weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 1, 2017 14:38:28 GMT -5
Speaking of being offended - wxyz is losing his shizz on the Osteen thread. I guess liberals asking that you stop using the word f*gg*t is snowflake territory, but pointing out inconsistencies in religion is just plain disrespectful. Seriously? He called people f*gg*ts? Well, no wonder he deletes his posts. No record of his own insulting and rude behavior.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 1, 2017 17:17:49 GMT -5
No, I'm just using an example of something that the OP suggested people would be offended by.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 1, 2017 17:31:29 GMT -5
Anyone think Joe use going to be working for Homeland Security ? Job as a seniors' TSA frisker at PHX airport?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 1, 2017 19:11:44 GMT -5
No, I'm just using an example of something that the OP suggested people would be offended by. It certainly seemed implied that he said that.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 2, 2017 9:09:55 GMT -5
My bad!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 2, 2017 10:13:14 GMT -5
no, you aren't. i am asking whether you agree with the actual rule, and the reasoning by it, which is here: 3. Five-year waiting period required
Under the Department's rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., an applicant must satisfy a minimum waiting period of five years before he becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon of his federal conviction. The waiting period, which is designed to afford the petitioner a reasonable period of time in which to demonstrate an ability to lead a responsible, productive and law-abiding life, begins on the date of the petitioner's release from confinement. that seems sensible to me. offering clemency in a case where someone shows no remorse (and, in this case, has not served ANY of their sentence) doesn't seem right to me- it breeds contempt for the law. and yeah, i would feel the same way if it was "my ox being gored", as oc would put it. edit: i don't know that Arpaio sought clemency. that is actually not material to my question, which is whether you agree with the rule or not, in principle. I agree with the rule as its intended. A guideline for D O J employees. I don't believe a rule for D O J employees, should be any kind of voluntary guideline for presidential pardons. Presidential pardons are at the whim of any sitting president. well, then you differ in opinion with the DOJ, who made this guideline for EXECUTIVES (primarily governors). i think it is very good advice for presidents, as well. whimsical pardons are not what i, as a citizen, want.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 2, 2017 10:15:02 GMT -5
no, you aren't. i am asking whether you agree with the actual rule, and the reasoning by it, which is here: 3. Five-year waiting period required
Under the Department's rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., an applicant must satisfy a minimum waiting period of five years before he becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon of his federal conviction. The waiting period, which is designed to afford the petitioner a reasonable period of time in which to demonstrate an ability to lead a responsible, productive and law-abiding life, begins on the date of the petitioner's release from confinement. that seems sensible to me. offering clemency in a case where someone shows no remorse (and, in this case, has not served ANY of their sentence) doesn't seem right to me- it breeds contempt for the law. and yeah, i would feel the same way if it was "my ox being gored", as oc would put it. edit: i don't know that Arpaio sought clemency. that is actually not material to my question, which is whether you agree with the rule or not, in principle. As I see it, Arpaio may not have the five year waiting period left to show the remorse people want from him. Isn't he in his mid eighties? seems healthy to me. but i would be well satisfied if he would serve his measly term and repent.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 2, 2017 20:03:13 GMT -5
I'm assuming since he was re-elected quite a few times that a lot of people agreed with his policies. Obviously some do not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 2, 2017 20:31:46 GMT -5
many people agree with Anthony Wiener's POLICIES, as well.
edit: i am sure you recognize that justice should be blind to "popularity".
