Jump to content

Foosters

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    5479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Foosters

  1. It's similar to the death penalty debate:

    I don't believe in the death penalty and believe it should be abolished.

    But what about child rapist and murderers!?

    As I said, I don't believe in the death penalty.

    ?? But what about serial killer rapists??!

    Again, I don't believe in the death penalty.

    Why do you like serial killers??

  2. So we've sacrificed our standing in the world, weakened ties to long-standing allies, sided with Vladimir Putin over our intelligence agencies, ignored congress to continue an illegal war, emboldened ethno-nationalists, lost roughly 1000 children, attempted to strip healthcare from millions of Americans - to name just a few - and it was all worth it because gov't agencies are not that efficient? That's what all this "deep state" house-cleaning was for?

  3. 17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Bloat and inefficiency  "swamp." The "swamp" term has been pretty consistently used by Trump and plenty before him to symbolize corruption by the "elites" that provides them with unique advantages while fucking over everyone else. Three lower-level bureaucrats in the EPA doing an amount of work that two could do isn't remotely like that.

    A political appointee leading the EPA and using his authority there to grant special favors in exchange for a nice lucrative job with an O&G company once he leaves, on the other hand, is. But that's got very little to do with the bureaucracy itself (other than the fact that it exists). And to go ahead and head off the dumb point that Onboard will probably make about its existence being the problem, abolishing law enforcement in its entirety is a really stupid answer to the problem of the chief of police accepting bribes.

    Wish I could rep this more than once.  

  4. 3 minutes ago, XYZ said:

    I’m not a US citizen, so I don’t get to vote. But if I were a US citizen, I would withhold my vote as protest. If you vote D or R, you are implicitly consenting to the farce that is the two-party political process in America.

    Also, I’ve been reading your posts for a long time. You’re a smart guy. You don’t need to lower yourself to what you just posted above.

    God I admire you

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  5. If your take after looking at Mueller's report is that there are going to be lots and lots of dems who will be going to jail for a long, long time, then yeah, you probably shouldn't be making fun of anyone's intelligence.

  6. 2 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

    I think the campaign finance statute provides that to prove a felony they have to prove that the person acted "knowingly and willfully."  In this case, the "knowingly" element does, in fact, provide a defense for ignorance of the law.  That's probably why we don't see just a whole lot of felony cases in this area - it's just a terribly tough standard to meet, especially when dealing with dumbshits like the Trumps.

    do you have the statute handy? I only ask because knowingly doesn't necessarily mean knowing that you are breaking the law. For example, in obstruction of justice they need only show that you knowingly made a false statement. Not that you knew it was illegal to make a false statement.

  7. 4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Not a lawyer:  is it fair to say that, in general, intent is required but ignorance of the law is not a defense?

    Kinda. There are two types of crimes, at least in regards to intent: general intent and specific intent.

    Here is an example of a general intent crime (battery):

    Quote
    To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
    prove that:
    1. The defendant willfully [and unlawfully] touched
    <insert name> in a harmful or offensive manner(;/.)
     
         <Give element 2 when instructing on self-defense, defense of another, or
           reasonable discipline.>
     
    [AND
     
    2. The defendant did not act (in self-defense/ [or] in defense of
    someone else/ [or] while reasonably disciplining a child).]
     
    Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on
    purpose. It is not required that he or she intend to break the law, hurt
    someone else, or gain any advantage.
     
    The slightest touching can be enough to commit a battery if it is done in
    a rude or angry way. Making contact with another person, including
    through his or her clothing, is enough. The touching does not have to
    cause pain or injury of any kind.
     
    [The touching can be done indirectly by causing an object [or someone
    else] to touch the other person.]

    Here is an example of a specific intent crime (burglary):

    Quote
    To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
    prove that:
     
    1. The defendant entered (a/an) (building/room within a building/
    locked vehicle/structure/ <insert other statutory
    target>);
     
    [AND]
     
    2. When (he/she) entered (a/an) (building/room within the building/
    locked vehicle/structure/ <insert other statutory target>), (he/she)
    intended to commit (theft/ [or] <insert one or more
    felonies>).

    In neither of those cases could you successfully defend yourself with the argument "I didnt know that it was illegal to do that."

