1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- 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
re: SFPLCs buddy spills the beans on Lawfare
Posted on 10/22/26 at 6:54 am to CleverUserName
Posted on 10/22/26 at 6:54 am to CleverUserName
quote:
Annnnd I gave you a definition
And several others have given different, competing definitions
quote:
No.. again it's simply inconvenient for you. Because Comey bypassed protocol and dispatched Strozk to interview Flynn. Now was Comey and Strozk Trump loyalists?
Comey was an agent of Trump, part of his DOJ.
Again, if you're ignoring parties and going to the individual level, the concept expands exponentially worse than even where I criticize it being in terms of malleability and inconsistency.
That's not inconvenient for my argument. That's giving my argument a combination of steroids and peptides.
quote:
You responded with Clinesmith as a deflection
How can me bringing up the person you reference be a deflecting?
quote:
And clinesmith actually broke the law
Now we're back to my point about legitimacy, where this always ends up, effectively.
quote:
does any of what was done in relation to the Steele Dossier and meet the definition I gave?
Your definition is so broad, the answer is "probably"
Now if you're re-defining it to the individual level, then almost assuredly, because then any prosecution or lawsuit is "lawfare", effectively.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 6:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
There is no requirement for opposition parties, just opposition.
Literally every lawsuit and/or prosecution involves opposition.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I spoke of the goal of using the term, not the definition.
Your posts here:
quote:
• This is at least the 3rd definition used by page 3
• Legitimate prosecutions or lawsuits are part of "traditional justice" and therefore don't fall into this definition.
• Now you're making the concept much more complicated to create a singular definition
• So having multiple conflicting definitions in a thread
• theoretically, one day we may get that singular definition
• the definition just got 10 feet higher.
• a hard definition would encompass too many activities/art he feels should be legal.
• The prosecution itself would be lawfare under that definition
• The definition is universally accepted/This thread literally disagrees
• as the definition
• how does that fit into your definition?
• I spoke of the goal of using the term, not the definition.
quote:
I just don't know what "lawfare" is.
This post was edited on 10/22/26 at 7:02 am
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:02 am to NC_Tigah
THIS was the quoted language
That comment doesn't require a definition and no definition was referenced, only the goal of using the word.
quote:
That's really the goal of using the term: delegitimizing certain legal cases
That comment doesn't require a definition and no definition was referenced, only the goal of using the word.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not as a premise of targeting.
Literally every lawsuit and/or prosecution involves opposition.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:07 am to NC_Tigah
Targeting...what, exactly?
You realize the definitions you keep posting were in line with the comment being discussed now, right? Both 1 and 2 require "political adversary"
How does that work with this?
Is the political adversary a requirement or not?
You realize the definitions you keep posting were in line with the comment being discussed now, right? Both 1 and 2 require "political adversary"
How does that work with this?
quote:
There is no requirement for opposition parties, just opposition.
Is the political adversary a requirement or not?
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yet, we have one. As you continue to ask random posters what their definition is, there remains a very standard and widely-acknowledged definition which you ignore.
doesn't require a definition
quote:... which entails a requisite definition/meaning. What was it?
only the goal of using the word.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I spoke of the goal of using the term, not the definition.
How do you know the goal if you don’t know what the term means?
You got outwitted again
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
.. which entails a requisite definition/meaning.
Clearly it does not, especially with NPC culture
As a corollary, it's like "racist" from the left. This is now a nonsense echo chamber term, but it doesn't stop their NPCs from using it all the time.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Correct. Not "party" .... "adversary."
"political adversary"
Comey set up Flynn, not because Flynn was in a different party.
But because Comey ID'd Flynn as an adversary.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:13 am to texag7
quote:
How do you know the goal if you don’t know what the term means?
The goal is determined by the usage, not the definition.
quote:
You got outwitted again
Not at all.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
spoke of the goal of using the term, not the definition.
Good Lord
This post was edited on 10/22/26 at 7:20 am
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Correct. Not "party" .... "adversary."
As I have said multiple times, pushing this all the way to the individual level makes the malleability even worse.
quote:
Comey set up Flynn, not because Flynn was in a different party.
But because Comey ID'd Flynn as an adversary.
Any person who is prosecuted by LEO is, by default, an adversary
Any person who is sued by another is, by default, an adversary
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:15 am to Padme
quote:
Good Lord
It's not that difficult.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:15 am to Azkiger
quote:
SFPLC
Why you people continuously give that idiot attention is beyond me. His whole shtick is trolling and engagement farming. A thread like this calling him out gives him a stiffy.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:16 am to The Pirate King
quote:
His whole shtick is trolling and engagement farming
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
usage, not the definition
Usage is worthless w/o meaning/definition in the communication.
I can tell folks you are a 'daflakmogolier,' but the term is worthless w/o an associated meaning/definition in the communication.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
His whole shtick is trolling and engagement farming
486309 posts
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:NOT THE POINT.
Any person who is prosecuted by LEO is, by default, an adversary
Being willfully obtuse can work ... until it becomes obvious. Then it's simply sophomoric.
The point is prejudiciously targeting an adversary as rationale for the charge, not bringing a fairly wrought charge into an adversarial court proceeding.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:24 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Usage is worthless w/o meaning/definition in the communication.
No it's not.
Again, we can get away from the term people are emotionally attached to in lawfare and use racism.
It's a nonsense word with many uses, one of which is to silence opposition. The malleability and infinite definitions don't affect that usage.
It has cultural cache within a specific population who repeats the phrase for the intended purpose. This is how NPCs and echo chambers work.
quote:
I can tell folks you are a 'daflakmogolier,' but the term is worthless w/o an associated meaning/definition in the communication.
-communication
+culture
That word has no cultural cache (as of this post)
If you had the people pushing words/concepts into the echo chambers include that word, it would, over time.
Also, it doesn't even require the terms to lack definitions. The connotation within the culture is all that's required for the intended usage, even if the connotation is incompatible with the universal definition. Two great examples of this in the Trump era are "sedition" and "treason". Just think how often you see people mis-use those terms, but the usage is universal.
One of the new ones being pushed in the MAGA echo chambers is "color revolution". The NPCs don't know what this is, either, but you're seeing them use it more and more as the election heats up, for obvious reasons.
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News