Jump to content

The ABF Classic Film Series: Prince of Darkness (1987) Thread


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Just to be clear, my issue here is with the constant **** posting, including incredibly deceitful tweets, and people continually getting suckered by them.  It’s gotten old after all these years, so my patience runs really thin with it.  And as the discussion went on, it became clear that you were defending something that you didn’t really understand.  I shouldn’t have gotten so heated with you and I apologize.  

jesus christ, it's like you cannot help yourself.

i understand the issues fine. i mistakenly said 'invoke' when i should have said 'act in effort concerning'. i have as solid of a layman's understand on the legal issues as you do, and that you cannot recognize that we can reasonably disagree on the subject without me somehow having an inferior understanding of the subject just makes you continuously come across as a massive condescending *******. 

you were intentionally misreading my own words - that i was explicitly taking issue with the biden administration's choice to intercede. your own claim that this is somehow a matter of precedent was not repeated by the only actual expert here, so this haughty ******** about who "really understands" what is completely unearned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Corn Pop said:

Can you ask the people you know in the Falcons organization why they won’t let me embed Instagram links?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CKpsfOmFSnC/?igshid=ue3fmy5y0ic0

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIik01BlOHA/?igshid=3w6kmrvxrcwz

I'll be honest, I wouldn't do that, and I'm pretty sure either Jp or VT has commented on they were working on that, BUT, I have commented (**** more than that, a conversation) about how the  board can be a bad reflection on the organization as a whole due to how it is moderated (nothing on Jp, or the person that was a mod that is now a deputy), and we had a conversation about how the main board got waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of hand back in the good ol' days!  I do know, for a fact, they were thinking about nuking ABF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I stand by that one, actually.

You didn’t really understand the argument that was being made and were tripping over some basic facts from the article, like thinking that Biden has “invoked” executive privilege.  You also didn’t seem to realize that executive privilege extends to people after they have left their post.  

can you really not understand that disagreement about the appropriateness of executive privilege is literally the point of contention

why should former cabinet members be protected from providing legal testimony? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These titles are FIRE:

But just in case yes, we imagine this set of completely disparate productions will need some excellent titles going forward. May we humbly suggest:

  • GameStop: Never Stop Stopping
  • Uncut GMEs
  • Meme Streets
  • Short Stop
  • From Pre-Order to Stock Order
  • I Have No Shares, and I Must Sell
  • Hate the Player, Not the GME
  • The Weeb of Wall Street
  • The Game is Up
  • GameStop Won’t Stop
  • Diamond Hands
  • Robinhood and the Men in Gamer Chairs
  • To The Moon, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and HODL
  • This Theater Still Exists Because of This Movie’s Events (remember AMC?)
  • The Bankrupting of the Hedge Fund Melvin Capital by the Internet Message Board WallStreetBets

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, achilles return said:

jesus christ, it's like you cannot help yourself.

i understand the issues fine. i mistakenly said 'invoke' when i should have said 'act in effort concerning'. i have as solid of a layman's understand on the legal issues as you do, and that you cannot recognize that we can reasonably disagree on the subject without me somehow having an inferior understanding of the subject just makes you continuously come across as a massive condescending *******. 

you were intentionally misreading my own words - that i was explicitly taking issue with the biden administration's choice to intercede. your own claim that this is somehow a matter of precedent was not repeated by the only actual expert here, so this haughty ******** about who "really understands" what is completely unearned. 

First of all, I edited that paragraph because I rewrote the entire post a few times.  The line about not understanding the argument wasn’t intended to be in there because it qualified the apology and that wasn’t what I was trying to do.  Not your fault at all, just saying that I didn’t intend for that sentence to be in the middle of that paragraph.  

I was not “intentionally misreading” your words.  I was reading what you wrote and replying to them.  If you didn’t intend to say “invoke” you could have clarified that and I wouldn’t have brought it up again.  But that wasn’t the only part of the discussion where you got tripped up over things, like your question about how executive privilege applies to former officials.  That’s pretty basic.

And my posts were pointing out that there were legitimate legal reasons why Biden would join, including concern about setting precedent.  You’re the one who started up with the stuff about you don’t care if there are legitimate legal reasons, that he shouldn’t side with Devos ever.  That’s legitimately a ridiculous position to take.  

Look, all this stuff aside, just be honest with me.  Did you reply to me because you wanted to defend BO or did you reply to me because you wanted to discuss with me the issue about legal arguments around whether Devos should give a deposition?  I think that’s an important context for me to understand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, achilles return said:

can you really not understand that disagreement about the appropriateness of executive privilege is literally the point of contention

why should former cabinet members be protected from providing legal testimony? 

Executive privilege applies to former officials because the purpose is to allow the president to get honest and unfiltered advice about policies.  If former officials could be forced to testify about internal policy decisions then that would completely nullify the purpose of executive privilege because they would realize anything they told the president could come out later.  So they would feel pressure to withhold advice that might be politically unpopular.

In this case, again, it’s not about whether they can testify or not.  It’s about the requirements the other side has to show to compel that testimony.  And I don’t see how those requirements would differ based on whether the person is a current or former official.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

First of all, I edited that paragraph because I rewrote the entire post a few times.  The line about not understanding the argument wasn’t intended to be in there because it qualified the apology and that wasn’t what I was trying to do.  Not your fault at all, just saying that I didn’t intend for that sentence to be in the middle of that paragraph.  

well, thanks for the half-assed attempt at an apology, i guess.

Quote

I was not “intentionally misreading” your words.  I was reading what you wrote and replying to them.  If you didn’t intend to say “invoke” you could have clarified that and I wouldn’t have brought it up again.  But that wasn’t the only part of the discussion where you got tripped up over things, like your question about how executive privilege applies to former officials.  That’s pretty basic.

yes, you were. eatcorn and others had no problem discerning my point - that i was criticizing the biden administration's choice to intercede. you were the only one that did this dumb song and dance about me hating devos and what not - you literally still doing it in this very post. stop manufacturing words for me. stop manufacturing intent for me. it's strawman ********, and you do it all the ******* time

furthermore, i didn't get "tripped up" over this at all - can you please stop being a condescending *** for more than two minutes? - i was deliberately asking, as a point of discussion, why executive privilege should apply to former cabinet secretary - given that a judge literally made a ruling that his prohibition didn't apply to devos any longer.

Quote

And my posts were pointing out that there were legitimate legal reasons why Biden would join, including concern about setting precedent.  You’re the one who started up with the stuff about you don’t care if there are legitimate legal reasons, that he shouldn’t side with Devos ever.  That’s legitimately a ridiculous position to take.  

obviously i don't agree that the legal reasons are very legitimate. but beyond that, given the nature of the case and what's being fought over, it did not actually matter to me - even if there was a question of precedent, i did not care because of the nature of the case at hand, and because i'm not convinced former cabinet secretaries deserve these kinds of legal protections. this does not equal "he shouldn't side with devos ever", which is, again, strawman ********. 

Quote

Look, all this stuff aside, just be honest with me.  Did you reply to me because you wanted to defend BO or did you reply to me because you wanted to discuss with me the issue about legal arguments around whether Devos should give a deposition?  I think that’s an important context for me to understand.

you've overreacted to cornpop for months, for trivial things. this was another example of you losing it over a tweet that was literally true. if your mission is going to be to point out "his ********", then i feel compelled to point out when you're overreacting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Executive privilege applies to former officials because the purpose is to allow the president to get honest and unfiltered advice about policies.  If former officials could be forced to testify about internal policy decisions then that would completely nullify the purpose of executive privilege because they would realize anything they told the president could come out later.  So they would feel pressure to withhold advice that might be politically unpopular.

In this case, again, it’s not about whether they can testify or not.  It’s about the requirements the other side has to show to compel that testimony.  And I don’t see how those requirements would differ based on whether the person is a current or former official.  

this honestly seems like a pretty garbage rationale to me

i can understand the argument as it pertains to current cabinet secretaries - that it could interfere with the day-to-day job of running the country, but i fail to see why former cabinet secretaries should not be held responsible for the advice they did or did not give. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, achilles return said:

well, thanks for the half-assed attempt at an apology, i guess.

 

you've overreacted to cornpop for months, for trivial things. this was another example of you losing it over a tweet that was literally true. if your mission is going to be to point out "his ********", then i feel compelled to point out when you're overreacting. 

Read the edited post.  Wasn’t intended as “half-***ed”, as I tried to explain.

To the last comment, I see that you didn’t answer my question.  I just wanted to know if your motivation was to defend BO or if it was engage me in a conversation about the legal arguments over whether Devos should give a deposition.  Don’t want to make assumptions, but your response suggests your motivation was defending BO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, achilles return said:

this honestly seems like a pretty garbage rationale to me

i can understand the argument as it pertains to current cabinet secretaries - that it could interfere with the day-to-day job of running the country, but i fail to see why former cabinet secretaries should not be held responsible for the advice they did or did not give. 

Giving depositions is about the burden to officials and interfering with everyday operations.  Executive privilege is about allowing the president to get honest and unfiltered advice from his cabinet.  Cabinet members won’t be able to do that if anything they tell the president can become public as soon as they leave their post.  So they’re going to only give advice that’s politically popular or at least not unpopular.  Which completely negates the point of executive privilege.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Mr. Hoopah! changed the title to The ABF Classic Film Series: Prince of Darkness (1987) Thread

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...