(10-14-2016 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I give her a pass on that one and agree that it isn't right that she is attacked on it.

She did her job. There isn't anything else to say. To add to it, she did a good job on this case.

Finally, a voice of reason in the wilderness.

(10-14-2016 02:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I give her a pass on that one and agree that it isn't right that she is attacked on it.

She did her job. There isn't anything else to say. To add to it, she did a good job on this case.

Finally, a voice of reason in the wilderness.

So add voice(s) of reason to the list of things you know less than nothing about.

(10-13-2016 04:45 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Oh FFS, when you're an attorney as an officer of the court a judge can appoint you to be a guardian or defense lawyer for the indigent at any time. It's something she tried to get out of but when she couldn't she was forced to defend him. If you want to make a critique of our legal system fine but at least be honest about what you're doing.

Cop-out. NOthing in the cannons require you to attack a child rape victim. Since she pled him out anyway, all of that was completely unnecessary, wasn't it... other than as a tactic to shame the child's parents into forcing the DA to take a lesser deal.

You want to blame the 'system'. Shaming/bullying families isn't the system. It's a strong-arm tactic used by unscrupulous lawyers to further their own personal success.

I'd note that filing bankruptcy or taking a business loss deduction is similarly 'how business is done', but your side wants to vilify Trump and celebrate Hillary. The only difference to me is that Trump's use of the law arguably screws the economy/taxpayers.... while Hillary's screwed a 12 year old rape victim... while claiming she spent HER LIFE protecting children.

It seems she didn't spend her WHOLE life protecting them, and there is no way you can get around that. If you want to say it's her job, even that makes her claim about 'her life's work' a demonstrable lie.

She seems to care about kids when it favors her, and is willing to attack them when that favors her as well. If Hilary wants to come out and say that she regrets her actions... that she was doing what the court required/whatever excuse you want to make... then let her make that excuse.

I'll similarly admit that Trump only cares about himself... which is why I only support him to the extent that what is good for him is also good for me. I simply can't imagine a scenario where attacking a 12 year old rape victim is good for me

(10-13-2016 04:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  there you go again. I'm not trying to extend this fiasco. I'm just pointing out that you do this ALL THE TIME. you always require a much higher standard of evidence to disprove something than the evidence proving it in the first place.

Once again, your ability to understand English is your problem, not mine... and if I had that problem, I'd stop demonstrating it as often as you do.

I'm under no obligation to challenge every claim... only the ones I deem important. I never once said I believed the quotes in the OP.... in fact I KNOW they are lies... but they weren't presented as 'facts' by 'the right' that I need to take issue with, they were presented by the left as something they wanted to attack. I think attributing lies to people so you can argue with those lies is BS.... and you do it (to me anyway) all the time, so it make sense to me that you don't have a problem with it here either.

If anyone on the right believes that the woman in question made all those claims, they need to educate themselves on the facts. BUT, the fact remains that Hillary represented the man and DID make some awful claims.... so to dismiss THAT TRUTH because you've instead 'defeated' some similar LIES is a crock.

When I do that, you can call me on it.

I can't understand why I am among so many people that have the lack of ability to call fabrics on most of this BS from both sides. Do you people all read the National Inquirer and watch infowars?