fauxlaw

Ah, so your practiced in the technique, after all. Good enough.

I don't vote sides. I vote individuals, and experience, regardless of side. Trump was an executive; Hillaryous Balloon Girl was not. Trump was an executive, Biden was not. The presidency is an executive position. An easy choice on both occasions. I'm electing an executive, not a moral advisor [I have one of those, already]. Easy choice.

Yeah, avoided to allow use of a handy, cheap bottle. I would not suggest it had I not had that history, myself. It works.  Just pay for it through the automated register and it's all good. You know, scan-and-bag in two seconds. Evidence hidden, but paid. Surely you know of places, other than the men's room, where the deed can be deposited without wandering eyes [or a camera].

Not when the conversation is secretly recorded. Otherwise, the unwritten rule of trust applies. So, with an explosive bombshell in his hands, why did Billy Bush wait 16 years? Can we spell a-g-e--n-d-a?

1. Trump was not a politician.

2. Biden is, and has also figured out he has a phone and a pen, only he doesn't know how to use his phone, and his pen has a mind of its own, signing more EOs than any president in history. At his rate, he will have signed over 350 EOs by the time he reaches his first year. If he reaches it. I figure he has 100 days before Kammie raise the 25A for incompetency.

Oops. You ignore a more basic legal concept than "legally responsive." It's called "due process." Look it up and understand all its ramifications. If you admit to it in court, then you have some standing. As it was, the van was not a courtroom, and from then, 2005, when the conversation was surreptitiously recorded, held until 2016 [statute of limitations?]. Trump's due process rights were violated.

By the way, why don't you look up CA's wiretapping statute, a two-party consent statute? Both parties in a recorded conversation must consent to the recording. Oops. Billy's van was in CA, headed to NBC Universal.

Do they, really? Tell it to Trump, who has been vilified every which way from Sunday for speaking private thoughts in what was thought to be a private conversation that just happened to have a hidden open mic brought to the table by the other guy in the conversation. A recording that was held for 11 years before revealing it by an agenda. If it was newsworthy in 2005, why wasn't it released in 2005? Just think, the left could have possibly ended Trump's political aspirations before they began. Private thoughts? That's laughable. What private right, exactly, was being exercised by Billy Bush when, actually, Trump was not talking to Billy Bush, but Access Hollywood?

Never been there, have you? like I said, it's mostly hot air. I use a different standard. That talk is r&r. Can the guy do the job he's hired to do, with the resources given to do it, and bring it in on time and under budget... I don't much care how he talks in r&r.  The fact is, seldom is talk a justifiable offense one can take to court. It approaches thought police tactics, and is that not a valid social concern?

How about actually reaching a time when time no longer needs to be measured. When we measure according to our accomplishment and not the duration of the effort to reach it because it's no longer a competition. "I can name that tune in three notes..."  No. More simple; "I can name that tune, and I don't need a note as a hint."

When its desperation time, Home Depot sells bottles you can piss in. Buy the bloody bottle afterward and call it good. 

Have any of you ever been in the military, out in the field, a group huddled together, talking war stories, and the conversation drifts... or in a football locker room, high school or college, before or after the game... or in a group on the golf course who have known one another a long time, but talk of the old days... or a similar group of execs and a  few wanna-bes at a corporate retreat to pump the troops and a little r&r...

and you don't think the talk gets a little beyond truth and righteousness, when much of the talk extends beyond reality and is wishful thinking, and everybody in the group knows it, but carries on??? Really? Grow up guys. The real world is not just sugar and spice, and not even just power tools and golf clubs. We're all pretty ordinary people with war stories that were never more than little shouting matches. I have been in those places and situations. Sometimes, rarely, some of it is true. Mostly, it's bluff, and, as said, everybody knows what's what.

So, just settle down, admit that everyone brags, and it's mostly hot air. Allegations, and even 'war' [battle of the sexes] stories, would not stand up in court.

