Idiot Don Poorleon is stupidly wasting more money by sueing ABC/Disney for saying he raped Carroll in an attempt to distract from his criminal cases.

He’s already tried this once in NY and it was tossed immediately.

Not only will it not go to trial, he’ll be sanctioned because he has already been adjudicated to have been a rapist by a judge in a courtroom. Rape doesn’t require his penis enter her vagina, forcible penetration is rape, and he forcible penetrated her against her will with something near finger size, could be his penis or tiny finger, either way that’s rape, he’s a rapist.

Disney is going to get a few million more from him, maybe MarALago if NY doesn’t get it first, and his legal team will be sanctioned too.

Holy fuck! Day 1 of the criminal trial was an unmitigated disaster for broke Pervert Hoover. The judge saw through the delay tactics like they weren’t there and has set a trial date for April 15, and excoriated diaper don’s attorney for making charges of prosecutorial misconduct against the DA and the judge himself publicly but having no citation of any instances of misconduct by anyone on the prosecution side or the judge. How stupid can you be to accuse the judge of misconduct before the case starts? The judge has shitloads of leeway, and can ruin don’s case and convict him easily just because the defense can’t control themselves in or out of the court and just let them appeal after the election. Criminal court is a completely different animal, but MAGA lawyers are too incompetent to even understand that. 😂

Donny’s going to jail….donny’s going to jail!

Just hours away from defaulting on the judgement and proving he’s really completely broke and has been bought and in the pocket of foreign countries for decades. Got your popcorn?

I believe the only real solution is to recognize that the role of a police officer is one that is inherently unstable. As history shows, it is impossible to expect one small group of people to deal with all the violence, anger, punitive actions, and force for all of society.

But without this group of mentally and morally unstable people, then each person in the populace at large would need to individually learn how to deal with violent offenders, restrain someone, know when to use lethal force, adjudicate their punishment, carry out their punishment, handle traffic accidents, dead bodies, emergencies, and so much more. The culture at large already expects every person to delegate these tasks, and if an individual does not immediately call the cops there may actually be punitive action taken against that individual.

I have no solution to this societal problem. But then again, I don't feel obligated to solve the problem for society. In fact, the eventual destruction of the society (that so delegates) may be the eventual "solution" that inevitably comes without collective individual change. I'm content having a solution fit for myself, my family, and for those who other souls who come to me personally for a solution (to varying degrees).

it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for themselves....no?

I vehemently agree on this. I merely argue that giving the leg up shouldn't be based upon race but upon lack of opportunity. The two fellow black students you mentioned, who were nearly as advantaged as you would have similarly destroyed other black students from crappy inner city schools, but a race based system would give no quarter to the inner city kids in that insistence, still favouring privileged kids over the unprivileged, just so happens these privileged kids would be black.

I agree fully with helping out the disadvantaged. If a race is grossly over represented among the poor, then policies to help the poor will also grossly provide more assistance to that race. I don't consider that discriminatory though, it's just a historical consequence.

In the Canadian model, direct assistance or compensation for past harm is also something I can get behind. Of course, proving and carefully adjudicating what that should mean is a tough nut, but our courts are expressly for that kind of dispute.

No, they aren't compelling in the least, they're obvious disingenuous propaganda, lies, and misdirection not worth debunking.....but you asked so here's your comments.....

First....
"catch and release" refers to a practice of releasing an immigrant to the community while he or she awaits hearings in immigration court, as an alternative to holding them in immigration detention.The migrants whom U.S. immigration enforcement agencies have allowed to remain in the community pending immigrant hearings have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum.

There is no "hard-and-fast definition" of the phrase, which is pejorative. Rather, the phrase refers to a "collection of policies, court precedents, executive actions and federal statutes spanning more than 20 years, cobbled together throughout Democratic and Republican administrations."-Wiki

So he starts by lying about what catch and release is and who started the policies.

....Can send the asylum seeker to the interior until they've been adjudicated, which can be forever......
No, it can't be forever, and Trump/Republicans are doing all they can to extend the wait times. Obama did it to unaccompanied minors, he didn't separate families. Another lie. Funding immigration courts would solve it all, end separation and get everyone processed in a reasonable, legal timeframe....perhaps why Trump took that off the table.

Really, a Faux news talking head wants to deride someone's English.....Try Trump, he can't put a rational English sentence together.....ever.

Trump destroyed Daesh? I think Syria and Russia might disagree, as well as Daesh, which is still in existence.

