General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

wvu05
LegalEagle
comments

Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "LegalEagle" channel.

Nearly 10% of Secret Service agents got coronavirus because of this big orange dummy. I have no doubt that they'll be eager to evict him for trespassing.
138
I don't think it will be successful, but the attempt in and of itself is a problem.
104
The "two yutes" also came about because the director was having trouble with Joe Pesci's accent.
34
He probably also realized that he couldn't pay off his debt running a pretzel shop franchise and student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
31
@helicopter2992 "The next time you have a thought, let it go." Ron White
29
As a state Caseworker, I have to disclose every gift I get over $50 from someone who is not an immediate relative. I also have to report being a treasurer for a group at my church that pays for scholarships for students in Africa and school supplies for children in America, even though I don't get paid and we meet maybe once a year.
24
Another example of dyslexia explaining something in the plot are his six attempts at the bar exam. Paul Wellstone, the late Senator from Minnesota, was a college professor before winning elected office. He got his BA in three years and his PhD in four years (including wrestling as an undergrad and having a wife and small child from his sophomore year). He got less than 800 on his SATs. Obviously a smart man, but terrible at standardized tests.
23
@jeffslote9671 Telling people to go to the other side of the Capitol and fight is one of the clearest examples of something being his fault possible. It wasn't even "who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" level subtle.
20
"Hold on, you fascists bound to lose." Woody Guthrie
20
@mineflameblade8788 At this point, there are fascists, and there are those opposed to fascism. There is no middle ground. Your both siderism only helps the fascists.
16
@jedinxf7 Excuse me, Your Honor. The two yoooouuuuths.
11
@handpaper6871 But the guy only really seems to have been an expert in testing the tires. If he didn't have the recall about what kind of car it was and the traction, it wouldn't have worked.
10
@cornoc Okay. Thank you for the explanation. If you are an MD, you probably still have some basic medical knowledge, so you can probably help out.
8
@DrewKime Imagine all of those plus a Harvard graduate.
7
@Erich161 We are not saying that we think it is successful. We are talking about a clear effort to try.
7
I had a supervisor who once gave everyone scratch-offs as a Christmas present. They all lost. Great gift! At least with a $5 gift card, I could get a breakfast at Dunkin.
7
@wordforger Me, too. I watched it I don't know how many times before I picked up on the fact that he gets the tire thing, even with him going back and forth and the music flourish. I was kicking myself for not noticing!
6
@havcola6983 The even bigger irony about the 2008 election is that there actually was a candidate born outside the United States. John McCain was born in Panama due to his father's military service. It also didn't matter in 1968 when George Romney (born in Mexico because his grandparents were escaping polygamy laws, moved to the US at the age of five) ran for President. Even if they were right that Obama was born in Kenya, it still wouldn't matter because he had citizenship at birth through his mother, the same reason Ted Cruz was able to run.
6
@waynepolo6193 It was in the sense that Joe said it, but when he said it the first time, the director couldn't understand what he said. He thought it was funny, so he had Fred Gwynne say, "Two what?" It's not nearly as funny without that, so I've gotta give credit where credit is due.
5
@mineflameblade8788 "First, they came for the communists..."
5
Cannabis Dreams What constitutionally mandated procedures? Where does it say that you pressure state legislators to throw the election to you after you lose the election? Which specific portion of the Constitution gives that mandate?
4
@BigCountryKracker If you shoot them while running away, that is by definition murder. Also, it wasn't his house. You can't claim self defense if you go to someone else's property.
4
@taylor1316 So, the media certified the results in Michigan? The media threw out almost every lawsuit (the exception being letting poll observers stand six feet away instead of ten)? The media made Trump's lawyers admit to a judge (where they cannot lie) that there was no evidence of fraud?
3
@marksmedley4369 Oh, Trump pronounces that P like he's thinking of chickens.
3
@Тhغ Pдىтд Мдй He's not defending his property throughout. He goes to a neighbor's house that he booby trapped. Not self defense or Castle Doctrine.
3
@IceMetalPunk I remember a race in the county where I grew up where the incumbent delegate (the lower House is called House of Delegates rather than House of Representatives) died the Friday before the election. Early voting had already started. He won 59% of the vote. When a candidate dies just before the election, it often becomes obvious who will be the appointee if the deceased wins. Also, in 1998, a candidate for Tennessee State Senate killed his opponent 15 days before the election. Should people have been forced to vote for him? Or should they have been able to vote for the deceased candidate so his wife could fill the seat? It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
3
General Popcorn He called the police in advance, so he was trying to lure them into a trap into the neighbor's house. Still at fault.
3
@greghill118 Jeb! is 6'3, and you could see in the debates that Jeb! is taller than Trump. Obama is 6'1, and they both look to be about the same height. Still, I don't believe his weight for an instant.
