Town Quixote's

[Town Heretic]

Actually the only reason you keep bringing it up is in hopes I'll step out of bounds.

Nah. I object to practices, but I'd rather have you and anyone interested in being on TOL on TOL, so long as you're conducting business within the rules. I've been here for around nine years and never had a ban, while not exactly taking a passive approach to arguing and taking more than a few unpopular positions. So I know it's not that hard to manage. Often as simple as stopping and editing before you post.

As I'm always telling the odd anti-theist who drives by to launch profanity or disrespectful advances of their position, we have people Knight has put in the TOL Hall of Fame who hold widely disparate opinions. It's how we voice them that matters.

I'll bet you wudn't laughin' when those rare laymen handed yer butt to yuh in them not so serious courts you were the prosecutor in.

I've never been bested by a layman. No lawyer should, though laymen have and can catch a break in traffic and municipal courts. I've seen that happen. Mostly it does so when a lawyer gets lazy or is too new and doesn't prepare properly. On a narrow enough matter, a motivated and intelligent layman can have a fighting chance against a lazy and/or disinterested attorney...though even then, unless the lawyer is poorly trained or up before a Municipal judge or one, as in some probate jurisdictions, who isn't a lawyer, the lean will be heavily in the practitioner's favor.

Similarly, a physician should rarely if ever find a diagnosis bested by someone who has no medical background. There's no shame in it. That's the point of the training.

You're misunderstanding the prosecutorial note. You prosecute actions. It doesn't necessarily mean you're working as a prosecutor, like an ADA. I had good working relations with prosecutors in the jurisdictions I worked in. I found they were largely conscientious and hard working men and women. Much more of my legal practice involved civil litigation, though some of it (like the VAWA work) crossed over into matters of a criminal nature and I did a good bit of criminal defense for a stretch. Didn't care for it.

On the Wrap.

Comical enough.

It's mostly meant to be. And whenever possible (closed threads won't let me) I put links to anything noted so people can find threads and conversations they might have missed. I think those two reasons are the reason it's always been a steady, popular thread. I'm sure it's not because everyone who reads it agrees with every or necessarily most of the positions I take in it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Given the level of activity today, to make it easier for the people who visit to read The Wrap:

[FONT=&quot]The Wrap
on Saturday[/FONT]​

Took another stab at getting rm to reconsider the felony usage...

Only to a liberal lawyer like you who makes excuses for political reasons for one of their own.

Citing the opinion of the FBI isn't making excuses. It's just noting the fact of it.

...As with conservatives, there's a lot I admire in liberal thinking, but no, thank you. I mostly vote conservatively and register Republican here because that's where our best candidates are, by and large (with glaring, Jeff Sessions-esque, exceptions) especially in the judiciary. But I'm a moderate who isn't wedded to a party lever pull.

If MarK Levin former chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese under Ronald Reagan calls the woman a felon (and he has publicly on his radio & TV show), than it is good enough for me.

One fellow can call property theft and another use theft to describe taxes. But they still aren't, it's just how they feel about it.

the woman is a felon

A felon is someone convicted of a felony. You're conflating your conviction with the legal variety.

and I am quite sure that there are plenty of people that you do respect that have the same opinion as I or Levin for that matter.

I respect any number of people who get things wrong, because at one point or another all of us do. But I can't respect an opinion at odds with the plain truth. .

MS was back on the heels of his "repeal women's suffrage" salvo...

You're just spinning your wheels here.

Well, it's hard to get traction with some people.

The people are gun toting, male landowners.

You left out white. The empowered people were. They aren't alone any longer and haven't been for a very long time, because as flawed as the founders were, they put into play essential principles of law that could self-correct mistakes and omissions and founded something remarkable, a state of peaceful, ongoing revolution and political evolution.

Heck of a thing.

Argued law and morality with Guru...

Individuals and even large groups of people, have the right to self expression and protesting within the parameters of the law.

