Jump to content

Jussie Smollett


Dog

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I agree with you and heard something similar the other day.  It’s time for congress to revisit a 40 year old law and look at revising it.  

Are you suggesting the age of the law is germane?  Like, old laws are likely to be outdated and should be revoked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply
15 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Are you suggesting the age of the law is germane?  Like, old laws are likely to be outdated and should be revoked?

It worked for prohibition when society felt that the law had overreached.  But that had nothing to do with age of the law.  Just the recognition of it's stupidity.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
35 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Are you suggesting the age of the law is germane?  Like, old laws are likely to be outdated and should be revoked?

It worked for prohibition when society felt that the law had overreached.  But that had nothing to do with age of the law.  Just the recognition of it's stupidity.

Owning humans also was legal, and it was changed.  For the same reason - stupidity.

I am just wondering why the Joker felt it important to mention it is a "40 year old" law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Owning humans also was legal, and it was changed.  For the same reason - stupidity.

I am just wondering why the Joker felt it important to mention it is a "40 year old" law.

Society changed first.  Then slavery was ended.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Joker said:

Please stop There is no equivalence.  

Jussie didn’t call the police and declare an emergency he made up a story about being attacked by racist Trump supporters. 

He is charged with disorderly conduct for filing a FALSE police report. 

The president has declared an emergency on the border.  That power is granted by a law passed in 1976 by congress.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

Repeat he has the authority.  The only debate is if he should exercise that authority. 

Nothing illigal in any way shape or form. 

Now you can quibble about what constitutes an emergency, but that is still based on opinions not definitive facts.   

An example: 

 border crossings are down from years ago.  

Yet over a million people are still crossing each year.  

Emergency? Depends on where you stand in the debate.   

Ok, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Yes, the president has the authority to declare an emergency but lying to authorities, whether by Jussie or by the Donald, should have consequences.

For example, claiming that a wall would have an impact on illegal drug importation into the country is unsupported by facts, and directly contradicted by what we do know, commonly known as "lying". With such unsubstantiated claims forming the foundations for Trump's declaration of an emergency, his lies are easily exposed, and he should face similar penalties as a black actor making gross misstatements to authorities in order to manipulate their actions and defraud the taxpayers.

Why, by virtue of his being an elected official, should the president be held harmless for false statements while civilians are held to a higher standard? Are you willing to support two separate sets of laws, those for the governed and those who govern? I'd opt for the rule of law, thanks. Call me a "conservative" if you will. I guess "liberals" want protected classes of citizens to get special treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Owning humans also was legal, and it was changed.  For the same reason - stupidity.

I am just wondering why the Joker felt it important to mention it is a "40 year old" law.

Because it is 40 years old.  Not really an age issue.  More of a times have changed from when we were engaged in a Cold War.

 I doubt the people who wrote the law envisioned it used for most of the current roll outs.

 Ironically the Trump border security probably would be something they felt was a presidential need.

Swine flu not so much 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Ok, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Yes, the president has the authority to declare an emergency but lying to authorities, whether by Jussie or by the Donald, should have consequences.

For example, claiming that a wall would have an impact on illegal drug importation into the country is unsupported by facts, and directly contradicted by what we do know, commonly known as "lying". With such unsubstantiated claims forming the foundations for Trump's declaration of an emergency, his lies are easily exposed, and he should face similar penalties as a black actor making gross misstatements to authorities in order to manipulate their actions and defraud the taxpayers.

Why, by virtue of his being an elected official, should the president be held harmless for false statements while civilians are held to a higher standard? Are you willing to support two separate sets of laws, those for the governed and those who govern? I'd opt for the rule of law, thanks. Call me a "conservative" if you will. I guess "liberals" want protected classes of citizens to get special treatment.

Because they are not false or based on lies.  They are backed by facts.  

Now you can disagree with the facts as presented and decide they do not meet your standard of an emergency , but others  see those same facts as an emergency 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Society changed first.  Then slavery was ended.

Damn - that's dumb even for you. A fair part of society didn't change - which is why we had a fucking civil war.

There is a good sized society who would like nothing more than to go back to those days.

To some, that would be how to MAGA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

There is a good sized society who would like nothing more than to go back to those days.

To some, that would be how to MAGA.

