RE: White House Forencis Report

RE: White House Forencis Report (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 4:51:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods He did. In fact he made a point of stressing that a concrete wall would be a lot more secure than a fence. His estimate of the required height has fluctuated, but it seems to average out at 35-40 feet, never descending below 30 or rising above 55. The Beeb's analysis of this is a little less ascerbic than John Oliver's... (Re: the comment about the taxpayer funding it, a thirty foot wall will cost every tax payer in America $77 o build.) A couple thousand less per person than Obamacare has cost us so far. That's just constructing it. How much do you think maintenance on a thousand mile wall that's forty foot high is going to cost per annum afterwards? A lot less than building it while the cost of Obamacare (above what health care cost before it) will just keep going up, or they will have to resort to "death panels", that is rationing health care.

Lucylastic -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 5:09:59 PM)
http://25logicalreasonstovotefordonaldtrump.com/

Termyn8or -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 6:45:29 PM)
Michelle, it is a shame we find ourselves so opposed on this. But do understand that I have no love or even like for Trump or his ilk. It is just that Clinton would be poison for this country at this time. And there is no other choice. No write in candidate has ever won the Presidency here. In my view, Trump is bad but Clinton is worse. I think i am fairly well familiar with the situation. I mean like with Putin, he might say something stupid like "What happened to your hair ?" but Clinton would say "We are putting more missile bases in Europe and Asia, in fact one of them only ten miles from your border and there ain't a fucking thing you can do about it". Which do you prefer ? T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/7/2016 6:46:38 PM)
I hope I made a point there. He is not all that sharp but at least he is not a warmonger. T^T

Lucylastic -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 8:12:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Michelle, it is a shame we find ourselves so opposed on this. But do understand that I have no love or even like for Trump or his ilk. It is just that Clinton would be poison for this country at this time. And there is no other choice. No write in candidate has ever won the Presidency here. In my view, Trump is bad but Clinton is worse. I think i am fairly well familiar with the situation. I mean like with Putin, he might say something stupid like "What happened to your hair ?" but Clinton would say "We are putting more missile bases in Europe and Asia, in fact one of them only ten miles from your border and there ain't a fucking thing you can do about it". Which do you prefer ? T^T Termy, is there a reason that you are using my real name? I mean you never have before, except in emails. I find it quite telling. I disagree with you. vehemently. But if you want to get personal, go ahead it just points out a large part your problem. Even without anyone else pointing it out.

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 10:19:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I hope I made a point there. He is not all that sharp but at least he is not a warmonger. T^T You've yet to state a case that Clinton is, particularly if she's going to have the MIC's hand further up her arse than the circus peanut would if he gets elected instead. Or do you think that the Illuminati are queer to go to war, and that the tiny handed shitweasel will have the balls to say "no" to them if it turns out that's their election for the next four years?

DesideriScuri -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 10:20:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Does it matter if you are cheering for the beautiful 30 foot high wall or not if he becomes yer next Prez??? I dont think so. What was the point of even bringing it up, then? Don't worry, I know there wasn't any real point to it, other than to bitch about Trump and attempt to link me to his candidacy. Sorry, not going to happen. quote: Again I ask, if it is false evidence and an innocent person(s) are convicted cuz of it, then isnt it the right thing to do to re-examine those cases?? or doesnt that matter to you?? and if you think that a future Prez could decide that shoddy and false evidence is real and honest evidence then this country is no different than Russia.. (especially if ya aint white).. Here's the thing, though, tj. We can't just re-examine the cases where an innocent person(s) was convicted on the basis of (allegedly) false evidence. We would have to re-examine every case where the (allegedly) false evidence was used. And, if the (allegedly) false evidence was the cement to the rest of the case that put away a guilty (not innocent) person, you'll be releasing a guilty person. Can you not see an issue with that scenario? The scenario of an innocent person wrongly convicted is a serious issue. But, overturning a conviction of a guilty person is just as serious, if not moreso.

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 10:22:06 AM)
How do you feel about this being raised in an election year? Do you think there might be a connection, or does that sound paranoid?