But both of my examples were of unlawful, yet moral conduct [the Civil Rights Movement protests, by way of]. The law may or may not be a moral instrument.

Under a democratic system only then can any moral position be enforced on the entire populace.

My point being that the law isn't necessarily a moral instrument in a secular republic. It can be, often is by parallel, but sometimes isn't. Sometimes it's just pragmatics. There's nothing inherently immoral in the distinction one mile per hour makes, by way of, though that distinction can technically get you a speeding ticket.

In a true and working democracy these representatives are not there to serve their own ideas . . . however, this is not so in 'make believe democratic', Banana republics

There's long been a debate on the point. The problem with making someone elected to office the slave of the opinion of those who elect him, without regard for his judgment and unique position within the power structure is that often people are elected by a majority that itself has disparate views on any number of subjects. So which views does he then represent? It seems the better course to let those who make promises along a line of issues do their best to keep them, without regard for taking a windsock poll on any particular. If they fail to do enough to suit you then you're free to throw the rascals out of office when they come up for reelection.

Talked about the latest Trump allegations with Angel...

I would never vote for Trump unless God Himself told me to, but i also wouldnt believe these women coming out of the woodwork with their complaints, NOW.

I'm with you on the first part. I'm not on the second. I can completely understand why someone wouldn't want a "my word against Trump" confrontation [sans evidence]...I can understand why the video would embolden someone harboring a resentment for that treatment, who lacked confidence to confront then.

I don't know it's true, but there's smoke rising and a tape of him striking a match.

Continued with Guru...

That is not possible. Unlawful conduct cannot be moral.

I disagree. More, the law can be immoral and unlawful activity the only recourse. Just so, "Tell me, sir, are you hiding any Jews on these premises?" said the SS Colonel at your door.

Law is the measure of morality for a nation

I don't agree. It certainly can be, but it frequently isn't.

And, after I spent a little time explaining legal process MS decided...

You remind me of the guys sitting in line to talk to the prosecutor.

You remind me of a guy with a strong opinion, but no discernible understanding of why he holds it or particular grasp of the judicial system.

As a layman I would walk right past them and cut my own deal.

Your opinion of your opinion isn't in question. Cut what deal? In what court? Civil? Criminal? Municipal?

They would start to whine about me cutting in front of them. You know why I did it?

Because you're rude and feel entitled?

I had to go back to work as I had men counting on me to feed their families.

So none of the lawyers had firms, with staff and families? Peculiar jurisdiction. Can everyone else see this courtroom or just you?

And...

The point was they were making money sitting there providing a service that some of us with a little guts and brains don't need.

It's not about being smart. Lots of very smart people don't try to operate on other people or themselves, even with a medical degree, let alone without one.

So...

I already knew you were a doofus with no hands on experience.

Nothing in my writing led to that conclusion, so you're consistent in approach at least...I've tried, literally, thousands of cases outside of my appellate work.

Far as my manners, I've never been held in contempt.

You mean legally. lain:

Before thudding into the earth and below it with...

Give with one hand hand take away with the other.

Rather, I credit what I can reasonably, but when you puff about how you're too smart to need a lawyer and you crow about how the Holy Spirit is impressed with you I'm going to call you on the hubris of it.

Blow it, buddy.

Do you think the Holy Spirit is applauding that?

Tomorrow? I put soap on the Secret Santa Christmas list. . .

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Instead of The Wrap this should be called The Crap.
Perhaps a sub-title, "Ramblings of a Loser Two-Time Obama Voter" would add some spice to it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Instead of The Wrap this should be called The Crap.
Perhaps a sub-title, "Ramblings of a Loser Two-Time Obama Voter" would add some spice to it.

Nope. And the weird thing is you know I didn't vote for him twice...but if you're championing Trump, you're about to get a real education in losing.

Even more curious, you aren't mentioned in the latest Wrap, keep talking about how horrible it and me are and yet...here you are. :shocked:

Today's Wrap here.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Which is also the only way anyone knows I voted for the president the first time.

