Posts Made By: James Brown

Where are you guys going to be for what will hopefully be "the big one."  James Lacey's house?   Just a short drive from the centerline.  (just kidding about invading his back yard!  ).   The weather forecast is 50/50 at best in Texas, and worse further north.   I was thinking about the hill country outside of Austin (S&T says that area may have one of the best shots at clear skys)  Mazatlán would be best.  Anyone going there?

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2867/interactive-map-2024-solar-eclipse-across-the-us/
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/eclipses/2024/apr-8-total/where-when/
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/the-next-total-solar-eclipse-is-just-a-year-away/

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

Jim, have you seen a total eclipse of the sun?

Hi Darian:

Yes, the summer of 2017 event.  I was in SE Wyoming.   It was incredible.  Have you seen one (or more)?   Jim

p.s.   photo with a small refractor and Canon camera.

Originally Posted by Pete Brayton

I'll be in SE Oklahoma unless weather changes plans. I have a Vrbo in Santa Fe for this fall's annular and Albuquerque Balloon Festival!

That should be really fun!  I went to the Balloon Festival more than 30 years ago, before we had kids.  It was mind-blowing!

Originally Posted by Pete Brayton

I'll be in SE Oklahoma unless weather changes plans. I have a Vrbo in Santa Fe for this fall's annular and Albuquerque Balloon Festival!

We have friends near Durango. I just invited ourselves over, we'll have to drive an hour south from their place is all.  The annular on October 14 is a Saturday - how convenient!  Should be pristine weather too.

For any of you long-range planners, the August 12, 2045 total eclipse centerline passes almost right over my observatory, home, and deck.  I'll be 83.  You are all invited to my place for a big gala.  The survivors only, of course.  Richard's presence is mandatory, I'm figuring he'll have mellowed by then, so no fights should break out!    

According to this map we'll get a whopping 5+ minutes of totality.  How cool will that be!   

http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2045_GoogleMapFull.html

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

The only problem with this statement is that it was at the prompting of a President, who had just been voted out of office. That is a major, major problem and makes this much more than a few nut jobs doing bad things.

BTW, I believe in the law attempted murder, as an example, has nothing to do with how close one came to murdering someone. In fact, you can talk to a police undercover officer posing as a hitman, meaning you had 0 chance of actually murdering someone, yet your penalty will be based on your intent to murder, right?

Yes, I think your hitman example is right.  Generally, for an "attempted" crime you have to take an overt action.  Trying to hire someone you legitimately believe is a hitman for example.  Words are not enough.  So if you loudly yell in a bar that you are gonna kill that SOB next time you see him, no matter how loud you yell and how sincere you might be, you have not committed attempted murder.  You might have committed a lesser crime.  The proud boys, at least some of them, moved weapons from their state to staging areas in Virginia.  That is plenty for sedition or other conspiracy charges.

Back to the big cheese,  I have not read anyone credible argue that his words were criminal.  I agree 100% that his actions and words leading up to, during and after Jan 6 should absolutely disqualify him from ever holding office, but that will be the voter's decision.  I don't think that telling the Proud Boys to stand by or stand down, or any of the other fiery rhetoric and lies leading up to Jan 6 are the sort of acts that can lead to criminal prosecution for the events of Jan 6.  

Shameful - yes
disgusting - yes
disqualifying as a public servant - yes
an embarrassment to the presidency - yes
criminal - no.

That is how I see it.  I would love to be proved wrong.   I don't think I will be.  If calls or emails existed linking Trump to the Proud Boy's plans in advance, we'd have known about it by now.   Trump arguably could have been behaving like a Mafia boss here - saying just enough to avoid criminality and counting on his minions to get the message and take action.   I don't think Trump is capable of that sort of finesse.   Jim 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

The "Lawyer" stated this:   Rich often argues the Jan 6 defendants are being over-zealously prosecuted.  I disagree.

No I don't, so quit lying.  I said that many, but certainly not all were prosecuted for trespassing and such and that is a fact, and they wouldn't have been charged if they weren't on the grounds of the Capitol bldg or if there wasn't the most corrupt US AG in charge of the prosecutions.. 

I'd suggest that if You want to put words in my mouth, then get your facts straight about my position or shut your mouth.    

