Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
My position is in this case he had a cease and desist order put on him by the court and was found guilty of blatantly disobeying it. What books? Federal, State or Local, they all have different Jurisdictions and personell for enforcement. @ BigAl99 said:
It was a court order that he willfully and crimanaly disobeyed, the law is not a buffet. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. If you rob a bank to pay child support or your taxes, ends don't justify the means, woe onto you. Unless, of course, you have someone that will put you above the law.
so now its a case by case basis, so if a conservative breaks a law that works for your agenda, they are criminals. got it. where do you stand on all the people incarcerated for pot?
The post is about the Arpaio case, he was being punished for disobeying a Judges order. I know you want to get into the merits of Sheriff Joe's actions, but that wasn't the point. He isn't a criminal for his stance on immigration, it's pure and simple contempt of court. My point is we are a country of laws with a good legal system, your moral justifications for breaking those laws are not germane to his innocence or guilt.
so according to you the law is not a buffet when it comes to this instance, but in other cases you will have the chicken but skip the pork?
the law is the law you said, why should that statement apply to this case, but not others? or is your moral system better than mine?
What other cases you talking about?
any case, all cases, I mentioned people in jail for pot possession and use, why does the law have to rule in the arpaio case, but not others that often get brought up?
your words " the law is not a buffet " well that means you cant pick and choose which laws apply and which can be ignored so why should joe be in jail for not following a judges order, but people in prison for breaking an existing law shouldnt be, or do you think that pot smokers should be imprisoned?
I wont make a binary all inclusive general case for all that is good or evil. Just wanted to set the record straight why and what Arpaio was guilty of. I find it kind of ironic he was pardoned because of ideology rather than merit of his guilt.
how does that differ from almost all pardons? were the 1927 pardons issued by Obama all victims of mistaken identity or otherwise wrongly imprisoned?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
My position is in this case he had a cease and desist order put on him by the court and was found guilty of blatantly disobeying it. What books? Federal, State or Local, they all have different Jurisdictions and personell for enforcement. @ BigAl99 said:
It was a court order that he willfully and crimanaly disobeyed, the law is not a buffet. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. If you rob a bank to pay child support or your taxes, ends don't justify the means, woe onto you. Unless, of course, you have someone that will put you above the law.
so now its a case by case basis, so if a conservative breaks a law that works for your agenda, they are criminals. got it. where do you stand on all the people incarcerated for pot?
The post is about the Arpaio case, he was being punished for disobeying a Judges order. I know you want to get into the merits of Sheriff Joe's actions, but that wasn't the point. He isn't a criminal for his stance on immigration, it's pure and simple contempt of court. My point is we are a country of laws with a good legal system, your moral justifications for breaking those laws are not germane to his innocence or guilt.
so according to you the law is not a buffet when it comes to this instance, but in other cases you will have the chicken but skip the pork?
the law is the law you said, why should that statement apply to this case, but not others? or is your moral system better than mine?
What other cases you talking about?
any case, all cases, I mentioned people in jail for pot possession and use, why does the law have to rule in the arpaio case, but not others that often get brought up?
your words " the law is not a buffet " well that means you cant pick and choose which laws apply and which can be ignored so why should joe be in jail for not following a judges order, but people in prison for breaking an existing law shouldnt be, or do you think that pot smokers should be imprisoned?
I wont make a binary all inclusive general case for all that is good or evil. Just wanted to set the record straight why and what Arpaio was guilty of. I find it kind of ironic he was pardoned because of ideology rather than merit of his guilt.
how does that differ from almost all pardons? were the 1927 pardons issued by Obama all victims of mistaken identity or otherwise wrongly imprisoned?
One doesn't justify another. Also with Arpaio there is no mistaken identity with the perpetrator.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
My position is in this case he had a cease and desist order put on him by the court and was found guilty of blatantly disobeying it. What books? Federal, State or Local, they all have different Jurisdictions and personell for enforcement. @ BigAl99 said:
It was a court order that he willfully and crimanaly disobeyed, the law is not a buffet. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. If you rob a bank to pay child support or your taxes, ends don't justify the means, woe onto you. Unless, of course, you have someone that will put you above the law.
so now its a case by case basis, so if a conservative breaks a law that works for your agenda, they are criminals. got it. where do you stand on all the people incarcerated for pot?
The post is about the Arpaio case, he was being punished for disobeying a Judges order. I know you want to get into the merits of Sheriff Joe's actions, but that wasn't the point. He isn't a criminal for his stance on immigration, it's pure and simple contempt of court. My point is we are a country of laws with a good legal system, your moral justifications for breaking those laws are not germane to his innocence or guilt.
so according to you the law is not a buffet when it comes to this instance, but in other cases you will have the chicken but skip the pork?
the law is the law you said, why should that statement apply to this case, but not others? or is your moral system better than mine?
What other cases you talking about?
any case, all cases, I mentioned people in jail for pot possession and use, why does the law have to rule in the arpaio case, but not others that often get brought up?
your words " the law is not a buffet " well that means you cant pick and choose which laws apply and which can be ignored so why should joe be in jail for not following a judges order, but people in prison for breaking an existing law shouldnt be, or do you think that pot smokers should be imprisoned?
