Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lord Dave

Pages: < Back  1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 314  Next >
81
What is a "non-research teacher?"

Someone who teaches a class but doesn't do any research projects.  I think this is most of them but I'm not actually sure.
I was always under the impression nearly every subject taught at universities requires research. I am struggling with the notion a person could obtain a position as a teacher or professor at a university without conducting some sort of research during the process of obtaining a degree, regardless of subject. Consequently, that research would be detailed within papers submitted for review to receive proper credit for the class. The sources would need to be properly cited in either MLA or APA format. This process would be passed along to the next generation as a requirement.

Ah, appologies for not being clear enough.

I meant someone who does no research while employed as a teacher.  As you pointed out, they would have had to do some research to have a high level degree.

82
If you have a non-research teacher, not a factor.
Ooh, I strongly disagree! We're talking about universities, and part of a lecturer's job is to perpetuate academic integrity. If they cannot adhere to it themselves, then they do not belong in academia. They can be perfectly good educators outside of the old boys' club, though.

Academics, especially nowadays, are not just teachers. Knowledge is no longer difficult to obtain - you can find free resources covering any subject you'd like to a very advanced level. Universities are supposed to help you figure out how to best acquire and apply knowledge, and a large part of that is upholding the values that brought our current progress forward. These values may yet turn out not to be "correct", and perhaps the entire system will be overturned - but if that is the case, the revolution should come from outside of the system.

I can't disagree, tho I'd counter than a teacher who plagurized and regretted it would get the meesage across better than one who did not.


83
What is a "non-research teacher?"

Someone who teaches a class but doesn't do any research projects.  I think this is most of them but I'm not actually sure.

84
Depends on alot of things.

Example: if your janitor plagerized in high school... That shouldn't be a factor.
If you have a non-research teacher, not a factor.

But I wouldn't hire a researcher whose been found to plagerize.

85
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 31, 2023, 10:48:27 PM »
Well maybe at least wait until he is sentenced to jail before declaring that you guys are right about this. It could be that you guys are wrong, so it is best to keep to yourselves until the time comes.

lol this is you, right? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17088.msg223237
Still waiting for that evidence to overturn the election....

86
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 31, 2023, 07:31:36 PM »
As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

I just can't see SCOTUS ruling against Trump on that. They can just lean on the language and be done with it.

If they rule it'll be like "you have to be found guilty on a federal level" then it applies to all states at once.

87
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 31, 2023, 10:17:34 AM »
As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

States rights!

88
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 30, 2023, 11:53:23 PM »
Well maybe at least wait until he is sentenced to jail before declaring that you guys are right about this. It could be that you guys are wrong, so it is best to keep to yourselves until the time comes.
Well, he was already declared wrong in this.  Plus, he's been railing against Biden for YEARS for rigging the election.  Yet, if his argument is true, Joe Biden is well within his right as president to rig the election.  He has absolute immunity, after all. 

But again, we'd LOVE for SCOTUS to decide this.  Yet Trump doesn't seem to.  So it's a waiting game and like i said, it'll probably be 2025 before SCOTUS takes it up.  Which means the actual trial will be paused for probably 2 years.  I'm sure Trump will be happy about that. (One trial anyway.  Not the other dozen or so.)

89
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 30, 2023, 10:11:27 PM »
Maybe you guys should just patiently wait a few months to when Trump is in jail instead of continuously doubling down that he is in for it this time.
If he gets a jail sentence, it won't be for at least a year if not more.  Sadly, he's using every delay tactic imaginable.  Like right now, he moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that he has absolute immunity.  (which means Joe Biden has absolute immunity for anything he does like election fraud and we don't want that.)
Since he's appealing the decision (in which he was slapped down) and didn't want SCOTUS to rule on it quickly (so its determined) it'll be months just to get THAT through if it even goes through this term.  SCOTUS may just delay until next term in 2025.  Which means Trump will probably never see the court case go through or be dismissed.  Especially if he wins the election.

90
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 30, 2023, 05:09:23 PM »
What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Considering that his popularity in the polls has been shooting up because of these blatant witch hunts that are not going anywhere, these aren't really woes.

That makes sense.  If he were to be exonerated now, he'd lose popularity AND alot of funding to 'fight the injustice' or whatever.  Hard to play the victim when you aren't being punished.

91
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 29, 2023, 09:45:24 PM »
It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/
Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.
Or take that to any federal court, really.

92
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 29, 2023, 08:58:16 PM »
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/
I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.
Wrong, again...as usual.

In the end, as was the case with the whole fake appointment of Mueller and that fake news story, this particular trial will end up as fake news too. As will the ballot removals and the civil trial in NY and the Georgia trial...

Just more CNN reporters in front of prop trees with helmets on, whispering about incoming Scuds...

How does a real trial become fake news?  Are you saying there is no trial and Trump is angry over something that isn't real?

93
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 29, 2023, 05:45:54 PM »
It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515
That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.
The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf
The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.
Maybe not, but it has was established long before Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to the position.  What's your point?

I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.

94
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 29, 2023, 09:15:15 AM »
Looks like Trump might not be on the Maine ballot either.
https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee

I really hope the appeals court just kicks it to scotus asap.  This needs to be answered.

95
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 28, 2023, 02:40:06 PM »
Presidents are treated by law enforcement to have criminal immunity until a court rules otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States

Quote
The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. Some scholars have suggested an immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as well, a view which has become the practice of the Department of Justice under a pair of memoranda (1973 and 2000) from the Office of Legal Counsel. Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were criminally investigated while in office, but none was prosecuted while in office. No court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity.[4]

So if Biden rigged the election, he is immune from prosecution since he did it while in office?

