Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
jjustdrew wrote:so if some of you think there is no room for debate, don't engage, but debate is foundational to the point of a forum
compared2what? wrote:Canadian_watcher wrote:stickdog99 wrote:As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to use this thread to exchange a slew of recriminations. ...
I personally often find your argumentative style tedious, debilitating and ultimately obfuscating to the subject at hand. I can't see how engaging in more and more quoted back and forth discussion with you can do anything but exacerbate this. ....
...
But here I am doing exactly the same thing that I am decrying. ... but posts like the one you just addressed to me basically make it almost impossible to forego dragging this discussion down to the level of a personal tit for tat.
and here *I* am adding to it, but since we're already so far down the road, I think it might be wise just to get to the end of it this time instead of turning around. So...
I agree with stickdog here, and want to point out something that has stuck in my craw for a long time:
See the last thing stickdog said, above? THAT is exactly the point. There are some people who, historically, have been seen as tireless defenders of the faith when they belabour points (and by this I mean points that aren't exactly germane to the thread OP) and then there are the rest of us. the rest of us, should we continue to 'defend' ourselves after a certain point are jumped on and warned. And so, this being the dynamic, many people just give up, don't fight back, let it go and leave the impression that there are people here who are 'always right' and who 'always win.' Sorry to name names, but c2w and barracuda are the primary suspects wrt those who can belabour and belittle with impunity.
Examples, or you're just throwing a rock then running away. I have no problem with being called out for what I do.
Show me where I instigated an off-topic dispute and then belabored my side of it. as opposed to "where I was insulted for my presumed reading habits, sheep-like conformity or political views when (a) nothing I'd said represented any of those things; and (b) the points I had made were being ignored, then objected when the person who hurled those rocks ran away without being helpful enough to me to show me where I'd erred."
Because if I have, I want to know. And if I haven't, you're out of line to name me and then scamper off. I don't do it to you. Or to anyone. It's not fair. Kafkasesqe, as a matter of fact.
Or you could just try not insulting me. If you did, I wouldn't have anything else to say.
compared2what? wrote:No they didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about. Where? Please show me.
Thanks.
justdrew wrote:If Mac would have acknowledge that EVIDENCE pre-trial is NEVER supposed to be released to public media he wouldn't have had any problem, demanding to shown "proof" at this stage is pointless. "proof" will be determined in court.
Canadian_watcher wrote:compared2what? wrote:No they didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about. Where? Please show me.
Thanks.
okay..
right here, right now. Just forget it, would you?
justdrew wrote:If Mac would have acknowledge that EVIDENCE pre-trial is NEVER supposed to be released to public media he wouldn't have had any problem, demanding to shown "proof" at this stage is pointless. "proof" will be determined in court.
justdrew wrote:so if some of you think there is no room for debate, don't engage, but debate is foundational to the point of a forum
justdrew wrote:stickdog99 wrote:compared2what? wrote:Per Supreme Court opinions of many decades' standing, during the pre-trial phase, the DoJ -- including the FBI and federal prosecutors -- is constitutionally obligated to protect the defendant's sixth and fourteenth amendment rights by not parading all of its evidence against him/her in front of the public, via the media. The defense doesn't have to find out about it in the press, but actually gets to see it directly.
The public has a right to know what the disposition of the case was, and whether the process was lawful, and whether it was in accord with constitutional requirements, and so forth. But there is no inherent global public right for every member of it to review all the evidence prior to trial after it's been publicly served to them on a public silver platter. That would, in fact, be a violation of the constitution by the state. Not an observance of it.
Which is my point. Everything the spooks have "leaked" have been strategically meant to bolster the prosecution's case in both the court of law and the court of public opinion. They had no compunction about telling the press that the kid admitted everything to them and detailing his motives, even though this would ostensibly conflict with Supreme Court opinions of many decades' standing. But somehow, despite dozens of people on the prosecution's side having to have noticed it, and everybody involved in prosecuting the case having to have known about it for over 4 weeks (that is, if it actually existed 4 weeks ago), nobody saw fit to leak the most incriminating piece of evidence to the press.
Until a former FBI spokesperson broke the "scoop," that is.
well, this "former FBI spokesperson" has jeopardized the defendants right to a fair trial, and it's going to be even harder now to find a jury.
stickdog99 wrote:As if anything other than avoiding near term death has ever been or will ever be on the table, regardless of the kid's actual guilt or innocence.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests