He lives in Commy Land where everyone has flying cars, everyone gets free everything out of a magic hole in the sky, and collectivization doesn't inevitably lead to totalitarianism.

"california were not targeting media" [proceeds to detail why you think California should target the media].

The fact that you think it is the governments role to hand down dictates like this says volumes about your totalitarian lean. There is a reason freedom of speech is number one. Under the law a toddler taking notes with a crayon is a journalist, you don't get to decide who qualifies, nor does the government, no matter how much you would love to goose step down that slippery slope.

That is a nice appeal to authority you have there. It would be a shame if some one were to point out it was a logical fallacy. My quoted section infers just as much of my personal conclusion as your quoted section does to yours, but of course you REALLY want to be right so, reality bends to your will.

How can The Senate try an impeachment that didn't happen? Exactly my point. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either it did happen and The Senate must be allowed to move it to trial, or it didn't happen and the articles haven't yet been transmitted to The Senate. Good job proving yourself wrong there Nutilduuuhhhh.

Just for fun, have some precedent:

"(b) The language and structure of Art. I, 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial-style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose - that the Senate's Members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and [506 U.S. 224, 225]   that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried - the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/506/224.html

You call it whatever you like. Your completely semantic distinction doesn't change the fact my quote was edited to make it appear as if it was a straight forward statement in my own voice when it was nothing of the sort.


At least you have enough integrity in this instance to not let your personal opinions of me change your standards for what is and is not acceptable to negative rate people over. You are free to think I am a cunt, I won't even argue with you over that, just don't abuse the systems designed to prevent fraud to fight your petty interpersonal battles. That is where I draw the line.

Thanks for another demonstration of the inversion of the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

Calm your tits little girl, I know feeling like you won is very important to you seeing as you make a habit of following me around and passive aggressively antagonizing me, but this isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of yet another Harvard Law professor. At the absolute best for your position, this is a stalemate, but it is not as I explained your presented argument is a non-sequitur.

Article I, Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/legislative

Until the articles of impeachment are transmitted to The Senate, the act of impeachment is not complete as it is their responsibility to do so to meet the constitutional standards of impeachment.

Is that what this thread is? People just asking questions? To me it looks like yet one more attempt in a long string of attempts to attack OGNasty by casting aspersions upon him and demanding he prove his innocence, and dance like a puppet for his accusers, but sure you call it "just asking questions" if you like. There was plenty ambiguous about Pirate's statement, even if there wasn't, he is still a convicted felon. I don't know about you, but convicted felons don't rank too high in my trustworthiness or reliability ranking.

Also there is the little detail that no one has any proof where refunded funds went, and for all you know all of them were returned, but lets ignore that crucial gap in the evidence. Tell me, where in my quote there did I say anything about Twitchy Seal? I know it is hard to not let your projections bleed into your statements, but please do try.

This doesn't explain anything or relate to the topic, this is just a string of selectively edited quotes you threw together that you think looks persuasive. None of it explains why Lauda's rating is not abusive. Also I see you are taking a page out of Twitchy Seal's book and editing my quote to serve your narrative. Here is what I actually said:


As you can see I was creating a summary of another user's posts, but you presented the edited quote in such a way as to make it look as if it were a straight forward statement I made in my own voice. The fact that you need to edit my quotes to try to convince people says volumes.

Yeah you're right, people are just making a string of accusations attempting to impugn his character over and over again until he is forced to prove his innocence rather than accusers proving his guilt = no one demanding anything.





No, there isn't as Philipma1957 and others already pointed out:



As you can see what is being called "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a string of people intent on harassing OGNasty are in fact demeaning he prove his innocence rather than the accusers prove his guilt. All the accusers have is speculation, and the ambiguous statement of a convicted felon. There are no limits to how much people can speculate on and impugn the character of others, therefore it is totally irrational to expect people to have to defend themselves as if they are guilty until they prove themselves innocent as you are in fact demanding.

The argument presented by Laurence Tribe is a non-sequitur. The ability of The House to impeach is not under dispute. What is under dispute is the process being complete or not, and since The Senate has the sole authority to try any impeachment, The House has not completed impeachment until transmitted to The Senate.

"California Has NUKED Leftist Media From Orbit, HUNDREDS Of Writers Are Being FIRED Under New Law"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW-n2tHmoR4

I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

I don't feel the need to defend words you created then presented as my own. There is nothing to address in the figments of your own imagination. Even if they were real quotes, none of this is anywhere near being on topic. Your move goat fucker.

Are you hearing voices now too Vod? I never said anything about your "agenda", but thanks for the demonstration of your abilities of projection. How about instead of declaring people guilty until proven innocent, you prove your accusation.

Your abilities to be delusional are boundless and you are never able to substantiate any of your accusations as demonstrated in excruciating detail here.

Now, Vod ask yourself the same question.

"If you are going to accuse me of something, why not tell me what it is when I ask?"

This inherently insane comment does a great job of demonstrating how you have given up on using any kind of logical basis long ago. If I am accusing you of something, isn't that by the nature of an accusation, me telling you what I am accusing you of? It literally hurts to try to break my brain enough to try to analyze this level of retardation.

By the way Vod, your posts here are doing a wonderful job demonstrating that I am in fact being attacked for exposing the fact there is no actual evidence against OGNasty, so I guess I should at least thank you for that much.

The law is designed to leave very little if any room for opinions. Impeachment requires specific prerequisites in order to be in effect, which have not yet been met. Lets ignore the fact that no crimes or high misdemeanors were part of any of the articles of impeachment, Noah Feldman is a pro-impeachment Democrat witness. He says impeachment isn't official until the articles of impeachment are confirmed with The Senate. Of course this is the part where the Democrat plan blows up in their face, so of course they are going to avoid or delay this inevitability as long a possible.

more: Democrats HAVE NOT IMPEACHED Trump, Democrats OWN Witness Undermines Pelosi's Strategy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFVieP-isV4

So your response to a question asking you to substantiate your claims against me, is to ask me the same question? Makes sense... if you are an unhinged lunatic desperately struggling to cling to reality. Speaking of the topic, maybe to you can explain the part where any of your batshit jibbering has anything to do with the topic.

That's not how burden of proof works. The accusers have produced completely ambiguous evidence that is proof of nothing. The burden of proof is on the accusers to prove their claims, not OGNasty to detail his private activities to satiate your obsessive vendetta.

I could try to make sense of this insane rambling, but then I would probably require heavy medication like you. Any chance you are going to be on topic any time soon?

Cool off topic post bro. What quote did I make up? Oh right none of your accusations have any substantiation, you just make as many accusations as possible and hope people just blindly believe them.