Liberal Forum

Squatchman » 03 Apr 2023, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 8:25 am

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
 Careful,you'll shoot your eye out.

You RAN from this one SQUATTY....

Squatchman » Yesterday, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑Yesterday, 8:02 amFail!
He settled out of court.
​Trump used donations to keep an affair quiet.
One is legal. Can you guess who did things legally?

Guess STUPID is your FIRST, MIDDLE and LAST NAME, huh. tubesucker!!

Beekeeper is a wacko fundamentalist.

maineman » 03 Apr 2023, 11:33 am » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 11:33 am

but republican agendas don't ever manifest themselves in jury verdicts, I guess?

When you said, "I am merely stating that your chances of an agenda-driven court, jury, gallery are greater in a blue state." I inferred that you were suggesting that juries and galleries in red state court rooms don't act on their agendas like those in blue states do.

One more than the other. I stand by that.
One is more status quo and the other feels the need to shake things up, no?

Are you so defensive you cannot acknowledge the basic concept of your ilk?

Xavier_Onassis » 03 Apr 2023, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 1:47 pm

Beekeeper is a wacko fundamentalist.

You're a EFFING NAZI. So salute your Fuhrer bye-DUMB!!

Trust me porksuck, YOU would be the very first to get a BULLET TO THE HEAD when the WAR YOU WANT SO BADLY actually breaks out. So where are you going to RUN TO when the shooting starts?? BACK TO CUBA OR MEXICO when you crawled out of the EFFING SEWER??

DeezerShoove » 03 Apr 2023, 2:49 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 2:49 pm

1.  One more than the other. I stand by that.
2.  One is more status quo and the other feels the need to shake things up, no?

3.  Are you so defensive you cannot acknowledge the basic concept of your ilk?

1.  You stand by your unsubstantiated partisan opinion?  Good for you.

2.  Status quo?  Shake things up?  WTF?  We are not talking about writing laws or moving communities towards more progressive public policy positions, we are talking about American citizens  listening to evidence, arguments, and judicial instructions,  and then rendering a verdict as to whether another fellow citizen broke the law as it currently is written.  A defendant's political persuasion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the evidence and testimony proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she committed the crime he or she was indicted for, and if any potential juror feels they cannot perform their solemn civic duty because of their political beliefs, all they have to do is tell the judge and they'll be excused.  

3.  The basic concept of MY ilk to to be a slave to the law.  My father was a state legislator after coming home from WW2 and then the founder of an extremely successful law firm that still carries his name.  Respect for the law and respect for law enforcement officers was pounded into me and my siblings constantly and we all followed suit with our own offspring.  My daughter is a Deputy District Attorney and never would even THINK to allow a defendant's, or a potential juror's political beliefs to obscure her search for truth and justice.  Are you so stubborn you cannot just admit that you misjudged me just a bit?
 

Maine bitch loves sucking dick

FJB » 03 Apr 2023, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 4:33 pm

Maine bitch loves sucking dick

isn't it even the least bit embarrassing for you to keep tossing repetitive monotonous lightweight school yard taunts on a message board where other people are attempting to carry on some form of intelligent dialog?  Do you not WANT to join in, or is it, as I suspect, that you really are incapable of adult discussion? 

maineman » 03 Apr 2023, 4:44 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 4:44 pm

isn't it even the least bit embarrassing for you to keep tossing repetitive monotonous lightweight school yard taunts on a message board where other people are attempting to carry on some form of intelligent dialog?  Do you not WANT to join in, or is it, as I suspect, that you really are incapable of adult discussion?

There is a theory the internet is breeding stupidity.

All this weaponization of the legal system is drama

so is the groomer issue
 

Xavier_Onassis » 03 Apr 2023, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 1:47 pm

Beekeeper is a wacko fundamentalist.

No.. he just states FACTS...

WACKOS are the ones who:

1)  Accuse others of doing what THEY are actually doing !
2)  BASTARDIZE the legal system do that JUSTICE, and EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER the LAW are DESTROYED !
3)  Work to IMPLICATE Innocent people based on Contrived LIES, and Fabricated EVIDENCE !
4)  ASPIRE to SUBVERT the COURTS, the LAWS, and POLITICS for their OWN Benefit and THEIR ENRICHMENT, and
5)  THINK that they can do it ALL WITHOUT "We the People" FIGURING IT OUT, Fighting BACK, GAINING NATIONAL SUPPORT, and DESTROYING the SCUMBAGS IDIOT who would THINK they CAN...

THOSE are the WACKOS !!

maineman » 03 Apr 2023, 4:44 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 4:44 pm

isn't it even the least bit embarrassing for you to keep tossing repetitive monotonous lightweight school yard taunts on a message board where other people are attempting to carry on some form of intelligent dialog?  Do you not WANT to join in, or is it, as I suspect, that you really are incapable of adult discussion?

