Hillary Clinton’s Emails, Donald Trump, and Moving through Scandal

The whole email issue is a Republican wind-up, calculated to muddy the waters just before the early primaries.  Like Benghazi, there's no there there.

In order for any agency to file charges, you must have something called mens res...a guilty intent.  One can't have any intent if one did nothing at all, not to mention nothing wrong.

The emails raised here are those received by Hillary, not sent.  Bye-bye intent.  More interesting, the 22-email chains were not classified until months, and in some cases years after they were sent.  Most have only recently been classified...like just last week.  

These  missives have been classified, not because they contain anything sensitive, but because other agencies want to hold up their release.  They are embarrassing to their sender, somewhere or other.  It's a kind of inter-agency comity, having nothing to do with secrets.  Clinton is presently calling for their immediate release.  But alas, it's a ruse that holds everything up.

It's more buffoonery by Republicans.  They are born liars, and they can't help themselves.  Until they find the WMD's in Iraq, no one is listening to them anymore.

The whole email issue is a Republican wind-up, calculated to muddy the waters just before the early primaries.

This sounds like leftist wishful thinking (or a Hillary stump speech).
That woman is in deep doo-doo.
General Petraeus was charged for mishandling of classified information, and the info he mishandled is peanuts to what Hillary did. She's going to be indicted and charged, unless Obama gives her a presidential pardon.
Even MSNBC hosts are predicting her demise:
MSNBC - Morning Joe - Why Clinton email investigation continues

IndependentThoughts wrote:

The whole email issue is a Republican wind-up, calculated to muddy the waters just before the early primaries.

This sounds like leftist wishful thinking (or a Hillary stump speech).
That woman is in deep doo-doo.
General Petraeus was charged for mishandling of classified information, and the info he mishandled is peanuts to what Hillary did.  She's going to be indicted and charged, unless Obama gives her a presidential pardon.
Even MSNBC hosts are predicting her demise:
MSNBC - Morning Joe - Why Clinton email investigation continues

Can you explain to me how a down-the-middle independent acquires snarl terms like "leftist"?

IndependentThoughts wrote:

The whole email issue is a Republican wind-up, calculated to muddy the waters just before the early primaries.

This sounds like leftist wishful thinking (or a Hillary stump speech).
That woman is in deep doo-doo.
General Petraeus was charged for mishandling of classified information, and the info he mishandled is peanuts to what Hillary did.  She's going to be indicted and charged, unless Obama gives her a presidential pardon.
Even MSNBC hosts are predicting her demise:
MSNBC - Morning Joe - Why Clinton email investigation continues

First, Morning Joe is "Joe" Scarborough, former Republican Congressman, who hosts Morning Joe with co-host Mika Brzezinski, who moderates and 'tames' Joe

Wiki wrote:Quoting Scarborough, "These were decent steady men who don't go around flipping people off or screaming 'fuck you' at the top of their lungs." The comment was not bleeped out, and while Scarborough's guests and cohosts reacted with amusement, he continued with his point, apparently oblivious to what he had said, until co-host Mika Brzezinski broke in and informed him of his mistake."

And again.

Wiki wrote:MSNBC suspended Scarborough without pay for two days on November 19, 2010, for violating NBC News' policy against making contributions to political candidates

The man is atypical of MSNBC.  

General Petraeus is the same general who led the 'surge' to no avail in the waning days of the Iraq War.  He was later assigned head of the CIA, until he shared his bed and classified secrets with his married mistress, who was writing a book.  Any comparison of Clinton to Petraeus is a false equivalancy.  Petraeus divulged state secrets; Clinton merely used a private server, which she was authorized to do while Secretary of State.

Now, if you want to prosecute someone for violations of the Espionage Act, let's bring up former Vice President Richard Cheney, who did divulged secrets maliciously out of revenge, with knowledge and complete disregard for the consequences.  He threw his assistant, Scooter LIbby, under the bus to get out of that one.

Ben wrote:Can you explain to me how a down-the-middle independent acquires snarl terms like "leftist"?

The same way we Independents acquire words like “righty”, “liberal”, “conservative”, “centrists”, etc.

I think you’re confusing the word “Independent” with “Impartial”.  Ridicule of the left isn’t exclusively done by the right, by any means.  And vice-versa.

If someone presents themselves as someone that is fanatical about their political ideology, they will be labeled as such by all those who observe.  You are who you portray yourself to be.  Just because I’m an Independent doesn’t mean I’m unaware of how political extremists from both sides of the aisle are filled with single-minded zeal, and how intolerant they are of other’s differing views.  It doesn't mean I'm indifferent to it, either.

You don’t have to look any further than the last few threads in the politics section of this site, to solidify my point.
The threads are filled with posts after posts of flaming insults directed towards anyone who's opinions dare to differ from the Democratic party's extreme left.  Why?  When have any of these politicians taken up for you?  When have they ever held an event and said, "I want to thank [insert your name here] for helping me get elected and for spreading my propaganda."?  Yeah.  Never.

Newsflash:
Republicans are red.
Democrats are blue.
Neither one
Give a sh*t about you!

Don’t you get tired of defending the BS your party/ideology does? This question is for the libs and cons, alike. I see soooooooo many lefties/righties out there getting all butt hurt over some stupid/racist/incompetent/illegal thing that someone in their party does, and then go on a mission to cover or protect the member(s) of their party.  As if it's their responsibility to cover for their mistakes, or begin a damage-control campaign!
That’s stupid!!  Why are some of you so obsessed and fanatical about your ideology and politics that you sacrifice your dignity and self-worth for the sake of protecting and defending these clowns?

Character isn’t something you’re born with.  You must take responsibility for forming your character.  Have an independent mind.  Speak your thoughts; not some paraphrased quote from your favorite politician.  Identify right from wrong, and make your values and morals your leading compass -- not the empty promises of a career politician!  Right and wrong have nothing to do with which political aisle you sit on – dumb-assery is prevalent in both Democratic and Republican parties.

Quit making excuses and start making a stand.  Anyone who attempts to justify or mitigate the reprehensible actions/words of others, politician or not, is a fool and an idiot.  I have no respect for such people because they don’t respect themselves enough to be their own person.

IT wrote: You are who you portray yourself to be.  Just because I’m an Independent doesn’t mean I’m unaware of how political extremists from both sides of the aisle are filled with single-minded zeal, and how intolerant they are of other’s differing views.

IT, let’s face it…you are about as right as you can be in America.  I don’t know why people try to conceal themselves—I am a left-wing liberal, and I will brag about to anyone, anytime I can—but some people just seem to want to evade being figured out.

