Donald Trump will WIN BIG!

[Town Heretic]

as it turns out, there is the rigid legal definition of the word, which you were focused on, and there was a less rigid meaning that rocketdude was using

As usual, you have it backwards. The traction for those who are after Clinton is found in a narrowed, rigid approach to the noted code that ignores the intent and treatment of it in application.

who do you plan to vote for town? trump or hillary?

Neither. I'm tired of choosing between evils. I find both choices dispiriting.

 

[Town Heretic]

You go ahead and wave your banner of responsibility then, you are an officer of the court, I am not, and with that I as a citizen dont feel the need to tread lightly where enough facts have been presented to establish guilt.

You're a citizen. You have responsibilities that come with it. I think one of the problems we have in this country is the abandonment of good citizenry. Not only should we become involved and informed about the body politic, we should approach its institutions and principles with solemnity and soberness, with the regard owed to good men who died securing them for us and who maintain their function to this day with blood and sacrifice.

We have become a people too easy with the rhetoric of treason and denouncement, too prone to sacrificing the respect upon which the pillars of our compact rest to advance partisan flags.

My precedents are the people that have been convicted for much less, for the same crime.

I noted the controlling consideration. The intent is to punish those who intentionally cause an injury to the republic. What Clinton did was violative of good sense and some regulation. It wasn't, however, espionage.

So I will stand with the legal experts & former judges that have assigned guilt to this woman the same as I

Name them and cite to the opinions. I'm always interested in how brethren contend on the law. I cited one esteemed colleague and noted the problem as I read the law and precedent. Go to.

I, that may irk you, it may violate your sensibilities TH but, I am old school, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck it is safe to assert it is a duck

A murder, from a distance, can look identical to self defense. The devil and the justification are in the details.

Hillary willfully broke the law having a private servor to handle, store, and transmit government information this fact is undisputable as well as the fact that she attempted to destroy these same records when caught.

I've spoken to it.

Whether we are talking about classified information or not has yet to be clear but, the fact that she admittedly broke the law for the former makes her a felon

It doesn't. A felon would be someone convicted for a violation of law that as yet has not been applied as it may be attempted with Clinton. She has not been convicted, prima facie, she is no felon. And my bet is that she won't be, or if the attempt is made that it will not prevail.

 

[ok doser]

As usual, you have it backwards.

unsurprisingly, you lack the ability to understand the simplest of notions if it conflicts with your preconceptions regarding the law


for those who aren't as blinkered, narrow and rigid (and pedantic :chuckle: ) as town, there are multiple definitions for the word "felon"

town was using one and insisting that it was the only appropriate definition

rocketdude was using another





town stamps his foot and insists that his definition is the only correct one!

A felon would be someone convicted for a violation of law that as yet has not been applied as it may be attempted with Clinton. She has not been convicted, prima facie, she is no felon.

:darwinsm:

:mock:town

 

[patrick jane]

I guess you could say Hitlery is an alleged or accused felon, but a conviction is necessary to make that moniker stick

 

[ok doser]

I guess you could say Hitlery is an alleged or accused felon, but a conviction is necessary to make that moniker stick

according to Merriam Webster, a felon is a criminal who has committed a serious crime (called a felony)

nothing about being convicted



as I said previously, klebold and harris were never convicted of murder

but you'd have to be a total retard (or a pedantic lawyer, which is pretty much the same thing ) to say that they weren't murderers

 

[Town Heretic]

unsurprisingly, you're lack the ability to understand the simplest of notions if it conflicts with your preconceptions regarding the law

You mean education. Well, you don't, but you should. And if you're going to ride that dismissive high-horse into a thread you should probably check your pronouns before you hit the reply button. Just an idea.

for those who aren't as blinkered, narrow and rigid (and pedantic :chuckle: ) as town, there are multiple definitions for the word "felon"

He used it in relation to the law. He cited code and spoke of it within the context I met. You should let him argue his point. At least he understands it.

 

[patrick jane]

according to Merriam Webster, a felon is a criminal who has committed a serious crime (called a felony)

nothing about being convicted


But according to the law and any records of the cases without a conviction it's not legally a crime
as I said previously, klebold and harris were never convicted of murder

but you'd have to be a total retard (or a pedantic lawyer, which is pretty much the same thing ) to say that they weren't murderers

But according to the law and any records of the cases without a conviction it's not legally a crime

 

[ok doser]

But according to the law and any records of the cases without a conviction it's not legally a crime

is what harris and klebold did a crime?

remember - no conviction

 

[ok doser]

He used it in relation to the law.

which naturally got your spidey senses tingling and caused you to come a-runnin', pedantic, blinkered obsessive "officer of the court" that you claim to be :darwinsm:

 

[Town Heretic]

which naturally got your spidey senses tingling and caused you to come a-runnin', pedantic, blinkered obsessive "officer of the court" that you claim to be :darwinsm:

Got your nose.

For those scoring at home, Sod rushed to what he thought was an easy lecture on a thing he had wrong and when the error was pretty easily set out he did the above, which is really what he was here to do/wanted to do from the start.

Sometimes almost all you have to do is hand a guy a rope and point to the tree.

 

[ok doser]

Got your nose.