96
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 28, 2023, 07:22:39 AM »

Done that several times already.  Once in the post you quoted below.  Not my fault you're not able to understand it.
Oh yes, Trump has committed a crime. When was he found guilty of anything related to the case Smith brought?
Oh nothing yet.  But you know that.  Trump is asking for the case to be dismissed on the grounds of immunity.  Jack Smith isn't even asking for a ruling of guilty/not guilty, just answering a legal question: does the president have absolute immunity for actions while in office?

Trump says yes.  Jack Smith and the DC court says no.


Quote

Yes it was.  The election process was completely halted as senators had to run for their lives.  Makes tallying electors difficult.
Ah yes, Trump did this. [/sarcasm]
Yep, he did.  Just because pawns do the dirty work, doesn't mean he isn't reaponsible.

Quote

Two more weeks til what?  The appeals court hears the argument? Or the march 4 trial thats on hold? I assume the former since I'd hope you knew how to count dates but I probably shouldn't assume...
Two more weeks until two more weeks until two more weeks....You guys are gonna get him now...LMMFAO!

What?!  No!  I wish it was.  But no, the court cases will take months to work through. We'll be lucky if even one is finished by election day.

97
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 27, 2023, 07:41:12 PM »
Surprising as that question/ruling is the basis for Trump's defence and his motion to dismiss the case.  You probably should care because it means, right now, Trump is not immune from prosecution for crimes comitted while in office.
Are you going to offer a reason, something that Jack Smith has not done?
Done that several times already.  Once in the post you quoted below.  Not my fault you're not able to understand it.

Quote
Yes.  January 6, 2021
Wow, this is actually breaking news. [/sarcasm] No election was stopped. Quit lying.
Yes it was.  The election process was completely halted as senators had to run for their lives.  Makes tallying electors difficult.

Quote

So, Trump is gonna be paying alot of campaign money to lawyers for longer than he has to.  His camapign will be negatively affected by the publicity.

The longer it drags out, the more it hurts him. You don't want that.... Do you?
Ah yes, Trump is really suffering...[/sarcasm] Two more weeks.
Two more weeks til what?  The appeals court hears the argument? Or the march 4 trial thats on hold? I assume the former since I'd hope you knew how to count dates but I probably shouldn't assume...

98
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 27, 2023, 01:10:10 PM »
So you think the supreme court will agree with Trump?
I don't care.
Surprising as that question/ruling is the basis for Trump's defence and his motion to dismiss the case.  You probably should care because it means, right now, Trump is not immune from prosecution for crimes comitted while in office.

Quote

Fair.  So, when did Democrats storm the capitol to stop an election?  Or impart their rule?
Was an election ever stopped?
Yes.  January 6, 2021

Quote


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna12772

There was already a decision.  He's appealing it.  Jack Smith just wanted the appeals court to be the supreme court instead of the DC Curcuit of appeals.

They denied it.  Which means it'll be months if not longer before anyone knows for certain if presidents are immune to prosecution.
So?
So, Trump is gonna be paying alot of campaign money to lawyers for longer than he has to.  His camapign will be negatively affected by the publicity.

The longer it drags out, the more it hurts him. You don't want that.... Do you?

99
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 27, 2023, 10:18:38 AM »
Well I assume someone's gonna argue in Trump's defence.  Right?
I don't give a shit about your assumptions.

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.
No.
So you think the supreme court will agree with Trump?

Quote
Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.
Yeah, mobs are democracy to you.

SMDH...
And whats your version?  A bunch of people breaking into the capitol building because their favorite person lost?[/quote]
So you do understand what a mob is and you don't like it.
[/Quote]
Fair.  So, when did Democrats storm the capitol to stop an election?  Or impart their rule?

Quote

Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.
That is exactly what happened.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720

There was already a decision.  He's appealing it.  Jack Smith just wanted the appeals court to be the supreme court instead of the DC Curcuit of appeals.

They denied it.  Which means it'll be months if not longer before anyone knows for certain if presidents are immune to prosecution.

100
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM »
Why does it help the prosecution?
Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?
Are you saying Trump's own lawyers will make arguments that will harm his own case?

Where did I mention Trump's lawyers?
Well I assume someone's gonna argue in Trump's defence.  Right?

Quote

Quote
Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?
I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.
So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.
Yeah, mobs are democracy to you.

SMDH...
And whats your version?  A bunch of people breaking into the capitol building because their favorite person lost?



No, Trump isn't responsible for this specific decision, but he is responsible for delaying his trial in the hopes of being elected president before he can be convicted, and part of that strategy is his claiming presidential immunity. Wrangling over this subject is not "the required steps" or "the required process" for prosecuting Trump. It's an absurd idea to begin with. Of course the president shouldn't be immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This is only a legal question because Trump demanded that it be, and he only demanded that it be, again, to help him try to run out the clock. Deliberately gaming the legal system is not due process, and trying to avoid such a tactic is not circumventing due process.
Are you stating for the record the responsible persons found at all levels in the judicial halls of the US are incapable of preventing litigants from "gaming the legal system"?

Last I checked, when you are charged, you are required to provide a plea and then the judgment comes down, not seeking any portion of a decision regarding material fact prior, such as what the jackass top-notch prosecutor was seeking when he tried to "game the legal system."

GTFO with your tears about "gaming," or start a thread in the lounge concerning casinos or something dealing with Vegas or Monte Carlo.


Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 314  Next >