
http://www.abqjournal.com/1236181/man-a ... words.html
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
MDGLongBeach wrote:The president has nothing to do with this. He wasn’t there, didn’t tell the guy to do this. It’s common sense that this behavior is punishable.
Alias1024 wrote:"The president of the United States says its OK to grab women by their private parts.“
santi319 wrote:The presidents says its ok so where is the lie
Super80Fan wrote:Does this mean I can do any crime now, and get away with it just because "the President does it as well"?
ewt340 wrote:To be fair, if the President of your country do something illegal and nobody persecuted him/her for doing that, other people could go to court and demand to be freed because it mean that the particular law regarding the crime committed by both the president or the defendants is Invalid.
Etheereal wrote:Blaming Trump for everything .. i wonder who could be behind that.
jetero wrote:ewt340 wrote:To be fair, if the President of your country do something illegal and nobody persecuted him/her for doing that, other people could go to court and demand to be freed because it mean that the particular law regarding the crime committed by both the president or the defendants is Invalid.
They certainly could but they wouldn't have much of a case.
N649DL wrote:The guy is just a surly idiot. Well I guess it's OK to have my own private email server as well since HRC got off the hook for it?
jetero wrote:N649DL wrote:The guy is just a surly idiot. Well I guess it's OK to have my own private email server as well since HRC got off the hook for it?
Um, yeah, you can have your own private e-mail server. That right has nothing to do with Hillary.
(Where do these people come from?!)
N649DL wrote:jetero wrote:N649DL wrote:The guy is just a surly idiot. Well I guess it's OK to have my own private email server as well since HRC got off the hook for it?
Um, yeah, you can have your own private e-mail server. That right has nothing to do with Hillary.
(Where do these people come from?!)
IKR, Trump is just a "Big Meaney" and Hillary is an unsung hero
zakuivcustom wrote:seb146 wrote:I wondered how long this would take. Every day, there are white Republicans calling 911 because non-white people are walking into a building or riding a bus or having a picnic or driving or having a private conversation in their native language. We were about due for "well, he treats women like property, so I can too" mentality from Republicans.
You mean this just now?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 96591.html
Blame the abundance of smartphone all you want, but why do idiots think nobody is going to film their stupid tirades and get into other people's business not get posted all over the internet is beyond me. For me, if anything, the abundance of smartphone should serve as a deterrence of acting like an idiot out in the public rather than encouraging it.
QXAS wrote:Some people are just plane stupid. Not knowing how to act on an airplane. We usually see it on Spirit. This guy takes it to another level. This won’t stop until we start holding people in power (celebrities, politicians) accountable for their actions toward women. This isn’t a Republican or Democrat problem. Both sides have numerous men guilty of maltreatment of women. This is a society problem. Fixing society starts at the top with people in our government. People live by example. When you have recordings of Trump saying “grab her by the” you know the rest, as well as others on both sides of the aisle known for groping or other incidents of sexual misconduct being elected and re-elected, it communicates to the populace that this kind of behavior is ok and if it’s not they won’t be held accountable.
seb146 wrote:QXAS wrote:Some people are just plane stupid. Not knowing how to act on an airplane. We usually see it on Spirit. This guy takes it to another level. This won’t stop until we start holding people in power (celebrities, politicians) accountable for their actions toward women. This isn’t a Republican or Democrat problem. Both sides have numerous men guilty of maltreatment of women. This is a society problem. Fixing society starts at the top with people in our government. People live by example. When you have recordings of Trump saying “grab her by the” you know the rest, as well as others on both sides of the aisle known for groping or other incidents of sexual misconduct being elected and re-elected, it communicates to the populace that this kind of behavior is ok and if it’s not they won’t be held accountable.