DesideriScuri -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 10:36:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods That does raise a point that's often ignored: trying to stop wetbacks stealing Americans jobs by deporting the illegals* ... ... (Obama seems to have the best record for that of any President in recent years, but God forbid any Republican voter should acknowledge that) I'm not even sure if the President would acknowledge it, unless it would help him. The White House blames the high number of deportations (which definitely is occurring at a record rate during the Obama Administration) on the GOP in Congress forcing him to deport the illegals. It's questionable whether you can credit* Obama for being the "Deporter-in-Chief." It's also questionable whether you can blame him for the same.

mnottertail -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 10:40:18 AM)
Ah yes, as I survey my many white male friends here, I think, by god, tell me, is it true that only a year ago you were cutting sugarcane? Certainly not more than 6 months ago, you were up to your kneecaps in guts at the turkey processing plant in Pelican Rapids, right? Yeah, taking your jobs? How the fuck can they be on welfare and take your jobs simultaneously?

DesideriScuri -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 10:41:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods How do you feel about this being raised in an election year? Do you think there might be a connection, or does that sound paranoid? There may be a connection between the report and it being an election year. I'm not sure of that connection, unless it's to remove the spotlight from the two main party candidates. If there is sound reasoning as to why a previously decided method is no longer being considered accurate, I don't care what year it is.

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 10:42:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods That does raise a point that's often ignored: trying to stop wetbacks stealing Americans jobs by deporting the illegals* ... ... (Obama seems to have the best record for that of any President in recent years, but God forbid any Republican voter should acknowledge that) I'm not even sure if the President would acknowledge it, unless it would help him. The White House blames the high number of deportations (which definitely is occurring at a record rate during the Obama Administration) on the GOP in Congress forcing him to deport the illegals. It's questionable whether you can credit* Obama for being the "Deporter-in-Chief." It's also questionable whether you can blame him for the same. It's questionable whether you should. Can is a whole different issue, and one that seems to be defined by which way you vote.

DesideriScuri -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 11:12:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods That does raise a point that's often ignored: trying to stop wetbacks stealing Americans jobs by deporting the illegals* ... ... (Obama seems to have the best record for that of any President in recent years, but God forbid any Republican voter should acknowledge that) I'm not even sure if the President would acknowledge it, unless it would help him. The White House blames the high number of deportations (which definitely is occurring at a record rate during the Obama Administration) on the GOP in Congress forcing him to deport the illegals. It's questionable whether you can credit* Obama for being the "Deporter-in-Chief." It's also questionable whether you can blame him for the same. It's questionable whether you should. Can is a whole different issue, and one that seems to be defined by which way you vote. The point I was making was that the accuracy of crediting or blaming President Obama and his Administration for the high number of deportations is questionable, at best. Rather than thinking about who is doing the crediting or blaming, the President's acquiescence is likely to be governed by what benefit he is likely to gain.

WhoreMods -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 11:17:46 AM)
This is true, but the party that were making excuses for the previous President's taste for turning a blind eye to the use of illegal labour having a go at Obama over this always struck me as a blatant case of doublethink.

DesideriScuri -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 4:13:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods This is true, but the party that were making excuses for the previous President's taste for turning a blind eye to the use of illegal labour having a go at Obama over this always struck me as a blatant case of doublethink. Imagine, if you will, that this isn't about deportations or illegal immigration. You can substitute just about anything for immigration, and the pissing, moaning and bitching will be the same. I call that "American Politics." The Dem's were railing against Bush for his spending (rightly so, since spending had increased greatly from the Clinton years). In the next breath, they were talking about how that money could have been spent differently (on things the Democrats are more attuned to). What that means is that they didn't really give a shit about the spending levels. They were just whining because they weren't the ones doing the spending. Obama is inaugurated and the GOP is now all about reining in spending and government waste. American Politics. I sincerely hope there isn't another country that fucks it up as well as we do.

