Politics

[skydiver386]

I am not sure pointing at an opinion piece and then demanding the refutation of "facts" is a good debating technique. I hasten to add that I am something of a fan of Hugh Hewitt, and the contribution haul will be helpful for Trump's legal bills if nothing else. Whether it indicates some sort of seachange in the size of Trump's support is another matter.

I don't think we will know the real effect of his conviction for some weeks. There was flash polling just after the decision that indicated Trump had lost some republican and a lot of independent support. I don't think anyone can make much of those polls any more than we can a visceral contribution windfall. We will have a much better feeling for where he actually now stands with the electorate by the end of the month.

I hate to be the one to bust the bubble on Hugh Hewitt, but his Political Punditry falls short. After one of the last mass shootings in the Country Hugh was commenting on it and said something that floored me. He stated that if Local Authorities, the Mental Health Treatment Centers, etc. all failed to act when he believed someone to be mentally unfit, He would make up flyers with the persons picture, personal information, and a description of why he believed that individual to be mentally unfit to purchase or own a firearm. Hugh would then go to local gun stores, Gun Shows, and other retail outlets that sold firearms and pass these flyers out in an effort to dissuade anyone from selling that person a firearm.

I want you to stop and think critically and analytically. If anyone actually did this, the victims Attorney would slap a Cease and Desist, and a Defamation Lawsuit on you so fast it would make your head spin. If this person happened to be a minor, like the Covington Catholic student Nick Sandman, you might be in the hole for 275 million, like CNN when Nicks family sued them.

Hugh is not only a Licensed and practicing Attorney, he is also a Law Professor, and this is the type of things he says on his Nationwide Radio broadcast?

No Sir, Hugh Hewitt is not as smart as he thinks he is. Dennis Prager is one of the few worth listening to.

 

[PARA45]

At least one good thing in all these sham legal proceedings.

 

[Brent in Az]

At least one good thing in all these sham legal proceedings.

View attachment 611462

I saw that today. They put the brake's on Fanni the frauds case.

 

[John Wasmuth]

Did they find the cash?

 

[Red Leg]

I hate to be the one to bust the bubble on Hugh Hewitt, but his Political Punditry falls short. After one of the last mass shootings in the Country Hugh was commenting on it and said something that floored me. He stated that if Local Authorities, the Mental Health Treatment Centers, etc. all failed to act when he believed someone to be mentally unfit, He would make up flyers with the persons picture, personal information, and a description of why he believed that individual to be mentally unfit to purchase or own a firearm. Hugh would then go to local gun stores, Gun Shows, and other retail outlets that sold firearms and pass these flyers out in an effort to dissuade anyone from selling that person a firearm.

I want you to stop and think critically and analytically. If anyone actually did this, the victims Attorney would slap a Cease and Desist, and a Defamation Lawsuit on you so fast it would make your head spin. If this person happened to be a minor, like the Covington Catholic student Nick Sandman, you might be in the hole for 275 million, like CNN when Nicks family sued them.

Hugh is not only a Licensed and practicing Attorney, he is also a Law Professor, and this is the type of things he says on his Nationwide Radio broadcast?

No Sir, Hugh Hewitt is not as smart as he thinks he is. Dennis Prager is one of the few worth listening to.

You are the one who quoted him as a source.

 

[Pondoro]

Quo Vadis South Africa, now after the election..? ANC has lost majority so what constellation may we see..ANC and DA..? Or ANC and EFF..?

ANC and EFF will spell disaster for SA..pure communism..

 

[spike.t]

He is so fkd in the head.....

Putin warns Russia could provide weapons for others to strike West

The Russian president has been criticising the West's delivery of long-range weapons to Ukraine.

www.bbc.com

 

[Pheroze]

Quo Vadis South Africa, now after the election..? ANC has lost majority so what constellation may we see..ANC and DA..? Or ANC and EFF..?

ANC and EFF will spell disaster for SA..pure communism..

It looks like Zuma has power still

South Africa elections: Behind the 'Zuma tsunami' that changed the outcome - BBC News

The ex-president has been hit by a number of scandals but emerges once again to play a big role.

www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[fourfive8]

I hate to be the one to bust the bubble on Hugh Hewitt, but his Political Punditry falls short. After one of the last mass shootings in the Country Hugh was commenting on it and said something that floored me. He stated that if Local Authorities, the Mental Health Treatment Centers, etc. all failed to act when he believed someone to be mentally unfit, He would make up flyers with the persons picture, personal information, and a description of why he believed that individual to be mentally unfit to purchase or own a firearm. Hugh would then go to local gun stores, Gun Shows, and other retail outlets that sold firearms and pass these flyers out in an effort to dissuade anyone from selling that person a firearm.

I want you to stop and think critically and analytically. If anyone actually did this, the victims Attorney would slap a Cease and Desist, and a Defamation Lawsuit on you so fast it would make your head spin. If this person happened to be a minor, like the Covington Catholic student Nick Sandman, you might be in the hole for 275 million, like CNN when Nicks family sued them.

