Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 20, 2018 9:57:42 GMT -5
.. I shall be the neutral foreign referee. 50 points from Billisclaw. 50 points for Hufflepaul. Any more happy little commentaries? No? OK, then.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 20, 2018 9:52:23 GMT -5
Here's a spooky one: append the number of years billisonboard has been a YMAM member to his YMAM ID and you get: the current year! This has been the case every year he's been a member, and he's the only member for which it has ever or will ever be the case. (Unfortunately it will cease being true in 2020.) As for me: take my YMAM ID, multiply it by its first two digits, then subtract the product of its digits, and you get: 142 x 14 - (1x4x2) = 1982. My birth year! Prophetic. You do realize Virgil Showlion you can be downright scary But we love you just the same
ETA: and I'll take your word for all of the above - I hate numbers!
You're a spooky one too. The only member on the board whose YMAM ID is the same as the number of characters needed to tag you: 13.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 20, 2018 9:43:36 GMT -5
Here's a spooky one: append the number of years billisonboard has been a YMAM member to his YMAM ID and you get: the current year! This has been the case every year he's been a member, and he's the only member for which it has ever or will ever be the case. (Unfortunately it will cease being true in 2020.) As for me: take my YMAM ID, multiply it by its first two digits, then subtract the product of its digits, and you get: 142 x 14 - (1x4x2) = 1982. My birth year! Prophetic. ETA: No, actually, I pooched the arithmetic. It's: subtract the sum of the last two digits. 142 x 14 - (4+2) = 1982.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 20, 2018 9:16:09 GMT -5
If he doesn't procure the red hot, airtight, Trump-and-Putin-sharing-a-vodka-on-video smoking gun, may the Earth rise up to swallow us all. The Democrats will have succeeded in Benghazi!-ing him. Indeed, I'm aware. "Direct" is a curious choice of adjective. I don't believe in an eye for an eye when it comes to wasting public money. Ostensibly, yes. If we couldn't prove inevitable discovery. We already know which judge is presiding over the case, and anyone right of center's eyes are indeed bugging out of their heads for sake of her conflicts of interest. Mr. Mueller as a choice of prosecutor: credibility of Mueller investigation automatically 70% shot. Judge Wood as a choice of judge in Cohen case: credibility of Cohen case automatically 100% shot. Maybe they'll investigate Ivanka Trump next and put Rachel Maddow in charge. It's the loss of everyone's privacy that's tragic. It's the fact that surveillance of Pres. Trump's campaign men should never have been authorized under FISA Title I, Mr. Mueller should never have been appointed prosecutor, the "hush money to mistress = campaign expense" doctrine is an absolute joke, the Cohen case should never have been handed to Judge Wood, Mr. Hannity's being dragged into the whole thing positively reeks of state persecution, and when (in all likelihood) the Mueller inquiry returns with no evidence of collusion, it will well and truly become the poisonous tree (in the minds of Americans if not the law). Whatever any spin-off investigations turn up will be tainted by the state's handling of the matter. You could not engineer a more effective process to dismantle public faith in government than this one. All to harpoon their Moby Dick. That's what's tragic.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 20, 2018 7:51:07 GMT -5
Does this also apply at the state and local levels? Suppose I'm a malicious prosecutor or a prosecutor acting on behalf of a malicious actor. Based on a flimsy pretext, I get permission to look for evidence of child pornography on the personal computers of an individual. Once I get my hands on his computers, I find no pornography, hence I invest the full resources of my office tearing apart every file on a hunt for any kind of criminal activity, meanwhile "passing the information along" and/or repeatedly expanding the scope of the warrant as needed. Is there nothing to stop me from doing this? In your hypothetical, would not the prosecutor and his crew have torn apart every file anyway looking for evidence of child porn? After all it's doubtful a child pornographer would have named the file where (s)he kept the porn 'Kiddie Porn Stored Here'. Indeed, the prosecutor would need to tear up the whole computer. Alas, the investigation turns up no evidence of what was sought. We can't undo the damage (the violation of privacy), and there was presumably some legal pretext (e.g. somebody's name showing up on monitored backchannel somewhere) to invade that privacy, hence the victim has no legal recourse, which is regrettable but necessary. But if we don't prevent such things from being used as carte blanche to go fishing for any kind of legal wrongdoing (which, if we include underpaying taxes, drug use, illegal gambling, and various other vices, is estimated to apply to a healthy majority of Americans), how is this not weaponizing the justice system? How does anyone have any privacy whatsoever?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 20, 2018 7:31:35 GMT -5
