Jump to content
 

Matt Skiba Appreciation Thread


Scott.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

You moved the goalposts and reverted to a different law to try and make your case. That's like me saying "Well it is legal to drink over 21 in the USA, and the guy was 23 so its fine" and you countered with, "Well its not legal to drink and drive".

Clearly you must be trolling. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. This is legally so so so basic.

Explain what you're talking about by "different law"? When you're the POTUS, and you say something without any qualifying words like "I think", "I feel", "they should", etc. then of course it's going to come off as a command/assertion based on that inherent authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kvothe said:

Explain what you're talking about by "different law"? When you're the POTUS, and you say something without any qualifying words like "I think", "I feel", "they should", etc. then of course it's going to come off as a command/assertion based on that inherent authority. 

Being indicted for murder and being indicted for a threat to murder, are two different laws. Obviously.

The president has no power to influence the NFL. In fact, they are more likely to do the opposite of what he said and in the past have actually said he's an idiot.

There is no influence, therefore no law violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

Being indicted for murder and being indicted for a threat to murder, are two different laws. Obviously.

The president has no power to influence the NFL. In fact, they are more likely to do the opposite of what he said and in the past have actually said he's an idiot.

There is no influence, therefore no law violation.

Oh I see what you mean by the different law comment now. That was in relation to your post:

On 8/12/2018 at 6:34 PM, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

It is free speech.

Threats don't = breaking that law. I mean cmon dude. You know the law. Stop trolling. I can't say "I am going to murder you" and be charged with murder.

You can't be serious right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yeah, threats do violate the law. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the law. 

Are you telling me that if the POTUS says something that, on its face, appears to be serious and has no indication of opinion, we shouldn't take it seriously and treat it as free speech? That's a very liberal statutory interpretation of free speech. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Kvothe said:

So yeah, threats do violate the law. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the law. 

Are you telling me that if the POTUS says something that, on its face, appears to be serious and has no indication of opinion, we shouldn't take it seriously and treat it as free speech? That's a very liberal statutory interpretation of free speech. 

 

It seems that YOU don't have a firm grasp of the law, which is honestly VERY VERY Bizarre.

Maybe its different up there, maybe you are just trolling. I am not sure.

But threats are usually measured by intent. Described as "true threats". You'd have to prove that Trump has a true intent of acting on that threat. I asked you to provide with me with this, and so far you've been totally unable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

It seems that YOU don't have a firm grasp of the law, which is honestly VERY VERY Bizarre.

Maybe its different up there, maybe you are just trolling. I am not sure.

But threats are usually measured by intent. Described as "true threats". You'd have to prove that Trump has a true intent of acting on that threat. I asked you to provide with me with this, and so far you've been totally unable.

You created an analogy to murder and how threats don't break the law. I countered because they do; your analogy failed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kvothe said:

You created an analogy to murder and how threats don't break the law. I countered because they do; your analogy failed. 

So now you are dodging this entire thing.

Like I said, so strange. You should be able to rip me apart with your legal knowledge. My Uncle is a lawyer and I am damn certain he could come in here in less than a sentence and tear me to shreds. Even if he was wrong, he could give me stuff I simply couldn't refute. Because thats what lawyers get paid the big bucks to be able to do.

I've given you a golden opportunity and its just strange you haven't taken the offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

So now you are dodging this entire thing.

Like I said, so strange. You should be able to rip me apart with your legal knowledge. My Uncle is a lawyer and I am damn certain he could come in here in less than a sentence and tear me to shreds. Even if he was wrong, he could give me stuff I simply couldn't refute. Because thats what lawyers get paid the big bucks to be able to do.

I've given you a golden opportunity and its just strange you haven't taken the offer.

I've addressed your points as they arise and pointed out how your analogy is erroneous. You're the one that drew attention to the analogy based on how I had applied the wrong law, which I just refuted.

I see a pattern of you reverting back to ad hominem attacks, which is the equivalent of holding up a white flag. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to barge in, but I just wanted to say that to measure the intent one must take into account the personal (and physical) conditions of the person who makes the threat, and their authority too. They have to be very serious about it and what's more serious than a statement from the president?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Elisa said:

Sorry to barge in, but I just wanted to say that to measure the intent one must take into account the personal (and physical) conditions of the person who makes the threat, and their authority too. They have to be very serious about it and what's more serious than a statement from the president?

 

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with his authority. 

It is a head scratcher that Oliver will make up excuse after excuse to justify Trump's behaviour. I really don't get it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kvothe said:

I've addressed your points as they arise and pointed out how your analogy is erroneous. You're the one that drew attention to the analogy based on how I had applied the wrong law, which I just refuted.

