Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Liberals refuse to see themselves as hypocrites

Too often the pseudo title of "peaceful protesters" is portrayed by the media while the camera shows attacks on free speech. Not only are the attacks printed and verbal, but increasingly physicial attacks. 

 

Washington Post;

For too long, the liberal left has been hiding behind a guise of compassion and inclusivity. They claim to care about the forgotten man and pretend to have tolerance for people of all backgrounds, races, religions and political beliefs. Yet, time and time again, their actions prove otherwise.

 

The camera doesn't lie but liberals do. Do anything to anyone who dares disagree. Attack-attack-attack.  To put it crudely, it is no longer clear what liberalism means. Through madern times Freedom has traditionally been the creedo of liberals. However there is good freedom and bad freedom. The good... was to enhance the positive freedom of the dispossessed. However... the bad interwoven into their fabric. Liberals are increasinly ignoring the common good and enbrassing the exploitation others. 

 

Look at how those who are judged by liberals and what liberals produce today. A vile list of malignant words meant to intimidate and smear good people. It's a "machine gun" vocabulary that indiscriminately hits everyone but with intended result... to verbally mame. The fruit of liberalism is what? I'm at a loss if  anything good is produced. Apparently the American voter thinks the same way.


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
399 Views
295
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Be gentle, NOT. They thought they had their dream of a Marxist State within their grasp and it turned to smoke.

 

So, all this White Supremacist, Nazi, Kluxer, etc. nonsense is on a par with the schoolyard, "You're just an old poopy-head".

Honored Social Butterfly

I believe this is it...I believe this is it...


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
535 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

While the Conservatives are concerned about the direction the country might go, the radical liberals are LOL.


Liberals are very concerned about the direction of the country but the current set of legal and moral disasters are squarely at the feet of the Conservatives led by an amazingly incompetent president. As Garrison Keilor said after the election, Liberals have done their best and now can grow heirloom tomatoes while watching the results.   Did anyone think Trump could screw things up this badly in 200 days?  He has outdone himself and the Republicans own it. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

While the Conservatives are concerned about the direction the country might go, the radical liberals are LOL.


Liberals are very concerned about the direction of the country but the current set of legal and moral disasters are squarely at the feet of the Conservatives led by an amazingly incompetent president. As Garrison Keilor said after the election, Liberals have done their best and now can grow heirloom tomatoes while watching the results.   Did anyone think Trump could screw things up this badly in 200 days?  He has outdone himself and the Republicans own it. 


It will take Trump a full eight years to undo all the damage Obama and the liberals did in eight.  Don't judge the eight years by the first 200 days.

0 Kudos
454 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Once again the RW is ranting about all the damage President Obama did to America WITHOUT naming any damaging act. Just off the top of my head, he got helath insurance for 34 million people who didn't have it, stopped the flood of body bags coming from Iraq and Afghanistan and moved us out of the jrbush Great Recession, the worst financial disaster since the last Republican-engineered disaster in 1929. oh yeah, he ended the practice of American Presidents walking hand in had with Arab leaders whose citizens (and relatives)  financed, planed and executed 9/11.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

Once again the RW is ranting about all the damage President Obama did to America WITHOUT naming any damaging act. Just off the top of my head, he got helath insurance for 34 million people who didn't have it, stopped the flood of body bags coming from Iraq and Afghanistan and moved us out of the jrbush Great Recession, the worst financial disaster since the last Republican-engineered disaster in 1929. oh yeah, he ended the practice of American Presidents walking hand in had with Arab leaders whose citizens (and relatives)  financed, planed and executed 9/11.


With regards to those receiving benefits from Obamacare, you are confusing "from each according to his means; to each according to his needs" (Marxism) with what is good for America. You seem to think Marxism is good for America. I believe that the Constitution is good for America.

 

Amd, of course, the recent recession was the fault of a form of Fascism in which the government took over the operation of a part of the economy - hardly a Republican thing nor a Bush thing.

