It's adorable how libertarians believe that investigating a former mayor/presidential candidate who was a president's personal lawyer as part of an ongoing investigation that commenced in a previous administration as "cheering the establishment" and "politicising the DOJ". I honestly can't fathom how fucking stupid one would have to be to believe such bullshit. But then I'm not a libertarian with their higher level brains and shit.
-
Features
Federal Investigators Execute Search Warrant at Rudy Giuliani’s Apartment
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
It's adorable how libertarians believe that investigating a former mayor/presidential candidate who was a president's personal lawyer as part of an ongoing investigation that commenced in a previous administration as "cheering the establishment" and "politicising the DOJ". I honestly can't fathom how fucking stupid one would have to be to believe such bullshit. But then I'm not a libertarian with their higher level brains and shit.
untermensche
Contributor
When it is a former Trump lawyer the DOJ does not have to convince any jury or judge Giuliani did something wrong to convict him.
That is the way it works in magic Libertarian town.
That is the way it works in magic Libertarian town.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Ok.. I have more to say on this (forgive the OCD). There's another way to write this so as to show why this is a fine way to express the sentiment. The sentence could be written as:
"I'm just enjoying a glass of wine in my home, which was not raided by the FBI."
When written this way, we have a structure that lends itself to restrictive or non-restrictive clauses. In this case, using ", which" it is a non-restrictive clause, but if we got rid of the comma and switched "which" to "that", it would be a restrictive clause and then you could say that it meant she has another home that was raided by the FBI:
"I'm just enjoying a glass of wine in my home that was not raided by the FBI."
The intent was clearly that of the former, non-restrictive modifier case, not the latter, restrictive case as you chose to interpret it.
untermensche
Contributor
Language is not so specific.
What she is saying is ambiguous.
That is beautiful.
What she is saying is ambiguous.
That is beautiful.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
That’s why I used the word “interpret”. As it was written it could indeed be ambiguous. But Loren stated that there is only one way to interpret it — in the restrictive case — and I wanted to demonstrate that that isn’t true.
untermensche
Contributor
The failure to see the ambiguity of language can cause many misunderstandings.
The funny nature of the joke is people like Rudy saying in 2016, "Lock her up!"
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,535
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
These people are thugs and crooks, and they don't erase anything because they know they might need it in the future. Remember Cohen and him being dead to rights with the mountain of evidence he had on hand?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Yes, you do love watching the establishment act. You've bought into the establishment line so deeply that when I point out this is weaponizing the DOJ, you actually think that makes me a Giuliani supporter.
I did find what Giuliani is suspected of that led to this raid, I used Google. You just love the establishment so much that you don't need a reason to cheer the DOJ being weaponized against political opponents. That's why you cheer even though you don't know what he is accused of.
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
The establishment is dead, long live the establishment!
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,952
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Just read that Igor Fruman is changing to a guilty plea. Could be bad news for Rudy.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Oh dear. Little libertarians howling with rage Rudy broke the law and is being thoroughly investigated for it all. "You can't do that! Persecution! Politicizing Politics!". No. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Howling and screaming when one gets righteously caught and held to account should not be a reason to let a criminal off the hook.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
So ... you think that when I note with distaste that the DOJ is being politicized and weaponized, that makes me a Giuliani supporter.
It is impossible to reason you out of that position, since you weren't reasoned into it.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,952
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
What proof do you have of the above bolded?
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Forget it, I think JH is projecting again.
Elixir
Made in America
It has been clear for a very long time that then-President Donald Trump sought to politicize and weaponize the Justice Department
.. and he is still doing it, via proxies like Jason.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
It is impossible for anyone to reason you out of that position.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,952
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
No, it's not.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,535
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
The interesting part of all of this is how the DoJ under Trump was involved in the investigation of Giuliani and his pals.