New Poll: Most voters disagree with FBI's decision not to indict except deomcrats

[Catholic Crusader]

Might as well ask the Chair of the Republican Party for his view, given his penchant for going after Hillary, but if you find it I hope you post it. He's always entertaining.

Well, he is a judge, and certainly no dummy.

 

[Stripe]

If you want to change your initial declaration to this one you can, but it's still mistaken. Rather, at best you can say that as with any additional consideration it brings with it the potential for additional error. It doesn't inherently do any damage and, to the contrary, as a rule provides any number of important benefits to a system of justice, as argued and cited to in authority prior. What's funny about that is that, once again, you demonstrate (and given I've explained it and offered authority and links on how it actually functions that's just...odd) you don't understand how precedent functions.

Nope.

This is just you pretending to know it all and refusing to engage in dialogue by being impenetrably verbose, not to mention grammatically challenged.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, he is a judge, and certainly no dummy.

No, he isn't stupid. And he's entertaining. He's also devoutly political and partisan. And judges are almost invariably political animals. You're either appointed or elected and either way it's steeped in some sort of partisan creed. Doesn't rule out his appraisal, but it frames it.

I found this old quote by him: "I believe there is enough evidence to be indicted," he said. "The decision will ultimately be made by the political branches but if the FBI's diligent work in this case is not vindicated, the President will have serious problems on his hands as will she."

But the diligent work of the FBI went against his singular consideration. And here's the thing a lot of people miss, this wasn't just Comey looking over evidence and making a decision. A lot of work went into the recommendation by a lot of people who do work the judge praised, when he thought they'd recommend as he saw it.

 

[ok doser]

town, to stripe, waving the flag at himself:

I think nearly all that is you just parroting me without actually making the case for any of it, unlike me.

So...I suppose I should be flattered, but I'd rather you demonstrate an understanding and make an actual argument.

Such is life.

In sum, I've set out the opinion of legal experts on the value of precedent, linked to numerous learned treatises on the subject and noted repeated evasions, alterations of his own points and other attempts by Stripe to do seemingly anything but meet the rebuttal. He remains mistaken.

congratulations town!

you win!

Spoiler

Nope.

This is just you pretending to know it all and refusing to engage in dialogue by being impenetrably verbose, not to mention grammatically challenged.

you asked in town quixote "...what is this place? a shrine?"

you're close - he once referred to its predecessor as "his best work"

think of it it as his mommy's fridge, on which he tapes up all his pretty pictures and graded papers from his teachers with the big red A+++ on the top, in order to gain his mommy's approval and praise

think of it as a desperate attempt to gain attention and approval from strangers, in order to validate his worthless life

and then pray for his black soul

 

[Stripe]

you're close

I reckon if he has something to say about me, he should say it to me. :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

town, to stripe, waving the flag at himself:

That's Sod using an old line of mine, without the set-up and doing it poorly.

He so routinely pounded chest in the old days I finally stopped and asked, "Nice flag you keep waving at your own points. Did you sew it yourself?"

congratulations town!

you win!

Back when Sod was a less obviously demented poster named Koban, he turned into a small minded race-baiter. Not really seeing him then, I suggested he was better than that and that I'd continue to take him to task for that sort of nonsense.

First he asked me a question that would have had him banned if he'd done it publicly, then he suggested I was playing a game. Why? Because that's about all it is to Sod, I suspect. An entertainment. As with just about any complaint he makes, if you wait long enough he personifies it.

you asked in town quixote "...what is this place? a shrine?"

you're close - he once referred to its predecessor as "his best work"

He won't quote me doing that. I actually said that about the first Observations thread. Mostly because when I created and wrote for that one there was a lot of stuff in it beyond things like the Gazette/Wrap and even the Gazette was better because it referenced posts of the period, when we had a better, more vibrant and interesting crowd. Some of what was in it was recognized by Knight and others. I think it was much better, on average and did constitute some of my best efforts here.

think of it as a desperate attempt to gain attention and approval from strangers, in order to validate his worthless life

and then pray for his black soul

Well...I have a great life. Jack is tremendous and growing like a weed. I have a beautiful wife who doesn't even mind me taking a little time to write in a room full of strangers. Both of my parents are alive, prosperous and healthy. I've found a new career that cuts my stress load in half and I'm three semesters into it holding a 4.0.