0 Kudos
528 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

 

Amd, of course, the recent recession was the fault of a form of Fascism in which the government took over the operation of a part of the economy - hardly a Republican thing nor a Bush thing.


When we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress leading up to the recession we are somehow to believe that the Republicans had nothing to do with it?

Honored Social Butterfly

@ cent... correct, he's not entitled but could be granted such. It was argued the judge was biased politically, based on his statements. It was going to the state supreme court.

But... it's a mute point. 85 yr old man going home after a job well done by honoring his oath to uphold the law. The party of compassion would like to have his head on a platter.

God bless you Joe! Good job!

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
512 Views
11
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
@ cent... correct, he's not entitled but could be granted such. It was argued the judge was biased politically, based on his statements. It was going to the state supreme court.

But... it's a mute point. 85 yr old man going home after a job well done by honoring his oath to uphold the law. The party of compassion would like to have his head on a platter.

God bless you Joe! Good job!

Arpaio is lucky that it didn't stay in the state courts. If it had stayed in the state courts Trump could not have pardoned him.

 

Guess you are not a person who believes in the US Constitution.

Honored Social Butterfly

@snoopy

 

Of course I believe in the constitution. In fact constitutional issues arise all the time and find their way into court. Believing your position is right doesn't make anyone anti constitutional. Why would you be an accuser? Wouldn't you be reaching a conclusion? and haven't you just tried me in your court of opinion? That's how division begins... see how that works? Your false conclusion and accusation has a name. Can you guess what that is?

Now to Joe and the real issue.... Joe took an oath to uphold the constitution. He believed he was doing that. The court found him in contempt of a politically inspired order. The court believed he was enforcing the law by profiling. Politicas were definitely part of this.

So... immigration laws do what? Joe believed, like me, profiles immigrants. DUI laws profile drunks, and so on.... This was gonna be a constitutional question without doubt.

If you see something say something.


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
420 Views
8
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:

@snoopy

 

Of course I believe in the constitution. In fact constitutional issues arise all the time and find their way into court. Believing your position is right doesn't make anyone anti constitutional. Why would you be an accuser? Wouldn't you be reaching a conclusion? and haven't you just tried me in your court of opinion? That's how division begins... see how that works? Your false conclusion and accusation has a name. Can you guess what that is?

Now to Joe and the real issue.... Joe took an oath to uphold the constitution. He believed he was doing that. The court found him in contempt of a politically inspired order. The court believed he was enforcing the law by profiling. Politicas were definitely part of this.

So... immigration laws do what? Joe believed, like me, profiles immigrants. DUI laws profile drunks, and so on.... This was gonna be a constitutional question without doubt.

If you see something say something.


So when he was informed that his actions were illegal and he agreed to stop those actions but then went against what he said he would do he was just making an honest mistake. Does that mean that if I believe murder is Constitutional I should have the privilege to kill anyone?

Honored Social Butterfly

@Snooy

 

Too extreme of a comparison. Murder vs. contempt. Keep it within the realm or reality. He believed he was upholding the law and the constitution.

He did not say he was gonna be any different and change what he was already doing... according to the judge.

Here's the judge's quote of what happened... "(Arpaio) he announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise," wrote US District Judge Susan Bolton in the July 31 order finding Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt.

So he stuck to his beliefs in spite of the ruling. Judge ruled he broke the law but Joe believed he should uphold his oath. Tantamount to civil unrest IMO. It also matters what side of the fence you're on. I happen to like what Joe did for Mariposa County. Yes... he was Patton with a badge.

You know Rosa Parks broke the law too by sticking to her beliefs. She was a criminal in the 60's and a hero in the 90's.
So if I, or anyone else supports her civil disobedience, are we all guilty of not believing in the constitution? You have to see the absurdity of your accusation towards me.

