Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 7:37 am » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 7:37 am

A jury determination of liability does.

This is fiction.

You're an idiot.

it's "fiction" because you dont like it. It's in her journal, queer boy. 

Skans » 21 May 2025, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2025, 12:15 pm

Honestly, I listened to half the video and have absolutely no idea what the point its trying to make. 

Why is it that some Youtubers can get right to the point and then logically build upon it, and others ramble on and on about nonsense?  The bottom line is this.  If within the first 5 seconds of your video, I don't know precisely the point its trying to make, then I'm out - click off and move on.

You made it fuddern I did.
 

Skans » 21 May 2025, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2025, 12:48 pm

The video was lame.  I sometimes like the guy, but he rambles on and on about ****. When he does that, I can't resist giving him a thumbs down, click off and move on.  So many pod-casters just suck and suck badly.  He's just so damn incoherent.  Here's what I got out of the video:

• First 30 seconds, incoherent rambling by some fat-*** negro (rolling my eyes and wondering why I'm being forced to listen to ebonics);
• After that, Benny says its Diddy who was rambling (drooling in boredom learning Benny is talking about some hip-hop negro)
• Something something about "freak offs" - whatever negro thing that is (thanks, Benny, for not explaining any of this - as if any white boy knows what a freak-off is)
• Something something about being recorded (who knows, who cares, Diddy gets recorded - that's his chosen career, isn't it?)

At this point, I'm drooling and barely awake.  I skip through the video to see if I can figure out what Benny's point is.  I can't.  I don't care.  I lose interest.  I'd rather listen to K-Pop over listening to anymore of Benny's podcast by now. Or, watch bad Anime cartoons.

Who knows, maybe he was on to something.  Whatever it was, you are 100% correct, I remain "clueless" about whatever point he was trying to make.

And it's not like you could think less of obama - they're preaching to the choir, anyway. So they need to at least preach coherently. The choir has **** to get done, too. 
 

Skans » 21 May 2025, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2025, 1:13 pm

The point is, I remain uninformed about what Benny is talking about "freak-offs" in his lame video. 

**** is ****, even if it is Conservative ****.  Not all **** smells the same, but one thing that is universal about **** is it all stinks.

Mine stinks of roses.

SouthernFried » 22 May 2025, 4:39 pm » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 4:39 pm

it's "fiction" because you dont like it. It's in her journal, queer boy.

Quote her, verbatim.


 

Skans » 21 May 2025, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

21 May 2025, 1:55 pm

You and I are on different pages bitching about different things. Whatever "freak-off" actually means, makes no nevermind to me. My bitchy-bitch rant is over Benny's inability to create informative content that is easily digestible.

So, I'm pissed for clicking on the Benny click-bait and having to spend time listening to a podcast that appears to be made merely to keep old Benny's stats up on youtube. I've tried to watch him before, and his format just sucks. I tell myself to not click on his ****, but somehow, I still do occasionally.

I don't deal with the ***. And it's like you say - just beong a conservative isn't enough.

The politics are a prerequisite - the talent is what matters. I'm not listening to ANYONE who's a ****. So just not being a **** isn't enough to access my ears and get a claim on my time and attention. I watch some damned fine creators. I maintain high standards, because I can. There are excellent creators out there.

For those who are unaware, Candace Owens is going strong in her post-zionist days.
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 5:27 pm » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 5:27 pm

Quote her, verbatim.

We all saw it. She admitted to daddy showering with her. He **** her in the shower dude. Dad's damn sure don't shower with a kid old enough to stand in the shower. She kept her secrets in a journal. The same way you keep your journal filled with all the ***-sex escapades you've had.

SouthernFried » 22 May 2025, 6:14 pm » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 6:14 pm

We all saw it. She admitted to daddy showering with her. He **** her in the shower dude. Dad's damn sure don't shower with a kid old enough to stand in the shower. She kept her secrets in a journal. The same way you keep your journal filled with all the ***-sex escapades you've had.

Then quote it, verbatim.

**** idiot.
 

Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 6:17 pm » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 6:17 pm

Then quote it, verbatim.

**** idiot.

How about YOU quote it - and explain why there isn't any problem, there.   

Skans » 22 May 2025, 7:49 am » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 7:49 am

Look, I take pride in being a professional time waster and rant specialist. I've worked too hard at wasting time to give up now.

we all have our crosses to bear....  
 

Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 7:47 am » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 7:47 am

Why do you presume to explain stuff you are much too stupid to understand?

The judge INSTRUCTED the jury.

The judge RESPONDED to Team Grifty's petition seeking clarification of the jury's decision.

Do you understand why?

brown, instructed exactly according to the LAW...to which the jury reached a verdict according to his instructions regarding the LAW...

so **** gd'damned stupid....
 