You truly believe a good portion of the US society would go back to having slavery?   That's pretty fucked up even for this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

You truly believe a good portion of the US society would go back to having slavery?   That's pretty fucked up even for this site.

I have had interactions with folks from south of the Manson-Nixon line and they are quite open about how they see other races and the value of "those people".

Granted it is a small portion (sorry for the "good portion"), but they are there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Outta curiosity - where is the Manson Nixon line - does it run along with the BW parkway?   ;-) 

 

Sumthin like that.

One Summer, I spent 5 weeks with two other teachers from our school, along with 15 teenagers, and we hiked a good part of the Mason-Dixon.  Started in Fenwick Island and walked/drove to a point north of Frederick.  The students were in a Surveying class and we used state of the art transits to follow the line.  Absolutely amazing how accurate they were, back in the 1700s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Sumthin like that.

One Summer, I spent 5 weeks with two other teachers from our school, along with 15 teenagers, and we hiked a good part of the Mason-Dixon.  Started in Fenwick Island and walked/drove to a point north of Frederick.  The students were in a Surveying class and we used state of the art transits to follow the line.  Absolutely amazing how accurate they were, back in the 1700s.

Sounds like a cool trip.   My cousin and her husband are teachers, and for several years, he'd take a group of kids on a paddling trip from the Headwaters of the Susquehanna ending in Annapolis, with the intent being to help them understand how something happening in NE/NC PA can impact the health of the Bay.   My school was too poor to support such things, I'm glad to hear about kids getting out to really experience things like your Mason-Dixon trip - I think they learn more, and better than reading a story and writing a paper. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Society changed first.  Then slavery was ended.

You seem to forget that society didn't change, it's just that the half of society that didn't lost a war over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

That's not true.  Not everyone in the south was in favor of slavery.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/southern-abolitionists-part-1-charles-osborn.101084/

It is true, and not everyone in the North was against slavery either. The majority of the north was against it, the majority of the south for it. A war was fought over it and those that wanted to keep their slaves lost. Society didn't change first, half of it was dragged kicking, screaming, and dying to the point where they had to accept they couldn't have their slave labour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

The students were in a Surveying class and we used state of the art transits to follow the line.  Absolutely amazing how accurate they were, back in the 1700s.

I have been using a topo dated 1885  as part of hunting abandoned mines, and read that surveyors were supposed to be pretty good. 

EXCEPT,  I still have problem with them being to call an altitude to 1 foot precision,, and one area in particular, the topography is simply wrong.

I have walked it, modern maps show it,, and  GPS ( from the interwebs ) placed one of the mines I'm looking for there.

When the snow melts , I'm scheming another long hard day up a different trail to where I think it really is.

<_<  maybe is

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

It is true, and not everyone in the North was against slavery either. The majority of the north was against it, the majority of the south for it. A war was fought over it and those that wanted to keep their slaves lost. Society didn't change first, half of it was dragged kicking, screaming, and dying to the point where they had to accept they couldn't have their slave labour.

Hey, go with your stereotypes.  It will save you all that thinking that makes your head hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Hey, go with your stereotypes.  It will save you all that thinking that makes your head hurt.

Hey, keep pretending the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. It will save you all that thinking that makes your head hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Yes, the president has the authority to declare an emergency but lying to authorities, whether by Jussie or by the Donald, should have consequences.

But Trump IS the authority on that question.

It's pretty well explained in a thread on that topic.

On 2/22/2019 at 6:30 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Trump's Phony Yet Legal Emergency

This is where that Schechter Poultry case comes in...
 

To a very few of us, that raises the following question:

Should Obama be the authority on such questions?

Whoops, dated question.

A closely-related question:

Should Trump be the authority on such questions?

Lots of people will have two different answers there. I have one: no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, J28 said:

Report:  Smollett indicted on 16 felony counts by grand jury in Chicago.

It is time that liberal fuck heads attacking conservitives get charged AND sentenced. Jussie will be real popular in the slam

!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

It is time that liberal fuck heads attacking conservitives get charged AND sentenced. Jussie will be real popular in the slam

!!!!!!!

You think that's why he got indicted? Cos he attacked conservatives?

Wow, when did you right-wingers become such whiny, clueless snowflakes? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

 

Wow, when did you right-wingers become such whiny, clueless snowflakes? 