Nope, just presenting the practical legal side of things when harassment is merely alleged, but no one is willing to pursue a lawsuit. Makes me think the allegations are merely politically motivated. No, why should I believe anyone making the claim if they don't have the will to stand up for it? Easy to punch. just as easy to have nothing behind it. If you don't get it, remember what an original poster child of poundmetoo said to the media: "he told me to take my clothes off, so I did."  recall that this was after she willingly went to his hotel room by his invitation. Talk about wearing blinders. What did she think was on his mind. Afternoon tea?

What's stupid?

I've just made my 2,000th post, and just 3 days before my first anniversary!!!  Post #9 on https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5687-pudding-vs-ice-cream-who-reigns-supreme?page=1

Wouldn't you know, it's about dark chocolate, the paragon of food groups. Have a piece on me!

Think it not strange if heaven has a care,

To justice good, forthright and fair,

If after our Lord brings us there,

He'll serve us chocolate all seasons of the year.

I created a Christmas card one year with that original verse in it, accompanied by a paper-thin slice of dark chocolate I'd made, sealed in a polybag. It was a hit.

I would now add "ice cream" after "chocolate."

Well, I seem to remember Oba'a saying something like "There comes a time when you have earned enough pudding."

let he who is without sin cast the first stone. there's a reason why few live in glass houses.

Yeah, queue it up. Most of those liberals were women, themselves.

Yes, once media realized the short attention span of the general public, they regressed themselves. The result is apparent. And yet they poll the public and actually believe and report their findings, with some obvious manipuatin by the structure of their questions. Might as well bend over to kiss their collective arse.

1. I do not have a static reference point. Why do you assume that I do? Eternity has no static reference point, and that is the realm in which I live and breathe.

2. Tied to #1. Eternity has no center. The cosmos is eternal. Why would you assume that I believe there is a center?

Can't wrap your head around eternity? Argue for your limitations; they're yours.

Fine. but what Hawking misses, surprising for one so intelligent, is that by admission as an atheist, he is only saying he has not discovered how to prove God to himself, a self-limiting admission. To bad, happens to the best of us.

I dislike needing to be blunt, but there is no other way to address one problem of passing the Equality Act as current drafted and passed by the House, and that is the insertion suggested in a variety of existing statutes that deal with the social practicalities and expectations of privacy [remember that argument and how it is now bite in the arse] by removing the word, "sex," and inserting  “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity).”

There is a practical element no more simple than the provisions of physical plumbing that differentiates what was once considered sex differentiation.  As I male, my plumbing is an external tube with which, when urinating, I have manipulative control of the direction of the stream while keeping my pants while merely opening a zipped or buttoned slice in the fabric to accommodate aiming the stream appropriately; therefore, I need no private stall.  The female has different plumbing and virtually has no ability of directing the urine stream without radical movement of her body, even if the female also wears pants with an accommodating zippered or buttoned slice. The lack of a female's convenient external tube requires, just for the sake of privacy, to virtually remove all clothing from the lower half of her body to allow a modicum of protection of her clothes while the female urinates, and that has historically meant having a closed stall to disrobe in private. Why is that necessary when public restrooms are clearly typically designated for males and females? Don't all females know the nature of their naked bodies, and thus, for expense purposes, do not need the closed stall, yet, they are provided. Must be for other reasons than expense.

So, now y'all want to remove that privacy screen for the females, in spite of whatever reason the idea of a stall was first provided for a function of just urination.

But, neither female nor male just urinate, do they? Defecation is accompanied by by noises and smells that seem civilized to separate from one another, for both femaels and males.

So, now you want to eliminate the stalls, or worse, remove the female/male designation of restrooms and everyone can pick any restroom they please, by "sexual orientation and gender identity." I suspect we will shortly understand the reason why the traditional female restrooms did not include urinals [or bidets, for that matter], and all restrooms had stalls for the added necessity of defecation. Remember, there's that word "privacy" that y'all insisted was a factor, even though the word does not appear a single time constitutionally, and that's because the constitution did not feel the need to discuss scatology, just as it never mentioned 'God." Some things just made sense for practicality, if for no other reason.

