SectionC3

More gibberish from you. You asked for an answer and you got it. The fact that you don’t like it is on you. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize here. The question on the floor is how I’m “always wrong” on matters of law. I’ll take any further dodges on your part as an admission that you can’t answer the question. You’re weakening the detente again. I could have a lot of fun with the fact that you’ve posted an image with a pretty short flagpole, but I won’t. I will respect your sensitivity. I only ask that you engage in civil discourse moving forward, sir.

I can’t speak to what “many on the left” have said. With respect to immigration, like the vast majority of Americans I agree that we need secure borders. We differ on how to effectively accomplish that. I believe a wall is an effective measure in urban areas and high-traffic places, such as in San Diego and in parts of Arizona. More remote areas may benefit from different safeguards. I also believe that immigration should be accomplished legally. How “loose” the rules are in that respect, that is, how many immigrants should be admitted on an annual basis, I’m not qualified to say. What I do not believe in is demonizing a group of people for political gain. It has happened in this country with respect to African-Americans, Irish, and Chinese, and now it’s happening with respect Mexicans (and, arguably, Chinese again). It’s wrong on a variety of levels, and it’s an approach that I will not stand for. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mexicans-rapists-remark-reference-2018-4

Comments like these will destroy our detente, sir. I was aware of your penis envy. I am becoming aware of your homophobia. I think we all would be better if you would keep both of those issues to yourself. This community will be better for it.

Which senators are those? For real. I’d like to know. That’s disgraceful if true. I didn’t realize this was a thread about COVID-19.

Let’s play nice here today. I just kept you off of the Snowflake List. We have a fragile detente, you and me, so let’s work on being civil and leave the sarcasm at the door, sir.

I don’t think I’m alone in never having seen or handled your “junk.” Based your attitude and temperament, I’d bet it’s pretty dusty. But let’s put those points aside. After you admitted your tiny baby hands issue, and after you kept on alluding to your related issue in response to innocent, innuendo-free posts that I made, perhaps I should not have made light of your problem. For that I apologize. I will be mindful of your sensitivities about humorous comments from randos on the Internet about your anonymous Internet personality moving forward. In the spirit of reconciliation, I won’t even put you on the Snowflake List over this incident. Consider that a small peace offering on my end.

Believe it or not, so do centrists and liberals. We just disagree on how it is to be done intelligently and effectively. Trump thinks a sea to sea static monolith is a good plan. I watched Narcos a couple of times and realized that 1980s technology will defeat a wall. I also realize that there aren’t a hell of a lot of illegals wandering around in the vastness of Big Bend National Park. So I think a sea to sea wall is a wasteful measure. Apparently conservatives agree with me since Trump couldn’t get the sea to sea edifice funded by Congress. So now Trump has savaged the Constitution to try to make good on a campaign promise that he lacked the skill to keep. If your conservatism is such that you support funding a sea to sea border wall through a national emergency declaration and through liberal use of eminent domain, that’s on you. Those aren’t the principles to which I ascribe. The only one insinuating anything is you. Maybe its Freudian, I don’t know. But I simply illustrated a context in which it would be bad to paint with a broad brush. If you took that as a suggestion that Trump has tried to demonize a largely poor foreign group for his own benefit and the benefit of his followers, there’s not too much that I can do about that. No he was distracted during public health and economic crises by his own baseless promotion a long-discredited conspiracy theory regarding a political foe.

You should mention that to third and short.

It’s impressive that you spent 35 years in and around a courtroom. It doesn’t seem that you paid much attention during that time. 1. Your actual evidence point is patently wrong. Her testimony is “actual evidence.” 2. Your point about corroboration is misplaced. Typically corroboration is required only where the only evidence against a defendant is accomplice testimony. The absence of corroboration frankly is common in matters involving attempted (but unachieved) sexual assault and delayed disclosure. 3. Your point about contemporaneous disclosures also is misleading. Such disclosures are not essential to a finding of credibility. Moreover, as I’m sure you know based on your decades of sitting in a courtroom and apparently paying little attention to what occurred there, sexual assaults — particularly those involving minors — often are not promptly disclosed given the shame and humiliation attached to those incidents. 4. I don’t owe you or anyone else an explanation for a matter of opinion. As noted, I indicated that I watched and/or listened to the entirety of the hearings. I heard her speak. I heard him speak. I thought about Bart, Squiggy, and the crew. And I drew a conclusion accordingly. As I’m sure you’re aware given your 3.5 decades of apparently blithely sitting in a courtroom, an ultimate finder of fact doesn’t have to explain its conclusion. But I’ll give you a thumbnail sketch of factors relevant to a determination like mine: plausibility, absence of bias, imbalance of shame/humiliation versus any possible personal benefit to be gained from testimony, sound recall, and manner of testimony. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s hear about how I’m “always wrong” on matters of law. The floor is yours, big boy.

Non-responsive. You’ve answered a question with a question.

Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. Not too shabby in my book.

Hoax.

Vaguely reminiscent of Trump's bogus national emergency to unconstitutionally reappropriate funds for the border wall.

There you go again with your fake news. In point of fact I answered your question:

At whom have I "hurl[ed] insults?"

There you go again with your alternative facts. I said nothing of the sort. The issue of Flynn's guilt is resolved. Like it or not, he's guilty. And he'll be guilty again tomorrow, too. Maybe he gets to reopen that question, but as of this moment in time the issue of his guilt has been determined. Update: Just checked. He's still guilty. And the issue of his guilt has been resolved. Enjoy! I realize that you have a lot of notebooks to fill up with information about crackpot conspiracy theories, so time is short. Any chance you can fill me in on how I'm "always wrong" on legal matters? Solid post. You kept it short. Exactly your style!

You're the only one talking about illegal immigrants, my man. Not the issue here. I don't believe the statement was attributed to any person or group. It was illustrative. Did I misread? Now, if you're asking whether Trump and his cult have weaponized migration, the answer obviously is yes.

Still nothing to back up your contention that I’m always wrong. If it’s so easy to prove why can’t you provide any specifics?

When do I get outraged about partial quotes?

True. But to have one is better than not. I look at it more as a courtesy to others so that I don’t give them whatever i might have. Hoax. I said the issue of Flynn’s guilt has been decided. It has. Flynn is trying to reopen the issue. We will see if he succeeds. update: as of Wednesday afternoon, Mike Flynn still is guilty. Enjoy!

I agree with most of that. You’re spot on about the kill rate. I’m worried about ramifications of COVID exposure, e.g., long term damage to lungs that we aren’t fully aware of. I wish more Americans were amenable to masks. It would help the process get started sooner.

And still nothing to back up your point. Well done!

That’s like saying all Mexican immigrants are criminals because one Mexican immigrant committed a rape. It’s not right to paint with a broad brush in either instance.

Fake news. I watched it. They’re both right, to a point. What struck me about the exchange was the assumption that the COVID issue is over. I wish it was. Maybe it is as far as the market is concerned. But I don’t think we’re there yet and a lot of the economic issues they argued might be premature. Oh no, sir. You said I’m wrong a lot. Then you said it’s easy to prove. And then you couldn’t back it up. The floor is yours, big boy. Let’s hear about how I’m always wrong on matters and issues of law.

When pressed for specifics, billsfan1959 folds. As usual. Sad!