Stop. Just stop. "Both sides do it" justifies Republicans doing whatever they want. Grabbing women and beating Blacks and denying equal rights to LGBTQ+ and so many other examples. A sexual predator was elected by a minority of Americans who then placed a sexual predator to legislate from the Supreme Court. These are REPUBLICAN values. Not "both sides do it". Democrats hold our own accountable. Anthony Wiener, John Edwards, and Al Franken are the best examples. We removed them from office. We held them accountable. We did not elevate them to even higher offices.
Both sides do not do it.
Stop saying that. It makes Republicans look desperate.
ewt340 wrote:Super80Fan wrote:Does this mean I can do any crime now, and get away with it just because "the President does it as well"?
To be fair, if the President of your country do something illegal and nobody persecuted him/her for doing that, other people could go to court and demand to be freed because it mean that the particular law regarding the crime committed by both the president or the defendants is Invalid.
A law became invalid when it is not enforced. This would include everything from corruption, murder, slavery, rape, pedohillia, etc. As long as it's not enforced, you are allowed to do it. Sadly.
N649DL wrote:The guy is just a surly idiot. Well I guess it's OK to have my own private email server as well since HRC got off the hook for it?
fr8mech wrote:
seb146 wrote:People breaking into your home and you defending your home is VERY different than the sexual predator in chief.
WayexTDI wrote:Etheereal wrote:Blaming Trump for everything .. i wonder who could be behind that.
He didn't blame Trump, he justified his acts by what his idol said/did.
So, who's behind that? The blind Trump followers
MDGLongBeach wrote:The president has nothing to do with this. He wasn’t there, didn’t tell the guy to do this. It’s common sense that this behavior is punishable.
jpetekyxmd80 wrote:Looking at him, i'll take that bet.
kitplane01 wrote:ewt340 wrote:Super80Fan wrote:Does this mean I can do any crime now, and get away with it just because "the President does it as well"?
To be fair, if the President of your country do something illegal and nobody persecuted him/her for doing that, other people could go to court and demand to be freed because it mean that the particular law regarding the crime committed by both the president or the defendants is Invalid.
A law became invalid when it is not enforced. This would include everything from corruption, murder, slavery, rape, pedohillia, etc. As long as it's not enforced, you are allowed to do it. Sadly.
So you would make a bad lawyer. And what you wrote is false.
The police and the prosecutors can allow a thousand people to commit the crime, and chose just one as the person to arrest. This is very well established in the US (where this took place). Otherwise, literally no one could be arrested for jaywalking, speeding, and pot.
KICT wrote:The entire nation needs a de-worming.
ClipperMonsoon wrote:Would you still be good with it if it happened to your wife/ daughter/sister?.....right?
tommy1808 wrote:ClipperMonsoon wrote:Would you still be good with it if it happened to your wife/ daughter/sister?.....right?
They will so cite the book of Job or Judges and offer them up for a gang rape.
Best regards
Thomas
ewt340 wrote:kitplane01 wrote:ewt340 wrote:
To be fair, if the President of your country do something illegal and nobody persecuted him/her for doing that, other people could go to court and demand to be freed because it mean that the particular law regarding the crime committed by both the president or the defendants is Invalid.
A law became invalid when it is not enforced. This would include everything from corruption, murder, slavery, rape, pedohillia, etc. As long as it's not enforced, you are allowed to do it. Sadly.
So you would make a bad lawyer. And what you wrote is false.
The police and the prosecutors can allow a thousand people to commit the crime, and chose just one as the person to arrest. This is very well established in the US (where this took place). Otherwise, literally no one could be arrested for jaywalking, speeding, and pot.
No, that would make me a normal functional Lawyer. Have you seen the stupid excuse these Lawyer make when they got lunatics as a client? Them religious nutcase are usually the worst offender.
Just like trademarks, it is invalid if you don't enforced it. Same with law.
kitplane01 wrote:ewt340 wrote:kitplane01 wrote:
So you would make a bad lawyer. And what you wrote is false.