Life is actually pretty darn good. I've always been luckier than I deserve, or as I see it these days, blessed beyond any reasonable measure.

 

[ok doser]

That's Sod using an old line of mine, without the set-up and doing it poorly.

which means you win again! :first:

 

[Town Heretic]

I reckon if he has something to say about me, he should say it to me. :idunno:

I do. I'll say some more then. You're complicated with me...on the one hand I actually like you and have for a fairly long time. I don't always agree with you and noted some time ago, to myself, how you handle strong opposition. I didn't think it suited you, care for how it impacted your conduct and made a conscious decision to simply keep out of your path as far as that goes and nod here and there.

Then you stepped out of your wheelhouse and into mine, with palpable contempt for a subject you didn't appear to particluarly understand. So I felt obliged to say something and hope for the best. What I said was that you didn't understand the thing you were decrying. You tried your level best to make that a personal affront, repeatedly said I was calling you ignorant, as I routinely responded that I wasn't, that there is a difference between saying someone is ignorant and saying that they don't appear to understand one particular thing well enough to criticize it.

Eventually I tired of your parlor tricks and determined to hold ground and I called you on them. You change your complaints subtly when they fail and go on as though the point you've altered is the thing you were defending. I've noted that by quote in the thread. You try to keep your opponent on the defensive with mostly unsupported declarations, charges, as you did by repeatedly suggesting I was offering an insult when I was actually trying my best to strongly differ without managing that. You play word games by using, say, respect or maintain in a way that is contextually ambiguous then claim your point isn't being addressed. You tried this gambit before with me and I finally just walked away from you, but this is too important. You make that sort of claim and when called upon to note the thing you feel is missed, don't. You just point back to the post where the ambiguity lies. It's a tactic and a poor one. It's just covering yourself against sustained examination. Well, if you don't want that just stay out of the fray.

What else...oh, this...how we got here.


You declared: "Precedent is how justice is perverted."
Not being particularly impressed with bumper sticker rhetoric, I replied: "It isn't."

So you wrote:

Sure, it is.

A reliance on what has happened in the past just opens an avenue to ignore what has happened in the present.

Of course, precedence isn't a reliance, its a guiding consideration. I noted that and the need for it immediately and in utilizing supportive authority and links thereto that followed. Here's my opening answer again, in parts:

"Rather, ignoring history dooms one to repeat its mistakes, whereas taking counsel from it is a path to wisdom and other public virtues, so long as the counsel is not slavish in nature.

Precedent is one consideration, not an anchor.

It is a form of authoritative counsel.

Why?

Because as noted jurist and former Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, put it, "The law must be stable, but it cannot stand still."

There is an inherent struggle to accommodate an ever changing landscape of circumstance and the expansion or introduction of new areas of law and relating rights, while maintaining a necessary stability upon which commerce and the expectations of citizenry can rely.

The common law from stare decisis et non quieta movere (stand by the decision/do not disturb what is settled) has been an important part of judicial consideration from the founding of our law."​

And I waited on a response. What I got was this bit of superficial game play:

Luckily, nobody is "ignoring history." In fact, history was not even mentioned. It is a reliance on precedent that is the problem. A reliance on past rulings opens an avenue to ignore the case of the present.

I probably should have shaken head at you and walked away there. It evidenced that either you didn't read the response or were being willfully obtuse. History is what precedent actually is, as I noted, among other things. You had a chance to make substantive hay on a substantive response. Your actual effort foreshadowed what was to come from you, disappointingly.

