Post: #226

(05-05-2017 02:39 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  When tabloids claim that the Loch Ness monster raped Chelsea Clinton, it's fairly harmless. But it doesn't lend to their credibility as a news source.

Tucker Carlson never claimed that the two defendants raped the girl. He never proclaimed them guilty. He never used racial slurs on them.

The two most controversial things he did were (1) asking David Moyse who is funding the defense of the two defendants, and (2) telling David Moyse, after he said there were questions about the character of the female accuser, that "he hopes to God, you're on the right side of this".

As it turns out, David Moyse was on the right side of this, which is good for him and for the United States legal system.

Post: #227

(05-05-2017 01:53 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Pornography charge indicates that they taped it (as Zel mentioned). The presence of an illegal immigrant in the story does not automatically increase the credibility of women. If anything, it probably decreases their credibility, since they don't want people to think they'd voluntarily commit sexual acts with them.

Proves again that it is better to record an encounter illegally before being found guilty of rape charges.

My bet is that they got explicit naked pics, but it is also possible that one of them recorded the encounter or shot a few choice pics for the spankbank.

Maybe the morons started telling everyone and she wanted to save face. Men have to learn that it is called a "secret society" due to certain details best being left secret.

Post: #228

(05-05-2017 02:42 PM)ChrisGaines Wrote:  You didn't answer my question.

I did answer it. I identified it as trollbait, because it's trollbait.

TrollBait Wrote:I would not characterize my feelings as "enraged" by Tucker Carlson--I tend to ignore him. However, it's unacceptable that he attempted to goad an attorney into violating an ethical obligation. It makes him look like even more of a hack.

Is it unacceptable to place 21 year old male illegal immigrants in the same classrooms as 13 and 14 year old girls?

Is it unacceptable to place known MS-13 members, (many of whom are illegal immigrants), in public schools?

Tucker was the only one who exposed these two common practices, so his reporting must be evaluated with these accomplishments in mind.

Post: #229

(05-05-2017 02:45 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:39 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  When tabloids claim that the Loch Ness monster raped Chelsea Clinton, it's fairly harmless. But it doesn't lend to their credibility as a news source.

Tucker Carlson never claimed that the two defendants raped the girl. He never proclaimed them guilty. He never used racial slurs on them.

The two most controversial things he did were (1) ask David Moyse who is funding the defense of the two defendants, and (2) told David Moyse, after he said there were questions about the character of the female accuser, that "he hopes to God, you're on the right side of this".

As it turns out, David Moyse was on the right side of this, which is good for him and for the United States legal system.

I agree with all of this. I actually think we're on the same page. When I get about ten hours, I might attempt to respond to that long-winded post of questions that you made a short time ago.

Post: #230

(05-05-2017 02:51 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:42 PM)ChrisGaines Wrote:  You didn't answer my question.

I did answer it. I identified it as trollbait, because it's trollbait.

TrollBait Wrote:I would not characterize my feelings as "enraged" by Tucker Carlson--I tend to ignore him. However, it's unacceptable that he attempted to goad an attorney into violating an ethical obligation. It makes him look like even more of a hack.

Is it unacceptable to place 21 year old male illegal immigrants in the same classrooms as 13 and 14 year old girls?

Is it unacceptable to place known MS-13 members, (many of whom are illegal immigrants), in public schools?

Tucker was the only one who exposed these two common practices, so his reporting must be evaluated with these accomplishments in mind.

I'll ask again: were you similarly disgusted by Peter Thiel funding lawsuits against media companies? Dismissing something as "trollbait" is a weak way out of answering a simple question.

I DO agree that it is unacceptable to place "21" year olds (they were 17 and 18 for accuracy--still unacceptable) in classrooms with 13 and 14 year olds.

As far as gang members in public schools: It is unacceptable to have them in public schools. Are you similarly disgusted by "domestic" gang members in public schools in every major city in the country?