Yes, the N Korea summit was a loss for us and a win for them. We gave massive concessions and granted them official recognition, and got vague unsecured promises to negotiate in the future in return.


You claim to not be a Trumpophile, but it's blatantly obvious that's a lie. Your bias is so thick and blinding perhaps you can't see through it.

To be fair, I don't know enough about the system to distinguish or adjudicate between the two arguments. I'll slightly edit my comment to take that into account. I certainly hope that China is doing their part, since what we need is significant CO2 reduction in absolute terms in as short a term as possible.

When I got mine, I had to get 2 passport photos, submit a fingerprint, take a day long class, take a written test, and pass a range test with my preferred CCW handgun. There are a bunch of other restrictions which I'll list below; not all states have these but Texas is one of the easiest states to get licensed in, so this should give you an idea for a baseline. When it comes to 'may issue' states like the ones I listed earlier, they have the same hoops to jump through generally, but the main one is you have to prove good cause to a police entity to carry. In many cases, those entities are either 'suggested' or blatantly told "Do not give out any permits". I suppose power or money could get around that, but you would still have to pass the other requirements.

Texas CCW pre-reqs:

A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

is a legal resident of this state for the six month period preceding the date of application,

is at least 21 years of age (military 18 - 21 years of age now eligible - 2005 Texas CHL Law change),

has not been convicted of a felony,

is not currently charged with the commission of a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Sec. 42.01 of the penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is not a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense,

is not a chemically dependant person (a person with two convictions within the ten year period preceding the date of application for offenses (Class B or greater) involving the use of alcohol or a controlled substance is ineligible as a chemically dependant person. Other evidence of chemical dependency may also make an individual ineligible for a CHL),

is not incapable of exercizing sound judgement with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun,

has not, in the five years preceding the application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 of the Penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun,

has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support administered or collected by the attorney general,
has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, tax collector of a policital subdivision, Alcohol Beverage Commission or any other agency or subdivision,

is not currently restricted under a court protective order subject to a restraining order affecting a spousal relationship,

has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law in the grade of felony,

has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

P.S. if you screw up on any of the above 'after' you get your ccw, it gets suspended until you go before a board for review. My instructor said when I took the class, almost every single review case is denied.

Actually, folks are already are disqualified if mentally defective.

That's one of the things you're asked when filling out form 4473 when you try to buy a firearm, and it's one of the things checked when running the background check.

The fact that they ask the question is just to have the ability to charge you with a crime (lying to the govt) should you try to hide your status.

Also, currently, guns are confiscated after one is adjudicated mentally defective.

(This is a matter of contention lately, because elderly people have had their guns taken when they run out of money and are put under state financial management - because being unable to manage your own funds (hard to do when savings run dry and welfare doesn't pay enough to cover basic living expenses) indicates a mental defect).

The selective service act already has compulsory military service when called upon.

As a sidenote, being well trained with the use of firearms does not inhibit misuse of those firearms. It just makes you better at using firearms.

-scheherazade

Well, I made a genuine effort to find out exactly what Ofcom did and all I could find was a ruling that said he breached broadcasting standards. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll happily read it. For reference, here is a list of sanction decisions made by ofcom: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/

"Punishment means fines. Fines means the threat of force. Force means abduction and false imprisonment. For the crime of sitting on a couch and having a conversation."

That slippery slope looks awesome fun! Does it go the other way too? If you can't joke about dwarfs, then pretty soon you won't be able to advocate giving those queers the beating they deserve or tell those darkies to fuck off back to africa! It's PC gone mad!

Still more 'quietly filming in public makes him a tool that got what he deserved'. I don't understand how you possibly get there without starting from a place of 'the cop is always right, the citizen always wrong, how can I make that argument?'.

How in the hell is quietly filming "provoking a reaction"? If filming is provocative, why are we trying to get all police to have cameras? So they can provoke citizens? No, so we can have a record of interactions, something they clearly don't want because they know they don't handle interactions properly and can't stand scrutiny.

How is saying clearly and calmly 'I don't waive my 5th amendment right, or any others' escalation?!? Do you believe not capitulating 100% to abusive officers makes it your fault you got beaten, arrested, and put in prison based on their lies?!? I don't understand this mindset in the least. To me, it seems the exact opposite, he was not provocative, the cop was, he did not escalate, the cop did.

I don't see how you see it the exact opposite unless you are simply trying anything to deflect from the clear, already adjudicated, terrible, unwarranted, unprovoked, illegal actions of the officers...both of them.

