Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » The President could have recorded conversations with Comey

The President could have recorded conversations with Comey

+6
Sal
del.capslock
Vikingwoman
PkrBum
Floridatexan
2seaoat
10 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

2seaoat



This is going to be fun. Please show me any variation of the law which I cited, and is an EXACT copy of the law which would be used to prosecute. If you can cite one difference that a tape recording would be legal if there was single consent, I will readily admit that I was incorrect. I was not incorrect, and you are too stupid to even read the two sections. I await your presentation of the proof that there I was incorrect in the statute I cited. Do you even know how the DC code was written?

Let me help you with your googling. Who are the arresting authorities on a protest on the federal parks during a demonstration at the White House or on the Mall which is part of the federal property you claim has exclusive jurisdiction? Take your time. Now just to help you in your sophistry, look at this statute, and tell me about how wrong you have been:

36 CFR 7.96 - National Capital Region.

This section applies to all park areas administered by National Capital Region in the District of Columbia and in Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford Counties and the City of Alexandria in Virginia and Prince Georges, Charles, Anne Arundel, and Montgomery Counties in Maryland and to other federal reservations in the environs of the District of Columbia, policed with the approval or concurrence of the head of the agency having jurisdiction or control over such reservations, pursuant to the provisions of the act of March 17, 1948 ( 62 Stat. 81).

but that is not the final answer, I have more, but it will require more than cut and paste and google to solve what I have presented to you to show how utterly foolish your entire distraction has been. So tell me how you were mistaken. To help you a little bit more.....who do you think prosecutes crime in Washington DC? Like a murder? You are so stupid that you actually think you are clever, and do not even realize how foolish and wrong you have been.

Now I get to find out how much of a poser you really are. If you have any education and knowledge, you will not need google to answer the questions I have posed to the poser, but if you are correctly able to find the key which makes you look incredibly stupid, I will back off because the average person using google could not answer my questions. Go for it poser.

2seaoat



So you ran away. Let me help you just a little bit more. Do the DC Metropolitan Police have concurrent jurisdiction in the parks which you claim is exclusive jurisdiction of the Park Service? I will not give you the answer, because it is fun to watch a sophist pretend they are knowledgeable. You did find a character in your English Lit studies which you can emulate, and are giving me great pleasure on exposing your sock act.

Also, being that the justice department does all prosecution in DC, please explain your logic as to why a prosecutor in preparing an indictment would be prohibited from using the DC federal law which is a mirror copy of the law which applies to Yellowstone Park? Now for the real test of a sophist, DOES the Justice Department use DC federal law in indictments for the crime of improper wire tapping or taping a conversation? So I am the dumb ass who will not admit when I am wrong. I am waiting, or will you just ignore this thread?

2seaoat



Where are you hiding? I will keep giving you clues until you admit you are a fricking half wit, half cocked google cut and past idiot. What code do you think controls the rules of the federal court in Washington DC? Gee, too difficult for a sophist to understand? Now you still have been unable to answer my questions which expose your sophistry, but do you really think I need to google to understand this simple proposition. In the DC federal court, a US attorney would prosecute a crime using the court rules under what code section? I mean I have defined your dumb asz google search for you, or are you afraid to face the music? What a waste of time to give such a numbskull any of my time. It is just so stupid, that after showing repeatedly that you are not very intelligent and are simply a sock who is not fooling anybody, that I actually wasted time responding to your idiocy. EVERYTHING you thought was correct in what you posted is simply wrong, but a simple google search cannot fill the gap of higher level conceptual thought and copy and paste.

2seaoat



Gosh, I have laid out bread crumbs for you to find the answers to your utter sophistry. Let me give you some more clues.....what code section sets forth the rules for the criminal indictment on illegal recording of a conversation...Anywhere in the District of Columbia.....is it DC code which controls, or something else. Take your time dumb asz. I have laid out the crumbs where a reasonably intelligent person could correct themselves, but you just run away. Or just maybe in the world of the Summoner, which you found a character in your British Literature undergraduate studies, when you were not being an Orwellian scholar..... lol! .......you decided to emulate your hero:

The Summoner - The Summoner brings persons accused of violating Church law to ecclesiastical court. This Summoner is a lecherous man whose face is scarred by leprosy. He gets drunk frequently, is irritable, and is not particularly qualified for his position. He spouts the few words of Latin he knows in an attempt to sound educated.

