The Walls be Closing

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

cmon, you know trump's play is to pardon himself after he wins.  Is that justice to you?  that's what this is about.  we're not talking 100 days, he wants over a year.  stop being intellectually dishonest little lenny....btw, multiple recent conservative justices x possibly clarence uncle tom, lied about Roe being settled law....and why r u in favor of a dictatorship in America, lenny boy?

I can only suggest you focus on one chicken little moment at a time.  

 

My point is simple:  The government has the higher burden of care--ethically, legally, politically and should extend every reasonable courtesy to the defense.   It doesn't always play out that way--many of these people are political animals jockeying for their next opportunity, some are naturally going to be willing to push boundaries, bend the rules, or play games.  Simply put, I expect more from the government than the defense.  

 

Your response if a big reason why--you've got what seems to me to be a lynch mob mentality.  You've already decided guilt, it would seem, and are displaying signs of anticipatory anxiety about SC justices cooking the books and Trump pardoning himself.  Add in your racial comments about Justice Thomas, you're a mess. 

 

If the case is sound, the government will prevail.  If the matter needs to be reviewed by the SC, it should progress in an orderly fashion with the appropriate time, respect and consideration given to all parties involved here--prosecution, defense, and the SC docket.  

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

15 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

You do realize you're making the case that the Supreme Court should hear this case in a timely manner, right? 

No, but I do believe you're just nutty enough to believe this. 

 

15 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

I mean, if we can appoint a LIFETIME POSITION to a SUPREME COURT JUDGE 8 DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION (which Senate Republicans lost) - we damn well should have sufficient time for the SC to hear/decide this case about presidential immunity asap.

You raised the issue of SC justice appointments but weren't prepared to talk about the confirmation of SC justices?  I tried the polite way, dipping you in your own hot take, hoping the light would turn on, assuming it likely would not.  

 

The SC confirmation process is what it is.  If you don't like it, get in line.  It has nothing to do with this criminal trial, but if it does, don't cherry pick nominees and please, pay attention to the bigger picture.  

 

15 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Nice try.

As always, ty. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I can only suggest you focus on one chicken little moment at a time.  

 

My point is simple:  The government has the higher burden of care--ethically, legally, politically and should extend every reasonable courtesy to the defense.   It doesn't always play out that way--many of these people are political animals jockeying for their next opportunity, some are naturally going to be willing to push boundaries, bend the rules, or play games.  Simply put, I expect more from the government than the defense.  

 

Your response if a big reason why--you've got what seems to me to be a lynch mob mentality.  You've already decided guilt, it would seem, and are displaying signs of anticipatory anxiety about SC justices cooking the books and Trump pardoning himself.  Add in your racial comments about Justice Thomas, you're a mess. 

 

If the case is sound, the government will prevail.  If the matter needs to be reviewed by the SC, it should progress in an orderly fashion with the appropriate time, respect and consideration given to all parties involved here--prosecution, defense, and the SC docket.  

 

 

therefore, you think threatening jurors and judges is ok too.  would me or you be afforded that latitude?  Should we?  What if Biden threatened the lying conservative SCOTUS judges.  OK w u?

Edited December 11, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

It’s gonna be awesome whenever she goes to only fans

Yikes.  The lady is an accomplished attorney and your default is you want to see her naked?  

 

19 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

We have gotten so polarized into our positions that there is a side that actually hopes he can pardon himself

Yikes.  Some people are so polarized they see overt racism in action and give it a thumbs up.  These people are sometimes named John. 

[BillStime]

16 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You raised the issue of SC justice appointments but weren't prepared to talk about the confirmation of SC justices?  I tried the polite way, dipping you in your own hot take, hoping the light would turn on, assuming it likely would not.  

 

The SC confirmation process is what it is.  If you don't like it, get in line.  It has nothing to do with this criminal trial, but if it does, don't cherry pick nominees and please, pay attention to the bigger picture. 

 

You're the one who conveniently ignored the fact that a SC judge was appointed 8 days before an election... and that hurts your pathetic argument that a presidential immunity case is too important to rush.