Howdy Rich!  

We had a whole thread about this.  Remember the crapola you posted about being held without charges, solitary confinement and so on?  I think my summary is reasonable and accurate.  Heck, "over-zealously prosecuted" just scratches the surface of what you posted in that earlier thread.  

p.s. Seriously, are you going to come on here with a straight face and deny that you have argued the Jan 6 defendants, as a group, are being overly-zealously prosecuted?

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Yes, I am DS.  I never once stated that as a group, i.e. implying that ALL of them as you are, were overcharged, so take your lies and do with them what people like You do with them.

But then its like you to do this kind of leftist type of crap that you do which is mischaracterize other's statements.  

You seem to be learning well from the leftists here.

Its either that or sleazy methods that You engage in may just be ingrained in RINOs like you, I suppose.  

I casually reviewed first few pages of the "Tucker Carlson Cherry Picked" thread.  You argued in posts  #3, 4, 17, 29, 35 and probably others that Jan 6 defendant's due process rights were being ignored.   You mentioned that the problems were more widespread than the specific examples you cited.   If this is not over-prosecution then what is?

No one, not even you, interprets "as a group" to mean each and every member of the group.  It means 'overall' or more specifically it means; 'In general the Jan 6 defendants are over-prosecuted, when compared to similar groups who have committed similar crimes.' (Ahem, like Antifa I'm pretty sure you have made or endorsed that comparison...)  You are just playing word games, and poorly at that.  

Consider this, we have a continuum, but it basically breaks down into three choices:

1.  The Jan 6 defendants as a group have been over-prosecuted by over-zealous politically motivated prosecutors.
2.  The Jan 6 defendants as a group have been prosecuted about the right amount by properly motivated prosecutors doing their jobs.
3.  The Jan 6 defendants have been under-prosecuted by cowardly prosecutors afraid to do their proper jobs.  

Now you are telling us you would not choose #1?  You don't think the Jan 6 people are over prosecuted compared to the Antifa rioters?  And you would have us believe such a revision after reading your contributions to the "Tucker Carlson Cherry Picked" thread?  Ha Ha, good one!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"A well-known conservative legal activist who has helped shape the modern Supreme Court arranged for the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas to receive tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work, according to a report Thursday in The Washington Post."
"Leonard Leo, the former longtime vice president of the Federalist Society who helped President Donald Trump’s administration vet nominees for the high court, instructed GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit called the Judicial Education Project and to pay Virginia "Ginni" Thomas $25,0000, the Post reported. Leo made the request in 2012."
"No mention of Ginni, of course," the Post quoted Leo instructing Conway."
"The Post reported that Conway's firm, the Polling Company, paid Ginni Thomas's firm $80,000 between June 2011 and June 2012 and expected to pay $20,000 more before the end of 2012."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/04/clarence-thomas-leonard-leo-ginni-thomas/70186040007/

Isn't she a consultant?  They do that (consulting) to get paid, you know.   It is kinda sexist to imply that the wife of a justice can not have a job!   Just kidding, don't go all Rich on me.   

I like Sotomayor, but did your lefty news feed pick up the story of her of allegedly not recusing herself from actual cases¹ involving the publisher who has paid her millions.  Yep, Millions.  Gasp.  Breyer recused himself.  Sotomayor did not...   

(Personally, I think this is a nothing burger too, but your laser-like focus on the Thomas's needs a break.)


1.  Has anyone accused Thomas of hearing a case involving his billionaire friend? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Taking his speech at his word, which the majority of the mob did, they peacefully marched down to the capitol. THAT they did. ONCE THERE, they proceeded to fight like hell and do what the proud boys and the Oath Keepers said Trump told them to do. Now do you get it?!

I don't get it.  Are saying that Trump overtly told them to march peacefully to the Capital, but then covertly signaled to them (wink - nod) style to riot once they got there?   There is no way Trump is capable of that much finesse!   You gotta either believe he is a sophisticated master manipulator, or just a moron who says whatever he feels like, damn the consequences.   I am firmly in the latter camp.  Trump's speech is rambling and ambiguous.  He wanted adoration from his fans, not an actual riot that threatened the safety of everyone in the Capital.