Freedom of billboard rights.

[Andrew D]

In other words, as usual, you have nothing substantive to say.

[@meric@nwom@n]

You're right @meric@nwom@n, I am an absolute dick and am so nasty my wife won't sit in the same room with me much less have sex with me because she is disgusted by my bloated belly.

Lets play your stupid game.

[Andrew D]

In other words, as usual, you have nothing substantive to say. Do you think that anyone here is surprised?

[@meric@nwom@n]

I can't say it often enough: I am an absolute dick.

[Andrew D]

In other words, as usual, you have nothing substantive to say. And, as usual, no one here is surprised.

Have you considered addiction therapy?

You had -- or, at least, you claimed that you had -- put me on your "ignore" list.

But here you are again, responding to things I post.

Okay, I'm an absolute dick.

Is that the problem?

Can you just not get enough dick?

[@meric@nwom@n]

In other words, as usual, you have nothing substantive to say. And, as usual, no one here is surprised.

Have you considered addiction therapy?

You had -- or, at least, you claimed that you had -- put me on your "ignore" list.

But here you are again, responding to things I post.

Okay, I'm an absolute dick.

Is that the problem?

Can you just not get enough dick?

I had you on ignore. I thought I would read you again and see if I felt differently.
What I have discovered is that you have become an even worse waste of protoplasm than before. You are everything LJ has said you are and worse. No doubt I will put you back where you merit, on ignore.


And you remain, forever, an arrogant dick even confessing:

"Okay, I'm an absolute dick." Confession is good for the soul.

[Lord Jim]

No doubt I will put you back where you merit, on ignore.

I'm seriously considering doing the same...

I'm completely fed up with the these troll tactics; his behavior this week has been virtually indistinguishable from Steve's. (In his latest act of shameless dishonesty, he has once again completely mis-stated the gist of the argument in one of the Drama Queen threads he created)

I had started the week intending to post an analysis of last weeks GOP debate and the current state of the nomination race; instead I wasted the time I've had available for posting dancing with this malevolent, mentally disturbed garbanzo....

One thing I've noticed is that his posts have exhibited severe mood swings...sometimes full of self pity and victim whining, other times over flowing with manic viciousness and grandiosity...

I'm thinking that maybe he's started some new medication that isn't agreeing with him...

In any event, I refuse to allow his slimey behavior to make participating here so unpleasant that I no longer want to do it any more. (As apparently happened with BSG)

Putting him on ignore may be the best way to deal with that problem. I don't intend to wear myself out wrestling with another Steve.

ETA:

I notice that in the "Weiner" thread thread he has yet again asked a question about something that has been discussed extensively recently , as though it were something new that no one had talked about. (He even started a thread about it) Perhaps he is having memory issues as well.

[Joe Guy]

I am arguing nothing more than that men should have the same opt-out right as women have, subject to the woman's right either to carry the fetus to term or to have an abortion.

Nothing more.

Why is that so terrifying?

Men have the "opt-out" right sooner than women do.

It's called the opt-out of the twat procedure.

Like my father used to often say, if you're going to dance, be prepared to pay the fiddler.

Women just have a later opt-out option.

If you look at the big picture, our opt-out rights are equal.

It's all about timing.

[Andrew D]

I'm completely fed up with the these troll tactics ....

Then stop using them.

Everyone can read what I posted. Everyone can read what you posted.

Everyone can see where the dishonesty lies.

[Lord Jim]

I fully expected a delusional response like that.

I really hope that there is some psychological/organic/chemical explanation for your behavior....

Since the alternative would be to conclude that you have jettisoned your integrity.

Now he'll probably come back with some further vain-glorious delusional nonsense about how this "proves" that he has completely "demolished" me with the power of his great "reasoning", and that my desire to have nothing further to do with his toxic behavior just shows how he has over-powered me with his knowledge and intellect .

[Andrew D]

. . . you have produced nothing whatsoever to back up the accusation you made about prosecutors, or the accusation you made about cops.

A far more accurate and fair reading of what Andrew has set out if that he has indeed produced evidence supporting his statements about prosecutors, and both he and I produced evidence supporting the statements he made regarding "testilying." The fact that you don't like that evidence, doesn't make it any less what it is: evidence. I also note that you have not produced anything in the realm of evidence which is contrary to Andrew's evidence. Other than your opinion of course, but you aren't being called as an expert witness in this matter. You've also tried to show that Andrew is biased regarding prosecutors, and perhaps he is. But again, that doesn't mean his evidence stops being evidence. If you have evidence to counter his assertions -- evidence which is something more than your own biased opinion -- please produce it.

Actually Guin Andrew presented evidence that it has happened (something no one is denying) What is in dispute is the claim that it is what happens most of the time.

Not that it "happens most of the time," but that most prosecutors would do it if required to get the conviction. The evidence Andrew presented indicates that in 42% of proven wrongful convictions, prosecutorial misconduct was involved. That is a remarkably high number, and indicates a rampant problem.

If five prosecutors each try 20 cases, and three of those prosecutors employ misconduct in one case each, you've got only 3 cases of misconduct out of 100 cases, yet more than half the prosecutors (60%) were willing to do it.

Is Guinevere lying?

Is Sue U lying?

Or is this:

... the assertion is that "most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury ....

the lie that started the whole ruckus?

[Lord Jim]

Sue and Guin are stating their opinions; you on the other hand have asserted as facts broad sweeping charges that you have utterly failed to back up in any substantial way.

Everything you've said has been dealt with ; you keep ignoring the central point of the boneheaded assertions you made, which you have completely failed to back up, and instead play transparent hair splitting word games, and cherry pick out of context in order to re-write the actual discussion.

You are apparently prepared to do this endlessly. I have better things to do with my time than continue to ride this merry-go-round with someone prepared to be so relentlessly and shamelessly dishonest. Been there, done that.

[Andrew D]

You are the one who has been dishonest throughout.

The words are there. Anyone who cares to can read them.

[Joe Guy]

I'd like to comment...

Andrew wrote - "It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it."

Lord Jim wrote - "...the assertion is that "most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury ...."

Andrew quoted an article (to support his opinion) - "Misconduct abounds. Prosecutors who bully, lie and misuse or hide evidence are as common as baseball players who chew gum."

Andrew claims that he has not asserted that "most prosecutors in this country suborn perjury.

If Andrew agrees that prosecutors who engage in misconduct are "as common as baseball players who chew gum," is it not logical to assume that Andrew believes that "most prosecutors" (the majority) suborn perjury?

I believe it is.

Andrew is arguing that he has given evidence to support his opinion.

The evidence implies misconduct by most prosecutors.

just an observation...

I'm uncomfortable getting into the personal attacks that have surfaced in this argument because I respect both Andrew D and Lord Jim.

But I'm not uncomfortable expressing my opinion on the substance of the argument.

(and for the record, LJ, I knew Steve and Andrew D is no Steve - that accusation is a low blow)

[Andrew D]

Sherrill's opinion goes quite a bit further than mine. It still supports mine, even though it and mine are not identical.

And there remains that pesky fact -- what I actually wrote:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence.

I fail to see how that is unclear.

And put it in a bit more of its original context. I wrote:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them. All they need to do is assume the truth of what the police say and present it as true.

But over time, most prosecutors become more and more jaded about the veracity of police testimony. That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury; after all, they are not percipient witnesses to the underlying facts. It means that they have doubts about the truth of what the police claim, but nonetheless, they ask the court or the jury to believe that testimony.

(Emphasis added.)

How can anyone get from "rarely need to fabricate evidence" and "does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury" to "the assertion is that 'most' prosecutors in this country suborn perjury"?

Don't you find one thing:

That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury ....

very different from the other thing:

... the assertion is that "most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury ....

Can you think of any way in which one can honestly construe the former to mean the latter?

I cannot.

[Lord Jim]

And put it ina bit more of its original context. I wrote:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them. All they need to do is assume the truth of what the police say and present it as true.

But over time, most prosecutors become more and more jaded about the veracity of police testimony. That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury; after all, they are not percipient witnesses to the underlying facts. It means that they have doubts about the truth of what the police claim, but nonetheless, they ask the court or the jury to believe that testimony.

LOL

How about we try the full context:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them.[another completely yanked out of the ass accusation] All they need to do is assume the truth of what the police say and present it as true.

But over time, most prosecutors become more and more jaded about the veracity of police testimony. That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury; after all, they are not percipient witnesses to the underlying facts. It means that they have doubts about the truth of what the police claim, but nonetheless, they ask the court or the jury to believe that testimony.

"The court" is an important point. Most police perjury is not directed at juries. Most of it is directed at courts. The police are aware of the exclusionary rule, and they hate it. So they lie, not necessarily about the evidence itself, but about how they obtained it. They know perfectly well what their affidavits have to say to survive Fourth-Amendment challenges, so that is what they say. True? False? A consideration relevant only to tactics.

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it. And they won't think of themselves as "lying scumbags." They are convinced that the defendant is guilty -- and they are often quite right about that -- and they conclude that a little subornation of perjury is worth it to get some creep of the streets before he rapes and murders another victim.

you keep ignoring the central point of the boneheaded assertions you made, which you have completely failed to back up, and instead play transparent hair splitting word games, and cherry pick out of context in order to re-write the actual discussion.

(and for the record, LJ, I knew Steve and Andrew D is no Steve

Well he's certainly been doing a most impressive impersonation of him this week Joe; I'm hard put to think of one single dishonest technique of Steve's that Andrew hasn't employed, this latest out of context revisionist re-writing of the discussion being but the latest example.

[Andrew D]

Full context is fine with me. It has been all along.

Yes, I wrote that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it.

And I have presented evidence -- evidence which you are free to disbelieve, but which remains evidence whether you believe it or not -- concerning the rampant dishonesty of prosecutors.

If you don't want to believe that evidence, fine. Don't.

But you are the one who crossed the line. You did that when you claimed that my "assertion is that 'most' prosecutors in this country suborn perjury".

That is a lie.

That was not my assertion. That has never been my assertion. That is still not my assertion.

But you have successfully deceived some people into believing your lie.

That's why bigskygal flew into a rage -- not because of what I said, but because of your lie about what I said.

Crackpot is not notorious for flights of irrational fancy. But you successively deceived Crackpot into believing your lie about what I said, and Crackpot ended up posting:

What is in dispute is the claim that it is what happens most of the time.

That was not what was in dispute. But you went right ahead lying:

We have a bingo!

We did not have a bingo. We had a misunderstanding of what I said -- a misunderstanding created by your lie.

Not everyone was fooled. Sue U pointed out the crucial difference between what I said and your lie about what I said:

Not that it "happens most of the time," but that most prosecutors would do it if required to get the conviction.

But you completely blew that off.

You have been trying relentlessly to convince people that I wrote what you said that I wrote:

... the assertion is that "most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury ....

But I did not write that.

You did.

And it is a lie.

And since then, you have had the nerve to accuse me of dishonesty. You accuse me.

I wrote what I wrote, everyone can see what I wrote, I have repeatedly quoted what I wrote, and I have provided evidence -- whether you choose to believe the evidence or not -- to support what I wrote.

You have been lying about what I wrote.

And you accuse me of lying.

You are sorely lacking in a lot of things, but gall ain't one of them.

[BoSoxGal]

That's why bigskygal flew into a rage -- not because of what I said, but because of your lie about what I said.

Don't you fucking dare, you miserable prick.

I 'flew into a rage', because of your words, nothing more was necessary:

Do you really believe that you are serving the public interest? I have no way of knowing; I can't read your mind.

But considering how obvously easy it was for you to throw all of your previous ideals overboard like so much rotten fruit, it looks like you switched sides because it bumped up your salary.

There is NO logical reading of that statement other than that you believe that by becoming a prosecutor, I have pitched my dedication to the ethical practice of law, to defending the Constitution, and to serving the best interests of my community, including DEFENDANTS, all in the pursuit of justice - because THOSE are my fucking ideals, they have been my entire legal career, and they serve me just as well here as they did with the public defender's office.

You cannot, apparently, have a debate without at some point resorting to despicable personal attack. In that regard, you are JUST like Steve and editec.

[Guinevere]

So now that's Sue, Joe and I who all have been able to see and acknowledge that Andrew has provided evidence in support of his assertion. Which is still far more than you have provided, LJ.

[Andrew D]

You were already well into your rage by then, bigskygal. By then, you had already let Lord Jim deceive you into believing that I think that you are

a lying scumbag & every day I argue evidence fabricated by other lying scumbags, all in service to the oath I took to serve the Constitution & the people who live under the mantle of its protections.

You can blame something I wrote after you were already wigging out for having made you wig out in the first place. It doesn't make much sense to me. But maybe it makes perfect sense to you.

After all, it wasn't so long ago that you were one of those

FUCKING LYING SCUMBAG NO-GOOD PERJURY-SUBORNING BACKSTABBING GAMEPLAYING GREEDY MOTHERFUCKING DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT THE CLIENTS' BEST INTERESTS ROBBING THEM OR THE TAXPAYER BLIND:

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS !!!!!

Your words, sweetie.

Maybe next month, you'll be doing tenants'-rights-advocacy work.

And maybe the month after that, you'll be enforcing evictions.

Who knows?

You sure as hell don't ....