Post: #231

(05-05-2017 02:16 PM)ChrisGaines Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:13 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 12:59 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  It is clearly written in the code, that a fourteen or fifteen year old is able to consent to sex as long as the person with whom she is having sex is not a full four years or more older than her. He didn't realize that the law was written as such.

Journalists aren't lawyers. When they're interviewing lawyers, who by definition are supposed to know the law, it's a lawyer's responsibly to correct the journalist. Furthermore, the amount of human suffering that was caused because "Tucker didn't know the law" was negligible.

Merenguero Wrote:If you don't think it's a serious offense that a guy on national television did not in any way research the topic he is discussing , I don't know what to tell you.

You're moving the goalposts. You can credibly state that he didn't know the specific law, which I agree with - but don't think is damaging. But you can't possibly know that Tucker and his staff did absolutely no research .

Merenguero Wrote:He kept pressing David to tell him who was paying him for this particular client's services. We have a duty of confidentiality and are prohibited from discussing those matters. This guy continuing to press a lawyer in the hope that he commits a serious ethical violation during the interview is sleezy, petty, unprofessional, and unacceptable.

I don't think so. I think George Soros funding Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, and other domestic activist groups is sleazy, petty, and reprehensible. It's well within Soros modus operandi to fund the legal defense of two guilty illegal immigrants. So Tucker was well within his right to imply that Soros was funding the defense, and the lawyer was well-within his right to dodge the question.

A follow up, if you don't mind. I obviously can't read your mind, but I feel like your rage level over Tucker Carlson's behavior is an EIGHT out of TEN. What's your rage level over the way that Rockville, Maryland processes illegal immigrants (as revealed by Tucker's reporting)?

How enraged are you that MS-13 members are placed in American schools? How enraged are you that illegal immigrants of age 21 are placed in schools with 13 and 14 year old girls?

Pressuring a lawyer to reveal who is paying for the representation is ridiculous--the lawyer couldn't divulge that information even if he wanted to, and TC should know that--or at least any credible journalist would.

There are a whole lot of awkward questions that reporters ask, many of them with repercussions much stronger than a professional ethics sanction. Is he not allowed to ask a murderer if he killed someone because answering the question might put him in jail?

Asking questions is his job, regardless of your motivations for not answering them. If you don't like getting asked questions, don't volunteer for an on air interview.

Post: #232

(05-05-2017 03:07 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:16 PM)ChrisGaines Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:13 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 12:59 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  It is clearly written in the code, that a fourteen or fifteen year old is able to consent to sex as long as the person with whom she is having sex is not a full four years or more older than her. He didn't realize that the law was written as such.

Journalists aren't lawyers. When they're interviewing lawyers, who by definition are supposed to know the law, it's a lawyer's responsibly to correct the journalist. Furthermore, the amount of human suffering that was caused because "Tucker didn't know the law" was negligible.

Merenguero Wrote:If you don't think it's a serious offense that a guy on national television did not in any way research the topic he is discussing , I don't know what to tell you.

You're moving the goalposts. You can credibly state that he didn't know the specific law, which I agree with - but don't think is damaging. But you can't possibly know that Tucker and his staff did absolutely no research .

Merenguero Wrote:He kept pressing David to tell him who was paying him for this particular client's services. We have a duty of confidentiality and are prohibited from discussing those matters. This guy continuing to press a lawyer in the hope that he commits a serious ethical violation during the interview is sleezy, petty, unprofessional, and unacceptable.

I don't think so. I think George Soros funding Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, and other domestic activist groups is sleazy, petty, and reprehensible. It's well within Soros modus operandi to fund the legal defense of two guilty illegal immigrants. So Tucker was well within his right to imply that Soros was funding the defense, and the lawyer was well-within his right to dodge the question.

A follow up, if you don't mind. I obviously can't read your mind, but I feel like your rage level over Tucker Carlson's behavior is an EIGHT out of TEN. What's your rage level over the way that Rockville, Maryland processes illegal immigrants (as revealed by Tucker's reporting)?

How enraged are you that MS-13 members are placed in American schools? How enraged are you that illegal immigrants of age 21 are placed in schools with 13 and 14 year old girls?