They’ve always been that way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You think that's why he got indicted? Cos he attacked conservatives?

He didn't attack conservatives, he attacked conservitives.

Warpedbird is a whiny, clueless, illiterate snowflake

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You think that's why he got indicted? Cos he attacked conservatives?

Wow, when did you right-wingers become such whiny, clueless snowflakes? 

No he got indicted because he tried to frame white conservatives wearing MAGA hats  

The whiny clueless snowflake was the guy that just got charged with 16 counts. With more coming. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Joker said:

No he got indicted because he tried to frame white conservatives wearing MAGA hats

Exactly. He got indicted for lying to the police and associated crimes cos when you drag the police into your illegal publicity stunts, they throw the book at you. Had nothing to do with conservatives or liberals or any other political persuasion you might want to drag up.

 

27 minutes ago, The Joker said:

The whiny clueless snowflake was the guy that just got charged with 16 counts. With more coming. 

And warbird for making it all about his personal political persuasion and not the fact a man lied to the police in an attempt to renegotiate his acting contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Exactly. He got indicted for lying to the police and associated crimes cos when you drag the police into your illegal publicity stunts, they throw the book at you. Had nothing to do with conservatives or liberals or any other political persuasion you might want to drag up.

 

And warbird for making it all about his personal political persuasion and not the fact a man lied to the police in an attempt to renegotiate his acting contract.

It WAS an attack on conservatives.  An attack to smear and slander. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, warbird said:

It WAS an attack on conservatives.  An attack to smear and slander. 

It WAS a publicity stunt to get his name on the front page.  He chose a course that would garner quick national attention, that alone should give you some pause. 

I hope that a few years in jail and a large fine (restitution) will drive home the message.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

It WAS a publicity stunt to get his name on the front page.  He chose a course that would garner quick national attention, that alone should give you some pause. 

I hope that a few years in jail and a large fine (restitution) will drive home the message.  

As Joker (?) said in the Troglydite thread, no matter what transpires  going forward, the image lingers, "MAGA attacks helpless gay actor".

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, warbird said:

As Joker (?) said in the Troglydite thread, no matter what transpires  going forward, the image lingers, "MAGA attacks helpless gay actor".

Bullshit.  Only true for those that are too stupid to process information.  This wasn't the case of a headline accusing someone of rape and then burying the retraction on page 7.  The investigation and ultimate indictment of Jussie had much greater coverage than the original attack.  So why are you still bitching?  A kid made a stupid plan, executed it horribly, and was caught and will be punished.  It has been made abundantly clear who was responsible for the attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

As Joker (?) said in the Troglydite thread, no matter what transpires  going forward, the image lingers, "MAGA attacks helpless gay actor".

Doubling down on illiteracy, I see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit yourself.  The Hollywood Left is still standing by him.  He'll play the victim card, claiming discrimination caused his substance abuse which lead him to making poor decisions about the whole affair.  Besides, in the left's view, even though the story wasn't true this time, that doesn't mean it COULDN'T have happened, and that attacks against gays and people of color happen frequently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

And warbird for making it all about his personal political persuasion and not the fact a man lied to the police in an attempt to renegotiate his acting contract.

Warpedbird tried to make it about conservatives being victimized.

Since he is a lunatic fringe right winger and not a conservative, it had absolutely nothing to do with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J28 said:

Bullshit yourself.  The Hollywood Left is still standing by him.  He'll play the victim card, claiming discrimination caused his substance abuse which lead him to making poor decisions about the whole affair.  Besides, in the left's view, even though the story wasn't true this time, that doesn't mean it COULDN'T have happened, and that attacks against gays and people of color happen frequently.

Didn't Cesar Sayoc mail a pipe bomb to CNN where Anderson Cooper (gay) and Don Lemon (black) work?  Didn't Sayoc drive a van adorned with Pro-Trump stickers?  

So, it COULD happen and has.  

I'm convinced your screen name is very appropriate, rotten to the core.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

As Joker (?) said in the Troglydite thread, no matter what transpires  going forward, the image lingers, "MAGA attacks helpless gay actor".

So what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM, benwynn said:

 

 

 

Looks like the snowflakes got a bit upset.  If Political Correctness is needed to protect your delicate sensitivities, how about we just resort to the term "n word" like we all are in fucking kindergarten?