Along the way you complained repeatedly about being called ignorant, while I repeatedly reminded you that I didn't do that. It was a peculiar complaint in any event, given that elsewhere you felt easy writing of someone:

You don't seem to understand what the passage is about.

Which is exactly what I said about the topic of precedent.

Your next complaint was along that same, anything but the issue, but equally wrong headed:

This is the best you can do? You don't agree with someone and suddenly they're ignorant? Seriously?

You'll have to answer that one for yourself. Supra.


Meanwhile, back in our discussion, you asked:

Are insults the only way you can get by?

Now at that point you were hanging that entirely on your insistence that I was calling you ignorant, which I wasn't and which I repeatedly and publicly denied. A funny thing for anyone intent on offering insult to do.

You also went side bar as focus on the need for respecting the other part of a conversation. Coupled with the above this brief glance at a few of your recent posts is...educational:

Bye. :loser:

Dear God, what did we do to deserve such stupidity?

Until that day, you're just a fruit loop.

And, of course, your “special” trip to Quixote’s to pen:

Methinks you're a narcissistic phony.

That's profoundly hypocritical, given. As with your entrance into the discussion, to the extent you ever managed it, you were ill-considered on the points.


Or, entering a thread with an eye toward your “respect” of the other guy in a discussion, there was this gem I noted:

Voting is for pansies.

Or:

What makes you think you are someone deserving of being taken seriously?

In sum, you lack consistency in the ways that you should have it and are consistent in ways that don't help you.

 

[ok doser]

I do. I'll say some more then. You're complicated with me...on the one hand I actually like you and have for a fairly long time. I don't always agree with you and noted some time ago, to myself, how you handle strong opposition. I didn't think it suited you, care for how it impacted your conduct and made a conscious decision to simply keep out of your path as far as that goes and nod here and there.

Then you stepped out of your wheelhouse and into mine, with palpable contempt for a subject you didn't appear to particluarly understand. So I felt obliged to say something and hope for the best. What I said was that you didn't understand the thing you were decrying. You tried your level best to make that a personal affront, repeatedly said I was calling you ignorant, as I routinely responded that I wasn't, that there is a difference between saying someone is ignorant and saying that they don't appear to understand one particular thing well enough to criticize it.

Eventually I tired of your parlor tricks and determined to hold ground and I called you on them. You change your complaints subtly when they fail and go on as though the point you've altered is the thing you were defending. I've noted that by quote in the thread. You try to keep your opponent on the defensive with mostly unsupported declarations, charges, as you did by repeatedly suggesting I was offering an insult when I was actually trying my best to strongly differ without managing that. You play word games by using, say, respect or maintain in a way that is contextually ambiguous then claim your point isn't being addressed. You tried this gambit before with me and I finally just walked away from you, but this is too important. You make that sort of claim and when called upon to note the thing you feel is missed, don't. You just point back to the post where the ambiguity lies. It's a tactic and a poor one. It's just covering yourself against sustained examination. Well, if you don't want that just stay out of the fray.

What else...oh, this...how we got here.


You declared: "Precedent is how justice is perverted."
Not being particularly impressed with bumper sticker rhetoric, I replied: "It isn't."

So you wrote:

Of course, precedence isn't a reliance, its a guiding consideration. I noted that and the need for it immediately and in utilizing supportive authority and links thereto that followed. Here's my opening answer again, in parts:

"Rather, ignoring history dooms one to repeat its mistakes, whereas taking counsel from it is a path to wisdom and other public virtues, so long as the counsel is not slavish in nature.

Precedent is one consideration, not an anchor.

It is a form of authoritative counsel.

Why?

Because as noted jurist and former Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, put it, "The law must be stable, but it cannot stand still."

There is an inherent struggle to accommodate an ever changing landscape of circumstance and the expansion or introduction of new areas of law and relating rights, while maintaining a necessary stability upon which commerce and the expectations of citizenry can rely.