I believe what Paul is saying by "essentially agreeing to pay for the wall" is that Mexico closing tariff loopholes (in response to Pres. Trump's direction to negotiators) will conceivably save the US enough money to cover the costs of building the border wall. Supposing the loopholes will actually be closed, the US sacrifices nothing in exchange, and the money saved will indeed cover the costs of building the wall, describing Mexico's "agreeing to concessions that will cover the cost of the wall" as "essentially agreeing to pay for the wall" isn't too egregious a spin. It's enough of a stretch, however, that mention of the wall won't appear in any article about the tariff loopholes. So, in this episode of Paul et al. vs. YMAM, the stakes are high and the condition for victory is clear: If Mexico ultimately agrees to close the loophole (within 12 months of today), and if the CBO's projection of the closure's net financial benefit to America exceeds 50% of the total cost of the wall, Paul and team MAGA emerge triumphant. If Mexico does not close the loophole in a timely fashion, or if the net benefit to the US is not at least 50% of the total cost of the wall, team YMAM chalks up a win. I shall be the neutral foreign referee.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 20, 2018 6:59:43 GMT -5
As others have explained, if investigators come across other information/evidence that is not directly pertinent to their investigation, it doesn’t exceed the bounds of the warrant to pass that information along to the person/body empowered to investigate it. Nor would it be a violation to take that info and go get a broader warrant on that basis. Does this also apply at the state and local levels? Suppose I'm a malicious prosecutor or a prosecutor acting on behalf of a malicious actor. Based on a flimsy pretext, I get permission to look for evidence of child pornography on the personal computers of an individual. Once I get my hands on his computers, I find no pornography, hence I invest the full resources of my office tearing apart every file on a hunt for any kind of criminal activity, meanwhile "passing the information along" and/or repeatedly expanding the scope of the warrant as needed. Is there nothing to stop me from doing this?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 20, 2018 0:12:02 GMT -5
I lament that so many people who perceive the world in shades of gray use it to excuse all but the blackest pitch on the spectrum. Application of medical knowledge obtained by unethical means is such a vexing issue for the opposite reason. So very close to being a brilliant white, if not for that small, irremovable black stain--the temptation to break the rules to accomplish something great, knowing one's effort won't be spent in vain--that's as black as human nature gets.Hmmmm... not sure about it being close to a "brilliant white" on the ethical scale - or that the black stain is small. I'm not sure how you are reconcilling the use of people AGAINST their will (without any sort of consent - you can't even use the rationalization that it's not so bad even if they were 'tricked' into doing it for the greater good... ) with anything vaguely "good" or "right" or "ethical". Not to mention how one would rationalize extraordinary pain, suffering, and death for what maybe/might/we're not sure amount to some knowledge that was deemed 'good' --and might very well have been gained without the pain, suffering, and death. You might actually want to watch Jessica Jones (the Netflix show) - just close your eyes during the 2 minutes of 'sex scenes' that are in each season - it telegraphs to the viewer that a "sex scene" is coming - so you won't have to see something upsetting. The second season deals extensively with the issue of unethical experimentation "for the greater good". It doesn't give any answers but it certainly makes you think (well, it made me re-visit this delimna). I'm still firmly in the camp that says knowledge obtained by unethical means is wrong and bad and is tainted with more than a 'small black spot' - no matter the benefit. The black spot I'm talking about is the use of medical research that's already been conducted. Suppose tomorrow we shut down an illegal and horrific medical research practice. The individuals involved are disgraced and jailed, the operation dismantled, the practice soundly condemned. But after all the dust clears, sitting there on the table is groundbreaking research leading to a wonder treatment for Alzheimer's. What do we do? The brilliant white sheet is the treatment for Alzheimer's. What a wonderful boon to the world it would be. An end to so much suffering. But there's also the pitch black stain: if we use it, no matter how much we shame and condemn the operation that produced it, we simply cannot avoid sending a message to the world: the ends justify the means. In particular: "If you too will dare sacrifice a few lives to accomplish something truly great for humanity, we will revile you, we will condemn you, but we will use your research. Your toil and your fall from grace will not be in vain. Your work and legacy will live on, and you will have accomplished what you set out to do." Again: What do we do? Stand on principle, throw away the research, and endure the suffering of Alzheimer's for years or decades more? Or employ the research, end the suffering, but in so doing make a powerful statement we really don't want to make, with potentially grave consequences? The reason I call it a small black spot is because "sending the wrong message" seems so trivial compared to "curing Alzheimer's" at a glance. I call the spot "as black as human nature gets" because I agree with you about the utter depravity of such kinds of research.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 23:30:19 GMT -5
