Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Yankguy1]

He was America's toughest cop.  And he was going to make sure something like Auschwitz never happened again.

[josh]

Speaking of "poor choice of words";

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/terrible-choice-of-phrase-robert-richter-apologises-for-plain-vanilla-comment/ar-BBUbYRm?li=AAgfYrC&OCID=AVRES000[/

'Terrible choice of phrase': Robert Richter apologises for 'plain vanilla' comment

Defence barrister Robert Richter, QC, has apologised for describing acts of sexual abuse carried out by Cardinal George Pell against two choirboys as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case".

The prominent Melbourne-based barrister was heavily criticised after he made the comments during a pre-sentencing hearing on Wednesday for Pell, who has been convicted of sexually abusing two boys in a sacristy after Sunday Mass in 1996.

"After spending a sleepless night reflecting upon the terrible choice of phrase I used in court during the course of a long and stressful process, I offer my sincerest apologies to all who were hurt or offended by it," Mr Richter said in a statement released on Thursday evening.

"No offence was intended. It was not intended to evade the seriousness of what had been done. The seriousness of the crime was acknowledged at the outset by the concession that merited imprisonment.

"In seeking to mitigate the sentence I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended: it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse, and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many.

"I hope my apology is accepted as sincerely as it is meant and I will never repeat such carelessness in my choice of words which might offend," he said.

#####

A man with a conscience.
He's realised the error of his words, he's sincerely apologised, and we move on.

"The seriousness of what had been done."

Sure sounds like an admission that his client is guilty, as he was found to be, just as the original statement was an admission, even though you wish to claim otherwise.

[bankshot1]

Its good to know there is beacon of tolerance like dim-bulb Higgins willingly using a death camp and the suffering of millions, for his political purposes.

[Yankguy1]

I'm sure he meant well. 

[bambu-wisdom]

Believing claimed 'victims' of crime without proper, unbiased investigation and the production of evidence other than the word of accusers, is a dangerous thing to do [to the accused].
What 'victims' today are claiming happened should not just be believed without question by the cops, prosecutors etc.

Automatic believing of accusations by 'victims' is a bad mindset to have today...just as it was in times past;

Some 'victims' lie under oath...for many different reasons. One being money, another being revenge, another being an alibi, another being attention-seeking, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football)

Brian Banks (born July 24, 1985)[1] is a former American football linebacker. He signed with the Atlanta Falcons of the National Football League (NFL) on April 3, 2013.[2][3] Banks previously signed as an undrafted free agent with the Las Vegas Locomotives of the United Football League in 2012.[4][5]

Banks was a standout high school football star at Polytechnic High School (Poly) in Long Beach, California. In 2002, his Junior year, Banks verbally committed to USC.[6] After being falsely accused of rape by classmate Wanetta Gibson, he spent close to six years wrongfully imprisoned and five years on a strict custody parole, but had his conviction overturned in 2012 after his accuser confessed that she had fabricated the entire story.

In the summer of 2002, Banks was arrested and charged after classmate Wanetta Gibson falsely accused him of dragging her into a stairway at Polytechnic High School (Poly) and raping her. Faced with a possible 41 years to life sentence, he accepted a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years of probation, and registering as a sex offender. Wanetta Gibson and her mother Wanda Rhodes sued the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the Poly campus was not a safe environment, and won a $1.5 million settlement.][17][18] Banks says that the lawyer said that by pleading guilty he would receive probation, but no jail time.

In March 2011, Gibson contacted Banks on Facebook, met with him, and admitted in the presence of an attorney that she had fabricated the story. Banks secretly recorded Gibson's confession, but she later refused to tell prosecutors that she had lied so she wouldn't have to return the money she and her family had won in court.

#####

Nothing happened to her and others of her ilk...so 'lying victims' continue today.

