|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: nooooo.
Real long answer: there's as much evidence of foul play as when Reagan died or my grandpa.
|
Hey... don't be harsh, he is lawyer.. The one field of study where you can just memorise text and then feel smart...
Oh, and under the anglosaxon system you also need to persuade a jury of randomly selected clueless puppets... ...
reform that fucking system, i get angry when just thinking about it.
|
On October 14 2016 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. Because there was no indication of foul play? Not every unexpected death gets an autopsy.
I believe the police would need the approval of the family without clear signs of foul play. They might need to get it even if it is clear there is a crime, I’m not sure.
|
I mean its not like everyone who supported bill cosby said the exact same things about the women who accused him.
|
On October 14 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:06 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 06:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 06:00 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 05:54 Nyxisto wrote:On October 14 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was? Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance... Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit. User was warned for this post My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks. In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor. This is a ridiculous argument. Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed. Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape... It simply does not hold up. If the prosecution is competent and if the juror trusts the prosecution... Welcome to the real world where neither of those things are guaranteed. EDIT: These last pages have been so fucking dumb - it's like y'all either lack complete respect for the other posters or suffer from severely impaired reading comprehension. In either case, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard until you've cooled down (should this have been "off"?). Ok, let me fill in some blanks for you. Xdaunt is on one of his standard “Im smarter than all of you, I’m the most objective thinker in this thread” rants. Most of the posters here have experienced this numerous times. Xdaunt talks down to other posters and has no issues with throwing the “I’m a lawyer, so I clearly all the law,” at anyone who disagrees. It wouldn’t’ be so bad if he didn’t’ start out every discussion with some vague bait that morphs into him calling everyone stupid. But the pattern is something everyone here is used to.
What made you think I had any blanks that needs filling? What does this say about your own attitude? Have you considered your own posting record? Are you even the least bit self-aware?
|
On October 14 2016 06:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. Short answer: no. Long answer: nooooo. Real long answer: there's as much evidence of foul play as when Reagan died or my grandpa.
What if t_d writers read this post?
In half a hour you will find a new post on reddit reporting that you just confirmed that Reagan and your grandpa were both murdered by HRC.
You should be more responsible with your posts!
|
On October 14 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:06 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 06:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 06:00 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 05:54 Nyxisto wrote:On October 14 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was? Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance... Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit. User was warned for this post My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks. In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor. This is a ridiculous argument. Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed. Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape... It simply does not hold up. If the prosecution is competent and if the juror trusts the prosecution... Welcome to the real world where neither of those things are guaranteed. EDIT: These last pages have been so fucking dumb - it's like y'all either lack complete respect for the other posters or suffer from severely impaired reading comprehension. In either case, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard until you've cooled down (should this have been "off"?). Ok, let me fill in some blanks for you. Xdaunt is on one of his standard “Im smarter than all of you, I’m the most objective thinker in this thread” rants. Most of the posters here have experienced this numerous times. Xdaunt talks down to other posters and has no issues with throwing the “I’m a lawyer, so I clearly all the law,” at anyone who disagrees. It wouldn’t’ be so bad if he didn’t’ start out every discussion with some vague bait that morphs into him calling everyone stupid. But the pattern is something everyone here is used to.
Without him this thread would be boring. Other boards have pet conservatives and they are just memers or 4channers.
|
On October 14 2016 06:22 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 06:06 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 06:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 06:00 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 05:54 Nyxisto wrote:On October 14 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was? Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance... Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit. User was warned for this post My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks. In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor. This is a ridiculous argument. Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed. Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape... It simply does not hold up. If the prosecution is competent and if the juror trusts the prosecution... Welcome to the real world where neither of those things are guaranteed. EDIT: These last pages have been so fucking dumb - it's like y'all either lack complete respect for the other posters or suffer from severely impaired reading comprehension. In either case, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard until you've cooled down (should this have been "off"?). Ok, let me fill in some blanks for you. Xdaunt is on one of his standard “Im smarter than all of you, I’m the most objective thinker in this thread” rants. Most of the posters here have experienced this numerous times. Xdaunt talks down to other posters and has no issues with throwing the “I’m a lawyer, so I clearly all the law,” at anyone who disagrees. It wouldn’t’ be so bad if he didn’t’ start out every discussion with some vague bait that morphs into him calling everyone stupid. But the pattern is something everyone here is used to. What made you think I had any blanks that needs filling? What does this say about your own attitude? Have you considered your own posting record? Are you even the least bit self-aware?
