MovieChat Forums > MrZoolook > Replies
MrZoolook's Replies
I agree. But being apologetic and helpful is not a way to avoid prosecution, right? You still acted criminally to begin with, right..?
If the real reason they declined prosecution is because he was helpful and regretted doing it, why not just say it in the report?
Now you're making stuff up. They found he did the same thing Trump did with classified documents, worse in fact because he didn't even lock them up securely. But prosecutors declined to charge him because he's an old man who will convince a jury he has a poor memory.
That is not the same as having not committed a crime. That's the opposite. That's specifically saying "he comitted a crime, and we want to prosecute him, but he will come over as mentally unfit in an effort to gain sympathy and a lighter sentence or no punishment at all."
I ask again, is Biden fit enough to be prosecuted for the same crime someone else comitted and is being prosecuted for, or isn't he? There's no question he comitted the same crime. They said he did.
So, are you in agreement that Biden is unfit to stand trial?
"golly what a quandary , how we will we ever sort this out?"
My preferred method is to just watch the (any) damn film, and enjoy it or not for what it is.
Why is that so controversial nowadays?
I just noticed I messed the details up. Lambert was born male, but had gender re-assignment surgery.
Oh... I see. Now your sexual deviancy has been highlighted, you're not going to show it in any more posts.
Own it, buddy. There are probably fan-fic sites that'll cater to your gay auto-erotic fantasies.
Oh, my mistake. I'm glad you clarified that you are a sexual deviant and want to see men sucking themself off.
But you should probably spend more time seeking help for that psychological problem, instead of time on here, a movie discussion site, looking for gay autoerotica. If nothing else, go to an actual site dedicated to your particular sexual deviancy.
The rest of us will have a healthy discussion that doesn't involve you pleasuring yourself.
On the basis that I'd give it about 5/10 rating, it'd have to be YES.
There was a meaningful voting system there. But that went khaput once they implimented a system that means your vote doesn't count at all if you aren't engaging with the site enough.
You want me to suck on your face?
You love me!!!!
"You're trolling sucks and so does your understanding of irony"
Except, for the fact you're wrong, you're absolutely right.
I like it here. I get to meet people like you who don't understand jokes or irony. You're unintentionally funny. You even sign off your posts with a self portrait.
Props to you for owning your idiocy.
irony: "a state of affairs or an event that seems contrary to what one intends or expects, and is often amusing as a result"
Yeah, after going on about her weight, him saying she had a lot of guts is an event (him saying something) that gives an unintended contrary further dig at her weight.
It's actually almost textbook irony. Rather like you comparing it to Alanis (which is as you correctly point out, not irony) because it actually isn't like Alanis' examples.
That's another example of irony. Thank's for that.
It went over those other guy's heads. Especially that guy who want's to see guys sucking their own genitals. He's a real whack-job.
"No, what you or Rogo said was not sarcasm OR irony. Your trolling attempt failed."
Yes, what Rogo said was ironic. Just because you don't understand what irony is...
"The OP was called out for a dumb post and now he's trying to defend it"
To paraphrase: "You were called out for not getting the joke, however dumb it was, and now you're just trying to pretend you understood it but just didn't like it."
You literally asked "What did you want him to do", instead of saying "That's a stupid joke and not funny", so it's clear proof you didnt understand it in the first place and are now (your words) 'trying to back-peddal'.
Sorry, but... yes it was.
Sarcasm is the use of irony to convey satire. Rogo said something ironic, and I used it in a satirical way.
Once more, just because YOU don't understand what it is, it doesn't mean it isn't sarcasm.
The irony is that you think I am a Trump supporter, while claiming you are different than me because you aren't a supporter of either of them. Ironically, this makes you exactly the same if your claim of not liking either is true.
Here's a little test. Joe claimed to have reduced unemployment by 15m. According to you, these reductions would be because of Trump's economic policies. So who is right out of you two? Did Trump reduce unemployment by 15m during Biden's term, or did Joe? If it was Trump, as you say it was, you should probably acknowledge it publically here. If it was Biden, you should clarify your talk about policies taking 3 years to fruition is wrong.
(edit)
Yeah, that's what I thought.
We're waiting...
[quote]*waits for all the Trumplodytes to come to Orange Man's defense*[/quote]
Meanwhile, nobody needed to wait for a Dumbocrat to defend Biden. No hypocrisy there at all, calling out someone for NOT doing something YOU already did.
An outlier. That doesn't disprove the statement. Under the law of the US, employers are responsible for any negligent activities of it's employees.
https://www.shultzlegal.com
In most cases, employers, not employees, are liable for negligence under “vicarious liability” laws. Corporate law states that owners and managers are responsible for the mistakes made by the wrongful acts or omissions of another individual, including those they hire.
https://www.findlaw.com
Respondeat superior is a type of vicarious liability, meaning "let the master answer." Employers are responsible for their employees' acts because employers direct their workers' actions. The employer's liability coverage will cover any property or bodily injury caused by an employee's "negligent act or failure to act in the course of their employment."
https://lawpath.com/
Employers are responsible for ensuring that employees receive proper training and guidance to avoid the legal consequences of being held liable for employees’ actions. Employers may also be held responsible for their employees’ actions that occur outside the workplace during work-related events and activities.
https://www.legalmatch.com
Negligence in employment, or workplace negligence, is an area of law under which an employer is held responsible for the actions of an employee which causes injury to others. This may occur when an employer acts negligently in allowing the employee to take a certain position or to perform a particular task.
https://www.davidsonmorris.com
By law, employers can be held vicariously liable for certain acts of their employees. This means even where the employer has itself technically done no wrong, it can still be found responsible for employees’ actions and made to financially compensate the victim of the wrongdoing.
Which means your comment about HIS production company hiring her is nonsense anyway.
Quote: "his production company"
The production company of which he is the owner and operator?
Are you suggesting owner/operators of companies shouldn't be held responsible if their employees fall foul of the law regarding negligence while conducting business?
All BS aside, there are enough reasons to not hold Baldwin accountable in this case, that you don't need to make up some argument that owners are not responsible for their employees actions while on company time. That isn't how the world works.
SOMEBODY acted negligently and hired her without ensuring she was qualified and experienced enough to work safely. That somebody was employed by Baldwin in his production company. Owner operators are routinely held accountable for mistakes their employees make.
Which is exactly how it should be. As an owner of a company, you are duty bound to ensure the people you employ are not acting criminally, negligently, or posing a danger to others in the vicinity to the best of your ability, while you are paying them to conduct your business. This also extends to contractors.