 

ROG62 » 23 May 2025, 12:37 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 12:37 am

brown, instructed exactly according to the LAW...to which the jury reached a verdict according to his instructions regarding the LAW...

so **** gd'damned stupid....

READ THE FILING. YOU **** IDIOT.
 

Cannonpointer » 22 May 2025, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 5:28 pm

I don't deal with the ***. And it's like you say - just beong a conservative isn't enough.

The politics are a prerequisite - the talent is what matters. I'm not listening to ANYONE who's a ****. So just not being a **** isn't enough to access my ears and get a claim on my time and attention. I watch some damned fine creators. I maintain high standards, because I can. There are excellent creators out there.

For those who are unaware, Candace Owens is going strong in her post-zionist days.

Exactly.  Content and presentation matters. I watch a lot more financial podcasts than I do political. There's hardly ever anything new to learn from a political podcast - at best, succinct reaffirmation of what you already know.  At worst, mind-numbingly annoying.
 

Skans » 23 May 2025, 7:47 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 7:47 am

Exactly.  Content and presentation matters. I watch a lot more financial podcasts than I do political. There's hardly ever anything new to learn from a political podcast - at best, succinct reaffirmation of what you already know.  At worst, mind-numbingly annoying.

I would say that you are precisely correct - but that would be a little tighter lasso than I wanna throw. 

Instead, I will say you are GENERALLY correct. Most of what I watch is more affirming than informative. In its defense, it does draw from the background into the foreground alements which strengthen one's arguments and deepen one's understanding. And it is not at all uncommon that new facts are brought to light - though, again, they are inevitably affirming. 

An example is that I am fowllowing the Karen Read trial out of Canton, MA. I already know the judge and the prosecutor are corrupt, so the entire follow-along is by definition reaffirming. But every day that passes, the corruption becomes more obvious as the state's case becomes more precarious and exposed. So there's a truck-wreck element to it that is at once entertaining and aggravating. And underlying the entire circus is the wide-eyed wonder at the obviousness of the felonies being committed by all of the prosecutors - one of whom is the judge herself. That she is carrying water for the state is one thing - they all do (they just do it less obviously and with greater finesse). But that she is very openly preventing the defense from exposing police corruption makes the trial itself completely corrupt. On top of this, she is passing very obvious signals to the prosecution - she looks like a **** football coach communicating plays. And on top of that, she is openly soliciting objections which she then sustains without argument. And the defense is just sailing along - no remonstrations, just handing the **** more rope with the next question for her to sustain objections to. The defense attorneys clearly understand that the jury sees what they see. They know for a fact they're already many furlongs past reasonable doubt - and they're still in the prosecution phase of the trial. What they're playing for now, IMO, is disbarment and perhaps prison sentences for the opposing counsel and crooked judge - as well as for the dirty cops that murdered little Johnny. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 23 May 2025, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 9:18 am

I would say that you are precisely correct - but that would be a little tighter lasso than I wanna throw. 

Instead, I will say you are GENERALLY correct. Most of what I watch is more affirming than informative. In its defense, it does draw from the background into the foreground alements which strengthen one's arguments and deepen one's understanding. And it is not at all uncommon that new facts are brought to light - though, again, they are inevitably affirming. 

An example is that I am fowllowing the Karen Read trial out of Canton, MA. I already know the judge and the prosecutor are corrupt, so the entire follow-along is by definition reaffirming. But every day that passes, the corruption becomes more obvious as the state's case becomes more precarious and exposed. So there's a truck-wreck element to it that is at once entertaining and aggravating. And underlying the entire circus is the wide-eyed wonder at the obviousness of the felonies being committed by all of the prosecutors - one of whom is the judge herself. That she is carrying water for the state is one thing - they all do (they just do it less obviously and with greater finesse). But that she is very openly preventing the defense from exposing police corruption makes the trial itself completely corrupt. On top of this, she is passing very obvious signals to the prosecution - she looks like a **** football coach communicating plays. And on top of that, she is openly soliciting objections which she then sustains without argument. And the defense is just sailing along - no remonstrations, just handing the **** more rope with the next question for her to sustain objections to. The defense attorneys clearly understand that the jury sees what they see. They know for a fact they're already many furlongs past reasonable doubt - and they're still in the prosecution phase of the trial. What they're playing for now, IMO, is disbarment and perhaps prison sentences for the opposing counsel and crooked judge - as well as for the dirty cops that murdered little Johnny.

She doesn't want me on that Jurry.  I'd find her guilty of 2nd degree murder within about 5 minutes.  She was pissed off and killed her husband. End of story.  Maybe he deserved it.  Maybe she was a whore.  Maybe he was a whore.  Doesn't matter.  She killed him.  Intentionally.  But, probably didn't plan it.  Or, if she did, they won't prove that.  So, guilty.  Got to Lesbian jail and learn to lick twat.
 