I wont make a binary all inclusive general case for all that is good or evil. Just wanted to set the record straight why and what Arpaio was guilty of. I find it kind of ironic he was pardoned because of ideology rather than merit of his guilt.
how does that differ from almost all pardons? were the 1927 pardons issued by Obama all victims of mistaken identity or otherwise wrongly imprisoned?
One doesn't justify another. Also with Arpaio there is no mistaken identity with the perpetrator.
its a pardon of a person convicted of contempt of court ...basically a victimless crime, no more worse than any in the past and likely better than most.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
My position is in this case he had a cease and desist order put on him by the court and was found guilty of blatantly disobeying it. What books? Federal, State or Local, they all have different Jurisdictions and personell for enforcement. @ BigAl99 said:
It was a court order that he willfully and crimanaly disobeyed, the law is not a buffet. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. If you rob a bank to pay child support or your taxes, ends don't justify the means, woe onto you. Unless, of course, you have someone that will put you above the law.
so now its a case by case basis, so if a conservative breaks a law that works for your agenda, they are criminals. got it. where do you stand on all the people incarcerated for pot?
The post is about the Arpaio case, he was being punished for disobeying a Judges order. I know you want to get into the merits of Sheriff Joe's actions, but that wasn't the point. He isn't a criminal for his stance on immigration, it's pure and simple contempt of court. My point is we are a country of laws with a good legal system, your moral justifications for breaking those laws are not germane to his innocence or guilt.
so according to you the law is not a buffet when it comes to this instance, but in other cases you will have the chicken but skip the pork?
the law is the law you said, why should that statement apply to this case, but not others? or is your moral system better than mine?
What other cases you talking about?
any case, all cases, I mentioned people in jail for pot possession and use, why does the law have to rule in the arpaio case, but not others that often get brought up?
your words " the law is not a buffet " well that means you cant pick and choose which laws apply and which can be ignored so why should joe be in jail for not following a judges order, but people in prison for breaking an existing law shouldnt be, or do you think that pot smokers should be imprisoned?
I wont make a binary all inclusive general case for all that is good or evil. Just wanted to set the record straight why and what Arpaio was guilty of. I find it kind of ironic he was pardoned because of ideology rather than merit of his guilt.
how does that differ from almost all pardons? were the 1927 pardons issued by Obama all victims of mistaken identity or otherwise wrongly imprisoned?
One doesn't justify another. Also with Arpaio there is no mistaken identity with the perpetrator.
its a pardon of a person convicted of contempt of court ...basically a victimless crime, no more worse than any in the past and likely better than most.
Wow, justifying clemency with moral relativism, victim-less crime. Didn't think that was a conservative approach, what other crimes you deem victim-less?
so, you were outraged when obama pardoned all those criminals?
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
My position is in this case he had a cease and desist order put on him by the court and was found guilty of blatantly disobeying it. What books? Federal, State or Local, they all have different Jurisdictions and personell for enforcement. @ BigAl99 said:
It was a court order that he willfully and crimanaly disobeyed, the law is not a buffet. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. If you rob a bank to pay child support or your taxes, ends don't justify the means, woe onto you. Unless, of course, you have someone that will put you above the law.
so now its a case by case basis, so if a conservative breaks a law that works for your agenda, they are criminals. got it. where do you stand on all the people incarcerated for pot?
The post is about the Arpaio case, he was being punished for disobeying a Judges order. I know you want to get into the merits of Sheriff Joe's actions, but that wasn't the point. He isn't a criminal for his stance on immigration, it's pure and simple contempt of court. My point is we are a country of laws with a good legal system, your moral justifications for breaking those laws are not germane to his innocence or guilt.
so according to you the law is not a buffet when it comes to this instance, but in other cases you will have the chicken but skip the pork?
the law is the law you said, why should that statement apply to this case, but not others? or is your moral system better than mine?
What other cases you talking about?
any case, all cases, I mentioned people in jail for pot possession and use, why does the law have to rule in the arpaio case, but not others that often get brought up?
your words " the law is not a buffet " well that means you cant pick and choose which laws apply and which can be ignored so why should joe be in jail for not following a judges order, but people in prison for breaking an existing law shouldnt be, or do you think that pot smokers should be imprisoned?
I wont make a binary all inclusive general case for all that is good or evil. Just wanted to set the record straight why and what Arpaio was guilty of. I find it kind of ironic he was pardoned because of ideology rather than merit of his guilt.
how does that differ from almost all pardons? were the 1927 pardons issued by Obama all victims of mistaken identity or otherwise wrongly imprisoned?
One doesn't justify another. Also with Arpaio there is no mistaken identity with the perpetrator.
its a pardon of a person convicted of contempt of court ...basically a victimless crime, no more worse than any in the past and likely better than most.
Wow, justifying clemency with moral relativism, victim-less crime. Didn't think that was a conservative approach, what other crimes you deem victim-less?
you go ahead and justify 1927 pardons by obama and I will explain mine. or dont, I dont care.
admit it, you dont give a shit about presidential pardons or the law, you just want to see a conservative roast and it pisses you off when one gets out of the fire.
Yeah, you got me, I've been pissed since Nixon pardoned Bebe Rebozo, just seething and waiting for the right moment to take it out on someone. My memory of Obama's pardons were most of them had to do with Mandatory Sentences from the war on drugs. In general I haven't been too emotionally moved by the process. Arpaio bothers me more about timing, Charlottesville and the dog whistle, tone deaf messaging.
|
