Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5426
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#176

Post by listeme »

For what it's worth, the buckle up buttercup remark was about moderation in general here, which I have a longstanding issue with: namely, who decides what's a personal attack?

If someone says, hey, all catholics eat babies! that's a personal attack. (Definitely, it's codified.)

If someone snarls about liberals who support abortion and homosexuality, with dripping venom, that's not a personal attack, and moderators will come in and say "you know what he's like."

If someone says all fat people are lazy, I think we're supposed to "scroll and roll" instead of getting mad, or if people make fun of politicians using gendered language, again -- scroll on by.

If someone comes in spouting nonsense about Hillary (actual nonsense, not political disagreement) I guess I'm supposed to not call them a troll, just engage with them, as long as they don't call me names? Even if they just keep repeating themselves? Because they're not attacking me, just making comments about people who voted for her.

But if someone keeps saying rah rah Avenatti yay we love him, it's okay to keep arguing, even if it gets a little rancorous, because that's not trolling, but when the anti-Avenatti lawyers get peevish, the board owner steps in and wonders why they can't state their opinion without getting attacked or something? (Why can't the Avenatti cheerleaders state their opinions without getting attacked? Vehement disagreement isn't attack? You don't say.)

It's a puzzle.

Me mad. Me go clean house for me guests.
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10553
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#177

Post by Mikedunford »

There's no doubt that it's easier to see a personal insult when it's heading toward you than when it's moving away. There's also no doubt I've been on the throwing end of personal insults more often than I should have been. Foggy - and others - can vouch for that. And I know I've got arrogance and self-righteousness to spare.

But the "you're opposing Avenatti because your lack of accomplishment has made you jealous" is a personal insult, and (in various forms) it's been thrown at the lawyers who dislike Avenatti twice in recent days.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#178

Post by Slim Cognito »

I've reached the point, if Avenatti burns it all down, I'm ok with it.
ImageImageImage x4

DmitriNotPetra
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:28 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#179

Post by DmitriNotPetra »

I don't like Avenatti, at all. I think he is the left's version of Michael Cohen, but with legal skills. It doesn't mean I don't like some of the things he's accomplished.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30572
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#180

Post by Foggy »

Good lord. :doh:

The rule is no attacking a fellow member of the forum. Public figures, especially politicians, are fair game. I do think "you're just jealous because you haven't accomplished anything" is a personal attack when it's addressed specifically to lawyers on this forum.
If someone says, hey, all catholics eat babies! that's a personal attack. (Definitely, it's codified.)
Nope, that's an attack on people's religion. Different rule entirely. ;)
If someone snarls about liberals who support abortion and homosexuality, with dripping venom, that's not a personal attack, and moderators will come in and say "you know what he's like."
I'm the owner and I support abortion and homosexuality. I won't let that become a thing here, though I suppose it has happened in the past.
If someone says all fat people are lazy, I think we're supposed to "scroll and roll" instead of getting mad, or if people make fun of politicians using gendered language, again -- scroll on by.
That falls into the category of stupid. Actually, I think part of the rule says there's a difference between saying "You're stupid" and saying "Your argument (or That statement) is stupid because __reasons__." This is where, I admit, it becomes a challenge to be angry and yet not respond with vitriol. Our former member nbc was a master of the art of explaining why things are stupid without namecalling or personal insults. I wish he'd come back someday. :daydream:
If someone comes in spouting nonsense about Hillary (actual nonsense, not political disagreement) I guess I'm supposed to not call them a troll, just engage with them, as long as they don't call me names? Even if they just keep repeating themselves? Because they're not attacking me, just making comments about people who voted for her.
Allow me to remind you that if you think someone is a troll, YOU CAN REPORT THE POST or send me a PM or something, instead of calling them a troll on the forum. There are some (IMHO, misguided) people who still think it's worth the few seconds it takes to attack Hillary Clinton on a board full of liberals, for whatever reason I can't comprehend. She's out of politics, talking about her is looking backward not forward, and I just hope all the other geezers don't run for president in 2020, that includes Sanders, Warren, Biden, or anybody else who's as old as I am or older.
I saw someone new come in and attack Hillary for being evil today, and I just rolled my eyes :roll: and moved on to more important discussions. People are entitled to their opinions about her, but jeez ... and if that really, really, really bothered you, you can always say "That's stupid because __reasons__."
But if someone keeps saying rah rah Avenatti yay we love him, it's okay to keep arguing, even if it gets a little rancorous, because that's not trolling, but when the anti-Avenatti lawyers get peevish, the board owner steps in and wonders why they can't state their opinion without getting attacked or something? (Why can't the Avenatti cheerleaders state their opinions without getting attacked? Vehement disagreement isn't attack? You don't say.)
I'm sorry if I banned anyone for that. Oh wait, I didn't. I'm sorry if I sent anyone a warning over that. Oh wait, I didn't. I'm actually not a harsh or disciplinary dick tater, and all I really said was "I wonder". Good lord, what a horrible rigid controlling nightmare I must be. :blink:

