6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Any judge chosen by Trump is always considered "hand picked" as if Trump was deliberately selecting "corrupt" judges.  Any judge ruling against any Trump related issue is considered "honest, above and against corruption."  I would bet a dollar to a donut that Paul Henry doesn't know diddley squat about this judge; who he is, past rulings, political persuasion or anything of his personal biases which play into any of his verdicts.  But he's damn sure he's a judge who is "honest, above and against corruption."  Who are we trying to kid here?  LOL

That really does not matter. Trump"s people are not selecting judges based on character. Quite the opposite. 

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

That really does not matter. Trump"s people are not selecting judges based on character. Quite the opposite. 

That's strictly your judgment and interpretation.  Not factual.

2 hours ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

so basically condescending without factual knowledge of what research people have done for their opinions and refusing to contribute to the conversation of freedom of speech and incarceration because of apathy. Thank you for that clarification. 

No condensation.  Just observation.  No suggestion given on my part that all people make blind judgments.  Some do.  I think a lot do.  And when they do it's obvious.  Well, at least from my perspective.

 

My apathy is only in regards to Michael Cohen.  His life is of no interest to me.  Logic does not follow that because I'm apathetic to Cohen I'm also apathetic to freedom of speech and issues of incarceration.

 

Hopefully that gives you proper clarification?

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I have no idea what you're referring to.  You'd need to clarify.

 

1 hour ago, Dap said:

"a "corrupt judiciary" when the verdict is in opposition to your politics." 

To clarify for you, it is all all a matter of your point of view. 

41 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It was my error for not being precise in my language.  I was speaking in general terms.  So "you" wasn't referring specifically to you, Bluespunk.  The precise terminology would be "one" when referencing people without specificity.  "You" is often improperly used in that regard.  So my apologies as it did sound as though I was attributing a quote to you.

 

Now that we've cleared that up go ahead and challenge my point if you wish to do so.

Then I see no reason to quote me if your post is not aimed at me...

Couple of points:

- Cohen was thrown back in jail for violating his house arrest provisions after he was photographed eating dinner out at a restaurant for hours with another couple. When he was later given the opportunity for electronic monitoring he balked, at which time he was put back in jail. I don't see how this is political - he violated the terms of his parole and had it revoked.

- Cohen was Trump's fixer, not official lawyer, so he handled the sleazy aspects of the business deals a respectable lawyer would not touch. I am sure he has some stories, but I doubt there is anything earth shattering. I have worked with some of Trump's external lawyers and they are top notch professionals. Cohen is basically a cheap version of Saul Goodman.

- This whole mess is political and it's useless to argue otherwise. I find it very interesting that the left embraces dirt bags like Bolton and Cohen because it serves their purposes. Bolton is a hard-core neo-conservative who has nothing in common with folks on the left, while Cohen is a sleazy lawyer who makes money from abusing immigrants (look up his taxi medallion business to see). Next time choose your saviors a bit more wisely - just saying.

15 minutes ago, Dap said:

To clarify for you, it is all all a matter of your point of view. 

For many it is.  Not for all, though.  Are you suggesting that no one, and specifically here, ever judges a member of the judiciary based solely on their political views?  If your answer is in the negative then my point should have validity with you.

5 minutes ago, phkauf said:

Couple of points:

- Cohen was thrown back in jail for violating his house arrest provisions after he was photographed eating dinner out at a restaurant for hours with another couple. When he was later given the opportunity for electronic monitoring he balked, at which time he was put back in jail. I don't see how this is political - he violated the terms of his parole and had it revoked.

- Cohen was Trump's fixer, not official lawyer, so he handled the sleazy aspects of the business deals a respectable lawyer would not touch. I am sure he has some stories, but I doubt there is anything earth shattering. I have worked with some of Trump's external lawyers and they are top notch professionals. Cohen is basically a cheap version of Saul Goodman.

- This whole mess is political and it's useless to argue otherwise. I find it very interesting that the left embraces dirt bags like Bolton and Cohen because it serves their purposes. Bolton is a hard-core neo-conservative who has nothing in common with folks on the left, while Cohen is a sleazy lawyer who makes money from abusing immigrants (look up his taxi medallion business to see). Next time choose your saviors a bit more wisely - just saying.

"I find it very interesting that the left embraces dirt bags like Bolton and Cohen because it serves their purposes."

LOL! Uhm, it was trump who "embraced" those same "dirtbags" to serve his own purposes until they didn't.  And you were saying?

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

For many it is.  Not for all, though.  Are you suggesting that no one, and specifically here, ever judges a member of the judiciary based solely on their political views?  If your answer is in the negative then my point should have validity with you.

If I must be more precise for you, It is only a "corrupt judiciary" when it is opposed to your personal view of how "they" may choose to decide. Whether it be for or against your personal view. Is that succinct enough.

Edited July 24, 20205 yr by Dap

14 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Then I see no reason to quote me if your post is not aimed at me...

To a degree it was aimed at you.  I could be wrong but in my opinion I thought your reference to the independence of the judiciary was based solely on the fact that you agreed with the verdict.

12 minutes ago, Dap said:

No, wasn't suggesting that at all with my reply to YOU!

Then, no, it's not my point of view.  I believe the judiciary should be independent; free of political influence.  I believe it should also adhere to the laws.  On both counts it's not always so.

18 minutes ago, Dap said:

LOL! Uhm, it was trump who "embraced" those same "dirtbags" to serve his own purposes until they didn't.  And you were saying?

You completely missed my point, but whatever...

31 minutes ago, phkauf said:

Couple of points:

- Cohen was thrown back in jail for violating his house arrest provisions after he was photographed eating dinner out at a restaurant for hours with another couple. When he was later given the opportunity for electronic monitoring he balked, at which time he was put back in jail. I don't see how this is political - he violated the terms of his parole and had it revoked.

- Cohen was Trump's fixer, not official lawyer, so he handled the sleazy aspects of the business deals a respectable lawyer would not touch. I am sure he has some stories, but I doubt there is anything earth shattering. I have worked with some of Trump's external lawyers and they are top notch professionals. Cohen is basically a cheap version of Saul Goodman.

- This whole mess is political and it's useless to argue otherwise. I find it very interesting that the left embraces dirt bags like Bolton and Cohen because it serves their purposes. Bolton is a hard-core neo-conservative who has nothing in common with folks on the left, while Cohen is a sleazy lawyer who makes money from abusing immigrants (look up his taxi medallion business to see). Next time choose your saviors a bit more wisely - just saying.

As the judge pointed out, never in his 21 years of experience, had he seen a home confinement order restrict a person's first amendment rights.

14 minutes ago, phkauf said:

You completely missed my point, but whatever...

I think nobody missed your point. But your point is based on the false assertion that the left is embracing Bolton and Cohen.

44 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

To a degree it was aimed at you.  I could be wrong but in my opinion I thought your reference to the independence of the judiciary was based solely on the fact that you agreed with the verdict.

Well it wasn’t. 

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

On both counts it's not always so.

As I said - all your/or my point of view - and of course, it will never be always so.

2 hours ago, phkauf said:

You completely missed my point, but whatever...

Ok, whatever.