Posts made by hubrys

@raphjd I hate to break it to you anti-woke zealots, but Disney's already reimagined Robin Hood as a red-furred fox.

@raphjd Your statement displays that you've never participated in a seizure of evidence under warrant or subpoena.

For example, a warrant will tell law enforcement to seize specific documents, but it will also include language that tells LE to seize any documents within the same container or containers stored similar to those containing named documents. This catch-all language is almost always included in warrants, and excess property is routinely seized. This is why the owner is given a receipt for all of the property seized, which Trump did, in fact, receive.

Were you under the impression that the FBI were going to pop a squat in the middle of the room and go thru each box of voluminous materials before removing them from the premises? Not even back at headquarters are the agents going thru the boxes. That's a task that some poor document review attorney had to do.

I'm sure you thought this was something, but you've got nothing here.

@raphjd As an attorney myself who realizes that every American, even the Devil himself, has a fundamental right to representation and that lawyers representing clients don't necessarily agree with their clients....

...I can imagine my reaction and I don't think it would be what you think it would be.

@raphjd To each of your points:

(1) The warrant was only necessary because Trump ignored and/or failed to comply with the subpoena.

(2) Whether all of the documents were declassified while Trump was still President is yet to be determined. Trump doesn't retain the power to classify or declassify documents after he's left office, and it isn't something he can just say, "If I brought it home, then ipso facto I declassified it." He will have to have done the official act.

(3) As far as I am aware, the only "documents" being returned are the three passports that were seized amongst the other documents.

And the thing which must be stated is that the potential crimes which may or may not be brought against Trump don't require the documents to have been classified. The fact that he has documents in his possession that belong to the People (i.e., the National Archives), then he's still committed a felony. A felony, by the way, that he strengthen while in office during his "Lock Her Up" frenzy.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mar-a-lago-search-fbi-threat-law-enforcement/

First, conservatives threaten to reduce funding to the FBI (you know, "defund the police"), and now the Right is threatening to murder law enforcement officers, judges, etc. But let's keep calling BLM the violent ones.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62527628

The FBI took 11 sets of classified files in a search of ex-US President Donald Trump's estate in Florida this week, according to a search warrant.

@raphjd So what?

@raphjd said in Raphael Warnock used campaign funds to fight a personal lawsuit: Report:

Try staying on topic

I've already explained why your "topic" is legally incorrect bullshit. The rest is just tricking you into displaying your pathological hypocrisy because you're a political hacky troll. You don't think people actually take you seriously or care about your opinions, do you?

Frankly, you're like one of those inflatable punching bag toys. We "liberals" just come here when we feel like punching a clown and to watch you wobble. And you never disappoint.

@raphjd said in Raphael Warnock used campaign funds to fight a personal lawsuit: Report:

Nice whatboutism

Actually, I don't recite Trump's campaign finance abuses to justify Warnock's alleged violations. I explained at the start why Warnock's use of funds was appropriate.

The Trump stuff was just to bait you into being your typical hypocritical self where you, as I suspected, glazed over Trump's violations while still being upset about Warnock's non-violation.

If you cared about campaign finance law, then you'd be upset about Trump's violations. You aren't, so you clearly don't actually care about campaign finance law. Your faux outrage is just your typical, hypocritical political hackery...as per your usual.

@raphjd The suit against Warnock is alleging First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment causes of action against Warnock, which would only apply if Warnock were being sued in his capacity as a governmental agent. I fail to see how use of campaign funds here is inappropriate.

Now, for example, spending $3.6 million in campaign donations defending against a purely sexual harassment suit would be the kind of thing that was illegal. You know, that thing ya boi Trump did.

Or the $1.5 million in campaign money spent litigating real estate disputes that ya boi Trump used.

Or the millions spend trying to enforce employment-based non-disclosure agreements against Omarosa, actress Jessica Denson, or Cliff Sims, a communications aide.

Looks like the Republicans are just getting desperate as Herschel Walker, Warnock's GOP rival, is getting investigated for spending campaign money before declaring himself a candidate and for undisclosedly coordinating political ads with Marjorie Taylor Greene.

@raphjd I don't love or hate The Epoch News; I don't have an opinion on it. Frankly, I had to look up what it was. I wouldn't go to The Epoch News for the same reason I wouldn't go to The Watchtower for news....it's a religious publication with whatever political slant the religion's leader has.

I imagine it's blocked in China because China banned the Falun Gong religion, and murders and organ-harvests its adherents.

I assume democrats (those that are even aware it exists) would have a negative opinion of it because it aligned itself with Donald Trump after he started spouting anti-China rhetoric...the Falun Gong religion being adversarial to China and all.

@raphjd said in California Court Rules Bees Are Fish:

Instead of fixing the dumb-ass law, the court makes the law even dumber.

