I Pit Rick Scott and I Pit Florida

Scott, because of these new corruption scandals (evading the Sunshine Law; lying about the firing of FDLE executive director Gerald Bailey after the latter resisted Scott’s attempts to politicize the department; understating his net worth on required financial disclosures).

Florida, not just because we elected him governor twice, but because:

sigh Only In Florida. WTF is wrong with us?!

Has Scott Walker been indicted yet?

I know it’s hard even for us to keep track of idiotic Republicans named Scott, but the OP was about Rick Scott.


Didn’t Floridians know that §Rick Scott was corrupt when they elected him? The HCA Medicare fraud scandal wasn’t exactly secret.

I know.

I also know that, in similar fashion to this thread, several threads were started to opine on the supposedly criminal conduct of Scott Walker, and suggesting to the reader that indictments were imminent and spelled doom for any future political ambitions Walker might hold.

This thread struck me as similar.

Nice to see that Bricker approves of detestable behavior.

Are you posting because you’re happy a Republican got away with crimes or are you posting because you don’t think those crimes merit punishment?

Is a reason necessary for pitting Rick Scott and Florida? Couldn’t this just be a sticky thread?

Then you should have made your intentions clear. Otherwise we are forced to conclude you are an idiot. I know this because I get called an idiot when I say things that go over people’s heads, too. Keep it low and slow and while your jokes may not be as funny, people will get them.

I don’t imagine Rick Scott has any future political ambitions anyway. Term-limited as governor, not a presidential prospect, can’t see him running for Senate or anything.

What are his political ambitions, anyway? What did the gentleman want out of his time as governor?

The simple pleasures. A rocking chair, an old dog, rising at night to feed on the blood of the living…

An excellent question, and a chance to highlight an important similarity between the soi-distant Scott Walker threads and this current one about Rick Scott: in each case, the thread attempts to assume, as a given, that crimes were committed.

I don’t agree that either “got away” with crimes. I don’t agree that crimes have been proven. In Scott Walker’s case, of course, the attacks started by wondering how long it would be until he was indicted, and then fizzled away when no such indictment was handed down.

Here, of course, we’re at the beginning of the cycle. Rick Scott is being sued for supposed civil violations of various Florida laws; the thread assumes that these suits’ allegations are correct, despite the notable lack of any trial or admission on the part of Gov. Scott.

So, they are essentially the same because liberal hypocrisy? Therefore, conflating one with the other is not only not wrong, it makes an incisive point?

Do you believe an act is only a crime if the correct perpetrator has been caught and punished or do you suppose crimes can happen without anyone ever being tried and sentenced for it?

The second: a crime can happen without anyone being tried and sentenced for it.

BUT – it’s always for the proponent of a claim to provide proof of his claim. Without a trial and conviction, the rhetor who claims a crime happened has an uphill battle, because he needs to show some other equally strong evidence of the crime, and of the guilt of the accused.

Wouldn’t it be fun to see **Bricker **someday pull his pro bono counsel act in defense of a Democrat? Or at least to recognize that this board isn’t a courtroom?

Well, one can dream.

Have you any case law to support such a conclusion?

I got a bunch of Latin words I can copy and paste; will that do?