The reason why I want to be sussed out is so that we (anyone) can engage in a dialogue about the issues.  A wise friend once said: Confrontation is cleansing. As Eric Hoffer said, "The beginning of thought is in disagreement - not only with others but also with ourselves."  Truth is, a lot of dirt gets gathered into corners while we are busy trying to avoid confrontation: something wrong happened in Benghazi, or there’s something illegal with Hillary’s emails!  There’s no there there, but the fact is that unless we confront the issues, the air is not cleared.  People who want to confuse the issue thrive on the loss of clarity brought about by lack of confrontation.

So be proud of yourself.  Open yourself up to full and complete exposure, and then defend what is really there!

That said, I understand why conservatives avoid confrontation.  Conservatives represent special interests, while liberals represent the general interest.  Conservatives don’t want to be sussed out because they will be seen as they really are: working against the people.  Hence, instead to talking about how to balance economic interests, or increase democratic systems, they dither away at Hillary’s emails.

IT wrote:Newsflash:
Republicans are red.
Democrats are blue.
Neither one
Give a sh*t about you!

Don’t you get tired of defending the BS your party/ideology does? This question is for the libs and cons, alike. I see soooooooo many lefties/righties out there getting all butt hurt over some stupid/racist/incompetent/illegal thing that someone in their party does, and then go on a mission to cover or protect the member(s) of their party.  As if it's their responsibility to cover for their mistakes, or begin a damage-control campaign!
That’s stupid!!  Why are some of you so obsessed and fanatical about your ideology and politics that you sacrifice your dignity and self-worth for the sake of protecting and defending these clowns?

Character isn’t something you’re born with.  You must take responsibility for forming your character.  Have an independent mind.  Speak your thoughts; not some paraphrased quote from your favorite politician.  Identify right from wrong, and make your values and morals your leading compass -- not the empty promises of a career politician!  Right and wrong have nothing to do with which political aisle you sit on – dumb-assery is prevalent in both Democratic and Republican parties.

Quit making excuses and start making a stand.  Anyone who attempts to justify or mitigate the reprehensible actions/words of others, politician or not, is a fool and an idiot.  I have no respect for such people because they don’t respect themselves enough to be their own person.

The last refuge of the RW-betrayed is to resort to the old saw, they all do it.  Let me explain.  

I mention the right wing betrayed because I suspect they are the right-wingers who were as shocked as I was when the Republican leaders turned America into a bunch of kidnappers, rapists, torturers and murderers, and then actually tried to defend it!  The lies and the cheap tactics from the right were enough to sour anybody’s stomach.

Now we have this disaffected group of right-wingers, casting about for something to believe in.  They can’t simply say the left was correct; that would be to give in, and an American never loses, eh?  So, instead, they end up with the thesis: they all do it!  Then they bathe themselves in self-pity and preach disaffection…and finally, they find Donald Trump, who stands for nothing, but is willing to destroy the icons, just like they think they want to do.

First, they don’t all do it!  That’s a myth that was invented during the Teddy Roosevelt era, in the course of the birth of progressivism in America.  It was originally a spearhead to an argument to clean up Tammany Hall and Republican politics, 'because they were just like Democrats'.  But let's take it apart analytically.  It is a belief in symmetry…to say they all do it, is to say that the world happens in balance and equilibrium, and that simply isn’t true.  What law compels that nonsense?  The world is chaos, my friend...until you make it otherwise.

Those politicians who lie, do so for a reason…and that reason is they have something to hide.  Begin with why Republicans decided to lie to start a war…that led to kidnapping, raping, torturing, and murdering.  My good friend, that’s why you feel betrayed. You expected better...and you deserved it!

Second, Donald Trump is no answer.  He represents a portion of the populace that wants to throw a temper-tantrum because they’ve been betrayed.  You are following an actor who is representing all of the scenes a baby would go through if someone took his/her toys away.

Get into the real game: expose your thoughts to criticism, and learn from the discussion.  Prepare to change your mind, because those former beliefs weren't working...proof is in the pudding, eh?  These psychological games only amount to reduction of cognitive dissonance, while we’ve got an important—some say, a dangerous—country to run.

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:Can you explain to me how a down-the-middle independent acquires snarl terms like "leftist"?

The same way we Independents acquire words like “righty”, “liberal”, “conservative”, “centrists”, etc.

I think you’re confusing the word “Independent” with “Impartial”.  Ridicule of the left isn’t exclusively done by the right, by any means.  And vice-versa.

If someone presents themselves as someone that is fanatical about their political ideology, they will be labeled as such by all those who observe.  You are who you portray yourself to be.  Just because I’m an Independent doesn’t mean I’m unaware of how political extremists from both sides of the aisle are filled with single-minded zeal, and how intolerant they are of other’s differing views.  It doesn't mean I'm indifferent to it, either.

You don’t have to look any further than the last few threads in the politics section of this site, to solidify my point.
The threads are filled with posts after posts of flaming insults directed towards anyone who's opinions dare to differ from the Democratic party's extreme left.  Why?  When have any of these politicians taken up for you?  When have they ever held an event and said, "I want to thank [insert your name here] for helping me get elected and for spreading my propaganda."?  Yeah.  Never.

Newsflash:
Republicans are red.
Democrats are blue.
Neither one
Give a sh*t about you!

Don’t you get tired of defending the BS your party/ideology does? This question is for the libs and cons, alike. I see soooooooo many lefties/righties out there getting all butt hurt over some stupid/racist/incompetent/illegal thing that someone in their party does, and then go on a mission to cover or protect the member(s) of their party.  As if it's their responsibility to cover for their mistakes, or begin a damage-control campaign!
That’s stupid!!  Why are some of you so obsessed and fanatical about your ideology and politics that you sacrifice your dignity and self-worth for the sake of protecting and defending these clowns?

Character isn’t something you’re born with.  You must take responsibility for forming your character.  Have an independent mind.  Speak your thoughts; not some paraphrased quote from your favorite politician.  Identify right from wrong, and make your values and morals your leading compass -- not the empty promises of a career politician!  Right and wrong have nothing to do with which political aisle you sit on – dumb-assery is prevalent in both Democratic and Republican parties.

Quit making excuses and start making a stand.  Anyone who attempts to justify or mitigate the reprehensible actions/words of others, politician or not, is a fool and an idiot.  I have no respect for such people because they don’t respect themselves enough to be their own person.

I was going to defend you
but... now I'm not sure, you do seem pretty Right wing 
 
the Democratic party is Centre Right by any normal measure of the political divide.
Only the USA is the overall political spectrum so heavily slanted towards the Right that they can be to the left of anyone.
in pretty much every other english speaking nation the Rigth Wing party is still to the left of the Democrats.
to suggest they are Left wing is 'inaccurate' (is really just being polite to LW americans)
But extereme Left wing? that is just silly. there is Very few political parties in the world that are to the right of them. 

OQ wrote:IT, let’s face it…you are about as right as you can be in America.