2
@alexanderthered5603 Well, then we need to figure out how wrongful death lawsuits against someone acquitted plays into this. According to the law, he is not guilty, but he is liable (or, as Dave Chappelle put it through a white woman singing, "OJ didn't do it... Yeah, he probably did it"), which seems like a mixed message to me. My point as far as the burden of proof is that the vote isn't for guilty or innocence, but whether or not the state is able to prove guilt. The state didn't prove guilt, and the defense didn't prove his innocence, either.
2
@cornoc Eye surgeon
2
@cornoc I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.
2
@KPuddin The result has been certified by the counties in Michigan. The final result will be confirmed for certification on Monday. And, as far as threatening those who were trying to destroy democracy with their dog whistle by initially saying that they would be willing to certify everywhere bit Detroit, and they were threatened, I'm going to have to say [citation needed].
2
@Depressednotredamefan3736 There are two different questions: 1) Whether or not you could claim self-defense for shooting someone running away; 2) Whether or not the Castle Doctrine applies to someone else's house. 1) The whole point of self-defense is that you had no other choice but to kill someone. If that person is running away, by definition, you didn't have to shoot that person in order to survive. Therefore, it is not justified to shoot that person. 2) The Castle Doctrine applies to your property. Therefore, luring a burglar into someone else's house that you have booby trapped does not apply. Therefore, that wasn't legal, either.
2
@joxysurge9631 *Everyone v. Everyone
2
Merrick Garland: when bending over backwards to "not appear political" becomes the most political decision of all.
2
Objection! Not Riverside, West Covina. It's right in the season one them song, "West Covina, California. That's where Josh is, but that's not why I'm heeeere."
1
OBJECTION! Barry is very good.
1
World Series Defense, please.
1
@jeremyleewang The only time that he ever told the truth was when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.
1
Trump doesn't just need to be impeached and removed. He needs to be tried for treason and sedition.
1
@tyrant-den884 It is if you have a six-figure debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
1
Because the people who wrote the Constitution didn't think that someone so unlawful would take office (they actually thought Congress would be the dominant branch, which is why we have two Houses), so they didn't think to restrict it.
1
8:32 Why presume it was about the judge? When my dog jumped in my lap while I was using the laptop and peed on my lap, I called him an SOB.
1
Didn't something similar to #4 succeed against tobacco advertising?
1
2:22 Even if RFK had lived, he almost certainly would have lost the nomination. He only won two primaries, and primaries weren't really a big thing in 1968. Humphrey still would have won the nomination.
1
Young Treat Williams
1
@Darke_Exelbirth A lot of the survivors of People's Temple saw the truth about Jim Jones after his mass murder and suicide.
1
@likeablecloud2454 Ignoring the weird syntax, Jones is clearly worth more, and he has shell corporations to try to hide his money. This is why he wasn't allowed to file bankruptcy.
1
Proof that not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
1
@eileenconway2966 Weinstein is in jail. This is just baffling.
1
I saw Treat Williams.
1
Lionel Hutz did lose a case. In his first appearance, he lost Bart's personal injury suit. I can't remember for sure, but I think that he was also the lawyer when Marge went to jail for shoplifting.
1
@nosuchthing8 Their biggest mistake as far as separation of powers is that they expected Congress to be the more powerful body. Once you understand that, a lot of other things make sense.
1
@soulsmith4787 And we know who will be there when the Electoral College convenes. A three digit vote may be close enough to steal, but a five digit vote isn't, and there is no way the House will approve it. The whole "one state, one vote" only applies to votes once the electoral votes are counted. The House will never allow Trump to steal it, and if he tries, and the Senate goes along, and we end up with a deadlock, say hello to President Pelosi.
1
@ishigami4622 Not when he goes to the neighbor's house to continue going after Harry and Marv.
1
@damonstapletonjr7044 How is it self-defense if he goes to a neighbor's house to set up more booby traps? You are also supposed to retreat if you have the reasonable opportunity to do so.
1
@Тhغ Pдىтд Мдй My memory may be off, but I remember him going into the house, setting up traps, and calling the police with a disguised voice saying he was the neighbor.
1
@BigCountryKracker In the beginning, it was his house. Then, he goes to his neighbor's house and does the same thing. Have you not seen the movie?
1
@BigCountryKracker Illinois is not Mississippi.
1
@Outside85 With Coach Beard vibes, too.
1
@IceMetalPunk The term began less than a month after the election. Why should the people be deprived of representation because of bad luck in the system. In the example in the video, Mel Carnahan died a month before the election, and the governor had already said that he would appoint his widow to seat if he won. The vast majority of the time, it tends to be a relative, widow(er), or top staffer. In states that do it the way you want, there is an incredible advantage for the living candidate. In 2002, Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash less than two weeks before the election. He was leading in the polls before his death, but Minnesota required a living candidate to be on the ballot, so Democrats nominated Walter Mondale about a week before the election. Mondale lost narrowly. If Minnesotans wanted to vote for Wellstone in tribute, that should have been their right.