You could have stopped there. Federal investigations are governed by such a huge network of constitutional principles, statutes, and political considerations that even experienced attorneys can be confounded by them. Having non-attorneys play armchair quarterback and proclaim what is legal/illegal in these situations based on their recall of a fictional TV drama is a little... well, imagine if someone watched a 20-minute coding tutorial on YouTube and then began commenting authoritatively on all the programming errors on YMAM. Suffice it to say that your hypothetical is not how it works, not how it should work, and not what happened here. That's what I'm here to find out. Why do the principles that make what I'm describing a violation of a person's constitutional rights at the state level, but not at the federal level? Is it as simple as the feds not giving a snow leopard's arse about the scope of warrants--or whatever writ gives them the legal authority to look for evidence of a crime? Are they not constrained by any parameters limiting the scope of their investigation? You'll surely find no one who holds the US justice system in greater contempt than I, but even I have to believe there must be some kind of rule stating the FBI can't go poking around looking for evidence of, say, Russian bank transactions, based on vague supposition from barely-legal eavesdropping in 2016, find evidence of illegal gambling, and hand some state prosecutor a case based on evidence he couldn't possibly have obtained without a warrant that would never have been issued due to lack of probable cause. Or is your system so ass-backwards, this is what's actually going on here? The constitutional guarantee to privacy is well and truly a myth. The feds can go fishing for whatever they want to, based on any inscrutable premise they dream up, and whatever they fish out of the gutter is fair game? It explains why they're spending billions back-dooring our phones and archiving our e-mails. And obviously they don't give a toot about attorney-client privilege--although this I don't mind since attorney-client privilege shouldn't exist in the first place. Who says two wrongs don't make a right? Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Is Pres. Trump's privacy being protected in some way I'm not perceiving? Or is it just a myth? If you don't have time to answer my question, I understand, but may I kindly ask that you refrain from mocking my limited legal background, as I've been very straightforward in disclosing where my preconceptions are coming from. You don't need to tell me my knowledge in the area is lacking. If I believed it was sufficient, I wouldn't be asking questions. My thanks in advance.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 22:48:15 GMT -5
I don't think you realize all the information that led to the Mueller investigation being started in the first place. I said 'information' because it wasn't validated, so it isn't 'evidence' yet (and may never be) but it was substantial enough data, from multiple sources, to trigger an investigation. "substantial data from multiple sources": (The Trumpets keep pushing the statement that the dossier was the only information presented, and the dossier was all hooey. The dossier was only part of the information, and parts of it have already been substantiated). We have no idea on what information the inquiry is based on, let alone what parts of it have been substantiated. It's a black box, requiring trust in the competence and good faith of the US intel agencies, many of which have proven to be considerably less than trustworthy. How do we know it's not a fishing expedition by Pres. Trump's enemies? We don't. We have to rely entirely on faith in the intel agencies. There is certainly more indications of wrong doing than what was used to launch the multiple 'Bengazhi!' reviews. The Benghazi inquiries were a witch hunt. Unless you dispute this, don't invoke them as justification for anything. (And consequently, we've already had multiple people either going to trial or pleading guilty). ...for piecemeal obstruction charges such as failing to disclose contacts, etc. Nothing coming remotely close to Pres. Trump or Russian collusion. And a comparable analogy would be a cop interviewing suspects for a murder investigation, and when searching his possessions, finding a log book documenting that he was involved in an illegal betting operation. Homicide cops would hand the log book off to another department, for them to follow up on it, to determine if they can verify this was an illegal operation, where it was located, and who was running it. Did they have a warrant to search through the suspect's possessions, and is the illegal betting related to the homicide? If so, fine. If not, as far as TV has taught me, the log book would be totally inadmissible as evidence in a trial for illegal betting. Nor could it be considered probable cause to get a warrant to search the suspect's home for more evidence of illegal betting. Surely you don't think the homicide cops would just toss that kind of information in an evidence bag with the assumption that the vice cops would probably get around to finding the gambling ring on their own, do you? I'd expect them to notify somebody about it, but I wouldn't expect it to be spun off into a new case for prosecutors. As for investigators being able to pick the judges they want - no. I didn't mean to imply this. Only that the judge in this spin-off case has numerous Texas-sized conflicts of interest, and that the case landing on her desk isn't a coincidence. Who ultimately rigged it this way, I don't know. And as I pointed out before, if your client gets railroaded by a judge who appears to be colluding with the cops, you have grounds to ask the higher court to review it. You're presuming Pres. Trump's enemies care. One step at a time. I guarantee that Cohen has the very best lawyers in NYC and they will be all over it if it appears Cohen is being treated unfairly. This is a very high profile case, everyone involved will be bending over backwards to make sure things are above board and legal. They've done a bang-up job so far.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 22:08:20 GMT -5
