-
Posts
19,754 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Soxbadger
-
Thought about going Saturday to see Gza, Meth/Red and NAS, but Ive seen them all before. And whenever I think of Wu Tang I get sad about their set at North Coast that got cancelled part way through. And the fact that my friend couldnt last long enough to stay for the aftershow at Viper Room.
-
I went last year (this year had a conflict with a black slide event which was a semi-annoying story) and I took the Pink line. It was kind of crowded but was not too bad at all. Going to Magnificent Coloring Day Festival this weekend, I have no idea what to expect but it will be the first time I get to go on the field at US Cellular so that is a plus.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 06:50 AM) There is video of Justin Cooper testifying that he and Hillary both committed a crime. There are people in jail right now for doing exactly what Cooper testified that they did. If youre saying it doesnt matter simply because our bulls*** process will make it very difficult to actually enforce the law then you are quite simply saying its ok if she breaks the law because of who she is. You cant have it both ways. It seems like you are confusing a lot of things so I will try and explain. First, I am not an expert on classified documents, nor on the laws that regulate classified information. I do not know whether or not Hillary, Justin Cooper, or anyone else committed a crime. In order for me to even begin going down that road, Hillary, Justin Cooper (or anyone else for that matter) would have to be charged for allegedly committing a crime. At that point I could then review the allegations and determine if (in my opinion) there is enough evidence (again evidence not proof) to prove that a crime was committed based on the legal standard. Now again, I do not know much about this type of law, I presume the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" but for all I know it could be "preponderance of the evidence" or some other standard that I am completely unaware of. This leads to the second point in which you call the process "bulls***". Well I dont agree. The US criminal system is arguably the fairest in the world. Yes it means that it is difficult to convict, but that is also because I strongly believe whether its Blackstone's "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer" or Franklin's "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" or Adams "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished. ... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever." Now granted you may disagree, but it is not "ok" because of who Hillary is, it is the exact opposite. Whether it was Trump or Hillary, the process is the same. If you think that process is bulls***, well that is not Hillary's fault, that is the founding father's fault and the impeachment process has been the same since the founding of our nation. QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 06:58 AM) Also the bold pretty contradicts the points youve been trying to make the whole time. I cant use a video testimony from Cooper that admits criminal activity as a point because according to you its not fair until she gets her day in court. But then you go and say you that you KNOW there is 0 chance she is convicted, despite proof of a crime. gmafb lol. I never said that you cant use the video as a "point" I said that its evidence. I then said that she is not guilty until she is convicted, which is a factual statement. I am not sure I used the word "fair." And then I made an opinion statement about whether I believe she will be convicted based on how the impeachment process works. You are the one who expressed a concern about Hillary because she may be "impeached." I have just explained why that is not really a concern for me because in my opinion its extremely unlikely.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 12:15 AM) Clearly you think its ok if you still think she should be President. So are you saying that if she wins and then ends up getting indicted or something and found guilty you would agree she should be impeached? Or are you saying that no matter what they decide to do she should be allowed to be the President? Well lets start with the terminology. If she wins then it would be up to the House to "impeach" her. If the House "impeaches" her then the Senate would have to convict her. If the Senate convicts her she is removed from office. So if that happens she wont be President. If the question is, do I personally think that if a President is successfully convicted by the Senate they should be removed from office, my answer is yes. Whether its Hillary, Trump, Lincoln, Reagan, Washington, those are the rules. In case you are more interested about the impeachment process here is the link from the Senate: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/histor...chment_Role.htm All I am saying is that the chance of Hillary being convicted by the Senate is almost 0. It literally would take the Democratic party imploding on itself. Granted, maybe there is something that I am unaware of in the emails (Hillary admitting that she is Hitler, Saddam etc reincarnated or actually is them wearing a mask), but anything short of that Hillary is safe.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 09:39 PM) As Ive said, unless Trump does something really stupid or gets destroyed in the debate I think he is going to win. Every day Hillary has new bulls*** coming out, its incredible. And I doubt she will end up going to jail for this but there are people sitting in jail for doing what she did but on a much smaller scale. I understand that you think it should be ok for her to commit these crimes because it is needed to prevent Donald Trump from getting to the White House. But she shouldnt be above the law because she is a Clinton. We shouldnt be held to higher standards than someone running for President. Despite their grand standing its important to have politicians like Trey Gowdey and Jason Chaffetz. Id enjoy watching them destroy any politician from any party. Hillary had the god damn FBI and DOJ covering for her and almost got away with it. I never said it was "ok". I believe in innocent until proven guilty. My record on this matter is pretty substantial on this message board. Ive said it for good people, ive said it for bad people, people I agree with, people I disagree with. There is no point in speculating on partial evidence, its just not worthwhile. If she is prosecuted and I get access to the docs, Ill gladly go through it, but for now she isnt even being prosecuted.