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 2, 2017 22:36:51 GMT -5
I'm assuming since he was re-elected quite a few times that a lot of people agreed with his policies. Obviously some do not. Arpaio finally lost an election last year. To date, Arpaio has cost the taxpayers of Maricopa county $70 million in fines for his illegal actions and is expected to continue to rise. Taxpayer tab up to $70M in Joe Arpaio racial-profiling case
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:09:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 11:22:19 GMT -5
I agree with the rule as its intended. A guideline for D O J employees. I don't believe a rule for D O J employees, should be any kind of voluntary guideline for presidential pardons. Presidential pardons are at the whim of any sitting president. well, then you differ in opinion with the DOJ, who made this guideline for EXECUTIVES (primarily governors). i think it is very good advice for presidents, as well. whimsical pardons are not what i, as a citizen, want. Agree on the whimsical. You did change your wording from rule to advice. I could go with that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2017 23:33:47 GMT -5
well, then you differ in opinion with the DOJ, who made this guideline for EXECUTIVES (primarily governors). i think it is very good advice for presidents, as well. whimsical pardons are not what i, as a citizen, want. Agree on the whimsical. You did change your wording from rule to advice. I could go with that. they are advisory rules, such as rules of conduct. if you don't follow them, people are going to question you. that doesn't mean that you should NOT break them. IE- if someone could show me that Arpaio would die within the next (6) months, or that he had repented, found Jesus, and would be donating the remainder of his life to helping house and feed refugees, i would be down for an immediate pardon. here is my real issue in this case. pardoning someone like this or Oliver North basically sets up this dynamic where a person can act like a hideous bastard in the service of a president, and then just wait it out. what sort of signal does that send to "patriots" like him and Liddy, Manafort and others who act with cheerful disregard for the law in the service of a president? i think you can imagine much WORSE things that could be forgiven = IE, the assassination of political foes. what is to prevent that?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 4, 2017 6:22:30 GMT -5
Nothing. I'm amazed it hasn't happened. I'm assuming no one thought trump would really win.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:09:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 12:34:19 GMT -5
Agree on the whimsical. You did change your wording from rule to advice. I could go with that. they are advisory rules, such as rules of conduct. if you don't follow them, people are going to question you. that doesn't mean that you should NOT break them. IE- if someone could show me that Arpaio would die within the next (6) months, or that he had repented, found Jesus, and would be donating the remainder of his life to helping house and feed refugees, i would be down for an immediate pardon. here is my real issue in this case. pardoning someone like this or Oliver North basically sets up this dynamic where a person can act like a hideous bastard in the service of a president, and then just wait it out. what sort of signal does that send to "patriots" like him and Liddy, Manafort and others who act with cheerful disregard for the law in the service of a president? i think you can imagine much WORSE things that could be forgiven = IE, the assassination of political foes. what is to prevent that? I can't make the leap between checking Mexicans in traffic stops in a border state, in order to facilitate looking for illegal aliens, versus assassination of political foes. I kind of don't know where you are going with this. Not checking for citizenship in a traffic stop situation is kind of like being in a sinking boat, and not being allowed to look for water coming in. You already have to show your drivers license and proof of insurance to check if you are legally using the public roads. Why not legally in the country ? What really is the difference, other than a effort to energize the liberals to gain votes for Democrats.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 5, 2017 14:15:22 GMT -5
they are advisory rules, such as rules of conduct. if you don't follow them, people are going to question you. that doesn't mean that you should NOT break them. IE- if someone could show me that Arpaio would die within the next (6) months, or that he had repented, found Jesus, and would be donating the remainder of his life to helping house and feed refugees, i would be down for an immediate pardon. here is my real issue in this case. pardoning someone like this or Oliver North basically sets up this dynamic where a person can act like a hideous bastard in the service of a president, and then just wait it out. what sort of signal does that send to "patriots" like him and Liddy, Manafort and others who act with cheerful disregard for the law in the service of a president? i think you can imagine much WORSE things that could be forgiven = IE, the assassination of political foes. what is to prevent that? I can't make the leap between checking Mexicans in traffic stops in a border state, in order to facilitate looking for illegal aliens, versus assassination of political foes. I kind of don't know where you are going with this. Not checking for citizenship in a traffic stop situation is kind of like being in a sinking boat, and not being allowed to look for water coming in. You already have to show your drivers license and proof of insurance to check if you are legally using the public roads. Why not legally in the country ? What really is the difference, other than a effort to energize the liberals to gain votes for Democrats. Your idea of what happened here is incorrect, but I suspect you are pretty convinced that all that happened is that these were totally viable, routine, with cause traffic stops, and nothing else, therefore he did nothing wrong. The courts found otherwise, including a hard core, no nonsense Republican judge. This was not a leftist liberal folly. He actually broke constitutional laws.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 5, 2017 18:34:48 GMT -5