You may have forgotten the results of Stormy Daniels' lawsuit against Trump. She and her dumb lawyer [who ended up bilking her] were thrown out of court for the stupid tactic of arguing the hush-money payment, which was intended to... shut her up [a completely legal tactic on Trump's part, which admitted nothing on Trump's part, by the way, and which she violated]. Why didn't she just charge Trump directly for harassment, or whatever it was she claimed? Maybe because it didn't happen as she claimed?  As every other claimant who came forward, then shrank back to the woodwork? Where are all those poundmetoo's now? Now that Democrats have denied them, as well, to whom do they go?

The flaw in Einstein's quote, and your effort to make it meaningful for others is in the quote, itself; "For me..." says Einstein. Seems he was not trying to speak for anyone else.

As a chemistry student obtaining his PhD at Yale, my father once went to Princeton to attend a lecture given by Einstein, and had the privilege of meeting and having a short conversation with him. My father's conclusion: "Einstein had to have been the loneliest man in the world. To whom could he converse on a level with him?"

I conclude that, as God does not appear to be involved in many backyard fence conversations with folks [not to say he does not 'speak' to man by other means - I am convinced he does - by personal experience], I understand Einstein's perspective. He must have wanted a conversation with someone who would challenge him, and never had it. No wonder that, "for me,..." was his conclusion.

spot on

Yes, I forgot. But, show me the enforcement of such laws that are filling jails to over-flowing, causing my portion of $20k, each, for their incarceration?  Actually, arrest record show that vagrancy is a criminal matter [misdemeanor] that is addressed, but typically not for the vagrancy, itself, but additional crimes committed by vagrants, petty theft to larceny, and several other crimes. That a large percentage of vagrants also suffer mental illness leading to other misdemeanors and substance abuse is also linked to arrests.

Ah, you raiser a good point - a hormonal, therefore physical cause. 

Whatever happened to the dying poundmetoo argument: believe the women? An argument offered by Dems, after all.

I consider the right to life to be exercised more vigorously than by a minimum wage, or even a UBI. What a low-ball goal. No wonder Dems are moving to socialism; no lofty ideals worth achieving. Nonsense. Have you no ambition? That's entirely on you. After all, you have a right to life, but beyond your adolescence,  it is not my responsibility to assure you a decent education and a profitable living. YOU do. Have you an argument against personal responsibility? I will not argue it for you.

 

1. Your assumed legislation is not a solution and would not pass Congress.

2. Therefore, no cost of inmate expense, so, no need to offer UBI in a similar amount.

3. Argument fails.

Biden approves of an independent investigation into Cuomo?

how about for his own gandering accusers?

How about this: Cover your own arse by your own education and hard work,  with ambition, planning, and execution. Be yourself. Everyone else is taken, along with their wherewithal to achieve. UBI? That's under-rated, banal, and ignorant.

I refer back to your #1 post, with this cited caveat imposed on it, relative to our rights [are they free?] and our obligation to allow one another's rights to be engaged, that demonstrates a feature your proposition entirely ignores: YOUR personal responsibility.

So you propose that you receive a notice of eviction, that this is somehow unfair. How, since no right gives you the free access to a residence, a job, your education, or your purchasing power, void of the responsibilities you, yourself, must bring to the table to deserve those commodities. You are NOT free to be a freeloader on society, and that you should expect such, at my expense, or anyone else's, is the abject flaw in socialism. That goes for health care, as well. Look, you may claim that, now that I am retired [although I still work for myself and earn a living by my own sweated brow, and do not have to work, for I have amassed the personal wherewithal to be self-sufficient], that my social security and medicare are free of charge to me. No, my friend. I paid into those benefits from my own income over the 47 years that I was a working stiff, and I am still obligated to pay $140 monthly into medicare. I paid close to 90% of those benefits by my own money; not yours or anyone else's, during those 47 years. The interest that should have been earned by those payments over 47 years should have covered the balance, except that your gov't and mine has robbed those benefit funds for other uses [like handing money to freeloaders]. But, thats not my problem. It's theirs. Let them control their spending just as I have had to control mine. YOU are personally responsible for your status in life. Do something with it other than expect a UBI.

I entirely agree.

