hpslugga

I don't think it'll help her because, again, she didn't argue the things in court that she said in those embarrassing, language-mangling pressers. It'd be one thing if the outlandish claims she made in those pressers made it to the court room, but that's not what happened. What happened was she slandered the living shit out of them in public and when it came time for the judge's gavel to drop, she gave next to nothing. I mean I suppose they could find some perverted judge that would flip himself into a partisan pretzel to make believe that that such privilege existed, but if that whole, pesky "follow the law" thing creeps into that judge's head, she doesn't have a chance in the hell that doesn't exist.

And that's kinda what I'm getting at: I seriously doubt there's going to be anything found to help her. How could it? Between that shouting match that she and Flynn got into with those other buffoons in the WH, her sticking to a very specific narrative about how Hugo Chavez concocted an algorithm that could be calibrated that counted votes for one guy even though they were actually cast for the other guy, vowing on public airwaves to "bring the Kraken" in order to "overturn" the results of swing state elections with the "evidence" that never existed (and was known not to exist by people who actually know things), filing actual lawsuits demanding same, how can anyone even remotely suggest that this in any way comes into the same fucking zip code as parody? When you couple that with the damages that Dominion is alleging (and that she isn't contesting), it's beyond inappropriate to attempt to shield oneself with the First Amendment. Here's what the fucking problem is: the fucking problem is that we as a society have become conditioned with so much post-modernist horseshit that we seriously don't even know what an opinion is. An opinion is a unique type of belief in that it cannot be proven true and cannot be proven false. If you say that "orange is the best color," and I counter that with "navy blue is the best color," then yeah we're in a tussle of opinions and the phrase "agree to disagree" is actually appropriate. I'm never going to prove myself right and I'm never going to prove you wrong. If I can prove myself right (or you wrong), then I/we were not expressing opinions. Here, Powell was most certainly not expressing an opinion. Her claims could be proven demonstrably false by an overwhelming body of evidence, and she stated them all the same. When you knowingly assert baseless speculation as if it were a matter of fact, you are not expressing an opinion; you're just lying. That's exactly what she did. She lied, she lied, and she lied some more and it was entirely motivated by a desire to damage the integrity and reputation of Dominion. That is ipso facto defamation.

Just like stealing money is probably easier than actually earning it.

Not only that, she didn't argue it in court and had plenty of opportunities to do so...and didn't...because she knew she'd be committing a fraud against the court. Also, the "no reasonable person" defense is, historically at least, understood to pertain to protect parody from claims of defamation. That, for example, was the argument Larry Flynt offered in his SCOTUS case against Jerry Falwell. No reasonable person could believe that Falwell fucked his mother in an outhouse, and they weren't seriously suggesting that. To any of Hustler's subscribers, it was obvious that they were engaged in some heavy duty parody, and that's because they knew that Larry Flynt was in the entertainment business. That's what his livelihood was based on. Powell? She's (barely) an attorney and was making these claims outside of court to arouse popular fury as a means to raise money for Trump. The abominable prick raised over $200 million, for fuck's sake. You mean to tell me that Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Rudy Giuliani and the rest of that group of sniveling degenerates weren't responsible for that? Point being, Powell isn't a comedienne (at least not wittingly). She's not an entertainer. She made those claims outside of court, did not make them in court, thus I cannot for the life of me see how there could be qualified immunity, nor could this rise to the "no reasonable person" standard. The only way she could accomplish that is to argue in this suit "no reasonable person voted for Trump." As someone else mentioned earlier, 10's of millions of people bought into her lies. If you're going to argue that Trump's followers were reasonable people, that argument is DOA.

Goddamn motherfucking shit

My family has had Calhoun on its shitlist since he was around [/descendant of Henry Clay]

Qlemson?

Negative

Can't speak for anyone else, but I've been below the max income threshold each time so that's clearly not why I've been stiffed on the last two.

I got the first but not the subsequent two

Message from a Midwestern State grad: Y'all have no permission to drop a game to a former Lone Star Conference school.

Because feelings and emotions. If anyone could fathom that a 43-year old man-baby reading Green Eggs and Ham on the floor of the US Senate as a "legitimate intellectual tactic to stimulate crucial debate," they're living in a world that's even more Make Believe and Pretend than the shit that's vomited over here on that Daily Texan forum. Anyways, that's why the GOP wants to keep it. They're aware that they are wildly unpopular among the eligible (or should-be eligible) voting populations, so they need to have a mechanism in at least one chamber of Congress that literally legitimizes a stall tactic that recognizes the Chewbacca Defense as legitimate, especially when they don't have the WH and control neither chamber. It's also the same reason that they're very much in favor of gerrymandering. In fact, they no longer even attempt to hide that. Filibustering, gerrymandering, etc. Those are polysyllabic words, but apply their real world function to the world of 4th graders and what you have is "I'm taking my ball and going home, but first I'm going to whine and bitch to the principal until he changes the rules" after losing in dodgeball for the 142nd consecutive time.

Yeah that was hilarious. Everyone's standard response needs to be "bitch, you done said that shit 4 rings ago."

