, concerned that she misrepresented her educational credentials in court.

Then known as Alexandra McCabe, Ms. Reade testified as a government witness in Monterey County courts for nearly a decade, describing herself as an expert in the dynamics of domestic violence who had counseled hundreds of victims.

But lawyers who had faced off against her in court began raising questions about the legitimacy of her testimony, and the verdicts that followed, after news reports this week that Antioch University had disputed her claim of receiving a bachelor’s degree from its Seattle campus.

The public defender’s office in Monterey County has begun scrutinizing cases involving Ms. Reade and compiling a list of clients who may have been affected by her testimony, according to Jeremy Dzubay, an assistant public defender in the office.

Roland Soltesz, a criminal defense lawyer, says he believes Ms. Reade’s testimony made a significant difference in the outcome of the 2018 trial of his client Victoria Ramirez. Both Ms. Ramirez and her co-defendant, Jennifer Vasquez, received life sentences for attempted murder, arson and armed robbery.

“People have been convicted based upon this, and that’s wrong,” said Mr. Soltesz, adding that he “could care less about the politics of this whole thing.”

Ms. Reade has accused Mr. Biden of assaulting her in the Senate complex in 1993, placing his hand under her dress and penetrating her with his fingers. Mr. Biden flatly denies her accusation.

Questions about Ms. Reade’s education background were first reported by CNN.
Ms. Reade told The New York Times that she had obtained her degree through a “protected program” for victims of spousal abuse, which, court records show, she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband in the mid-1990s. That history, she said, caused her to change her name, leading to confusion about her status at the school. She later received a law degree from Seattle University.


But an Antioch spokeswoman, Karen Hamilton, told The Times that while Ms. Reade had attended classes, she was certain Ms. Reade had not received a degree.


In her testimony in the 2018 trial, Ms. Reade was questioned about her degree by Mr. Soltesz. She testified that she received a liberal arts degree, as was stated on her résumé provided by the district attorney’s office. “The focus was political science,” she said, according to a trial transcript.


Ms. Reade also told the court that she was currently a substitute teacher but had worked in domestic violence prevention for more than two decades and testified in more than 20 cases. Her career began, she said, in Mr. Biden’s office.

“I was a legislative assistant,” she said, according to the testimony. “He worked on the Violence Against Women Act, the federal act.”

Staff lists published in 1993 show Ms. Reade listed as a staff assistant, a different position from the legislative assistant job she cited in her testimony. Both titles are common in congressional offices, with legislative assistant indicating a slightly more senior post that involves working on policy. In multiple interviews, Ms. Reade described her duties as managing the interns, never mentioning any direct work on the Violence Against Women Act.


In an interview, Mr. Soltesz described Ms. Reade as “well spoken” and “a good witness on the stand,” and said he was impressed by her experience with Mr. Biden.

But both Mr. Soltesz and Scott Erdbacher, the lawyer for Ms. Vasquez, raised objections to Ms. Reade’s testimony, according to the transcript, saying they were skeptical that her work experience qualified her as an expert. The judge overruled them.


Now, Mr. Soltesz says he is exploring whether he can reopen his case. On Wednesday evening, he emailed a network of more than 100 public defenders, alerting them to questions about Ms. Reade’s background and credibility.

Monique S. Hill, a lawyer in another domestic violence case in which Ms. Reade served as an expert witness, said she also saw grounds to challenge the conviction.

“Had I had the information that I have now, this case, in my mind, would have gone differently,” said Ms. Hill, who served as a public defender.

The Monterey County chief assistant district attorney, Berkley Brannon, said that if Ms. Reade had misrepresented her academic credentials, the office would alert all defense lawyers involved in cases that featured her as an expert.

Ms. Reade earned credits from Pasadena City College before studying at Antioch University. Antioch disputes Ms. Reade’s account that she received a degree from the university.
Credit...
Emily Berl for The New York Times
“That would absolutely be of concern to us, and it’s something that the defense attorneys would need to know about,” he said. “We don’t want people that we call lying about anything.”

He said the office would not make any move to contact defense lawyers until it was satisfied that she indeed had not obtained her bachelor’s degree. And, speaking hypothetically, he said that the extent to which a false academic claim would affect the cases she participated in would depend on how material her testimony was to the outcome.

The Sixth District Appellate Program, a state-funded public interest law firm that represents low-income clients in the region, is also reviewing all the cases involving Ms. Reade.