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 10:50 PM) Media Gonna Media CNN added the word "racial" to Donald Trump's Monday comments on terrorism and immigration, and is running headlines reporting that the GOP nominee is advocating "racial profiling". But a review of the transcript of Trump's comments to Fox News that CNN quoted, however, shows that Trump never put the word "racial" in front of “profiling.” Well you are right, racial doesnt necessary mean religious, so I think he probably meant race and religion, maybe even nationality. Damn that CNN for making it sound better than it was and limiting profiling just to race. /shakes fist in anger Can we just be honest. If you are "profiling" for terrorists, what is the profile? Is it going to be age? Is it going to be gender? Or is it going to be race, nationality and religion. Trump is saying be more like Israel, well that is how Israel does it.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 09:20 PM) Were not in a court room counselor. Facts are more than enough for me, and most reasonable people, when forming an opinion. Im not saying they should go lock her up now. Im just saying its going to happen. Also, heres the video again of Cooper testifying This isnt a court room, and it doesnt matter what is enough for you. What matters is when you say "its going to happen" when you completely disregard how the system has worked. Fact: 0 presidents have ever been successfully convicted by the Senate. In US history there have been 19 impeachments, only 6 have been convicted (well according to Wikipedia I cant seem to get any search to hit on the actual people). For you to be so certain that she will be convicted runs contrary to American history. Remember she would have to get elected. If she is elected that means that not many Democrats are going to go after her and risk losing their Senate position. Thus the chance that I believe 20+ Democratic Senators will turn on Hillary is closer to 0 than 100. But if Hillary gets elected, we can bet on it. Nothing major, but Ill take that Hillary is not convicted by the Senate.
-
QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 09:09 PM) It's just funny. You'll give HRC a break "they fired that person." Blame the dumb IT guy for her felonious record keeping. DWS was the problem the DNC, it couldn't be HRC or her camp. It's a verifiable trend for you. Basically everyone around HRC is inept but she's great...uh ok. In a tallest midget contest they are still midgets. Not sure many people are singing Hillary's praises, I just think many rational people believe that at worst Hillary will be a mediocre President where nothing gets done for 4 years. Its Trump or Hillary, I know I cant vote for Trump, so Turd sandwich it is.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 09:12 PM) I posted at least two blatant examples of her committing crimes in the republican thread with sources. But Justin Cooper testified to the House Oversight Committee that he, Huma and Chelsea all had unlimited access to Hillary's private server. I posted the actual video of him saying he had access and he didnt have clearance. "Hey its Huma" also corroborates that story. She also tampered with evidence that was under subpoena and a preservation order. She deleted 33000 emails. The guy who did it just got busted by Reddit of all places because he was asking people how to do what he needed to do to those emails. I believe he even posted the ip address. There are several facts that prove she has committed crimes. There is no way she wouldnt get impeached if she became president. I think you are confusing how our legal system works. You are not "proven guilty" until there is a trial and you are found guilty. It doesnt matter what "evidence" there is before the trial, again you keep saying proof, but its "evidence." Trials are tricky. Again you keep saying "impeached", even if she was "impeached" she would then have to go to trial in the Senate, where 67% of the Senate would have to vote her guilty. The last time it went to the Senate, the vote was almost completely by party lines (a few Republican's voted innocent I believe), but it wasnt even close to the necessary 67%. I am not saying that Hillary did or didnt do it, I am saying that its almost impossible to believe that Hillary would be successfully prosecuted in the Senate given how the process works. This is just the reality of the system. Whether or not you want to believe that its up to you. But I honestly think its more likely that Trump gets convicted of fraud in his "college" than Hillary gets convicted of this.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 08:55 PM) Hillary has been proven guilty. She just hasnt been prosecuted yet. Hillary went on trial and was found guilty, when did that happen? QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 08:57 PM) Also, as I said in the first post about it, this wasnt a hack. This came from a FOIA request from Judicial Watch. Wikileaks just tweeted it out Not saying its a hack. Im saying that you are trusting Wikileaks with the information they are presenting. You have no idea if Wikileaks provided all of the information, neither do I.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 08:21 PM) An outgoing email from Hillary's private email address saying "Hey its Huma" Not only does she not have the clearance to see that stuff, but letting someone with the questionable background of Abedin have access to every single piece of classified info from the US Secretary of State is a very big deal. There's more stuff at the link too. This wasnt a hack either. This was from a FOIA request from Judicial Watch. You are just posting conclusions. Huma had security clearance. What that clearance entitled her to do or not do, I have no idea and I doubt many people do. Maybe its a big deal, maybe its nothing. But you said above you are socially liberal, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? That isnt something you just believe in when it suits you, its what you believe when your worst enemy is being accused. I tried to go through that wikileaks database, its horribly organized. The doc numbers seem to jump, so I cant put together what emails come before or after it. 29422 2010-11-11 10:20 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan 1186 2010-11-11 10:43 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Jake Sullivan Hillary Clinton 29372 2010-11-11 10:49 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan From what I can tell there is no way to just go through the emails sequentially. When I went through them all with search "Hillary Clinton" (which should pull all emails) you get this: 6953 2010-11-11 08:54 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6952 2010-11-11 08:57 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6951 2010-11-11 09:01 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6950 2010-11-11 09:02 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6949 2010-11-11 09:06 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 29422 2010-11-11 10:20 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan 29372 2010-11-11 10:49 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan 6948 2010-11-11 13:12 ISRAELIS Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin 6947 2010-11-11 13:14 ISRAELIS Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin 29391 2010-11-11 15:23 RE: Hillary Clinton Cheryl Mills 29408 2010-11-12 02:24 JACKSON DIEHL EDITORIAL Hillary Clinton Phillip Crowley 29429 2010-11-12 03:00 (REUTERS) SAUDI KING TOLD TO REST OVER SLIPPED DISC Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin 6942 2010-11-12 07:52 3DS FORWARD - ASIA PACIFIC Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan Here is whats odd, 1186 does not appear there, nor does it make any sense sequentially. What is even more odd is that there seems to be tons of document numbers missing. Which means docs like 6943-6946 are somewhere else. But where? And if the search is "Hillary Clinton" and the results are by date, how are they not in the right place? Now maybe Hillary is the biggest crook in the world, maybe she committed every crime you say. But you have to be as suspicious of Wikileaks as you are Hillary. Found out you can search by id in a different place. So for example 6943: https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/em...43#searchresult 6944: https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/em...44#searchresult Why is it not showing in the original search? Even more odd 1185 is from November 19. A full week after that 1186. Where as 1187 is from November 10.
-
Cutler had to throw it across his body and into a defender, not an easy throw at all.
-
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 06:29 PM) That law was actually a law dating back to the silver baron days when they openly bought elections left and right. It wasn't a modern law. I understand. But the Montana Supreme Court upheld that law when it was challenged under Citizens United. It is more to show that its unclear what regular people think about Citizens United. All we know for sure is what a handful of people thought, and in that case 5 people decided for all of us.
-
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:59 PM) You know, if you're really concerned about the corrupting influence of money in politics, this should be your top target. And if you are concerned about that, you should know that Republicans are 100% opposed to overturning CU. Not 100% true. The state of Montana tried to circumvent Citizens United by arguing state's rights. But the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Montana Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradi...Inc._v._Montana Which ultimately should just prove to everyone how messed up this all is. If you dont want to read, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along political lines.
-
QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:45 PM) DB - I'm curious regarding your political stance on social issues. To me, that's the biggest reason to avoid Trump. Take a look at Trump's Supreme Court list and the positions they have taken in the past. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elec...t-idUSKCN0YA2XV If you are at all concerned about LGBT rights - including the right to marriage - or are concerned about decisions like Citizens United, then I urge you to really look at the difference between Trump and Clinton on those appointments. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a crazy powerful thing... I think the reality is that we have no idea who Trump would attempt to appoint to the Supreme Court. That is the scary part, the completely unknown quantity. The problem is Trump has no history besides his business. And in his business he always appoints family, friends, etc to high ranking positions. People were upset when Bush tried to appoint Harriet Miers, I just feel Trump would go that route. Again, who knows. I guess I just dont trust someone who says "Make America Great Again", when I personally believe that America is great. Then again, no matter how great our economy may have been, I dont consider a country "great" when a good portion of it dont enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
-
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:40 PM) Posting random questions in a thread isn't any better. How is asking someone what the purpose of their statement was "random"? Random: "What is your hair color?" Not random: "Why did you make the previous statement?"
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:11 PM) All I brought up was that our military accidentally bombed the Syrian Army killing dozens of soldiers who are fighting AGAINST Isis. I was asked about what I would do in Syria to which I said I have no idea. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:13 PM) Don't you know in order to question the death of innocents, you have to have a doctoral thesis ready to go? Again what is the point? Should I just start posting random facts in a thread? Does that make any sense. It was posted in both Republican and Democrat thread, there surely must be some sort of point to that random fact. Its like saying "Mount Pinatubo erupted on June 15, 1991." Drunkbomber posted a fact. Okay great, so what was the point? It should be easy to answer.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:58 PM) Clearly not reading comprehension You forget you were the one who mentioned it first? Again, what is the point? Being snippy wont win a lot of arguments.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:44 PM) Im certainly not opposed to blaming Bill Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan as well. Then what is the point of this discussion?