Eat shit, Bob!

That’s just you pretending to know things

As I once said of Mitch McConnell, so too is it true for this buffoon: He has never been particularly bright or articulate, but even by the embarrassing comparisons of his previous screeds, it seems to indicate he has suffered some sort of stroke or there's a tumor in his brain that grew exponentially in size on January 6th. What's particularly astounding is that he is completely unaware of how incredibly tone deaf and dense his nonsense comes off. He's either very good at pretending to believe something in order to play to the idiot rubes that voted for him, or he himself is an idiot rube that believes the horseshit he spews and this is just another inmate running the asylum. It's not particularly necessary to dissect the things he said about January 6th. Everyone here is at least partially educated and a lot of you, I'm guessing, are familiar with the phrase "projecting with false equivalence." "The other side is just as bad as us, but since that's true, we're not bad and they still are because...feelings and emotions and things." Even by his own meager standards, this logic would indeed give intelligent people diabetes if they read it often enough. Here, he's literally suggesting "well in the previous 58 elections, there never was an attempt at an insurrection, but it was going to happen here regardless of who won" as if that's a fucking given. I have a 13 year old nephew that would read that and say ".........riiiiiight." Just as a side note, I noticed that floating around was some article indicating that most Iowa Republicans prefer Chuck Grassley not run for a re-election bid. My response to that is the same here and with all other 48 GOP senate seats: well it's not some fucking law of nature that you have to vote Republican in the first place.

It was actually Harlingen, but yes, they tried very hard to scare the shit out of every single breathing American about a country that basically had 2 elevators and a fucking escalator "following the script of Mein Kampf." There are still Americans to this day that fall for that horeshit hook, line and sinker, and I haven't the slightest atom of sympathy to afford to them.

They'll get someone to flip. These are people with no honor and no principles. That's not the problem. The problem is whether Trump himself would face actual punishment after all of that. That's where I have no trust or hope in the system because the system now is about feelings and emotions. We can't punish people like Donald Trump because that would make him feel bad, and that would make his family feel bad, and that would make his supporters feel bad, and we can't have that many people feeling bad because that would make us feel bad that we made them feel bad...so let's just agree to disagree, forgive and forget, and let bygones be bygones right? Water under the bridge, eh?

It never really started, actually. Those lawsuits, collectively, were a dog and pony show. They had nothing to do with the law, and they had nothing to do with the facts. It was just a show for the idiot rubes that fall victim easily to this feeble, garbled drivel about how "oh wah wah wah, the evil Dems are stealing the presidency from our orange Jesus wah wah wah." It's just like when a professional wrestler cuts a post-match promo about how he got screwed by the ref, the promoter, the other guy's manager, etc. They're playing this up as if it was the Montreal Screwjob, except the most "in on it" people are, in reality, the Trump campaign themselves. They know he fucking lost (well maybe not Lin "Dave Wills" Wood, but the rest of them certainly do). They had no real ambition of winning these suits, and that should have been abundantly clear in the performances they put on gavel-to-gavel. They just wanted to scream as loudly as they could in the best microphones that were available to them outside of the court rooms, not so much inside them. Anyways, this is far from over. The actual challenge before us is this absurd roster of state-level legislations that are trying so desperately to squash voting rights for as many Americans as they possibly can.

They also set their Nike shoes on fire in reaction to Colin Kaepernick. These are not bright people.

Well I think the bigger takeaway is that, again, this is performative outrage and it's done so selectively. I don't need to go into the history of all of it, but sufficed to say that the history of two-facedness on this "cancel culture" shit over the past 100 years has been voluminous. Jim fucking Crow was a gigantic cancel culture initiative. So was the MPAA ratings system, so was the PMRC, so are all these initiatives to overturn Roe v. Wade, so was the outrage when compulsory prayer in school was outlawed, etc. Those things are all cancel culture, and much more destructive to society than Theodor Giesel's own fucking family deciding to stop publishing new editions of a small fraction of his books. They who rant and rave about "cancel culture" in fucking 2021 are among the most dishonest people I've seen in quite a while, far surpassing death penalty proponents, "pro-lifers," and opposers of the NCAA football playoff in that regard. All true.

I want to see a hired murderer argue this in court.

It really is. Performative outrage is the favored pastime as well. Football? That's small potatoes compared to putting on a performance pretending to be upset at someone who either was upset or, at least, the performer assumed same.

Misleading. Power was out all over the PC's. It's just that these rich fucks have generators (nearly all of our block does), so there's less incentive to call and bitch to Oncor. Those little bubbles only reflect reported outages, not necessarily actual ones. But yes, more importantly to your point about deregulation, of course that's what it's about. Anyone who argues that deregulation somehow helps the consumer is an absolute fool. Of course it's about skirting regs in order to trim costs and maximize profit. That's a given to serious people. When you hear Republicans ranting and raving about regulations, you're not hearing "alternative points of view." You're hearing the ravings of retarded people parroting corporate talking points that have zero to do with the public good. That much is obvious to a serious person.

The part where his feewings got huwt because someone said something meanie butt about Trump.