If you're against Joe just say so, I get the left despises everything Trump touches ... no need to dance around and make false accusation against me and make absurd comparisons.


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
408 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:

@Snooy

 

Too extreme of a comparison. Murder vs. contempt. Keep it within the realm or reality. He believed he was upholding the law and the constitution.

He did not say he was gonna be any different and change what he was already doing... according to the judge.

Here's the judge's quote of what happened... "(Arpaio) he announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise," wrote US District Judge Susan Bolton in the July 31 order finding Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt.

So he stuck to his beliefs in spite of the ruling. Judge ruled he broke the law but Joe believed he should uphold his oath. Tantamount to civil unrest IMO. It also matters what side of the fence you're on. I happen to like what Joe did for Mariposa County. Yes... he was Patton with a badge.

You know Rosa Parks broke the law too by sticking to her beliefs. She was a criminal in the 60's and a hero in the 90's.
So if I, or anyone else supports her civil disobedience, are we all guilty of not believing in the constitution? You have to see the absurdity of your accusation towards me.

If you're against Joe just say so, I get the left despises everything Trump touches ... no need to dance around and make false accusation against me and make absurd comparisons.


You seem to think the reason the "Left" despises what Trump does is because it comes from Trump. Not the case. I admit, he has done nothing in office to admire but we despise his actions and his comments.  If Bernie Sanders did the things Trump does, we would despise them. Trump we despise because he seems to be profiting off his position, seems to be in league with the Russians, and is a complete hypocrite. 

 

The same is true for Joe. His actions were ruled unconstitutional and he was ordered to stop by the courts. He did not stop on the assumption he would be pardoned by the POTUS. See how that works out?

Recognized Social Butterfly

If you're against Joe just say so, I get the left despises everything Trump touches ... no need to dance around and make false accusation against me and make absurd comparisons.

 

And That started when the Right Despised everything Obama did.  Including everything Obama has done that Trump is trying to erase from history including the Climate Accord the whole world recognizes to Obamacare that the Right despises so they can't even agree on how to appeal it.

Honored Social Butterfly

 


@Fishslayer777 wrote:

@snoopy

 

Of course I believe in the constitution. In fact constitutional issues arise all the time and find their way into court. Believing your position is right doesn't make anyone anti constitutional. Why would you be an accuser? Wouldn't you be reaching a conclusion? and haven't you just tried me in your court of opinion? That's how division begins... see how that works? Your false conclusion and accusation has a name. Can you guess what that is?

Now to Joe and the real issue.... Joe took an oath to uphold the constitution. He believed he was doing that. The court found him in contempt of a politically inspired order. The court believed he was enforcing the law by profiling. Politicas were definitely part of this.

So... immigration laws do what? Joe believed, like me, profiles immigrants. DUI laws profile drunks, and so on.... This was gonna be a constitutional question without doubt.

If you see something say something.


You present a nice story but it does not fit the timeline or the facts. Does that make it fake news?  Hmm. Well,
Regardless of what Joe believed. a court of the United States justice system told him to stop doing it. He was not prosecuted because of the way he enforced the laws but because he was ordered to cease by the court. Arpaio continued these activities and was found in contempt of court. This is not the story of an innocent wiaf with no idea what he was doing.
There is an old saying "If you do the crime, you do the time". Unless you are a white conservative who supports Trump. As justice goes, this stinks.
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

 


@Fishslayer777 wrote:

@snoopy

 

Of course I believe in the constitution. In fact constitutional issues arise all the time and find their way into court. Believing your position is right doesn't make anyone anti constitutional. Why would you be an accuser? Wouldn't you be reaching a conclusion? and haven't you just tried me in your court of opinion? That's how division begins... see how that works? Your false conclusion and accusation has a name. Can you guess what that is?

Now to Joe and the real issue.... Joe took an oath to uphold the constitution. He believed he was doing that. The court found him in contempt of a politically inspired order. The court believed he was enforcing the law by profiling. Politicas were definitely part of this.

So... immigration laws do what? Joe believed, like me, profiles immigrants. DUI laws profile drunks, and so on.... This was gonna be a constitutional question without doubt.

If you see something say something.


You present a nice story but it does not fit the timeline or the facts. Does that make it fake news?  Hmm. Well,
Regardless of what Joe believed. a court of the United States justice system told him to stop doing it. He was not prosecuted because of the way he enforced the laws but because he was ordered to cease by the court. Arpaio continued these activities and was found in contempt of court. This is not the story of an innocent wiaf with no idea what he was doing.
There is an old saying "If you do the crime, you do the time". Unless you are a white conservative who supports Trump. As justice goes, this stinks.

No---Unless you're a member of  BLM, ANTIFA, Code Pink and on and on. I don't think those groups are white conservatives and support Trump, do you?

0 Kudos
386 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@fangoh45 wrote:



No---Unless you're a member of  BLM, ANTIFA, Code Pink and on and on. I don't think those groups are white conservatives and support Trump, do you?


Of course not. Why, did they all get undeserved pardons in violation of presidential practice too?

Honored Social Butterfly

No one denies he was in contempt of court. The issue from Joe's position was... his constitutional vow and authority to uphold the law vs The DOJ. Everyone knows the DOJ was out for Joe. Come on. The contempt charge was their arrow to take Joe out.

It worked. He's gone and he'll write a book and get a TV mini series and live happily ever after.

God Bless Joe!

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
385 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
@ cent... correct, he's not entitled but could be granted such. Of course.  
It was argued the judge was biased politically, based on his statements. Yea, it usually is.....It was going to the state supreme court.  As he already lost his appeal in lower court.

But... it's a mute point. 85 yr old man going home after a job well done by honoring his oath to uphold the law. More hypocrisy.  Violating the Constitution is now "honoring his oath" to Conservatives.  Rather pathetic....The party of compassion would like to have his head on a platter.  The justice system would like him punished for his crime.

God bless you Joe! Good job!  More hypocrisy.

"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly


@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:


Fishslayer wrote -For the record... I'm glad Joe gotta get out of jail card. Is that hypocrisy? On a pure law and order platform... yes it is---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the record- Obama had 1972 pardons of real criminals- Bill Clinton pardon his own brother and Marc Rich ,who was on the FBI 10 most wanted list. His wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton campaign and he got his pardon.   Sherriff Joe was convicted for enforcing the law.(50 years of enforcing the law earned him his pardon)


In fact, the judge refused Joe his RIGHT to a jury trial.


And in Document #62 from the trial:

 

"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment"

 

Facts usually don't matter to the uninformed....


I should have used the word requested.  The Sheriff requested a jury trial which he is allowed to do. The judge denied the request which he is also allowed to do.  Facts don't matter to the folks who like to start fires or initiate an argument!

 

BTW-

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

No. 95-6465.

Argued: April 23, 1996

Decided: June 24, 1996

Syllabus

Petitioner was charged with two counts of obstructing the mail, each charge carrying a maximum authorized prison sentence of six months. He requested a jury, but the magistrate judge ordered a bench trial, explaining that because she would not sentence him to more than six months' imprisonment, he was not entitled to a jury trial. The District Court affirmed. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right pertains only to those offenses for which the legislature has authorized a maximum penalty of over six months' imprisonment, and that because each offense charged here was petty in character, the fact that petitioner was facing more than six months' imprisonment in the aggregate did not entitle him to a jury trial.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/518/322

0 Kudos
514 Views
7
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:


Fishslayer wrote -For the record... I'm glad Joe gotta get out of jail card. Is that hypocrisy? On a pure law and order platform... yes it is---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the record- Obama had 1972 pardons of real criminals- Bill Clinton pardon his own brother and Marc Rich ,who was on the FBI 10 most wanted list. His wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton campaign and he got his pardon.   Sherriff Joe was convicted for enforcing the law.(50 years of enforcing the law earned him his pardon)


In fact, the judge refused Joe his RIGHT to a jury trial.


