Jump to content

IGotWorms

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    63,393

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    66

Posts posted by IGotWorms

  2. Posted

    8 hours ago, jerryskids said:

    Well actually, I spent most of yesterday golfing.  Shot a 90 -- tee to green I could have maybe broken 80, but my short game was shiot.  That's what happens when you don't play enough. 

    But thanks for the concern.

    Also I thought my response to the tl;dr was funny, in part because you said tl;dr to a post that basically called you a not very good lawyer, and you didn't even bother to read it.  I'm not sure what that puts me on tilt.

    I'd have to go back and reread the "bot" comment I responded to.  I imagine it was stupid, though, given my comment. :dunno: 

    I've honestly been trying to welcome Dozer here.  He's a liberal like you, you should encourage my behavior.  I think he would agree that I've been doing so.

    Glad your golf game is going well :cheers:

     

    (For me, 80 or even 90 would be great)

  3. Posted

    1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

    I'm on tilt? Great detective work, counselor. :lol:

     


    You spent most of yesterday lashing out at pretty much everyone in here, bud :( 

     

    19 hours ago, jerryskids said:

    He said you aren't a very good pretend lawyer.

     

    15 hours ago, jerryskids said:

    Nobody is this stupid, you must be a bot.  So, greetings, bot.  :dunno: 

     

    13 hours ago, jerryskids said:

    I've tried to welcome you as a poster here, despite the advice of numerous other posters.  But I don't know what to do with your initial post.

    "But the orange man is bad, right?"  What response to you expect from this?  Do you want me to say that it's OK for NY to dredge up old cases that both the feds and prior NY admins rightfully decided were nothingburgers, but the current admin decided that "orange man is bad, right?", so here we are, prosecuting the Republican POTUS candidate for it?  Sorry, I won't sign up for that.

    Help me help you, if I'm missing something.

     

  4. Posted

    2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    Because your house is going for top dollar right now? If you’re downsizing and old why would you want a mortgage at all? Why don’t you people ever read the whole thing? 

    Ideally, yes. But it seems many boomers did not plan that well

  5. Posted

    17 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    A big problem is boomers not selling their houses as they age. My subdivision has about 30 houses and over half of them are older people with no kids or adult children 

    If you’ve got a mortgage at 2.5% why would you want to “downsize” to a 7% mortgage that would cost you as much or more for a smaller, sh1tier house? That’s a big part of the issue there, but time will heal that as people eventually HAVE to move — hell, to the cemetery if nowhere else in between 

  8. Posted

    3 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

    I think most lawyers, most judges, most decent law school professors would agree with me.  For instance I could criticise and insult this judge or any member of SCOTUS right now and what are they going to do about it.  Now if I criticise or take umbrage with their rulings whil in their coiurts they may not appreciate it, but if i insult them personally or their staff they can hold me in contempt.  As for threats, wel threats have never been considered actionable threats unless the person had the present means of carrying out the threat.  I understood you are a lawyer, you should know this, it should not surprise you.  Perhaps I remembered wrong and you are not a lawyer.

     

    This judge's attempts to stiffle Trump are bsed, to my understanding, primarily on the theory that Trump ought not be allowed to taint the jury pool.  It is a highly unusual ruling where I judge is concerned only about one side tainting the pool.  I get why that is the case with trump but the court's order would be strongdr if it were bilateral.  Much stronger.  now the bilateral nature of the ruling would not really matterf if the prosecution were obeying norms,, it would in fact be irrelevant as a matter of fact, but as a mattder of law it would be a correct order.

    Thjere is also the considertion that truthful statementsare not threats, insults or criticism.  I understand that mixed in among Trumps angry outburst are some nuggets of truth.  If the Judge does not want his adult daughter being characterized as what she is, a democrat operative, then she can change her profession or he can recuse himself.

    I do not tht this judge is trying mightily to allow voir dire to empanel a well vetted jury panel which should in theory be fair.  In a trial such as this, however, I have doubts that can be accomplished, but so far his efforts in this regard seem unusually thorough. 

    tl;dr :blink:

  9. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

     

     

     

    You two guys really need to read the indictment, there isn't much about the attack on the Capitol. It's concentrates on the fake elector scheme.  


     

    HTH

     

    The fake electors thing is a slam dunk. His only hope is to say he was relying on the advice of counsel, but really — can anyone have possibly thought that was kosher? No effin’ way

  10. Posted

    1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    Not really. I don’t recall it being a factor in 2020. 

    So in a presidential election where abortion is going to be a key issue, the democrats are not going to reference a famous statement, by the guy who took away abortion rights, that he likes to “grab em by the pvssy”?

    You serious??

    You’re flailing man. Need to go back to the well and find something better than Barron’s quinceanera and Billy Bush 

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    1 minute ago, jonmx said:

    We empowered our government to protect CITIZENS.   Black mobs have attacked hundreds of businesses.  If our government don't protect citizens, fuk the Capitol.   Congressmen are not kings.  They are servants.  That is what you bootlickers do not understand.   Your tongue is so far up the elitists butts, you have no concept of the principles our country was founded on.   We have to stop putting these bastards on pedestals.  They are just citizens, their rights are not superior to ours.  Equal Protection under the law.  

    You need some new material 🥱 

  13. Posted

    5 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

    He still has another year after this one.  The thing is, he only has 1 full year as a starter under his belt.  His first year, he only played 5 games.  There isn't a team in the league who'll give him a $60M AAV (or even $40M AAV), after 27 total games.  He needs to play this year.  Next year, that's a different story.

    I disagree. He could get RGIII’d or Alex Smithed this year so he does need to make sure he gets something out of this whole thing. Even if it’s just a big bump for this year he can’t be playing for 1/2 mill or whatever it is.

    And I do think he would command a big payday on the market. Certainly many many multitudes of what he is currently slated to make. Teams mortgage their whole next few years for a completely unproved draft pick — why not for a guy that was damn near league MVP last year??

  14. Posted

    Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

    It’s not about the jury. This is about the election. If you don’t see that you need to call that Cracker Jack box you got your law degree out of and ask for a refund. 

    Okay — you think that access Hollywood tape wasn’t coming back up in the election? 😂

  15. Posted

    21 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    Or bring it up to drag Trump through the mud. And you think this is about justice.   But you hate the defendant so you’ll excuse any and all prosecutorial malfeasance.  

    Drag him through the mud where? The jury ain’t gonna hear it, that’s been decided. The public has known about it all along — it wasn’t exactly a well hidden secret! :lol:

    You're grasping at straws here, bud 

  16. Posted

    21 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    If this trial is about campaign finances then why did the prosecution want the access Hollywood tapes introduced as evidence? What does that have to do with it? The judge didn’t allow it, but that’s a clear indication that this is about dragging Trump through the mud, not justice. 

    M.o., state of mind, that sort of thing.

    And of course it wasn’t going to be allowed. But you can’t blame them for trying.

  19. Posted

    1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

    No, criticizing Officers of the Court is free speech.

    Insulting Officers of the Court is free speech if it occurs outside the courtroom.  Inside the courtroom it is disruptive of proceedings and is subject to the control of the Court.

    Threats, legal threats, threats that are clear and present are actionable.  Veiled threats where one has to surmise the threat, those are not actionable.

    Can’t believe that’s really your argument

×