 

Just admit it - you're a hack. 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

therefore, you think threatening jurors and judges is ok too.  would me or you be afforded that latitude?  Should we?  What if Biden threatened the lying conservative SCOTUS judges.  OK w u?

Oh, you changed directions again, Chicken Little.  

 

The original post was about the SC expediting the process because of an arbitrary date he wants circled on the calendar.    Of course, that lead you to:

 

1. Trump's gonna pardon himself;

2. Attacks and racial animus directed at members of the Supreme Court;

3. The "dictatorship" model that someone told you to worry about;

 

Now, of course, it's "threats against jurors and judges!". 

 

All of this is because I suggested it's in the best interest of the country to have a fair and orderly resolution to the question at hand.  I'd like to say I'm surprised, but lynch mobs lynch. 

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

You're the one who conveniently ignored the fact that a SC judge was appointed 8 days before an election... and that hurts your pathetic argument that a presidential immunity case is too important to rush.

 

Just admit it - you're a hack. 

 

 

 

You're shaking apart in front of me here.   Your argument is that because a Supreme Court justice was confirmed before an election, it applies to any knee jerk scenario where you think it's relevant?  

 

Next time I go to the store and they are out of salsa, I'll see if the BillSy approach to logic works:  "I KNOW YOU SIMPS ARE HIDING SALSA BACK IN THE AMY CONEY BARRETT ROOM!". 

 

I bet they lock me up, but in the good way. 

[BillStime]

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're shaking apart in front of me here.   Your argument is that because a Supreme Court justice was confirmed before an election, it applies to any knee jerk scenario where you think it's relevant?  

 

Next time I go to the store and they are out of salsa, I'll see if the BillSy approach to logic works:  "I KNOW YOU SIMPS ARE HIDING SALSA BACK IN THE AMY CONEY BARRETT ROOM!". 

 

I bet they lock me up, but in the good way. 

Shaking apart? lmao - you are worse than Patrick Mahomes losing it on the slide lines.

 

Anyhow -  like Dak Prescott’s weird cadence last night - YEAH! HERE WE GO - lmao 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Shaking apart? lmao - you are worse than Patrick Mahomes losing it on the slide lines.

 

Anyhow -  like Dak Prescott’s weird cadence last night - YEAH! HERE WE GO - lmao 

 

 

 

I understood what Mahomes was upset about--a football call, in a football game, dealing with the process of football.   With you, the parallel would be you, as Mahomes, getting upset over Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation.   Or, that his insurance rate went up. 

 

Yes, you're shaking apart.  

Edited December 11, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Kemp]

3 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

 

 

Quoting Loomer means you're as stupid as she is.

 

Loomer has posted various conspiracy theories, mostly related to mass shootings.

She has falsely claimed that school shootings in February 2018 in Parkland, Florida, and in May 2018 in Santa Fe, Texas, were staged, and that the perpetrator of the 2017 Las Vegas shootings was affiliated with ISIS.

Loomer claimed on Twitter that crisis actors were used for the Santa Fe school shooting, prompting concerns about the amplification of misleading information and conspiracy theories by troll farms and social bots.

 

There are many other examples of Loomer's Lunacy.

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I understood what Mahomes was upset about--a football call, in a football game, dealing with the process of football.   With you, the parallel would be you, as Mahomes, getting upset over Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation.   Or, that his insurance rate went up. 

 

Yes, you're shaking apart.  

 

It really bothers you when you're called a hack, doesn't it?

 

lmao

 

 

 

 

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, John from Riverside said:

It’s gonna be awesome whenever she goes to only fans

We have gotten so polarized into our positions that there is a side that actually hopes he can pardon himself

 

It's not about hope. He will do it.

It will end up at the Supreme Court. No idea how that will turn out, but if they rule against him, he will ignore the decision.

Then, there's no telling what happens next.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Oh, you changed directions again, Chicken Little.  

 

The original post was about the SC expediting the process because of an arbitrary date he wants circled on the calendar.    Of course, that lead you to:

 

1. Trump's gonna pardon himself;

2. Attacks and racial animus directed at members of the Supreme Court;

3. The "dictatorship" model that someone told you to worry about;

 

Now, of course, it's "threats against jurors and judges!". 

 

All of this is because I suggested it's in the best interest of the country to have a fair and orderly resolution to the question at hand.  I'd like to say I'm surprised, but lynch mobs lynch. 

 

 

 

 

so trump hasn't threatened jurors and judges involved in his cases?  Do tell.  Also trump said he'd be dictator "day 1 ".  so there's that.  argue like a man not a pimply embarrassing school boy.  argue the points loser...they're fully salient to the debate.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

It really bothers you when you're called a hack, doesn't it?

 

lmao

Not in the least.  I think your posts are mostly dull and repetitive, but I reach out every now and again on a subject that interests me.  Unfortunately, in just about every case, you default back to dull and repetitive.  In this case, you went dull, repetitive and your analogy is irrelevant even though you've convinced yourself it's a show stopper.  

 

You can call me Gidget and throw all the insults you can think of (so far, you seem to have a total of 4 in your repertoire).  It's all ok with me. 

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

19 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

It's not about hope. He will do it.

It will end up at the Supreme Court. No idea how that will turn out, but if they rule against him, he will ignore the decision.

Then, there's no telling what happens next.

civil war.  stupid people against smart people. Haves against mostly have nots.  an old story replayed. I'll be in Portugal....

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Not in the least.  I think your posts are mostly dull and repetitive, but I reach out every now and again on a subject that interests me.  Unfortunately, in just about every case, you default back to dull and repetitive.  In this case, you went dull, repetitive and your analogy is irrelevant even though you've convinced yourself it's a show stopper.  

 

You can call me Gidget and throw all the insults you can think of (so far, you seem to have a total of 4 in your repertoire).  It's all ok with me. 

 

 

but it bothers me that you can't debate the points surrounding an issue.  no doubt you're slippery, evasive and dishonest.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

so trump hasn't threatened jurors and judges involved in his cases?  Do tell.  Also trump said he'd be dictator "day 1 ".  so there's that.  argue like a man not a pimply embarrassing school boy.  argue the points loser...they're fully salient to the debate.

You're now officially upset at the internet, and seem to be losing your cool.  Take a deep breath, collect your thoughts and get back with me when you've got yourself under control.  

[Joe Ferguson forever]

13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're now officially upset at the internet, and seem to be losing your cool.  Take a deep breath, collect your thoughts and get back with me when you've got yourself under control.  

F off liar.  I'm fine with the internet.  propagandist obfuscators not so much.  Especially ones not brave or smart enough to debate with reason.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[BillStime]

32 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Not in the least.  I think your posts are mostly dull and repetitive, but I reach out every now and again on a subject that interests me.  Unfortunately, in just about every case, you default back to dull and repetitive.  In this case, you went dull, repetitive and your analogy is irrelevant even though you've convinced yourself it's a show stopper.  

 

You can call me Gidget and throw all the insults you can think of (so far, you seem to have a total of 4 in your repertoire).  It's all ok with me. 

 

 

Its ok Leo - i serve as a speed bump and  reminder that no matter how much you write and deflect - you’re still a hack.

 

Your arguments supporting anything and everything Trump is so transparent that you often overlook your own hypocrisy - because that’s the only way hacks can be so incredibly intellectually dishonest.

 

Dance Leo dance! 
 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

9 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Its ok Leo - i serve as a speed bump and  reminder that no matter how much you write and deflect - you’re still a hack.

 

Your arguments supporting anything and everything Trump is so transparent that you often overlook your own hypocrisy - because that’s the only way hacks can be so incredibly intellectually dishonest.

 

Dance Leo dance! 
 

 

u do realize he doesn't actually believe the points he tries to make, right?  He's "Doc" light.  We just haven't caught him in a shameless decade old lie.  Yet.....

Edited December 12, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[BillStime]