Banner
Xtra Smileys
[Open]
We Unite Gaming
May 23, 2025, 12:07:55 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to We Unite Gaming!
Formerly Wii Unite/Wii Unite Gaming
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Youtube Channel Chatbox Staff List Login Register  

* * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *

Pages: 1 ... 2334 2335 [2336] 2337 2338 ... 2352   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *  (Read 190906 times)
Turboweasle
Administrator
WU Guru
*

Karma: 228
Offline Offline

PSN: Turboweasle
Posts: 16556


Turboweasle: everyone's favorite speedy rodent


View Profile
« Reply #35025 on: January 09, 2020, 07:06:54 pm »

Since apparently neither of you went to any sort of civics class in high school, let me explain the impeachment process in terms that equate it to the regular justice system. The House acts as the grand jury, who votes to bring charges. The Senate acts as the actual trial with Senators as the jurors and SCOTUS Chief Justice presiding as Judge. I'd say calling witnesses during a trial is a pretty vital part of a trial, is it not? And you don't get to defend yourself from a grand juy.

As someone who has gone through law school and literally conducts grand juries as a regular part of my job:  Roll Eyes

Then why do you seem to have such trouble properly understanding how an impeachment proceeding works? Is it because you are so far removed from studying them and their analogs you've forgotten? Or is it because you continue to refuse to see how it works because doing so would prove your inept "argument" against the impeachment proceedings?

Speculation about a witness with information no one has yet heard is the definition of a conspiracy theory. How about getting some facts before forming your strong opinion.

It is literally not the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.

Coincidentally this seems to describe your claims pretty closely.  Undecided


How blind can you be? The definition of conspiracy theory YOU provide literally fits the allegations against Trump to a tee. And again, the only claim I made was that Pelosi's actions are politically motivated. And she has said as much. Hardly a conspiracy theory that a politician's actions are politically motivated. Heck I took an entire course in college on the subject of political theory where entire bodies of research are based on how the actions of politicians literally cannot be separated from political motivations.

Can you get your money back for that course? It seems like I could have taught the entire subject matter in less than 5 minutes. "Hurr durr, any type of motivation from a politician is politically motivated because it came from a politician, hurr durr." Yes, lets just forget that while, generally career politicians are solely motivated by money from lobbyists and treading the party line, they are still human and do occasionally have their own thoughts and opinions on matters.

And on your conspiracy theory claim, even if Trump didn't understand what he was doing was essentially extorting a foreign power into influencing a US election based on debunked conspiracy theories(which is probable, seeing as the man has an IQ lower than the low temperature you'll see tonight), that does not mean it is not an impeachable offense. Just like if I randomly shot a gun without looking where it was aimed and hit and killed someone, I'd still be a murderer, both legally and morally.


Wait wait wait, dude, he took an entire course in college about politics being political, so clearly he's a subject matter expert in literally everything to do with politics.

Set aside that he somehow can't parse the difference between doing something political for moral, ethical, and legal reasons and doing something as purely a political ploy, this man is the authority on everything to do with impeachment, Trump, Nancy Pelosi, and probably stuff like dialectical materialism too!

Also set aside that for someone who claims not to like Trump, he's sure spending a lot of time trying to argue that the charges against him are baseless and insubstantial.

Life must be so easy when you can hand-waive away anything that goes against your guy a guy that you definitely hate but don't want to be investigated for some reason.
Report Spam   Logged

"And I also told the students that, for the sake of humanity's future, I hoped they were all sterile." - Ignatius Reilly.
Never mind what your daughter is taught in school; what she remembers is what she has learned from you.
Anti-Noob Fortress of Veteraness Council Member
~Turboweasle~

I NEVER squeeze my jubblies, so that stuff wouldn't work for me.
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35026 on: January 10, 2020, 06:58:48 am »

When did I say I didn't want Trump investigated? This whole conversation started with you asking about it and I said I loved the idea that they were wasting their time with this proceeding rather than pushing more unnecessary legislation. Just because I laugh at the "evidence" you put forth and see right through the democrats facade of moral superiority doesn't mean I like Trump (I like some of his policies, dislike many, and can't stand him as a person).

