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
Posted on 10/21/26 at 3:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Why? you don't -- but that doesn't stop you from commenting on content... remember?
Did you watch the video?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 4:02 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
You. Here. For years.
"I've never said it doesn't exist, I've just always argued against its existence no matter how suspicious/outlandish/odd the behavior. And the fact that my posting habits has given everyone else the wrong impression is evidence their comprehension is lacking, not that I am expressing myself improperly. In short: everyone else is the problem, not me."
- SFPLC
Posted on 10/21/26 at 4:18 pm to Azkiger
Lol
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If people broke the law, should they be prosecuted?
its posts like these where I'm convinced youre not very bright
In the Fani Willis case, how many people were convicted? None. 4 people pled prior to conviction, and then the entire case got tossed
So who broke the law in this case? No one. The people that pled did so out of fear, and to avoid being financially bankrupted
And that is the point of lawfare. We may not convict you, but we will make it to where you will never seek to lead in govt again. While also sending a strong signal to anyone else that wants to take the reins of govt
So insinuating that lawfare is about breaking the law is BS on your part. Its about controlling access to govt rule by the blue controlled regions of our nation
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:31 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
In the Fani Willis case, how many people were convicted? None. 4 people pled prior to conviction, and then the entire case got tossed
So who broke the law in this case? No one.
That case wasn't determined on the merits
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:32 pm to Lg
quote:
So joining the Trump administration is now considered "breaking the law"?
Yeah, he outmaneuvered himself on that one.
If this were a soccer match, he just achieved an own goal.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:32 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
I'm sorry..... did the entire DOJ turn over when Trump was elected? The FBI agents who railroaded him? From the same bureau as Peter Strzok? And when did the initial interviews start? Trumps AG dropped the idiotic case too didn't he?
Now you're making the concept much more complicated to create a singular definition
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:33 pm to Cromulent
quote:
He intentionally tries to derail every thread he enters.
How can I derail a thread that was already derailed with the original post? It was off the rails at its conception
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:33 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
You. Here. For years.
This is not true
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:34 pm to Flats
quote:
His take on lawfare has always been thus.
This thread has proven my stance on "lawfare" correct
How many different definitions in this thread alone? 6? 7?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yet it was brought. It was fought. It was allowed by the courts to impact reputation of the target. It was a clear attack on a political party enemy. It was costly to defend, and it was allowed to drag on for years in those efforts ... all wrought without merit.
That case wasn't determined on the merits
Let's repeat that, because it is pretty damn important!
All of those state-funded attacks on a private citizen forced to fund his own defense, were brought without merit.
That is one shitty system.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Now you're making the concept much more complicated to create a singular definition
oh my damn at the hypocrisy with this statement. I can't believe even you had the balls to claim that. 
No. You are again deflecting.
Fourth time... does any of that meet the definition I gave?
This post was edited on 10/21/26 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 10/21/26 at 5:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This thread has proven my stance on "lawfare" correct
Because you proclaim it?
Then why are you deflecting?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 6:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How many different definitions in this thread alone? 6? 7?
and?
e.g., What is the definition of "Run"?
quote:
Now, I could easily triple the length of that list. It does not impact the accuracy of the multiple definitions. Not does it invalidate the term "Run".
You note 6-7 ""definitions"" of Lawfare. So what?
This post was edited on 10/21/26 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 10/21/26 at 6:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yet it was brought. It was fought. It was allowed by the courts to impact reputation of the target. It was a clear attack on a political party enemy. It was costly to defend, and it was allowed to drag on for years in those efforts ... all wrought without merit.
We don't know if it was with or without merit, as the case wasn't determined on the merits.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 6:03 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
oh my damn at the hypocrisy with this statement.
There is no hypocrisy
quote:
You are again deflecting.
Nope
Posted on 10/21/26 at 6:03 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Because you proclaim it?
I'm not the one who keeps adding new definitions
Posted on 10/21/26 at 6:05 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You note 6-7 ""definitions"" of Lawfare. So what?
My stance is the term is completely malleable without any sort of singular, objective definition. It changes for the need/example/person.
So having multiple conflicting definitions in a thread so short is proving my point in real time. This ignores the literal hundreds of others given over the past 6-8 years
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News