Means diddly squat.

You could have voted for him again, then had an attack of conscience and now be ashamed of your choice.

See how that works?

Well, no. Like I said earlier, I'm a moderate. I find ideas from both sides of the aisle valuable and a good bit both mistaken and unfortunate. I'd be a horrible liberal or conservative, if you're strong in either camp. Liberals would hate my position on abortion and the Second Amendment and conservatives would hate that I don't hate liberals and find some of their ideas solid.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

As you say,conservatives hate people but liberals love everybody and have good ideas.

Do you even know what yer sayin'?

Ooops, don't look now but yer true colors are showin'.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I've never been bested by a layman.

Could be because you've never done anything but research and run coffee for the big dogs.

Bozo.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Or of course, neither of the above...

lain:

Okay.

Let me add a little charity to my faith here.

Town is like John Wayne in reverse.

John thought he was a liberal until he stepped back and looked.

Heretic is either a full blown liberal with too much invested in his Ego to admit it or at the least too ignorant to see reality.

 

[Town Heretic]

Today's Wrap here.

Now back to letters to the editor:

Means diddly squat.

It means that if you credit the first you should credit the second or you're not being rational. Chrys asked me, after the second election. So I told him. If I was ashamed and dishonest I could have lied then. Admitting to voting for an unpopular choice wouldn't make any particular sense, unless I was being honest.

On my moderate political stance:

Sorry, I don't believe you.

Doesn't matter. I've been on point and up front here when it comes to abortion and anyone, including the owner of the joint, would tell you that. I believe one of my posts on that subject garnered a Knight's end of the year notice. And anyone who has been around and paid attention shouldn't have to be told. I've long noted my possession of and defense of the right to bear arms. I've been as vocal when it comes to gay marriage as a necessary legal outcome and defending the religion of Islam from a blunderbuss charge of radicalism. So I've done more than declare my part, I've argued consistently within that representation.

As you say,conservatives hate people but liberals love everybody and have good ideas.

Except I didn't say that. You did. Here's what I wrote:

Well, no. Like I said earlier, I'm a moderate. I find ideas from both sides of the aisle valuable and a good bit both mistaken and unfortunate. I'd be a horrible liberal or conservative, if you're strong in either camp. Liberals would hate my position on abortion and the Second Amendment and conservatives would hate that I don't hate liberals and find some of their ideas solid.

So the context is that if you're hard right or hard left you won't like me because. The liberals would hate (no love mentioned) my position on guns and abortion. The hard right would hate that I don't hate liberals, because they demonstrably do.

Now you read that not long ago. So the only real question, given your misrepresentation, is this: is your memory flawed or is your character? Because one of them just embarrassed you...unless it's the second, in which case you likely aren't embarrassed by much.

The good news is that if it's the first it'll pass momentarily and you won't recall it. lain:

Do you even know what yer sayin'?

Sure, one of us has to. You seem to confuse easily.

Was it traffic court after all?

Could be because you've never done anything but research and run coffee for the big dogs.

You could be a unicorn who produces musical whinnies, but I wouldn't put money on either proposition.

Bozo.

Gesundheit.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Tuesday​

Cruc put in his penny...

...you have dozens of women claiming to have been sexually assaulted by her opposition. The 'typical' factor is strong- every time such women come around, allegations explode like a pinata.

Citation to source, or is this you just declaring it? How many cases like this have their been? How many resulted in either criminal or civil holdings against the women or for the accused?

You can sit there and hardly pretend to be unbiased

I don't have to pretend and here's why: my opinion is that a) we can't know the truth without more evidence, b) there are two competing narratives regarding that truth, c) the claims of the women coming forward are in line with the admissions of Trump when he didn't know that he was being recorded.

It's possible that the women coming forward are liars. It's possible that the people attesting to having had some of those related to them at the time of the incidents are liars. Or, it's possible that Trump is. We can't know at this point, but dismissing the women seems the greater reach, given what we have on hand from him and what would have to be true (though it might be) about that much larger number of people without anything at present to cast objective doubt on them.