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:34 PM) The difference is that Hillary is the one who tried to bring it back up to label Trump a racist knowing damn well it started with her. She has repeatedly brought it up in this election to attack her opponent all while blatantly lying about her involvement. Come on, there is not one piece of evidence that Hillary ever even said it. The scary part about history is that if you say something loud and repeat it enough, some people will believe it. There is literally no excuse for how ignorant people have become. Its not like the 18th century where you had to rely on the news, we all have access to almost unlimited information on the internet. There are people who would have killed to have access to all the information we have, yet we waste it on a daily basis.
-
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:22 PM) Eh the Syrian conflict is a huge pot of issues. Some of it's religious sectional violence and certainly the Isis aspect is, but some of it's ethnic and some of it's just sick of being under a brutal dictator for decades. Of course every issue has its nuances, but the main players take their sides based on religion. Not saying that is all the problems, but its the main problem you cant solve through rational discussion.
-
You provided "evidence" not "proof." And Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice. He was acquitted by the Senate. In order for this to even be a worry, 2/3 of the Senate would need to vote "guilty". The chances of this happening are 0. So while it may be fun for you to talk about, it wont happen. Which is why there really is no point in worrying about it.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:03 PM) Im not blaming them for thousands of years of Holy Wars. Im blaming them for our unnecessary involvement in said Holy Wars. So what is your pan? Should Obama just have let Isis shred through Iraq after Bush spent so much money/time/lives taking Iraq? Should Bush have just let Iraq go to hell after his father spent money/time/lives trying to stop it? We can sit on our pretty continent and stick our head in the sand while the rest of the world tears itself to apart. We can intervene. But none of it is going to make a hill of beans difference until people stop believing in "magic" land. And that includes our country, because in our country we still fight over what a "magic" book says. Its just tiring to pretend that isnt the reality.
-
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 03:44 PM) Im very anti intervention in a lot of this stuff but as Ive admitted before I dont really have an answer to it. I think Bush/Obama have destabilized the middle east to the point that it may be next to impossible to fix. I do think the fact that just yesterday we accidentally bombed Syrian Army who is fighting against Isis and killed 80 of them is simply a mistake that we cant afford at this point. You really think this is Bush or Obama's fault? That area has been destabilized so many times that you could argue its Alexander the Great's fault. Or maybe it was the Roman's. As long as religion and politics are intertwined in the middle east there are going to be problems. Those problems just manifest themselves in different ways. Intervening, not intervening, it likely would have made almost no difference. Maybe if the US had just let Saddam take Kuwait and been a counterbalance to Iran there would be less terrorism, but that also means that Saddam would have been allowed to massacre whoever he wanted. I could write another 1,000 pages of "Maybe if" about the Middle East. All of them end pretty much the same way. As long as there is a little piece of land that everyone thinks is magic, there is going to be fighting, because unfortunately you cant just offer normal solutions when everyone wants "magic" land, and they all believe only one very specific spot is "magic." (Edit) As to the rest, that is your opinion that Hillary is disqualified. Great/bad part about Republic/Democracy is that voting is opinion. At the start of our country some of the founding fathers didnt even want regular people to vote because they didnt believe that they were "qualified". Throughout our nation's history many people have not had the ability. But if you think that you are going to change people to vote for Trump, you need to sell them on Trump, not attack Hillary. Hillary is a known quantity, good/bad/indifferent, I know what I am getting with Hillary. I have no clue what Trump is about, I dont trust him and I never will. So at the end of the day I view the US as ship on the ocean going towards a destination. Sometimes the US will go fast, sometimes slow, but as long as we dont do something stupid, well keep moving forward. In my opinion Trump could crash the ship, so there is just no plausible way to vote for that.
-
QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 06:49 PM) Wouldn't the more relevant statistic in determining if there's a racial bias in police shootings be the percentage of victims that were shot where lethal force was not justified (the percentage of times where lethal force was justified but not taken could be enlightening too)? If the percentage of unjustified shootings is the same between white and black victims then it shouldn't matter that the numbers don't match the demographics of the general population. The fact that minorities tend to end up in such situations more often is definitely a problem, but that's really a separate issue than what we're talking about here. Well the problem is that some people are arguing that police claim it as justified disproportionately when it comes to minorities. In the olden days it was called "a case of mistaken identity" where the police killed someone cause they mistakenly believed it was someone they were looking for. Its impossible to objectively know whether there is bias or not because no will ever know what the police officer really thought. It was just a post with raw data and I just interpreted the data given. Nothing more or nothing less.