You **** liberal cowards deserve everything thrown at you.

maineman » 03 Apr 2023, 4:20 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 4:20 pm

1.  You stand by your unsubstantiated partisan opinion?  Good for you.

2.  Status quo?  Shake things up?  WTF?  We are not talking about writing laws or moving communities towards more progressive public policy positions, we are talking about American citizens  listening to evidence, arguments, and judicial instructions,  and then rendering a verdict as to whether another fellow citizen broke the law as it currently is written.  A defendant's political persuasion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the evidence and testimony proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she committed the crime he or she was indicted for, and if any potential juror feels they cannot perform their solemn civic duty because of their political beliefs, all they have to do is tell the judge and they'll be excused.  

3.  The basic concept of MY ilk to to be a slave to the law.  My father was a state legislator after coming home from WW2 and then the founder of an extremely successful law firm that still carries his name.  Respect for the law and respect for law enforcement officers was pounded into me and my siblings constantly and we all followed suit with our own offspring.  My daughter is a Deputy District Attorney and never would even THINK to allow a defendant's, or a potential juror's political beliefs to obscure her search for truth and justice.  Are you so stubborn you cannot just admit that you misjudged me just a bit?

Status quo vs. change merely for the sake of change.

Both are exaggerated simplifications that you are unable to grasp.
Whatever you want in your imagined pissing contest with me was just boiled down for you.

btw
"Good for you" is merely repeating what I say.
Real perky brain ya got there... That's why I didn't read the rest of your tripe.

DeezerShoove » 03 Apr 2023, 5:44 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 5:44 pm

Status quo vs. change merely for the sake of change.

Both are exaggerated simplifications that you are unable to grasp.
Whatever you want in your imagined pissing contest with me was just boiled down for you.

btw
"Good for you" is merely repeating what I say.
Real perky brain ya got there... That's why I didn't read the rest of your tripe.

if anything beyond one line gotcha posts is beyond your ability to comprehend, it's probably good that we just part ways.

There is NOTHING about status quote or change for the sake of change that happens in a  court of law where twelve citizens decide whether other citizens have broken the laws that are already on the books.

now go **** yourself.

                           

FJB » 03 Apr 2023, 5:41 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 5:41 pm

You **** liberal cowards deserve everything thrown at you.

you didn't see a question in my previous post that was asking for a response?

Seriously.... how old are you?  You seem to have the mental capacity of a nine year old at best.

FJB » 03 Apr 2023, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 4:33 pm

Maine bitch loves sucking dick

         

POM » 03 Apr 2023, 5:59 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 5:59 pm

                         

another content rich post from the apple.

maineman » 03 Apr 2023, 6:00 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 6:00 pm

another content rich post from the apple.

GO **** YOURSELF OLD TIMER 
           
 

maineman » 03 Apr 2023, 5:57 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 5:57 pm

if anything beyond one line gotcha posts is beyond your ability to comprehend, it's probably good that we just part ways.

There is NOTHING about status quote or change for the sake of change that happens in a  court of law where twelve citizens decide whether other citizens have broken the laws that are already on the books.

now go **** yourself.

Deep thinker, you are not.
Why the "go **** yourself" crap? I'm just disagreeing with you.
Red states are presumably peopled with more libs than cons and vice versa.

Jury selection will reflect this. Why are you afraid of this simple notion?

maineman » 03 Apr 2023, 4:44 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 4:44 pm

isn't it even the least bit embarrassing for you to keep tossing repetitive monotonous lightweight school yard taunts on a message board where other people are attempting to carry on some form of intelligent dialog?  Do you not WANT to join in, or is it, as I suspect, that you really are incapable of adult discussion?

Hell mayonnaiseman, YOU are too much an EFFINC COWARD to reply to the MASSIVE ARSE KICKINGS you get administered by ME daily!!

Seems you are TOSSING OUT SCHOOL YARD **** and wallowing around in it like the HOG CRAP you are!!

So you plan to start "adulting" anytime soon??
 

DeezerShoove » 03 Apr 2023, 6:02 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2023, 6:02 pm

Deep thinker, you are not.
Why the "go **** yourself" crap? I'm just disagreeing with you.
Red states are presumably peopled with more libs than cons and vice versa.

Jury selection will reflect this. Why are you afraid of this simple notion?

My point was that politics don't play a part in determining whether a defendant did or did not commit the crime for which they are indicted.  Do you think blue state juries will be more likely to find a man not guilty of sexual abuse of a minor than red state juries will given the same evidence?  Do blue state juries look at evidence of B&E differently than red state juries?

It sounds like the weaponization of the legal system is YOUR dream rather than any reality.