Thank you, OQ. I, too, believe I'm very correct 99.9% of the time. I fact-check my posts before publishing and strongly adhere to the facts. That's why I'm about as correct as I can be in America.

VV wrote:I was going to defend you...

That was a noble thought, however unnecessary.

I saw that you highlighted a sentence within my quoted text in red. Allow me to point you to another sentence within that same passage:

Just because I’m an Independent doesn’t mean I’m unaware of how political extremists from both sides of the aisle are filled with single-minded zeal, and how intolerant they are of other’s differing views.

I'm capable of acknowledging that both political parties have their share of extremists.
Are you denying that they exist?

IndependentThoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:IT, let’s face it…you are about as right as you can be in America.

Thank you, OQ. I, too, believe I'm very correct 99.9% of the time.  I fact-check my posts before publishing and strongly adhere to the facts.  That's why  I'm about as correct as I can be in America.

VV wrote:I was going to defend you...

That was a noble thought, however unnecessary.

I saw that you highlighted a sentence within my quoted text in red.  Allow me to point you to another sentence within that same passage:

Just because I’m an Independent doesn’t mean I’m unaware of how political extremists from both sides of the aisle are filled with single-minded zeal, and how intolerant they are of other’s differing views.

I'm capable of acknowledging that both political parties have their share of extremists.
Are you denying that they exist?

Can you substantiate your belief in symmetry?  The right has a motive to lie.  I see no motive for the left.

The reason why I stress motives is because anyone call call someone a liar.  The right-wing, because of it's vulnerability to exposure with special interests, is given to reflexive reciprocal responses.  They get caught in a gigantic lie--like, 'there are WMD's in Iraq', or 'I'm not a crook'--and it hurts.  They want to do the same back.  

So they go on these fabricated witch-hunts, wanting to create hurt for those who hurt them.  Only one problem: they don't have the facts.  So, they invent a Benghazi or Hillary's emails, and like I say, there's no there there.

Anyone can invent shit.  The problem with the RW is when they try to reciprocate with the LW, they don't have the facts.  It's far more telling to ask what are the motives?  Hillary and Benghazi...no motive.  Hillary and emails...no motive.  Bush/Cheney and Iraqi WMD's...start a war.  Works every time.

IndependentThoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:IT, let’s face it…you are about as right as you can be in America.

Thank you, OQ. I, too, believe I'm very correct 99.9% of the time.  I fact-check my posts before publishing and strongly adhere to the facts.  That's why  I'm about as correct as I can be in America.

VV wrote:I was going to defend you...

That was a noble thought, however unnecessary.

I saw that you highlighted a sentence within my quoted text in red.  Allow me to point you to another sentence within that same passage:

Just because I’m an Independent doesn’t mean I’m unaware of how political extremists from both sides of the aisle are filled with single-minded zeal, and how intolerant they are of other’s differing views.

I'm capable of acknowledging that both political parties have their share of extremists.
Are you denying that they exist?

there are extreme Left Wing Parties, I know I vote for One

But Neither of the major parties in the USA are Left wing, let alone Extreme Left wing.

And example of A Extreme Left policy on Health, Australia Already has an actual gov't funded health care system, it is included in our taxes. it is proposition to expand it to include optical and dentistry as well. Not Like Obamacare that is just making insurance available to citizens That is Still RW, using the capitalist market to 'distribute' health care, it just places a safety net on the standard/cost of insurance

We’ve already secured free dental care for 3.4 million children and a boost for public dental care, and we’re committed to bring dental care fully into Medicare, starting with the most disadvantaged.
We’ll invest in Medicare to bring health bills down, and boost funding for public hospitals by $1.5 billion to undo Liberal-Labor cuts. We’ll protect our air, land and water from pollution, and help every Australian put healthy food on their table.
We’re looking out for people in rural and regional Australia, with our funding boost for rural hospitals, our specialised rural mental health plan, investment in regional doctor training and more.
With targeted plans for mental health, eye health and hearing health, we’ll help every Australian live a full and healthy life – and with our commitment to medical research and innovation, you know that we’ll always be ready for the challenges of the future.

http://greens.org.au/policy

OQ wrote:The right has a motive to lie. I see no motive for the left.

You are either under-informed, willfully blind, or your bias enables you to mentally diminish the severity of their lies and then extenuate them as "nothing". Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there have been just as many lies told by the left as the right. Please don't ask me to list the lies for either side; I don't have enough time this year to list them all.

VV wrote:But Neither of the major parties in the USA are Left wing, let alone Extreme Left wing.

Given that we're in different countries and cultures, I think we're dealing with a matter of nomenclature -- what may be considered liberal/conservative/extreme in your area may significantly differ from my area.

Bill Ayers would be a great example of left-extremism. Anytime you endanger or take people's lives for the sheer sake of making a political statement, you are extremely extreme.

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Ben wrote:Can you explain to me how a down-the-middle independent acquires snarl terms like "leftist"?

The same way we Independents acquire words like “righty”, “liberal”, “conservative”, “centrists”, etc.

I think you’re confusing the word “Independent” with “Impartial”.  Ridicule of the left isn’t exclusively done by the right, by any means.  And vice-versa.

If someone presents themselves as someone that is fanatical about their political ideology, they will be labeled as such by all those who observe.  You are who you portray yourself to be.  Just because I’m an Independent doesn’t mean I’m unaware of how political extremists from both sides of the aisle are filled with single-minded zeal, and how intolerant they are of other’s differing views.  It doesn't mean I'm indifferent to it, either.

You don’t have to look any further than the last few threads in the politics section of this site, to solidify my point.
The threads are filled with posts after posts of flaming insults directed towards anyone who's opinions dare to differ from the Democratic party's extreme left.  Why?  When have any of these politicians taken up for you?  When have they ever held an event and said, "I want to thank [insert your name here] for helping me get elected and for spreading my propaganda."?  Yeah.  Never.

Newsflash:
Republicans are red.
Democrats are blue.
Neither one
Give a sh*t about you!

Don’t you get tired of defending the BS your party/ideology does? This question is for the libs and cons, alike. I see soooooooo many lefties/righties out there getting all butt hurt over some stupid/racist/incompetent/illegal thing that someone in their party does, and then go on a mission to cover or protect the member(s) of their party.  As if it's their responsibility to cover for their mistakes, or begin a damage-control campaign!
That’s stupid!!  Why are some of you so obsessed and fanatical about your ideology and politics that you sacrifice your dignity and self-worth for the sake of protecting and defending these clowns?

Character isn’t something you’re born with.  You must take responsibility for forming your character.  Have an independent mind.  Speak your thoughts; not some paraphrased quote from your favorite politician.  Identify right from wrong, and make your values and morals your leading compass -- not the empty promises of a career politician!  Right and wrong have nothing to do with which political aisle you sit on – dumb-assery is prevalent in both Democratic and Republican parties.