Still hiding summoner?

del.capslock

del.capslock

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



So the summoner will not admit his mistake. I thought I knew this sock's character. I was right. But I must admit with just a little bit of shame. This was fun. Nada...too funny.

del.capslock

del.capslock

2seaoat wrote:So the summoner will not admit his mistake.  I thought I knew this sock's character.  I was right.  But I must admit with just a little bit of shame.  This was fun.  Nada...too funny.

Of course it was fun, you spent three hours on this nonsense and didn't think about yourself at all, just about sticking it to me. I oughta send you a bill for therapy!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



I did not need three hours to stick it to you. I stuck it to you in less than a few minutes as I was correct immediately, but did not think you would run away. As I left you hints as to how you could correct your gaps in understanding. Again, I stuck it to you in minutes, not hours, but do have to admit leaving a trail of bread crumbs to allow you to correct your mistakes was fun as you took three hours to frantically search google to hope that the guy who has knowledge was wrong......that is what made me smile......you actually thought I am misinformed and like Donald Trump. I think it is ironic you used that reference. At least when in the future I do not educate you further, people have a clear objective reference point as to our sock troll's purpose.....but again to let you continue writing nonsense was more fun than working on the porta pottie. Please do some reading and raise the level of your game summoner. Quid pro quo....says the summoner. Too funny. honestly thanks for the giggles.

del.capslock

del.capslock

2seaoat wrote:I did not need three hours to stick it to you.  I stuck it to you in less than a few minutes as I was correct immediately, but did not think you would run away. As I left you hints as to how you could correct your gaps in understanding.  Again, I stuck it to you in minutes, not hours, but do have to admit leaving a trail of bread crumbs to allow you to correct your mistakes was fun as you took three hours to frantically search google to hope that the guy who has knowledge was wrong......that is what made me smile......you actually thought I am misinformed and like Donald Trump.  I think it is ironic you used that reference.  At least when in the future I do not educate you further, people have a clear objective reference point as to our sock troll's purpose.....but again to let you continue writing nonsense was more fun than working on the porta pottie.  Please do some reading and raise the level of your game summoner.  Quid pro quo....says the summoner.   Too funny.   honestly thanks for the giggles.

What you're wrong about is that I cared whether I was right or wrong. I don't know shit about any of this crap and I was making it all up as I went along.

I've never looked up legal citations before so it took me about 10 minutes to figure that out, but all the rest of it was complete bullshit off the top of my head. And you took the bait, the hook, the swivel, the line, the bobber, the rod tiptop and ended up gasping on the dock. Thanks for the good time, sport.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



Too funny, and I have to agree, you do not know chit about much of anything summoner, but when I see the time line of how long it took you to challenge my post, the truth reveals itself. Your ten minutes is google BS, and you actually thought you were right, and had googled a way to shrink my big head.....sorry keep fooling yourself summoner, some of us do not need to talk about 35 page undergraduate papers on Orwell, or talk about being a British literature minor........for somebody who claims to be well read you do a good job hiding that fact....the best part is that you claim you did no more googling. Maybe I should have had a lot more fun and gave you the wrong answer with my bread crumbs, so after your hours of research, you could have made a bigger fool of yourself. Done with the framing while spending minutes to expose a sock troll. Priceless.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Comey will now testify before the Senate, with the stipulation that his testimony be public.

I don't know how this discussion went off on a tangent, nor why we're being subjected to a pissing contest.

2seaoat



I don't know how this discussion went off on a tangent,

It did not go off on a tangent.  The legality of taping the conversation was the first thing I posted in my thread concerning allegations and innuendo that the conversations with Comey might have been taped.   A sock decided to attack my conclusion that the taping was legal, and I simply corrected his wrong conclusions which he admitted he did not know chit and was trolling the thread.  So the conclusion stands.  Either party could have taped the conversation legally.  It was also very beneficial exposing a sock who openly admitted he is simply trolling and does not know chit.   That will make things simple in the future for me. In regard to a pissing contest, there was no pissing contest. There was simply a trolling fool who admits he does know chit, who will now disappear and come back with a new sock after exposing his sophomoric attempt to act educated and knowledgeable on a simple subject.

del.capslock

del.capslock

2seaoat wrote:   A sock decided to attack my conclusion that the taping was legal, and I simply corrected his wrong conclusions which he admitted he did not know chit and was trolling the thread.    It was also very beneficial exposing a sock who openly admitted he is simply trolling and does not know chit.    There was simply a trolling fool who admits he does know chit, who will now disappear and come back with a new sock after exposing his sophomoric attempt to act educated and knowledgeable on a simple subject.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