I'll submit my assumption that, had the state simply accepted his word that it's not his child, so long after the fact and so long after being legally designated the parent, you would be up in arms about the state allowing him to be a deadbeat dad.
There's simply no winning with you people. If the state follows the law, which is clear and simple, the state's wrong. If they don't follow the law, the state's wrong. This story is about the fair and just society we live in, but you see it as an example of how society is not fair and just (by completely ignoring the fact that the first debt has been erased, and the second debt WILL be erased).

Perhaps this did 'hang over his head' for 24 years, but it didn't effect him in any way for that time, he had no idea it existed.

I'll put it to you and @Trancecoach, exactly what SHOULD have happened in your eyes in this case?
As I see it, once the fraud was discovered and revealed in court, the case and debt were dismissed, as it should be. The second case, about his 'debt' to the state will also be dismissed when it goes to trial. That simple, problem solved, but the two of you don't see it that way somehow and still need to rant about the state being evil.
The judge DID stand up, apologized, and corrected the part of the mistake he had a right to correct. Another judge will undoubtedly do the same thing when the second portion of the 'debt' is litigated.
I just don't get what youall are going on about with your ranting, the state followed the law, did the right thing in the first place (with the evidence they had, and with no one disputing the claims), and when they realized they had been lied to, immediately reversed their position and dropped the case.
And no, this is NOT typical in America. It's only the second case I've ever heard of, and it's the second case that's been properly adjudicated in the end.
Yes, he should get to 'go after' the woman that started the fraud, and the process server that continued it, but statutes of limitations probably make that impossible.
What exactly are you two angry about in this case? Do you even know? I certainly don't get it.

Actually, that's exactly what I say, and average modern human morality is considerably superior to the filth that the biblical God advocates.

The moral standard of western civilization is founded upon judeo-christian beliefs. Read:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595555455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366921071&sr=8-1&keywords=book+that+made+your+world

Following the morality the biblical God advocates is the hardest thing you will ever do. The standard of today is a superficial, politically correct morality where you pretend to be nice to people but curse them when they aren't around. God requires a transformation on the inside where you have genuine love for your fellow man.

I am only saying that they are wrong by todays generally agreed upon moral standards. Some of these moral standards are extremely effective and have been around since very early human communities, so they only have the illusion of being absolute due to high adherence rate.

Are you saying nigh universal adherence to certain moral standards isn't evidence for an absolute standard of morality?

Murder, theft, oppression and incest are three fairly obvious examples. The evolutionarily advantageous trait of society building tends to list it's effectiveness when such things are widespread. But we have a very long human tradition of sanctioning and celebrating murder and theft as long as it occurs well outside our cohort. Killing other tribes is celebrated in the bible, as is stealing their possessions. Ethically justified slavery took another 4000 years to mostly get rid of, and hell, it was common practice to fuck your fifteen year old cousin all the way up to about the late 1800s here in the good old US of A as long as it was under the marital auspices of the church, of course.

Yep, but thank God that his just definition of morality - if we didn't have god's guidance through scripture, we'd probably do crazy shit!

You don't understand what God was doing in the Old Testament, or why He did it the way He did. It is morally consistent with His goodness and holiness, and there are logical reasons for why this is so. So far you are not interested in hearing them or discussing them. When you are let me know. In the end you don't have any excuse for suppressing the truth about Jesus, no matter what you think about how God acted in the Old Testament.

Using the word 'absolute' is a concession to brevity, but nice try - seriously dude, this is laughable and it wouldn't even stand up in Jr. High debate - absolutes do exist, they just need to be well justified, and yes if you want to be nitpicky about it there is an ever so remote chance that 1+1 is not equal to two in some distant corner of the universe. But as humans with an admittedly limited scope of understanding, we have to accept that level of certainty. If you want to relegate your theory to claiming its space somewhere in the possibility that we might be wrong about the whole 2+2=4 thing, go right on ahead.

There, that's what I meant by absolute. happy?

Basically, what you're saying is that because 2+2 probably equals four everywhere in the Universe, you are free to make absolute statements about morality? The fact is that your belief system leaves you with no justification for any absolute statement what so ever. Why should 2 + 2 always equal 4 in the first place? Can you tell me why the laws of physics should work in the same way 5 seconds from now without using circular reasoning?

Can you justify any piece of knowledge without God? If you can then tell me one thing you know and how you know it. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

Well then thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass in the whole god based morality thing. I prefer to have a really good reason to never slaughter innocent kids. But thanks for finally answering my question: there has been a good reason to butcher a toddler after all! Praise The Lord, for he is good!