My wife pointed out that this year I am 61 having been born in '57 and she will be 57 having been born in '61. First off, I was amazed her mind caught that. Anyone else have any weird thing like that to share. My grandma and I have inverse ages every 11 years. She was born in '38, I was born in '83. In '88 she was 50 and I was 5, '99 we were 61 and 16, 2010 we were 72 and 27, 21 will be 83 and 38... This will occur between any two people whose birth years differ by a non-zero multiple of 9. Suppose two persons' birth years differ by 9 n. In the case of you and your grandmother, 1983 - 1938 = 45, hence n = 5. Then n years after your birth, and every 11 years after that, your ages will be "inverse" in the way you suggest. The fact that the year (2021) that your age is equal to your grandmother's birth year (and vice versa) is also an "inverse" year for your ages is much rarer, and owes to the fact that your birth years are inverse to each other. It's not hard to see that all inverse pairs of birth years in the same century differ by a multiple of 9, hence the pair (38,83) is no more special than any other such pair, e.g. (49,94), but there are only 45 such inverse pairs out of 5050 possible birth year pairs, making it a rare property indeed. Unfortunately this means that Billis' own discovery is no longer impressive. ETA: Sadly, my inverse-birth-year-buddy Billis year has come and gone. On 2010, I was 28, born in 1982, while somebody born in 1928 would have been 82 at the time.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 12:17:19 GMT -5
.... My "Law & Order" is a bit rusty, but it seems to me there were a lot of episodes with defense lawyers successfully arguing that evidence of criminal activity obtained outside the scope of a warrant--which must stipulate both what investigators are looking for and why--is inadmissible.... Did some judge sign off on an extraordinarily broad warrant such that anything at all criminal Mr. Mueller discovered while spelunking through Pres. Trump's lawyer's records was within its scope? ... Slow down. You are getting ahead of where things are currently at in the investigation. Your use of "warrant" is a bit off. Mueller's investigation is authorized by letter from the then Acting Attorney General. I quote in part, from that and provide a link to the full letter. (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; link Apparently, Mueller's investigation found evidence of a potential crime which was outside of their scope and referred it the appropriate people. That is no different then you calling the cops if you witness what you think is a crime. Those people got a warrant. What you are talking about is what could happen down the road. If criminal charges are brought, attorneys for defendants might make such claims. Without very specific information, it would be impossible to guess if they would be successful in get any evidence tossed out or charges dismissed. This whole situation strikes me as: Virgil: I hate Billis. I'm'a throw him in jail for something. Let's see... ... Aha! A gum wrapper on his front porch. Probable cause to search his house for evidence of violating trash by-laws. Off to the judge I go. Judge: Well... that gum wrapper is pretty compelling, so I'm going to let you look in Billis' trash cans for evidence of by-law violations. But that's all. Remember, he has a constitutional right to privacy. Virgil: Right-O, judge. (one hour later, at the prosecutor's office) Virgil: Dio, come here. Have I got the case for you! Diogenes: How so? Virgil: Well, I was walking through Billis' hou- Diogenes: I really hate that guy. Virgil: I know. Listen. I was walking through his house looking through his trash cans and I noticed he's got a bunch of pot stashed under his sink. Now, I can't do anything with that, but- Diogenes: But I can use it to get a warrant, raid his house, and throw the bastard in jail! Booyah, my man! Virgil: I know just the judge for the case too. Ask yourself: Who hates Billis more than anyone else in the world? Diogenes: That old lady who lives across the street from him. Virgil: You didn't hear it from me, but act now and you get the judge who personally officiated her private wedding. Diogenes: Booyah! (Virgil and Diogenes begin to dance around the room) Virgil and Diogenes: For Bill's a jolly dead fellow, for Bill's a jolly dead fellow, ...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 11:53:59 GMT -5
I'm with deminmaine . I'll uncross my arms and de-arch my eyebrow after Kim Jong Un actually concedes something. It's well known that NK has a cultural obsession with the US, seeing it as "the world's other superpower" besides themselves. Pres. Kim Jong in particular seems to crave validation of NK's "superpower" status. Hence not only does the US's coming to the table bode well for e.g. easing of sanctions, I'm sure it's internally perceived as an invitation to the Big Leagues. "Behold. The President of the United States, leader of the second most powerful nation on Earth, coming to us with terms of peace." Now... does this mean Kim Jong is categorically insincere in his desire for peace? Is there no hope? I wouldn't go that far. Pres. Trump might actually turn out to be quite the asset. He knows how to make people feel important. He knows how to persuade them they're getting a good deal. He knows how to leverage a man's ego to his benefit. Perhaps he's just the man to convince Pres. Kim Jong that greater prestige and power lies elsewhere from acquisition of military power. I can imagine televisions across NK broadcasting Pres. Trump's boasts, "Pres. Kim Jong Un and I just signed a great deal. He's a great man. He's going to disarm, and we're going to do a lot of business with him. The North Koreans have so much they can offer the world." and Kim Jong actually complying with supervised disarmament in order to preserve such an accomplishment. Not altogether likely, all things considered, but possible. Hence, let's be optimistic. We were cautiously optimistic for the Iran deal, were we not? Sure, we can be optimistic.
Maybe Kim Jong will be diplomatic and not call Trump a feeble old man. Maybe Trump will be diplomatic and not threaten to use his 'very big' nukes.
It can happen.