[bambu-wisdom]

Speaking of "poor choice of words";

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/terrible-choice-of-phrase-robert-richter-apologises-for-plain-vanilla-comment/ar-BBUbYRm?li=AAgfYrC&OCID=AVRES000[/

'Terrible choice of phrase': Robert Richter apologises for 'plain vanilla' comment

Defence barrister Robert Richter, QC, has apologised for describing acts of sexual abuse carried out by Cardinal George Pell against two choirboys as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case".

The prominent Melbourne-based barrister was heavily criticised after he made the comments during a pre-sentencing hearing on Wednesday for Pell, who has been convicted of sexually abusing two boys in a sacristy after Sunday Mass in 1996.

"After spending a sleepless night reflecting upon the terrible choice of phrase I used in court during the course of a long and stressful process, I offer my sincerest apologies to all who were hurt or offended by it," Mr Richter said in a statement released on Thursday evening.

"No offence was intended. It was not intended to evade the seriousness of what had been done. The seriousness of the crime was acknowledged at the outset by the concession that merited imprisonment.

"In seeking to mitigate the sentence I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended: it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse, and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many.

"I hope my apology is accepted as sincerely as it is meant and I will never repeat such carelessness in my choice of words which might offend," he said.

#####

A man with a conscience.
He's realised the error of his words, he's sincerely apologised, and we move on.

"The seriousness of what had been done."

Sure sounds like an admission that his client is guilty, as he was found to be, just as the original statement was an admission, even though you wish to claim otherwise.

His client had been convicted, so he had to accept that and try to lessen the sentence.
No good still proclaiming innocence...his client was just proven guilty, his once-alleged offending now fact as far as the court was concerned.
He couldn't say "the seriousness of what had allegedly been done".
He had to speak that his client was guilty and the acts of sexual abuse had been proven.

He couldn't still say "the alleged offending is at the lower end of the scale".

His original comment was made after his client had been found guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
He then had to try to lessen the sentence for his now-convicted-pedophile client.
A pedophile he surely could be...but many people still have problems with the trial, evidence etc.

[FlyingVProd]

One time some chick on meth ran a stop sign at a high rate of speed and hit my pick-up, and when the cops came suddenly there were all of these guys claiming to have seen the accident and claiming that it was my fault, and saying that I crashed into her. The guys were not even there when the accident happened and yet they were acting as witnesses and they lied to the police. My only witness was a little old homeless lady who had actually witnessed the accident, and she was on my side and backed up my story. Fortunately the police believed me and the homeless lady, and they arrested the meth head for meth they found in her car and other things, she went away in the back of a cop car. 

Yes, Bambu, people make up lies.

And there are people who hate Christians so bad that they burn churches, if they will burn a church, then certainly they might be willing to lie to take down a priest and to hurt the church.

Not that a guilty priest should take comfort, the bad ones need to be punished.

Salute,

Tony V.

[Yankguy1]

Speaking of "poor choice of words";

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/terrible-choice-of-phrase-robert-richter-apologises-for-plain-vanilla-comment/ar-BBUbYRm?li=AAgfYrC&OCID=AVRES000[/

'Terrible choice of phrase': Robert Richter apologises for 'plain vanilla' comment

Defence barrister Robert Richter, QC, has apologised for describing acts of sexual abuse carried out by Cardinal George Pell against two choirboys as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case".

The prominent Melbourne-based barrister was heavily criticised after he made the comments during a pre-sentencing hearing on Wednesday for Pell, who has been convicted of sexually abusing two boys in a sacristy after Sunday Mass in 1996.

"After spending a sleepless night reflecting upon the terrible choice of phrase I used in court during the course of a long and stressful process, I offer my sincerest apologies to all who were hurt or offended by it," Mr Richter said in a statement released on Thursday evening.

"No offence was intended. It was not intended to evade the seriousness of what had been done. The seriousness of the crime was acknowledged at the outset by the concession that merited imprisonment.

"In seeking to mitigate the sentence I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended: it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse, and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many.

"I hope my apology is accepted as sincerely as it is meant and I will never repeat such carelessness in my choice of words which might offend," he said.

#####

A man with a conscience.
He's realised the error of his words, he's sincerely apologised, and we move on.

