jakee

I fail to see why the statement would seem inconsistent with my interpretation. The argument goes back much further than states' struggles to get the actual killing aspect of the executions. No need to assume a new interpretation. Ok.... You see the thing is that I'm replying to what he said, and you're replying to what a bunch of other people who aren't here have said. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, I think he means how on earth do you guys keep fucking up the actual act of killing someone? A common belief among many death penalty proponents is that the death penalty would better serve as a deterrent if those who are sentenced to death went directly from sentencing to the death chamber. I interpreted his comment as Billvon did. So you didn't read any of what he said after the quoted sentence? Not sure how you explain that context if you interpret the statement your way. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, I think he means how on earth do you guys keep fucking up the actual act of killing someone? How is it that 60 years ago we still used a wooden platform and a rope and it was quicker, cleaner, more humane and more reliable than the chemical clusterfuck the US has found itself with? Hell, say what you like about the Soviet Union but it seems like a bullet in the head would be a better way of doing things in almost every respect. Except the blood would offend the spectators who turned up to watch a human being die, which is clearly more of a consideration than gown the chosen method affects the subject of the sentence. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

God is the standard of holiness, But what is holiness? This isn’t a trick question, I genuinely don’t know what it is you really mean by it. Oh now that’s disappointing. When you posed the question “why should anyone be allowed to live with god when he’s holy and we’re not” it sounded like you had a well reasoned, persuasive argument to follow. Now it turns out that the only argument either way that you’ll contemplate is ‘because god said so’. Massive letdown. Because perfect justice should bear some resemblance to normal justice. Heck, just consider your argument here - if God made both of us without the ability to even recognise ‘perfect justice’ when it’s laid out in front of us then how on earth is it our fault that we’re not perfectly just? A defective toy is the toymaker’s responsibility. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What is holiness, and why does it matter? He chose to make us in the full knowledge that we would all break those laws. A perfectly just being would take personal responsibility for the outcome, not pass the buck onto those he put into a no-win situation. Once again: Gaslighting. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yeah... I’m not going to pretend to have the faintest idea what the point of that tautology is supposed to be. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Assuming God exists (and I don’t) why shouldn’t any of us be allowed into where he lives? Why not an atheist who denies god exists? If I die and find myself in front of a god, I’d obviously stop being an atheist - so what’s the problem? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Well even if the rules of the after life said they could go to heaven, I think they should refuse to go just on principle. What good are you if you don't stand up for your principles. It's a good line, but doesn't actually make any sense. The principle doesn't involve denying something that's staring you in the face. That's pretty much the opposite of the principle Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And she destroyed records and recording of the torture before an investigation could get hold of them. Wait, where have I heard that before? It's ok though, it turned out she was just following orders. Wait, where have I heard that before? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

In other words, sin is critical thinking. There's nothing, really, that suggests there is a god to have a relationship with, but it's our fault if we don't establish it anyway? In any other relationship that sort of thing would be called Gaslighting. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

There's been an odd phenomenon popping up in the last few days in the discussion of this incident. A Russian defector is poisoned with a Russian toxin with an MO that has been provably linked to Russian agents in other fairly recent murders, and several callers have been phoning in to radio talk shows suggesting it's all a political conspiracy... against Russia! One of them even said that the suggestion by PM Theresa May that Putin was responsible is "an attempt to interfere in the Russin election". It's reminiscent of the gleeful inversion of the term 'fake news' in the US to refer to reports from reputable sources that one simply doesn't like. It's the rise of doublespeak from 1984, and we're doing it to ourselves Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Why? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I bought some "distilled spring water" recently. What's the difference between distilled spring water and distilled toilet water? Wendy P. "What? You mean water, like out of the toilet?" But there aren't any electrolytes in that. "Water? Never touch the stuff. Fish fuck in it." Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Fixed it for you. If that could possibly be the appropriate term Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But you have no reason to believe that Trump is more likely to do it than any other presidential candidate? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'm sure he was. But the whole conquered citizen vs foreign invader dynamic doesn't really come into play with any of the other scenarios being discussed here does it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