The common law from stare decisis et non quieta movere (stand by the decision/do not disturb what is settled) has been an important part of judicial consideration from the founding of our law."​

And I waited on a response. What I got was this bit of superficial game play:



I probably should have shaken head at you and walked away there. It evidenced that either you didn't read the response or were being willfully obtuse. History is what precedent actually is, as I noted, among other things. You had a chance to make substantive hay on a substantive response. Your actual effort foreshadowed what was to come from you, disappointingly.

Along the way you complained repeatedly about being called ignorant, while I repeatedly reminded you that I didn't do that. It was a peculiar complaint in any event, given that elsewhere you felt easy writing of someone:

Which is exactly what I said about the topic of precedent.

Your next complaint was along that same, anything but the issue, but equally wrong headed:

You'll have to answer that one for yourself. Supra.

And before you complain about the notation of being out of your depth, which came after you gave me reason to stop worrying about how you took difference:


Meanwhile, back in our discussion, you asked:

Now at that point you were hanging that entirely on your insistence that I was calling you ignorant, which I wasn't and which I repeatedly and publicly denied. A funny thing for anyone intent on offering insult to do.

You also went side bar as focus on the need for respecting the other part of a conversation. Coupled with the above this brief glance at a few of your recent posts is...educational:






And, of course, your “special” trip to Quixote’s to pen:


That's profoundly hypocritical, given. As with your entrance into the discussion, to the extent you ever managed it, you were ill-considered on the points.


Or, entering a thread with an eye toward your “respect” of the other guy in a discussion, there was this gem I noted:

Or:


In sum, you lack consistency in the ways that you should have it and are consistent in ways that don't help you.

you wasted that part of your life that could have been spent with jack to bang out all that crap of a response to stripe?

and for what?


oh yeah

one more for mommy's fridge:

Spoiler

 

[Town Heretic]

you wasted that part of your life that could have been spent with jack to bang out all that crap of a response to stripe?

Jack is in school. It's a summer thing that has them working with art and taking trips to science museums and that sort of thing. He loves it.

and for what?

To answer and clarify on a point of contention. I understand that might confuse you, because for you this is apparently a place to work out your personal issues.

At best it's informative, either on a subject or a personality, like you. At it's worst it's a platform for trolls, again, like you.

At any rate and as I said in those free bonus points, chrys isn't budging, so far, on Stalker of the Year honors, so you're efforts, impressive as they remain, are in vain.

Better luck next year. :e4e:

 

[Stripe]

I do. I'll say some more then. You're complicated with me...on the one hand I actually like you and have for a fairly long time. I don't always agree with you and noted some time ago, to myself, how you handle strong opposition. I didn't think it suited you, care for how it impacted your conduct and made a conscious decision to simply keep out of your path as far as that goes and nod here and there.

Perhaps you should quit worrying about your feelings and learn to engage me rationally.

I'm not looking to maintain order; I'm looking for people willing to engage honestly on important issues and have a little fun.

Then you stepped out of your wheelhouse and into mine, with palpable contempt for a subject you didn't appear to particluarly understand.

And there's your problem. You do not have any edge over me when it comes to justice. I have the Bible as my foundation of what is right and wrong, you think we all need to listen to you because you've got a degree.

You're an authority on the intricacies of the US legal system and you use that as a club in a bid to run over a discussion of what is right and wrong. Doesn't work that way, sonshine.

And you'll remember well that when a subject does arise that requires a knowledge of the US legal system — or even courtroom norms worldwide — I will defer to your training. So you can quit trying to paint me as some unreasonable brute.

We don't judge by the standards of men's justice systems. We are called to judge righteously.

Precedent is a distraction that gets in the way of good judgement.

 

[ok doser]

... you're efforts, impressive as they remain, are in vain.