You just called everyone in the thread stupid and that was how you jumped into this thread. If you are looking for improving posting quality, you are not helping.
As for being self aware, I try to be. I’m not perfect. But I also don’t jump into the Legion thread and say it is garbage, so I feel like I might be ahead of the game.
|
On October 14 2016 06:24 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 06:06 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 06:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 06:00 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 05:54 Nyxisto wrote:On October 14 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was? Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance... Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit. User was warned for this post My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks. In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor. This is a ridiculous argument. Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed. Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape... It simply does not hold up. If the prosecution is competent and if the juror trusts the prosecution... Welcome to the real world where neither of those things are guaranteed. EDIT: These last pages have been so fucking dumb - it's like y'all either lack complete respect for the other posters or suffer from severely impaired reading comprehension. In either case, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard until you've cooled down (should this have been "off"?). Ok, let me fill in some blanks for you. Xdaunt is on one of his standard “Im smarter than all of you, I’m the most objective thinker in this thread” rants. Most of the posters here have experienced this numerous times. Xdaunt talks down to other posters and has no issues with throwing the “I’m a lawyer, so I clearly all the law,” at anyone who disagrees. It wouldn’t’ be so bad if he didn’t’ start out every discussion with some vague bait that morphs into him calling everyone stupid. But the pattern is something everyone here is used to. Without him this thread would be boring. Other boards have pet conservatives and they are just memers or 4channers.
“What would the world be like without Captain Hook?”
Ok, if all of Xdaunt’s insults were framed like Captain Hook yelling at his crew for having poor form and the proper ways to do combat, I would be way more into it.
|
On October 14 2016 06:22 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 06:06 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 06:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 06:00 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 05:54 Nyxisto wrote:On October 14 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote:
Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was? Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance... Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit. User was warned for this post My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks. In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor. This is a ridiculous argument. Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed. Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape... It simply does not hold up. If the prosecution is competent and if the juror trusts the prosecution... Welcome to the real world where neither of those things are guaranteed. EDIT: These last pages have been so fucking dumb - it's like y'all either lack complete respect for the other posters or suffer from severely impaired reading comprehension. In either case, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard until you've cooled down (should this have been "off"?). Ok, let me fill in some blanks for you. Xdaunt is on one of his standard “Im smarter than all of you, I’m the most objective thinker in this thread” rants. Most of the posters here have experienced this numerous times. Xdaunt talks down to other posters and has no issues with throwing the “I’m a lawyer, so I clearly all the law,” at anyone who disagrees. It wouldn’t’ be so bad if he didn’t’ start out every discussion with some vague bait that morphs into him calling everyone stupid. But the pattern is something everyone here is used to. What made you think I had any blanks that needs filling? What does this say about your own attitude? Have you considered your own posting record? Are you even the least bit self-aware?
Speaking of self awareness, no one likes being lectured from somoene who pops in and presents themselves to be speaking a position of maturity and poise, then proceeds to just blanket criticize whomever the feel like from above without actually being a part of the conversation.
Your "y'all are all stupid" bit as true as it might be says more about you than what it says about everyone else.
Thats what made him think blanks needed filling.
|
With less than a month to go until Election Day, a Trump adviser told Bloomberg "we're gonna go buck wild."
The goal, according to Bloomberg, is for the Trump campaign to suppress the vote of millennial women, who they believe will be unable to vote for the Hillary Clinton after their case is made against her husband.
The campaign said it would soon bring forward additional, new accusers.
"Women are coming to us who have been groped or sexually abused by Bill Clinton," a senior adviser said.
Deputy campaign manager David Bossie, known for running Citizens United, told Bloomberg that Trump's campaign now had the "opportunity to introduce new material into the campaign to educate voters on how they treat women."
On Thursday, one of Trump's biggest backers, Fox News personality Sean Hannity, will host an hourlong special on the network with the three women who appeared alongside Trump before Sunday's presidential debate.
