I will say that I would be ok with some more rules around lobbying. Stuff can get crazy.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
"personal hospitality". BS. He won't be held accountable though...
He says "I was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable."
For three decades, Crow has served on the board of trustees of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which has published and taken credit for multiple amicus briefs filed with the supreme court by the group’s president and scholars.
Crow joined the AEI in 1996, the same year he said he became friends with Thomas.
I have relatives in DC/VA who worked on the hill as well at firms which do lobbying and it's all disgusting.
especially the bribery lobby, which seeks to legitimize the marginally legal bribery that lobbyists conduct. But look the other way on that for now, a conservative judge having a wealthy friend is looking more and more like an insurrection, a scheme to take the country down and replace the leadership with neo-Nazis and motorcycle gangs.
We need some televised hearings. And people showing up on objectionable SCOTUS judges private property.
Speaking of lobbying, Thank You for Smoking is a must watch. Aaron Eckhart is an underated actor.
The dude accepted lavish gifts from a political party lobbyist. He didn’t refuse himself from a case that his wife was actively involved in. Whether or not there’s a smoking gun that it affected rulings is irrelevant. It’s just plain wrong. How can anyone be ok with that? Smfh.
not picking on your post, but I honestly can't see the significance in how long it was after he bought the weapon that he decided to use it.
who was the lobbyist and what gifts did he receive?
There is no smoking gun regarding his friend who happens to be a big donor to the GOP, because he had no case before him pertaining to the gift-giver. In other words, even if he had the most determined intent to rule on behalf of his friend, there was no opportunity for him to do so; and therefor no reason to assume that he wouldn't have recused himself.
About his wife. She was actively involved in giving her opinion, and not with any suspected criminal activity wherein her fate might be subject to his influence. Or am I missing something? What exactly was he supposed to recuse himself from, sharing an opinion or outlook with someone else?
A SC justice sees cases all the time where personal opinions and opposing politics have to be shelved in order to see the merits according to the law objectively. They have to be trusted to do this except when they have a direct stake in the outcome...and even then it's more a matter of how it looks.
da lo down
"Ginni Thomas, a lawyer and conservative activist, spoke to the House of Representatives Select Committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021, in September, though she wasn't named in the 845-page committee report."
Is it possible that all the criticism of him over this is coming from (the usual) biased sources? Who ever heard of such a thing, lol?
And finally, would this face lie to you?
I'm ok with it as long as there was no impact on his rulings. If he made a decision because of some type of bribe, then he should be thrown out.
Maybe I’ve been naive about these judges and have held them to an impossible standard. I’ve always felt safe and secure in thinking they were above the political fray. This makes me doubt that. But it’s not a hill I’m gonna die on.who was the lobbyist and what gifts did he receive?
There is no smoking gun regarding his friend who happens to be a big donor to the GOP, because he had no case before him pertaining to the gift-giver. In other words, even if he had the most determined intent to rule on behalf of his friend, there was no opportunity for him to do so; and therefor no reason to assume that he wouldn't have recused himself.
About his wife. She was actively involved in giving her opinion, and not with any suspected criminal activity wherein her fate might be subject to his influence. Or am I missing something? What exactly was he supposed to recuse himself from, sharing an opinion or outlook with someone else?
A SC justice sees cases all the time where personal opinions and opposing politics have to be shelved in order to see the merits according to the law objectively. They have to be trusted to do this except when they have a direct stake in the outcome...and even then it's more a matter of how it looks.
da lo down
"Ginni Thomas, a lawyer and conservative activist, spoke to the House of Representatives Select Committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021, in September, though she wasn't named in the 845-page committee report."
Is it possible that all the criticism of him over this is coming from (the usual) biased sources? Who ever heard of such a thing, lol?
And finally, would this face lie to you?
There are phenomenally smart and good judges who honestly try to do what you ask. But they are all human and flawed and come to the table with their own thoughts and perspectives. You should read a book called The Brethren by Bob Woodward (of WP/Watergate fame) sometime. It was a behind the scenes look into the the inner workings of the Court and all the personal bs that gets involved. While it's dated as it was published in the late 70's and all the players have changed, the dynamics are surely no different. And, it has incredible insight on how the Roe case played out amongst others.
You will never look at the process the same ever again.
This is often the issue with your thinking about solutions to a problem. The complaint has nothing to do with reality and is really about another agenda.