The police and the prosecutors can allow a thousand people to commit the crime, and chose just one as the person to arrest. This is very well established in the US (where this took place). Otherwise, literally no one could be arrested for jaywalking, speeding, and pot.
No, that would make me a normal functional Lawyer. Have you seen the stupid excuse these Lawyer make when they got lunatics as a client? Them religious nutcase are usually the worst offender.
Just like trademarks, it is invalid if you don't enforced it. Same with law.
Please stop saying false things.
Trademarks do have the property (a little bit) of "enforce your claim or lose it". But criminal laws mostly don't.
If the cops enforce the laws against black people but not white people ... illegal.
If the cops enforce the laws against Democrats but not Republicans .. illegal.
If the cops enforce against some speeders/jaywalkers/pot-smokers and not others ... legal.
Quoting the Supreme Court ... "The failure to proceed against other offenders because of a lack of knowledge of prior offenses or because of the exercise of reasonable selectivity in enforcement does not deny equal protection to persons who are prosecuted, and petitioners did not allege that the failure to prosecute others was due to any other reason" Oyler v. Boles (pp. 368 U.S. 454-456). And if you don't like that cite, or want to word-smith it, there are a million others. This is really very clear law.
ewt340 wrote:kitplane01 wrote:ewt340 wrote:
No, that would make me a normal functional Lawyer. Have you seen the stupid excuse these Lawyer make when they got lunatics as a client? Them religious nutcase are usually the worst offender.
Just like trademarks, it is invalid if you don't enforced it. Same with law.
Please stop saying false things.
Trademarks do have the property (a little bit) of "enforce your claim or lose it". But criminal laws mostly don't.
If the cops enforce the laws against black people but not white people ... illegal.
If the cops enforce the laws against Democrats but not Republicans .. illegal.
If the cops enforce against some speeders/jaywalkers/pot-smokers and not others ... legal.
Quoting the Supreme Court ... "The failure to proceed against other offenders because of a lack of knowledge of prior offenses or because of the exercise of reasonable selectivity in enforcement does not deny equal protection to persons who are prosecuted, and petitioners did not allege that the failure to prosecute others was due to any other reason" Oyler v. Boles (pp. 368 U.S. 454-456). And if you don't like that cite, or want to word-smith it, there are a million others. This is really very clear law.
LOL, I really laugh quite loud on that joke. It seems like you never knew how the real world works. Quoting a specific laws that doesn't apply when you are flowing with cash and connectivity. Your own explanation already showed the flaw on it's own.
You are writing "What we want" not "What actually happen in real world".
kitplane01 wrote:ewt340 wrote:kitplane01 wrote:
Please stop saying false things.
Trademarks do have the property (a little bit) of "enforce your claim or lose it". But criminal laws mostly don't.
If the cops enforce the laws against black people but not white people ... illegal.
If the cops enforce the laws against Democrats but not Republicans .. illegal.
If the cops enforce against some speeders/jaywalkers/pot-smokers and not others ... legal.
Quoting the Supreme Court ... "The failure to proceed against other offenders because of a lack of knowledge of prior offenses or because of the exercise of reasonable selectivity in enforcement does not deny equal protection to persons who are prosecuted, and petitioners did not allege that the failure to prosecute others was due to any other reason" Oyler v. Boles (pp. 368 U.S. 454-456). And if you don't like that cite, or want to word-smith it, there are a million others. This is really very clear law.
LOL, I really laugh quite loud on that joke. It seems like you never knew how the real world works. Quoting a specific laws that doesn't apply when you are flowing with cash and connectivity. Your own explanation already showed the flaw on it's own.
You are writing "What we want" not "What actually happen in real world".
So I'm done talking to him. And I hope the next time he get's arrested ... his defense is "everyone else does it too, and you didn't arrest them". Judges will totally accept that argument in the real world.
I mean, the Supreme Court says that argument doesn't work, every appeals court says that argument doesn't work, but go ahead and try it.
Pthhhhh!