Feds Raid Office of Trump Lawyer Who Paid Off Stormy Daniels. This Is a Big Deal.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

But you took the ball and ran with it. Bad form, counsellor. Get your head in the game. 

I'm glad you don't. If you did, you would be the last person I would want double-checking my contracts and whatnot. 

Logic is an important skill, both here and in law practice. You fail utterly at it here. 

 

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

 

Are you sure you're an attorney? 

 

11 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Not here. This is "The place for serious, meaningful political discussion". 

If you want to jerk people around, do that in the smack forum, not in this one.  

How about you heed your own advice, instead of being a blatant hypocrite? But let me guess, you weren't jerking me around were you?

You speak a very cheap game, Dub. Talk about a lack of logic and intellectual laziness... 

[homersapien 11,373]

29 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You judge professional competence on the basis of one's posts on a message board? I would argue that said posts do not provide a solid foundation for such a determination. But hey, you do you Homer. 

Yes, in this case,  I most certainly do.  Why shouldn't I? 

You've spent half of this thread denying the simple facts while spinning a tale based on only on your prejudices -  or inferences as you would call them.

If you cannot represent yourself in this forum in an objective way that respects the facts,why in the world should I trust you in a court of law?

[homersapien 11,373]

25 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Got the lawyer hat on today huh? Other day you had the marriage counselor hat on......Genius 

Perhaps you have more experience with contracts?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

You've spent half of this thread denying the simple facts while spinning a tale based on only on your prejudices -  or inferences as you would call them.

If you cannot represent yourself in this forum in an objective way that respects the facts,why in the world should I trust you in a court of law?

I did not deny a simple fact, I've spent my time defending an inference I made. Goodness. It's not a prejudice.

What "facts" are you referring to? 

[homersapien 11,373]

44 minutes ago, AUDub said:

 

I've put on my child psychologist hat.

Show me on the doll where Homer hurt you. 

Damn, I'm out of reactions.  

[AUDub 11,148]

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Then why was it insinuated that Trump is my "idol" thus provoking me to call Texy a goof ball and bringing you guys in like sharks to blood......this is the sacred forum.  

As I said, there will be snark because, let's face it, that's part of the fun. But you need to put your best foot forward with your arguments. You can call me a Hillary worshipping bag of a**holes for all I care, but so long as you provide a good argument, I'll be satisfied. 

[homersapien 11,373]

23 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Prouds Likes are just as good yours

Not really. 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Then why was it insinuated that Trump is my "idol" thus provoking me to call Texy a goof ball and bringing you guys in like sharks to blood......this is the sacred forum.  

I resent your assertion I “insinuated.” I think my assertion was sufficiently clear. I respect your religious rights.

[homersapien 11,373]

25 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Dude, its a message board. Relax with the "intellectual laziness" jargon. Besides, I was engaging with others. Yes, I could have asked Tex for clarification, but I didn't. It then evolved into an argument of whether my inference was reasonable, which is irrespective of Tex's clarification. (And I still maintain that my inference was reasonable)

Well, if it were the smack talk forum, it would have been "half-wit".  

[homersapien 11,373]

19 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sure you can. Lawyers do it all the time. Not just in contract law either. 

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps you have more experience with contracts?

I do not know if more. I would say a lot more than your average Joe. You are correct in every word being important. Intent is also so important and recognized. not reinventing the wheel with every contract.

[homersapien 11,373]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I did not deny a simple fact, I've spent my time defending an inference I made. Goodness. It's not a prejudice.

What "facts" are you referring to? 

What was actually stated vs. your inference.  Dub pointed it out several times.  Stop playing dumb.

[homersapien 11,373]

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I do not know if more. I would say a lot more than your average Joe. You are correct in every word being important. Intent is also so important and recognized. not reinventing the wheel with every contract.

Putting your "lawyer hat" on now Salty?   

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

OK, so when the application of a statute is at issue in court, what's a primary reason that a lawyer might refer to a house committee report or a floor debate, among other extra-textual sources?

If you're going to bring up these sorts of things, then don't shy away when I play the game too. 

[AUDub 11,148]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How about you heed your own advice, instead of being a blatant hypocrite? But let me guess, you weren't jerking me around were you?

You speak a very cheap game, Dub. Talk about a lack of logic and intellectual laziness... 

I don't think you know how logic works, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. 

And I've hardly been intellectually lazy, though I will admit to being a mean son of a bitch.

But let's make something clear. If you're going to out yourself as an attorney, and then fail utterly in an area in which you should be proficient, in this case logic, then don't be surprised if you get pilloried for it. Luckily, not many clinical engineers here to call me on my bull**** if I **** up in one of my areas of expertise, but I have had my ass owned a time or two here and said as much after the fact. 

This is a place where we should be putting our best foot forward in an effort to make our case. You've not done that. Do better.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What was actually stated vs. your inference.  Dub pointed it out several times.  Stop playing dumb.

Yes, he even put it in quotes. I never denied that "fact" that the statement was made...

[homersapien 11,373]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

 

How about you heed your own advice, instead of being a blatant hypocrite? But let me guess, you weren't jerking me around were you?

You speak a very cheap game, Dub. Talk about a lack of logic and intellectual laziness... 

You did this to yourself.  Too stubborn to abandon a mistake.

[homersapien 11,373]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

OK, so when the application of a statute is at issue in court, what's a primary reason that a lawyer might refer to a house committee report or a floor debate, among other extra-textual sources?

If you're going to bring up these sorts of things, then don't shy away when I play the game too. 

Nice try at blowing chaff.  Let's just keep to this thread.  You ****** up.

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Putting your "lawyer hat" on now Salty?   

nope, just answering your question Brother Homer

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I resent your assertion I “insinuated.” I think my assertion was sufficiently clear. I respect your religious rights.

and i thank you for the apology Brother Tex.

[homersapien 11,373]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

nope, just answering your question Brother Homer

But you said I was putting my lawyer hat when talking about my experience.  What's the difference? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 minutes ago, AUDub said:

But let's make something clear. If your going to out yourself as an attorney, and then fail utterly in an area in which you should be proficient, in this case logic, then don't be surprised if you get pilloried for it. Luckily, not many clinical engineers here to call me on my bull**** if I **** up in one of my areas of expertise, but I have had my ass owned a time or two here and said as much after the fact. 

The problem with your analysis of what was said is that it necessarily assumes that I defied logic by my inference, i.e., that my inference was illogical. Unless you're the arbiter of such a determination, it is indeed an endless endeavor. That's not something that you have substantiated. Reasonable minds could differ. So to say that I have somehow failed in the area of logic isn't an accurate statement. Tribal support doesn't cut it, nor does screaming out "fallacy" (they don't teach fallacies in law school, for good reason).  Furthermore, the attribute of being proficient in logic isn't unique to the legal profession. One may presume that such an attribute is of such a general nature, that perhaps it cannot be restricted to a particular field - as seemingly you've done. You say I have failed utterly but the only appeal to authority you have to make such a statement is, well, yourself (and perhaps the "tribe," but that's not really a surprise). These rules that you are applying operate as a fiction. There is no codal requirement that what is said must be taken on its face, thus abrogating inferences drawn therefrom. The notion that everyone on here interprets, or should interpret, what is said in a 'strict constructionist' manner is simply untrue. Lastly, I would add that my capacity as a lawyer and my analysis of Tex's statement are not intertwined, nor are they so by default. 

I guarantee you that if I made such an inference against a statement made by PT, you would be utterly silent. Sound reason tells me why you took dispute in the first place. But I won't go there - I might get "pilloried" again by the self-proclaimed intellectual giant. 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nice try at blowing chaff.  Let's just keep to this thread.  You ****** up.

This is comedic ... now i apparently ****** up by inferring that Tex meant the execution of the warrants is a bad sign for Trump. 

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But you said I was putting my lawyer hat when talking about my experience.  What's the difference? 

you know what what i mean. you are man of many talents and choose the hat according to the discussion. enjoyed the discussion tonight started by one simple question. later...minus an hour and half worth of sleep tonight messing around here and beautiful day coming tomorrow...later

[homersapien 11,373]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The problem with your analysis of what was said is that it necessarily assumes that I defied logic by my inference. Unless you're the arbiter of such a determination, it is indeed an endless endeavor. That's not something that you have substantiated. Reasonable minds could differ. So to say that I have somehow failed in the area of logic isn't an accurate statement. Tribal support doesn't cut it, nor does screaming out "fallacy" (they don't teach fallacies in law school, for good reason).  Furthermore, the attribute of being proficient in logic isn't unique to the legal profession. One may presume that such an attribute is of such a general nature, that perhaps it cannot be restricted to a particular field - as seemingly you've done. You say I have failed utterly but the only appeal to authority you have to make such a statement is, well, yourself (and perhaps the "tribe," but that's not really a surprise). These rules that you are applying operate as a fiction. There is no codal requirement that what is said must be taken on its face, thus abrogating inferences drawn therefrom. Lastly, I would add that my capacity as a lawyer and my analysis of Tex's statement are not intertwined, nor are they so be default. 

I guarantee you that if I made such an inference against a statement made by PT, you would be utterly silent. Sound reason tells me why you took dispute in the first place. But I won't go there - I might get "pilloried" again by the self-proclaimed intellectual giant. 

 

Typical.