SO WHAT? What if it was 7 days? Or 10? Or 25? Or a year? Or 6 minutes? How would the result have been any different? I'm sure in your mind it's a certainty that if he only had purchased the firearm a year ago, this would never have happened. That's what you are suggesting? Don't forget that he purchased it 6 days before and received it. I've seen nothing that says he purchased the firearm and then had to WAIT 6 days before walking out of the store. Why didn't he leave the gun store and do this? Why not on day 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5? To quote you: WTF. Your comment is COMPLETELY misleading.
And you conveniently gloss over certain facts by complaining about this irrelevant and unconnected issue.
How about the fact that he legally purchased the firearm by going through a local dealer? This means he had to pass your vaunted background check.
How about the fact that he was merely a disgruntled employee about to be fired and his solution to losing his job is to go in and shoot up the place? That's what he thought was appropriate???? Instead of just getting another job, you think the problem here was the firearm or that he waited only six days to seek revenge?
How about the fact that he live streamed this and had all kinds of postings (that are interesting to say the least) including a lack of fondness for a former president? Again, the problem is the person and what he chose to do.
But rather than address the issue of people doing evil things and having no respect for life, keep whining about things that will only impact people who would never do this.
It is too easy to get guns on an urge during someone's emotional outrage or freakout.
Make this guy use a knife instead if he wants to lash-out immediately, or make him wait some time in which he might calm down, find help, be id'd as a red-flag candidate, etc.
Biden is really hitting a home run with foreign countries right now. Wow, what a great leader.
but how would you know he acted in an emotional rage when he bought the gun? To know he would use it six days later wouldn't require just a better background check, it would require a crystal ball.....and that doesn't matter anyway. What if he used it six months later, would that be better somehow, or reveal his mental state any differently ?
That's the point of my question. How would the fact that he used the gun only six days later indicate ANYthing before the fact about how easily or wrongfully he had obtained it? The guy was apparently deeply suicidal. Let's work on ferreting out these mental calamities before we start taking guns away. Instead of posting a cop in every school, maybe we should put a psychiatrist in every one.
(I know this wasn't a school shooting, I'm just saying....)
you take sheepin to a whole new level with your gun related death opinions. maybe just type out 10% of what comes to mind, lets see how that goes.
a lot of schools already have psychiatrists (called "Behavior Specialists"
) .
good post. Where people try to pin down the problematic workings of various institutions and professions and other endeavors, they are usually missing the boat. They should start with understanding the human nature that pervades them all. They accordingly should look at various undertakings as not how different they are from each other, but how similar they are. Because when humans are involved with anything at all, there will be a pattern of humans just being human.
Just add delays to the purchase process for everyone.... don't allow same day purchases or same day permit-to-purchase. Derp.
He learns he's about to be fired, so goes and buys a gun. The day after he's actually fired he goes postal. What would have happened in the three weeks or so of being gun-less if he'd had to wait a full month?
Time heals. If he's a schizo, maybe he'd get worse, but by making guns so readily available we enabled this mentally ill person to go postal.
I don’t understand why a cop would approach an active shooting event and just stroll up to the door in plain sight. It’s tragic he got shot in the head but wtf were they thinking? He had been on the force only ten days and he was spearheading the cops response? If I’m family I’m pissed af.
Really fortunate the killer didn't use that time to try to find other targets. The fire-fight was 4+ mins, which means the shooter only spent ~3 mins of shooting-up the lobby before deciding to sit and wait for cops.
“You need to get out of here,” the shooter is heard saying to the woman on the livestream, which has been taken down by Instagram’s parent company Meta.
The gunman then tries to shoot her in the back but can’t because the safety is on and the weapon still needs to be loaded, the official said. Once the shooter loads the weapon properly and takes the safety off, he shoots the worker in the back, the official said. Her condition is not known.
The assailant then continues his rampage, firing at workers while they tried to outrun him, the official said. The shooter does not go to other populated floors of the bank, the official said.
Once the shooter is done firing, he sits down in the lobby area that looks out onto East Main Street, apparently waiting for police, the official said.
The killer waits about a minute and a half before police arrive – a swift response praised by local leaders – and a gunfight ensues, the official said. The gunman was struck and killed.
The entire incident – from when the gunman started shooting to when he was killed – lasted about nine minutes, Louisville Police Lt. Col. Aaron Cromwell said.
