(02-09-2017 04:13 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:55 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:53 PM)john01992 Wrote:  1. please tell me you know the difference between working for the prosecution vs the defense. everyone deserves a fair trail so I will never criticize anyone for taking on a defensive role. However being a prosecutor requires extreme ethics knowing when a case is appropriate to bring forward and when it should be dropped. not only did sessions make a critical mistake in pressing the case his involvement was what started that case in the first place. so it's a problem on two fronts.

2. do your research. according to you George Wallace and Robert Byrd did nothing wrong simply because they recanted their racists attitudes. Sessions recanted on his attitudes towards crack/powered cocaine. but that doesn't excuse his previous track record on it.

3. It's not hearsay when it is brought up specifically to contradict sessions's own statements. The fact that his coworkers are willing to say he did those things ==> where there's smoke there's fire.

1. LOL
2. Nice leap there. Never brought either of those guys up so don't put words in my mouth. People can't change?
3. Yes, it is hearsay.

1. LOL ==> or in other words you can't defend yourself on this one.

2. No but you said what he did later in his life completely nullifies what he did only a couple of years prior.

3. No it's not. there is a reason we have character witnesses and witnesses brought before trial specifically to dispute another persons testimony.

you are responding with only stupid comments to my complete destruction of your statements. you have not given one legitimate rebuttal to any of those three points.

I can't defend myself. You've already made me out to be a fool on this forum for the millionth time. Go ahead and think you won. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I'm a lost cause for now. Maybe in another 10 years or so you'll get it. For now I'm out.

Fixed that for you. And you deserve it considering you:

A) Refuse to admit the fundamentally different roles of being a lawyer for the defendant verse a prosecutor. Not only did he press the case but he was responsible for the investigation that created the case. (A two front issue).

B) Want to celebrate the stance of a man for being an opponent of a policy while completely ignoring said stance is a complete reversal for him as he has a prior history of being a staunch supporter of it. Not only did he support it but actually committed used it. (Another two front issue as he supported the law and used the law).

C) Are saying someone should be allowed to testify for themselves but no one else is allowed to testify against them.

all of these are ridiculous and completely incorrect stances that you support simply for partisanship.

(02-09-2017 04:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  are you for fu**ing real?

It was in Perry county Alabama. It had nothing to do with white folks suppressing the black vote. Look up the case.

the case was completely unprecedented on a wide range of levels.

So what. You believe whatever fairy tale you desire

this is a real event that actually happened, became a national story, and nearly sunk sessions career.

But didnt and he is is the AG because it was a stupid story.

(02-09-2017 04:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  It was in Perry county Alabama. It had nothing to do with white folks suppressing the black vote. Look up the case.

the case was completely unprecedented on a wide range of levels.

So what. You believe whatever fairy tale you desire

this is a real event that actually happened, became a national story, and nearly sunk sessions career.

But didnt and he is is the AG because it was a stupid story.

no he's the AG because this was a real story. If not for this story he would have been a federal judge. Instead he went into politics and was elected to AG of AL, and then a senator.

I guess Alabama voters and politicians still saw his racism as a positive factor not a negative one and decided to vote for him. Not the first time they have done that.

(02-09-2017 04:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:13 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:55 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:53 PM)john01992 Wrote:  1. please tell me you know the difference between working for the prosecution vs the defense. everyone deserves a fair trail so I will never criticize anyone for taking on a defensive role. However being a prosecutor requires extreme ethics knowing when a case is appropriate to bring forward and when it should be dropped. not only did sessions make a critical mistake in pressing the case his involvement was what started that case in the first place. so it's a problem on two fronts.

2. do your research. according to you George Wallace and Robert Byrd did nothing wrong simply because they recanted their racists attitudes. Sessions recanted on his attitudes towards crack/powered cocaine. but that doesn't excuse his previous track record on it.

3. It's not hearsay when it is brought up specifically to contradict sessions's own statements. The fact that his coworkers are willing to say he did those things ==> where there's smoke there's fire.

1. LOL
2. Nice leap there. Never brought either of those guys up so don't put words in my mouth. People can't change?
3. Yes, it is hearsay.

1. LOL ==> or in other words you can't defend yourself on this one.

2. No but you said what he did later in his life completely nullifies what he did only a couple of years prior.

3. No it's not. there is a reason we have character witnesses and witnesses brought before trial specifically to dispute another persons testimony.

you are responding with only stupid comments to my complete destruction of your statements. you have not given one legitimate rebuttal to any of those three points.