Better luck next year. :e4e:

once again, your a winner! :darwinsm:

 

[ok doser]

We don't judge by the standards of men's justice systems. We are called to judge righteously.

problem is, stripe, that "we" don't include pretenders like town

 

[Town Heretic]

problem is, stripe, that "we" don't include pretenders like town

Stitched those robes yourself, did you?

Careful, you're going to put your eyes out with that needle.

You know, I was just thinking about PK and the first time I inadvertently got who you were right on the button. It's all just a matter of noting who you're following around, why, and how often you chase your own tail.

And that's enough, I think, of you for the day. Stay.

 

[Town Heretic]

Perhaps you should quit worrying about your feelings and learn to engage me rationally.

I wasn't worrying about my feelings. And I've never been demonstrably less than rational in my address. But you're free to quote me on the point and I'll respond.

And there's your problem. You do not have any edge over me when it comes to justice.

Never said that I did. I have a pronounced advantage on the subject of the law, of the actual topic you commented on, on precedent.That was the point. You can't meaningfully criticize a thing by any standard unless and until you understand the thing you're criticizing. I haven't said anything about your knowledge of what constitutes justice.

You're an authority on the intricacies of the US legal system and you use that as a club in a bid to run over a discussion of what is right and wrong. Doesn't work that way, sonshine.

Rather, I use my legal knowledge and reference to authority and argument on points of law to correct and rebut errant declarations and mistaken conclusions relating to it.

And you'll remember well that when a subject does arise that requires a knowledge of the US legal system — or even courtroom norms worldwide — I will defer to your training. So you can quit trying to paint me as some unreasonable brute.

I don't think you're unreasoning. I think you're being unreasonable. I think you have a bias and it led you to a statement that wasn't objectively true, a mistake predicated on your misapprehension of a thing I attempted to clarify for you, a legal point. But despite your above, you didn't yield or even appear to consider it. Who knows why.

Precedent is a distraction that gets in the way of good judgement.

That's a subjective line of assumption. It's mistaken as an operation of law, as per my many prior posts citing to learned treatises on the reason and even necessity of precedent as one potent guide within the legal system.

 

[Stripe]

You can't meaningfully criticize a thing by any standard unless and until you understand the thing you're criticizing.

:yawn:

I think you're being unreasonable. I think you have a bias and it led you to a statement that wasn't objectively true, a mistake predicated on your misapprehension of a thing I attempted to clarify for you. But despite that, you didn't yield or even appear to consider it. Who knows why.

 

[Town Heretic]

.

I don't think you're unreasoning. I think you're being unreasonable. I think you have a bias and it led you to a statement that wasn't objectively true, a mistake predicated on your misapprehension of a thing I attempted to clarify for you, a legal point. But despite your above, you didn't yield or even appear to consider it. Who knows why.

:yawn:

I think you're being unreasonable. I think you have a bias and it led you to a statement that wasn't objectively true, a mistake predicated on your misapprehension of a thing I attempted to clarify for you. But despite that, you didn't yield or even appear to consider it. Who knows why.

Your maturity is only surpassed by your originality.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Your maturity is only surpassed by your originality.

When you ignore people with long-winded nonsense, there's not much else to do.

 

[Town Heretic]

When you ignore people with long-winded nonsense, there's not much else to do.

Nah. You're not ignoring. That's posturing. That's all parroting a conclusion without the examination, rebuttal and methodology that leads to it amounts to...What I'm about to do is ignoring, having waited far too long for signs of real desire to understand or, failing that, to actually address the topic.

See you around. I'm leaving this thread on the discard pile.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Nah. You're not ignoring. That's posturing. That's all parroting a conclusion without the examination, rebuttal and methodology that leads to it amounts to...What I'm about to do is ignoring, having waited far too long for signs of real desire to understand or, failing that, to actually address the topic.See you around. I'm leaving this thread on the discard pile.e4e:

Given that you show no desire to understand, that seems a forlorn hope.

When you're willing to actually address what I say, let us know. :up: