Lurker > Corrik7

Wanglicious posted...

false and BS. whether they all know they're spreading active BS, i don't know, but i'd assume some do and are willing to go with the idea that since there's some element of truth it's good enough, which is obviously wrong. you'll note that all i've stuck with is specifically stuff that is directly tied back to the Ukraine. i did not zero in on US heavy info in either direction, i purposefully stuck with Ukrainian information because that's a lot more valid of a source than anything else we're gonna find on the subject. if top prosecution (who we can verify as an anti-Russian activist) is willing to say it on record, if a court is willing to rule on it, it's a valid and a legitimate point to make. going further from that gets into much more murky waters that nobody but those involved can really detail since even higher level dems are willing to admit that there was involvement of some people but try to leave it at that, without specifying who. so instead of dealing with US politicizing, i'll stick with the most direct sources.

eh, while i'm aware that is something the left has done a lot this is mostly just red being red. he also considers stuff like Epstein not committing suicide - the last time he flipped out on me - to be one of these crazy and harmful conspiracy theories. so take that as you will.

Epstein 100% committed suicide. Though I believe he was definitely helped to be able to do it.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

Generally if someone doesnt want their kid to see something, its because they think theres something morally wrong about it that the kid isnt old enough to process correctly

She doesn't think it is morally wrong to have sex when married. She doesn't want our kid to see it.

You are not making sense at all. Again. You are trying to project and failing miserably.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

you done being an asshole or are you gonna continue rambling for another six posts about how i'm a terrible person? you know what you can do to avoid that? use that nifty gamefaqs feature to ignore me. then you'll never have to see a post of mine again and never have to stress yourself out.

To be fair, liberals can't really argue without likening you to a monster, acting like you lack empathy, or are immoral because you don't agree with them.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah, its called inference. Did anyone literally call Wang immoral like you claimed? No, you inferred it from other words used.

You are inferring what you want to based on projecting your own behaviors, bud.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

You realize these cartoons have parental guidance information right?

Yes. I don't think it's a big deal since it's PG13. Every superhero movie is.

Her biggest complaints in order were.

1. The girl on girl stuff.
2. The language.
3. Batman's son made a wisecrack to use protection to Batman when he was apparently going to get his groove on.



---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik, really what Im getting at here is that trying to say that labeling the other side as immoral is a trademark liberal arguing point completely ignores reality. All sides do it

Liberals consistently do it. Some of you literally at no point can debate sides without going out of your way to do it. I have been called how many different variations of evil by you all now at this point because I disagree with you. How many times have I said that in turn? Yinz can't help yourself, however.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

Yep! It kind of implies she thinks its immoral for the people who made the show to have a different opinion about gay affection

Sounds like liberal outrage culture trying to justify their reactions by trying to project it onto someone else! Nowhere did I say she said the person who made the movie is immoral and should go to hell. I said she is flipping out because she thinks the content is inappropriate for her child to see. (To be fair, it likely is because it is PG13. She didn't like the language or adult wisecracks either.) She also thinks scantily clad women making out with bare chested men in cartoons is inappropriate for our kid! How immoral!

The reason I brought it up at all was because it was an issue I said I personally believed being taught in school at a young age was inappropriate. Her belief process is that it is inappropriate even in media.

I mean, my response was basically "what ya gonna do? It is what it is.". Lol.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah Im trying to show that its a conservative thing too

Because she doesn't think it is appropriate for our kid to see?

You make a ton of sense, bud. Nice try!

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

Like when two ladies smooch on the Batman show

Does this comment even have a point?

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Wanglicious posted...

that you just like attacking me? yeah, i got that.
you consider stuff like a man making a million bucks a year in an industry he has nothing to do with to totally not be due to his dad being literally the most powerful man involved in that government's military. you also consider stuff like a Ukrainian court agreeing that yeah, there was involvement, to be conspiracy theory. and that the top Ukranian prosecutor who has said US involvement was much more than that in interviews to also be peddling conspiracy theories. all that is loud and clear.

you done being an asshole or are you gonna continue rambling for another six posts about how i'm a terrible person? you know what you can do to avoid that? use that nifty gamefaqs feature to ignore me. then you'll never have to see a post of mine again and never have to stress yourself out.

To be fair, liberals can't really argue without likening you to a monster, acting like you lack empathy, or are immoral because you don't agree with them. It is a consistent playbook in arguing with them.

He probably doesn't even realize he does this because it is so commonplace for his political spectrum.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Not surprising after TLJ left a sour taste to many.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Heres the thing: If it was, you admit what Trump did was infinitely worse because it was to advance solely his interests.

One thing that gets lost in all this is that one of the corruption charges against him was the investigation into Burisma was stalled, setting aside that it was related to events which occurred years before Hunter Biden was on the board.

I asked a simple yes or no.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

LordoftheMorons posted...

To be clear, Biden was bragging about executing the at the time bipartisan policy objective of the US government with respect to Ukraine (getting rid of a corrupt prosecutor standing in the way of the countrys reform)

Would you say that was a quid pro quo? Get rid of this investigator and we will give you your aid?

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

1. So today I had to wait for an hour in a hospital for my appointment cuz they messed up in a cafeteria for some reason. There was like 20 nurses there talking politics. They were surprisingly all pro-trump. One of the main arguments I heard was that this impeachment stuff was garbage. That there is like 20 people running against him and he didn't try to investigate any of them. It isn't because he is some special candidate. It is because he was bragging about pressuring Ukraine with a billion dollars regarding their administration. That the reason he was trying to investigate Biden was because he was on tape bragging about it. Nothing more.

2. My girl is flipping right now cuz Batman Hush had two girls kissing in it when the kids were watching it. Lol. Flipping.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

CNN says Sanders was the big loser of the debate.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

Do you think it should be a crime to desecrate the graves of your family if you own the burial plot?

Yes.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

LordoftheMorons posted...

Its been upheld as protected speech by the Supreme Court

I know it has. And, I believe it is an ruling which needs to be revisited and reversed.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Wanglicious posted...

mind you i do still thing both are perfectly "fine" to burn in and of themselves

That's a problem. Desecrating the American Flag should definitely not be fine and should be criminal. I consider it no less than desecrating the graves of your family.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Wanglicious posted...

it's a fairly meaningless comparison.
try to even it out.

scenario 1: single dude outside gay bar burning an LGBT flag
scenario 2: group of hooded/masked people explicitly against a man's race outside a black man's house burning a cross

now try evening them out until the two threats are similar to each other. for starters the latter has a clear direct threat against an individual and it's their home - this is way more dangerous of a situation. a group of people, also way more dangerous. you're going from level 10 to level 80 real fucking quick between these two and this is obvious by the fact that if you were to mix up the second situation's specifics to the first it would be so, so much worse.

one guy outside a gay bar burning a flag is a lot less threatening than one guy outside a gay man's house burning a flag; one guy outside a gay bar burning a flag is a lot less threatening than a bunch of masked men from a known, violent anti-LGBT group just protesting outside said gay bar. just changing one aspect of that comparison changes the extremity of the situation and the threat level so much that you can't consider them in the same league. let alone adding both of them. it was just a terrible comparison to make. that's all.

Scenario one points moreso to action directed at what the establishment is / it's patrons have in common. In this example, LGBT.

Scenario two points to a localized action directed directly to your family/home.

Even without the numbers / masks the threat is greater. Unless in scenario one, you stalked someone specifically to that site.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

If youre doing it at a synagogue with no other context, your motive clearly is anti-semitism

Like I said, you could ADD the context to make it expressly anti-Zionist, but then why even bother doing it at an American synagogue, unless they are tied to the Israeli government in some way I guess

So you see why Anti-zionism can be anti-Semitic and now understand why I said anti-Semitism is rising on the left due to anti-zionism campaigns used to harass the Jewish population on campuses then? Right?