Pressuring a lawyer to reveal who is paying for the representation is ridiculous--the lawyer couldn't divulge that information even if he wanted to, and TC should know that--or at least any credible journalist would.

There are a whole lot of awkward questions that reporters ask, many of them with repercussions much stronger than a professional ethics sanction. Is he not allowed to ask a murderer if he killed someone because answering the question might put him in jail?

Asking questions is his job, regardless of your motivations for not answering them. If you don't like getting asked questions, don't volunteer for an on air interview.

He's free to ask whatever he wants--just makes him look like a sleazy hack.

Post: #233

^^^
Just so you guys know, this poster isn't my alter ego. I have no idea who it is or what his history on the forum is.

Post: #234

ChrisGaines Wrote:He's free to ask whatever he wants--just makes him look like a sleazy hack.

Not at all. Equating Black Lives Matter to Gawker makes you look like a sleazy hack.

As does refusing to answer questions about America's accommodations towards illegal immigrants, which only Tucker Carlson was reporting during his coverage of the Rockville Alleged Rape Case.

Post: #235

(05-05-2017 03:13 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

ChrisGaines Wrote:He's free to ask whatever he wants--just makes him look like a sleazy hack.

Not at all. Equating Black Lives Matter to Gawker makes you look like a sleazy hack.

As does refusing to answer questions about America's accommodations towards illegal immigrants, which only Tucker Carlson was reporting during his coverage of the Rockville Alleged Rape Case.

I answered the questions you posed to me. I'm simply wondering if you are disgusted by "shadow-funding" lawsuits in general, or simply specific instances. I await your response.

Post: #236

The government had already caught at least one of them and let him into the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...teens.html

Quote:Sanchez-Milian, who is from Guatemala, came to the US illegally in August and was encountered by a US Border Patrol agent in Texas, federal immigration officials said.

He was eventually released to live with his father, Adolfo Sanchez-Reyes, 43, who was taken away by ICE agents in late March for illegally immigrating to Jessup, Maryland, from Guatemala.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement won't report on Montano's immigration status as he is a minor.

Montano arrived El Salvador about eight months ago to live with his relatives who are reportedly US citizens.

Also...

Quote:Sanchez-Milian, who was living in the US illegally, now faces new charges of child pornography possession and distribution.

Prosecutor John McCarthy said during a press conference on Friday the charges were dropped because of 'substantial inconsistencies'

Attorney Maria Mena says Montano also faces child pornography charges in juvenile court, which she called 'egregious.'

The new criminal counts are stemming from explicit photos defense attorneys say the girl sent to Montano, which he then shared with Sanchez-Milian.
Andrew Jezic, Sanchez-Milian's defenses lawyer, slammed the decision to charge his client with possession of child pornography as 'selective prosecution of elective promiscuity.'

Why aren't they charging the girl with manufacturing and distribution of child porn?

Post: #237

(05-05-2017 03:26 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  Why aren't they charging the girl with manufacturing and distribution of child porn?

Because they aren't spergs.

Because they aren't filled with hate.

And because they're not going to create a controversy that bolsters the status of illegal immigrants in this country.

Post: #238

(05-05-2017 02:59 PM)ChrisGaines Wrote:  Are you similarly disgusted by "domestic" gang members in public schools in every major city in the country?

No, I'm disgusted by questions about domestic policy whenever immigration policy is discussed. Domestic policy is completely different from immigration policy, and there's no reason (except spiteful hatred of America) to mention domestic policy when discussing illegal immigration.

Post: #239

(05-05-2017 03:51 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:59 PM)ChrisGaines Wrote:  Are you similarly disgusted by "domestic" gang members in public schools in every major city in the country?

No, I'm disgusted by questions about domestic policy whenever immigration policy is discussed. Domestic policy is completely different from immigration policy, and there's no reason (except spiteful hatred of America) to mention domestic policy when discussing illegal immigration.

Really? That's where you go? Must be exhausting to be you, the arbiter of all things that are truly "American."