And in Document #62 from the trial:

 

"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment"

 

Facts usually don't matter to the uninformed....


I should have used the word requested.  The Sheriff requested a jury trial which he is allowed to do. The judge denied the request which he is also allowed to do.  Facts don't matter to the folks who like to start fires or initiate an argument!

 

BTW-

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

No. 95-6465.

Argued: April 23, 1996

Decided: June 24, 1996

Syllabus

Petitioner was charged with two counts of obstructing the mail, each charge carrying a maximum authorized prison sentence of six months. He requested a jury, but the magistrate judge ordered a bench trial, explaining that because she would not sentence him to more than six months' imprisonment, he was not entitled to a jury trial. The District Court affirmed. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right pertains only to those offenses for which the legislature has authorized a maximum penalty of over six months' imprisonment, and that because each offense charged here was petty in character, the fact that petitioner was facing more than six months' imprisonment in the aggregate did not entitle him to a jury trial.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/518/322


Thanks for the proof that your assertion was incorrect.

Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:


Fishslayer wrote -For the record... I'm glad Joe gotta get out of jail card. Is that hypocrisy? On a pure law and order platform... yes it is---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the record- Obama had 1972 pardons of real criminals- Bill Clinton pardon his own brother and Marc Rich ,who was on the FBI 10 most wanted list. His wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton campaign and he got his pardon.   Sherriff Joe was convicted for enforcing the law.(50 years of enforcing the law earned him his pardon)


In fact, the judge refused Joe his RIGHT to a jury trial.


And in Document #62 from the trial:

 

"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment"

 

Facts usually don't matter to the uninformed....


I should have used the word requested.  Yes you should have, but you didn't.....words matter.

 

Thank you for proving my point!!!

 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly


@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:


Fishslayer wrote -For the record... I'm glad Joe gotta get out of jail card. Is that hypocrisy? On a pure law and order platform... yes it is---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the record- Obama had 1972 pardons of real criminals- Bill Clinton pardon his own brother and Marc Rich ,who was on the FBI 10 most wanted list. His wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton campaign and he got his pardon.   Sherriff Joe was convicted for enforcing the law.(50 years of enforcing the law earned him his pardon)


In fact, the judge refused Joe his RIGHT to a jury trial.


And in Document #62 from the trial:

 

"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment"

 

Facts usually don't matter to the uninformed....


I should have used the word requested.  Yes you should have, but you didn't.....words matter.

 

Thank you for proving my point!!!

 


Now that you "proved your point" but didn't actually get anyone all upset, that should ruin your day!

0 Kudos
508 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:


Fishslayer wrote -For the record... I'm glad Joe gotta get out of jail card. Is that hypocrisy? On a pure law and order platform... yes it is---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the record- Obama had 1972 pardons of real criminals- Bill Clinton pardon his own brother and Marc Rich ,who was on the FBI 10 most wanted list. His wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton campaign and he got his pardon.   Sherriff Joe was convicted for enforcing the law.(50 years of enforcing the law earned him his pardon)


In fact, the judge refused Joe his RIGHT to a jury trial.


And in Document #62 from the trial:

 

"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment"

 

Facts usually don't matter to the uninformed....


I should have used the word requested.  Yes you should have, but you didn't.....words matter.

 

Thank you for proving my point!!!

 


Now that you "proved your point" but didn't actually get anyone all upset, that should ruin your day!


You're responsible for your emotions, NOT.  Big boys learn that quite early in life.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly


@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:


Fishslayer wrote -For the record... I'm glad Joe gotta get out of jail card. Is that hypocrisy? On a pure law and order platform... yes it is---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the record- Obama had 1972 pardons of real criminals- Bill Clinton pardon his own brother and Marc Rich ,who was on the FBI 10 most wanted list. His wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton campaign and he got his pardon.   Sherriff Joe was convicted for enforcing the law.(50 years of enforcing the law earned him his pardon)


In fact, the judge refused Joe his RIGHT to a jury trial.


And in Document #62 from the trial:

 

"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment"

 

Facts usually don't matter to the uninformed....


I should have used the word requested.  Yes you should have, but you didn't.....words matter.

 

Thank you for proving my point!!!

 


Now that you "proved your point" but didn't actually get anyone all upset, that should ruin your day!


You're responsible for your emotions, NOT.  Big boys learn that quite early in life.


I'm having a great day - you, not so much!

0 Kudos
505 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:


Fishslayer wrote -For the record... I'm glad Joe gotta get out of jail card. Is that hypocrisy? On a pure law and order platform... yes it is---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the record- Obama had 1972 pardons of real criminals- Bill Clinton pardon his own brother and Marc Rich ,who was on the FBI 10 most wanted list. His wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton campaign and he got his pardon.   Sherriff Joe was convicted for enforcing the law.(50 years of enforcing the law earned him his pardon)


In fact, the judge refused Joe his RIGHT to a jury trial.


And in Document #62 from the trial:

 

"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment"

 

Facts usually don't matter to the uninformed....


I should have used the word requested.  Yes you should have, but you didn't.....words matter.

 

Thank you for proving my point!!!

 


Now that you "proved your point" but didn't actually get anyone all upset, that should ruin your day!


You're responsible for your emotions, NOT.  Big boys learn that quite early in life.


I'm having a great day - you, not so much!


LOL!  Typical Conservative.....a dictator wanna-bee....


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly


@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:


Fishslayer wrote -For the record... I'm glad Joe gotta get out of jail card. Is that hypocrisy? On a pure law and order platform... yes it is---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the record- Obama had 1972 pardons of real criminals- Bill Clinton pardon his own brother and Marc Rich ,who was on the FBI 10 most wanted list. His wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton campaign and he got his pardon.   Sherriff Joe was convicted for enforcing the law.(50 years of enforcing the law earned him his pardon)


In fact, the judge refused Joe his RIGHT to a jury trial.


And in Document #62 from the trial:

 

"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment"

 

Facts usually don't matter to the uninformed....


I should have used the word requested.  Yes you should have, but you didn't.....words matter.

 

Thank you for proving my point!!!

 


Now that you "proved your point" but didn't actually get anyone all upset, that should ruin your day!


You're responsible for your emotions, NOT.  Big boys learn that quite early in life.


I'm having a great day - you, not so much!


LOL!  Typical Conservative.....a dictator wanna-bee....


The response I would expect from a typical liberal!

0 Kudos
379 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Centristsin2010 wrote:

In fact, the judge refused Joe his RIGHT to a jury trial.


And in Document #62 from the trial:

 

"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment"

 

Facts usually don't matter to the uninformed....


I would also point out that if Arpaio believes he was unlawfully denied a trial by jury, then he should pursue that in the courts.  I think the Trump pardon, while saving Arpaio, will cause Congress to look very carefully at  restricting the ability of a president to pardon and when. Unlike this instance, a pardon should not be a preemptive get out of jail free card. 

Honored Social Butterfly

So it's safe to assume you do not support pardons. I do. Presidents & Governors use their authority to do so at their pleasure.

It's the law

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
259 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
So it's safe to assume you do not support pardons.You don't have to assume.  I said I didn't.....or would you rather assume anyway's?  You sure assume a LOT!   I do.  So?  Presidents & Governors use their authority to do so at their pleasure. Yes, they do.  So?

It's the law  Yes, it is.  So?  Doesn't mean a good law.  You didn't ask if it was legal, you asked if I supported them.  Abortions are legal as well, but you don't support them.  Just more hypocrisy, Fish?

 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png