Noted a problem with a large number of Trump supporters...

Remember the contemptuous dismissal of much of Trump's support by Clinton?

From Public Policy Polling:

Alex Jones floated the notion this week that Hillary Clinton is actually a demon, and 40% of Trump voters say that they really do think Clinton is a demon to only 42% who dismiss that idea.​

lain:

And after repeated challenges to Cruc for data in line with his declarations...

Most men have witnessed or heard of a woman they know accuse a man of sexual assault at least once in their life.

That's just another declaration you won't support with citation or any serious authority.

We were talking about the women coming forward in the wake of the Trump tape release when Cruc declared:

The 'typical' factor is strong- every time such women come around, allegations explode like a pinata.

Citation to source, or is this you just declaring it. How many cases like this have their been? How many resulted in either criminal or civil holdings against the women or for the accused?

His response, hand to God, was this:

Why don't you go attend a 'slut walk', seriously. Or find out the ridiculous reason they even exist at least

I noted that he failed to sustain the charge with anything and he gives me the first sentence of this post in response. Yet another declaration he will not back in any substantive fashion.

His excuse? Here it comes:

There cannot be a statistic on the matter because of what it is, .

If there's no data then there's no reliable conclusion and he's essentially admitting to making it up, which anyone reading should already have understood by his answer.

And if you're wondering how he justifies that. Why, with more made up, unsupported declaration. What else can a fellow who doesn't know how to argue or research and who then has no argument or fact to rest on require?

...you all have embraced the infantilization of women, you all have a hard time holding them accountable to their bullcrap.

He doesn't need factual support because his entire understanding of the context and problem is imaginary. That's what he just told you. He doesn't need facts because--followed by a declaration that he can only sustain if you accept it without question.

Yahtzee. lain:

Had a promising beginning with PP...

Do you think there's truly a statistically supportable empirically viable case for the accusation that the status quo is bad cops intentionally shooting young black men as a passive or active prevailing racist agenda in completely disproportionate percentages of racial population?

Do I think that statistically we can see a black man is more likely to be prosecuted than a white counterpart, more likely to be convicted, given a harsher sentence than his white counterpart? Sure. And being an advocate of the justice system this isn't something that makes me happy to admit. Can we assert, statistically, that a black man is many times more likely to be killed by a policeman than a white man? We can. Almost three times more likely (it's late, but if you haven't seen the data I'll find it for you later and link it back here).

Do you think white police officers are authentically, overtly, and fixatedly targeting young black males to the detriment of their overall duties in general?

I think some demonstrably have, but I suspect the larger problem parallels the problem you run into with a judge who has been sitting the bench for a while. You almost always go for a jury because the experience of the judge will predispose him to approach your client with the idea that he's probably guilty. I'd need to take a harder look at the data, but what I recall and what I expect to find is that for the most part people killed by police officers tend to be shot, disproportionately, in poorer neighborhoods with higher crime rates. So the police are anticipating things that as a rule might work out, but can lead to tragedy in the exception.

Violence by police against young black men is statistically higher than other ethnicities, but that also points to their propensity to physically resist arrest.

You were okay until the last of that. The last of that was sheer voodoo.

...The stereotypes don't exist because they're invalid and unprecedented in reality.

No. They mostly exist because of the tendency of people to think simplistically, especially about the "other" and because of historic racial prejudices within the white community. There are a lot of problems in the black community, but it begins with poverty. Poverty and some well intentioned governmental folly, coupled with the death of industry in places where large enclaves of blacks still live, which is also tied to governmental folly, and a few other forces, have helped to produce a complicated national tragedy..

Something wasn't adding up in CC's math class...

By not supporting Trump you support Hillary. Simple math.

Then not supporting Hillary would be a supporting Trump.

Good grief, I'll be voting twice and that's against the law! :shocked: Well, maybe not in Florida, but in general and here in my state.

