Politicians being politicians.

[Zoffen]

AI has proven time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time  and time and time and time and time and time and time  and time and time and time and time and time and time  and time and time and time and time and time and time  and time and time and time and time and time and time  and time and time and time and time and time and time  and time and time and time and time and time and time  and time and time and time and time and time and time  and time and time and time and time and time and time again that it's results should be verified by doing actual work because they ma not be accurate. 

Dont worry we will have AI for that!

[neurosis]

I personally criticize ANYONE who is charged with interpreting the law when they inject their feelings into it, or just outright make shit up

Even yourself?  Do you ever self reflect? Or just criticize judgements (or criticism of judgments) you don't like?

We keep hearing the term "activist judges". WTF here is qualified to make that "judgement" if it's not by feelings or just "made up".

I remember when you said that Trump had carte blanch to dismantle Federal agencies and cited law that had nothing to do with it.

And yes, were all armchair quarterbacks in this.

[Bucky Cornstarch]

i]link=msg=104178 date=1763767282]
I personally criticize ANYONE who is charged with interpreting the law when they inject their feelings into it, or just outright make shit up.[/i] And don't tell me Ketanji Brown hasn't/isn't doing that. Even her fellow justices are unhappy about it. The law says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Pretty simple. Don't like the law? Cool. Get it changed. There's a mechanism for that.

Ketanji Brown and Sotomayor have entered the chat.

No need to be a scholar... just need to know how to read, and how to use a dictionary.

My favorite one of course is "... well regulated...". Today that statement means one thing. In 1788 (when the 9th State ratified the the Constitution) it meant something entirely different. And when we're speaking about the Constitution, especially the 1st 10 Amendments, what the words meant in 1788 ARE what was meant. Not what somebody that can't figure out what bathroom to use thinks it means.

If that offends people, good.

So, just like you, eh Nutboy?

The main difference is that the people you criticize are actually qualified to have their interpretations, while you are just a keyboard warrior who picks and chooses from opinions that support your preconceived, poorly reasoned ones.

[CNCAppsJames]

Even yourself?  Do you ever self reflect? Or just criticize judgements you don't like?

We keep hearing the term "activist judges". WTF here is qualified to make that judgement if it's not by feelings.

And yes, were all armchair quarterbacks in this.

Often. On the job, after each time I do training or a presentation, I go over my notes, figured out where I fell short of the mark and fix it ASAP. Sometimes, I just had a bad day. It happens.

My "favorite" ruling I got wrong was Citizen's United. I hate loathe that ruling... but it was the correct ruling. I get it. I understand it. I still hate it and think it was wrong.

There's a bell curve for everything. Every company, every law enforcement agency, every SEAL Team, Every SOF Group, every organization, every group has it's turds, it's middle, and it's exceptions. You will NEVER find ANY group of individuals that is 100% squared away in every way, shape form.

Indeed we are.

[TylerBeer]

Well said turd, well said.

[neurosis]

Well said turd, well said.

You can't give him credit for that one?

[TylerBeer]

You can't give him credit for that one?

Nope

[Newbeeee™]

are actually qualified to have their interpretations

LoLz.
The law, is, an, ass.

[Newbeeee™]

You can't give him credit for that one?

TBF i thought that was credit from him

[Jeff]

Interesting.
I'm shocked.

[neurosis]

Interesting.
I'm shocked.

What was shocking about it?

They trolled Trump fishing for a reaction and they got it.  Did you ever think it was anything more than that?

[Jeff]

They trolled Trump

No they didn't.

[neurosis]

No they didn't.

From the first post of the thread 

"Trump, being Trump, freaks out over it and, instead of ignoring it like any sane person would, posts stupid shit, seeming to admit he's giving illegal orders to troops.
"

It's the same reason reporters keep asking him about the Epstein files over, and over, and over, and over again. Because they know he's dumb and easily triggered.

[Jeff]

From the first post of the thread 

Yes they got a reaction but that wasn't their logic behind the statement.
They planted a seed, HOPING that some military personnel would speak out and defy Trump's orders.

They knew there was never any illegal orders given. Anyone with a brain cell knows this.

[neurosis]

They planted a seed, HOPING that some military personnel would speak out and defy Trump's orders.

I'm sure that's what Trump thought too.