It comes back to the same question: As the giver of life, and the adjudicator of His Creation, is it wrong for God to take life?

And here's another interesting brain tickler. If everything god commands is right, and god has a track record of testing his faithful with their willingness to commit infanticide, how can you say that this lady isn't moral?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-08-17/news/0108170166_1_baby-s-death-baby-s-father-documents

The scripture is finished and anything which contradicts it is not of God.

Wrong, I know that things are wrong because humans and cultures have a long history of interacting with reality, and certain strategies have been more successful than others. You haven't spent one iota of your time discrediting this notion, whereas I have given you plenty of examples crediting mine and discrediting yours.

What I am supposed to be discrediting? You're asking me to nail jello to a wall. You have not even defined what "successful" is supposed to mean beyond pure survival. In that case, every civilization has been successful. Tell me what your definition of success is supposed to be.

For the millionth time, I have no hopes of convincing you of anything - you'll defend your stance against literally any proof. But you seem to come here on the sift with the intent of demonstrating to others that there is some logical basis for your beliefs.

What proof? The foundation of atheism stands upon the shifting sands of relative truth. You, the atheist, ultimately make yourself the measure of all truth. Because of that, you can't tell me a single fact about the world that you can justify.

Well you're failing miserably, mainly because you are only capable of restating the following sentence as if it is an agreed upon truth:

"Not only is the entire concept logically contradictory, but it doesn't match our experience, which is that some things are absolutely wrong. "

I don't expect you to have any good support for that, but the audience out there just waiting to be convinced, they will need at least something.

Torturing babies for fun; not absolutely wrong?

I'm still waiting for you to give Stalin some kind, any kind of argument as to why he should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you can't tell Stalin why he is wrong, then you have no hope of escaping the charge of incoherency.

A bit of premature adjudication there.

http://www.musicfrom.nl/songteksten/Wende_Snijders/au_suivant.html

Tout nu dans ma serviette qui me servait de pagne
J'avais le rouge au front et le savon à la main
Au suivant au suivant
J'avais juste vingt ans et nous étions cent vingt
A être le suivant de celui qu'on suivait
Au suivant au suivant
J'avais juste vingt ans et je me déniaisais
Au bordel ambulant d'une armée en campagne
Au suivant au suivant

Moi j'aurais bien aimé un peu plus de tendresse
Ou alors un sourire ou bien avoir le temps
Mais au suivant au suivant
Ce ne fut pas Waterloo mais ce ne fut pas Arcole
Ce fut l'heure où l'on regrette d'avoir manqué l'école
Au suivant au suivant
Mais je jure que d'entendre cet adjudant de mes fesses
C'est des coups à vous faire des armées d'impuissants
Au suivant au suivant

Je jure sur la tête de ma première vérole
Que cette voix depuis je l'entends tout le temps
Au suivant au suivant
Cette voix qui sentait l'ail et le mauvais alcool
C'est la voix des nations et c'est la voix du sang
Au suivant au suivant
Et depuis chaque femme à l'heure de succomber
Entre mes bras trop maigres semble me murmurer
Au suivant au suivant

Tous les suivants du monde devraient se donner la main
Voilà ce que la nuit je crie dans mon délire
Au suivant au suivant
Et quand je ne délire pas j'en arrive à me dire
Qu'il est plus humiliant d'être suivi que suivant
Au suivant au suivant
Un jour je me ferai cul-de-jatte ou bonne sœur ou pendu
Enfin un de ces machins où je ne serai jamais plus
Le suivant le suivant...

This idea of "a wall of seperation" of church and state came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a baptist association while he was in France. It has been misinterpreted in recent times as a principle of exclusion of religion from government, but is this really what Jefferson intended? If he did, you might want to ask yourself why Jefferson attended church every sunday..in the house of representitives. You might want to ask why Jefferson closed presidential documents with "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ", or why he negotiated treaties that used federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the indians. You also might want to ask why public education was teaching the scripture in schools, and why nearly every state had its own church..and why many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.

This idea of "freedom from religion" has no basis in history, or in the intentions of our founders. The secular community apparently feels that they can move in to this house that Christianity built and evict the ones who built it. It would be a bit like you inviting me to stay at your house and then I tell you that I am going to redecorate it the way I please and would you please stay in your room and never come out again.

Consider the words of William Rehnquist in a supreme court ruling about this issue:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts


>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.