they are advisory rules, such as rules of conduct. if you don't follow them, people are going to question you. that doesn't mean that you should NOT break them. IE- if someone could show me that Arpaio would die within the next (6) months, or that he had repented, found Jesus, and would be donating the remainder of his life to helping house and feed refugees, i would be down for an immediate pardon. here is my real issue in this case. pardoning someone like this or Oliver North basically sets up this dynamic where a person can act like a hideous bastard in the service of a president, and then just wait it out. what sort of signal does that send to "patriots" like him and Liddy, Manafort and others who act with cheerful disregard for the law in the service of a president? i think you can imagine much WORSE things that could be forgiven = IE, the assassination of political foes. what is to prevent that? I can't make the leap between checking Mexicans in traffic stops in a border state, in order to facilitate looking for illegal aliens, versus assassination of political foes. I kind of don't know where you are going with this. Not checking for citizenship in a traffic stop situation is kind of like being in a sinking boat, and not being allowed to look for water coming in. You already have to show your drivers license and proof of insurance to check if you are legally using the public roads. Why not legally in the country ? What really is the difference, other than a effort to energize the liberals to gain votes for Democrats. you want off on a tangent there. i was not talking about immigration. i was talking about pardoning.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Sept 5, 2017 18:39:06 GMT -5
Today we are offeneded by people who can't spell offended
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 5, 2017 19:14:15 GMT -5
Today we are offeneded by people who can't spell offended Lawdy, lawdy! If we're going to start being offended by typos we're in for an awfully bumpy ride!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 5, 2017 19:16:13 GMT -5
Today we are offeneded by people who can't spell offended Today?! I've been offended by that for weeks!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:09:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 12:16:05 GMT -5
I can't make the leap between checking Mexicans in traffic stops in a border state, in order to facilitate looking for illegal aliens, versus assassination of political foes. I kind of don't know where you are going with this. Not checking for citizenship in a traffic stop situation is kind of like being in a sinking boat, and not being allowed to look for water coming in. You already have to show your drivers license and proof of insurance to check if you are legally using the public roads. Why not legally in the country ? What really is the difference, other than a effort to energize the liberals to gain votes for Democrats. Your idea of what happened here is incorrect, but I suspect you are pretty convinced that all that happened is that these were totally viable, routine, with cause traffic stops, and nothing else, therefore he did nothing wrong. The courts found otherwise, including a hard core, no nonsense Republican judge. This was not a leftist liberal folly. He actually broke constitutional laws. I'm having trouble with your whole response after reading "Republican judge". Quote; This dissonance between the theory of a neutral, non-partisan judge and the reality of a judge who has a political affiliation creates a serious problem. The problem is, at its core, one of terminology. When people attempt to apply political labels to judges, they invariably create confusion, because the labels were developed to apply to true politicians, not judicial officerschooseyourjudges.org/facts-2/party-affiliation/
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:09:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 12:17:54 GMT -5
I can't make the leap between checking Mexicans in traffic stops in a border state, in order to facilitate looking for illegal aliens, versus assassination of political foes. I kind of don't know where you are going with this. Not checking for citizenship in a traffic stop situation is kind of like being in a sinking boat, and not being allowed to look for water coming in. You already have to show your drivers license and proof of insurance to check if you are legally using the public roads. Why not legally in the country ? What really is the difference, other than a effort to energize the liberals to gain votes for Democrats. you want off on a tangent there. i was not talking about immigration. i was talking about pardoning. I keep doing that. Age?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:09:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 12:19:06 GMT -5
Today we are offeneded by people who can't spell offended As the words spin around, I keep seeing 'often needed'.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 6, 2017 12:26:37 GMT -5
Your idea of what happened here is incorrect, but I suspect you are pretty convinced that all that happened is that these were totally viable, routine, with cause traffic stops, and nothing else, therefore he did nothing wrong. The courts found otherwise, including a hard core, no nonsense Republican judge. This was not a leftist liberal folly. He actually broke constitutional laws. I'm having trouble with your whole response after reading "Republican judge". Quote; This dissonance between the theory of a neutral, non-partisan judge and the reality of a judge who has a political affiliation creates a serious problem. The problem is, at its core, one of terminology. When people attempt to apply political labels to judges, they invariably create confusion, because the labels were developed to apply to true politicians, not judicial officerschooseyourjudges.org/facts-2/party-affiliation/Is that anything like Trump's "Mexican judge", who was, in fact, American?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 20:09:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 12:28:09 GMT -5
I'm having trouble with your whole response after reading "Republican judge". Quote; This dissonance between the theory of a neutral, non-partisan judge and the reality of a judge who has a political affiliation creates a serious problem. The problem is, at its core, one of terminology. When people attempt to apply political labels to judges, they invariably create confusion, because the labels were developed to apply to true politicians, not judicial officerschooseyourjudges.org/facts-2/party-affiliation/Is that anything like Trump's "Mexican judge", who was, in fact, American? He seems to have a fixation on things also.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jul 18, 2018 7:57:03 GMT -5
Yea, I know you are offended by O.C. asking "How Are You Offended Today?
Ok, here is a start I am offended by Trump,
I am offended by People around Trump,
I am offended by People who voted for Trump!!!!
There that will take care of 90% of the offended that post here!
What about the 10% that are offended by something other than Trump?
Still true today, So are you now offended by me reviving an old thread, so I don't use up my two a day limit??
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,702
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
Member is Online
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Jul 18, 2018 9:36:49 GMT -5
Well, I'm screwed cause I am rarely offended - I just consider the source say piss on it and blow it off.
|
|