Jurisprudence R.I.P. 2020

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44301
    Deane Johnson
    Participant

    At the tender age of 84, I no longer remember what my position on something was yesterday,

    #44302
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    …or Vern. Just quit operating that way. You do you, others do them and you deal, same as anyone.

    No apologies, no rule changes, no crying about how deep the water in the adult part of the pool is…

    See, being that “don’t touch me” kid in school came with a basic lesson. Learn it.

    #44303
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Congrats Deane! I trust you are living well?

    Well, I can remember for you, and you done good.

    #44304
    Deane Johnson
    Participant

    Andy, I will admit that I had no idea where “Drumpf” came from. But, without the explanation, it would likely carry a significant negative connotation for most.

    I don’t recall ever hearing anyone refer to Obama as “a nigger”. I guess I tend to shy away from the company of individuals who would speak that way.

    #44305
    Andy Brown
    Participant

    84? Mazel tov.

    drumpf would probably call you “old Deanie weanie.”

    So when drumpf creates all his pet nicknames for his critics and adversaries, do you recoil in horror?
    Does that “demean” drumpf or just the Office Of The President or both?

    We know. It does but you don’t care.

    #44306
    Deane Johnson
    Participant

    I find most of them humorous, especially coming from the POTUS.

    It’s hard to think of a name to call Polosi that would be too much of a low blow, especially after she ripped up a copy of his SOTU speech on world wide television.

    There’s somewhat of a difference between Trump referring to his enemies who have tried to do him in and folks like those on this forum who are ordinary people with a different view point.

    You’re right, I don’t care what Trump does. And, I don’t actually care what someone on this forum does. When they are known for using that sort of attack language on someone with a different viewpoint, I simply mentally sweep their opinions onto the trash pile.

    #44307
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Oh. I share that. Trump is hilarious! Not an endorsement, just recognition.

    #44313
    breH
    Spectator

    “You don’t get ugly from Deane or Broadway or Herb or me or any of the other conservatives…If you only consider expletives as “ugly” you’re even more out of touch with reality than we think you are. The entire notion of controlling women’s reproductive systems is extremely ugly to a majority of Americans is a good example. There are many more. Separating immigrant families at the border is ugly. Lifting environmental directives in the fossil fuel industry is ugly, very ugly. I can go on, but hopefully you get the point.”

    The entire notion of stopping a pre-born baby’s heart is extremely ugly to a majority of Americans. Especially since our founders first treasured life, before even liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anyone who thinks they support late term abortion first better research it, then check their soul.

    A 2019 Gallup poll showed most Americans support abortion limits.

    https://www.axios.com/abortion-rights-marist-poll-pro-life-pro-choice-7170b431-eb2f-4292-b801-8ed56cf2d056.html

    #44316
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    This is what it says when registering. Not MY rule or a proposed rule by me, but Dan’s rule:
    ————————————————
    As a posting member, you agree to engage in civil discourse on the Portland Radio Message Board, and to the following points:
    ————————————————
    So what does “civil discourse” mean? In the eyes of a reasonable person, name calling, harassment, and bullying is not “civil discourse.” It really ought to be self-evident. It’s incredible one would have to make a case that it’s wrong to call someone a f*ckface during a discussion, for example. THAT ought to be obvious to any decent person with half a brain.

    The discussion and the views of those doing the discussion are TWO DISTINCT THINGS. There would be no point in discourse if we all agreed 100%. If I think your beliefs and policies are disgusting, but you present them in a civil manner, I have no reason or excuse to beat up on you personally. I should only be attacking the idea. Otherwise, nothing is really accomplished.

    If “drumpf” were to be a member here, I would expect him to be subject to the same rules. But he’s not a member here and what he says in his arena is totally irrelevant.