Thanks for the laugh, but, do you mind to not use the "f" word?  It's so vulgar!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, warbird said:

It WAS an attack on conservatives.  An attack to smear and slander. 

Nope, it was not an attack to smear and slander. It was a publicity stunt to garner more money from his employers.

Conservatives weren't attacked. They were used. Doesn't make what he did right, but sure as hell makes you a snowflake for trying to make it into more than what it was - a stunt that drew more attention than he wanted and backfired. Jussie is an idiot and you're a snowflake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Nope, it was not an attack to smear and slander. It was a publicity stunt to garner more money from his employers.

Conservatives weren't attacked. They were used. Doesn't make what he did right, but sure as hell makes you a snowflake for trying to make it into more than what it was - a stunt that drew more attention than he wanted and backfired. Jussie is an idiot and you're a snowflake.

It was a stunt that painted conservatives as bigots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

It was a stunt that painted conservatives as bigots.

It was a stunt that painted two imaginary men as bigots. They didn't exist. They don't represent every conservative. It was a publicity stunt and not an attack. Get over it, warbird, it wasn't about you no matter how much you want the attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 12:04 PM, J28 said:

Bullshit yourself.  The Hollywood Left is still standing by him.  He'll play the victim card, claiming discrimination caused his substance abuse which lead him to making poor decisions about the whole affair.  Besides, in the left's view, even though the story wasn't true this time, that doesn't mean it COULDN'T have happened, and that attacks against gays and people of color happen frequently.

If this happens?  Then those who are defending his behavior will have made an incredibly telling admission about their motivation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 6:43 PM, Bent Sailor said:

It was a stunt that painted two imaginary men as bigots. They didn't exist. They don't represent every conservative. It was a publicity stunt and not an attack. Get over it, warbird, it wasn't about you no matter how much you want the attention.

You're both right - Smollett made up the image of the attackers as a means to denigrate that segment of the population.  Aside from the thrill of "sticking it to them" - I suspect that his primary motivation for that was he anticipated that the greatest outrage and sympathy to his plight would come from framing the "attack" as being motivated by racism and homophobia, a common projection.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Hollywood Left

Do you understand there is no unified left?  Individuals who think.  Can you conceive that idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're both right - Smollett made up the image of the attackers as a means to denigrate that segment of the population

That's where I think you are wrong and isn't really borne out by the facts. He did it as a means to increase his public image and hence his financial compensation from his acting career. He chose that segment of the population because of the public image it already had. The attack wasn't a means to denigration, the segment of the population's pre-existing reputation was a means to making the faked attack more likely to go viral in the media (social and otherwise). That worked. If MAGA red hats weren't available, I'd have expected a white supremacy angle. 

 

Quote

Aside from the thrill of "sticking it to them" - I suspect that his primary motivation for that was he anticipated that the greatest outrage and sympathy to his plight would come from framing the "attack" as being motivated by racism and homophobia, a common projection.  

Aside from the claim it was about the thrill of "sticking it to them", I agree with you. His primary motivation was to get the greatest outrage and sympathy to his plight to which he used the existing reputation (earned or otherwise) of MAGA red hats to ensure that his lies made the front pages. People would believe it of MAGA red hats, and it makes the reporting of his "attack" political, which makes it more likely to get spread around and talked about. That was his goal. Trying to make it more than that is like claiming that Trump is playing 3D chess with the Democrats - sometimes an idiot with a foolish plan to make money is all they appear to be and nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
51 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

 

Well this is inconvenient.  All charges dropped against Jessie Smollett.  Heads need to roll in the CPD and prosecutors office.  Racism can’t be tolerated.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/jussie-smollett-charges/index.html

He forfeited his bond, does an innocent person do that?  He did not do it to highlight a social issue, but to highlight himself.  The righties on this site and elsewhere just did what comes to them naturally, acting like knee jerk idiots (surprised you're not a righty).   

I think Chicago just decided to not waste any more money on this bullshit.  The only thing CPD needs to do is control leaks emanating from active investigations.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J28 said:

Y’all understand the FBI is investigating the death threat letter right?