Yahoo
Let's hear it
|
I feel like regarding sexual assault and rape accusations that you either have to believe them all or believe none of them when they remain just accusations. It would be highly biased to say just Trump or just Bill Clinton is (not) guilty of those crimes without saying the other is also (not) guilty
|
I'd rather argue with xDaunt than with the likes of Biology Major, IPN and Zeo. At least there is something to argue about. In too many cases we see trumpers just bend reality mid argument when their previous fantasy world gets deconstructed, and ignore altogether what doesn't suit them.
That and the conspiracy theories. Lots and lots of really dumb conspiracy theories.
We love you xDaunt, stay around!!
|
On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly.
no it does not hold any merit.
|
On October 14 2016 06:30 plasmidghost wrote:
I feel like regarding sexual assault and rape accusations that you either have to believe them all or believe none of them when they remain just accusations. It would be highly biased to say just Drumpf or just Bill Clinton is (not) guilty of those crimes without saying the other is also (not) guilty
No.. because of a few reasons. One of them being evidence.
Trump and Bill could both be horrible human beings and rapists, but that doesnt mean one is a rapist because the other is a rapist.
|
On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly.
He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7?
|
United States43209 Posts
On October 14 2016 06:30 plasmidghost wrote:
I feel like regarding sexual assault and rape accusations that you either have to believe them all or believe none of them when they remain just accusations. It would be highly biased to say just Trump or just Bill Clinton is (not) guilty of those crimes without saying the other is also (not) guilty
Bill didn't publicly confess, for what it's worth. Trump's guilt doesn't exist in isolation, he's bragged on record about how he likes to sexually assault women.
|
On October 14 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:22 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 06:06 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 06:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 06:00 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 05:54 Nyxisto wrote:On October 14 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance... Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit. User was warned for this post My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks. In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor. This is a ridiculous argument. Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed. Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape... It simply does not hold up. If the prosecution is competent and if the juror trusts the prosecution... Welcome to the real world where neither of those things are guaranteed. EDIT: These last pages have been so fucking dumb - it's like y'all either lack complete respect for the other posters or suffer from severely impaired reading comprehension. In either case, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard until you've cooled down (should this have been "off"?). Ok, let me fill in some blanks for you. Xdaunt is on one of his standard “Im smarter than all of you, I’m the most objective thinker in this thread” rants. Most of the posters here have experienced this numerous times. Xdaunt talks down to other posters and has no issues with throwing the “I’m a lawyer, so I clearly all the law,” at anyone who disagrees. It wouldn’t’ be so bad if he didn’t’ start out every discussion with some vague bait that morphs into him calling everyone stupid. But the pattern is something everyone here is used to. What made you think I had any blanks that needs filling? What does this say about your own attitude? Have you considered your own posting record? Are you even the least bit self-aware? You just called everyone in the thread stupid and that was how you jumped into this thread. If you are looking for improving posting quality, you are not helping. As for being self aware, I try to be. I’m not perfect. But I also don’t jump into the Legion thread and say it is garbage, so I feel like I might be ahead of the game.
I quite specifically did not call anyone dumb. I said the thread had been dumb (which I'm sure any rational person will agree on). I'm actually quite convinced the vast majority of people in this thread are pretty smart people, but the tempers run high resulting in what is either a complete lack of respect or willful impaired reading comprehension. I've observed that it usually helps to call this out, so I'm fairly certain that I am in fact helping.
If you are serious about being self-aware, please go read the last 50 posts you've made in this thread and carefully consider how you are positively contributing to a good debating-environment (hint, your one-liners aren't helping).
@Rebs: See above as an answer to your post as well. I'm not going to pretend to be infallible (I'm not), but as a non-participant but follower of this thread, I'm able to tell when it goes to complete shit. You can call this lecturing if you want, but shooting the messenger was never really the best idea.
|
On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7?
To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then.
That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released.
|
On October 14 2016 06:33 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:30 plasmidghost wrote:
I feel like regarding sexual assault and rape accusations that you either have to believe them all or believe none of them when they remain just accusations. It would be highly biased to say just Drumpf or just Bill Clinton is (not) guilty of those crimes without saying the other is also (not) guilty No.. because of a few reasons. One of them being evidence. Trump and Bill could both be horrible human beings and rapists, but that doesnt mean one is a rapist because the other is a rapist.
Like I said, when they remain as just accusations, not backed up by any evidence
|
|
|
|
|
|
4547
417
286
237
EPT