RealLindaL



2seaoat wrote:I don't know how this discussion went off on a tangent,

It did not go off on a tangent.  The legality of taping the conversation was the first thing I posted in my thread concerning allegations and innuendo that the conversations with Comey might have been taped.   A sock decided to attack my conclusion that the taping was legal, and I simply corrected his wrong conclusions which he admitted he did not know chit and was trolling the thread.  So the conclusion stands.  Either party could have taped the conversation legally.  It was also very beneficial exposing a sock who openly admitted he is simply trolling and does not know chit.   That will make things simple in the future for me.  In regard to a pissing contest, there was no pissing contest.  There was simply a trolling fool who admits he does know chit, who will now disappear and come back with a new sock after exposing his sophomoric attempt to act educated and knowledgeable on a simple subject.

Geez Sea, you're showing your old self -- the slightly nutso, O-C person, acting like a dog with a bone in supposedly always being 100% correct on whatever his own taken position was -- the one I didn't like very much. Wish you'd cut it out. You're really going overboard now. Sad

2seaoat



The truth and the laws of this country are very simple to understand. When I start a thread which starts with the proposition that the taping of a conversation could have been done legally, it was challenged by someone who pretends to be educated. The White House is Federal property, you twit! The D.C. Code doesn't apply, I like to be corrected when I am wrong. I learn, but I have never encouraged sophistry and lies.

Now if it was a serious conversation, I always give the benefit of the doubt, but this sock has continued to troll, and his response "Look it up, asshole." Your response "You're really going overboard now."

From your utter distaste for President Trump's lies and manipulation of the truth, are you consistent when I take apart his lies? A lie and utter ignorance should be challenged.

I simply responded to "Stupid may be hard to fix but ignorance is easy to fix. Look it up, you ignorant asshole!", followed by a Trump like google search with utter nonsense You cited "D.C. Code § 23-542".

If it had been a Federal citation it would have read U.S.C. § xx.xx with the Title number preceding, e.g. 29 U.S.C. 25.351

Exclusive means EXCLUSIVE, by the way. If there are exceptions then it's Concurrent Legislative and they are expressly written into the agreement.

You're just like Trump, you can't admit you're wrong.

So you and your parrot sock friend want to encourage non existent facts and improper conclusions because I am like Trump. Yes, that is funny, because this is what followed:
YOU CITED THE WRONG LAW, YOU ASSHOLE!

And now, just like TRUMP, you won't admit it. You both seem to have extremely fragile egos.

Of course, in your case, that's perfectly understandable.

It is so stupid it is laughable, but again the commonality of my fragile ego and Your comment of the slightly nutso, O-C person, acting like a dog with a bone in supposedly always being 100% correct on whatever his own taken position was in correcting utter ignorance and the false statements is an OC person. Yes, I do not like stupid and lies. I gave the sock every opportunity to actually understand why it was applicable. I left crumbs where he could admit his mistake and set the record and truth straight. His response is that he does not know chit and he was basically trolling. I get it. He has been kind to you, but the truth stands on its own merits and those who cherish the same would at the least be consistent. Also, I will only tangentially deal with our sock who now has openly admitted his purpose is to troll. I must concede to you that there was an element of pleasure knowing that he used google to come up with utter nonsense which showed the underlying sock's lack of education and at best pedestrian intelligence. Don't worry, he will disappear and a new sock will appear, but you believe he is a new member and that I am buying into these sock arguments. Again, I have been fooled before, I am not fooled this time, and so tired of this tedious routine which having exposed the same will allow this sock to slip into a new avatar, and you can find a new friend in the future when presto.....we have a new member.

del.capslock

del.capslock

The defense rests, your honor.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

RealLindaL



2seaoat wrote:Again, I have been fooled before, I am not fooled this time, and so tired of this tedious routine which having exposed the same will allow this sock to slip into a new avatar, and you can find a new friend in the future when presto.....we have a new member.

Del.caps is not my friend any more than you are.   He is simply a forum member who likes to mix it up, just like you do.  I don't like his nasty insults any more than I like yours.  But if you are the better person, you sure don't act like it, going on and on and on and on with how right you are, speaking in circles and with your special brand of senseless smokescreen rhetoric that doesn't fool anyone.   You only sound as if you're about to give yourself a heart attack, for Pete's sake.  

Meanwhile you and YOUR pal Joani are insane with your constant rants about socks, when neither one of you has the guts to name the person you think this "sock" really is, because you know damned well you have no friggin' clue whether he is or isn't, or who he is.  TRUTH!!!!  NO CLUE!!!  

If you only knew how it just makes you both sound positively childish and stupid, and I do mean stupid -- and that's aside from hopelessly paranoid, which we already knew about her, and now about both of you.



Last edited by RealLindaL on 5/15/2017, 9:36 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Typo)

2seaoat



I guess I could have let the wrong law and understanding of the law stand, and fake and distorted facts from a child trying to explain the same guide people, but he intentionally posted idiotic material. There is no Seaoat is right or wrong. Was the law correct. It was.

In regard to socks and past battles on the PNJ and here. I have stayed out of it by choice. However, without using any names from the past who come back to visit with a sock, I recognize the same. Z was the best sock sniffer. I just get bored with socks. I also will not get in the middle of your friction with Joannie, or her past issues with a forum member. Not my deal. However, in recognition of a sock on a forum where people really do not know anybody's identity, there are distinct sock smells. I have a pretty good size nose, and that distinct smell does not escape me. If you think some these new members are not socks, please do not let me interfere with you impressions of the same. I just will not feed the sock troll unless he goes off the rails again, but the summoner cannot help himself.

del.capslock

del.capslock

2seaoat wrote:

 However, in recognition of a sock on a forum where people really do not know anybody's identity, there are distinct sock smells.  I have a pretty good size nose, and that distinct smell does not escape me.   If you think some these new members are not socks, please do not let me interfere with you impressions of the same.   I just will not feed the sock troll unless he goes off the rails again, but the summoner cannot help himself.

I don't know who it is you think I am, but...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



I don't know who it is you think I am

The summoner. Ipso Facto

del.capslock

del.capslock

2seaoat wrote:I don't know who it is you think I am

The summoner.  Ipso Facto

You just can't let it go, can you? You're obviously one of the emotionally crippled neurotics who confuses having the last word with actually winning an argument. You just have to get the last word in, don't you?

Maybe this will help:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-egomaniacs-have-last-word-mellissah-smith

Also, Ipso Facto is the wrong term in this instance, you doofus. The correct phrase in this circumstance would be: Res Ipsa Loquitor.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

2seaoat



This has become too easy. The summoner now is speaking Latin. Oh boy.

RealLindaL



2seaoat wrote:This has become too easy.  The summoner now is speaking Latin.  Oh boy.

The best defense is a good offense, they say.  The man was correct in his selection of the appropriate phrase, and you weren't.  So you came out swinging.  SO predictable, and so very small.

Your post constitutes an empty, useless and meaningless insult (except, apparently, in your own mind).  

As for your having the ability to sniff out socks, I will match sniffing powers with you any day, especially when it comes to recognizing language abilities, eccentricities and peculiarities, at least as to participants since I've been active here.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

RealLindaL wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Again, I have been fooled before, I am not fooled this time, and so tired of this tedious routine which having exposed the same will allow this sock to slip into a new avatar, and you can find a new friend in the future when presto.....we have a new member.

Del.caps is not my friend any more than you are.   He is simply a forum member who likes to mix it up, just like you do.  I don't like his nasty insults any more than I like yours.  But if you are the better person, you sure don't act like it, going on and on and on and on with how right you are, speaking in circles and with your special brand of senseless smokescreen rhetoric that doesn't fool anyone.   You only sound as if you're about to give yourself a heart attack, for Pete's sake.  

Meanwhile you and YOUR pal Joani are insane with your constant rants about socks, when neither one of you has the guts to name the person you think this "sock" really is, because you know damned well you have no friggin' clue whether he is or isn't, or who he is.  TRUTH!!!!  NO CLUE!!!  

If you only knew how it just makes you both sound positively childish and stupid, and I do mean stupid -- and that's aside from hopelessly paranoid, which we already knew about her, and now about both of you.

lol!

2seaoat



lol!

I guess some folks do not see any patterns with our new members. Not my concern, but I do have a wee bit of satisfaction having the sock admit that he is simply trolling. I do have to give an A for honesty, but his other option was to admit he is a dumb asz after showing his lack of knowledge. I do not understand the Joannie/ Linda feud, but when I get dragged in because I have seen ten years of socks, and now suddenly I am paranoid because we have many socks. Oh well. I think Linda is honest and open and probably would not conduct herself that way and has a hard time thinking socks are here. I remember over the years laughing with Z how long one particular sock would take before coming back with a new avatar. I guess it is just fun in the sandbox, but socks become so tedious.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » The President could have recorded conversations with Comey

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum