WrestlingRasta

This is what is so funny about the flock

Well, since we live in a world of facts aren’t real, feelings are…….I’m gonna stick with the song story. I just like it better.

Why is the alphabet in that order? Did they do that because of that song?? (have a great weekend)

Completely agree….intelligence officials, members of congress, governors and state legislatures, DOJ officials……across the board. Again, it boggles my mind that anyone would vote for either one of these clowns, let alone try and defend them.

Imagine if more Americans had the balls to not vote for candidates who lie to us.

I think I may have to take a break from the reggae this evening and jam out back to some Animals. Great great acoustics.

To pull another line from that album that perfectly fits here….. ”gotta admit, I’m a little bit confused”

Dude, when you can pull an Animals reference out of your hat like that, even getting as specific as the three different ones…….winner winner chicken dinner.

Don’t twist my words in your bid to argue at all cost. I didn’t post the departments justification, or anything of the sort. I posted how it was obtained, and the primary use. Of course it will be used for other things. It is a MUTLI FUNCTIONAL vehicle.

We don't have to always, by any means necessary, find something to bitch about. Especially when it involves very quickly moving off your own topic when you come to the understanding your original topic was in fact nothing to bitch about. Just saying, it's okay to relax. It's even healthy.

People getting so upset in here and making it obvious they didn't take five minutes to read up on it before responding. The town didn't pay a dollar for the vehicle. It was obtained by a fedreal program on a year to year usage agreement. The number one use for it in that area is high water rescues (look up floods in the area), and use in neighboring communities. It may be in Prosper next year, it may be somewhere else.

thanks for answering

Of course.

It seems, and this comes from friends out there more than anything else, that it's more the California legislature than it is Newsome. Conservative friends who find him much more moderate than the legislature.

I don't doubt this in the slightest, its what we find the sources reliable to that I question.......reliable to accurate information, or reliable to our predetermined biases.

What I know about the trial has nothing to do with media hot takes or what pundits want to make you think. You’ve been very transparent in your time here, on how you fall in line there. And this never works out well for you.

It’s both. It’s a ‘talking point’ because it has absolutely nothing to do with the facts and evidence that were presented to grand and trial juries. It’s talking points to rub people’s emotions. Guliani ran on a platform of going after and getting specific criminals. Does his success in that effort make it any more or less….matters of law?

Pretty interesting article here that addresses a number of the things mentioned in this thread. Debunking 12 Myths About Trump's Conviction (msn.com)

More talking points that speak nothing to the undebatable facts of a grand jury hearing evidence and indicting, and members of a trial jury convicting, unanimously, 34-0, rather quickly……….in an environment where no media pundits were heard.

We haven't heard that from Fox or Newsmax or anything like that at all. What about a collective of opinions from law people inside the courtroom? Where do those opinions fall in the category of holding weight?

That’s all great, basically just repeating, but still doesn’t answer or address anything I asked. I don’t disagree at all that there are people, major players in the law profession, who are saying this is a sham. What I’m saying is there are also people, major players in the law profession, saying just the opposite. So my main question/point is being that, and I think we can both agree on these: A) you and I are in no way experts in law B) you and I have not intricate details what so ever in the case, because we weren’t involved in the investigations, we didn’t sit on the grand jury that indicted, and we weren’t in the courtroom or reading transcripts thereof C) you and I both know that at least 90% of the media we watch/read is agenda driven. How can any of us take such a hard stance on this, over the people who were in fact intricately involved, most notably members of the grand and trial juries? Is it the reporting and who you believe is and is not bias?

What about all those, with strong professions and reputations in law, who disagree with the above, however? Honest question. Are they just simply politically motivated?

Fair enough

And so that’s a case by case, real time real life decision that has to be judged, calculating a whole lot of other things besides just *that moment*, in real time and cannot possibly be expected to be answered with any logic what so ever, on an anonymous message board, especially if after answered you want to add to the scenario to make it more favorable for your point. So my question to you is, what exactly is it you’re trying to achieve here by digging in and digging in and digging in, talking in the same circles, thread after thread? I’m just curious.