At a time when America is on the edge of economic armageddon (20 Trillion in debt) we cannot afford to concern ourselves with whether or not Trump's character is all we'd like it to be.

How do you think we arrived at that debt? What wants allowed men and women to accrue it? I'll give you hint, it rhymes with shmaracter.

And proceeding to today's not so grand finale...

I always get a kick out of people who say they believe in God, but will immediately dismiss any suggestion of demonic activity as insane. Demonic activity is verified in the Bible, but it is also not Hollywood-ish, rather it can be quite subtle.

Hey, doofus, the poll was over whether Hillary was actually a demon. lain: I get a kick out of people who pop off without appearing to have read what they're popping off over.

Frankly, the way Hillary lies with such ease (Satan is the Prince of Liars) and the fact that she embraces every possible evil position, who is to say she is not under some influence. It is certainly possible.

I'm with you on not caring for liars.

Well, what else should we expect from a 2-time Bammy supporter.

I actually voted against the president in his bid for reelection.

12 posts later:

Instead of The Wrap this should be called The Crap.
Perhaps a sub-title, "Ramblings of a Loser Two-Time Obama Voter" would add some spice to it.

Liars are just the worst. lain:

Tomorrow? More Fun With Trump and Jane Doe. oly: See Trump. See Trump Run for president. See Trump put his hands on Jane. Naughty boy. See Trump fall.

That sort of thing.

 

[Town Heretic]

moved.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Our latest Latin was looking for love in all the wrong spaces.......

How pathetic. Instead of talking about people is your stupid "I Act Like I'm Smart But I'm Really a Two-Time Bammy Voter Moron" thread, why don't you say it to her face. This thread is a monument to stupidity, to a person who has fooled himself into thinking he is intelligent when in fact he is a leftwing lemming who would not know the right side of issues if they bit him in the face.

This is not "The Wrap", its the Crap, and a lot of it, just like the rest of your posts.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Okay.

Let me add a little charity to my faith here.

Town is like John Wayne in reverse.

John thought he was a liberal until he stepped back and looked.

Heretic is either a full blown liberal with too much invested in his Ego to admit it or at the least too ignorant to see reality.

He's a full blown Liberal, AND he's invested in his Ego, AND he's too ignorant to see reality. He's a lot like Hitler in those respects: Smart, clever, yet invested in his Ego, unable to see reality, and embracing evil that he sees as righteous.

.......I've never been bested by a layman............

......says the LAME-man.

 

[Town Heretic]

He's a full blown Liberal,

So, in CC's world liberals oppose abortion, mostly vote Republican, and strongly support the 2nd Amendment. lain:

AND he's invested in his Ego,

In CC's world coming out on the rational end of an argument is a service to ego.

AND he's too ignorant to see reality.

In CC's world you see that by gouging your eyes out with his point.

He's a lot like Hitler in those respects

Because nothing says "I've got a rational, dispassionate and objective argument" quite like comparing the other guy to Hitler.

invested in his Ego

In CC's world repetition is what you use in lieu of argument, data, or, well, everything, really.

embracing evil that he sees as righteous.

Which is why in CC's world you say things like this but can't actually make the case with, you know, quotes of me actually doing what the Crap Crusader really, really needs for me to do.

......says the LAME-man.

That's CC approaching clever...from a great distance.

But, as always, thanks for reading The Wrap. It continues to illustrate just how much:

...I don't give a crap about you and your idiot posts. How's that.

If you don't give a crap any harder you're going to need surgery.

For normal readers (either) Friday's Wrap is a couple of posts back.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

So, in CC's world.........

.......otherwise known as the real world where only idiots and morons vote for Obama twice in a row. Present company included.

 

[Town Heretic]

.......otherwise known as the real world where only idiots and morons vote for Obama twice in a row. Present company included.

Which would be devastating except that I didn't actually do that. lain:

But you're definitely going to vie for this year's "Little Train That Just Really Couldn't" award when Chrys takes another shot at hosting this year.