Hugh is not only a Licensed and practicing Attorney, he is also a Law Professor, and this is the type of things he says on his Nationwide Radio broadcast?

No Sir, Hugh Hewitt is not as smart as he thinks he is. Dennis Prager is one of the few worth listening to.

Hard to put this genie back in the bottle because it’s been codified in the form of “red flag” laws in many states.

Also, I see opinion pieces used for debate support here all the time. Dress them up enough and those fond of using them pass them along as supportive fact without counter debate…. very common. Hard to detect when used by those with practiced skill in their use.

 

[bob meadows]

I gotta say that I feel that Saul is a rational person and a true gentleman in discussing differing points of view.

I didn't say not a nice guy, didn't say not intelligent, Saul from what I read does come across as a very well meaning person.......but at the end of the day we have 2 choices. 1 a crap sandwich R or 2 a double crap sandwich D....no getting around it. if a person choices a dbl helping of crap no matter what.......I would say that is not rational.......there you go red leg more than one sentence......bob

 

[cash_tx]

Apparently this is how Google has elected to use their daily Google Doodle on the 80th anniversary of D-Day. No doubt a decision made in a vacuum by committee...

 

[Saul]

Hard to put this genie back in the bottle because it’s been codified in the form of “red flag” laws in many states

I would be interested in a discussion here on red flag laws. My visceral reaction is to oppose them, but I also understand why many in law enforcement see it as a potentially valuable tool.

 

[WAB]

I would be interested in a discussion here on red flag laws. My visceral reaction is to oppose them, but I also understand why many in law enforcement see it as a potentially valuable tool.

The problem that I see with them is that it is hard to make them objective. Should a raving lunatic have any sort of weapon? Of course not. All right let’s define the level of mental illness or malicious intent needed to trigger a red flag. At exactly that point it becomes subjective, not objective.

 

[Saul]

I didn't say not a nice guy, didn't say not intelligent, Saul from what I read does come across as a very well meaning person.......but at the end of the day we have 2 choices. 1 a crap sandwich R or 2 a double crap sandwich D....no getting around it. if a person choices a dbl helping of crap no matter what.......I would say that is not rational.......there you go red leg more than one sentence......bob

Well that depends on how you define rational. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are suggesting that a prerequisite for “rationality” is voting for Trump.

Then there is the discussion of whether anyone can truly be deemed rational or irrational. If the only parameter for rationality is acting in accordance with logic, you would be hard pressed to define a set of objective parameters for “logical” thought.

 

[Saul]

The problem that I see with them is that it is hard to make them objective. Should a raving lunatic have any sort of weapon? Of course not. All right let’s define the level of mental illness or malicious intent needed to trigger a red flag. At exactly that point it becomes subjective, not objective.

This is pretty much where I am at on it.

The argument I hear is that we already have standards for which a person can be involuntarily admitted for psych reasons, and we have standards for when a person can be deemed dangerous enough that an order of protection is issued. Personally, I think that if someone is deemed that much of a danger to themselves or others, they should not be on the streets.

 

[John Wasmuth]

Everything was fine until they shut down the insane asylums………

 

[Tanks]

The problem that I see with them is that it is hard to make them objective. Should a raving lunatic have any sort of weapon? Of course not. All right let’s define the level of mental illness or malicious intent needed to trigger a red flag. At exactly that point it becomes subjective, not objective.

According to the anti-gun crowd anyone that wishes to own, let alone carry a firearm is irrational. So, by their logic no one should have guns.

 

[spike.t]

 

[bob meadows]

Well that depends on how you define rational. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are suggesting that a prerequisite for “rationality” is voting for Trump.

Then there is the discussion of whether anyone can truly be deemed rational or irrational. If the only parameter for rationality is acting in accordance with logic, you would be hard pressed to define a set of objective parameters for “logical” thought.

do you lawyer much? I will say, I don't like trump never have , way before he became president.

having said that, I will take just a single serving of crap......so logic to me is , don't vote against my own best interests. In my case the 2a and border drives my vote.....it is illogical to me to vote for a party that wants to impede/take away my rights. for someone to own guns and vote D doesn't seem like a wise choice......bob

 

[skydiver386]

do you lawyer much? I will say, I don't like trump never have , way before he became president.

having said that, I will take just a single serving of crap......so logic to me is , don't vote against my own best interests. In my case the 2a and border drives my vote.....it is illogical to me to vote for a party that wants to impede/take away my rights. for someone to own guns and vote D doesn't seem like a wise choice......bob

I believe the reason Democrats have no problem voting for someone that promises to take away Constitutional Rights is that they think it will not affect them personally. To their mind, it will only be the other guy who's Rights are violated. As long as they think it's not their Ox getting gored, they're perfectly ok with it.

In addition to this, most Democrats are willing to sacrifice their Rights (and the Rights of others) to achieve whatever goal they desire. Some might disagree with this assessment, but listening to them say this in various ways over a lifetime tell's me it's not far off the mark.