- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/22/23 at 5:48 pm to thejuiceisloose
quote:
If Trump doesn't win we might as well get our guns and head to Washington
Enjoy your visit from the FBI
If theu come to me that'll save some gas money
Posted on 9/22/23 at 6:11 pm to TD422
quote:
The left has so damaged our "justice value system" that we now have a number of people who believe that gossip is enough to indict on, and the burden of proof has shifted not to prove guilt, but innocence. This is a very dangerous path, and there's no sign that we're even slowing down much less turning back.
Sorry - didn’t respond to you last paragraph
I’m not on the left
Posted on 9/23/23 at 12:27 am to CAD703X
quote:
are you as stupid in person as you act on here?
Is your wife still ugly?
This post was edited on 9/23/23 at 12:28 am
Posted on 9/23/23 at 7:10 am to Topcat
Now do democrats. Start with Satan Pelosi
Posted on 9/23/23 at 8:02 am to VOR
Of course Paxton is likely a greasy POS politician. But it was either him or George P Bush.
Not exactly a squeaky clean alternative.
Not exactly a squeaky clean alternative.
Posted on 9/23/23 at 8:06 am to texridder
so, the black democrat mayor of dallas just switched to republican. how soon before he does a photo op with ken paxton?
Posted on 9/23/23 at 9:57 am to DrKnievel
quote:
supposition, hearsay, gossip, or innuendo was not a factor
Of course it was. That was central to Paxton’s defense. But I guess you and I watched different trials.
Look, I thank you for the reasoned debate, but if you believe the prosecution brought a strong case, strong enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, consider yourself on the side of the aisle that is going to ignite a war for the fight of the soul in this country in the coming years.
Posted on 9/23/23 at 10:41 am to TD422
quote:
Of course it was. That was central to Paxton’s defense. But I guess you and I watched different trials.
Look, I thank you for the reasoned debate, but if you believe the prosecution brought a strong case, strong enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, consider yourself on the side of the aisle that is going to ignite a war for the fight of the soul in this country in the coming years.
So let me get this right - you believe Paxton was introducing supposition, hearsay, gossip, or innuendo?
You didn’t watch the trial then. The defense was objecting to everything. At one point, the prosecutor asked the witness about a conversation between the two of them (Attorney and witness) and buzbee objected with hearsay. Half of the defense was objecting to waste time (it was within their right as those were the rules)
I personally believe you misconstrued what was taking place (please correct me if I’m wrong). Most of the objections were a tactic you saw to disrupt the other side. Both sides did it, but I would say, the defense was consistently doing this throughout while the prosecution mostly did it when rusty wasn’t leading.
Having said that, there were times when it was correctly used (to prevent those things from coming in), and other times just to mess with the other side. My point is that each objection was contextual: some were valid, but a lot were disruptive. They were not all the same.
Once again, you bring your opinion, but you back it up with absolutely nothing.
I’m on the side of the law. And if you think it is ok for Paxton to farm out the powers of the Texas government to an individual under indictment, so he can fight the people accusing him of breaking the law by allowing him to subpoena not only his accusers, DPS, FBI, judges, but also civil litigants he was engaged with in court (that had nothing to do with the subpoena). i’m not sure what to tell you.
Please explain why you believe this is legal.
Posted on 9/23/23 at 11:02 am to DrKnievel
quote:
Once again, you bring your opinion, but you back it up with absolutely nothing.
Ironic.
quote:
I’m on the side of the law.
Who did you vote for in the 2020 election?
Posted on 9/23/23 at 11:29 am to the808bass
I play your little game.
You are just as bad as the other two, you fly by, make a one line comment and then disappear. You haven’t brought anything to the table either.
I then added clarification:
Ironically, you never responded.
I realize I changed the scope here (by not being clear the first time), but to make it relevant, Paxton paid $121K. So do you still think I’m full of shite? Answer that question and I’ll answer yours.
You are just as bad as the other two, you fly by, make a one line comment and then disappear. You haven’t brought anything to the table either.
quote:
For anybody that has done home improvement, you know you have to pay for materials in advance.
quote:
Here we go again.
I then added clarification:
quote:
Maybe we aren’t on the same page here. I’ve done lots of single and multi family projects. Anything of significance (>$50k), I’ve always had to do that. I’m not saying your experiences can’t be different, but everyone went down like that. Don’t know if that changed the context for y’all or not, but that’s been my experience
Ironically, you never responded.
I realize I changed the scope here (by not being clear the first time), but to make it relevant, Paxton paid $121K. So do you still think I’m full of shite? Answer that question and I’ll answer yours.