That same FBI that is abused by POTUS?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

He forfeited his bond, does an innocent person do that?  He did not do it to highlight a social issue, but to highlight himself.  The righties on this site and elsewhere just did what comes to them naturally, acting like knee jerk idiots (surprised you're not a righty).   

I think Chicago just decided to not waste any more money on this bullshit.  The only thing CPD needs to do is control leaks emanating from active investigations.  

It would make more sense if they agreed to a plea deal.  

Dropping all charges, clearing his record, but keeping his bond is strange, to say the least.  

It also throws the chief of police and his officers under the bus.  

I’m betting most of the Chicago PD are really pissed off right about now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It would make more sense if they agreed to a plea deal.  

Dropping all charges, clearing his record, but keeping his bond is strange, to say the least.  

It also throws the chief of police and his officers under the bus.  

I’m betting most of the Chicago PD are really pissed off right about now.  

Something smelly about this... But it is Chicago so politics usually trumps justice... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It would make more sense if they agreed to a plea deal.  

Dropping all charges, clearing his record, but keeping his bond is strange, to say the least.  

It also throws the chief of police and his officers under the bus.  

I’m betting most of the Chicago PD are really pissed off right about now.  

Yep Chicago police chief spitting fire.  “Justice was not served!”

Mayor also  fired up over the BS of trying to use hate crime laws to promote your career.   “This was clearly a case of a Whitewash of Justice”

Wow the mayor just accused the state’s attorney’s office of corruption. 

“This decision was not on the level.”  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

My friend at CPD told me the shit was hitting the fan and we'll see several CPD quietly fired because of this one.

 

Not sure why heads would roll at CPD

The indictments came from a grand jury.  

Coming out now that he got a sweetheart deal that was brokered by his lawyers.    

The police and city were never even given a heads up that a deal was agreed on. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize to all my friends on the left for being so naive as to believe that a wealthy, black, gay, politically-well- connected actor would be be subject to the same rules of justice as us regular folks in the city of Chicago. 

How foolish of me!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not sure why heads would roll at CPD

The indictments came from a grand jury.  

Coming out now that he got a sweetheart deal that was brokered by his lawyers.    

The police and city were never even given a heads up that a deal was agreed on. 

 

Not sure either, but something clearly went wrong with CPD or why would he walk?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not sure why heads would roll at CPD

The indictments came from a grand jury.  

Coming out now that he got a sweetheart deal that was brokered by his lawyers.    

The police and city were never even given a heads up that a deal was agreed on. 

 

Apparently some evidence given at the grand jury may have been false

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, J28 said:

I apologize to all my friends on the left for being so naive as to believe that a wealthy, black, gay, politically-well- connected actor would be be subject to the same rules of justice as us regular folks in the city of Chicago. 

How foolish of me!

J please stopping being an asshole and maybe someone would like you again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not sure why heads would roll at CPD

The indictments came from a grand jury.  

Coming out now that he got a sweetheart deal that was brokered by his lawyers.    

The police and city were never even given a heads up that a deal was agreed on. 

 

Due to shameful behavior at their press conference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J28 said:

I’ll give you the black and gay, but not the politically well-connected.

You mean a millionaire actor wouldn't be able to get connected easily enough?  Interesting view of how connections work, i guess.  

doesn't matter.  this was about the CPD fucking up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's a point I hadn't considered until just now. 

that's why i get the big bucks

 

seriously though, nothing else ever makes a prosecution as public as this one fall apart, it's always either false/recanted evidence or prosecutorial/police misconduct.  And almost always from somone looking to make a name for themselves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

He forfeited his bond, does an innocent person do that?  He did not do it to highlight a social issue, but to highlight himself.  The righties on this site and elsewhere just did what comes to them naturally, acting like knee jerk idiots (surprised you're not a righty).   

I think Chicago just decided to not waste any more money on this bullshit.  The only thing CPD needs to do is control leaks emanating from active investigations.  

Not unusual.  He wants the fuck out of the Chicago legal system which is corrupt as hell (see 16 felony charges).  10k is nothing he’ll make a lot more in the wake of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Wait I'm confused here.  Does this mean that democRATS don't hate America because apple pie isn't socialist?  

I dunno man, shits all turned round these days. Russians are good, baseball takes too long for Twitter, debt is fantastic.  ApplePie might be commie for all we know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...