|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Good times with good people. Yuns is in fact a real person and a total savage. Munin posted:We definitely saw video evidence of savagery. Yeah so obviously Yuns managed to get both their phones and is posting "Yes Friend I am fine and well and not being murdered please never contact me again". RIP gonna miss those guys, gonna pour out a forty (whatever that is) for their bloated corpses floating down the Potomac river (which I assume runs through Manhattan).
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
A forty refers to 40 ounces of malt liquor. 2-3 bucks to get hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:40 ounces But how do you know how many liters you need to pour to get to 40 ounces? And please don't tell me it's "so easy, just multiply the average weight of a gerbil's left nut in 1873 with the orbital inclination of Saturn in the third house". loving make-believe nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
the size of an ounce was originally defined by the capacity of the King's bladder.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:the size of an ounce was originally defined by the capacity of the King's bladder. Because of loving course it was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:But how do you know how many liters you need to pour to get to 40 ounces? And please don't tell me it's "so easy, just multiply the average weight of a gerbil's left nut in 1873 with the orbital inclination of Saturn in the third house". loving make-believe nonsense. Of course - you need 33.8 ounces to make a liter. It all makes sense. 2 ounces to a pint. 4 pints for a cup, 4 cups for a quart, 4 quarts to a gallon. All based on the size of Queen Mary's uterus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
I deny having anything to do with Phil or Munin's disappearances. It's a big city. Stuff just happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:But how do you know how many liters you need to pour to get to 40 ounces? And please don't tell me it's "so easy, just multiply the average weight of a gerbil's left nut in 1873 with the orbital inclination of Saturn in the third house". loving make-believe nonsense. 1/15 of a skjeppe, duh. (A skjeppe being defined as the number of 40s a Viking and a wench could carry from the cellar to the table) joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Nov 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Yuns posted:I deny having anything to do with Phil or Munin's disappearances. It's a big city. Stuff just happens. FEED ME A STRAY CAT
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
joat mon posted:1/15 of a skjeppe, duh. Wait, how many støp is that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Wait, how many støp is that? 1/3 of a støp, but 7/8 of a stop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
In all seriousness I want to say Yuns and Munin are good guys and thanks to Yuns for like 50 great recommendations for places to eat and drink and for being willing to meet up for a Friday evening. Hope to repay the favor in my hometown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:In all seriousness I want to say Yuns and Munin are good guys and thanks to Yuns for like 50 great recommendations for places to eat and drink and for being willing to meet up for a Friday evening. Hope to repay the favor in my hometown. So how's the girth?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:In all seriousness I want to say Yuns and Munin are good guys and thanks to Yuns for like 50 great recommendations for places to eat and drink and for being willing to meet up for a Friday evening. Hope to repay the favor in my hometown. What was his business card like? Good colouring? Raised lettering, pale nimbus?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
He abruptly left to go to his appointment with Dr Huxtable
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Can romance bloom... On the battlefield?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
Lol “Hip to Be Square” came on the sound system at Duane Reade last night
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Can romance bloom... On the battlefield? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
Another NYC story, as we were walking to dinner last night we saw a ton of cops and barriers all set up along Sixth Avenue. We figured it was for the Veterans Day parade so I asked a cop if it was and he straight deadpans, “Nah, somebody important is coming.” He didn’t literally roll his eyes but lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
With all the subpoena talk in the news Privilege in the states doesn't work the way the trump contingent says it does, right? Its something you assert to avoid answering otherwise relevant questions, not something that lets you just disregard a valid subpoena entirely. Why are they being permitted to just say lol nah to documents compelling their attendance
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
Usually yes you have to show and assert it to each question so the judge can then consider whether the question does actually invoke the claimed privilege Executive privilege was invented during the Nixon impeachment and has almost never been litigated so they just abuse the crap out of it and force the other side to call their bluff (which takes years and money to get thru the courts)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Also almost all of this is undecided law which must be resolved by a political scotus which is currently conservative with two going on three justices appointed by Trump himself. Kavanaugh specifically thinks the office of president can basically do no wrong and has unlimited power which is not hard to imagine factored into his appointment given the trajectory of this administration.
Nonexistence fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Nov 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:Also almost all of this is undecided law which must be resolved by a political scotus which is currently conservative with two going on three justices appointed by Trump himself. It’s actually decided law, us v Nixon, they’re just playing calvinball
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Usually yes you have to show and assert it to each question so the judge can then consider whether the question does actually invoke the claimed privilege To be fair every President and party has enjoyed using executive privilege since it was formulated. One of the reasons it has never been litigated is that generally some sort of arrangement is reached before it hits the courts to allow the generally cozy state of affairs to continue. Trump doesn't really do discussion and compromise of course. If he sticks around long enough it will be litigated. Actually, how likely do people think it is that all these cases etc will follow him out of the White House? What are the odds of a Nixon style pardon?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Munin posted:Actually, how likely do people think it is that all these cases etc will follow him out of the White House? What are the odds of a Nixon style pardon? They'll keep litigating the tax returns thing. Some of the document subpoenas, I imagine fall under cabinet secretary authority so a change in administration will moot those and they'll produce the documents. Tbh I assume there is wholesale document destruction going on now too and that's what we'll hear about when he's out of office. As far as the criminal stuff goes, the reason Trump won't resign and really wants to win re-election is so he won't get indicted. Some SOLs will run if he is there for two terms. The scandals will just keep coming even when he's not POTUS. As far as exec privilege goes though, I'm not sure if the next POTUS assume control over the earlier POTUS's documents and who can assert the privilege. That's one of the big questions that hasn't been litigated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Munin posted:To be fair every President and party has enjoyed using executive privilege since it was formulated. One of the reasons it has never been litigated is that generally some sort of arrangement is reached before it hits the courts to allow the generally cozy state of affairs to continue. Trump doesn't really do discussion and compromise of course. If he sticks around long enough it will be litigated. New York is going to make his life hell until he dies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
And his failchildren too, I hope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
You all are assuming you get him out of the white house at some point. He might just be the last president you have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:You all are assuming you get him out of the white house at some point. He might just be the last president you have. Those aren't necessarily different things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:You all are assuming you get him out of the white house at some point. He might just be the last president you have. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
This week’s Last Week Tonight was about SLAPP suits and maybe the best LWT ending ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Part of me hopes that's their actual lawyer who had like an undergrad musical theater degree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:This week’s Last Week Tonight was about SLAPP suits and maybe the best LWT ending ever. I helped get the Texas Anti-SLAPP statute revised now that I typed it out I think I bragged about this before but whatever
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
Executive privilege goes all the way back to Washington. It’s constitutional just not the version asserted by trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:Part of me hopes that's their actual lawyer who had like an undergrad musical theater degree. Monash University in Melbourne (Aus) used to offer a dual undergrad degree of Law and Performing Arts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 07:59
|
|
|
I once represented a plaintiff in exactly the kind of case for which anti-SLAPP statutes exist. Can't wait to tell my grandchildren about that someday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Americans and your goddamned acronyms. AAYGA. "Don't you slap me with a SLAPP suit or I'll slap you with my anti-SLAPP"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Buncha SLAPP-happy idiots
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
I got jammed on a frivolous defamation suit and decided not to file an anti-SLAPP motion. This is the Louisiana statute language:quote:
The Supreme Court decided that despite the fact that the statute helpfully provides a (non-exclusive) list of things that qualify as “public issues,” such as statements in litigation, each of these examples must specifically be related to a “public issue” to qualify. Meaning people talking about other people in the context of litigation does not qualify unless the litigation itself is about a public issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I got jammed on a frivolous defamation suit and decided not to file an anti-SLAPP motion. This is the Louisiana statute language: Jesus thats narrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 17:36
|
|