"Judges should interpret the law, not make it." Isn't that what the Right is always saying? The rules of statutory interpretation say that specifically defined words within statutes should be interpreted according to the definitions of those words written by the legislature. Here, the Legislature defined the word "Fish" as "invertebrates." It didn't define them as "marine invertebrates," or "invertebrates that live in the water," or "those things served raw at sushi bars."

It simply defined them as "invertebrates." Guess what, insects are also invertebrates. This is the Legislature's failure, not the court's.

I'd love to hear a hard science explanation of gender (specifically, one that doesn't confuse the term with "sex"). Gender is an artifact, i.e., it is a creation of humankind. Any "scientific" statements about gender are "ought" statements spoken by someone committing the Ought/Is Fallacy of Reasoning. Nature cannot tell us what "ought" to be. It can only tell us what "is."

People inventing new genres of gender are just playing with the artificial nature of the concept of gender. Essentially at Deconstructionist critique of the concept, even if they themselves wouldn't call it that.

Just as society is becoming more Relativistic toward morality, it's also becoming more Relativistic about archaic concepts like gender and societal roles. @raphjd just can't deal with the fact that his notions are becoming obsolete.

@djsoapbubble said in What TV Series Has The Best Male Nudity?:

Just download the Hulu mini-series 'Pam & Tommy' and there is a full-frontal of Sebastian Stan's cock. It's funny as Tommy's cock and Tommy have conversations with each other, lol!

I don't like how shows like "Pam and Tommy" or "Minx" use fake dicks, aka penis puppets, for the male actors. I mean, I kind of get it for "Pam and Tommy," since you'd be limited to casting an actor with a large penis if you didn't fake it. But I wish male actors were encouraged to be naked in movies/shows instead of using prosthetics. Not solely because I want to see actors naked, but more because female actors are not usually using boob puppets when they're made to do nude scenes. If a woman has to show her tits, then the man has to show his cock.

The thing that I liked about Heartstoppers is that the main characters homosexuality and bisexuality are not defined by acts of sex. The two boys aren't portrayed as wanting to fuck each other...I mean, they're 14-15 years old. They just want to kiss and be with each other. So often, homosexual love is solely and exclusively portrayed as sex acts, as opposed to relationships between individuals.

@raphjd

Why has this been posted in the Politics and Debate section?

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

You only want to focus on a tiny part of the marriage equality push.

No, I just focus on the dominant, mainline push for marriage equality without tarring the whole group with something that, at best, may have been propounded by a small minority of marriage equality advocates.

Marriage equality advocates weren't seeking to empower the states to act because they had been losing in the states ever since the 1970's. You might not know, but in the late 1960's and early 1970's, gay men applied for marriage licenses from the states and it was ultimately determined that they could not be denied said marriage licenses because it wasn't illegal to issue them the licenses. Well, the homophobes corrected that mistake right away and between 1973 to 2000 every state in America (other than New Mexico) had enacted a statutory ban on same-sex marriage.

Then in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court, relying on Hawaii's state constitution decided Hawaii's ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's equal protection clause. Hawaii quickly fixed this problem by enacting a constitutional amendment which empowered Hawaii's legislature to pass a gay marriage ban, which it did quickly.

To prevent what happened in Hawaii from happening elsewhere, states started adopting Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (30 states, a majority of states by my math).

So, the RIGHTS being exercised by the states....the power being used by the states....was being used to prevent gay marriage. Why the fuck would marriage equality advocates try to give even more power of the states by increasing the states' rights? That's absurd. You're wrong.

The gay marriage advocates only avenue for advancement was in the federal judiciary and the SCOTUS, i.e., a federal solution for marriage equality.

Your argument is like saying abolitionists were advocating for states' rights when they were pushing Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

@raphjd And then in your very next post you rely upon the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Classic, just classic!

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

There was no push to make marriage equality as a federal law because Clinton and the DNC-controlled Congress were homophobes.
If Clinton and Congress were friendly to marriage equality, there would have been a push for it on the federal level.

Oh, I get it now. You don't understand that federal judicial system and the Supreme Court of the United States, where the marriage equality advocates were making their arguments, is part of the federal government. That's the "federal level" that marriage equality advocates were working with. They were trying to get that whole co-equal third branch of the federal government created in Article III of the US Constitution to declare that Alabama doesn't have the state right to prejudicially define marriage.

You failed basic Civics, I guess.

@raphjd said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

Why do you have to defend putting a graphically detailed teen porn book in an elementary school? There are plenty of non-porn books you can defend.

I believe I explicitly agreed with you that the book in question shouldn't have been in an elementary school library.

I also pointed out to you, and I will point out AGAIN, that the original post involved the book in a HIGH SCHOOL library.

If you cannot constrain your discussion to the topic as posted, then I believe you need to temporarily ban yourself from the forum. I'm pretty sure that making posts unrelated to the OP is a violation of the rules for the Gay News forum.

Reference elementary schools again and it will only be proof that you cannot defend on the issue regarding high schools. I will mark it down as you admitting loss and I will move on to other activities.