For those scoring at home, Sod rushed to what he thought was an easy lecture on a thing he had wrong ....

you're using your legal definition of the word "felon" which requires a conviction

rocketdude is using Merriam Webster's definition of the word "felon" which does not require a conviction


town insists that he's right and Merriam Webster is wrong




not sure what town thinks I have wrong :idunno:


looks like a just another case of him waving the flag at himself



what a proud little boy you must be!

now quick town!

run over and tape it up on mommy's fridge! :darwinsm:


View attachment 24254

 

[Town Heretic]

you're using your legal definition of the word "felon"

rocketdude is using Merriam Webster's definition of the word "felon"

I noted that when we had the conversation he pointed out a particular section of code, the violation of which he rightly noted (upon conviction) would make someone a felon. He noted it as a matter of law. And so my answer.

When Sod loses on a point, which happens a lot more than you'd think if you think it happens a lot, he does this sort of thing. First he just threw out a string of insults and when I pointed out the truth that pains him (God alone knows why) he went to the post above method, which untruncated is essentially repeat the charge and then space it out, add a few insults and try to bury what you can't answer on.

At any rate, it's mostly about getting and keeping attention. So at least he has the success that matters to him (again, God alone knows why).

Anyway, to anyone coming in late, this is rm's actual post, where he sets out pretty clearly what he's speaking of and to and it was this post that framed my response and our subsequent back and forth. I'll bold the part that makes it a clear consideration of law and one reasonably met within those terms, Sod's peculiar efforts notwithstanding:

It is called a Prima Facie case (clear on known facts) but, do I really need to explain that to you counselor? Hillary admittedly used an unsecured private servor to store personal as well and U.S. government information, a violation of the espianage act "Gathering, Transmitting,or losing defense information" 18 U.S. Code 793, this violation is not in dispute Hillary is just attempting to obsfucate, it is a crime, a felony in fact which carries up to a 10 year prison sentence. She is also guilty of 44 U.S. Code 3106 "unlawful removal, or destruction of government records" another felony which she is guilty of on known facts of which there is no dispute, and neither of these charges have to prove intent to harm to prove guilt. The fact that Hillary and the Obama administration continues to obstruct justice does not detract from the clear facts that we know. Furthermore I know, that if I or any other American would have done similar we would be facing jail in short order so, spare me the innocent until proven guilty speech because as far as I am concerned the only thing missing at this point is a justice department that is not lawless which holds the scales balanced for all. I will continue to call her what she is a FELON because it is wholly accurate even without a conviction from a lawless justice department.

 

[ok doser]

I noted that when we had the conversation he pointed out a particular section of code...

right, to prove his contention that she was a criminal who had committed actions that qualified as felonies

... the violation of which he rightly noted (upon conviction) would make someone a felon.

if one was using the legal definition of the word

if, on the other hand, one was using the Merriam Webster's definition, a conviction is not necessary


but I believe we've covered this ground before

When Sod loses on a point...

keep waving that flag at yourself, mary :darwinsm:

 

[annabenedetti]

Nice...so you want to insult me now, I thought you were better than that. You don't have to agree with my premise but, you could afford me the liberty of having an opinion that you disagree with outside of petty jeering. :nono:

... What? You're not trying to come off as holier-than-thou, are you?

Chrys's hypocrisy is sooooooooo delicious....:chuckle:

"VOTE REPUBLICAN!" :rotfl:

 

[annabenedetti]

When Sod loses on a point, which happens a lot more than you'd think if you think it happens a lot, he does this sort of thing. First he just threw out a string of insults and when I pointed out the truth that pains him (God alone knows why) he went to the post above method, which untruncated is essentially repeat the charge and then space it out, add a few insults and try to bury what you can't answer on.

At any rate, it's mostly about getting and keeping attention. So at least he has the success that matters to him (again, God alone knows why).

Just post around sod. Seriously. To make the job easier put him back on ignore so you can't even see him. You won't be missing anything.

 

[ok doser]

Just post around sod. Seriously. To make the job easier put him back on ignore so you can't even see him. You won't be missing anything.

that would be an effective way of avoiding the fact that he can't counter my points :thumb:



iow, run and hide like the scared little girl he is :darwinsm:

 

[annabenedetti]

that would be an effective way of avoiding the fact that he can't counter my points :thumb:



iow, run and hide like the scared little girl he is :darwinsm:

No, that would just be not needing to watch you laugh maniacally as you spread your troll bait in neat little rows, patting and tending, patting and tending.

Because who wants to watch something so sad and pathetic as that?

 

[ok doser]

Because who wants to watch something so sad and pathetic as that?

you, apparently, who are unable to take for herself the advice she so freely gives out :darwinsm:

 

[annabenedetti]

I think Newt would make a great pick as well as being able to garner the votes of RINO's that are having trouble with a Trump candidacy, I think that Newt could seal the deal for unifying a rather tense primary season for the party so, we can get on with beating the felon in November. :thumb:

So do you think Chrys will "Vote Republican" if Newt is on the ticket? :think: you never know...:chuckle:

A great pick?

Wait... you wouldn't vote for Newt for president, but now you'll vote for him for vice-president?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I do. There is no good reason to think he would be anymore loyal to his country than he was to first two wives.

Didnt you vote for bill clinton, if this is really an issue for you, thats quite hypocritical.