Posted on 9/23/23 at 11:33 am to DrKnievel
Respectfully, I’m calling “uncle”. Debating this with you is like the saying about playing chess with a pigeon.
I have given you facts, not opinion, in more than one post. You chose to ignore them, or possibly redefine the word opinion to fit your narrative.
I’ll try to restate it one more time: it is the OBLIGATION of the prosecution to PROVE their case. Not with anything but evidence. The defense can sit and diddle themselves if they choose to do so. Indicting, much less convicting, Paxton on that case was / would have been a sham. I’m sensing there’s more to your willingness to convict here than you’re letting on.
Again, I appreciate the reasoned debate…but I beileve we’re on different wavelengths here. You have a blessed day, my friend.
I have given you facts, not opinion, in more than one post. You chose to ignore them, or possibly redefine the word opinion to fit your narrative.
I’ll try to restate it one more time: it is the OBLIGATION of the prosecution to PROVE their case. Not with anything but evidence. The defense can sit and diddle themselves if they choose to do so. Indicting, much less convicting, Paxton on that case was / would have been a sham. I’m sensing there’s more to your willingness to convict here than you’re letting on.
Again, I appreciate the reasoned debate…but I beileve we’re on different wavelengths here. You have a blessed day, my friend.
This post was edited on 9/23/23 at 11:36 am
Posted on 9/23/23 at 11:58 am to TD422
Cheers brother!
It’s difficult to debate someone when you bring relevant information to the table, and they don’t address any of it and just continually say, the prosecution has to prove its case. You never engaged in any debate of the details. All of my responses specifically addressed what you wrote, while you never addressed anything I wrote specifically.
I’m not mad - just sharing my thoughts. Doesn’t mean they are right, but I’ll tell you what I think.
And where do I bet on the pigeon?
It’s difficult to debate someone when you bring relevant information to the table, and they don’t address any of it and just continually say, the prosecution has to prove its case. You never engaged in any debate of the details. All of my responses specifically addressed what you wrote, while you never addressed anything I wrote specifically.
I’m not mad - just sharing my thoughts. Doesn’t mean they are right, but I’ll tell you what I think.
And where do I bet on the pigeon?
This post was edited on 9/23/23 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 9/23/23 at 2:43 pm to DrKnievel
quote:
I’ve done lots of single and multi family projects.
And? For commercial construction, it’s payment upon completion. It’s almost impossible to get paid any other way.
Now what?
I think you’re presenting your view as evidence when it’s just your view. Your “when I do construction projects” isn’t evidence. Saying it is evidence makes you sound retarded.
Posted on 9/23/23 at 9:27 pm to the808bass
quote:
I think you’re presenting your view as evidence when it’s just your view. Your “when I do construction projects” isn’t evidence. Saying it is evidence makes you sound retarded.
That's one of the stupidest posts you've made on here (and there is serious competition.)
Does that mean you are going to refrain from presenting your view in any of your future posts.
Because you wouldn't want to "sound retarded" would you.
Posted on 9/23/23 at 9:54 pm to GhostOfFreedom
quote:
had ZERO evidence of their accusations.
f
they've had no evidence fore ANYTTHING they've lost their shite over for the past 50 years.
They got NOTHING - except their propaganda horn in the 'newz' media.
Posted on 9/23/23 at 10:33 pm to texridder
I present my views as views. I know the difference. You don’t because you’re a stupid count housewife pretending to be a lawyer.
Posted on 9/23/23 at 11:26 pm to the808bass
quote:What's the difference between that and what he posted?
I present my views as views. I know the difference.
quote:
You don’t because you’re a stupid count housewife pretending to be a lawyer.
You're too stupid to know I'm not a housewife. And even more stupid to think I'm pretending to be a lawyer.
I guess that means you're stupid X 2.
You should be proud.
Posted on 9/24/23 at 2:48 pm to texridder
quote:
What's the difference between that and what he posted?
He said what he thinks is evidence. “I think it’s impossible to have renovations done without paying for them upfront. Ergo, Paxton committed a crime.” That’s his (almost) entire argument.
That’s presenting an opinion as evidence. It’s not even a factual opinion. You’re too distracted by doing the dishes to even follow the argument.
Posted on 9/24/23 at 5:16 pm to the808bass
quote:
He said what he thinks is evidence. “I think it’s impossible to have renovations done without paying for them upfront. Ergo, Paxton committed a crime.”
You posted:
quote:
And? For commercial construction, it’s payment upon completion. It’s almost impossible to get paid any other way.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News