1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:36 am to SlowFlowPro
No lies given. The answers you give to basic questions and your communist views on the law render the high functioning retard. The 300k post count gives way to the autistic critical thinking skills.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:37 am to Branson
quote:
and your communist views
What the frick?
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The actions by the admin certainly fall under the definition of lawfare you gave, as the admin is clearly using the legal process "as a weapon to harm, weaken, or defeat a political l adversary.”
This is why you are way past being a joke on this board. What actions by the admin involved the courts to force an opponent to bend to their will in this case?
Using the term "legal process" is not lawfare, and you know it. You just threw that out there as a deflection, or if youre serious then its a inability on your part to recognize legislated admin functioning. Getting a drivers license is part of the "legal process" and a requirement enforceable by the courts. But it has nothing to do with lawfare. Neither does the admins actions in supervising elections, as they are tasked to do
Its telling though that you tried to compare the exec functions of this admin, to the DIMs rulings saying grand juries cannot be impaneled, or election rules cant be supervised, or illegals cannot be removed
Its pretty weak sauce, ackually
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:57 am to RobbBobb
quote:
This is why you are way past being a joke on this board. What actions by the admin involved the courts to force an opponent to bend to their will in this case?
You're ignoring his definition and using your own.
Proving my point about the malleability of the terms in real time
quote:
Using the term "legal process" is not lawfare, and you know it
You don't read good.
This is HIS provided definition:
quote:
“Lawfare is the strategic use of legal systems, courts, and laws as a weapon to harm, weaken, or defeat a military, political, or commercial adversary.”
He specifically asked me if it qualifies under that specific definition.
And, again, you ignoring the specifics of his question to insert your own definition, proves my larger point correct. You can't even participate in the thread and have to try to correct not me, but him, even though my response was exclusively to his question/paradigm.
Do you just have a masochism thing where you enjoy being laughed at?
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Do better.
K.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:05 am to SDVTiger
It appears the judicial branch definitely has an advantage when it comes to repercussions related to their decisions. It is what they count on.
It is too bad this advantage can not be removed.
It is too bad this advantage can not be removed.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
That's a whole lot of word salad to just say Sfp is a Democrat and will always defend their lunatic policies.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
strategic use of legal systems, courts, and laws as a weapon
Again, you brought up the admin, he didnt. Thats a deflection only you are holding to
But since we are here, which legal system, court and specific law before a court did this admin use to harm an opponent? I mean, you just quoted that definition in your reply yo me. Not some invisible one that exists only in your head. So what judicial system and specific court and the specific law before the court did this admin use?
I can point exactly on the doll where the DIMs used a specific court and ruling that intends harm to the legislated voting process, but I failed to see your specific example of the admin doing it. Do better. Oh and this
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't know what lawfare is to support or oppose it
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Thanks for the well thought out response. I get what you’re saying. I’ll add this qualifier for what I consider to be “Lawfare”: when a ruling is made or order issued that does not follow the laws in place. The order issued by this judge is a good example of that - it directly flaunts laws in place, as they are written. Rulings and orders that follow the laws in place are not Lawfare. This is a pretty black/white issue, no need to overthink it.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:14 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Again, you brought up the admin, he didnt
"Legals systems" includes the admin using subpoenas, grand juries, threats of prosecution, etc.
He chose the terms. I responded.
This post was edited on 10/31/26 at 9:15 am
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Reality and the truth is my defense
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
Serious question slow, do you acknowledge that there is cheating happened in this election?
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:38 am to SlowFlowPro
Intentionally obtuse and naive.
Serious question, are you slightly on the spectrum? It would explain a lot of your posts and positions.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:51 am to RandRules
quote:
when a ruling is made or order issued that does not follow the laws in place.
This is where the conversation always ends up: legitimacy.
Using "lawfare" ultimately ends up being "I think the other side's actions are illegitimate"
That's why people who try to use it sincerely always fail in giving a universal definition.
This post was edited on 10/31/26 at 9:52 am
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:53 am to Branson
quote:
do you acknowledge that there is cheating happened in this election?
That's a loaded question and it can go places you probably didn't imagine.
This also gets back to my detailed answer previously and the one just above about legitimacy.
How you define "cheating" is going likely involve a partisan lens and a legitimacy component, which is going to have you argue all of your partisan's sides are legitimate (and therefore can't be cheating) while the opposing partisan behavior is illegitimate (and therefore is cheating).
You're just having the same conversation but substituting one malleable term (cheating) for another (lawfare)
Posted on 10/31/26 at 9:55 am to michael corleone
quote:
Serious question, are you slightly on the spectrum?
No. I'm way too funny to be artistic.
quote:
It would explain a lot of your posts and positions.
A better explanation is that my thinking isn't skewed by partisan framing and I see the entire picture, instead. From within all the echo chambers, it seems crazy or pedantic, but outside of all of them, in reality, it makes perfect, logical sense.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 10:00 am to michael corleone
quote:
Serious question, are you slightly on the spectrum?
He pretends to be because he thinks it makes him appear smarter. Weird
Posted on 10/31/26 at 10:04 am to texag7
quote:
He pretends to be
wut
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News