Gaw617 said:

---

Our friend Antonius has been at this for about 6 months doing 10 posts a day 98% being on politics board with orange man bad. Leave him alone he is passed the point of rational thought.

---

You're welcome to give hall passes. I will continue to shine light on the absurdity that is TDS and the politics of the left that are at literally destroying our country.

All the while talking down to the knuckle dragging laymen.

LOL. Cringe. Is his posting style.

bobbranco said:

---

knuckle dragging laymen.

---

If the shoe fits …

actually, I find it pretty funny. Very few on this form what argue with a particle physicist PhD about physics. Very few would argue with a plumber, about how to lay out a septic field. Very few would argue with a carpenter, about what nails would be appropriate for framing a house

But something about "the law" makes every uneducated yahoo think that he is not just qualified to argue with a trained professional, but to insist that the trained professional is an idiot.

it is hilarious.

Too many laymen to mention run circles around your kind.

Antoninus said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

knuckle dragging laymen.

---

If the shoe fits …

actually, I find it pretty funny. Very few on this form what argue with a particle physicist PhD about physics. Very few would argue with a plumber, about how to lay out a septic field. Very few would argue with a carpenter, about what nails would be appropriate for framing a house

But something about "the law" makes every uneducated yahoo think that he is not just qualified to argue with a trained professional, but to insist that the trained professional is an idiot.

it is hilarious.

---

Maybe you should start reading the room instead of preaching to us from your ivory tower about how orange man bad and we should be grateful for our big gov that you bend over backwards defending at every chance.

You aren't convincing anyone here, but we do appreciate your knowledge of the law. Leave your bias and preachings out of your analysis and your message will be received better.

Antoninus said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

knuckle dragging laymen.

---

If the shoe fits …

actually, I find it pretty funny. Very few on this form what argue with a particle physicist PhD about physics. Very few would argue with a plumber, about how to lay out a septic field. Very few would argue with a carpenter, about what nails would be appropriate for framing a house

But something about "the law" makes every uneducated yahoo think that he is not just qualified to argue with a trained professional, but to insist that the trained professional is an idiot.

it is hilarious.

---

It is hilarious to hear such trained professionals. Lawyers love to argue 10 sides of an issue and to a fault usually with an air of gross self importance. They love such mental masturbation. They look down their noses at the inferior unwashed masses that don't enjoy such mental masturbation. And of course they love the sound of each other's voices. And almost always the 10 sided arguments may involve only 1 correct argument. Facts be damned. Have a great day!

Tea Party said:

---

Maybe you should start reading the room instead of preaching to us from your ivory tower about how … we should be grateful for our big gov that you bend over backwards defending at every chance.

---

I am probably more of a limited government person ideologically than 75-80% of the people on this forum.

I do not "defend" the concept of big government. I simply explain that, in most cases that we discuss here, the actions of the government are authorized by existing law. if you don't like that, you need to change the law, not just whine on an internet forum, pretending that the law is something other than that which it actually is.

you suggest that I should "read the room." I suggest that the room should actually "read the posts," rather than ignoring the words that I actually type, in favor of their own preconceptions. You would be hard-pressed to find even one instance in which I post "approval" of the governmental actions at issue.

bobbranco said:

---

All the while talking down to the knuckle dragging laymen.

LOL. Cringe. Is his posting style.

---

The continual condescension and ad hominem attacks are nice touches.

Antoninus said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Maybe you should start reading the room instead of preaching to us from your ivory tower about how … we should be grateful for our big gov that you bend over backwards defending at every chance.

---

I do not "defend" the concept of big government. I simply explain that, in most cases that we discuss here, the actions of the government are authorized by existing law. if you don't like that, you need to change the law, not just whine on an internet forum, pretending that the law is something other than that which it actually is.

---

Interesting you would unironically post this on a thread about the EJC case specifically.

Can you tell me what Adult Survivors Act is, when it was passed, and when it is expected to expire? None of this had anything to do with existing law, the partisan Dem hacks in NY state did what you advised, but they aren't message board members, they are state legislatures.

You should be telling your Democrat heroes not to abuse the law to go after 1 person for political points.

Antoninus said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Maybe you should start reading the room instead of preaching to us from your ivory tower about how … we should be grateful for our big gov that you bend over backwards defending at every chance.

---

I am probably more of a limited government person ideologically than 75-80% of the people on this forum.

I do not "defend" the concept of big government. I simply explain that, in most cases that we discuss here, the actions of the government are authorized by existing law. if you don't like that, you need to change the law, not just whine on an internet forum, pretending that the law is something other than that which it actually is.

you suggest that I should "read the room." I suggest that the room should actually "read the posts," rather than ignoring the words that I actually type, in favor of their own preconceptions. You would be hard-pressed to find even one instance in which I post "approval" of the governmental actions at issue.

---

If you truely are pro limited government then I am very grateful. We need more people with that mentality, but I do not believe your claim based on posting history.... I hope I'm wrong though but my skepticism of people has grown exponentially the past decade.

Also, the law is not black and white like some legal scholars think it is. There is a fair amount of gray area that leaves judgement up to the government to make a determination one way or another. The vast majority of your legal interpretations of what the constitution says and what is black and white are in defense of big government.

