All Activity

It is ridiculous. Complaining about spam by... spamming.

Exactly. She reported the incident immediately after it happened. She didn't stay quiet on it. It wasn't her choice to drop the charges. She posted about it a lot, and always wanted to get justice. 5 years ago, he wasn't a famous college player or an NFL player, so it obviously wasn't about money. But now that she has a chance to get some kind of justice, she's pursuing it in civil court since she couldn't in criminal court. ***Personal Anecdote Below*** I dated someone who was attacked & SA'd outside of a college, and she dealt with it for YEARS. She never stopped trying to get justice for it, and it wasn't until the guy did it to 2 x more girls over the next 3 years that he got caught. Then my gf was finally able to cooperate with the police & identify him, but unfortunately it took years. By that point, the 2nd girl who was attacked was suffering from extreme PTSD from the incident & ended her own life. Afterwards, we found out it is was a gang thing, and guys from that gang found my gf lived & would leave threatening notes on her car, tail us in cars late at night, and even showed up at a friend's party. Each time, we called the police, which was a whole ordeal that continued this cycle of fear & intimidating for years. We moved twice, got new vehicles & eventually it ended, but all of this was because one guy decided to r**e a girl outside a college dorm, then proceed to do it multiple more times. My gf & those other girls were unable to get any justice for a long time, but imagine if the attacker wasn't charged & suddenly showed up on TV as an NFL draft pick. How would that feel to see someone you KNOW did something so horrible, something so traumatizing, something that makes you feel violated to your core, being rewarded & happy? Probably pretty pissed off, and you'd want to get whatever bit of justice you could. Not saying Hairston is guilty or passing ANY judgement on him. I'm just saying this is a completely reasonable way for a victim to respond, especially if they have no other options.

-Cut number 1, saving $35 billion over 10 years. Limit federal health program eligibility based on citizenship status. That's just saying that people who are here illegally don't get to use Medicaid. It's something you have told us isn't happening anyway, so you obviously agree with that cut. - Cut number 2, eliminate Medicare coverage of bad debt, saving 42 billion over 10 years. Do you know what bad debt is? You probably don't, so let me explain it to you. Bad debt is where you have a debt with a hospital beyond what your coverage pays. So like let's say you have private health insurance. Now, your health insurance is going to pay their piece and then you have your leftover piece. Now if you don't pay that, that is what's known as bad debt. Now under no circumstances will your private health insur cover your bad debt. However, if you have Medicaid, the American taxpayer will cover up to 65% of that debt. Now, how hospitals use that to their advantage is they up the prices for people on Medicaid, therefore making that bad debt increase dramatically and the American taxpayer pays 65% of it. All this would say is that we're not going to do that anymore. Therefore hospitals can't charge more for people on Medicaid because they're not going to make any extra money from it. Who the is opposed to that? - Cut number 3: Next Medicare site neutrality set to save $148 billion over the 10 years. That one's actually really simple. All that says is the hospitals can't charge people on Medicare and Medicaid more. It just says they have to charge people on Medicare and Medicaid the same prices they charge people on private health insurance or cash. Is there anyone who's opposed to that? No, I didn't think so. Now, from just those 3, we're looking at $200 plus billion dollars in savings. Now, I imagine if I said we're going to cut $200 billion for Medicaid, y' all would freak the out. However, when you do a little bit of research, when you actually look into the topic that you're bitching about, making tiktoks about, you can see that. That $200 billion worth of cuts you agree with, Like, I just showed you one quarter of all the cuts they want to make.

OK, I live in the Mountain time zone and I'm ready to go to sleep. Meanwhile, in the good old Eastern Time Zone ... a dozen personal grudge threads bumped up by the guy who complains about people who post too much? Get. A. Life. Goodnight.

Give it up, ya commie douchebag:

80 plus posts in 12 hours. It looks like in 23 threads.

80 plus posts in the last 12 hours.

I did all kinds of things. Started out doing securities litigation, then spent some time as a federal attorney. Left the federal government but came back after 9/11 and did national security type work. You hear about people who signed up for the military after 9/11; I guess at my age by then this was the next best thing. Then spent most of the rest of my career in that type of work, generally national security related work (including plenty of immigration; again, the post-9/11 thing) and appeals work. Now I just pick up private work when I feel like it or when I think there's an important issue.

If they get more than 50 games out of Norris I'll be surprised and it remains to be seen if the new defenders are actually better or just different.

I get very confused when I watch documentaries about US criminal cases. I think I kind of understand the jury system, although I would like to know how much input the judge gives the jury prior to the deliberation. I guess it varies. Having heard the things the laymen judges sometimes say during deliberation I would be very worried letting them deliberate on their own. What really confuses me is the appeal system in the US. In Sweden you can always appeal to the court of appeal. And they will try every criminal case unless the sentence was just a fine (or if someone is found not guilty and the sentence would have been just a fine). It seem to vary in the US. Different in different states maybe? All in all the legal systems are very different. Which is interesting but confusing. What kind of law do you practise as a lawyer?

Bump for tonight's all time record shlit posting barrage performed by a previously banned poster.

A middle school English teacher opines on a celebrity trial?

Thanks. Interesting system from our U.S. perspective. I've long lobbied for something like your "layman judges" - in other words, ordinary citizens who apply, are given some training, and then sit on juries for a period of time. I'm a semi-retired lawyer who recently served on a jury. (Don't ask why they picked me; I have no clue.) Chaotic as our system is (and depressing as I watched people scramble and make up laugh-out-loud excuses to be excused from serving), in the end the 11 others with me took their job seriously and I thought we reached a fair and considered verdict.

Never on a jury. Do not have a jury system in Sweden (with a very rare exception). But I have tried hundreds of criminal cases as a judge. In Sweden at district courts criminal cases are normally tried by a legally trained judge and three laymen judges. Each vote has the same "value". If it is a split (2-2) there will be no conviction. However at least 90-95 percent of the time the laymen will agree with the legally trained judge. And if not the court of appeal will usually change the verdict. In the court of appeal there are three legally trained judges and two laymen judges. In the Supreme court there are no laymen judges. But they rarely try cases. The laymen judges are elected four years at a time. So no risk of getting called up if you do not want to "serve". Legally trained judges are appointed "for life".

To be fair to the mods, Billstime eventually was banned too, but it is now back with this new account doing the same crap that got it banned before x10.

https://hotair

You realize this guy wouldn’t be freaking out if he weren’t actually exposed.

@phypon is @BillsFanNC

He literally begged me to delete the thread because he was afraid that SDS would see it and he would get banned. I didn't want to delete it, but I had a moment and felt bad for him. That was clearly a mistake. After begging me to delete the thread I put out the stipulation that if he cleaned up his act and agreed to tone things down with his responses to other posters I would delete the thread. He agreed, and as you can see, he lied and continued his trolling and disruptive behavior. I wish I screenshotted his posts before I deleted the thread.

Another gem filled with @BillsFanNC bots.

Everyone knows you're a ***** poster - that's why you're freaking out for being exposed as @phypon.

⬆️ phypon's words below talking about the waste of skin above... Notice that phypon was the one who eventually got TO'd for flying too close to the mod sun.... He literally begged me to delete the thread because he was afraid that SDS would see it and he would get banned. I didn't want to delete it, but I had a moment and felt bad for him. That was clearly a mistake. After begging me to delete the thread I put out the stipulation that if he cleaned up his act and agreed to tone things down with his responses to other posters I would delete the thread. He agreed, and as you can see, he lied and continued his trolling and disruptive behavior. I wish I screenshotted his posts before I deleted the thread.

Yup - same guy.

Same guy