As I said, I do think "you're just jealous because you haven't accomplished anything" is a personal attack when it's addressed specifically to lawyers on this forum. I also think it's a personal attack that people are called "Avenatti worshipers" or similar. Several people here have been subjected to both, like me for instance. I don't think he's the worst lawyer in the world, nor the best, and I realize a lot of people really like his approach and I don't have a problem with that, and I realize a lot of people are critical of his approach, and I don't have a problem with that. That said, I don't appreciate being coerced into joining one camp or the other.

Of course, the really critically important thing is that we fight over Avenatti and fight over Hillary Clinton, and fight over which religion sucks the most and fight over what liberals can believe and fight each other all day long on every possible topic instead of uniting against Republicans and birthers and SovCits and all the other people. I still like the analogy of this forum to a cocktail party where hopefully people are civil and polite and get along together, but today -- which is a very bad day, because we all know Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed -- it seems as though many of the people at my party are yelling at each other.

So keep on yelling. I'm taking a break, though. Whatever I decide to wonder ... I'll wonder about privately, would that be OK? :towel:
For more information, read it again. || When science is outlawed, only outlaws will have science.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 3785
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#181

Post by p0rtia »

I love that you share your knowledge in a generous and even-handed way, Mike. FTR, I thought you and I had a good exchange going on Avenatti--you made persuasive and, IMO, essential points, as always. Just so much emotion flowing in everyone these days. I look forward to the next exchange. :towel:
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5426
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#182

Post by listeme »

Imma keep that whole post to look at happily but thank you for:
I also think it's a personal attack that people are called "Avenatti worshipers" or similar.
:daydream:

I agree with someone up thread :mrgreen: who said there's so much emotion these days. It is hard.
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Sluffy1
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:35 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#183

Post by Sluffy1 »

"just like Trump's ability to use Jedi mind tricks on his feeble minded followers about how great and smart he is, Avenatti has the same ability."
Is this a personal attack/insult directly aimed at me.

Isn't his was a question.... even without the omitted question mark.
"Is it professional jealousy of his successes and never having done anything consequential deserving a single 15 minutes of fame."
It was not directed at an individual or even at lawyers.
I thought it a fair question because few lawyers only 47 years of age have achieved as much notoriety and fame and up to this point the reasons expressed for not liking him were his self promotion, ambitions and motives. So what if self promotes and I don't know how anyone can possibly know his ambitions and motives. The best anyone can do is guess.
But the "you're opposing Avenatti because your lack of accomplishment has made you jealous" is a personal insult, and (in various forms) it's been thrown at the lawyers who dislike Avenatti twice in recent days.
"you're just jealous because you haven't accomplished anything" might be what was heard but it was never said.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8667
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#184

Post by RoadScholar »

Maybe the point is: we shouldn't expect a consensus resolution.

I have no argument with those who say Avenatti's a crappy lawyer. And I don't see anything wrong with him grandstanding so as to rattle Trump.

You feel he casts a poor light on the legal profession? Fine. You don't? Also fine.

No point getting all riled up because we can't agree. Make sense? :towel:
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3800
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#185

Post by Dan1100 »

RoadScholar wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:40 pm
Maybe the point is: we shouldn't expect a consensus resolution.

I have no argument with those who say Avenatti's a crappy lawyer. And I don't see anything wrong with him grandstanding so as to rattle Trump.

You feel he casts a poor light on the legal profession? Fine. You don't? Also fine.

No point getting all riled up because we can't agree. Make sense? :towel:
:yeah: [Insert annoying analogy to TV business]

User avatar
MRich
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#186

Post by MRich »

I was going to stay out of this, but I changed my mind...