There's that too, isn't there?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 11:36:29 GMT -5
The Nazis were responsible for quite a few major medical and other technological developments. We like to thing of good as good, and evil as evil, and no good thing ever coming from evil, but life isn't so accommodating. Never a bad thing to realize this world isn't quite as black and wrote as some attempt to make it. I lament that so many people who perceive the world in shades of gray use it to excuse all but the blackest pitch on the spectrum. Application of medical knowledge obtained by unethical means is such a vexing issue for the opposite reason. So very close to being a brilliant white, if not for that small, irremovable black stain--the temptation to break the rules to accomplish something great, knowing one's effort won't be spent in vain--that's as black as human nature gets.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 11:09:34 GMT -5
I'm with deminmaine. I'll uncross my arms and de-arch my eyebrow after Kim Jong Un actually concedes something. It's well known that NK has a cultural obsession with the US, seeing it as "the world's other superpower" besides themselves. Pres. Kim Jong in particular seems to crave validation of NK's "superpower" status. Hence not only does the US's coming to the table bode well for e.g. easing of sanctions, I'm sure it's internally perceived as an invitation to the Big Leagues. "Behold. The President of the United States, leader of the second most powerful nation on Earth, coming to us with terms of peace." Now... does this mean Kim Jong is categorically insincere in his desire for peace? Is there no hope? I wouldn't go that far. Pres. Trump might actually turn out to be quite the asset. He knows how to make people feel important. He knows how to persuade them they're getting a good deal. He knows how to leverage a man's ego to his benefit. Perhaps he's just the man to convince Pres. Kim Jong that greater prestige and power lies elsewhere from acquisition of military power. I can imagine televisions across NK broadcasting Pres. Trump's boasts, "Pres. Kim Jong Un and I just signed a great deal. He's a great man. He's going to disarm, and we're going to do a lot of business with him. The North Koreans have so much they can offer the world." and Kim Jong actually complying with supervised disarmament in order to preserve such an accomplishment. Not altogether likely, all things considered, but possible. Hence, let's be optimistic. We were cautiously optimistic for the Iran deal, were we not?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 10:00:57 GMT -5
I don't understand how Mr. Mueller can go on a fishing expedition for Russian collusion, use it as a pretext to go after Mr. Cohen's records, and then spin off a whole new investigation. I thought there were constitutional protections against that kind of thing. ... EDIT: I was slow and got distracted typing the below. When I posted it saw the issue was handled quite nicely above. Will leave it because I like my analogy Say you are in a new to you part of town looking for a shop that sells old computer parts because your boss has tasked you with the job of fixing his vintage machine. You notice a place that sells really cool women's hats, something your wife loves. Do you tell her about the shop suggesting she might want to go there? Of course you do. FWIW, I think your sequence of events is off. My understanding is Mueller came across evidence of a potential crime, passed it on, others investigated and got the warrant. You're talking about what's reasonable, and I'm talking about the law. My "Law & Order" is a bit rusty, but it seems to me there were a lot of episodes with defense lawyers successfully arguing that evidence of criminal activity obtained outside the scope of a warrant--which must stipulate both what investigators are looking for and why--is inadmissible. The rationale being that the state doesn't want to reward investigators for abusing the privileges granted to them by the warrant. If they want to get the evidence admitted, they have to argue "inevitable discovery", i.e. that they'd inevitably come across the information in some other way. Or so says Hollywood, as pertains to criminal law in New York State. So what's the case here? Has Hollywood lied to me? Does the FBI get a free pass? Did some judge sign off on an extraordinarily broad warrant such that anything at all criminal Mr. Mueller discovered while spelunking through Pres. Trump's lawyer's records was within its scope? If not, how is his spinning off a new investigation not rewarding the state for violating Pres. Trump's constitutional right to privacy by exceeding the scope of the warrant?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 8:41:51 GMT -5
I don't understand how Mr. Mueller can go on a fishing expedition for Russian collusion, use it as a pretext to go after Mr. Cohen's records, and then spin off a whole new investigation. I thought there were constitutional protections against that kind of thing. And of course New York would have to put the shadiest judge they could possibly find in charge of the spun-off case, providing a 100% rock-solid guarantee Republicans will treat the proceedings as tainted and illegitimate. How can so many people think they're winning when they're losing? You think this circus is railroading him to impeachment, but it's handing the man his second term on a silver platter.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 8:26:41 GMT -5
My wife pointed out that this year I am 61 having been born in '57 and she will be 57 having been born in '61. First off, I was amazed her mind caught that. Anyone else have any weird thing like that to share. This will occur between any two people when their birth years sum to the current year modulo 100. So for example, my wife and I will have to wait until 2066. At that point, assuming we're both still alive, I'll have been born in '82 and be 84 years old, and she'll have been born in '84 and be 82.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 19, 2018 7:57:14 GMT -5