“You need to get out of here,” the shooter is heard saying to the woman on the livestream, which has been taken down by Instagram’s parent company Meta.
The gunman then tries to shoot her in the back but can’t because the safety is on and the weapon still needs to be loaded, the official said. Once the shooter loads the weapon properly and takes the safety off, he shoots the worker in the back, the official said. Her condition is not known.
The assailant then continues his rampage, firing at workers while they tried to outrun him, the official said. The shooter does not go to other populated floors of the bank, the official said.
Once the shooter is done firing, he sits down in the lobby area that looks out onto East Main Street, apparently waiting for police, the official said.
The killer waits about a minute and a half before police arrive – a swift response praised by local leaders – and a gunfight ensues, the official said. The gunman was struck and killed.
The entire incident – from when the gunman started shooting to when he was killed – lasted about nine minutes, Louisville Police Lt. Col. Aaron Cromwell said.
I think conservatives have always been more interested in mental health than liberals. You can take that any way you want to (wink wink), but if more emphasis was placed on one's own health issues, including mental ones, then maybe we could stop throwing money at everyone else's to no avail.
I believe that our culture of making everyone else responsible for our well-being is a very large contributor to the situation we have. Certainly we should at least recognize that the deeper we go into that rabbit hole that liberals dwell in, the worse the problem becomes.
I'm not sure how you spend -3 minutes doing anything, but it should be apparent that the damage done here did not require an 'assault' rifle. Any rifle or maybe even a handgun would have been suitable. I mention this assuming that subject will dutifully appear.
derp? Time heals? LOL. What are you, president of the lonely hearts club? Time heals broken hearts, it doesn't heal mental illness. Somebody that goes off on people with a rifle has a deeper problem than a broken heart. If you avoid one incident by delaying the possession of a weapon, you aren't avoiding future ones.
well one possibility is that he would be killed by the assailant that he was buying the gun to protect himself from.
a Biden quote from some news article...
" "The best drop of blood in you is Irish.’ I remembered it, I promise you,” Biden joked in 2021. “[If] I didn’t, my grandmother, Geraldine Blewitt Finnegan, would take me down.” "
His grandmother's name was 'Blewitt' Finnegan. LMAO, of course it was. How perfectly appropriate.
0% approval from critics and audience members alike on the Tomatometer
Read the reviews:
- A most tedious and sophomoric comedy team, bluetoe and poopondook are too obnoxious and clueless to be taken serious. They excel in low-brow humor and mind-numbing idiocy. It's a wonder they can converse and put their pants on at the same time.
- This would-be comedy team quickly wears thin . . . painfully unfunny.
- Outrageously dumb and witless.
- The real snag is that they aren't even a funny mess; they're just plain bad. Please burn their material!
Last edited:
Once again, and again not shockingly, it went over your head. I made no joke. I was serious.
0% approval from critics and audience members alike on the Tomatometer
Read the reviews:
- A most tedious and sophomoric comedy team, bluetoe and poopondook are too obnoxious and clueless to be taken serious. They excel in low-brow humor and mind-numbing idiocy. It's a wonder they can converse and put their pants on at the same time.
- This would-be comedy team quickly wears thin . . . painfully unfunny.
- Outrageously dumb and witless.
- The real snag is that they aren't even a funny mess; they're just plain bad. Please burn them.
And sadly, you took all the time to do all of that.
uh, maybe you should just leave the humor to us. You're better at juvenile obnoxiousness.
If that's your level of reading comprehension, perhaps you should go outside and play while the adults have a discussion.
I feel ya, and I don't necessarily disagree. But I really feel for this guy and his family and I have no problem with the way he approached his duty, even considering that there might have been a safer but still effective approach. A cop should understand that danger comes with the job, just as this young guy did. As bad as this outcome was, it was heartening to see a cop trying to end the threat, and not just see a hundred cops taking cover outside according to plan, while victims are being slaughtered.
And if I understand correctly, his and his partners actions are what ended the ordeal.
I don't understand why average, law-abiding, citizens can't buy hand grenades. I don't think that's asking too much. It certainly is within the second amendment. I don't think that's debatable. I want to be able to get a bazooka, or an RPG, and the occasional tank, if I can afford it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
UNC Fires Mack/Coaching Search (Update 12-2, 8:30 PM: New intel added)
- Latest: andrew jones
-