I rarely see a post that says the government interpreted the law wrong or applied the law in a way it was not intended for... it's always the government followed the law so suck it up peasent and deal with it.
Again, food for thought as to why people do not believe the libertarian comments.... but I do appreciate your knowledge of the law.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Can you tell me what Adult Survivors Act is, when it was passed, and when it is expected to expire? None of this had anything to do with existing law, the partisan Dem hacks in NY state did what you advised, but they aren't message board members, they are state legislatures.

Quote:

---

I have posted repeatedly my opinion that the extension of the applicable statute of limitations even though it was fairly limited in time) was extremely bad policy. Statutes of limitation exist for a reason, not least because antiquated claims lead to all sorts of problems with stale evidence.

---

You should be telling your Democrat heroes not to abuse the law to go after 1 person for political points.

---

Look, you are utterly convinced that this change in the law was directed specifically at Donald Trump. Absolutely nothing anyone can say will change that opinion. We know this, because you have repeatedly been shown that the sponsor of the Bill himself said it was directed at Epstein. but do carry-on.

Quote:

---

Can you tell me what Adult Survivors Act is, when it was passed, and when it is expected to expire?

---

It already expired after one year. It sunsetted itself.

Epstein had been dead for 3 years before the act was signed. Dont piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Antoninus said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Can you tell me what Adult Survivors Act is, when it was passed, and when it is expected to expire? None of this had anything to do with existing law, the partisan Dem hacks in NY state did what you advised, but they aren't message board members, they are state legislatures.

Quote:

---

I have posted repeatedly my opinion that the extension of the applicable statute of limitations even though it was fairly limited in time) was extremely bad policy. Statutes of limitation exist for a reason, not least because antiquated claims lead to all sorts of problems with stale evidence.

---

You should be telling your Democrat heroes not to abuse the law to go after 1 person for political points.

---

Look, you are utterly convinced that this change in the law was directed specifically at Donald Trump. Absolutely nothing anyone can say will change that opinion. We know this, because you have repeatedly been shown that the sponsor of the Bill himself said it was directed at Epstein. but do carry-on.

---

Did anyone sue Epstein? Or did he not hang himself first?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

All the while talking down to the knuckle dragging laymen.

LOL. Cringe. Is his posting style.

---

The continual condescension and ad hominem attacks are nice touches.

---

Another one of his great touches below.

...
...
...

Quote:

---

I'm having a hard time believing that a 'MAP' (pedophile) banging a doll would satisfy their perverse urges. I would think that it would only intensify their desires. This world is a sick place. A sick place that is being facilitated by the liberals and progressives.

---

you were probably correct. My projection would be the same.

But that is a poor reason to prohibit the sale of these items.

If you allow them to be sold, in 4-5 years you will have the data to conduct a study and see whether the actual statistics support our projections, or if perhaps these items might actually do some good at reducing rates of offense. you would have an ANSWER, rather than speculation.

The response to that analysis will certainly be a knee jerk wail of "Groomers!!!!!"

it actually took some balls to make that speech. because only an idiot would fail to anticipate that a certain percentage of the audience was going to engage in no more analysis than "Eeww, that is icky. Let's ban it."

Tea Party said:

---

I rarely see a post that says the government interpreted the law wrong or applied the law in a way it was not intended for... it's always the government followed the law so suck it up peasent and deal with it

---

As just one example, I probably post at least one small rant per week against the Incorporation Doctrine, which can be blamed (alongside misinterpretations of the breadth of the Commerce Clause) for about 90% of the expansion of the federal government, at the expense of the states (and true federalism)

Ag with kids said:

---

Did anyone sue Epstein? Or did he not hang himself first?

---

There were a number of climbs against his estate, as I recall. Amazingly enough, his assets did not die.

Bobby, we have been over this again and again. I am willing to put up with something "icky," if it is proven to actually protect children from predators. You, on the other hand, are all about the "ick.". if something "icky" grosses you out, you want to ban it. even if the net result is that more children will be harmed.

Very Democrat of you.

It is hilarious to watch the way you turn that around.

Antoninus said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

I rarely see a post that says the government interpreted the law wrong or applied the law in a way it was not intended for... it's always the government followed the law so suck it up peasent and deal with it

---

As just one example, I probably post at least one small rant per week against the Incorporation Doctrine, which can be blamed (alongside misinterpretations of the breadth of the Commerce Clause) for about 90% of the expansion of the federal government, at the expense of the states (and true federalism)

---

Look, I'm trying to help you out here and tell you what the room is saying about your posting style and claims to be libertarian. I want more posters like yourself that are knowledgeable of the law and supposedly pro limited government to gain credibility and influence here.

Your once a week rants about limited government are drowned out by the constant other posts that appear to go the complete opposite direction in defending big gov saying big gov followed the law (by any means necessary).

Again, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just providing feedback so you don't get as much pushback as you are. It's just advice to help your libertarian side. Your current posting style is hindering that. Just food for thought.

Somehow you think you are and tell us you are the smartest person in the world yet you do not fundamentally understand that pedophilia and pederasty are mental conditions that do not get better with more sex.