Post: #240

Carlson, in all likelihood was fully aware of what he was asking the lawyer. It doesn't make him a hack to do so. His goal was to squeeze the lawyer's balls in a vice, which I am content with him doing. Lawyers need that from time to time.

As for Chris Gaines asking if we feel the same contempt for Peter Thiel, this is a false equivalence. One case is civil law, the other is criminal. But really, I'm just throwing that on the pile. The big difference between Gawker and the MS-13 criminals is that there was never an attempt to conceal or otherwise obfuscate Thiel's involvement/funding in the case. Overall, it's a non issue for me. I'm just looking for reasons to take a shit on Soros and SJWs whenever possible.

In regard to MS-13 vs our own "domestic gangs." Again, you're making a false equivalence. It's like the liberal SJWs who respond to radical Islamic terrorism by pointing out the Christians who've blown up abortion clinics or taken shots at abortion providers. Both things are bad, but at the present time, one is worse than the other, be it due to the size of the problem, the level of aggression, the ability to contain, etc. MS-13 is worse because outside the inner city slums, Bloods and Crips aren't really an issue. Bloods and Crips know their place. They know if they go fucking around in nice places, they'll pay dearly for it. MS-13 operates without regard for territory. It's comprised of illegals who are illegal due to their own disregard for territory. They fuck with people who aren't involved in the gang culture. Many of them are off the grid. Fun fact, illegals change names about as often as a SJW changes their underwear and bathes. Even your average Blood has a birth certificate on file somewhere, and at least one or two people who can make a positive ID.

Post: #241

(05-05-2017 04:16 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Carlson, in all likelihood was fully aware of what he was asking the lawyer. It doesn't make him a hack to do so. His goal was to squeeze the lawyer's balls in a vice, which I am content with him doing. Lawyers need that from time to time.

As for Chris Gaines asking if we feel the same contempt for Peter Thiel, this is a false equivalence. One case is civil law, the other is criminal. But really, I'm just throwing that on the pile. The big difference between Gawker and the MS-13 criminals is that there was never an attempt to conceal or otherwise obfuscate Thiel's involvement/funding in the case. Overall, it's a non issue for me. I'm just looking for reasons to take a shit on Soros and SJWs whenever possible.

In regard to MS-13 vs our own "domestic gangs." Again, you're making a false equivalence. It's like the liberal SJWs who respond to radical Islamic terrorism by pointing out the Christians who've blown up abortion clinics or taken shots at abortion providers. Both things are bad, but at the present time, one is worse than the other, be it due to the size of the problem, the level of aggression, the ability to contain, etc. MS-13 is worse because outside the inner city slums, Bloods and Crips aren't really an issue. Bloods and Crips know their place. They know if they go fucking around in nice places, they'll pay dearly for it. MS-13 operates without regard for territory. It's comprised of illegals who are illegal due to their own disregard for territory. They fuck with people who aren't involved in the gang culture. Many of them are off the grid. Fun fact, illegals change names about as often as a SJW changes their underwear and bathes. Even your average Blood has a birth certificate on file somewhere, and at least one or two people who can make a positive ID.

MS-13 was started in Southern California by the children of Salvadoran immigrants back in the 80's. Some of those people were born in the United States and were United States Citizens. Many weren't born in the United States, but were here legally. Some were obviously here illegally. The gang has evolved since then and now includes many, many people who are United States Citizens, many legal immigrants to the United States, many illegal immigrants in the United States, and many people outside of the United States, not just El Salvador, but throughout Latin America. The statement "it's comprised of illegals (Is 'comprised of' even proper English?)" is inaccurate. There are definitely tons of illegal members, but many members who are in the United States are here legally, and many are also citizens. In the D.C. area, the gang mostly operates outside of major cities, Langley Park, Wheaton, Arlington, Gaithersburg, and Rockville, probably in that order. In Southern California, they tend to operate in both urban and suburban areas.