The Nazis were responsible for quite a few major medical and other technological developments. We like to thing of good as good, and evil as evil, and no good thing ever coming from evil, but life isn't so accommodating.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 20:51:14 GMT -5
Dammit! Every Tom, Dick and Idiot should not be able to own guns. MERRILLVILLE, Ind. - Police say a 3-year-old girl accidentally shot and wounded her pregnant mother in a car parked outside a northwestern Indiana thrift store. The shooting happened Tuesday afternoon in Merrillville as the girl, a 1-year-old boy and her mother waited in the car while the woman's boyfriend was inside the store. Police say the man is the girl's father and apparently left the loaded gun in the car. The woman is listed in critical but stable condition. Detective Sgt. James Bogner says the girl "had no idea what she had done and she was very scared." www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/police-3-year-old-accidentally-shoots-wounds-mother-in-car/ar-AAw1GeZ?li=AAggFp5315,000,000 people, Weltz. The road to insanity starts with the belief we can and must save every one of them from themselves. Have you ever watched a show called "Canada's Worst Driver"? I don't know if it's still on. If it is, and you can find it, watch an episode. Then do us, your countrymen, a service by lobbying the government for mandatory in-car driving tests every five years in order to renew a license. Let that be your regulatory gift to mankind.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 20:41:38 GMT -5
So it looks like the Russian minister jumped the gun and got burned for it. Both articles now say the OPCW can't confirm the origin of the toxin. Meaning your PM also jumped the gun. Do you really have to ask why I'm skeptical we'll ever arrive at the truth?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 20:27:56 GMT -5
I can't do battle with whatever circumstances you contrive to make divorce an inconceivably horrible option, especially since the Bible permits it on the basis of ( a) and therefore acknowledges its necessity in some cases. Suffice it to say: anyone contemplating divorce should compare it to committing a violent assault on their family--especially their children. If the circumstances in ( a) are present, all other options (which are manifold) have failed, and if leaving is still the less harmful option in light of such a comparison, they needn't fear condemnation from me. So iff the circumstances warrant it, you won't condemn? How on earth do you parse out what is and isn't warranted? I don't make other people's business my own, but life has a way of directly confronting us with other people's decisions/behaviour from time to time. People hurt us, come to us for help, object to our express viewpoint on something, act shamefully in a very public way, etc. This requires us to make judgments. I don't know whether my boss is cheating on his wife, and if I became aware of such conduct because of their mutual indiscretion, I wouldn't say a word to him about it. But... life has a way of forcing you to take sides. You're at the company party and the boss nudges you and confides in you what a great time he's having with the mistress. I've had it happen before (not with a boss, fortunately). He wants validation, even if he doesn't think of it this way. Hence you've reached that rotten, gut-wrenching point where you have to let him know exactly what you think of what he's doing. Beyond this, even if he takes your advice to heart--which is a long shot--your collegial relationship is over. There's nothing people detest more than being admonished when they're seeking validation. Divorce is different in the sense that it's not a 'practice' per se. But it is similar in that people can come to us looking for validation. "My wife doesn't... and she's always... and I think she's... and I can't stand her," and we have to make a judgment on whether the situation is something we'll affirm is grounds for divorce. My personal judgment is as stated in my previous post. If I can't express it in a situation where somebody confronts me with the issue, I'm a coward. I can be diplomatic about it... to a point. The goal is to admonish and persuade, not crush people into submission. But man is always looking for that "Well, I guess if..." bit of wiggle room we afford him to spare his feelings (and ease our own discomfort). The longer I live, the greater harm I see in equivocal attitudes. I can honestly and thankfully say I've never had to judge or comment on a specific divorce. It would suit me just fine if I never do. It helps that most people who know me well enough to solicit my advice also know what my advice is going to be. I am not a creature of nuanced and inscrutable morals, as some here may have noticed.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 12:02:46 GMT -5
I can't do battle with whatever circumstances you contrive to make divorce an inconceivably horrible option, especially since the Bible permits it on the basis of ( a) and therefore acknowledges its necessity in some cases. Suffice it to say: anyone contemplating divorce should compare it to committing a violent assault on their family--especially their children. If the circumstances in ( a) are present, all other options (which are manifold) have failed, and if leaving is still the less harmful option in light of such a comparison, they needn't fear condemnation from me. Furthermore, so that nobody misunderstands me: if a man divorces his wife in spite of her sincerest efforts to reconcile, she's blameless in the matter. The decision to break his oath is the man's alone. Not in the 50's and 60's. Divorced women, even if they were 'blamelessly' left by their husbands, were considered by society to either be a horrible wife (which is why DH left) or a floozy, willing to bang anyone, which is why DH left. If the DH was drunk or abusive, if she'd been a 'good' wife she could have gotten him to stop that.
My older sister had a BF whose parents were divorced, and my mom was on a relentless campaign to break up the friendship, because 'nice' people did not associate with divorced people (or even the children of divorced people).