My initial view of Avenatti was pretty much what Reality Check said: "Avennati gets through to the average voter. It isn't about winning or losing a motion before any judge on the finer points of law." I'm probably the average voter. I'm not an attorney. I liked his brashness and the fact that he was scoring points.

After reading some of the comments about him by the fine lawyers on the site, I have tuned my view somewhat. And I understand why an attorney would be annoyed by him. I really do.

HOWEVER: He is scoring points. He is annoying Trump. These are good things. I'm not going to be picky about it.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10553
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#187

Post by Mikedunford »

This would be a boring place if we always reached consensus resolutions.

But I don't buy the "just a question" bit. At all. The implication of the "question" was very clear. But whatever, we've got an ignore function, and that nonsense isn't worth anyone's further aggravation.
Edit: ETA: Again, should go without saying, but: if my bullshit is pissing you off, absolutely use that function on me. None of this is worth anyone's further aggravation.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 12039
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#188

Post by Orlylicious »

I'd like to make sure it's clear, I meant no disrespect to anyone. Way back, someone suggested that because Avenatti only helped one family, he sort of failed. My point was one is better than zero but may have come across the wrong way and I'm sorry if it did.

In our new Donald-created Reality TV Nation, I think Avenatti indeed gets through to the public. He's a great strategist. Because I'm not an attorney, please don't ever think anything related is criticism of any attorneys here; I'm looking more for the press strategy. From what I've learned here, Michael's done a reasonable job representing his clients in an unbelievable media environment. His newfound fame means people seek him out for high profile cases and issues. He might not always hit homeruns, but considering how many must be begging him to get their story on national TV, including tons of fakes like the 4chan hoax which was widely spread online demonstrates, I'm really impressed. Again, his legal filings may be faulty or not as good as they can be, but considering he's fighting the craziest POTUS and more irresponsible Congress ever I hope he keeps fighting.

Again, if there's anything I said that offended anybody I apologize, I think we all have the same goals, we just see different ways of getting there.
The titular Mama June enjoys a Corn Dog on 4th of July! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: Family Crisis!" TVShowsAce featured Fogbow's love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS

BigSkip
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:14 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#189

Post by BigSkip »

woodworker wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:06 pm
FierceRedPanda: Anyone who reads my posts know that I largely agree with you re: Avenatti. Please do not leave. One of the characteristics that makes the Fogbow incredibly valuable, at least to me, is the diversity of opinions, with there being a level of intelligence, reasoning and integrity behind those opinions that is not often found IRL, must less the internet.

We need that diversity of opinion because, among other reasons, it makes us better able , to defend and support our own opinions. I respect and look forward to reading your posts. But I also look forward to reading posts that I disagree with because they make me re-examine my arguments.

I know I am not doing a good job of expressing my thoughts here (I blame that on my third lithotrypsy yesterday), but please do not leave.

And to everyone: Anyone who knows me knows that I don't tolerate fools easily and that I have absolutely no hesitation about telling assholes that they are assholes. But I am begging everyone here to take a step back and remember why most of us got involved here originally, which was, IMO, because we saw something wrong in our society (which ever wrong it was may be different for different people) and we care enough to try to fix that wrong.

Without becoming too pollyannish, I hope we can remember that and remember that, whatever our differences, those differences are usually less significant in the grand scheme of things than the wrongs we are trying to address (shades of the closing scenes in Casablanca).

As a side note, I am sure that there are numerous lurkers here who could make significant contributions to our community but are scared off by some of the attacks we make on each other. I am saying "can't we all get along," but I hope we can dial back the vitriol towards each other and save it for the low life, pond scum, hypocritical, lying, etc. Right Wing Nut Jobs and their accomplices, including the Republican Party.
Nice words. Wish you had followed them when you laid into me with name calling a while back.

stoppingby
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:47 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#190

Post by stoppingby »

Please don't leave, Fierce Panda, I enjoy your posts. I also have nothing but admiration for those who spend the days in the trenches, representing criminal defendants. I salute you for your devotion to doing the right thing, and ensuring that all are equal under the law.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 16385
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#191

Post by kate520 »

How many of you check to see if your favorite quarterback has beaten his wife this week before you watch a game? Did Carlos Santana beat his woman black and blue before or after you enjoyed rocking out to Black Magic Woman?

