Jump to content

Ser Reptitious

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ser Reptitious

  • Rank
    I exist!
  • Birthday 12/12/1977

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

5,061 profile views
  1. English isn't my native language (although it has over time become something close to it, due to constant use), so I was under the impression that it was spelled that way. I appreciate the correction, though, because it's always good to learn correct spelling.
  2. Fair enough. I can understand that sentiment. Touché!
  3. That is messed up. Admittedly I never practiced criminal law, but my recollection (from law school and elsewhere) is that in Canada jurors are sequestered throughout the trial, precisely to avoid undue influence! I genuinely feel sorry for you. This was the best possible outcome we could hope for today, but instead of at least enjoying the moment, you already feel the need to rain on everyone’s (yours included) parade. Yes, there will undoubtedly be an appeal. That was probably going to be the case regardless of what Maxine Waters or anyone else said or did. An appeal may succeed... or it might fail. And even if it succeeds, it presumably would simply result in a re-trial (again, at least that’s how it would work in Canada - since a judge shouldn’t be able to singularly overturn a judgment by one’s peers). Bottomline: the best that this dipshit cop can hope for is to be cleared of these charges many years down the road. That should be a warning for his ilk to show at least a modicum of restraint. That alone makes this a good/great day!
  4. That might give you a decent idea of how the judge might have adjudicated this case if it were up to him...
  5. Aren't juries sequestered throughout the trial? If so, how could it be argued that her actions played a part in their verdict? Also, for the love of God (or whatever), can we just savior a moment of victory for humanity before we get all pessimistic (and turning the guns on each other) again? Like, one day, for example? Sheesh!
  6. The so-called Bad Apples must be feeling very deflated right now. I bet they were hoping to bash in some skulls tonight, based on their re-affirmed immunity, and now instead everyone in the streets is celebrating... What a bummer!
  7. The cops might riot instead... ETA: Speaking as a human being, what a great relief! This verdict is not going to cure the numerous problems of U. S. (and other places') policing, but it is a small yet very significant step in the right direction. It signals to "the bad apples" that there IS a limit to what you can get away with. That's a (much needed) start!
  8. But isn't it a bit early yet for that? If one has to pay certain taxes for using a gasoline-based vehicle that can be avoided with an electric one, that would certainly be an incentive to make the switch, which is something that this administration should very much encourage.
  9. If it was very much an honest question, then how come you responded to the one person actually giving you a detailed answer simply with “that’s one way to look at things”? I mean, if you were looking for an opportunity to geek out about terminology, there’s your opening right there! Your response sure makes it seem like you’re not all that interested in carrying on that kind of discussion, but rather just wanted to drop some ‘info’... Ooooooh, please tell us more, almighty sex god! While I mostly lurk, I have been on this board for a decade and a half by now, and I have seen my fair share of threads (especially in the pre-floob days) where some very wild stuff was disclosed (in a non-braggy way) by a multitude of posters. I hate to tell ya, kid, but the kind of stuff you bring up is nothing special. A lot of people around here have had threesomes and so much more, but you seem to be the only one who (either implicitly or explicitly) feels the need to constantly bring that kind of stuff up all over the board, even in the U.S. Politics thread at times. You don’t seem like a bad guy overall, but your constant fratboy act is pretty tiring. Just saying...
  10. There is no way that such a measure is constitutional in any true democracy. If the U.S. courts don't strike this down, then your democracy is in deep, deep trouble.
  11. Because Tywin has a chicken that he likes to fuck as often as possible... It's almost like he was chomping at the bit to start yet another pointless debate about super-duper pragmatism, even though the conversation was about something else entirely.
  12. Sure, but then the incumbency advantage, making re-election signifantly easier, is gone. And unlike senators such as Feinstein, Trump or Carter wouldn't be president that entire time. They get a grand total of eight years max, either consecutively or (implausably) non-consecutively, and that's it.
  13. Also possible, but at least presidents are already term-limited, so when voters elect him (and hopefully her, at some point) they already know to what maximum age that person will serve.
  14. Well yeah, I didn't think it had much (or any) real chance of happening. I was just musing out loud what would seem like a sensible solution to me.
  • Create New...