Fast forward 30 years, and Mom went on a campaign to get one of her daughters to divorce her husband, because my mom didn't like that particular SIL. Times do change... fortunately.
I'm not stumping for every last jot and tittle of social attitudes in the 1950's. Their hatred of the act of divorce (i.e. their understanding of the harm it causes), and not going on campaigns to destroy their children's marriages: that much I support. People, including Christians who ought to know better, don't realize ostracism is a last restort to dissuade somebody from persisting in harmful behaviour. It's not a punishment. If a person repents, meaning they realize what they're doing is wrong and cease doing it, continuing to shun that person is contrary to the commandments of God. They've ceased harming themselves and others. There should be welcoming, rejoicing and forgiving (by any who may have been harmed). It should be as though the evil had never been committed. No condemnation. No guilt. Turning people away from the unrepentant practice of evil (and preventing it from spreading) is the whole purpose of shunning. Not punishment. Did the men and women of the 1950's understand this perfectly? Hardly. I still think, as a generation, they understood it better than we do today, but it was no utopia. For example, I don't know whether your mother was/is a Christian, but if she is, she may benefit from a sermon about true and false doctrines on shunning people.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 10:59:21 GMT -5
I don't have time to inject any more thought into the "why isn't divorce stigmatized more" debate, but I will say the WOMEN were usually stigmatized while at the same time unable to support themselves once the husband had left. So their choices were to: a) stay with an adulterer/abuser b) somehow force husband to stay if he wants to leave c) in the event of divorce, women is shunned, unable to support herself, she and kids slide into poverty and possibly die So that again brings us back to the "fact" that less options for women = better society. I can't do battle with whatever circumstances you contrive to make divorce an inconceivably horrible option, especially since the Bible permits it on the basis of ( a) and therefore acknowledges its necessity in some cases. Suffice it to say: anyone contemplating divorce should compare it to committing a violent assault on their family--especially their children. If the circumstances in ( a) are present, all other options (which are manifold) have failed, and if leaving is still the less harmful option in light of such a comparison, they needn't fear condemnation from me. Furthermore, so that nobody misunderstands me: if a man divorces his wife in spite of her sincerest efforts to reconcile, she's blameless in the matter. The decision to break his oath is the man's alone.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 10:32:48 GMT -5
It is always easy to say that when you aren't struggling to put food on the table. I know plenty of older people who say things like "If I had a better job, I could have saved more and had some money now." Or "I wish I had been able to put my kids through college." Of course no one regrets not working more, but many regret things they missed because they didn't have the resources. Sometimes you sacrifice. I interpret the statement as: you'll regret prioritizing work above family. This comes with the implicit caveat that "family" includes responsibility to family: keeping food on the table, saving enough for retirement so as not to be burdensome or shut-in, and taking care of one's health and financial obligations, among many other things. I suggest this because I don't believe Ms. Bush was ignorant of the fact that we'd all love a little more money.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 10:17:01 GMT -5
I wish I could find the exact quote, but paraphrasing, her message to younger generations was: "As you get older, you won't regret not closing one more deal, earning one more bonus, getting one more promotion. What you will regret is one more hour you didn't spend with your husband, one more gathering you missed with your family, one more afternoon you didn't spend with friends." There's great wisdom in that statement. And somehow this great wisdom applies only to females? Men who neglect their family duties are just as culpable. But then enters the issue of the psychology/skills of men versus women in terms of raising and educating children, the need to carry on a 9-5 job, etc., which, as dearly as feminists and homosexual activists love to deny it, is strongly asymmetrical between the sexes. I'm can't follow that arc today. I'm spending far too much time here typing up defenses for my other arguments.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 10:08:16 GMT -5
It's a matter of values and priorities, not raw desire. Notwithstanding higher values, man is a hedonist, seeking the most personal gratification from the least amount of work. That's what societies of all eras blindly strive toward once they're sufficiently prosperous. It's entropic. Our own descent started in the post-war 1950's. Secondly, the issue is more complicated than "housewife" versus "not a housewife". It concerns factors such as how many children a couple has, whether both parents are present and committed, whether the family is functional, how much time parents personally invest in educating their children (particularly with regards to a moral education), how much time the family spends together, the quality of home life, and the social health of the family (in terms of staying connected with friends and extended family). While it's possible for both parents to work without sacrificing any of the above (particularly in later life), it's exceptionally difficult. To the extent families fail in these regards, society suffers. Failure occurs in part because we have different values, different priorities, and aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices. In the end, we have a broken, dying society and none of the happiness we sought. This isn't the only factor contributing the relative happiness and stability of the 1950's versus the train-wreck-in-waiting of today, but it's a major one. ETA's: Ms. Barbara Bush, who passed away today, had a great deal to say about priorities. The wife of a US president, having experienced everything from the life of a housewife to the life of a 24/7 campaigner and public figure. I wish I could find the exact quote, but paraphrasing, her message to younger generations was: "As you get older, you won't regret not closing one more deal, earning one more bonus, getting one more promotion. What you will regret is one more hour you didn't spend with your husband, one more gathering you missed with your family, one more afternoon you didn't spend with friends." There's great wisdom in that statement. I completely agree that as a society (American society, specifically) our priorities are out of whack and should be re-examined... however, I am skeptical that people were as happy back then as you keep claiming they were! I guess a lot may have been if you apply the adage "ignorance is bliss", but I'm willing to bet a LOT of people were not asked how happy they were. It seems that your way to build a great society is by spoon-feeding them "feel-good" news so they don't question anything, limiting women's access to the workplace, outlawing divorce, and having a national religion. Do you really think having freedom and choices is so damaging to society?I'd answer that the same way as a proponent of gun control might answer it in the context of gun rights. There are three separate issues: - Which specific freedoms/choices are harmful, and how are they harmful?
