Jamie Raskin's Take on the Constitutional Questions

[Rightguide]

I was sure you were. It's just that your friend isn't as bright, and he may have thought you were talking about him. I hate to have you lose your only friend and life support over a misidentified pronoun.

He's brighter than you, I can tell you that. I'm not here to make friends but I do have more than a few and we're all dumbfounded by the amount of cluelessness concerning our history and fundamental knowledge concerning law and government.

 

[dmallord]

He's brighter than you, I can tell you that. I'm not here to make friends but I do have more than a few and we're all dumbfounded by the amount of cluelessness concerning our history and fundamental knowledge concerning law and government.

Not too bright if he can't recognize the source of his own words in every post and wonder where the quote came from.

I know he has a good grasp of case law - not as good at realizing that it doesn't help Trump when he quotes most of it. Occasionally, he is right. A blind hog finds an acorn every once in a while.

There is a point in time when a good lawyer knows it is in his best interest to bail on a client. Lots of those lawyers have bailed on Trump - with good reasons. Maybe think the legalities over and consider it time to do the same.

 

[Rightguide]

Not too bright if he can't recognize the source of his own words in every post and wonder where the quote came from.

I know he has a good grasp of case law - not as good at realizing that it doesn't help Trump when he quotes most of it. Occasionally, he is right. A blind hog finds an acorn every once in a while.

There is a point in time when a good lawyer knows it is in his best interest to bail on a client. Lots of those lawyers have bailed on Trump - with good reasons. Maybe think the legalities over and consider it time to do the same.

Name those bailing and their reasons.

 

[dmallord]

Name those bailing and their reasons.

You know them. Just Google. If you THAT interested. I know you are not.

 

[HisArpy]

That's damn right funny given the quote comes directly from YOUR own postings to every link here.

See @HisArpy's current posts. "I don't particularly care if you don't like it." appears at the bottom of every post!

So, you don't recognize your own words?

Since I'm the author of those words I don't have to give myself an attribute. YOU do. And you failed to do so.

That's called plagiarism, dudly.

 

[dmallord]

Since I'm the author of those words I don't have to give myself an attribute. YOU do. And you failed to do so.

That's called plagiarism, dudly.

Oxford Languages defines plagiarism as "... the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own."

I didn't claim your words as my own, and I did not attribute the sentence to myself. Such sardonic words are not something an even-handed legal practitioner would want hanging up under a shingle by their legal office door. I'd never want such a smuggle condescending badge associated with my name.

I did put your words in quotation marks that clearly signaled they belonged to 'someone who writes in these threads.' That someone inferred someone other than me, of course.

So, by definition, I did not plagiarize your distasteful phrase. You missed the humor of my quoting them in response to your buddy - it went over your head, not realizing the words were your own. And now you are pissed and attempting to save face.

Sad, so late to the conversation.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Perhaps you could come out of Trudeau's panties long enough to produce an example.

lol, I'm sure if I looked on the front page right now I could find at least one example...if not more.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Perhaps you could come out of Trudeau's panties long enough to produce an example.

How Oregon turned on its own trailblazing drug law: ‘Not the utopia we were promised’​

A bold vision, or a ‘dystopian nightmare’?​

When Oregon voters passed Measure 110 with nearly 60% support, the vision that advocates laid out was grand.

The state would deconstruct the existing punitive and ineffective system that criminalized drugs, and build a new apparatus in its place. People would no longer face criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of substances like fentanyl and methamphetamine; long-calcified pathways through the criminal justice system that reinforced societal inequalities would be abandoned; treatment options for those struggling with addiction – funded with hundreds of millions of dollars from the state’s legal marijuana tax – would be widely available.

But Measure 110 passed on the eve of a tsunami of twin public health crises in Oregon: an epidemic of cheap, widely available and extremely dangerous fentanyl, and a sharp escalation in the shortage of affordable housing.

Recent federal data show Oregon had the steepest increase in the country of overdose deaths since the pandemic started – by a staggering 1,500%. Nearly 1,000 people in Oregon died from opiate overdoses in 2022. Public health officials warn the crisis shows no signs of abating.

Critics point to this steep overdose rise as a sign of Measure 110’s failing, but any definitive insight as to the law’s impact is likely years away. A recent study of its reach so far – by research organization RTI International – showed no correlation between the rise in overdoses and drug legalization. Other western states such as California and Washington are also overwhelmed by a devastating fentanyl crisis, the study’s authors point out, and have seen similar trends in overdoses and addiction without passing a sweeping decriminalization law like Oregon’s.

More here on Democrat Utopianism:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/21/oregon-drug-law-measure-110-backlash

Wherever they rule they destroy. The question is is there time to fix the damage?

Took me all of 4 mins to find one....want some more?

 

[stxjimmy]

Raskin is a hateful Marxist propagandist who lives in an alternative universe. He'd be better suited for government in China.

He’s not more knowledgeable than the Supreme Court. He’s a Marxist at heart.

The democrat party lost their liberal identity, they’re for big government where government controls everything. In my mind that’s Marxism.

Do either of you know anything about Marxism? You throw the term about an awful lot at people who clearly aren’t.

 

[HisArpy]

Oxford Languages defines plagiarism as "... the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own."

I didn't claim your words as my own, and I did not attribute the sentence to myself. Such sardonic words are not something an even-handed legal practitioner would want hanging up under a shingle by their legal office door. I'd never want such a smuggle condescending badge associated with my name.

I did put your words in quotation marks that clearly signaled they belonged to 'someone who writes in these threads.' That someone inferred someone other than me, of course.

So, by definition, I did not plagiarize your distasteful phrase. You missed the humor of my quoting them in response to your buddy - it went over your head, not realizing the words were your own. And now you are pissed and attempting to save face.

Sad, so late to the conversation.

Try to justify it any way you wish, but in the end you still FAILED to attribute the words to the original speaker.

And that is merely one more of the continual fuckups you engage in.

 

[dmallord]

Try to justify it any way you wish, but in the end you still FAILED to attribute the words to the original speaker.

And that is merely one more of the continual fuckups you engage in.

Just 'mansplaining' it for you. As a legal guy, you understand the nuances that get tangled together when you accuse someone of plagiarism and you start out with a false statement and no definition. You end up fucked up, like you are in this lie. You failed in your claim and like the poisonous fruit theory it becomes tainted as well.

Grab a pack of Trump's new diaper brand and see if it holds up the shit you attempt to dish out.

 

[HisArpy]

Just 'mansplaining' it for you. As a legal guy, you understand the nuances that get tangled together when you accuse someone of plagiarism and you start out with a false statement and no definition. You end up fucked up, like you are in this lie. You failed in your claim and like the poisonous fruit theory it becomes tainted as well.

Grab a pack of Trump's new diaper brand and see if it holds up the shit you attempt to dish out.

Yup, you're stuck on stupid.

Good luck with that.

 

[dmallord]

Yup, you're stuck on stupid.

Good luck with that.

 

[Rightguide]

You know them. Just Google. If you THAT interested. I know you are not.

As I suspected, you don't know any of them or the reasons why they may have left, if they did. I'll give you a hint lawyers are hired for their expertise in particular fields of law, some very narrow in scope.