Ms. Reade maintains that she has an undergraduate degree, saying the school has no record of her graduating because of special arrangements put in place to protect her from her ex-husband. She sent The Times a screenshot of a transcript showing her with 35 course credits, her department as “BA Completion” and nothing listed under “date conferred” or “degree conferred.” According to the photo, she entered school on Oct. 2, 2000.

Credits from her earlier studies at Pasadena City College were linked to her old social security number and name — the same one she now uses — making her worried that her ex-husband could find her and her daughter, she says. To protect her identity as a survivor of domestic abuse, Ms. Reade says she received her degree through the private assistance of the school’s then-president, Tullisse Murdock. She says she never received a diploma or requested one since she was “fast-tracked” to law school.

“The president took it from the registrar and did it herself for complete confidentiality,” she said in an interview.

But Ms. Hamilton, the Antioch spokeswoman, told The Times that it had spoken with Ms. Murdock, and that there was no such special arrangement with Ms. Reade. It takes 180 credits to graduate, and students earn up to a maximum of 45 for life experience or prior studies, according to the school’s website.

Seattle University School of Law confirmed that Ms. Reade graduated with a J.D. degree in 2004. The school only considers accepting students with bachelor’s degrees, according to its website. But it would not share what degree Ms. Reade presented with her initial application, citing federal privacy standards.

Lying in court is generally considered to be a crime, though one that can be hard to prosecute. To be considered perjury, usually the false statement has to be a knowing lie.


Even if Ms. Reade was not found to have perjured herself, exaggerating qualifications as an expert witness could be grounds for reversal of a verdict.

“An expert can only testify in certain circumstances,” said Mark J. Reichel, a criminal defense lawyer based in Sacramento who formerly worked as a federal public defender. “One of them is that they have expertise above the regular person. The jury is entitled to hear your qualifications.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/p ... tials.html

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13065
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10907

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Service Dog wrote: CNN & NY Times report that Tara Reade lied about her academic credentials in Domestic Violence-- while serving as an expert witness in a decade of Domestic Violence cases.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/p ... tials.html[/font]
What part of '#BelieveWomen' don't you get?

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10908

Post by Service Dog »

I like how CNN & the NY Times suddenly become top-notch investigators of bad-feminism, when Biden is in the hotseat.

Somebody needs to accuse him of assaulting 1 in 4 women on a college campus. And benefiting from the wage gap. And of toxic masculinity, playing violent videogames, discouraging girls from STEM careers, failing to check his privilege, shaving with Gillette, and wearing a 'No Fat Chicks' t-shirt.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10909

Post by fafnir »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Service Dog wrote: CNN & NY Times report that Tara Reade lied about her academic credentials in Domestic Violence-- while serving as an expert witness in a decade of Domestic Violence cases.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/p ... tials.html[/font]
What part of '#BelieveWomen' don't you get?
The average man has a 0.00021281% of being falsely accused of rape. It's barely worth concerning oneself with.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... ed-of-rape

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10910

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

mike150160 wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 5:49 pm
Service Dog wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 9:56 am
free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
BoxNDox wrote: ....Flynn was specifically required to make a sworn statement admitting his crimes. This isn't the norm and says nothing about how things work for most people....
I'm replying because-- I just saw a tweet-- from the Ukraine whistleblower's attorney Mark Zaid-- asserting the same talking-point as FTP. Zaid described the FBI's handling of Flynn as:

"routine law enforcement interview tactics and by no means undercut General Flynn’s prior admissions of lying to the FBI–a felony–and accepting full responsibility for his actions."

Missing from Zaid & FTP's version-- is Flynn formally-filing four-months-ago to have his guilty plea withdrawn. On what basis? Flynn's attorneys asserted that the govt had broken their plea agreement with Flynn. And the govt had acted in bad-faith. And with personal vindictiveness toward Flynn. Those assertions are fortified by more-recent revelations about govt conduct in the case. So it's kinda weird to wave-around this 'perjury' talking point, but overlook Flynn having-withdrawn his guilty plea.
I still don't follow. I accept that a guilty plea may not be made under oath but I thought that Flynn's statement of culpability was. In that case he's lying at least once, either when he said he was guilty or when he withdrew the statement of guilt.
Really? The justice system in the US operates on plea bargains. Huge pressure is put on defendants to take a plea. They are facing bills of tens of thousands to millions to go to trial, they are offered lower sentences or lesser charges to plea and know that inflated sentences will be imposed should they lose at trial. Do you think it is just to prosecute a lie that is coerced at the point of a proverbial gun?