JeffBC -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 4:22:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Here's the thing, though. If damning evidence isn't collected 'properly,' it's inadmissible in court, regardless of the accuracy of the evidence. If methods are redefined as to what is and what isn't proper/admissible/etc., how many people who's convictions were sealed (beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt) by evidence gained by that now-questionable method are going to have convictions overturned? That's what I'm most concerned about. The next thing I'm concerned about, is are all these cases going to have to be retried, and who is going to pay for that? Perhaps if we're not so black & white about this? I personally find the idea of incorrectly incarcerating someone reprehensible and as a taxpayer I'm more than willing to pay to undo my horrific mistake. Does that mean that every case needs to be retried? I don't think so. I think each case relied on various methods to prove guilt. If some of those methods are proven later to be insufficient then my question is whether the rest of the case stands up. More, I'm guessing that the error rate in various tests is not all equal... some will carry more weight than others even after this review. I don't think retroactively revising "admissible" is very smart. I do think we could look at that now suspect information in context of the whole case and make some decisions about a retrial. Yes, I think there needs to be some gate in front of that process.

DesideriScuri -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 4:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Here's the thing, though. If damning evidence isn't collected 'properly,' it's inadmissible in court, regardless of the accuracy of the evidence. If methods are redefined as to what is and what isn't proper/admissible/etc., how many people who's convictions were sealed (beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt) by evidence gained by that now-questionable method are going to have convictions overturned? That's what I'm most concerned about. The next thing I'm concerned about, is are all these cases going to have to be retried, and who is going to pay for that? Perhaps if we're not so black & white about this? I personally find the idea of incorrectly incarcerating someone reprehensible and as a taxpayer I'm more than willing to pay to undo my horrific mistake. Does that mean that every case needs to be retried? I don't think so. I think each case relied on various methods to prove guilt. If some of those methods are proven later to be insufficient then my question is whether the rest of the case stands up. More, I'm guessing that the error rate in various tests is not all equal... some will carry more weight than others even after this review. I don't think retroactively revising "admissible" is very smart. I do think we could look at that now suspect information in context of the whole case and make some decisions about a retrial. Yes, I think there needs to be some gate in front of that process. Retroactively revising admissible would be a huge problem. I agree that an innocent being incarcerated is horrible. But, I also say that letting a guilty man go simply because of a 'change of thinking' on what is and what isn't admissible evidence (or admissible methods of gathering evidence), is horrible, too. How far back are we to look at verdicts? Do we go back to the first time the method was used as admissible and go from there? I don't know if the alleged inadmissible methodology is accurate or not. Way out of my league. If we determine, through evidence-based and scientific methods, that a methodology isn't actually accurate, would changing the standards for prior cases be considered ex post facto?

Termyn8or -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 9:54:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Michelle, it is a shame we find ourselves so opposed on this. But do understand that I have no love or even like for Trump or his ilk. It is just that Clinton would be poison for this country at this time. And there is no other choice. No write in candidate has ever won the Presidency here. In my view, Trump is bad but Clinton is worse. I think i am fairly well familiar with the situation. I mean like with Putin, he might say something stupid like "What happened to your hair ?" but Clinton would say "We are putting more missile bases in Europe and Asia, in fact one of them only ten miles from your border and there ain't a fucking thing you can do about it". Which do you prefer ? T^T Termy, is there a reason that you are using my real name? I mean you never have before, except in emails. I find it quite telling. I disagree with you. vehemently. But if you want to get personal, go ahead it just points out a large part your problem. Even without anyone else pointing it out. If that was a secret I apologize. Seriously. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 9:58:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Michelle, it is a shame we find ourselves so opposed on this. But do understand that I have no love or even like for Trump or his ilk. It is just that Clinton would be poison for this country at this time. And there is no other choice. No write in candidate has ever won the Presidency here. In my view, Trump is bad but Clinton is worse. I think i am fairly well familiar with the situation. I mean like with Putin, he might say something stupid like "What happened to your hair ?" but Clinton would say "We are putting more missile bases in Europe and Asia, in fact one of them only ten miles from your border and there ain't a fucking thing you can do about it". Which do you prefer ? T^T Termy, is there a reason that you are using my real name? I mean you never have before, except in emails. I find it quite telling. I disagree with you. vehemently. But if you want to get personal, go ahead it just points out a large part your problem. Even without anyone else pointing it out. If that was a secret I apologize. Seriously. Like everyone knows mnottertail is Ron. But it is only a first name. Use mine is you feel like it. And really it is a shame we disagree so much on politics. (damn shame you can't see it my way LOL) T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/8/2016 10:01:04 PM)
Boy did I fuck that up. I give up for now. I meant to edit but quoted, I, well, I think i will just go to bed. I an getting tired. T^T

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875