1
@IceMetalPunk It was a month ahead of time. She pretty much campaigned for the seat. Just because you don't respect the intelligence of the voters doesn't make it any less true that they knew that Jean Carnahan would take the seat. Postponing an election would be a logistical nightmare, so letting the deceased candidate stay in the ballot is the better option.
1
@IceMetalPunk "I believe in the possibility of democracy, because I believe in the potential of man. I believe democracy is necessary because of the limitations of man." Reinhold Niebuhr If you believe that democracy isn't possible and something is better, you are advocating for authoritarianism, because you want someone to tell the stupid people what to do.
1
@IceMetalPunk Because meritocracy ultimately becomes a dictatorship. I have read The Republic. There is also the question of what qualifies as "merit." Democracy is not perfect, but self-determination is much better than letting someone just make the decisions because he/she is the one who is worthy.
1
@IceMetalPunk And who gets to decide who are the most qualified? You'll see all kinds of turf battles over things like specialists vs. GPs. There is also the fact that meritocracy tends to lead to an aristocracy, because the "winners" will start to pay to get their kids the advantages to game the system... much like what happens today economically.
1
@IceMetalPunk Won't that just encourage people not to take on older or other high risk patients because it brings their stats down? Even Scrubs had enough medical consultants to know the problem with that metric.
1
@IceMetalPunk Yes, people are doing that now... because of the emphasis on meritocracy in the private sector. Considering the way it has seeped into the public sector (if the Biden-Harris ticket wins, this will be the first time since 1972 that we will have elected a national ticket where neither candidate has had an Ivy League or service academy degree), I would argue that meritocracy that we have now is part of the problem with our current government. Once we accept the hierarchical notion that the winners are worthy and everyone else isn't, then you will have a society that overlooks the vast majority of its people, and that is why democracy is better when it comes to picking our leaders.
1
@IceMetalPunk That's the theory, but it's not the reality. The main difference between left and center is that the left realizes that very few people will climb the ladder, so the desire is to make things better for the most people. The center (which accepts the right's fundamental argument about hierarchy) just wants to make it easier for the chosen few to climb the ladder. Do you think it's a good thing that five schools (Yale, Penn, Harvard, Columbia, USNA) have had such dominance in national elections for nearly 50 years? And you know why a good mechanic is a different question than a good area of governance? Because one is very specialized, and the other is not. You didn't even have a response to the basic flaw in using percentages as a metric for determining who gets to run your Ministry of Medicine (which also has Peter Principle problems written all over it, because while Ben Carson is a great surgeon, his goofy answer on Medicaid shows that he doesn't have the first clue about administration) is that it ultimately reinforces the ridiculous notion that this is God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor, except Ron Swanson is a caricature meant to be funny.
1
@IceMetalPunk The problem with these ways for government is that the people who tend to make these find ways that describe their skillset pretty well or find a way to advantage themselves (See: the McGovern Commission). I don't think that it's a coincidence that the social safety net started to crumble once the ostensibly left party accepted the meritocracy narrative.
1
@IceMetalPunk The difference between democracy and meritocracy is that it is easier to get rid of people who we think are doing a bad job in a democracy. Yes, gerrymandering is a bad thing, but there are limits to gerrymandering. If we go with meritocracy, we're stuck with the "experts." I would much rather have a system that tries to act on behalf of more people. Meritocracy doesn't do that. These councils also lead to a system with a lack of external restraint. Then, there are competing groups of experts. Who will decide how best to settle tort laws, lawyers or doctors? And what is the basis of this "working out for the best"? I'm not saying that you have to have all of the answers, but that your proposal easily creates just as many problems as it solves, if not more.
1
@IceMetalPunk But the question of what a government should do is not an objective question, but a philosophical one. The way to get there is extremely subjective. I am not saying that all morality and ethics are subjective at all. My point is that there are always competing claims about what is even in the realm of government responsibility, and I would much prefer that being decided by the people. Discussing it sounds like the type of democracy used by the Iroquois Confederacy. That is not an argument against democracy and for just letting experts decide. So, let's look at the objective measures. Things have gotten worse in this country the more that we relied on the meritocracy argument. Shouldn't that, by your own criteria, disprove the theory?
1
@IceMetalPunk Well, is the role of government to see stability or growth? Is it to see the largest fortunes possible, or is to see to it that there is a floor that no on falls under? Is it to favor business, or to favor workers? I have my opinions on those things, but at least I have enough humility to argue that others have a point of view that is informed in a different way than mine and leads to different conclusions.
1
@IceMetalPunk I do have some evidence of a greater emphasis on meritocracy, but I will need some time to find my resources. I'll give you the links later tonight.
1
Objection! Vinny is short, and it is very difficult for someone 5'6 or less to find a lot of suits that fit, especially in rural places where there aren't many shops.
1