"The seriousness of what had been done."

Sure sounds like an admission that his client is guilty, as he was found to be, just as the original statement was an admission, even though you wish to claim otherwise.

His client had been convicted, so he had to accept that and try to lessen the sentence.
No good still proclaiming innocence...his client was just proven guilty, his once-alleged offending now fact as far as the court was concerned.
He couldn't say "the seriousness of what had allegedly been done".
He had to speak that his client was guilty and the acts of sexual abuse had been proven.

Not sure how it works in Australia, but in the United States attorneys often maintain their client's innocence long after conviction. 

[kiidcarter8]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/02/28/mark-meadows-2012-vow-send-obama-to-kenya-resurfaces/3013304002/?fbclid=IwAR3eX9uG8RAC8XvRxCUmlicTig2beJzkvOaDT18VPDVu9bTXxqSaflRJF5Q

"I'm not a racist."

"Well, okay, maybe just a little."

But now he says he "does not stand behind" his 2012 remarks.

Well, that makes it all better, then, doesn't it?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/mark-meadows-obama-kenya-2012/index.html

And note how the whole proceedings had to grind to a halt to sooth the feelings of the aggrieved white guy after he offended multiple people of color in that room, and watching on their televisions, after he trotted out a black woman as a prop, an obviously racist provocation.

The Chairman didnt seem offended.

Could be the unreasonable (and 100% partisan) people of color were those that were

You see nothing offensive in Meadow's actions.  Again.  Very predictable.

I am certainly unimpressed with him.

Which is why I said I AGREE with his being on the LOSERS list with Tlaib.

[bambu-wisdom]

Speaking of "poor choice of words";

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/terrible-choice-of-phrase-robert-richter-apologises-for-plain-vanilla-comment/ar-BBUbYRm?li=AAgfYrC&OCID=AVRES000[/

'Terrible choice of phrase': Robert Richter apologises for 'plain vanilla' comment

Defence barrister Robert Richter, QC, has apologised for describing acts of sexual abuse carried out by Cardinal George Pell against two choirboys as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case".

The prominent Melbourne-based barrister was heavily criticised after he made the comments during a pre-sentencing hearing on Wednesday for Pell, who has been convicted of sexually abusing two boys in a sacristy after Sunday Mass in 1996.

"After spending a sleepless night reflecting upon the terrible choice of phrase I used in court during the course of a long and stressful process, I offer my sincerest apologies to all who were hurt or offended by it," Mr Richter said in a statement released on Thursday evening.

"No offence was intended. It was not intended to evade the seriousness of what had been done. The seriousness of the crime was acknowledged at the outset by the concession that merited imprisonment.

"In seeking to mitigate the sentence I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended: it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse, and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many.

"I hope my apology is accepted as sincerely as it is meant and I will never repeat such carelessness in my choice of words which might offend," he said.

#####

A man with a conscience.
He's realised the error of his words, he's sincerely apologised, and we move on.

"The seriousness of what had been done."

Sure sounds like an admission that his client is guilty, as he was found to be, just as the original statement was an admission, even though you wish to claim otherwise.

His client had been convicted, so he had to accept that and try to lessen the sentence.
No good still proclaiming innocence...his client was just proven guilty, his once-alleged offending now fact as far as the court was concerned.
He couldn't say "the seriousness of what had allegedly been done".
He had to speak that his client was guilty and the acts of sexual abuse had been proven.

Not sure how it works in Australia, but in the United States attorneys often maintain their client's innocence long after conviction.

As they should if they believe their client is innocent.

Pell will be sentenced next week, before any appeal.
Not much good still fighting the court on conviction day...lawyer had to immediately try to come up with something to try to lessen any sentence.
50 years Pell could get [more likely 10 years as the 5 sentences are usually made concurrent].
If guilty, he must take his medicine.
Rumour … rumour has it that there were no Catholics on the jury. If that is true, the first question asked should be "why not"?, "how is it known".
Any Christians on the jury?
You'd hope jurors weren't being selected on 'religious grounds'.
Maybe that's what was mentioned as 'jury selection' in the appeal.