- What should society's policy be in discouraging harmful choices? Something as mild as a stigma, or something as severe as a prohibition by law?
- How "far gone" is society with respect to making harmful choices?
You mention divorce, hence let's consider that as an example of a freedom/choice.
Is it harmful? Absolutely. It's one of the greatest traumas a family can suffer, both due to the aftermath and the events that lead up to it. Worse still, it propagates down through generations. Divorce and infidelity (both in the form of violence and adultery) are terrible things.
What should society's reaction to it be? Prohibition? For millennia, divorce has rarely been prohibited in Israelite-descended nations on account of it being permitted in Old Testament law. Other scriptures indicate this permission stems from the greater priority of preventing spousal violence. In other words: the only reason such a detestable thing is permitted is because it's one of the rare instances where a prohibition by man's law is the greater evil. The ancient world, including Christendom all the way up to the 20th Century, generally understood this judgment and respected it. Hence while divorce was permitted, it was treated with contempt befitting its harmfulness.
Enter the latter half of the 20th Century. Western man, grown rich and prosperous, decides divorce really isn't such a bad thing in his great "wisdom". Damnable ignorance, of course, as the world boards the express train to Hell. But man fancies himself an enlightened creature, as it has been since the day he first set foot on the Earth, and his society, at tremendous expense, has heaped up enough cushioning that divorce isn't as financially devastating as before. Hence slowly, decade by decade, the stigma against divorce evaporates. Eventually man forgets the value of monogamy, and after that, the value of marriage. This is accompanied by other deleterious shifts in social values, and by the early 21st Century, he's all but totally lost his mind and on the cusp of too many disasters to count.
Which brings us to the final question: How "far gone" is society with respect to making this harmful choice? The undeniable answer for anyone with eyes to see is: well beyond the point of no return. As dearly as I'd like society to return to a state where the majority understand the evil of divorce and openly treat it as a shameful and detestable thing, this isn't going to happen. Even when society falls apart before our eyes, it's not going to happen. A law prohibiting divorce in the US today would fare as well as a law prohibiting all firearms.
You say "ignorance is bliss" as though women in the 1950's were the ignorant ones. Not as well educated, perhaps, but possessing wisdom and values this generation will never have.
Hopefully that answers your question.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 17, 2018 22:24:35 GMT -5
As long as we don't shoot snow leopards. do shoot them. As long as we do shoot... Just... forget it. You're not even taking me seriously.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 17, 2018 22:23:04 GMT -5
... But the US will be in a position to ban snow leopards long before you're ever ready to toss the 2A. ... You just might be correct. And Americans will continue to shoot each other. Look at it this way: if homicides directly related to gang activity are subtracted from US totals, you look pretty close to any other OECD nation. (The reflexive counter to this is "If you eliminate gang activity from other OECD nations, they'll look a whole lot better too." A few, yes. Most, including Canada and Australia: not by any significant amount.) The US has a gang problem, and the gang problem is a gun problem. Anon has a point in that a nationwide handgun ban in the US will have little effect on the number of guns in the hands of gangsters. The few gangsters here in Canada (mainly Asian gangs in Toronto, and some Hell's Angels in Quebec) are armed to the teeth in spite of our decades-long nationwide ban. Police work focuses on shutting down gang operations and keeping kids out of gangs. Where gangs exist, guns exist, in spite of any laws. Disarmament is futile for the simple reason that the officers enforcing the ban have far more to lose than the gangsters. Hence the bad news is that a handgun ban won't solve your woes. It doesn't address the principal reason your homicide rate is so high. The good news is that if you can work to reduce the number of gangs and gang members, reducing gun violence in the US will take care of itself.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 17, 2018 21:33:18 GMT -5
All that was for "Do I really need to tell you this?" ... Based on my personality type, there is no greater insult than questioning my competence. I'm no different. The question you have to ask yourself is: Do you ever openly question other members' competence? If/when you do, do you intend it as an insult?
|
|