IMHO (I’m sure FRP would agree with that), if you saw a picture of the quarterback’s wife beaten silly just before game time you’d be less likely to watch; or feel a twinge of yuck enjoying the machismo of Santana’s music, knowing that he was a macho control freak who kept his wife under his thumb, usually with his fist.

Right now Avenatti’s the only fighter in the ring with this band of thieves and cutthroats who are blithely tossing nearly 100 years of progress into history’s dustbin so they can get more of what they already have the most of. In addition to that Chin and those icy blue eyes, as well as his generally chiseled appearance :swoon: , I’m really enjoying watching him land the blows on the cocksuckers in charge. I don’t want to know if he beats his wife, for now. I won’t vote for him if it ever comes to that.

I love the devotion to the law that the attorneys here so well represent. The good lawyers I know all do. I worked with a few who quit rather than do the illegal things the boss wanted them to do, with small chance of discovery. It’s not just about the law; it’s a reflection of the person. Honorable, trustworthy.

Not always right.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16262
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#192

Post by Reality Check »

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Well said Kate. :clap:

Many Democrats haven't figured out yet that politics has changed forever and being sweet and civil isn't going to cut it. You need to call out anyone who supports Trump as a traitor, a hypocrite if they are a Christian, and someone who is harming the country.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
HST's Ghost
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:58 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#193

Post by HST's Ghost »

Santana? Damn...A cursory google doesn't show anything except he claims he was sexually abused as a child...

Image
Either give me more wine or leave me alone. - Rumi

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3800
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#194

Post by Dan1100 »

HST's Ghost wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:19 pm
Santana? Damn...A cursory google doesn't show anything except he claims he was sexually abused as a child...

:snippity: photo snipped
Yeah, that's the first I've heard of Santana being a wife beater. Not saying it isn't true, but sure isn't widely known if it is.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7751
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#195

Post by Sam the Centipede »

:confused: :think: This is an odd little spat! The curious part of it is that it's so unimportant what each of us thinks about Michael Avenatti and his actions because it affects nothing about what he does, what each of us does, what causes each of us supports, where each of us spends money who each of us votes for, etc.

I can't really understand why several posters have become trapped inside a loop of "I explained it clearly, I'll tell you again because you're wrong and clearly not listening to my wisdom" posts. Hey, even intelligent people can be stupid and/or wrong when they don't agree with you, that's life!

The Michael Avenatti Show seems akin to a fireworks display to me: it gives amusement to many onlookers but ultimately achieves very little and may even cause some damage if sparks land in unfortunate places.

It certainly isn't worth a flouncing session or even extended huffery and puffery.

User avatar
Sluffy1
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:35 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#196

Post by Sluffy1 »

Bannon just threw a bit of bomb himself on Bill Mahers show.
Bannon said he’s impressed by Michael Avenatti, who he thinks could go toe-to-toe with Trump.
“He’s got a fearlessness,” Bannon said. “And he’s a fighter. I he’ll go through a lot of that field, if he decides to stick with it, like a sieve through grass.”
Uh oh, Bannon is trying to suck us in so we waste our voats.

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3800
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#197

Post by Dan1100 »

Sluffy1 wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:23 pm
Bannon just threw a bit of bomb himself on Bill Mahers show.
Bannon said he’s impressed by Michael Avenatti, who he thinks could go toe-to-toe with Trump.
“He’s got a fearlessness,” Bannon said. “And he’s a fighter. I he’ll go through a lot of that field, if he decides to stick with it, like a sieve scythe through grass.”
Uh oh, Bannon is trying to suck us in so we waste our voats.

User avatar
Sluffy1
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:35 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#198

Post by Sluffy1 »

scythe through grass
That makes sense. I thought grass was a hipster reference to weed/pot and a sieve to clean it.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7751
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#199

Post by Sam the Centipede »

:doh: Ah! Scythe! That had me baffled as I couldn't make a working metaphor from it.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 16385
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

#200

Post by kate520 »

Before the internets, sometime in the late 90s, Santana talked about his troubles on a radio show in DC. He said he saw the error of his ways and was working hard to change.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

Post Reply

Return to “Brett Kavanaugh - Nomination for Supreme Court”