Quit making excuses and start making a stand.  Anyone who attempts to justify or mitigate the reprehensible actions/words of others, politician or not, is a fool and an idiot.  I have no respect for such people because they don’t respect themselves enough to be their own person.

Nobody is as independent as you say -- most people's ideas come from others. Mine (on politics) are a distillation of everything that appeals to me and seems to make sense, and when I match that up with a party, the one that comes closest -- and can make an actual difference in U.S. government -- is the Democrats. I don't mindlessly adopt their agenda, nor do I promote the whole of it, nor do I never criticize Democrats.

Now, I have to take issue with you including terms like "conservative" along with the term I called out -- "leftist." As I said, and you ignored, "leftist" is a snarl word. It's used exclusively in a combative sense. It's not a neutral, objectively descriptive term like "conservative" is.

@IT
that is my point you live in an exterme Right Wing nation that Posses No Left Wing Party.

Australia, UK, NZ and Canada (a.k.a the other English speakers) are all around the same on the political Spectrum With Our Major RW party being the same or slightly to the left of the Democrats.

the Republicans Are the MOST EXTEREME Right Wing party in the English Speaking World, every one is to the Left of them including other Right wing parties like the Democrats, Tories or LNP

IndependentThoughts wrote:

The whole email issue is a Republican wind-up, calculated to muddy the waters just before the early primaries.

This sounds like leftist wishful thinking (or a Hillary stump speech).
That woman is in deep doo-doo.
General Petraeus was charged for mishandling of classified information, and the info he mishandled is peanuts to what Hillary did.  She's going to be indicted and charged, unless Obama gives her a presidential pardon.
Even MSNBC hosts are predicting her demise:
MSNBC - Morning Joe - Why Clinton email investigation continues

never going to happen
the whole thing is a political hatchet job by republicans they dig every conceivable "scandal" and i use that word very loosely to try and discredit her and the administration especially Obama to some kind of illegal or scandalous event

how many embassy`s where attacked before bengazi how many American life`s lost ? was they this level of inquiry or attempt to blame somebody.....Nope

the emails OFFS thats just ludicrous she wasnt the only one to have a private email address that sensitive documents where sent too

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and aides to his successor, Condoleezza Rice, both received classified information a handful of times via personal email accounts i wonder why they are not up in front of a congressional committee as well

funny that i missed those inquiry's on Cspan

IT wrote:You are either under-informed, willfully blind, or your bias enables you to mentally diminish the severity of their lies and then extenuate them as "nothing". Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there have been just as many lies told by the left as the right. Please don't ask me to list the lies for either side; I don't have enough time this year to list them all.

As I thought.  You do realize that I have just raised the RW’s inability to substantiate their claims of mendacity, and here you, once again, have no facts.

This is very typical of the RW.  They make allegations and generalizations, and drop the rope securing the boat to the dock.  It shows that they deal in rhetoric, not reality.  That in turn shows that they shy away from reality…the question becomes, why?  

The RW—in America that means Republicans—deal in special interests.  Democrats deal in the general interest.  

Republicans have a massive flaw in their position: they seek monetary success at the loss of political success!  With monetary success one wants exclusivity, and company is rare…after all, there are a limited amount of millionaires.  On the other hand, with political success one seeks lots of people, because they vote and you win.  You can’t have a philosophy that reduces the numbers around you, yet expect to increase the number of voters and gain political success.  It's a massive flaw, and the only way out is dishonesty.

What is the political answer?  One must embark upon a campaign that confuses and obfuscates all political issues.  Upset the chess board…throw the pieces against the wall.  Throw out intellectual integrity.  Abandon intellectual rigor.

There are several gambits available: start a war; suggest a scandal; most of all, lie, lie, lie.  One gambit we’ve just witnessed in your post IT: accuse…but clear out when it comes to facts ("...I don't have enough time").  Raise the specter, then abandon the podium just when the crowd is expecting more.  This leaves the crowd murmuring…speculating…wondering.  Perhaps this is the best tactic, because it leaves the question up in the air—where it lasts and lasts.  Kinda like Benghazi, or Hillary's emails.

There are lots of ways to tell a lie.  Perhaps someday someone will write a compendium on the many versions of lying.  But all lies have one thing in common: there’s no there there.  The lie has no facts.

Got caught?  What is the last refuge of the liar?  He says: They all do it!  Yep, that is the ultimate lie.  Misery loves company, and by saying I didn’t do anything that others don’t do, you surround yourself with lots of fictitious friends.  If you can convince the stupid around you that they don’t need facts, you can actually build a defense.  Old lawyers trick...if you don't have the facts to support you, write a fictitious script.

All this... coming from a guy that I'm constantly having to correct because his "facts" are always wrong.

Have a nice life inside that bubble where Obama is "wildly popular" and politicians never lie.
Ha.

IndependentThoughts wrote:All this... coming from a guy that I'm constantly having to correct because his "facts" are always wrong.

Have a nice life inside that bubble where Obama is "wildly popular" and politicians never lie.
Ha.

Good-bye.  Happy trails.  Ta-ta.

But before you go, I can't help but notice that once again you leave a conclusion without facts.  You have never corrected me.  What you have done is called flailing (random and usually pointless--"high on crystal meth", Urban Dictionary).  

You have been casting about for some sort of grounding for your claim, they all do it.  It's still untethered.

But we linger unnecessarily...

OQ wrote:You have never corrected me.

Of course I have, and still do.  All the time.
You make posts with no regard to the facts.  Kind of like how you're always referring to the POTUS as "Dr." Obama.  If that's not fanaticism and celebrity-worshipping to the extreme, I don't know what is.


Below is one of the latest times I've had to correct you because you make statements without ensuring their veracity.

OQ wrote:Currently, the American president has only authority to conduct military activities in Iraq. Dr. Obama is not authorized to wage a war in Syria.

In response, IT wrote:That is incorrect. How is it that we are we making airstrikes in another sovereign nation, if what you’re saying is true?

I then went on to correct your false statements and teach you the real facts.  Happens all the time.  You should become better informed so that your posts aren't predominately wrong.  See the following link for the education I had to serve you.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t13105-explaining-why-pseudo-conservative-crybabies-are-sowing-fear-in-the-u-s

BTW...
In the thread I linked, above, I defended the legality of Obama's use of force in Syria. What he's doing is perfectly legal within the act that was passed when G. W. Bush was in office.
I know how the right wing conspirators enjoy accusing Obama of over-extending his authority. In that particular case, he is operating within legal bounds.

I stand up for Obama, and yet I'm accused of being a right wing Republican. Lol. Some of you are too much.

IndependentThoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:You have never corrected me.

