Jump to content

Cactusboy

Banned
  • Content Count

    831
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Cactusboy last won the day on January 14 2012

Cactusboy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

About Cactusboy

  • Rank
    Five-Star Recruit

Recent Profile Visitors

1,488 profile views
  1. I seriously doubt that the Martyr Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Behdast is able to differentiate one ounce of difference between Israel or the Zionist regime. If he doesn't acknowledge any difference between the two, what could it possibly matter to you? The Martyr? No, he was probably incapable of such a distinction, but I doubt that man ever existed outside of a few recent news "stories." The Man? I'm willing to bet that the highly educated scientist, researcher and college professor capable of splitting an atom was also capable of seeing the difference between a people and its government. Does it matter? It absolutely matters. Recognizing the fact that one can call for the destruction of the current manifestation of Zionism that we see today and its adherents and still not be advocating for the destruction of Israel or a "second Holocaust" is very important. My point was, the question that cboy asked about the story as it was presented (whether that story is true, false, or highly distorted), is only asked as a way to further his viewpoint. I still maintain that it doesn't matter if he said Israel or Zionist regime if the person saying it doesn't differentiate between the two. Of course you and I know there is a difference. The question is a moot point if we're talking about some fundemental extremist. It's like trying to make a point by clarifying the difference between 6 or a half dozen. My point was that it's unclear what he wanted to put an end to...the regime or the people of the country. Because the article at least twice said regime, I would bet he only wanted an end to the regime. However many will interpret at as him wanting an end to the people too and use it as another trumped up reason to allow Israel to bomb Iran.
  2. I'm sure it's not uncommon...and I'm sure it's not uncommon for the other side to agree to settle for own reasons. Are there any studies that show these cases get settled out of court more often than other civil suits? That is a better question to ask. No that's really not a better question to ask. The other side agrees to settle only because they know they have very little chance winning. If the lawyer thought they had a home run case, I really doubt he of all people would want to settle for minuscule amounts. You don't need studies to figure that out. Sometimes common sense works just fine. So I ask which side does it more and to what degree and you say you know one side never does it. I suppose this is another example of me being the unreasonable/stubborn one in the wrong. Not in the wrong, just wrong. Give me some reasons why they would want to settle for small amounts? The only reason I can think of is if they know they weren't going to win in civil court, so they take anything they can get. If the civil case was a slam dunk then sue for millions. Heck, people settle for more then that in civil cases for getting wrongfully fired from jobs that don't even pay much. Once again, to even bring up the civil cases in this matter, only digs your original point further into the hole. Did you find any case studies on it yet btw? Let me know when you do. 1 - You don't want to be reminded over and over about the death of a loved one for who knows how long by having it go through trial. 2 - You don't want the media invading you and your family's privacy. 3 - You don't want to be blacklisted by the police or other govt people....(real or paranoid possibilty is irrelevant..just matters what THEY think may happen or have heard what happens) Those were off the top of my head...I'm sure there are other reasons people would want to just settle rather than go to court. I'm sure money is what most think of w/ these things, but to some that just lost a loved one...they may just want the police to admit they messed up...say they are sorry and have enough money to pay for the funeral and other expenses like a kid that just lost a parent's education.
  3. BTW if any of you wanted to know how Cactusboy's debates usually ended on the original huskerpedia site (pre hostile takeover and Cactusboy moderation), this answer is pretty typical. A few to a handful of group thinkers in a CJ? Yeah, that happened from time to time. What was your name on HP?
  4. Ripped from today's headlines. So I wonder which it is... "annihilation of Israel" or "annihilation of the Zionist regime"
  5. I've given fair warning that posts like this belong in the Shed. I will not warn any longer. Was it that I said "your brain"? Would it be ok if I instead said "when you can't come up w/ anything productive"?
  6. When I saw that gobiggergoredder I thought...I wonder what he could have possibly added to the discussion... I guess you my was well take shots at people when your brain can't come up w/ anything productive to add.
  7. click the link for the whole article. Piss poor job by the site Sub linked to. These things really irritate me...when media outlets make a big deal about comments on a facebook page or message board and act like the person associated w/ the sites are responsible. It's also irritating when people fall and post it w/out checking the original source. I've seen Sub post for years and have never seem him do this before though. Just goes to show you pretty much can't take the word of any site as being the truth. http://www.haaretz.c...k-page-1.413656
  8. I've never heard of the site, so I have no idea how reliable they are. But Sub just went by what the site said. I don't see what all the pilling on Sub is for. Has he posted wrong stuff like this in the past...is this a BS site like Drudge and he should have known it was bogus? I wonder if it's a lie that Haaretz really reported that Net wrote it himself...if that's the case then blame goes to them. I'll google it.
  9. I'm sure it's not uncommon...and I'm sure it's not uncommon for the other side to agree to settle for own reasons. Are there any studies that show these cases get settled out of court more often than other civil suits? That is a better question to ask. No that's really not a better question to ask. The other side agrees to settle only because they know they have very little chance winning. If the lawyer thought they had a home run case, I really doubt he of all people would want to settle for minuscule amounts. You don't need studies to figure that out. Sometimes common sense works just fine. So I ask which side does it more and to what degree and you say you know one side never does it. I suppose this is another example of me being the unreasonable/stubborn one in the wrong.
  10. Note how he never gets around to mentioning what I am obfuscating. Sure I did...I gave a specific example in the last 2 pages. I haven noticed you completely ignore many questions and points when inconvenient to answer/address.
  11. Darwinian Theory of Legal Obfuscation The shyster model of lawyering says play for advantage to the disregard of truth. Carried to the extreme, it can include amazing tricks aimed at dissembling and hucksterism but it does not necessarily involve using language that is badly written - indeed, the finest forms of flim-flammery come from top legal echelons, where very high-priced lawyers are often paid to craft misleading arguments that will benefit their clients (including the government). http://news.ycombina.../item?id=951081 Good stuff
  12. obfuscate Some people are experts at obfuscating the truth by being evasive, unclear, or obscure in the telling of the facts. The people who are good at obfuscating would include defense lawyers and teenagers asked about their plans for Saturday night.
  13. Civil or criminal court has nothing to do with how the officer handled himself in this situation. The original point of this apparently was to discuss whether or not he was right in that situation. I agree w/ this part. I was obviously trying to have a respectful discussion on it in laymans language. I again point at the fact I admitted early on I was wrong on the shooting legs and posting links that showed it didn't have much of a chance in criminal court. Fence just wanted to flex and impress w/ his legal knowledge. I'm sure someone could have some very frustrating exchanges w/ the OJ criminal case before his verdict too. I'm sure Fence would admire those on OJs side...if not for their conclusion...for their tactics.
  14. http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/57998-tuesdays-shooting-is-seventh-for-scottsdale-police-officer/page__view__findpost__p__925123
×
×
  • Create New...