    • Like 1
  8. 7 minutes ago, Okie State said:

    It's almost as if it impacted different people in different ways depending on their different financial situations.

    Except for the ultra-wealthy and corporations, right?

  9. 3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:


    Indicting a President without evidence of him colluding with the Russkies for just being the impulsive hothead moron that he can be in trying to attack his enemies and without conclusive evidence that he was lying and otherwise obstructing justice is good for the country. Beat him in 2020 or impeach. Those are the only options. Thank you AG Barr and Mueller. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying dickheads like Nadler, Schumer and Pelosi grasping at straws.

    021ea7af16b177d807ee82f7e64d1846.jpg

    Image

    Let's play a game. Imagine every time the above has the word "president" in it, it is referring to Obama. Does your above statement change?

    • Like 1
  10. 3 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

    That is correct.  I can't believe it.  You break a law you break a law. There is no intent aspect to it.  If trump broke a law he broke a law, regardless of intent.  Same with lying under oath.  If you do it you committed perjury.  That is against the law.  Let's apply the penalties of law.  Our whole legal and judicial system is built on precedent.  We are ignoring precedent for some and not for others.  That is what they call..... a bad precedent to set.

    Then you'll be alarmed to know that "intent" as an element of the crime has been around for hundreds of years.

    • Haha 1
  11. 2 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

    And if trump sat there for 11 hours and lied in front of congress at some points and refused to answer questions at other points while under oath would you be okay with him not being charged for perjury because of the amount of people who have lied before congress in recent years (holder, comey, etc..) have set the precedent that lying under oath isn't a punishable crime?

    You see, trump didn't create the banana republic, he is just part of it.  These precedents have been set in motion long ago and we have a ruling class who is above the law and we have a ruled class who must be punished to the extent the law can require.

    aren't you one of the folks who, despite weeks of careful explanation, just could not wrap his head around the idea of "intent" being a part of a criminal offense?

  12. 6 minutes ago, kevwun said:

    If your friend steals something you want and then pawns it and you go to the pawnbroker to buy it, are you innocent?  Both sides knew what the other had done during this deal.  There was just no smoking gun uncovered where they discussed the plan before it took place.  Trump skated because Russia had already stolen the documents before his campaign learned about them.

    I've said it before, but i guess it went unnoticed. Receipt of stolen property is a crime.

  13. 10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    So it wasn't illegal for the Trump campaign to get documents from WikiLeaks and other sources because it would only be illegal if those sources were the ones who hacked the system. What a technicality.

    It's also not true. I've defended multiple people charged with "receipt of stolen property."

    Unless there's no Federal analogue.

  14. 7 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

    Yeah and where are all our resident idiots who were spiking the football and rubbing their tiny dicks in lib tears?

    Ya know the ones who declared victory after Barr’s four page summary?

    The ones who were asked, “I assume you’ll support the release of the entire report, since you’re so sure it exonerates your team?” and answered “Yes! The whole report should be released?

    Those idiots. Where are they? Why aren’t they joining in the chorus demanding to see the entire report?

    Oh, what’s that?

    They’re a bunch of lying assholes who don’t really care about truth and the rule of law and only see this whole thing as a WWE event and just want to see their team win?

    NO KIDDING???

    Image result for gary johnson tongue gif

  15. 1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

    Let's start with a simple yes or no question.

     

    Do you think Mainstream outlets have an agenda to control the information and narratives to the public?  

    Has Trump aided in making this common knowledge (no matter how much you despise *how* he's aided in making in more apparent?) 

    You seem to assume I love Trump because he coincidentally has shone a light on the information controllers, but I don't think he was doing it out of virtue or it being the right thing to do but more out selfishness and covering his own ass.   

    Chill out man.  

    I think every news organization is biased in some way or another. Donald Trump only attacks their bias because of their negative coverage.  If you needed Donald Trump to tell you this, I don't know what to say. If the next Dem pres spends most of his day tweeting about how awful Fox News is, is that good for the system? Would that person be exposing the system? Would that person be good for the country?  I know you don't love Trump. The fact that you think every pol who's not a "privatize the local fire depts" is one-in-the-same though, says a lot.

×
×
  • Create New...