Of course I have, and still do.  All the time.
You make posts with no regard to the facts.  Kind of like how you're always referring to the POTUS as "Dr." Obama.  If that's not fanaticism and celebrity-worshipping to the extreme, I don't know what is.

I've never heard this from you, but in any case it does not matter.  Dr. Obama has a doctor of jurisprudence from Harvard University.  FACT.  A person who holds any doctorate degree is entitled to the title 'doctor', regardless of whether it is a PhD, a JD, a MD or a Ed.D. or any other of the many doctorates.

More interesting, what was your motive for raising the issue?

IT wrote:Below is one of the latest times I've had to correct you because you make statements without ensuring their veracity.

OQ wrote:Currently, the American president has only authority to conduct military activities in Iraq. Dr. Obama is not authorized to wage a war in Syria.

In response, IT wrote:That is incorrect. How is it that we are we making airstrikes in another sovereign nation, if what you’re saying is true?

I sympathize with this question, as I don't like the bombing either.  The answer: Dr. Obama has initiated the bombing in Syria under the guise of the authority he has to wage war in Iraq from Congress.  The reasoning is that it is still a part of the Iraq war, as the action initiates from ISIS in Syria, which is claiming all of Iraq and the Levant ('ISIS' is actually a misnomer; it's 'ISIL' = Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).  It's a weak argument, but other than that he has only the inherent war powers to defend the US; but the US hasn't been invaded.

IT wrote:I then went on to correct your false statements and teach you the real facts.  Happens all the time.  You should become better informed so that your posts aren't predominately wrong.  See the following link for the education I had to serve you.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t13105-explaining-why-pseudo-conservative-crybabies-are-sowing-fear-in-the-u-s

Gd luck.

OQ wrote:Dr. Obama has a doctor of jurisprudence from Harvard University.

Yes, I know that. Of 50 states, 49 of them require you to have a JD and pass the Bar exam prior to being licensed to practice law (Wisconsin is the only state that allows you to practice with a JD and not take the Bar exam).

How often do we hear attorneys being referred to as "Doctor"? I think your posts are the first time I've seen anyone titling a lawyer as "Dr". Why not just get it out of your system and just address him as "His Royal Heighness"?

OQ wrote:Obama has initiated the bombing in Syria under the guise of the authority he has to wage war in Iraq from Congress.

Wrong. Still.
You should accept the fact that you were wrong and had to be corrected. Obama isn't doing anything illegal and he's not operating under some "guise".
Be a man and admit when you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. Especially when you have someone like me around to properly educate you.

IndependentThoughts wrote:

OQ wrote:Dr. Obama has a doctor of jurisprudence from Harvard University.

Yes, I know that.  Of 50 states, 49 of them require you to have a JD and pass the Bar exam prior to being licensed to practice law (Wisconsin is the only state that allows you to practice with a JD and not take the Bar exam).

How often do we hear attorneys being referred to as "Doctor"?  I think your posts are the first time I've seen anyone titling a lawyer as "Dr". Why not just get it out of your system and just address him as "His Royal Heighness"?

It happens quite often.  For example, I have a JD degree; I am called 'doctor ____' when I'm in court and/or in my office.  I also have a PhD, so I can't be sure which of my 2 doctorates is being referred to, but it doesn't matter.

You have shifted your point to it can't be...to it isn't normal.  You see how you are weakening your argument?  Pretty soon it will disappear altogether.

IT wrote:

OQ wrote:Obama has initiated the bombing in Syria under the guise of the authority he has to wage war in Iraq from Congress.

Wrong.  Still.
You should accept the fact that you were wrong and had to be corrected.  Obama isn't doing anything illegal and he's not operating under some "guise".  
Be a man and admit when you're wrong.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Especially when you have someone like me around to properly educate you.

Are we having a temper tantrum?  Stop the whining and engage your brain.  Other than inherent powers to defend under Article II, the only war power authorized by the US Constitution is in Article I:

Art. I, sec. 8, clause 11 wrote:[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

This is part of the checks and balances philosophy of the Constitution.  No one person or officer may commit the US to a conflict, without the representative body of the US population...that would be the Congress.  Permission must always be sought of the Congress.  

That was what President Roosevelt was asking for when he said:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote:Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
*  *  *  *
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

That was the commencement of WWII for the US (the War in Europe had been going on since 1940).

Lol.  I laid the trap and you went for the bait.
I told you that attorneys are NOT titled “Dr.”  And then I intentionally withheld what the proper title is.

OQ deceptively wrote:It happens quite often. For example, I have a JD degree; I am called 'doctor ____' when I'm in court and/or in my office.

Annnnnnd the trap has been sprung.  

You’re not an attorney and you don’t have a JD.  If you had either, you would know that the proper title for an attorney is Esquire (or abbreviated, “Esq.”)  Attorneys are NOT referred to as “Dr”, and nobody in court or your office is going to address you as such.

It’s one thing to be called out for being wrong… and it’s another to be caught lying.  Both just happened to you.  Busted!

Wiki wrote:In the United States, Esquire is mostly used to denote a lawyer; in a departure from traditional use, it is used irrespective of gender, and women lawyers use the title as well as men. In letters, a lawyer is customarily addressed by adding the suffix Esquire (abbreviated Esq.), preceded by a comma, after the lawyer's full name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire

OQ wrote:You have never corrected me.

This is the third time, today. Wanna go for #4?

The Juris Doctor degree (J.D. or JD) or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree (D.Jur. or DJur) is a professional doctorate and first professional graduate degree in law.


Esquire, abbreviated Esq. is a courtesy title, and as such is used by others when officially addressing an attorney regarding a case he or she is providing representation. It is not used by the attorney with his or her own name and not used when addressing an attorney socially.

Professional titles
Trust me, I'm a doctor of law
Mar 1st 2013, 20:32 by S.A.P. | LOS ANGELES

   Timekeeper

A LAWYER, a professor, and a physician walk into a bar. As they (predictably) begin to argue over drinks, the lawyer leans over the table and pulls out his trump card: “I'm right. Trust me, I’m a doctor.” The professor and physician are left speechless.

The lawyer isn’t wrong, strictly speaking. The American law degree is the Juris Doctor, literally “doctor of law”. The change from LLB (bachelor of laws) and LLM (master of laws) reflected a different approach to legal education stateside. As the modern incarnation of an older European doctorate, the new JD was intended to provide only professional preparation as a follow-up to a primary degree, usually from a liberal arts program. JDs were confined to the United States until about 15 years ago. JD programs have been popping up in other countries since.

The translation of the degree name is clear, but more sticky is whether a lawyer can properly refer to himself as a doctor. In America, “doctor” is commonly reserved for medical doctors and academics who hold a PhD (doctor of philosophy) degree. Holders of EdD (doctor of education) or PsyD (doctor of psychology) degrees might also be addressed as doctors. Some prefer the use of “doctor” to be limited to those with MD (doctor of medicine) degrees. Still, it’s standard American practice to call professors and physicians doctors. It’s rare to hear a lawyer addressed the same way.

