Jump to content

I met Antonin Scalia and talked to him for 45 minutes and want you all to know it


Geeto67
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was joking, but in the case that you would like actual real information and not just rhetoric:

 

“I wouldn’t have expected President Obama to attend the funeral Mass, and I see no reason to fault him for not attending,” Ed Whelan, a former Scalia clerk told Politico. “The ceremony at the Supreme Court seems the most apt opportunity for the president to pay his respects, but he obviously might have severe competing demands on his time.”

 

I know you were joking and I didn't mean for my comment to make it seem like I believe any conspiracy theory that Obama had him killed.

 

I was simply stating that I think it is quite classless for Obama to NOT attend his funeral. It will be 60* and sunny tomorrow...I'm sure he will be golfing :lol:

 

From the White House Press Secretary: "...in fact, what the president thinks is appropriate is respectfully paying tribute to high-profile patriotic American citizens, even when you don’t agree on all the issues. And that’s what he’s going to do."

 

Oh yeah...he was certainly respectful and appropriate when he did NOT attend the funerals of Chris Kyle, Nicholas Oresko, James Foley, Harold J. Green...

 

Oh well. He's the man.

-Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem...not true.

 

And kudos to you for that, but then again you have the advantage of your argument crafting skills, wit, and cleverness are far above par for this place. I actually wish we didn't agree on a lot of things, as I look forward to the challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually wish we didn't agree on a lot of things, as I look forward to the challenge.

 

And perhaps this is where you are missing the foundation and fundamental's of how CR functions. The friendships that have been made through this site are pretty amazing. There are more than a dozen people on here that I look forward to the opportunity to help them out, should they find they are in need. They are my friends, which closely compare with family to me. For that, I don't need to measure my dick to theirs, every time I post or interact with them. To put a challenge in every conversation, is a huge pain in the ass of simply validating ones self or the want for others to do so. That shit is not needed in friendships. I've spent my life time doing things that are often talked about on CR. I'm not going to go through clubbing people over the head with "my outlook is the best way" conversation. If all you ever do is mushroom stamp people, they will never see you as anything but a Dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't shop for my friends or family on the internet. You learn so little about a person. I prefer the in real life interaction. I go to events and I talk to people and generally have a good time. I am willing to say about half of the people who have said nasty things to me here in the last two weeks or so have had great conversation with me at things like CC&C and probably don't even know who I am.

 

This is a conversation medium and I seek to have conversation. conversation is sometimes opposing viewpoints. I read plenty of offensive shit on here ya know what? sometimes I want to say something. It's not dick measuring - it's letting someone know that within there community their viewpoint is offensive to someone else and they shouldn't be comfortable with that. Whether they care or not I have no control over and honestly do not care to have control over it - verbal jousting is fun for me, whether its fun for others is of no real consequence to my outlook. If you are going to put your opinion into the world be prepared to back it up, there are plenty here just can't do that and they certainly whine that I am being a dick.

 

It's the internet, its such a small slice of who a person is that to use it for anything other than entertainment is selling yourself and others short. but hey...that's just like my opinion man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What amazes me about the internet and general public is how people can be so emphatic about their hate or dislike for a person or thing and then spend sooo much time and energy in a thread expressing that. haha Shit, what a waste of time.

 

Here's a little tip. If something so inane bothers you so much, why get this involved? You don't think the ridiculous anger and angst carries over to the rest of your life? If you don't like what someone else says and you're not changing their mind, politely agree to disagree, find some common ground, and move the hell on. Thank me later when you've lived those extra 5-10 yrs w/your loved ones instead of having a stroke.

 

Thank goodness winter is almost over for everyone here. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be Yenner, post a huge "TL;DR" Jpeg, in the middle of the threads longest post. Well played.

 

http://i.imgur.com/VYLJkQh.gif

 

And perhaps this is where you are missing the foundation and fundamental's of how CR functions. The friendships that have been made through this site are pretty amazing. There are more than a dozen people on here that I look forward to the opportunity to help them out, should they find they are in need. They are my friends, which closely compare with family to me. For that, I don't need to measure my dick to theirs, every time I post or interact with them. To put a challenge in every conversation, is a huge pain in the ass of simply validating ones self or the want for others to do so. That shit is not needed in friendships. I've spent my life time doing things that are often talked about on CR. I'm not going to go through clubbing people over the head with "my outlook is the best way" conversation. If all you ever do is mushroom stamp people, they will never see you as anything but a Dick.

 

...and Bingo was his name-o.

 

This.

 

It's the internet, its such a small slice of who a person is that to use it for anything other than entertainment is selling yourself and others short. but hey...that's just like my opinion man.

 

If you had a client suing someone for threatening to kill them via an online medium would you use this as a reference?