How do you perceive my reaction? You may have me confused with someone else. I believe I have been clear in my position as withholding evaluation until 2020. So you don't believe or agree with any of the things said about Trump in the Raccoon anecdote? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So... every time you react to a mention of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama it puts them in the same bracket as Jesus? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So you'll stick with making accusations you know are completely false? You've got more integrity than that, Bill. Don't let yourself down Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That's not the same thing as one entire party not being bound by any conditions of the contract. Now you're just being a dick. "A week later he puts a stop payment on the check. "I'm not paying. The receipt says 'JayEss Furniture Shop' not 'Jake Smith' like you said your name was. It's not a binding transaction if you didn't reveal that you were really JayEss, not Jake."" You knew perfectly well that hypothetical scenario would be taken at face value as representing your thoughts on the situation. Luckily you're not Rushmc, and you're man enough to retract the 'strawman' accusation, yes? The money was only one part of what she is supposed to get from the agreement. Something else she is supposed to get is protection from any Trump legal action for things she said or did before the NDA, like the interview with whatever magazine it was. So what happens now if Trump decides that since the cat is out of the bag anyway he might as well go scorched earth, double down on his lies, and attempt to sue the crap out of her for libel and slander for the interviews she gave and things she told people about him before the NDA? Because if he isn't bound by it, he could do that. And call me cynical, but there are no odds you could offer me to take a bet that both carrot and stick weren't involved in Cohen's approach to Daniels. 'Take the money or we'll bury you in legal procedings for years'. If it turns out Trump still holds the stick, it's a really big deal. Change 'now you're being a dick' to 'now you're being a giant douche'. More like the first jump student who was in a plane crash then found out the DZO hadn't carried out any federally or manufacturer mandated maintenance and the pilot's licence and medical were out of date. "My client didn't know you were running an illegal operation!" I think I'd win, don't you? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

It's not convoluted, it's the exact same thing. Stop being obtuse. You're Daniels, I'm Cohen and my friend is Trump. The NDA does make certain restrictions on what Trump can or cannot do. If Cohen was acting without Trump's knowledge or authority then whole contract can nullified, as that side of the deal that Daniels thought she was agreeing to doesn't actually exist. That's simpler... but it's also simply wrong. You have presumably read the complaint by now, yes? So perhaps you can tell me which part of it states they are attempting to nullify the contract because fake names were used? Oh wait, you can't because it isn't there. However, I can tell you that paragraph 21 alleges (exactly as I said) that the NDA imposed conditions on Trump as well as Clifford, and because he hasn't signed it he isn't bound by his side of the agreement as she expected him to be, therefore the contract was never executed. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Of course it matters. It's part of the deal (and note that I'm working on the assumption that she gives the money back as part of the voiding of the contract), and if the deal involves binding someone you actually have no authority to bind, then it's not a deal. Take an example - you own a furniture shop. I come in and say "hey if you sell me that $1000 sofa for $500 my mate who owns a radio station will play your ad for free for a week". You write a bill of sale, I give you $500 and go and get my van. By the time I come back to load it you've checked with my friend and he says I have no authority to make airplay deals on his behalf. Now the whole deal is not valid. The contract we've made and the money that's changed hands for the furniture is intrinsically linked to the radio station airplay. Sure, you can't keep my $500 for nothing, but I can't make you give me the sofa either - even though you took the money for it, and even though you said you'd sell it to me for that money. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The NDA was posted in full by Ryoder. If you read it, then you will have knowledge She gets protection from Trump both legally and in other matters. For instance the restriction from contacting the other party or their family is reciprocal. If it turns out that EC LLC had no legal standing to impose those conditions on Trump (as Cohen has attempted to imply by saying he did it all by himself) then she doesn't have what she thought she had - even though Trump hasn't breached those conditions, he could if he wanted to. Although Cohen has anyway, by confirming that it exists. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Seems like the better point is that the NDA makes requirements of DD/Trump as well as PP - and since DD didn't sign the agreement and Cohen has publically implied that Trump wasn't involved in the payment or the NDA process, then the protection that PP thought she was being guaranteed from DD may not actually exist. Even if all it takes is for Trump or Cohen to confirm that Trump did know all about it and paid her off well, then he'll have confirmed it Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Seems only right and proper that since both the shell corporation* and the White House have both breached the agreement by publically acknowledging its existence before she did that she could give back the money and have it voided. Of course, 'right' doesn't always have any connection to 'legal', but still. * Mickey Cohen. It does amuse me that Trump's fixer shares a name with the biggest LA Confidential era mob boss Do you want to have an ideagasm?