I see a pattern of you reverting back to ad hominem attacks, which is the equivalent of holding up a white flag. 

I don't need to use ad hominem attacks to win this or any argument.

But I use them in this case, because it is just so strange. I am literally blown away by it and that is not an exaggeration.

What you wrote above is just a bunch of double talk, trying to use big words, and saying virtually nothing.

 

Its simple Casey, prove that Trump plans to use any authority to act on this threat. Tell me specifically how he will do it. That simple. Why is it taking you so many posts and so many pages to provide me with a single shred of evidence. I am really confused man. Just a link. Something. Anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kvothe said:

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with his authority. 

It is a head scratcher that Oliver will make up excuse after excuse to justify Trump's behaviour. I really don't get it. 

Lies and bullshit. I've trashed Trump plenty of times. Literally how many fucking times do I have to say I think he is a complete moron for that to sink in?

 

On the contrary it is YOU who will use any excuse in the book to try to claim he is terrible.

There is only one biased person in this conversation, and it isn't me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

I don't need to use ad hominem attacks to win this or any argument.

But I use them in this case, because it is just so strange. I am literally blown away by it and that is not an exaggeration.

What you wrote above is just a bunch of double talk, trying to use big words, and saying virtually nothing.

 

Its simple Casey, prove that Trump plans to use any authority to act on this threat. Tell me specifically how he will do it. That simple. Why is it taking you so many posts and so many pages to provide me with a single shred of evidence. I am really confused man. Just a link. Something. Anything.

So you use ad hominem attacks anyways just to be a dick? I don't get it.

What I wrote above makes perfect sense, especially in relation to our previous exchanges.

Now you want me to get inside Trump's head to figure out what he meant by making that statement, which is obviously impossible, never mind that subjective views like that are inherently problematic to begin with. I'm using an objective view; i.e. how would the reasonable person interpret that statement that Kyle posted. The reasonable person would believe that you would need a qualifying word to imply it was just his opinion on the matter, which is absent in his statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kvothe said:

So you use ad hominem attacks anyways just to be a dick? I don't get it.

What I wrote above makes perfect sense, especially in relation to our previous exchanges.

Now you want me to get inside Trump's head to figure out what he meant by making that statement, which is obviously impossible, never mind that subjective views like that are inherently problematic to begin with. I'm using an objective view; i.e. how would the reasonable person interpret that statement that Kyle posted. The reasonable person would believe that you would need a qualifying word to imply it was just his opinion on the matter, which is absent in his statement. 

I get your point on the wording. But working doesn't make it against that specific law.

I could post right now as a government official: "Casey, support Trump or be fired", and there is no legal recourse there. Why? Because I don't have the authority to take action on that statement.

 

Once again, Trump has absolutely no authority to take action on that statement. Nor is there any proof he has.

 

IT IS NOT ACTIONABLE. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know this and are just trolling me. I mean in a legal sense; its as basic as an auto mechanic knowing how to change oil in a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

I get your point on the wording. But working doesn't make it against that specific law.

I could post right now as a government official: "Casey, support Trump or be fired", and there is no legal recourse there. Why? Because I don't have the authority to take action on that statement.

 

Once again, Trump has absolutely no authority to take action on that statement. Nor is there any proof he has.

 

IT IS NOT ACTIONABLE. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know this and are just trolling me. I mean in a legal sense; its as basic as an auto mechanic knowing how to change oil in a car.

Going back to Trump's quote on NFL players - you do realize that Kyle and I said he was trying to penalize NFL players. You have to factor in the word 'trying.' Whatever way you've interpreted that is on you. 


Keep on building up your straw man to prop yourself up though. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oliver's new thing is to demean people's qualifications under the obviously false pretense that he is smarter.

He's doing it to Casey with the legal stuff, has done it to me with history, has done it to a financial advisor, and I'm sure there's plenty other examples over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ghent said:

Oliver's new thing is to demean people's qualifications under the obviously false pretense that he is smarter.

He's doing it to Casey with the legal stuff, has done it to me with history, has done it to a financial advisor, and I'm sure there's plenty other examples over the years.

It really just shows his insecurities. He's also hypocritical because when we were debating climate change, he flat out said he knew more than us because he had taken some meteorology courses in college (which in itself is a logical fallacy, being an appeal to authority/accomplishment). To summarize, we know nothing based on our two degrees, but he knows more based on his various meteorology courses from his incomplete Bachelor's degree. 

I'm not trying to say those with more education/degrees = smarter, just to clarify. Just addressing Oliver's hypocrisy is all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...