I'm sure you're aware that any supplement, herbal or whatever, is not a true healing, but a treatment of symptom[s] that do not address cause. Root cause.

I have suffered a sleep disorder that prevents a full night's sleep since, with some periods of remission, I was a teen. I "came of age" as a 14-year-old, concerned with the Cuban missile crisis. After everyone else in the family had gone to bed, I left my bed, staying awake in the living room. I was not going to sleep when the Russians pounded down the door. I was convinced they would. Absurd, yes, but the habit stuck. My typical sleep period is about 4 hours. I used to be able to handle it, but at my age, sleep apnea, which I do not have, is a real possibility, and its time for me address the cause; if I only knew what it was. That it's in my head [that is, it isn't a physical root cause] is a certainty.

wow.

same offering of my #16 to FLRW  to you. ever hear of suspension of disbelief? of course, you have. apply it.

Holy cow, Batman, er... Ragnarok. Got an itch to scratch???

don't mean nothin' by that, just curious about the motivation and time expended. lots o' words.

The what-if is not the relevance of Jesus, but if Romans and Jews may have perceived him as a cult figure, given the assumption that Jesus was a historic figure.

One kind of needs to play along with a proposition as given. Sure, anyone can poke holes in the theory, but, at the same time, such theories as "Jesus never existed" can be easily ignored. After all, what proves you exist to one who has never met you? You present your birth certificate to a gov't agency to secure your driver license. But who said the B.C. was legit? You parents? Legally, that can be considered as heresay testimony. What and who authenticates them? What of your driver license? Also, heresay. Your passport? the same. What, it isn't because it has your signature? Prove it, with the foreknowledge of the existence of competent forgery. You see, RM has established a what-if. So, play along.

Romans though Jews were a little weird, and vice versa, so along comes Jesus, who can speak as a Jew, and he tells Rome [via Pilate] that his [Jesus'] kingdom, a subject in which Romans are well versed, is not of this world. Yeah, I can see how both Roman and Jew would find Jesus a heretical cult figure. After all, we may strain the definition of "cult' to imagine there is heresy in its practice, but the definition is really just one of identifying a small religious group with strange practices unfamiliar to the one drawing the conclusion.

You're really describing though experimentation. I think that is very valid empiric testing, maybe not as good as a working model, because there may be variables we forget to track as we think through a solution, but further and more detailed repetitive thinking can improve the results.

I am perceiving a lot of access to DArt via phones. I find that an impossible device for use since my hands and fingers are quite large. My hand from wrist to middle fingertip is nearly 23cm, and, across the palm, about 11cm. My thumb is 2.75mm wide and index finger 2cm wide. Texting is virtually impossible via thumbs given the size of a keypad on a phone, and using a single digit is just as difficult. I use my phone for vocal comm only. Even the keypads on my Mac Book and iPad are troublesome. 99% of my access to DArt is via iMac, and I wish its keyboard were larger. Sometimes, I am very envious of my petite bride of 47 years.

According to whom? Daffy Duck?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026047?seq=1 

won't take much reading; the first paragraph offers a question about your claim. It cites Boethius, a Roman senator and philosopher, who wrote "The Consolation of Philosophy" in the 6th century CE, in prison awaiting trial for treason, for which he was executed. It was, in essence, and "oh, poor me" exercise, that demonstrates that although being lauded as the last true Roman, and the first scholastic, his "scholarship," expanded in fame due to the cited work, but led to the Dark Ages. Some scholarship.

Eternity appears incoherent because of what contemplates it; a finite mind.

When is finite more logical than eternity?

thanks. Good research!

I'm trying to remember if Dr. McCoy in Star Trek ever wore a mask in all his medical practice portrayed?

Great milestone I've not yet reached, myself. Congrats!

Glad to hear. Is there a better search engine than Google?

Seriously, hope all is well. Best wishes.

agree on all

I would add that for military purposes, although killing a combatant is done purposefully, it does not meet the legal definition of murder, whereas a civilian of an opposing country at war with another who is killed in a combat situation, to me, is murder, even in a military context

Not a Democrat, but I've always liked Sherrod Brown [OH]