I can't defend myself. You've already made me out to be a fool on this forum for the millionth time. Go ahead and think you won. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I'm a lost cause for now. Maybe in another 10 years or so you'll get it. For now I'm out.

Fixed that for you. And you deserve it considering you:

A) Refuse to admit the fundamentally different roles of being a lawyer for the defendant verse a prosecutor. Not only did he press the case but he was responsible for the investigation that created the case. (A two front issue).

B) Want to celebrate the stance of a man for being an opponent of a policy while completely ignoring said stance is a complete reversal for him as he has a prior history of being a staunch supporter of it. Not only did he support it but actually committed used it. (Another two front issue as he supported the law and used the law).

C) Are saying someone should be allowed to testify for themselves but no one else is allowed to testify against them.

all of these are ridiculous and completely incorrect stances that you support simply for partisanship.

The fact you can't even make a legitimate response is telling.

(02-09-2017 03:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:Nono. You said "they know exactly what they are doing", so I asked What, exactly,

Quote:are they doing? And who's "They"?

By they I mean the GOP. They are stacking the deck. You know exactly what I mean.

Quote:What does the "whitest" mean? Other than an overt racist comment? Are you simply looking at someones skin color and passing judgement? Sure sounds like it.

Do you not know that we live in a diverse country with all kinds of people? Don't you think the administration should reflect the diversity of the country?

Quote:It's 90 freaking days, a temporary pause until the Feds can hopefully get their act together.

Then why is Trump calling it a ban? We'll see in 90 days.

Quote:Of course we should limit legal immigration. We always have, historically (Was Ellis Island not taught in history of the world Part 1?) and always will.

Of course we have always limited immigration. No one is denying it. When and how you do it is the issue.

Quote:Please tell me/us who this lawyer is and when they were continuing this "fight". That was pretty well settled more than 50 years ago, if memory serves. That's gotta be one Ooooooold MoFo.

This happened in 1986. I know it may surprise you but this happened 30 years ago. Look it up.

"Stacking the deck"?!?

Uhhhhhkay. You have anything more than that? Did other cliches not come immediately to mind?

Of course we live in a diverse Country. And of course we shouldn't be hiring and firing or not hiring in the first place based on race, skin color or much of anything else, right? Excepting merit, of course. To do otherwise is simply racism, sexism, or something else-ism. Remember?

Quote:a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Maybe that was covered in H.O.T.W. II(?)

Care to address the travel "ban" on the other 85-90% of Muslims? The other 50 or so Countries not on zerO's 7, SEVEN, "Countries of Concern"?

Can Christians or Buddhists or Atheists or liberals from those 7 Countries travel freely to America? If not, how is this a "Muslim bann (sic)" Your words?

So, uhhhhh, why the feigned OUTRAGE that, and I quote:

Quote:They are attempting to limit legal immigration.

You said NOTHING about "when and how you do it".

So, what about when and how they do it, is now an "issue"? What issue?

(02-09-2017 04:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the case was completely unprecedented on a wide range of levels.

So what. You believe whatever fairy tale you desire

this is a real event that actually happened, became a national story, and nearly sunk sessions career.

But didnt and he is is the AG because it was a stupid story.

no he's the AG because this was a real story. If not for this story he would have been a federal judge. Instead he went into politics and was elected to AG of AL, and then a senator.

I guess Alabama voters and politicians still saw his racism as a positive factor not a negative one and decided to vote for him. Not the first time they have done that.

Ridiculous fantasy.

(02-09-2017 05:31 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  So what. You believe whatever fairy tale you desire

this is a real event that actually happened, became a national story, and nearly sunk sessions career.

But didnt and he is is the AG because it was a stupid story.

no he's the AG because this was a real story. If not for this story he would have been a federal judge. Instead he went into politics and was elected to AG of AL, and then a senator.

I guess Alabama voters and politicians still saw his racism as a positive factor not a negative one and decided to vote for him. Not the first time they have done that.

Ridiculous fantasy.

it's called reality. thank you for winning the daily #alternativeFacts award.

(02-09-2017 12:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 12:27 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Old Hickory

Old Hickory indeed. Many have compared Trump to Jackson and I don't disagree.

Andrew Jackson, IMHO was the worst president that we ever had. He also defied the Supreme Court and ordered the "Trail of Tears".

Wow. Just wow. And you are a teacher. Good grief. Dumbest comment of the month.