AsburySkinsFan Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Clinton’s inability to keep it in his pants was a disgrace and an embarrassment. The fact that we’re looking back on it as no big deal is confirmation that it actually was. I wonder how many other young people’s take away from one of our leaders cheating on his wife (and child) was, “that’s what adults do.” The sheer number of Presidents who have had affairs while in office is staggering. Lets not pretend that our Chief Executives are all uniformly chaste. Clinton just got caught because his partner had a “friend” who urged her to save the dress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Clinton’s inability to keep it in his pants was a disgrace and an embarrassment. The fact that we’re looking back on it as no big deal is confirmation that it actually was. I wonder how many other young people’s take away from one of our leaders cheating on his wife (and child) was, “that’s what adults do.” Yeah, but let's not pretend that he didn't broadcast to the world who he was before he took office. Trump did the same thing, too. They all tell us exactly who they are. And it doesn't matter because it works for them. It worked for Clinton. People didn't care. We can sit here and gnash our teeth at Trump all day long. I don't like him at all, either. But what he does still works for him. Treats people like ****, makes nasty comments about women, shadiness all over the place. Look how far he got. You're right, it says more about us that people don't care. There are people in life that can do stuff that you and I can't and get away with it. Not that you and I can't do it, but we wouldn't *think* to do it. Not only can they get away with it, but get FAR in life. Except for John Edwards. That guy cheated on his wife when she had cancer. Apparently there are some lines that you just don't cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said: Can't even cheat on your wife with a porn star anymore, what is this world coming to? Where has my country gone? *If you have never seen South Park, there is some.....slightly colorful language in the below clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 ^^^ You could play that over the loudspeakers at one of those stupid Trump rallies and nobody would recognize the satire. People would ask if they're selling CDs in the lobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Lets not pretend that our Chief Executives are all uniformly chaste. I’m not. I’m just saying that it’s a problem in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 The problem is thinking that humans mate for life. We don't, we moralize about sexuality and hold monogamy as the only way to have relationships. I don't have a problem with how people choose to be in relationship. I do have a problem with one political party setting themselves up as more: family values, patriotic, moral etc. than any other political party. That's where their hypocrisy kicks in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Dan T. said: ^^^ You could play that over the loudspeakers at one of those stupid Trump rallies and nobody would recognize the satire. People would ask if they're selling CDs in the lobby Dude, get Luke Bryan to cover that and you could sell 7 billion copies on CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said: I don't have a problem with how people choose to be in relationship. I’m down with that as long as it’s a mutual decision. If one person is unfaithful against the wishes of the other, than I do have a problem with it. If there are children involved who are hurt, then I have a problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 On 4/16/2018 at 11:27 PM, nonniey said: One can only hope. Bet you're surprised I feel this way but have despised Hannity for a while now. Like Maddow believe it or not (Disagree with almost everything she says but like her However I do like George Will and Tucker Carlson.) i can certainly see the appeal of Will (although he irritates me sometimes, i suppose he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't) .... but you like Carlson!?? really???? and are willing to admit it in public?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 I don't think Fox will ever cut ties with Hannity - certainly not until Trump is out of office. For one, Hannity has a huge national radio audience. If he wants to declare war on Fox, he can hurt them daily in a way that O'Reilly (whose entire existence was Fox) could never dream of. Secondly, Hannity is best buddies with Trump. A Trump tweet about switching off those losers at Fox and watching Hannity on literally any other platform in the world could crush them. Again, that was never a risk with O'Reilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Keeping in mind I know nothing of legal procedures.... if i if I were a judge and I decided to choose a special master, I would take names submitted by either side and make sure the person(s) selected were not on either list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Just now, tshile said: Keeping in mind I know nothing of legal procedures.... if i if I were a judge and I decided to choose a special master, I would take names submitted by either side and make sure the person(s) selected were not on either list. It's not parlor game. If I had to guess, there's only a few people who could do this so you're likely to have similar names on the two lists. The legal universe is small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 1 minute ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said: It's not parlor game. If I had to guess, there's only a few people who could do this so you're likely to have similar names on the two lists. The legal universe is small. If the idea is to have an objective third party why should it be someone either side submits as a request? is the judge incapable of finding their own objective third party? Is that some sort of contradiction to the rule of law? Or is it laziness on the judges part? it just seems to fly in the face of the idea of an objective third party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Because the idea is not really to have an objective third party. The idea is to have someone competent who understands attorney-client privilege and no, judges don't keep these lists around. That's the job of attorneys. I think you are putting entirely too much value on this person. He or she is really more of a clearinghouse. If there is something truly contentious that is permitted or withheld then Judge Wood will make that ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 I still think that these nit wits think that any attorney client privilege exists, either not knowing or forgetting that if both attorney and client commit crimes together, then the privilege doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 You're right, LSF. They're nit wits who have never watched a single episode of Law and Order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 I grew up watching l&o and the lawyers on here constantly tell me I’m wrong Youd think it’d be a requirement for their fancy schools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Some things were stretched in the series, but most of the case law they cite is true, I read that Dick Wolf is a stickler about details. My favorite episodes are the really early ones. Chris Noth was phenomenal, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 51 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said: Some things were stretched in the series, but most of the case law they cite is true, I read that Dick Wolf is a stickler about details. My favorite episodes are the really early ones. Chris Noth was phenomenal, imo. One of the best things I read about Justice Sotomayor is that she watches Law and Order and rules on the motions and then sees if the tv judge agrees with her. In all fairness, nearly every legal question on Law and Order generally has to do with the Rules of Evidence. Procedural stuff doesn't really come up and probably 70 percent of practicing law (unless you are paying off porn stars) is procedural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said: One of the best things I read about Justice Sotomayor is that she watches Law and Order and rules on the motions and then sees if the tv judge agrees with her. Good to know. I honestly think she's the most reasonable voice (with our other 2 fine ladies) on the Court right now. The gentlemen (term loosely applied) seem to be stuck in the 50s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 CARRY ON, MS. McDOUGAL. ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 46 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said: In all fairness, nearly every legal question on Law and Order generally has to do with the Rules of Evidence. Procedural stuff doesn't really come up and probably 70 percent of practicing law (unless you are paying off porn stars) is procedural. ? They recited lots of precedent decisions too. I (back in the 90s) had opportunity to actually read further and found that they really tried to stick to making law apply to the story, or the other way around. First half was the evidence, second half was how to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 4 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said: I still think that these nit wits think that any attorney client privilege exists, either not knowing or forgetting that if both attorney and client commit crimes together, then the privilege doesn't exist. These crimes are determined w/o a trial? Interesting concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.