The 'pedophile-hunters' are rejoicing.
Many of them seem to be believing 'victims' without consideration of much else.

[NeedsAdjustments]

So...what do all the people so concerned with Hillary Clinton's handling of supposedly sensitive intelligence info say about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/us/politics/jared-kushner-security-clearance.html

[NeedsAdjustments]

House of liars:

The disclosure of the memos contradicts statements made by the president, who told The New York Times in January in an Oval Office interview that he had no role in his son-in-law receiving his clearance.

Mr. Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, also said that at the time the clearance was granted last year that his client went through a standard process. Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter and Mr. Kushner’s wife, said the same thing three weeks ago.

Asked on Thursday about the memos contradicting the president’s account, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said, “We don’t comment on security clearances.”

[bambu-wisdom]

One time some chick on meth ran a stop sign at a high rate of speed and hit my pick-up, and when the cops came suddenly there were all of these guys claiming to have seen the accident and claiming that it was my fault, and saying that I crashed into her. The guys were not even there when the accident happened and yet they were acting as witnesses and they lied to the police. My only witness was a little old homeless lady who had actually witnessed the accident, and she was on my side and backed up my story. Fortunately the police believed me and the homeless lady, and they arrested the meth head for meth they found in her car and other things, she went away in the back of a cop car.

Yes, Bambu, people make up lies.

And there are people who hate Christians so bad that they burn churches, if they will burn a church, then certainly they might be willing to lie to take down a priest and to hurt the church.

Not that a guilty priest should take comfort, the bad ones need to be punished.

Salute,

Tony V.

Exactly.

[kiidcarter8]

Believing claimed 'victims' of crime without proper, unbiased investigation and the production of evidence other than the word of accusers, is a dangerous thing to do [to the accused].
What 'victims' today are claiming happened should not just be believed without question by the cops, prosecutors etc.

Automatic believing of accusations by 'victims' is a bad mindset to have today...just as it was in times past;

Some 'victims' lie under oath...for many different reasons. One being money, another being revenge, another being an alibi, another being attention-seeking, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football)

Brian Banks (born July 24, 1985)[1] is a former American football linebacker. He signed with the Atlanta Falcons of the National Football League (NFL) on April 3, 2013.[2][3] Banks previously signed as an undrafted free agent with the Las Vegas Locomotives of the United Football League in 2012.[4][5]

Banks was a standout high school football star at Polytechnic High School (Poly) in Long Beach, California. In 2002, his Junior year, Banks verbally committed to USC.[6] After being falsely accused of rape by classmate Wanetta Gibson, he spent close to six years wrongfully imprisoned and five years on a strict custody parole, but had his conviction overturned in 2012 after his accuser confessed that she had fabricated the entire story.

In the summer of 2002, Banks was arrested and charged after classmate Wanetta Gibson falsely accused him of dragging her into a stairway at Polytechnic High School (Poly) and raping her. Faced with a possible 41 years to life sentence, he accepted a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years of probation, and registering as a sex offender. Wanetta Gibson and her mother Wanda Rhodes sued the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the Poly campus was not a safe environment, and won a $1.5 million settlement.][17][18] Banks says that the lawyer said that by pleading guilty he would receive probation, but no jail time.

In March 2011, Gibson contacted Banks on Facebook, met with him, and admitted in the presence of an attorney that she had fabricated the story. Banks secretly recorded Gibson's confession, but she later refused to tell prosecutors that she had lied so she wouldn't have to return the money she and her family had won in court.

#####

Nothing happened to her and others of her ilk...so 'lying victims' continue today.

Was this a black man and a white girl?

[kiidcarter8]

So...what do all the people so concerned with Hillary Clinton's handling of supposedly sensitive intelligence info say about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/us/politics/jared-kushner-security-clearance.html

Its OK - he is the head of the party 

As Billy Joel would say - Its a Matter of Trust