When they receive warrants to get phone messages & pics, presumably they have to present reasonable cause to a judge. What reasonable cause does your team have for gaining access to every American's texts & pics.

Sounds like your entire argument is predicated on putting words in my mouth. I assure you, when Hillary runs for prez, I will bring up the embassy security issue again. No mention of President Privacy Infringer at all.

So the extent of the invasion of privacy is what you take issue with? If I rob you, you're cool with it so long as I rob you just a little? (and I would argue that making copies of other people's personal digital possessions is robbery)

"See, it's shit like this that makes me defend the guy."

Man that's how it's been for a long time. People treat their political parties like their favorite sports teams. The hypocrisy is just more stark nowadays.

This is a pop culture website?

guise…..I'm starting to think the improv comedian with mutilated hair and a vacant expression might not be very good at critical thinking….

"It does seem like, for whatever reason, the site has decided to favor headlines and cheap grabs over the more nuanced thinking and content the old guard used to provide."

It accentuates her vacant stare.

It's not a case of semantics. The law in civil court asks what a reasonable person would do. A grand jury (and sometimes a judge) determines what a reasonable person would have done, and that's generally final (don't know if there's an appeals process in civil courts).

"Before completely absolving one party of wrong doing"
Who's doing that? Again, you're taking conclusions to their extreme limits rather than rational outcomes. Of course the trucker & his employer are at fault in this case. Just not 100% at fault for Morgan's injuries.
In legal cases involving car accidents, they…

Where provided. So if a seatbelt was available & you didn't use it, that's negligence

No it's not. That's a false analogy. You aren't expected to wear a helmet in your house. You're expected to wear a seatbelt when in a moving car (if there is one).
A more rational analogy would be refusing to pull down the harness on a roller coaster seat. Once you're flung from the cart, a grand jury isn't going to…

Where are you getting this "all" from? Careful to not fall into the hyperbole fallacy

Well said. No one is claiming that Wal-Mart (or the truck driver) aren't at fault. Just that they're not 100% at fault for the full extent of Morgan's injuries. Morgan's own law-breaking/negligence were contributing factors.

Some people's only means of arguing is via hyperbole. Remove the exaggeration, and their whole statement crumbles.

"I can’t believe Walmart is blaming me for an accident that they caused."

"I can’t believe Walmart is blaming me for an accident that they caused."

No one cares

Will he be in the next version of Punch-Out?