    #44317
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Yes, KSKD, I should just “do me,” and then you go to Dan and say, “Ban that guy. I don’t like what he says.” Or you might even have the nerve to tell him I’m not being civil. You’ve got the deck stacked in your favor and even though you don’t want “rules,” a rule is created as an excuse to ban me (and others). Whenever I’ve posted here, I’ve had a sword hanging over me by a thread, and at any moment I could be on the outside looking in, wondering what my crime was “this time.”

    I’m supposed to take whatever is thrown at me, but must simultaneously walk on egg shells so I don’t offend Andy_Brown and then get booted. I’m not allowed to “do me” or freely post the way you and others do. Do you see the inconsistency and that there is a double standard?

    I’m actually amazed I’m still posting since I thought I’d be cut off by now, but that could happen at any moment. I at least got off my chest what I wanted to say, which was my main intention, and I feel a lot better for having done so, though I sadly cannot resist the temptation to jump in while I can.

    #44318
    Jeffrey Kopp
    Participant

    Are you still here?

    #44319
    civil_discourse
    Spectator

    Trump did not “escape justice.” The impeachment itself was unjust. And it was not quite the bipartisan effort promised by Pelosi, was it?

    Trump had every right and a duty to want to know about the Biden corruption. Besides that, no aid was withheld and Trump got nothing in return.

    The impeachment was a total sham and to complain that the Senate did not allow witnesses is ridiculous since that was the job of the House and they called many “witnesses.”

    Bottom line is that Trump was helped by the impeachment because the American People saw the unfairness of it (except for the Trump-haters).

    #44320
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    Ugly is a Trump supporter. Same category of human existence as a child molestor.

    #44321
    Andy Brown
    Participant

    The U.S. Code of Regulations is clear and drumpf violated the law(s) as written.

    It is unlawful for drumpf to solicit election help (“a thing of value”) to help him win an election.

    §30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
    (a) Prohibition
    It shall be unlawful for-
    (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

    (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

    https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

    Hey Vern, on this point you are clearly just echoing popular talking point rhetoric. If the GOP Senators weren’t so afraid of drumpf calling them names and harassing their reelection efforts (in other words, had a backbone), they would have thrown him out. Many said as much behind closed doors.

    Stop trying to revise the facts to fit your case. Few of us here are going to believe that kind of poppycock.

    Violating the Code Of Federal Regulations, which clearly occurred, is a crime against the United States Of America AND a violation of the presidential oath of office.

    The oath is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and faithfully execute your duties. The intent is to protect the public from a government that might fall victim to political whims and to provide a North Star – the Constitution – as a source of direction. Other laws have been enacted that support that view.

    Calling the impeachment process over such violations a “sham” shows you hate your country and don’t believe in the Constitution or Federal Law.

    Please don’t repeat false Republican talking points. Make your case on your own, please.

    • This reply was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by Andy Brown.
    #44323
    Andy Brown
    Participant

    “The impeachment itself was unjust”

    The U.S. Code of Regulations is clear and drumpf violated the law(s) as written.

    It is unlawful for drumpf to solicit election help (“a thing of value”) to help him win an election.

    §30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
    (a) Prohibition
    It shall be unlawful for-
    (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

    (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

    https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

    Hey Vern, on this point you are clearly just echoing popular talking point rhetoric. If the GOP Senators weren’t so afraid of drumpf calling them names and harassing their reelection efforts (in other words, had a backbone), they would have thrown him out. Many said as much behind closed doors.

    Stop trying to revise the facts to fit your case. Few of us here are going to believe that kind of poppycock.

    Violating the Code Of Federal Regulations, which clearly occurred, is a crime against the United States Of America AND a violation of the presidential oath of office.

    The oath is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and faithfully execute your duties. The intent is to protect the public from a government that might fall victim to political whims and to provide a North Star – the Constitution – as a source of direction. Other laws have been enacted that support that view.

    Calling the impeachment process over such violations a “sham” shows you hate your country and don’t believe in the Constitution or Federal Law.

    Please don’t repeat false Republican talking points. Make your case on your own, please.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.