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10911

Post by Service Dog »

fafnir wrote: The average man has a 0.00021281% of being falsely accused of rape. It's barely worth concerning oneself with.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... ed-of-rape
I clicked your link. The statistical methodology is retarded:

"the number of people prosecuted for making false allegations — suggests that the average adult man in England and Wales has a 0.00021281 per cent chance of being falsely accused of rape in a year. (That’s based on 35 prosecutions for false rape allegations in 2011 compared to 16.5 million men aged 16 to 59 living in England and Wales at the time).

By this measure, a man is 230 times more likely to be raped than to be falsely accused of rape."

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1823
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10912

Post by justinvacula »

Michael Sherlock of Atheist Alliance International posted saying he wants to work with Democrats and Republicans in atheist groups as long as people are working towards a common cause.

Soon after, Shermer rape accuser messages Sherlock and then blocks him when he asks (after she brought up, for some reason, Shermer) if she pressed charges. People in comments now piling on Sherlock mentioning 'dudebros,' 'incels,' etc



"CW: Rape + David Silverman."

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10913

Post by MarcusAu »

Does anyone here support (financially or otherwise) the AAI, the FFRF or any of the other various atheist or secularist activist organisations? Or did you support them in the past and stop? If so for what reason?

Curious minds want to know - and after all I am what some might call a most curious individual.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1823
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10914

Post by justinvacula »

MarcusAu wrote: Does anyone here support (financially or otherwise) the AAI, the FFRF or any of the other various atheist or secularist activist organisations? Or did you support them in the past and stop? If so for what reason?

Curious minds want to know - and after all I am what some might call a most curious individual.
I'm just supporting Atheists For Liberty now, I have high hopes for the group who notes, in their about section, that they will stand against wokeness.

I dropped support from FFRF after they went down the SJW path most notably with their statement (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/freethoughtnow/4385-2/) bashing American Atheists and Dave following initial allegations. FFRF jumped the shark :\

Satanic Temple is doing good work, too, was happy to buy a t-shirt!

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17110
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10915

Post by Brive1987 »

Here is my covid contribution.


fafnir
.
.
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10916

Post by fafnir »

Service Dog wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 10:50 am
fafnir wrote: The average man has a 0.00021281% of being falsely accused of rape. It's barely worth concerning oneself with.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... ed-of-rape
I clicked your link. The statistical methodology is retarded:

"the number of people prosecuted for making false allegations — suggests that the average adult man in England and Wales has a 0.00021281 per cent chance of being falsely accused of rape in a year. (That’s based on 35 prosecutions for false rape allegations in 2011 compared to 16.5 million men aged 16 to 59 living in England and Wales at the time).

By this measure, a man is 230 times more likely to be raped than to be falsely accused of rape."
I agree with you. I was just remembering the Facebook posts from my friends in California about why the Kavanaugh accusations could be assumed to be true.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10917

Post by fafnir »

Also claiming a 0.00021281% of a false accusation is the most extreme I've seen this pushed.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13065
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10918

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

MarcusAu wrote: Does anyone here support (financially or otherwise) the AAI, the FFRF or any of the other various atheist or secularist activist organisations? Or did you support them in the past and stop? If so for what reason?

Curious minds want to know - and after all I am what some might call a most curious individual.
I've never donated to any of these shit-ass orgs. I once did a brief transcription for Justin pro bono. I'll gladly do mediocre but free graphic design or corporate identity for any worthy -- and desperate enough to use me -- group.

My dad tosses FFRF a few bucks each year. I tried to dissuade him, but you can't teach an octogenarian dog new tricks.

FFRF is just one of zillions of ineffectual non-profits that exist solely to milk donations from well-intentioned folks. SPLC comes to mind, but United Way is the queen of that scam.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17110
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10919

Post by Brive1987 »

Is this a name from the distant elevator-gate past? Or am I imagining things?


KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5154
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10920

Post by KiwiInOz »

MarcusAu wrote: Does anyone here support (financially or otherwise) the AAI, the FFRF or any of the other various atheist or secularist activist organisations? Or did you support them in the past and stop? If so for what reason?

Curious minds want to know - and after all I am what some might call a most curious individual.
You most certainly are a curious person. Curiouser and curiouser, even.

Post Reply