Is this what the whole spate was about?
Weren’t you also in that thread quite some time ago where both @unreal24278 and I were both called pedos by one dude lol? I was really fucking pissed but looking back now all I think is it was bloody hilarious. Even got on slightly good terms with the dude after that.
If it is who I am thinking about, I have also been called a pedo by him (among other things).
It was that thread where we were saying a pedo who admits he’s one but doesn’t commit any acts of paedophilia nor watches or purchases any related material that involves the exploitation of minors shouldn’t be punished for his thoughts alone.
Unreal was like 15 at the time IIRC and he was still insisting he can still be a pedo lol.
It was soul fighter who initially called me a pedophile for stating that pedophilia is probably a mental disorder and that those who have urges but haven’t acted on said urges shouldn’t be put to death. Rather intensive therapy/medication and attempted rehabilitation should be the answer.
A few people then jumped on the bandwagon calling me (and eventually you) pedophiliac. Apparently thought crimes and actual crimes should carry the same punishments… This was two years ago.
I was seventeen, and I was extremely irritated by the whole debacle. We continually fought over on the pharma/trt forums for a while, usually regarding absolutely trivial topics that didn’t matter at all (though the pedophile topic actually came up again during a verbal spat @dt79).
I don’t think we ended up on bad terms.
So we now have 4 alleged pedos in this thread alone. Literally lol-ed.
People have no idea what pedophilia means. Just look back at discussions about Roy Moore accusations.
The minority opinion didn’t win the case, the majority opinion is the one that matters and the majority ruled in favor of the State of Florida. It’s the minority’s right to dissent and dissent is important, but it does not decide the case.
Do you have any evidence indicating that when a sentence is handed down, they deliberately exclude the fines? I have never seen that in a sentencing hearing. I have never heard that fines order by the court were not expressed in the sentencing, you are reaching for something that isn’t there.
Now you are just making things up. Where is such a thing indicated? You are claiming that when a sentence is handed down, the judge excludes information regarding the fine penalty. Then the felon isn’t allowed to find out what the fine is and even if said felon knows and has the money, he isn’t allowed to pay?
Your going to have to provide evidence for this. This is a big accusation and would be a huge scandal if true.
I am done with this crap. Even if what you said was 100% true, it would be the most minor of circumstances. Now you are alleging wild accusations, without any evidence that are incredibly far-fetched. This shows me you don’t have a leg to stand on.
“Comon fat! You know the thing… Did you know that 180 million people were killed by gun violence since 2008. Do you want to do push-ups?”
Perhaps the biggest scandal in history! Just edging out Hunter Biden’s laptop emails and Obamagate.
Ha! The mods removed that post, but I guess your quote captured it. I don’t want to drag this out, but I will answer your question very briefly. He issued a strange, creepy defense of the movie “Cuties”, that sounded to me, like something only a person who was into that type of stuff would say.
And that is all I intend to say about this again. The Mods don’t like it and people don’t like it. I got the message. I will refrain from further comment.
The majority’s opinion acknowledged that it would disenfranchise voters, but that it was permissible and legal.
Remember, I am questioning you claim that the court agreed that it wasn’t disenfranchisement. They didn’t agree to that. The minority said it was unacceptable disenfranchisement, and the majority said it was acceptable disenfranchisement.
Read through the NPR article I posted. You can disagree with it, but in that article this is what was stated. It also stated in the article that Florida GoP admitted that they had no system in place for ex-felons for see or pay their fines.
Read through the article (and for what its worth, many sources state the same things). If you have facts against what was in the article, I’ll hear them.
According to the article, the majority made the ruling, without explanation… Which I find very difficult to believe since rulings are always explained.
Do you know how the SCOTUS works? It’s not about agreeing with each other, Cheese-whiz!
Not having a fine and payment system setup and deliberately withholding the information are 2 different things. A call to the attorney, should clear all that up.
You put a lot of weight on one little article, I posted several and you didn’t read them. Why should I read your links if you do not read mine?
The article didn’t say that. It said they didn’t know which Justice wrote the majority opinion, but it is speculated that it was Roberts. In that opinion, the words disenfranchisement aren’t used, but it does say that the bill would scare people from the polls (which is disenfranchisement).
I understand how it works generally. Let’s remember here that you were the one who made a claim that went something like: SCOTUS agreed it wasn’t disenfranchisement. Both the minority and majority agreed it was disenfranchisement, they disagreed on wither or not it was permissible.
Based on our back and forth, I am not convinced you read what I posted. Not using this as a jab or anything, but it really does not seem like you read it.
From the article:
"The felons then appealed to the Supreme Court, and on Thursday, the court, also without explanation, refused to lift the 11th Circuit’s temporary order blocking felons from registering or voting. "
It does not say that in your article. If it does, show me where, I’ve read it 3 times already since you keep referring to it and it’s not there.
Oh that’s rich. I am quoting you, from your own article and your claiming I am the one not reading.
From the article:
"The unsigned opinion in that case, Purcell v. Gonzalez , was likely written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It said that “orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.”
See above quote from article. Here is the minority opinion from the article:
The Supreme Court’s failure to reinstate the status quo, said Sotomayor, “continues a trend of condoning disenfranchisement.”
“Ironically,” she wrote, the court majority has “wielded Purcell as a reason to forbid courts to make voting safer during a pandemic, overriding two federal courts because any safety related changes supposedly came too close to election day.” And now, she concluded, “faced with an appellate court stay that disrupts a legal status quo and risks immense disenfranchisement — a situation that Purcell sought to avoid — the court balks.”
Well you missed those passages.
Shit, I remember it wasn’t even a political thread. It was something about a kid getting the barbell kicked by some dickhead while halfway through a heavy deadlift that was posted on video.
It should be noted, however, that most recoveries are curvilinear. It is obviously much harder to go from 5% unemployment to 4% than it is to go from 10% to 9%. In order to draw a fair parallel we should look at the average stock market volume and unemployment before the Financial Crisis, not the trough and recovery from it.
If you want to look at gains from administration, however hard it is to try to isolate them (and I am no economist), you should not look at the local minima. Some recovery would have happened regardless of fiscal policy in '09-'12, although we may bandy about magnitude. You cannot attribute all the recovery to Obama any more than you can attribute all the pandemic drop to Trump. A large portion was inevitable.
In my opinion the best way to do this is to look at an average or rolling average pre-crisis to get a sense of what baseline actually was.
I think it was actually the thread about the guy who quasi sexually assaulted a girl and wanted clarification as to whether he did a shitty thing or not. Then he kicked the girl out the next day like an absolute asshole.
My memory could be faulting me though.
I won’t either. I know friends who have struggled. That’s shitty no matter which party.
If we were to attribute the current (potential) V-shaped recovery in less than 6 months solely to the actions of Trump, it’d be like Moses parting the Red Sea.
We should all be on our knees worshipping him right now.