Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(11-20-2021, 10:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 10:42 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]When is Tulsi Gabbard going to switch parties?

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/...35840?s=20

I think she takes it a bit to far.  When a large section of the community feels a crime has been committed, there should be a trial.  The alternative is worse, when the people feel totally unheard.

No, no no.   Our judicial system should not be making decisions based "a large section" of the community's opinion.  Think it through.  

Here's an example.  A large section of the community thinks voter fraud has occurred.  Should there be a trial, regardless of whether there is any actual evidence?  Or should the judge follow the law and the (lack of) evidence and throw the case out of court?

(11-20-2021, 10:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 10:42 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]When is Tulsi Gabbard going to switch parties?

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/...35840?s=20

I think she takes it a bit to far.  When a large section of the community feels a crime has been committed, there should be a trial.  The alternative is worse, when the people feel totally unheard.

She got stomped when she ran for president.

(11-20-2021, 03:26 PM)Jag88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 10:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think she takes it a bit to far.  When a large section of the community feels a crime has been committed, there should be a trial.  The alternative is worse, when the people feel totally unheard.

She got stomped when she ran for president.

Eviscerating Cackles in the debate didn’t help her cause with the identity politics dems.

(11-20-2021, 03:59 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 03:26 PM)Jag88 Wrote: [ -> ]She got stomped when she ran for president.

Eviscerating Cackles in the debate didn’t help her cause with the identity politics dems.

Yeah, because being a Samoan Hindu isn't minority enough to succeed in the Party of Grievance.

(11-20-2021, 04:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 03:59 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Eviscerating Cackles in the debate didn’t help her cause with the identity politics dems.

Yeah, because being a Samoan Hindu isn't minority enough to succeed in the Party of Grievance.

Her skin isn’t dark enough. Pocahontas Warren ruined it for all the white minorities.

(11-20-2021, 03:10 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 10:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think she takes it a bit to far.  When a large section of the community feels a crime has been committed, there should be a trial.  The alternative is worse, when the people feel totally unheard.

No, no no.   Our judicial system should not be making decisions based "a large section" of the community's opinion.  Think it through.  

Here's an example.  A large section of the community thinks voter fraud has occurred.  Should there be a trial, regardless of whether there is any actual evidence?  Or should the judge follow the law and the (lack of) evidence and throw the case out of court?

There were hearings on election fraud. Many hearings.

(11-20-2021, 04:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 03:10 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]No, no no.   Our judicial system should not be making decisions based "a large section" of the community's opinion.  Think it through.  

Here's an example.  A large section of the community thinks voter fraud has occurred.  Should there be a trial, regardless of whether there is any actual evidence?  Or should the judge follow the law and the (lack of) evidence and throw the case out of court?

There were hearings on election fraud. Many hearings.

Trials?

(11-20-2021, 04:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 03:10 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]No, no no.   Our judicial system should not be making decisions based "a large section" of the community's opinion.  Think it through.  

Here's an example.  A large section of the community thinks voter fraud has occurred.  Should there be a trial, regardless of whether there is any actual evidence?  Or should the judge follow the law and the (lack of) evidence and throw the case out of court?

There were hearings on election fraud. Many hearings.

Preliminary hearings, no trials, cases thrown out.  Here's another hypothetical.  Suppose a "large section" of this community, the duvalpride message board community, think what you write is obscene and you should be banned.  Should you be banned, or should the moderators say, no, he hasn't broken any rules, so we will defy this "large section" of this community and let Mikesez stick around.  

Should we go by the rules or should we bend with the wind, and every time a "large section of the community" thinks a crime has occurred, bring the case to trial, as you have advocated?  Do we have mob rule or do we have the rule of law in this country?

Mikey doesn't care about the tyranny of the majority. It doesn't exist in his mind. Even though that's what causes all of the "oppression" of the minority class. They talk out of both sides of their mouth.

(11-20-2021, 05:25 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 04:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There were hearings on election fraud. Many hearings.

Preliminary hearings, no trials, cases thrown out.  Here's another hypothetical.  Suppose a "large section" of this community, the duvalpride message board community, think what you write is obscene and you should be banned.  Should you be banned, or should the moderators say, no, he hasn't broken any rules, so we will defy this "large section" of this community and let Mikesez stick around.  

Should we go by the rules or should we bend with the wind, and every time a "large section of the community" thinks a crime has occurred, bring the case to trial, as you have advocated?  Do we have mob rule or do we have the rule of law in this country?

If someone appeals to the moderator, the moderator should respond.  "No, he hasn't broken any rules," or "yes I see what you mean, he is warned/banned."

(11-20-2021, 09:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 05:25 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Preliminary hearings, no trials, cases thrown out.  Here's another hypothetical.  Suppose a "large section" of this community, the duvalpride message board community, think what you write is obscene and you should be banned.  Should you be banned, or should the moderators say, no, he hasn't broken any rules, so we will defy this "large section" of this community and let Mikesez stick around.  

Should we go by the rules or should we bend with the wind, and every time a "large section of the community" thinks a crime has occurred, bring the case to trial, as you have advocated?  Do we have mob rule or do we have the rule of law in this country?