The American Bar Association (ABA), which publishes model rules on professional ethics for lawyers, is unclear about whether lawyers can use the title Dr. There is a general prohibition on misleading potential clients, but the rules don’t address the specific “doctor” question. Some state ethics committees have stepped in where the model rules haven’t. Given the patchwork of state and national rules, lawyers intent on calling themselves doctors must check their local rules. For example, in Texas, lawyers couldn’t call themselves “doctor” until nine years ago. The state ethics committee reversed course in 2004, allowing the use of “doctor” as long as it wasn’t misleading—as, say, in an advert for medical malpractice law.

But if potential clients don’t know that JD degrees denote doctors of law, any use of Dr without an MD or PhD degree could be misleading. More important, calling lawyers doctors is silly and pedantic. Some argue that lawyers don’t “deserve” the title of doctor because their course of study is shorter and less rigorous than those of physicians or academics—or even SJD (doctor of juridical science) recipients.

That misses the point. American lawyers are indeed a sort of doctor by degree, but the title Dr carries a specific meaning that is common and well-understood. The title Esq (esquire), if a bit stuffy, does the job without misleading anyone. Ethics boards might be flexible, but common sense is less so.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/03/professional-titles

IndependentThoughts wrote:Lol.  I laid the trap and you went for the bait.
I told you that attorneys are NOT titled “Dr.”  And then I intentionally withheld what the proper title is.

OQ deceptively wrote:It happens quite often. For example, I have a JD degree; I am called 'doctor ____' when I'm in court and/or in my office.

Annnnnnd the trap has been sprung.  

You’re not an attorney and you don’t have a JD.  If you had either, you would know that the proper title for an attorney is Esquire (or abbreviated, “Esq.”)  Attorneys are NOT referred to as “Dr”, and nobody in court or your office is going to address you as such.

It’s one thing to be called out for being wrong… and it’s another to be caught lying.  Both just happened to you.  Busted!

Wiki wrote:In the United States, Esquire is mostly used to denote a lawyer; in a departure from traditional use, it is used irrespective of gender, and women lawyers use the title as well as men. In letters, a lawyer is customarily addressed by adding the suffix Esquire (abbreviated Esq.), preceded by a comma, after the lawyer's full name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire

OQ wrote:You have never corrected me.

This is the third time, today.  Wanna go for #4?

'Esq.' is the ancient way of denoting a gentleman of standing, no more. It's written form only; you don't go around saying this is 'ole esquire Charlie.... A knight's esquire was considered to be a gentleman, and the profession of attorney is supposed to gentlemanly. Most lawyers today don't use the suffix at all. It is considered pretentious. The common term for a practicing lawyer is 'counselor', which is used in court by judges and clerks. I suspect the only reason they refer to me as 'doctor' is because of my academic background.

But Dr. Obama is--ie, before he was president--a university professor of Constitutional law, at the University of Chicago, a prestigious institution. He teaches law. Those connected with universities are commonly referred to as 'doctor' or 'professor'. In his capacity as a teacher at a university, that's what I call him.

So much for your gotcha!!! Your childish glee in this last post shows you are not a serious debater. You are not in it for the truth of the matter, but merely to win points--lol, and in which you failed miserably.

I thought you might be a better contender, but I see your immaturity gets in your way. I'm disappointed.

Korban, thank you for looking that up.
As mentioned in your quote, attorneys don't introduce themselves as, "Hi, I'm Esquire John Smith" as an PhD would introduce themselves as "Hi, I'm Dr. John Smith".  Attorney's don't use titles (like Dr) unless they've become a judge.  In that case, their title is "Judge".

For further clarification...

Wiki wrote:The title of doctor for attorneys has not customarily been used in English-speaking countries where lawyers were not required to have a university degree and were trained by other attorneys by apprenticeship or in the Inns of Court.
...
Throughout much of the academic world, the term "doctor" refers to an individual who has earned a degree of Doctor of Philosophy, or Ph.D. (an abbreviation for the Latin Philosophiæ Doctor; or alternatively Doctor philosophiæ, D.Phil., meaning Teacher of Philosophy), or other research doctorate such as the Doctor of Science, or Sc.D. (an abbreviation of the Latin Scientiae Doctor). Beyond academia, many professions, such as law and medicine, have developed professional degrees that rank lower on the UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education, such as the Juris Doctor J.D., Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) (an abbreviation of the Latin Medicinæ Doctor) and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)


Bottom line:  You don't address an attorney as a "Doctor".

Give it a break, OQ.
You've been thoroughly discredited and disgraced. I think you've done enough damage to yourself, today. Go lay down and take a nap.

IndependentThoughts wrote:Give it a break, OQ.
You've been thoroughly discredited and disgraced.  I think you've done enough damage to yourself, today.  Go lay down and take a nap.

Yada, yada, yads... Sounded like a true Republican. Discussion dwells on all jargon and slogan, no logic or sense.

Before we started playing gotcha, there was a good discussion going on about the war powers of Congress, as articulated in the US Constitution. I see you've dropped out of that discussion.

To much for you?

OQ wrote:To much for you?

You misspelled "too", doc.

IndependentThoughts wrote:Korban, thank you for looking that up.
As mentioned in your quote, attorneys don't introduce themselves as, "Hi, I'm Esquire John Smith" as an PhD would introduce themselves as "Hi, I'm Dr. John Smith".  Attorney's don't use titles (like Dr) unless they've become a judge.  In that case, their title is "Judge".

For further clarification...

Wiki wrote:The title of doctor for attorneys has not customarily been used in English-speaking countries where lawyers were not required to have a university degree and were trained by other attorneys by apprenticeship or in the Inns of Court.
...
Throughout much of the academic world, the term "doctor" refers to an individual who has earned a degree of Doctor of Philosophy, or Ph.D. (an abbreviation for the Latin Philosophiæ Doctor; or alternatively Doctor philosophiæ, D.Phil., meaning Teacher of Philosophy), or other research doctorate such as the Doctor of Science, or Sc.D. (an abbreviation of the Latin Scientiae Doctor). Beyond academia, many professions, such as law and medicine, have developed professional degrees that rank lower on the UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education, such as the Juris Doctor J.D., Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) (an abbreviation of the Latin Medicinæ Doctor) and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)


Bottom line:  You don't address an attorney as a "Doctor".

your welcome
but technically you could, and it would not be incorrect ,and that`s the point i guess  

you both have valid points

Some prefer  use of “doctor” to be limited to those with MD but its not
And it seems that individual  states make the legal distinction
The American Bar Association (ABA), which publishes model rules on professional ethics for lawyers, is unclear about whether lawyers can use the title Dr. There is a general prohibition on misleading potential clients


so IMO not caring ether way as i have no dog in this fight

is someone with a JD a "doctor" yes

they is some disagreement  over whether the person can/should  be addressed as "DR" as a lawyer but they is no hard and fast rule

Q is correct when he says he is a doctor same as obama and why he refers to him as such however IMO as Quill knows i don`t agree with calling him DR obama
when you refer to somebody formally you should use there highest attainment or rank  Dr,Professor,captain,president
and that all depends on the situation

Omaha will always be the president because of the weird way you Americans give such job titles for life
names always predicated with the titles from the jobs they have had

people don`t refer to me as C.P.O korban dallas R.N any more as i don`t hold that position any-more

Original Quill wrote:

IndependentThoughts wrote:Lol.  I laid the trap and you went for the bait.
I told you that attorneys are NOT titled “Dr.”  And then I intentionally withheld what the proper title is.



