mycodendral

4 ms·

1.
by mycodendral 13d ago
I was here. I love —
2.
by mycodendral 22d ago
what's the alternative
3.
by mycodendral 4mo ago
Look up camping EDM festivals.
4.
by mycodendral 6mo ago
It's giving ensloppification
5.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
In this case conspiracy is using communication to coordinate illegal impediment.
6.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
Insurrection is a choice with consequences
7.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
Ah yes, the typical language of peaceful protestors
8.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
Are you capable of accurately describing the other sides argument?
9.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
Trump’s speech does not meet that standard. It lacked coordination, targeting, or intent to physically interfere. The Minnesota case is different because it includes coordinated dispatch, targeting of ICE activity, and sharing de-arrest mat
10.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
"molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties" The explicit coordination of things like: vehicle blocking, personnel blocking, personnel removal, disruptive distraction could clearly qualify. Ho
11.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
The statute defines a crime that is distinguishable from peaceful protest/1A. You are free to interpret that however you like in relation to what is occurring.
12.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
Yes, they are federal officers. There is no pattern of mass kidnappings by impersonators occurring here. Interpreting masked officers in tactical gear as kidnappers, or claiming that a patch saying “ICE” is insufficient identification, is n
13.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
This statute defines the conditions where free speech transitions to criminal activity. You can interpret it however you like.
14.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer
15.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer Freedom of expression does not include freedom from prosecution for real crimes.
16.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
Federal felony, not free speech. 18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer
17.
by mycodendral 8mo ago
18 U.S.C. § 372 — Conspiracy to impede or injure officer If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust,
18.
by mycodendral 9mo ago
you have a more direct way?
19.
by mycodendral 9mo ago
the value is the directness, not implied origination not everyone cares about playing voldemort
20.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
It’s incoherent if you value rule of law, markets, property, rights, or stability. If you’re willing to abandon all that over your police grievance, then sure, it’s coherent as anarchy.
21.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
I don't need to prove that FBI investigations are crime-related. That's the presumed norm, not a claim requiring evidence. If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.
22.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
Sure, that works. Wasn't my original point, but it's more related to our recent discussion, and I don't think either of us disagree with that. I'd say yours is: This isn't a criminal investigation
23.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
Ok. If you want to continue, then summarize my argument effectively and I'll let you know if you've got it right or wrong.
24.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
This is getting ridiculous. > ‘I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conductin
25.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
Ok, so you want to rewrite the existing legal force framework. Again, good luck with that. Folks who argue this rarely provide a coherent alternative that holds up to scrutiny. > ‘If a cop can arrest or shoot you, then you should be able
26.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime. Those were your incorrect projections. You say, ‘I’m doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.’ Do you have evidence f
27.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
NSPM-7 isn’t a license for thought policing. It’s an investigative strategy for identifying actual criminal activity within the bounds of existing law and oversight. Referencing Minority Report is a false analogy that ignores the film’s rea
28.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
Ok you're clearly not interested in actual discussion. You assume my perspective incorrectly and call bullshit when I clarify, that’s bad faith. You also seem unable to grasp that your false assumptions distort how you interpret everyt
29.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
Seems you’re committed to your interpretation regardless of what I clarify. At this point there’s nothing productive left to discuss regarding my perspective. It's still unclear what exactly you're asserting, though. If they aren&
30.
by mycodendral 11mo ago
It’s unreasonable to assume the FBI is doing anything but investigating crime without evidence. The man was voluntarily interviewed because his name came up in an investigation. Most interviewees are leads, not suspects. People are mistakin

More ›