If someone appeals to the moderator, the moderator should respond.  "No, he hasn't broken any rules," or "yes I see what you mean, he is warned/banned."

So wouldn't that be the same as a prosecutor saying, no, this guy hasn't broken any law, so we are not going to bring him to trial?

(11-21-2021, 07:10 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 09:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If someone appeals to the moderator, the moderator should respond.  "No, he hasn't broken any rules," or "yes I see what you mean, he is warned/banned."

So wouldn't that be the same as a prosecutor saying, no, this guy hasn't broken any law, so we are not going to bring him to trial?

Ding. Ding. Ding.

(11-21-2021, 07:10 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2021, 09:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If someone appeals to the moderator, the moderator should respond.  "No, he hasn't broken any rules," or "yes I see what you mean, he is warned/banned."

So wouldn't that be the same as a prosecutor saying, no, this guy hasn't broken any law, so we are not going to bring him to trial?

A moderator is like a judge and a prosecutor combined.
Sometimes the charges are serious and ambiguous enough that it's not appropriate for a prosecutor to say that no crime has been committed, a judge or a jury should be called in.

I think this is a fair comparison:
First we had the Rittenhouse trial, where he was found not guilty by reason of self defense. This precipitated massive protests all over the country. All because a white kid dared defend his town from rioters and was attacked and shot 3 white guys in self defense.
Next we have Coffee, who was charged with the murder of his girlfriend. This case did not get much publicity. this was a case of the police executed a no knock warrant and he shot at the cops and they returned fire killing his girlfriend. The warrant was executed as a dangerous felon dealing drugs. Coffee was a felon with a weapon. Coffee was found not guilty by reason of self defense. Where are the protests over Coffee???? the outrage??? oh right, Coffee is black.
kyle was presumed guilty by the MSM. (why was a white kid carrying a gun at a peaceful demonstration if he was there to provide first aid/)
Coffee was presumed innocent by the MSM. (the poor black guy had the cops bust in on him and his girlfriend while they were sleeping).
Rittenhouse could not use the usual fundraising sources because he was declared dangerous. (why does a white kid need to raise funds, he is part of the rich white establishment)
Coffee had no problem raising funds using the usual platforms. (ohhh we need to help the poor black guy).
fb and youtube censored anything that said that Kyle was innocent.
fb and youtube censored anything that said Coffee was guilty.
Are you starting to see a pattern here??? 2 cases of self defense, decided by the msm and big tech differently.
so where are the riots that Coffee was found not guilty by reason of self defense?

http://veronews.com/2021/11/19/jury-find...r-charges/

(11-21-2021, 01:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2021, 07:10 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]So wouldn't that be the same as a prosecutor saying, no, this guy hasn't broken any law, so we are not going to bring him to trial?

A moderator is like a judge and a prosecutor combined.
Sometimes the charges are serious and ambiguous enough that it's not appropriate for a prosecutor to say that no crime has been committed, a judge or a jury should be called in.

Give it up. Your original premise was wrong.

(11-21-2021, 03:49 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]I think this is a fair comparison:
First we had the Rittenhouse trial, where he was found not guilty by reason of self defense. This precipitated massive protests all over the country. All because a white kid dared defend his town from rioters and was attacked and shot 3 white guys in self defense.
Next we have Coffee, who was charged with the murder of his girlfriend. This case did not get much publicity. this was a case of the police executed a no knock warrant and he shot at the cops and they returned fire killing his girlfriend. The warrant was executed as a dangerous felon dealing drugs. Coffee was a felon with a weapon. Coffee was found not guilty by reason of self defense. Where are the protests over Coffee???? the outrage??? oh right, Coffee is black.
kyle was presumed guilty by the MSM. (why was a white kid carrying a gun at a peaceful demonstration if he was there to provide first aid/)
Coffee was presumed innocent by the MSM. (the poor black guy had the cops bust in on him and his girlfriend while they were sleeping).
Rittenhouse could not use the usual fundraising sources because he was declared dangerous. (why does a white kid need to raise funds, he is part of the rich white establishment)
Coffee had no problem raising funds using the usual platforms. (ohhh we need to help the poor black guy).
fb and youtube censored anything that said that Kyle was innocent.
fb and youtube censored anything that said Coffee was guilty.
Are you starting to see a pattern here??? 2 cases of self defense, decided by the msm and big tech differently.
so where are the riots that Coffee was found not guilty by reason of self defense?

http://veronews.com/2021/11/19/jury-find...r-charges/

Both cases have clear precedent that their actions were not criminal. It's sad that liberals just can't follow the laws and want to use feelings to determine who should be guilty.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

It's not about feelings. It's about power. Always remember that. For the people who support the power-hungry left, sure it's about feelings, but make no mistake what it's really about.

Watching the Rittenhouse interview. It looks like Joe Biden and the MSM will be financing Rittenhouse’s comfortable new life. Thank you, Nicholas Sandmann.

(11-22-2021, 09:38 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Watching the Rittenhouse interview. It looks like Joe Biden and the MSM will be financing Rittenhouse’s comfortable new life. Thank you, Nicholas Sandmann.

As well they should be. I would lay waste to all of them. "Scorched earth" would be an understatement. These people need to learn and if it's on their knees then so be it.