Annnnnnd the trap has been sprung.  

You’re not an attorney and you don’t have a JD.  If you had either, you would know that the proper title for an attorney is Esquire (or abbreviated, “Esq.”)  Attorneys are NOT referred to as “Dr”, and nobody in court or your office is going to address you as such.

It’s one thing to be called out for being wrong… and it’s another to be caught lying.  Both just happened to you.  Busted!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire



This is the third time, today.  Wanna go for #4?

'Esq.' is the ancient way of denoting a gentleman of standing, no more.  It's written form only; you don't go around saying this is 'ole esquire Charlie....  A knight's esquire was considered to be a gentleman, and the profession of attorney is supposed to gentlemanly.  Most lawyers today don't use the suffix at all.  It is considered pretentious.  The common term for a practicing lawyer is 'counselor', which is used in court by judges and clerks.  I suspect the only reason they refer to me as 'doctor' is because of my academic background.

But Dr. Obama is--ie, before he was president--a university professor of Constitutional law, at the University of Chicago, a prestigious institution.  He teaches law.  Those connected with universities are commonly referred to as 'doctor' or 'professor'.  In his capacity as a teacher at a university, that's what I call him.

So much for your gotcha!!!    Your childish glee in this last post shows you are not a serious debater.  You are not in it for the truth of the matter, but merely to win points--lol, and in which you failed miserably.

I thought you might be a better contender, but I see your immaturity gets in your way.  I'm disappointed.

indeed i have written such letters with the same Esq ................you know when we where taught properly

Korban, you are correct.
Possessing a doctorate degree in any field makes you a doctor in that field.

When it comes to titles, however, it is not used with attorneys. So when OQ claims he is addressed as Dr. Whoever, he's full of it because nobody in the legal profession refers to each other as "Dr." It's improper and misleading, just as your article snippet explained.

FormsOfAddress.info wrote: Use of Esq. is important among the ethics rules of the legal profession which require communications from an attorney (on one side) be with the opposing side's attorney rather than directly with the opposing side. By addressing the other side's attorney as Esq., the person initiating the communication is being clear that he or she is following correct procedure.
However, traditionally Esq. is not used reflexively ... that is, one does not call oneself an Esq. Thus on a business card or letterhead names of the principals, partners, associates, are be presented without post nominals:
Kenneth Millard
Attorney at Law
J.D. is most often used in academic contexts. If you are the author of a article that's published in an academic journal or teach at a university and are listed in the catalog, then using your specific academic degree is pertinent and traditional:
Kenneth Millard, J.D.
And finally:
Esq. and J.D. are not used in combination.
I'd say that it is very, very, very rare for a person holding a J.D. to want to be addressed as Dr. (name).
Dr. is not used before or after an attorney's name in any circumstance.

http://www.formsofaddress.info/attorney.html

IndependentThoughts wrote:Korban, you are correct.
Possessing a doctorate degree in any field makes you a doctor in that field.

When it comes to titles, however, it is not used with attorneys.  So when OQ claims he is addressed as Dr. Whoever, he's full of it because nobody in the legal profession refers to each other as "Dr."  It's improper and misleading, just as your article snippet explained.

FormsOfAddress.info wrote: Use of Esq. is important among the ethics rules of the legal profession which require communications from an attorney (on one side) be with the opposing side's attorney rather than directly with the opposing side. By addressing the other side's attorney as Esq., the person initiating the communication is being clear that he or she is following correct procedure.
    However, traditionally Esq. is not used reflexively ... that is, one does not call oneself an Esq.  Thus on a business card or letterhead names of the principals, partners, associates, are be presented without post nominals:
         Kenneth Millard
         Attorney at Law
    J.D. is most often used in academic contexts. If you are the author of a article that's published in an academic journal or teach at a university and are listed in the catalog, then using your specific academic degree is pertinent and traditional:
         Kenneth Millard, J.D.
    And finally:
         Esq. and J.D. are not used in combination.
         I'd say that it is very, very, very rare for a person holding a J.D. to want to be addressed as Dr. (name).
         Dr. is not used before or after an attorney's name in any circumstance.

http://www.formsofaddress.info/attorney.html

well it didn`t say never ,but i understand your point but have no idea ether way as i am not in those circles

However that said i am personally 99% sure Q is a lawyer(retired) i think

korban dallas wrote:

IndependentThoughts wrote:Korban, you are correct.
Possessing a doctorate degree in any field makes you a doctor in that field.

When it comes to titles, however, it is not used with attorneys.  So when OQ claims he is addressed as Dr. Whoever, he's full of it because nobody in the legal profession refers to each other as "Dr."  It's improper and misleading, just as your article snippet explained.


http://www.formsofaddress.info/attorney.html

well it didn`t say never ,but i understand your point but have no idea ether way as i am not in those circles

However that said i am personally 99% sure Q is a lawyer(retired) i think

Not retired...just tired. Lol.

A lot has changed in the area of law since, oh say, 1960. The traditional law degree was a LLB, or bachelor of laws. The LLM (or masters of laws) and the JSD (or doctor of the science of jurisprudence) are not general law, but specialized areas of law...mining law, maritime law, etc. Because, beginning at Harvard Law, qualifications went beyond merely 'reading' for the law, the degree was fitted in as a postgraduate degree. But it was still an orphan, as your article says KD, a 'professional' degree (but so is a medical degree a mere professional degree--not academic at all). The original idea of an academic doctorate was someone who had added something new to whatever profession...hence, the requirement for a doctoral dissertation.

The JD was greater than a mere masters, but not quite an academic degree...except, what if you wanted to be an academic at law. My professor at Berkeley, Dr. David Daube (also at Oxford University) was an expert at Roman Law. So there are still areas of academic.