Post: #242

(05-05-2017 04:28 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 04:16 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Carlson, in all likelihood was fully aware of what he was asking the lawyer. It doesn't make him a hack to do so. His goal was to squeeze the lawyer's balls in a vice, which I am content with him doing. Lawyers need that from time to time.

As for Chris Gaines asking if we feel the same contempt for Peter Thiel, this is a false equivalence. One case is civil law, the other is criminal. But really, I'm just throwing that on the pile. The big difference between Gawker and the MS-13 criminals is that there was never an attempt to conceal or otherwise obfuscate Thiel's involvement/funding in the case. Overall, it's a non issue for me. I'm just looking for reasons to take a shit on Soros and SJWs whenever possible.

In regard to MS-13 vs our own "domestic gangs." Again, you're making a false equivalence. It's like the liberal SJWs who respond to radical Islamic terrorism by pointing out the Christians who've blown up abortion clinics or taken shots at abortion providers. Both things are bad, but at the present time, one is worse than the other, be it due to the size of the problem, the level of aggression, the ability to contain, etc. MS-13 is worse because outside the inner city slums, Bloods and Crips aren't really an issue. Bloods and Crips know their place. They know if they go fucking around in nice places, they'll pay dearly for it. MS-13 operates without regard for territory. It's comprised of illegals who are illegal due to their own disregard for territory. They fuck with people who aren't involved in the gang culture. Many of them are off the grid. Fun fact, illegals change names about as often as a SJW changes their underwear and bathes. Even your average Blood has a birth certificate on file somewhere, and at least one or two people who can make a positive ID.

MS-13 was started in Southern California by the children of Salvadoran immigrants back in the 80's. Some of those people were born in the United States and were United States Citizens. Many weren't born in the United States, but were here legally. Some were obviously here illegally. The gang has evolved since then and now includes many, many people who are United States Citizens, many legal immigrants to the United States, many illegal immigrants in the United States, and many people outside of the United States, not just El Salvador, but throughout Latin America. The statement "it's comprised of illegals (Is 'comprised of' even proper English?)" is inaccurate. There are definitely tons of illegal members, but many members who are in the United States are here legally, and many are also citizens. In the D.C. area, the gang mostly operates outside of major cities, Langley Park, Wheaton, Arlington, Gaithersburg, and Rockville, probably in that order. In Southern California, they tend to operate in both urban and suburban areas.

What are you, the public defender for MS-13 now?

It doesn't matter whether some members of MS-13 are legal citizens of the USA. It matters that some of them are illegals, that the gang itself is, therefore, strengthened by illegal immigration, and that many voters DO NOT WANT America to crack down on them.

Post: #243

(05-05-2017 04:34 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  What are you, the public defender for MS-13 now?

It doesn't matter whether some members of MS-13 are legal citizens of the USA. It matters that some of them are illegals, that the gang itself is, therefore, strengthened by illegal immigration, and that many voters DO NOT WANT America to crack down on them.

Someone doesn't agree with you or points out erroneous statements and they "spitefully hate America" or are somehow defending gangs. Convenient argument tactic.

(05-05-2017 03:51 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  No, I'm disgusted by questions about domestic policy whenever immigration policy is discussed. Domestic policy is completely different from immigration policy, and there's no reason (except spiteful hatred of America) to mention domestic policy when discussing illegal immigration.

Citing gang issues as purely "immigration policy" matters in which domestic policy concerns have no place is simply ignorant of the fact that gang activity and membership is not relegated to immigrant populations. Hence, I asked if you were also similarly concerned with "domestic" gangs (and gang activity in general) or if you were solely concerned with MS-13 based upon an over-arching immigration policy concerns. But you aren't interested in a discussion--you simply want to advance your viewpoints and, if questioned, resort to non-answers and knee-jerk name calling. Sad!

Post: #244

TrollBait Wrote:Citing gang issues as purely "immigration policy" matters in which domestic policy concerns have no place is simply ignorant of the fact that gang activity and membership is not relegated to immigrant populations.

I never cited gang membership as a purely domestic policy concern. I stated that MS-13 has members who are illegal immigrants who should be removed from this country.

Stating that some members of MS-13 aren't illegal immigrants is irrelevant to the fact that the gang's illegal immigrants should be removed.

Becoming the public defender for MS-13 only serves to quell the desire to remove its illegal immigrant members, which is, at best, a character flaw.

If Merenguero wants to explain his desire to become the public defender for MS-13, he can do that himself. You can also explain your desire to become the public defender of MS-13 yourself.

Post: #245

(05-05-2017 05:09 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Chris Gaines, how many rights do Native-born Americans have? How many rights in America do illegal immigrants have?

If you're suggesting deporting undocumented immigrants, most have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge (and review by a federal court), representation by a lawyer (not at government expense), notice of charges and of the hearing time and place, a reasonable opportunity to examine evidence and witnesses, and the government has to prove that the grounds for deportation are valid.

Did I pass the test? Will you answer any of my questions?

Post: #246

(05-05-2017 05:14 PM)ChrisGaines Wrote:  If you're suggesting deporting undocumented immigrants,

I wasn't.

Post: #247

(05-05-2017 04:28 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  MS-13 was started in Southern California by the children of Salvadoran immigrants back in the 80's. Some of those people were born in the United States and were United States Citizens. Many weren't born in the United States, but were here legally. Some were obviously here illegally. The gang has evolved since then and now includes many, many people who are United States Citizens, many legal immigrants to the United States, many illegal immigrants in the United States, and many people outside of the United States, not just El Salvador, but throughout Latin America. The statement "it's comprised of illegals (Is 'comprised of' even proper English?)" is inaccurate. There are definitely tons of illegal members, but many members who are in the United States are here legally, and many are also citizens. In the D.C. area, the gang mostly operates outside of major cities, Langley Park, Wheaton, Arlington, Gaithersburg, and Rockville, probably in that order. In Southern California, they tend to operate in both urban and suburban areas.

I keep seeing a certain stat of over 90% of M-13 members arrested are illegals.

Post: #248

Geez...who am I going to trust? An accomplished attorney with a solid track record and great fucking advice.....or some guys on a forum who only post in race/crime/immigrant threads?

One seems more credible than the other.

Post: #249

(05-05-2017 11:10 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Geez...who am I going to trust? An accomplished attorney with a solid track record and great fucking advice.....or some guys on a forum who only post in race/crime/immigrant threads?

One seems more credible than the other.

You should be researching the subject yourself instead of blindly following anyone.

Post: #250

(05-05-2017 10:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 04:28 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  MS-13 was started in Southern California by the children of Salvadoran immigrants back in the 80's. Some of those people were born in the United States and were United States Citizens. Many weren't born in the United States, but were here legally. Some were obviously here illegally. The gang has evolved since then and now includes many, many people who are United States Citizens, many legal immigrants to the United States, many illegal immigrants in the United States, and many people outside of the United States, not just El Salvador, but throughout Latin America. The statement "it's comprised of illegals (Is 'comprised of' even proper English?)" is inaccurate. There are definitely tons of illegal members, but many members who are in the United States are here legally, and many are also citizens. In the D.C. area, the gang mostly operates outside of major cities, Langley Park, Wheaton, Arlington, Gaithersburg, and Rockville, probably in that order. In Southern California, they tend to operate in both urban and suburban areas.

I keep seeing a certain stat of over 90% of M-13 members arrested are illegals.

What I read was that over 90% of MS-13 members arrested by ICE were here illegally, which makes perfect sense. People who are here illegally are obviously the most likely people to be detained by ICE. I read that Cucker incorrectly stated that over 90% of MS-13 members are here illegally. I didn't personally here him say that. It's just what I read. I'm really tired of this subject. If you guys are that obsessed with getting gang members, illegal aliens, and other Hispanics deported, then elect a president who will deport as many as possible or run for president yourself. I see fewer people than ever being deported (but more people than ever being detained) and do not see any chance of a drastic increase in actual deportation any time soon.