 

"Judge, as the prosecuting attorney, I know the defendant said he was going to murder my client, rape his daughter, burn down his house, piss on his mother's tits, then curb stomp his grandfather, but, hey, it was just on the internet. Just a small slice man. Entertainment. For the LULZ."

 

I mean, a threat is a threat, correct? In a legal sense anyway.

 

See, who you are online IS a reflection of who you are as a person. The only difference is whether or not your balls are as big in real life as they are from behind a keyboard.

 

My thoughts are as such: you're a dick here because it's easy. You're laid back and buy people coffee IRL because you seek to fit in/belong somewhere. Deep down inside though you're judgmental when you DO meet the members face to face based on *gasp* what you know of them online.

 

I could be wrong. I don't think I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you had a client suing someone for threatening to kill them via an online medium would you use this as a reference?

 

sigh. This is an absurd scenario. No attorney would take a civil suit based on online death threats. Death threats are a criminal manner, which means police intervention and criminal charges. This example fails because of your lack of understanding in the difference between criminal and civil law.

 

"Judge, as the prosecuting attorney, I know the defendant said he was going to murder my client, rape his daughter, burn down his house, piss on his mother's tits, then curb stomp his grandfather, but, hey, it was just on the internet. Just a small slice man. Entertainment. For the LULZ."

 

Assuming a criminal trial where the prosecuting attorney (by the way a Criminal law term not a civil law term - the litigant bringing a civil suit is the plaintiff), who would be making these statements to a jury not a judge, would have the burden of proving the likelihood of of threat. Typically single incidents, whether they are mail, email, skywriter, etc...are not considered credible on their own and would require examination of the totality of the circumstances. There is actually a shit ton of legal jurisprudence regarding this and probably several threshold tests. I can't even give you a C- for effort on this, literally television gets more right about our legal system than you do and CSI single handedly undermined our current justice system.

 

I mean, a threat is a threat, correct? In a legal sense anyway.

that is oversimplifying it quite a bit. Sure internet threats are illegal, but good fucking luck getting any police force (federal, state, or local) to do anything about it. Again, threats on their own are a criminal matter.

 

See, who you are online IS a reflection of who you are as a person. The only difference is whether or not your balls are as big in real life as they are from behind a keyboard.
maybe you. At best it's a shard.

 

My thoughts are as such: you're a dick here because it's easy. You're laid back and buy people coffee IRL because you seek to fit in/belong somewhere. Deep down inside though you're judgmental when you DO meet the members face to face based on *gasp* what you know of them online.

 

No I am a dick in real life too, I am just way more charismatic in real life. I am a pretty open minded person - am I judgmental about statements sure, but I am pretty good about separating people from their stupid comments. If you notice I don't usually resort to name calling or cheap tricks, but I have no problem telling you your argument is stupid when it is. doesn't mean you are stupid, just misinformed and led to a faulty conclusion. But then again I am a professional at this and you aren't, if I wasn't able to separate the person from their point of view I don't think I could get any work done. you are married to your opinion, I am not.

 

I could be wrong. I don't think I am.

it's an easy thing to find out, show up have a chat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sigh. This is an absurd scenario. No attorney would take a civil suit based on online death threats. Death threats are a criminal manner, which means police intervention and criminal charges. This example fails because of your lack of understanding in the difference between criminal and civil law.

 

 

 

Assuming a criminal trial where the prosecuting attorney (by the way a Criminal law term not a civil law term - the litigant bringing a civil suit is the plaintiff), who would be making these statements to a jury not a judge, would have the burden of proving the likelihood of of threat. Typically single incidents, whether they are mail, email, skywriter, etc...are not considered credible on their own and would require examination of the totality of the circumstances. There is actually a shit ton of legal jurisprudence regarding this and probably several threshold tests. I can't even give you a C- for effort on this, literally television gets more right about our legal system than you do and CSI single handedly undermined our current justice system.

 

 

that is oversimplifying it quite a bit. Sure internet threats are illegal, but good fucking luck getting any police force (federal, state, or local) to do anything about it. Again, threats on their own are a criminal matter.

 

maybe you. At best it's a shard.

 

 

 

No I am a dick in real life too, I am just way more charismatic in real life. I am a pretty open minded person - am I judgmental about statements sure, but I am pretty good about separating people from their stupid comments. If you notice I don't usually resort to name calling or cheap tricks, but I have no problem telling you your argument is stupid when it is. doesn't mean you are stupid, just misinformed and led to a faulty conclusion. But then again I am a professional at this and you aren't, if I wasn't able to separate the person from their point of view I don't think I could get any work done. you are married to your opinion, I am not.

 

 

it's an easy thing to find out, show up have a chat.