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

You should be able to burn an Israeli flag as a political statement

You should not be able to burn an Israeli flag at a Synagogue

So you agree anti-zionism is anti-Semitism? Yes? Otherwise what would burning the flag of a foreign nation have to do with the Jewish religion as a whole?

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

LGBT flag is exactly the same as the American flag. A symbol of pride.

LGBT is just gay pride. American flag is American pride.

Just like a Yankee flag is a Yankee pride, etc.

There is basically zero scenario where burning a LGBT flag should be considered more criminal than burning an American flag inside of America. The American flag should be a sacred symbol within our borders and be met with stiff measures for those who desecrate it.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Jakyl25 posted...

Burning an LGBT flag should not be a crime

Burning an LGBT flag OUTSIDE OF A GAY BAR is a direct threat akin to the KKK burning a cross at a black mans house and should be a crime

Burning an American flag in America should be the same as burning a LGBT flag in a gay bar.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

He literally went to a church, stole their LGBT flag, took it to a gay club and burnt it outside while yelling about gay people, and it wasn't the first time he had criminally harassed gay people.

Is it the charge that is appalling to you or the act?

The act apparently.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

SmartMuffin posted...

Burning the US flag is protected speech.

On the other hand...

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/475333-iowa-man-sentenced-to-16-years-for-hate-crime-after-setting-pride-flag

Appalling

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

red sox 777 posted...

And I tend to see NC and GA as sort of pipe dreams. The Democrats only won NC in 2008 and didn't win GA even in that landslide year.

Trump has a better chance of flipping both Maine and NH than the democrat has of flipping NC.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Nanis23 posted...

The idea that all democarts voted to impeach Trump and all Replubicians voted against is fucking stupid
Whether someone fits to be a president or not is not supposed to be based on political stance
Neither is whether someone comitted a crime or not

I am not going to judge which party is at fault here, but one party is clearly wrong.

Think about what you said here and your conclusion. They are not in sync.
CaptainOfCrush posted...

Trump's been President for three years and the country hasn't burned to ashes in a smoldering fire, the economy - regardless of your metrics - hasn't collapsed, and we haven't entangled ourselves in any new wars that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of young Americans. Enough of the country has been conditioned to accept this pathetically lowered standard, and because of that, he'll be tougher to beat in 2020 even if he faces a stronger opponent than Hillary. The incumbent's advantage won't simply disappear.

Speaking more specifically, I still believe this election is overwhelmingly about the Midwest, and if anything I feel Trump will be stronger there than last time. He won't be ceding WI, MI, IA, and PA so easily (and OH is red).

Iowa is pretty much guarantees red at this point also. Michigan and PA are the likeliest to go Blue out of those you listed.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Who says it is a good economy? Average worker hasn't seen a raise in 40 years. I reject the notion that this economy is "strong" for the average working class family.

That sounds false also.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

KamikazePotato posted...

Reminder that Trump does not win without the media jumping on the 'return' of the emails story a week before election, which was released by Comey in an attempt to cover his own ass (and then was then fired by Trump, lmao)

This is just a theory btw.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

TheRock1525 posted...

The 20.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Trump's rally is the lead story on Drudge (deep linked video). I really think he increases his margin from 2016 at this point. Wins Minnesota and Virginia? Maine?

Zero chance at Virginia.. but I think Maine and New Hampshire could be flips, along with Minnesota. PA likely flips back blue.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

LordoftheMorons posted...

1 Republican yes vote!!!!!!!!!!

Not sure who

Lmfao. I can't imagine being you right now.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

kevwaffles posted...

Yeah, overwhelming odds are they weren't settling for any less prior to a court date after he's already been served since they were already handling a boatload of other cases. Your advice, Corrik, vastly applies more prior to the state this topic started out at.

That is incorrect. They settle literally all the time prior to court dates. Precisely so they don't actually have to go to it/waste time on it/a lawyers time on it. There is obviously a number they wouldn't have settled below for it, but I would venture it is likely lower than the $700 he settled with when his balls were under their hammer.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Punnyz posted...

I still wonder why that woman only approached me to settle

that was weird

Most people they had cases for were probably no show default judgments. How many people there actually showed up for it? Most people usually don't if they know they owe it, unless they are hoping for a no show on the other end.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I linked websites of actual law offices and the actual Texas Law, but ok

Thanks for again telling me how googling made you an expert. Save that shit for the politics topic, not in legal situations where people could have gotten burned for money they didn't have to get burned on. Thanks.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

They literally never provided him the proof they owned the debt until the trial, Corrik. If you would just Google you would see that debt collectors fuck that up literally every day.

Your advice was bad in 9 out of 10 cases, and the Judge did him a favor even though they really did the creditor for even allowing it.

And there was the problem. Taking legal advice from people trying to act like lawyers from googling. Not people who actually have been through the process via their family.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

kevwaffles posted...

I read through this a long ass time ago, but iirc your advice, Corrik, was to literally just pay the amount they were asking. How the hell is that supposed to lead to settling for less?

No. My advice was to call them and work out an agreement to pay a lower amount and on a favorable payment amount if he knew that he did in fact have an outstanding debt. He could have verified the debt was legit by contacting who he initially owed it to. Then made an agreement with the debtor that was favorable to him. They always agree to settlements to avoid going to court extraneously. In fact, you got lucky they agreed to do a settlement after they had you dead to rights in the court room. Merry Christmas to you there!

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Punnyz posted...

For the record guys, court fees are a thing

the case infront of mine the woman instantly keeled over and she just agreed to whatever. court fees were like 200 bucks

but anyways, something DID happen

That woman wanted to speak to me and me alone. I was the only one. She wanted to settle. Unfortunately we didn't get much time to talk because the judge arrived and we had to go back to the courtroom, but it gave me a glimmer of hope

lots of no shows. I would never dream of not showing up man.

ours got pushed to last and it took the longest

yall know everything about me by this point, I wanted to know if they had the right to sue, informed them I haven't been contacted, and they had the correct paper work

yes

she had everything

she confirmed my address, my phone number, she had the paper work. They determined that credit cards have an agreement on usage, not a signed contract so they didn't need a paper saying that.

while they could not confirm I ACTUALLY received anything, she had every copy of every statement ever issued monthly to me with my correct information on it

Judge asked me if I ever had this credit card. I said yes. Obviously I can't lie, I wasn't thinking about lying, I could never lie to the court.

Now heres the kicker
@Uglyface2

if yall recall, I had help from a lady at a desk a few months ago. Shes the one that told me about the Motion of Discovery. She was the judge's right hand person in court today. I brought this up, I put forth a motion and then I never heard anything afterwards. The judge checked her files and she found it, she approved it. They never complied.

Judge said, while saying they were gonna be reprimanded for it, it has no real bearing on anything. Because the woman brought the proof they owned the debt with her today. Thats all the judge wanted to see

btw desk lady pissed me off. She faxed and emailed the plaintiff this motion for discovery. When the judge asked if she did this, she was like I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION. Luckily I had the copy she gave me confirming she did that. I felt like Phoenix Wright. But also the judge found the paper work immediately anyways, for better or for worse I had no impact. I wonder what would have happened if there was no proof she did not do this. But again, Judge didn't really are about this anyways because lawyer lady brought the paper work and presented it to me

but yea guys, it was a valiant effort, there was some hope, but its me, guys

didn't I say that

its me

The only good thing is that the judge offered one last chance for a settlement. "I will allow you one more chance right now to talk it over"

So I did settle. 700 dollars and waive court fees

I'm really sad but I guess this is all my fault

Literally what I said was going to happen, happened. And, the people telling you to do this almost screwed you, but the judge let you settle before the hammer fell.

Yeah, color me surprised. Now you could have done all this from the start without wasting all your time on this. And, possibly even settled for lower than you ended up doing so here.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Not_an_Owl posted...

Spoiler alert: If you don't vote to impeach, you are tacitly agreeing that the behavior in question was appropriate.

Wide range of not appropriate behavior that is not worthy of impeachment.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Kingfrost posted...

Yes? They can impeach him as many times as they want.

Again. What's it matter? Hence, what they gonna do? Impeach him again?

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

LordoftheMorons posted...

Would be a very stupid thing to do in the middle of impeachment!

Wouldn't be the worst time. What they gonna do, impeach him again?

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Now that manaforts state charges have been dismissed, Trump can pardon him, I presume.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/impeachment-polling-donald-trump/index.html

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

Looks like Abrams couldn't rescue star wars from Rian Johnson. Everything I am hearing says way too much is going on, which is of course because the 2nd leg left everything in a dumpster fire.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

red sox 777 posted...

Most likely to break ranks:

Manchin
Jones
Murkowski
Romney
Collins

The thing to remember about Romney is he has no spine whatsoever. I think Trump tried to bully Murkowski before during the debate on the healthcare bill by threatening to block aid to Alaska if she didn't vote for the bill, and it backfired because she refused to buckle under and called his bluff*. I think she's the most likely Republican to break rank.

*I think it was a bluff. I don't remember hearing any stories about federal funding to Alaska being stopped, so Trump must not have done it.

Jones has zero chance of breaking ranks. Knows he isn't being re-elected and just doesn't care

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

xp1337 posted...

If we're doing a "Power Ranking" of Senators most likely to break rank...

Romney
Murkowski
Collins
lol

Romney is the only one I think has even the slightest chance to vote to convict. The others though may be willing to vote to at least give the appearance of an actual trial rather than a no witness, super quick sham that McConnell apparently wants.

Manchin going to convict?

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

42.8% is relatively low for what Democrats should want for impeachment. They had to of hoped this would rise above 50%. 42% is basically exactly in line with what voted for Hillary in 2016 in her loss. Which is why I said if this continues to trend downward to a net negative for impeachment and for Indy's to go under 42% that it is bad news for Dems.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

So we start by spiking down (don't support up), we relatively plateau, then spike up, rapidly trend down, trend up, plateau, slowly trend down, spike up, trend down, then trend back up, trend down rapidly, plateau, small spike up, small plateau, major spike up, very slow trend down, spike up, small plateau, and the latest trend is going down.

I said the numbers are trending down currently and it could reverse but if it continues that it would be a disaster for Dems.



As you can see, Indies are currently trending down as well after they spiked up.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

xp1337 posted...

In fact, starting one month ago (I'll use Nov 16 since the 17th just started) 538's average has shown Impeachment support bounded between [45.6, 47.8] It has literally just stayed in that range for the entire month. And that high of 47.8? That was the polling average of this weekend. Like literally the average dropped from 47.8% to 46.9% from Sunday into Monday. Not only is that noise IMO until proven otherwise but it sure as hell is suspect that that's the day someone would go, "impeachment swinging against the dems. total failure!" when it was literally at its month high the day before.

I mean, maybe you can't notice curves in the graph but the impeachment one and the approval one are both edging in Trump's favor lately. But, I guess if you can't see the way they are edging then more power to ya!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained

xp1337 posted...

can we just skip to the part where you say you don't understand how 538 works based on
* the fact that it does not show impeachment support over 50% on its polling average "last week" at all despite your claims.
* that you're simultaneously using the December 16th polling average to argue your point but then confused when I analyze the polling averages of the 13th against the 16th because there are "no polls after the 13th"

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. I don't even know how your pulling specific dates out unless that's not doable on the phone. I am simply looking at the dips and stating how it is trending downward. You are arguing some well it may have plateaud for a couple of days so the downward trend isn't there. So, I dunno u tell me.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Bloodstained