Oh, and Handy, maybe if you had more than a high school civics course YOU would understand more of the process. As someone who brings charges against people, I have an ethical obligation not to bring charges that I don't believe there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction. And further, I have an obligation related to the evidence I bring, to thoroughly investigate, vet, and corroborate it as much as possible. That often involves presenting several witnesses to a grand jury that may not support my theory of the case so that the jury is in the best position to evaluate the case. Hiding evidence and witnesses and presenting your evidence in a false light is shady. Ethical prosecutors don't do it. But hey, I'm sure they administered the Multi-state Professional Responsibility Exam in your high school civics class.  Roll Eyes

And scoff all you want about the course I was referring to, but the evidence is overwhelming that the single biggest factor in a politician's decisionmaking is how it affects re-election. It's literally uncontroverted in the political science field. But keep armchair quarterbacking like you guys have a clue about political science. I'll just keep sitting back and laughing at you both.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Handass
Peck's Bitch
WU Master
******

Karma: 5557
Offline Offline

Posts: 7614



View Profile
« Reply #35027 on: January 10, 2020, 04:17:18 pm »

Your ethical obligation is to bring charges that have a reasonable likelihood of conviction in a FAIR trial with IMPARTIAL jurors. The House has done so, the problem lies with an already self-admittedly corrupt jury in the Senate. With impartial jurors, the impeachment articles may, or may not result in a removal of office. The problem here lies in the Republican majority in the Senate declaring the verdict before a trial has even begun. Please act like you have even a modicum on an understanding of the situation and stop ignoring facts because they work against your already predetermined opinion.

And please, tell me what witnesses were "hidden" and who did the hiding. Hint: the answer to the latter part of that has the complexion of Chester Cheeto.

K, so now that you've changed tack on your college course(I guess you did a little refresher on it), lets also work on our reading comprehension. Does your statement say "only factor" or "single biggest factor"? If it says the former, then damn, ya got us. ggs nice springy. But if, it, just by chance, happens to say the latter, doesn't that imply that there are, you know, OTHER factors, that maybe, and I'm getting a little crazy here, on certain issues, might outweigh that "single biggest factor", while still keeping said factor as GENERALLY the "single biggest factor"?
Report Spam   Logged

Turboweasle
Administrator
WU Guru
*

Karma: 228
Offline Offline

PSN: Turboweasle
Posts: 16556


Turboweasle: everyone's favorite speedy rodent


View Profile
« Reply #35028 on: January 10, 2020, 06:54:24 pm »

When did I say I didn't want Trump investigated?

Why are you acting like you're explicitly required to say a specific thing for someone to be able to infer what your intentions are?  That's a rhetorical question; I know why.

Quote
This whole conversation started with you asking about it

I asked what you expected the House to do with the Senate and Executive held by an openly hostile party, and what you considered the Democrats' agenda to be.  You have yet to answer either of those questions.

Quote
Just because I laugh at the "evidence" you put forth and see right through the democrats facade of moral superiority doesn't mean I like Trump (I like some of his policies, dislike many, and can't stand him as a person).

But you didn't vote against him, did ya?

What evidence have I put forth?  I've only mentioned what the central focus for the articles of impeachment were.  Meanwhile you've been over here tipping your fedora and chuckling to yourself about how you are just too smart to be fooled by the nefarious Demon-rats' attempts to conceal their true aims of the impeachment, which is to... use the mechanisms defined in the constitution to put a suspected criminal on trial? Which is apparently some huge affront to the integrity of this country, according to you.

Quote
Oh, and Handy, maybe if you had more than a high school civics course YOU would understand more of the process. As someone who brings charges against people, I have an ethical obligation not to bring charges that I don't believe there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

hahahahahahaha

I love how, even when trying to defend your profession as ethical, you can't help but out yourself by thinking conviction is a confirmation of guilt.  That's not the ethical consideration -- plenty of people who are convicted aren't actually guilty, as proved by the Innocence Project, and consequently the ethical thing to do would be to only charge those you believe to be guilty, not those who you simply think will be convicted.

I'm sure you'll wash your hands of that particular responsibility by telling us that it is up to the broader legal system (whether jury or judge or what have you) to determine guilt, but that doesn't resolve your ethical responsibility, even if you somehow had deluded yourself into believe that the justice system was actually just.
Report Spam   Logged

"And I also told the students that, for the sake of humanity's future, I hoped they were all sterile." - Ignatius Reilly.
Never mind what your daughter is taught in school; what she remembers is what she has learned from you.
Anti-Noob Fortress of Veteraness Council Member
~Turboweasle~

I NEVER squeeze my jubblies, so that stuff wouldn't work for me.
Turboweasle
Administrator
WU Guru
*

Karma: 228
Offline Offline

PSN: Turboweasle
Posts: 16556


Turboweasle: everyone's favorite speedy rodent


View Profile
« Reply #35029 on: January 10, 2020, 06:57:59 pm »

Report Spam   Logged

"And I also told the students that, for the sake of humanity's future, I hoped they were all sterile." - Ignatius Reilly.
Never mind what your daughter is taught in school; what she remembers is what she has learned from you.
Anti-Noob Fortress of Veteraness Council Member
~Turboweasle~

I NEVER squeeze my jubblies, so that stuff wouldn't work for me.
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35030 on: January 13, 2020, 08:17:56 am »



An awesome picture representing Turbo, who is a professional armchair pundit with no experience or knowledge or training on the issues, but thinks he is an expert. Thanks for the laugh.

BTW, only an idiot would take my statement regarding one of the ethical obligations of a prosecutor being not to pursue cases that don't have a reasonable likelihood of conviction as somehow the only ethical obligation. Obviously I also have an ethical obligation also to not pursue charges I don't think are true. I never said anything to the contrary. You just seem to obliterate basic logic and reasoning in order to try to make yourself feel better in an argument. But I guess if you can't argue about the actual things I say, you may as well try to make false inferences beyond what I say so you have something to argue.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35031 on: January 14, 2020, 06:47:44 am »

Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Turboweasle
Administrator
WU Guru
*

Karma: 228
Offline Offline

PSN: Turboweasle
Posts: 16556


Turboweasle: everyone's favorite speedy rodent


View Profile
« Reply #35032 on: January 14, 2020, 04:55:35 pm »



An awesome picture representing Turbo, who is a professional armchair pundit with no experience or knowledge or training on the issues, but thinks he is an expert. Thanks for the laugh.

I could smell the Cheeto dust coming off that "no u".

How do you know I have no experience, knowledge, or training?


Quote
BTW, only an idiot would take my statement regarding one of the ethical obligations of a prosecutor being not to pursue cases that don't have a reasonable likelihood of conviction as somehow the only ethical obligation.

Only a backpedaling contrarian would try to act like you didn't present it as such.

Quote
Obviously I also have an ethical obligation also to not pursue charges I don't think are true. I never said anything to the contrary.

And yet you seemed to only showcase your ethical obligation to not charge unless you're confident of a conviction, which isn't actually ethically good.  Odd.  It seems like, since the ethical obligation to not charge unless you think someone has committed a moral wrong is quite a heavier burden than only charging if you think you can get a conviction, perhaps you didn't actually think about the more ethical course of action until it was pointed at to you.  Curious.

Quote
You just seem to obliterate basic logic and reasoning in order to try to make yourself feel better in an argument. But I guess if you can't argue about the actual things I say, you may as well try to make false inferences beyond what I say so you have something to argue.

Please do point out where I haven't addressed the things you've said.  So far I've debunked your Pelosi conspiracy theory, debunked your claim that the Ukrainian coercion quid pro quo crime is a conspiracy theory, debunked your "no u" in response to my debunking of your claim that the Ukrainian coercion quid pro quo crime was a conspiracy theory, and called you out for having an at best high school level understanding of ethics.

Don't worry, when you make yet another uninformed hot take on something you have a rudimentary understanding of, I'll be sure to address it head on.
Report Spam   Logged

"And I also told the students that, for the sake of humanity's future, I hoped they were all sterile." - Ignatius Reilly.
Never mind what your daughter is taught in school; what she remembers is what she has learned from you.
Anti-Noob Fortress of Veteraness Council Member
~Turboweasle~

I NEVER squeeze my jubblies, so that stuff wouldn't work for me.
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35033 on: January 15, 2020, 06:57:35 am »

I presented the specific obligation to not file charges without a reasonable likelihood of conviction for the sole reason that it was the issue relevant to the discussion. I'm not laying out a dissertation on prosecutorial ethics, I was addressing a very specific point. If you can't understand that basic tenet of debate, then this is more than pointless. You are incapable of having meaningful debate at that point.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35034 on: January 15, 2020, 07:55:13 am »

Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35035 on: January 16, 2020, 12:13:18 pm »

Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35036 on: January 21, 2020, 07:21:26 am »

Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35037 on: January 22, 2020, 06:49:52 am »

Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
jd111
WU Master
*****

Karma: 112
Offline Offline

Clan: OG, Dead Rabbits
PSN: the_jd111
Posts: 8781



View Profile
« Reply #35038 on: January 23, 2020, 09:51:40 am »

Report Spam   Logged

PSN: The_jd111
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35039 on: January 24, 2020, 07:07:47 am »

Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Pages: 1 ... 2334 2335 [2336] 2337 2338 ... 2352   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
© 2008-2014 We Unite Gaming, Wii Unite Gaming, Wii Unite
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy