Politics Trump pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I have a problem when people post things untrue.

If that turns out to be "defending Trump," then someone's posting untruths.

This thread isn't about me, but someone wants to make it so.

:crazy:
 
Denny Crane said:
I have a problem when people post things untrue.
Click to expand...

So you're defending truth by saying not giving an illegal immigrant welfare is the same as not investigating child rape?

So you're defending truth by saying that as long as someone doesn't say anything racist they aren't a racist, just racial?

No, you're just posting shit to draw them into arguing with you.

DDS - Denny Derangement Syndrome.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So you're defending truth by saying not giving an illegal immigrant welfare is the same as not investigating child rape?

So you're defending truth by saying that as long as someone doesn't say anything racist they aren't a racist, just racial?

No, you're just posting shit to draw them into arguing with you.

DDS - Denny Derangement Syndrome.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of drivel in this post.

Your fixation with me is creepy still.
 
Well back on topic, so there supposedly might be a hearing on legitimacy of Arpaio pardon in Arpaio's court case. Kind of interesting theater. This Arpaio pardon is somewhat unique (given its timing) so maybe it's warranted. I think probably not. What's there to talk about? He's pardoned. Further hearings seem to be a waste of time. But, it's interesting nonetheless.
 
barfo said:
I finally got around to looking this up. As I expected, there is no right to a jury trial in this case.

From the court documents, the prosecution said:



And Arpaio agreed:



so your objection is, as they say in court, overruled.

barfo
Click to expand...

Well DUH! So a judge say the Constitution doe not say what it says. I don't doubt that at all. Judges would indeed like to be the last word on as much as the can get.
 
MarAzul said:
Well DUH! So a judge say the Constitution doe not say what it says. I don't doubt that at all. Judges would indeed like to be the last word on as much as the can get.
Click to expand...

And Arpaio agreed. Why do you think he (his lawyer) agreed?

barfo
 
barfo said:
And Arpaio agreed. Why do you think he (his lawyer) agreed?
Click to expand...

We already know (suspect?) that Arpaio doesn't think much of the Constitution. You're only weakening your case.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Hahahahahahaha!

I post that Denny just loves to argue with Minstrel and Barfo so to change things up he goes after Crandc.

"Dammit dog, I have to argue with someone!"
Click to expand...
I read her link and I am furious. However, Crandc is guilty of lying or didn't read it thoroughly. I'd choke that 85 year old man with my bare hands if he did set a puppy on fire on purpose.

So, spreading blatant misinformation should be called out.

It is a habit she repeats often.

The thing about Vick and the dogs is that dogs don't deserve it and being involved in dog fighting is a conscious decision one makes when they should be rational.

(This is where crandc assumes by me saying that I believe women do deserve it)
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
The thing about Vick and the dogs is that dogs don't deserve it and being involved in dog fighting is a conscious decision one makes when they should be rational.

(This is where crandc assumes by me saying that I believe women do deserve it)
Click to expand...

But how is that "the thing about dogs" if you agree that human victims of abuse also don't deserve it?

If you intentionally phrase things in ways you don't mean, in order to bait someone, should we assume that all your sarcastic and "outraged" response posts are also fake? ;)
 
Minstrel said:
But how is that "the thing about dogs" if you agree that human victims of abuse also don't deserve it?

If you intentionally phrase things in ways you don't mean, in order to bait someone, should we assume that all your sarcastic and "outraged" response posts are also fake? ;)
Click to expand...
Miss the rational part? Angry men hit women, it sucks. They shouldn't do it.

If you asked them over a beer they'd say you shouldn't hit women.

Now, serial wife beaters that just think women are there to abuse are another story.

Sammich is cold? Smack!

Yeah, those types need pushed off a cliff.

I just think it is worse to beat or kill a defenseless animal.

I just knew that I'd get flack over it. I'll tell a story in my next post explaining why.
 
About 12 years ago on my way home from work my truck overheated.

I pulled off on a empty side street by some apartments.

As I'm looking under the hood I hear screaming and tires screeching and see a 20 year old guy chasing his girlfriend in her car.


She stops and he catches up to the car and is trying to rip her door open to get to her.

Me being a total badass walks over and yell at her "do you need help?"

She looks at me and screams "mind your fucking business"

So, in this one instance she deserves whatever she gets. I'd have stopped him anyway if I thought he was going to kill her but she just took off and he continued to chase her. They both liked it.

I can't imagine a dog that deserves to be bred to fight to the death. It is worse to me. I can pretend I'm going to hit my dogs and they just look at me and climb on my lap. There's something sick about abusing something that can't speak out.
 
Sedatedfork said:
Well back on topic, so there supposedly might be a hearing on legitimacy of Arpaio pardon in Arpaio's court case. Kind of interesting theater. This Arpaio pardon is somewhat unique (given its timing) so maybe it's warranted. I think probably not. What's there to talk about? He's pardoned. Further hearings seem to be a waste of time. But, it's interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Was there a hearing for the thousands of people Obama pardoned? Was there a hearing when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich after his wife donated 450k to the Clinton library and 1 million to the Democratic party? A hearing for Chelsea Manning or Oscar Lopez?

Honest questions
 
Mediocre Man said:
Was there a hearing for the thousands of people Obama pardoned? Was there a hearing when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich after his wife donated 450k to the Clinton library and 1 million to the Democratic party? A hearing for Chelsea Manning or Oscar Lopez?

Honest questions
Click to expand...

Not the same... the hearing is to decide what to do about the sentencing phase, which hasn't been done for Arpaio yet. All of those you mention had already been sentenced, so there was no reason to rule on sentencing.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Not the same... the hearing is to decide what to do about the sentencing phase, which hasn't been done for Arpaio yet. All of those you mention had already been sentenced, so there was no reason to rule on sentencing.

barfo
Click to expand...
They should sentence him to a million years.
 
I should have also mentioned that some of those listed were commutations of sentences, not pardons. Manning, for example, was not pardoned, just let out early.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I should have also mentioned that some of those listed were commutations of sentences, not pardons. Manning, for example, was not pardoned, just let out early.

barfo
Click to expand...
Doesn't make too much difference.
 
Donald J. Trump said:
fake-tweet20170829-9-he7z27.jpg
Click to expand...
The fuck is this shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top