 

http://www.city-connect.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/yawning.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming a criminal trial where the prosecuting attorney (by the way a Criminal law term not a civil law term - the litigant bringing a civil suit is the plaintiff), who would be making these statements to a jury not a judge, would have the burden of proving the likelihood of of threat.

 

Good job dodging his point, which is that the stuff you say on the internet can be a reflection of who a person is in real life.

 

Putting that aside, let's all revel in how little you know about the law. You take Yenner to task for not knowing the difference between criminal and civil law, yet you make the egregious error of stating the prosecutor would be "making these statements to a jury not a judge." Hey, Matlock, you ever heard of a bench trial? It's this really cool thing where you don't have a jury trial and, instead, the judge considers the evidence and renders the verdict. *GASP* I know, shocking, right? So, in fact, the prosecutor could be making those statements to a judge, not a jury. Congratulations on the self-ownage, Chief Justice Irony; 10/10, and you stuck the landing. Wait, maybe they didn't teach you the difference between a bench trial and jury trial where you went to law school?

 

BTW, I think you should change your avatar to a picture of that pony-tailed douchebag guy in the Harvard Bar from Good Will Hunting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good job dodging his point, which is that the stuff you say on the internet can be a reflection of who a person is in real life. [/Quote]

 

yes because as we all know the internet does not lie. #sarcasam

 

Putting that aside, let's all revel in how little you know about the law. You take Yenner to task for not knowing the difference between criminal and civil law, yet you make the egregious error of stating the prosecutor would be "making these statements to a jury not a judge." Hey, Matlock, you ever heard of a bench trial? It's this really cool thing where you don't have a jury trial and, instead, the judge considers the evidence and renders the verdict. *GASP* I know, shocking, right? So, in fact, the prosecutor could be making those statements to a judge, not a jury. Congratulations on the self-ownage, Chief Justice Irony; 10/10, and you stuck the landing. Wait, maybe they didn't teach you the difference between a bench trial and jury trial where you went to law school?

 

really? are we going to do this? fine. Bench trials don't just magically happen, there are certain requirements that must be met. There are a few courts that use them as the default like probate, traffic, and family law but none of those would hear a criminal case. In yenner's misplaced example there are too many unknown variables to say whether a bench trail would be possible or not, and even then it would require consent, stipulations, and court approval. so about as likely as a lion escaping from the zoo, coming to my house, and licking my nuts.

 

But all that is moot because the argument is itself is literally just gibberish. He has a "prosecuting" atty making an argument for the defense in a civil case where the defendant would have been the making the statements. So no it would not be possible for that person to make that argument to a judge because the person making the argument is an irrational construct of flawed logic and would not exist in any real world scenario based on our actual legal system.

 

And by the way, yes a defendant in a criminal case would make the argument that based on the totality of the situation that the threats were not serious and it would be the burden of the prosecutor in a criminal case to prove that they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really? are we going to do this? fine. Bench trials don't just magically happen, there are certain requirements that must be met. There are a few courts that use them as the default like probate, traffic, and family law but none of those would hear a criminal case. In yenner's misplaced example there are too many unknown variables to say whether a bench trail would be possible or not, and even then it would require consent, stipulations, and court approval. so about as likely as a lion escaping from the zoo, coming to my house, and licking my nuts.

 

But all that is moot because the argument is itself is literally just gibberish. He has a "prosecuting" atty making an argument for the defense in a civil case where the defendant would have been the making the statements. So no it would not be possible for that person to make that argument to a judge because the person making the argument is an irrational construct of flawed logic and would not exist in any real world scenario based on our actual legal system.

 

And by the way, yes a defendant in a criminal case would make the argument that based on the totality of the situation that the threats were not serious and it would be the burden of the prosecutor in a criminal case to prove that they were.

 

I believe the words you're looking for are, "Shit, you got me; good one. I earned my douchebag Harvard bar pony-tail on that one. Will try better next time."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the words you're looking for are, "Shit, you got me; good one. I earned my douchebag Harvard bar pony-tail on that one. Will try better next time."

 

That character in the movie was meant to represent elite-ism of ivy league schools and how it values routine over true knowledge...If you really think about it Will is actually the embodiment of the "know it all" of that movie but because he is the main character he is "likeable". by someone's standards everyone is a douchebag in that film and If you want to discuss the themes of good will hunting I'm open to that. It is a hell of a lot more interesting than reading people's own fictional versions of how they think the judicial system works in this country.

 

If I am the pony tail wearing dude, then by assumption you think of yourself as will hunting. Well if you remember Robin Williams conversation with will about his "intelligence", Will was all book learnin' and no real experience. IE on any given subject he was not sharing true intelligence just regurgitating what he read. If that is who you want to be represented as, someone basically talking out of their ass with no real life experience, I don't object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...