Skans » 23 May 2025, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 9:43 am

She doesn't want me on that Jurry.  I'd find her guilty of 2nd degree murder within about 5 minutes.  She was pissed off and killed her husband. End of story.  Maybe he deserved it.  Maybe she was a whore.  Maybe he was a whore.  Doesn't matter.  She killed him.  Intentionally.  But, probably didn't plan it.  Or, if she did, they won't prove that.  So, guilty.  Got to Lesbian jail and learn to lick twat.

You would not be saying that if you were on her jury. Those are words uttered in ignorance. Watching cops get caught in dozens of perjeries has a way of raising doubt. 

Getting hit on the arm by an SUV doesn't send you corkscrewing thrity feet through the air without so much as a bruise or fracture. It just doesn't - you can google it. It doesn't put fist wounds on your orbital sockets and under your eyes, either - especially if you landed on your head, which would be necessary to explain the blunt force brain bleed.

"She was mad and he's dead" doesn't convict - sorry.
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 23 May 2025, 5:52 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 5:52 am

READ THE FILING. YOU **** IDIOT.

post the judge's instructions...
 

ROG62 » 23 May 2025, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 10:01 am

post the judge's instructions...

So you can read it?



**** idiot.
 

Cannonpointer » 23 May 2025, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 9:48 am

You would not be saying that if you were on her jury. Those are words uttered in ignorance. Watching cops get caught in dozens of perjeries has a way of raising doubt. 

Getting hit on the arm by an SUV doesn't send you corkscrewing thrity feet through the air without so much as a bruise or fracture. It just doesn't - you can google it. It doesn't put fist wounds on your orbital sockets and under your eyes, either - especially if you landed on your head, which would be necessary to explain the blunt force brain bleed.

"She was mad and he's dead" doesn't convict - sorry.

She did it. I'm sure of it. I would convict in 2 minutes. Could care less about what cops say or lied to.  Here's what I know. Karen Read did not testify in her own defense during her first trial. Very doubtful she will testify in this one.  Not to mention, all of the facts point to her killing her husband.  ****, the husband or wife is always guilty in marital murder cases!  She's guilty as hell.

The investigators know way more than they will be allowed to say in court.  Regardless, people who truly didn't commit the crime (0.01% of them) will testify in their own defense, unless they are retarded.  What have you got to convince me otherwise?
 

Skans » 23 May 2025, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 10:13 am

She did it. I'm sure of it. I would convict in 2 minutes. Could care less about what cops say or lied to.  Here's what I know. Karen Read did not testify in her own defense during her first trial. Very doubtful she will testify in this one.  Not to mention, all of the facts point to her killing her husband.  ****, the husband or wife is always guilty in marital murder cases!  She's guilty as hell.

They're not married. They have separate homes. But she did stay with him quite a lot, and they were nominally a monogamous couple.

He was beaten to death inside of the albert home (albert is a fellow cop), and while he was being beaten to death, he was vigorously clawed by a dog. Albert had a german shepherd named chloe, who they CLAIM was "rehomed" but they cannot say where the dog is.

The lead investigator's texts prove that he was hanging Reak out to dry in order to protect a friend and fellow cop. That lead investigator has been dishonorably discharged from the state patrol SPECIFICALLY for his behavior in the read case. You need to read the previous sentence twice, and just take it in.

The charade that you fell for was deconstructed in court the FIRST time, when she was acquitted on two of three charges and subsequently exposed to double jeopardy by the judge's misconduct in dismissing the jury without polling them as to the verdicts they were NOT deadlocked on.

Skans » 23 May 2025, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 10:13 am

The investigators know way more than they will be allowed to say in court.

No.

They've been allowed to lie in court, and their lies have been (ineffectively) protected from exposure by the corrupt co-prosecutor/judge.

Skans » 23 May 2025, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

23 May 2025, 10:13 am

Regardless, people who truly didn't commit the crime (0.01% of them) will testify in their own defense, unless they are retarded.  What have you got to convince me otherwise?

People who are not retarded follow their attorneys' advice. When the case is CLEARLY won, attorneys will almost always play it conservative and keep their clients off the stand.

Judges are required by law to caution juries not to weight it as evidence that defendants listened to their attorneys and did not testify. So your attitude would change, or you would ignore jury instructions - not for me to say which.

Your position is based on the misapprehension that our system requires defendants to prove their innocence. It is actually on the STATE to prove the case that the STATE is bringing - not on the defendant to disprove it. I can name a thousand reasons for staying off the stand, if you are convinced the state has failed to make its case - as WAS the case in the last trial, when she was acquitted on all of the serious charges and the jury was deadlocked on one lesser included.

This is a woman with several chronic health issues, and I highly doubt whether her doctors want her to spend days under a blistering and vicious cross-examination delving into embarrassing personal issues, likely forcing her to waive hipaa rights in order to explain herself, etc. Especially when the state's case has imploded faster than beevee facing a fifth grade biology exam.