This thread is a monument to stupidity,

Which, were it true, would make your active, avid participation both explicable and funnier.


Friday's Wrap here.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Unacceptable content removed.

 

[Town Heretic]

moved again...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Unacceptable Content Removed

Playgrounds have more wit going on than this.

What an advertisement for Christianity you are...

lain:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Playgrounds have more wit going on than this..........

Don't get mad because I insulted your gay pen pal from across the pond.

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Friday​

Our latest Latin was looking for love in all the wrong spaces...

hey where are the two feminists from N.O.W.——-Annabendetti and the detergent girl—-PureX…..need some schizoid commentary.

Try talking to yourself...I mean try talking to yourself more, of course. :e4e:

Meanwhile CC continued to defend Trump with an acumen and restraint second only to his candidate...

I don't give a crap about the poll

It really comes across in your post about the poll. lain:

just like I don't give a crap about you and your idiot posts. How's that.

:think: Constipated?

While Cruc advanced an uneven...

Originally Posted by Crucible
Most American's aren't racist anymore, even in the South.

I think that's true enough. Eventually they out themselves though.

I aptly applaud anyone who runs over a BLM protester on the highway. You won't be excused like they do, sniping out people, but bravo

lain:

And CC was back with more...

...I don't give a crap about you and your idiot posts. How's that.

If you don't give a crap any harder you're going to need surgery.

Meanwhile...

It seems no one has posted the actual dictrionary defintion of racism?
Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination

By dictionary definiton, the BLM doctrine and political program is racist; just as anti-liberals have known all along.

That's you declaring without making the case.

While CC was striving mightily to be his own worst enemy...

You too will pay at judgement. No, I am not judge

Those two statements are incongruous. The second is correct.

, but I'll bet I know what God does to mass baby killers AND THEIR ACCOMPLICES

Loves and welcomes them if they repent, but since I'm neither killer nor accomplice (and neither are the people who voted for the conservatives who gave us the Roe Court) and I am the recipient of that unmerited grace, it's not a point that troubles me.

Which, as it turns out, was catching...

Or

no, that is your logic
you don't understand principle or exception
I do

I'll let you argue with you:

any good lawyer (is that even possible?) knows what an accomplice is
the vast majority of abortions would not be possible without the support of the democratic party
and
that is only possible because many do not vote republican
so
those not voting republican are an accomplice to the killing of babies

No wonder you're eating salad these days, chrys.

A challenge to PP to produce more than a lexicon led to...

I've learned that liberals' confirmation bias makes any real effort futile.

... People who can't make an argument for their position will often as not find a reason and means to dodge having to.

I don't need to appeal to anyone and convince them. Truth is truth, regardless of whether you will ever access it.

The last refuge of the rhetorically unprepared: I don't need to prove anything, because its true.

Speaking of...

I've been ganged up on since day one.

You've been spouting angry, unsupported nonsense on the topic since day one...Stop playing a victim card.

- I don't play the victim

You literally just did it again to start this post.

I don't run for the hills- most of the time

I agree. You run more frequently than that, which is why it's easier to find a unicorn than a post of yours where you make a charge supported by data, citation to authority or an actual argument in parts that can be examined rationally. So you're right. I should have been harder on you.

, you all ask for evidence and want nothing less than a statistic of sorts, as if there is a statistic for everything.

When you say most women, or all women, then you're noting numbers you either can sustain or can't. So far you can't..

STP threw down the gauntlet in my tv thread...

What's the consensus on Silver Spoons?
I say it was way underrated.

As what? lain:

Speaking of closings, anna picked up her own two cent stalker as she made her way to the exit...

Anna's profile says: Slogan or motto: Do the ordinary with extraordinary love.

Poking about in her profile page are you? lain:

I guess that motto went down the toilet a long time ago.

Did you watch it go past?

Tomorrow? Searching for Trump change under the couch potato cushions... :idunno: