I said we needed more legal pedes back in 2016. I was downvoted (back on TDr) for suggesting any of us become lowly legal types. I also warned about the dipshit we can't name from the former site name.
People need to think about the future more. The patterns are known and established. Just open your eyes, folks.
Legalpede here; and while this sentiment is good - the entire law community is wholly overrun with leftist zealots.
My first day of skoolin they forced us to read and "discuss" "Between the world and me" by Ta-Nahisi Coats. Of course the discussion was only of approved anti-white ideology, and it was strictly verboten to point out the vile hate that blowhard spewed into those pages. The remainder of skoolin wasn't any better, and it's a shark tank of sjw zealots who will ensure you're ostracized both in school, and in the legal networks that might hire you afterwards.
Taking back systems is important, but the entire law community, both judges and lawyers, may be too corrupt and indoctrinated to turn back.
Spez'd: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
Too corrupt and indoctrinated is no excuse for not trying. We don't fight like the French. It's not enough to make a show fight and promptly surrender. We have to keep up the pressure. And pile on every little victory we can get.
The left was up against it when they started thier ' long march' through the institutions. It was slow at first and fast in the end. It's only fair that our march starts off not so easy as well.
IMO, Kyle should prepare and go on the RUN, ASAP...he gonna get his ass railroaded with this SJW system and end up with a lifetime of jogger prison rape. That boy needs to lose/gain weight have plastic surgery and fucking run to the ends of the earth if need be. No way that boy is getting a fair fucking trial.
Morons. The law is written to be confusing so that us morons cannot ever interpret it. Anyone who would suggest that we skip our understanding of legalese is a simple person. Understanding and application of the law does not indicate ones level of morality. This is a fickle crew prone to it's own type of virtue signaling at times.
Ehh sorry I have to disagree. The problem is that law is (supposed to be) an application of logic, which requires very precise language. The average person doesn't have the logical ability necessary to read such things, regardless of how it's written, because there is no way way to write it such that it is both precise and easy to understand. Personally, I think written language is actually insufficient for law, and should probably be written in pure mathematical logic. Then you wouldn't have people arguing about what "well regulated" means and such.
Precisely. The average sane, level headed person intuitively knows the meaning of words as intended.
It's only insane, unhinged, agenda driven zealots who make mental gymnastics out of the perfectly understandable. Because their minds aren't grounded in reality, they have to twist reality to fit their warped misunderstanding of it.
Now, law should be written precisely so that manipulative hacks can't make pleas on technicalities, or just so that there aren't reasonable disagreements stemming from imprecise language.
But the law is undoubtedly written to be confusing. It's not the legalese per se, it's the sheer massive network of laws on the books, many of which are purposefully vague so as the leave them open to interpretation and specifically designed to contradict each other. All so lawyers can wage legal warfare upon law abiding citizens and let their pet crooks off scott free.
It's not the language that requires simplification. The books just need to be revised. i.e.: heavily truncated.
Sorry man, really disagree. "Logic" as understood by lay people is not what I'm talking about, and in fact, is usually not logical at all. It's the same with "common sense", there is no such thing, it's just something people made up to justify their opinion. Logic and mathematics are equivalent to each other, and you need to have a mathematically inclined brain to really grasp it. And I don't mean the ability to do algebra or compute, I mean the ability to write mathematical proofs and such. That ability is somewhat rare amongst the general population. Laws (should be) written and analyzed in the same way mathematical proofs are, which is why the language needs to be complex; simple language has too many holes that can be argued about.
Sorry man, but no, I can't agree with you. I have an example actually, the constitution. The constitution is written in somewhat plain language, which is why it has been so easy to poke holes in. For example, the second amendment. This is going to chap your ass, and most people that read this, but without the historical context, the second amendment does not outline a personal right to bear arms unambiguously. Now, reading it in that way is completely reasonable, even more so with the historical context, but the unfortunate truth is that laws need to "stand on their own legs", and generally do not have the luxury of being interpreted within a context. That's why the argument that is doesn't outline a personal right to bare arms holds legal weight. Both are valid arguments because the language is not unambiguous, despite what people like to think. This is why legalese is so important, it makes situations like that less probable.
You're both right and wrong. It's not that there aren't enough MAGA lawyers (definitely not enough), it's that one commie AG in a blue city can coopt the legal system and force cases like these to be seen in front of only leftists juries. That goes all the way up to the federal gov't and is why all political cases are only ever brought in SDNY or the DC Circuit. It's a rotten system.
Some progress non-legalpedes can do; in Red states, start petitioning the state legislatures to better restrict jurisdictions and start sending more court cases out of the State Capital where all the partisan hack judges and AGs live.
I said we needed more legal pedes back in 2016. I was downvoted (back on TDr) for suggesting any of us become lowly legal types. I also warned about the dipshit we can't name from the former site name.
People need to think about the future more. The patterns are known and established. Just open your eyes, folks.
Legalpede here; and while this sentiment is good - the entire law community is wholly overrun with leftist zealots. My first day of skoolin they forced us to read and "discuss" "Between the world and me" by Ta-Nahisi Coats. Of course the discussion was only of approved anti-white ideology, and it was strictly verboten to point out the vile hate that blowhard spewed into those pages. The remainder of skoolin wasn't any better, and it's a shark tank of sjw zealots who will ensure you're ostracized both in school, and in the legal networks that might hire you afterwards. Taking back systems is important, but the entire law community, both judges and lawyers, may be too corrupt and indoctrinated to turn back.
Spez'd: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” ― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
Hang them all, gotcha.
Im ok with that.
Exactly. The fucking constitution isn't open for interpretation.
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” ― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
salus populi suprema lex
The Reno brothers
👍
Too corrupt and indoctrinated is no excuse for not trying. We don't fight like the French. It's not enough to make a show fight and promptly surrender. We have to keep up the pressure. And pile on every little victory we can get.
The left was up against it when they started thier ' long march' through the institutions. It was slow at first and fast in the end. It's only fair that our march starts off not so easy as well.
"We don't fight like the French. It's not enough to make a show fight and promptly surrender."
LMAO that's rich. Care to remind me what happened last election ?
Then go sit in a corner and cry about it.
IMO, Kyle should prepare and go on the RUN, ASAP...he gonna get his ass railroaded with this SJW system and end up with a lifetime of jogger prison rape. That boy needs to lose/gain weight have plastic surgery and fucking run to the ends of the earth if need be. No way that boy is getting a fair fucking trial.
Nice commentary fren 👍
Morons. The law is written to be confusing so that us morons cannot ever interpret it. Anyone who would suggest that we skip our understanding of legalese is a simple person. Understanding and application of the law does not indicate ones level of morality. This is a fickle crew prone to it's own type of virtue signaling at times.
Ehh sorry I have to disagree. The problem is that law is (supposed to be) an application of logic, which requires very precise language. The average person doesn't have the logical ability necessary to read such things, regardless of how it's written, because there is no way way to write it such that it is both precise and easy to understand. Personally, I think written language is actually insufficient for law, and should probably be written in pure mathematical logic. Then you wouldn't have people arguing about what "well regulated" means and such.
Disagree about "average person" and logic. It just ain't that damned hard. The problem is school became designed to make people not think.
Precisely. The average sane, level headed person intuitively knows the meaning of words as intended.
It's only insane, unhinged, agenda driven zealots who make mental gymnastics out of the perfectly understandable. Because their minds aren't grounded in reality, they have to twist reality to fit their warped misunderstanding of it.
Now, law should be written precisely so that manipulative hacks can't make pleas on technicalities, or just so that there aren't reasonable disagreements stemming from imprecise language.
But the law is undoubtedly written to be confusing. It's not the legalese per se, it's the sheer massive network of laws on the books, many of which are purposefully vague so as the leave them open to interpretation and specifically designed to contradict each other. All so lawyers can wage legal warfare upon law abiding citizens and let their pet crooks off scott free.
It's not the language that requires simplification. The books just need to be revised. i.e.: heavily truncated.
Sorry man, really disagree. "Logic" as understood by lay people is not what I'm talking about, and in fact, is usually not logical at all. It's the same with "common sense", there is no such thing, it's just something people made up to justify their opinion. Logic and mathematics are equivalent to each other, and you need to have a mathematically inclined brain to really grasp it. And I don't mean the ability to do algebra or compute, I mean the ability to write mathematical proofs and such. That ability is somewhat rare amongst the general population. Laws (should be) written and analyzed in the same way mathematical proofs are, which is why the language needs to be complex; simple language has too many holes that can be argued about.
You are intelligent enough to know that we are both correct.
Sorry man, but no, I can't agree with you. I have an example actually, the constitution. The constitution is written in somewhat plain language, which is why it has been so easy to poke holes in. For example, the second amendment. This is going to chap your ass, and most people that read this, but without the historical context, the second amendment does not outline a personal right to bear arms unambiguously. Now, reading it in that way is completely reasonable, even more so with the historical context, but the unfortunate truth is that laws need to "stand on their own legs", and generally do not have the luxury of being interpreted within a context. That's why the argument that is doesn't outline a personal right to bare arms holds legal weight. Both are valid arguments because the language is not unambiguous, despite what people like to think. This is why legalese is so important, it makes situations like that less probable.
You're both right and wrong. It's not that there aren't enough MAGA lawyers (definitely not enough), it's that one commie AG in a blue city can coopt the legal system and force cases like these to be seen in front of only leftists juries. That goes all the way up to the federal gov't and is why all political cases are only ever brought in SDNY or the DC Circuit. It's a rotten system.
Some progress non-legalpedes can do; in Red states, start petitioning the state legislatures to better restrict jurisdictions and start sending more court cases out of the State Capital where all the partisan hack judges and AGs live.