It's all practical usage, so no one is right. But when a JD degree that is used in association with a university teaching position becomes academic. Some law schools have begun requiring a dissertation, although I consider this after-the-fact.

But under any definition--and it's all in flux today--Dr. Obama is a professor of law.

Korban wrote:...i am personally 99% sure Q is a lawyer(retired) i think

I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, but this is one case where it's impossible.  2 reasons:

1) If you're an attorney, how in the world do you make such a faux pas as to not know that you don't use "Dr" as a title?  That's like a self-proclaimed mechanic not knowing the difference between a V8 and a flat-6.  It's such a basic and fundamental rule that even law students know it.

2)  He made a post in one of these threads where he was trying to explain Mens rea but got it totally wrong.  I didn't call him out on it at the time because I had other things to do.  Nonetheless, his explanation demonstrated that he has a wobbly understanding of the law, at best.

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Korban wrote:...i am personally 99% sure Q is a lawyer(retired) i think

I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, but this is one case where it's impossible.  2 reasons:

1) If you're an attorney, how in the world do you make such a faux pas as to not know that you don't use "Dr" as a title?  That's like a self-proclaimed mechanic not knowing the difference between a V8 and a flat-6.  It's such a basic and fundamental rule that even law students know it.

2)  He made a post in one of these threads where he was trying to explain Mens rea but got it totally wrong.  I didn't call him out on it at the time because I had other things to do.  Nonetheless, his explanation demonstrated that he has a wobbly understanding of the law, at best.

all circumstantial at best though

As to the mens rea i never saw that post so not sure what the discussion entailed

however i have know Q a few years i know his real name ,where he lives and that the name is registered with the California bar and the information he has told me in the past as an admin
in confidence check`s out

could it be all an elaborate story sure

that`s why i am only 99% but over the years he has to my mind demonstrated i deep understanding of legal issues especially American ones
Not to mention precedents and decisions handed down in your courts that are to most people obscure lawyer speak

could he be a "mike" from suit`s perhaps but i doubt it

korban dallas wrote:

IndependentThoughts wrote:

I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, but this is one case where it's impossible.  2 reasons:

1) If you're an attorney, how in the world do you make such a faux pas as to not know that you don't use "Dr" as a title?  That's like a self-proclaimed mechanic not knowing the difference between a V8 and a flat-6.  It's such a basic and fundamental rule that even law students know it.

2)  He made a post in one of these threads where he was trying to explain Mens rea but got it totally wrong.  I didn't call him out on it at the time because I had other things to do.  Nonetheless, his explanation demonstrated that he has a wobbly understanding of the law, at best.

all circumstantial at best though

As to the mens rea i never saw that post so not sure what the discussion entailed

however i have know Q a few years i know his real name ,where he lives and that the name is registered with the California bar  and the information he has told me in the past as an admin
in confidence check`s out  

could it be all an elaborate story sure

that`s why i am only 99% but over the years he has to my mind demonstrated i deep understanding of legal issues especially American ones
Not to mention precedents and decisions handed down in your courts  that are to most people obscure lawyer speak

could he be a "mike" from suit`s perhaps but i doubt it  

I wouldn't worry about it, KD.  Notice how you have been sucked into a debate about doxing a member, rather than the subject matter of the thread.  How does a question about my profession advance a discussion about Hillary Clinton's emails?  This is a very common trick, because it is a neat way to escape when you are beaten.

...apart from the lies, which is another RW trick.  First, to hang a hat on picayune jargon, which is no longer used (esq.), shows he is out of his depth.  It's obvious he has been busy on Google, because he is not familiar with the contemporary verbiage in legal circles, and doesn't know how the usage has changed.  He just got it on Google, learned some simple things, and doesn't know how to use the knowledge.

Second, as to mens res, he objects to my characterization of it as a guilty mind.  But look what a simple check on Wiki says:

Wiki wrote:The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty"

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

I think you are dealing with someone who has not finished high school, an 18-year old unemployed drop-out, with a nagging mother, who escapes by immersing himself in cold pizza, doesn't ever change his underwear and lives only for his laptop.  Diverting the thread is the first clue; he's running...afraid to continue.  His knowledge is facile and not familiar to him, as I've noted above.  And he is hostile...a good indication he's lost with the subject-matter, and he knows it.  So, the best defense is loud and raucous offense.  

Your dealing with a child who doesn't know his way around.

What's up, Doc?

I was browsing the net and found an outfit that you would look great in!

Generally speaking, in the US it's bad form for a lawyer to claim the title of "doctor" - not as a matter of law or professional ethics, but as a matter of courtesy to people who have earned the title. You see, most lawyers understand that even though they technically have achieved a doctorate (Juris Doctor), they have not had to go through the academic rigor that other doctoral programs require -- there is no dissertation in law school, there is no residency program, etc. Thus, it is extremely insulting to those who have sought out advanced degrees if a person with a mere JD calls themselves "Doctor". Further, there is an advanced degree known as the LLM, which many people consider to be a "doctorate of law" -- though still I've never heard anyone with such a degree refer to themselves as a "doctor" in any formal or informal setting.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-lawyer-be-called-a-doctor

It's hilarious that OQ is still trying to convince people that he's a doctor.
People, live your lives to the fullest and without regrets. The alternative is regretting what you didn't do and concocting tales and fables about what you wished you did, and trying to pass them off as truths.

Indolent Thoughts wrote:

Generally speaking, in the US it's bad form for a lawyer to claim the title of "doctor" - not as a matter of law or professional ethics, but as a matter of courtesy to people who have earned the title.  You see, most lawyers understand that even though they technically have achieved a doctorate (Juris Doctor), they have not had to go through the academic rigor that other doctoral programs require -- there is no dissertation in law school, there is no residency program, etc.  Thus, it is extremely insulting to those who have sought out advanced degrees if a person with a mere JD calls themselves "Doctor".  Further, there is an advanced degree known as the LLM, which many people consider to be a "doctorate of law" -- though still  I've never heard anyone with such a degree refer to themselves as a "doctor" in any formal or informal setting.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-lawyer-be-called-a-doctor

It's hilarious that OQ is still trying to convince people that he's a doctor.
People, live your lives to the fullest and without regrets.  The alternative is regretting what you didn't do and concocting tales and fables about what you wished you did, and trying to pass them off as truths.

...

Go Bernie!!!!!

I do think that Hillary has a strong backlash.  Certainly Bernie is in his own element in New Hampshire, but he's got something more pushing him.  I think everyone miscalculated the negative factor of Clinton.

That, plus the female vote appears to be divided between the older and younger generations.  But even that seems to be pushed by younger women wanting to go even farther to the left. The whole voting population continues to amaze...with it's strong push to the left.

I wish we had Wendy Davis or Elizabeth Warren in there somewhere to fetch those votes. I fear Bernie will be a liability in the general.