ETA. This has nothing to do with political persuasion unless you pull the lever for the party of MAP enablers. The Democrat party.

The Adult Survivors Act was sponsored by Democrats.

• Today, the New York Senate passed the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) (S.66/A.648), sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman (Manhattan-D/WFP) and Assembly Member Linda B. Rosenthal (Manhattan-D/WFP). This legislation would create a one-year window for the revival of time-barred civil lawsuits based on sex crimes committed against individuals who were 18 years of age or older.
• Adult survivors of serial sexual assaulters like Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and ,,,,,….

It was enacted in 2021(one-year period, from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023). Question I have is why the time limit? Seems they really don't care about the victims but more about the political hay they can make. If I were a betting man, I would bet they absolutely knew that President Trump would be swept up in this law.

Quote:

---

It was enacted in 2021(one-year period, from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023). Question I have is why the time limit? Seems they really don't care about the victims but more about the political hay they can make. If I were a betting man, I would bet they absolutely knew that President Trump would be swept up in this law.

---

It was George Conway, Roberta Kaplan and E. Jean Carroll pushing for the passage of this law. And indeed, Kaplan filed her complaint at 12:01 AM the day it went into effect.

As to why it sunsetted itself, to render any challenges to the law largely moot by the time an appellate court would be able to review it. NY state has a penchant for doing that. Specially in gun laws. Pass a law, draw a challenge, amend the law and then claim the challenge is now moot since the old law went away.

richardag said:

---

It was enacted in 2021(one-year period, from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023). Question I have is why the time limit?

---

because they were apparently adequately-competent to understand all of the negatives associated with extremely long statutes of limitation.

statutes of limitation exist for a reason, and there is a reason that most of them are no longer than four or five years.

at the same time, the "me too" movement was in full force at the time, and they were politicians.

"Laws and sausages."

Gaw617 said:

---

Our friend Antonius has been at this for about 6 months doing 10 posts a day 98% being on politics board with orange man bad. Leave him alone he is passed the point of rational thought.

---

I put him on ignore a long time ago.

On this Adult Survivor Act, I don't believe for one second this was aimed at Epstein! How many filed? 2?


Did yall know half of the cases filed (over 1200) are cases alleging sexual abuse in the New York prisons? The entire State is a disaster!

Antoninus said:

---

richardag said:

---

It was enacted in 2021(one-year period, from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023). Question I have is why the time limit?

---

because they were apparently adequately-competent to understand all of the negatives associated with extremely long statutes of limitation.

statutes of limitation exist for a reason, and there is a reason that most of them are no longer than four or five years.

at the same time, the "me too" movement was in full force at the time, and they were politicians.

---

I think most of the "Me too" garbage was before the 2020 election, but maybe that's just me.

This was clearly targeted at Donald Trump. Arguing otherwise is just a display of obtuseness.

aggiehawg said:

---

It was George Conway, Roberta Kaplan and E. Jean Carroll pushing for the passage of this law.

---

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/brad-hoylman-sigal/ny-senate-passes-adult-survivors-act-sponsored

Quote:

---

Senator Brad Hoylman said: "Adult survivors of serial sexual assaulters like Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and former OB-GYN Robert Hadden have been shut out of our courthouses by inadequate statutes of limitations. That ends now. In 2019 we passed the Child Victims Act, which has helped more than 6,000 sexual assault survivors seek justice. The Adult Survivors Act extends that exact same opportunity to thousands more survivors, letting them hold their predators accountable in court. For far too long our justice system has failed survivors of sexual assault, the passage of the Adult Survivors act is a powerful step to fix that historic wrong. I'm grateful for Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins' unflappable commitment to seek justice for survivors of sexual assault, and for the leadership and persistence of Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal and so many incredible survivor-advocates."

---

Yes, Kaplan et al supported the change and took advantage of it. That is what lawyers do for their clients.

larryj41 said:

---

I put him on ignore a long time ago.

---

Yet here you are.

Somehow the "mensa" in the room do not understand that even with the best efforts, filth filters through the cracks. Not surprising.

Im Gipper said:

---

Did yall know half of the cases filed (over 1200) are cases alleging sexual abuse in the New York prisons? The entire State is a disaster!

---

There were 3700 cases, so closer to 1/3. But still a sobering commentary on the NY prison system.

Antoninus said:

---

larryj41 said:

---

I put him on ignore a long time ago.

---

Yet here you are.

---

He wasn't even talking to you so that doesn't make sense.

Kind of like how yesterday you edited my entire post quoting another poster, save two words (the quoted poster's words), in order to attack me using his words.

The sponsor of the bill was talking about the Child Victims Act, which makes sense because that was at least passed the year epstein was imprison and didn't kill himself.

They reverse engineer this law and let EJC, an absolute nut, file her grevience the day it took effect, to "Get Trump", and then the law went away a year later.

The Blob forces Trump into debt by bankrupting him, then they argue the CIA & FBI must now be sicced on Trump because his debt makes him a counterintelligence risk https://t.co/WymZN2LEHk

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) March 21, 2024

Such a fraud!