Equal under the Law... or not

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Equal under the Law... or not

The stakes are high, and only some want justice... other want "just us".

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456354/fisa-scandal-clinton-obama-...

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
This perfidy will continue

This perfidy will continue not because what they are doing is against the law, but because they go unpunished. Nearly every single full time politician is guilty because you cannot amass wealth solely on the salary paid. Some do but then it isn't much and anyone who amasses the wealth of our Senators and Representatives both State and federal have gone unpunished and the methods they used or have been enabled to take advantage of by lobbyists have become ingenious. Take Hillary's investment in cattle futures. Angus King did it in investments in green energy. How many politicians got rich on Enron stock? A company that was funded with taxpayer money.

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
You can't get rich in

You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook. - Harry S. Truman

https://www.allenwest.com/2016/11/25/yikes-something-strange-happens-dem...

There is no other explanation.

KennyRoberts
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 01/18/2005 - 1:01am
unless every person is equal

unless every person is equal under the law, subject to the same prohibitions and penalties, the system is broken and anarchy is the result.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
"some are more equal than

"some are more equal than others"

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
If two persons violate the

If two persons violate the same prohibition but receive different penalties ,is the system broken ?

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
That depends on WHY they

That depends on WHY they received different penalties. Police, Prosecutors, and Judges do have some discretion. They can be lenient if they see a reason to do so. But if the reason they do so has anything to do with prejudice (in any direction, not just towards minority), improper influence, or financial incentive, then it is massive injustice - and a crime in its own right.

The Clintons are getting a pass in the current debacles, and they should NOT. They're guilty of exactly the same things that others are, and in many cases to a far worse degree. You name it: influence peddling, pay-for-play, collusion, sexual misconduct, and possibly worse forms of corruption. It really annoys me to hear anyone claim that either Clinton is any better suited to the big chair than its current resident, or any of the prior occupants or candidates. These two Clintons are the WORST EVER.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
There is but one law

There is but one law necessary for a society whose survival is assured by abundance and sharing of natures bounty and that is thou shalt not steal. This law and the punishments for it were laid down in the book of Leviticus. I urge you to read the English translation from the original Hebrew because every translation from other sources has contained modifications that either exempt certain classes of people from it or do not mandate the death penalty for its violation.

As Mel so correctly points out, George Orwell adequately demonstrated in his book Animal Farm that all animals are equal but, some animals are more equal than others and those are the ones we elect to public office and allow them to control who gets how much of what through the tax code.

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
That's the strangest

That's the strangest interpretation of Animal Farm I've ever read. I do not believe Orwell was suggesting that holding some as "more equal" was, in any way, a good idea. Most interpretations read it as a criticism of the communist system as well.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the revisionists have reinterpreted this too.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Who said it was a good idea.

Who said it was a good idea. Since it turns out I am right it wasn't.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
From the link in Toolsmith's

From the link in Toolsmith's OP:

What is needed?

Attorney General Sessions must find muscular, ambitious, and combative prosecutors (preferably from outside Washington, D.C., and preferably existing federal attorneys), direct them to call a Grand Jury, and begin collating information from congressional investigations to get to the bottom of what is likely one of gravest scandals in post-war American history: the effort to use the federal government to thwart the candidacy of an unpopular presidential candidate and then to smear and ruin his early tenure as president.
______________________________________________________________

Remember how easy it was to follow the O.J. trial? That it was the worlds first 24/7, made for TV, criminal trial probably helped. But I wonder if the fact that nearly everyone 'knew' he was guilty and were merely waiting for the pieces to fall into place made it seem easy.

This one isn't going to be so easy. Joseph diGenova has ben getting a lot of airtime down in deplorable media. This VIDEO interview with him will help to guide you through the web of scandals we're dealing with. The SECOND LINK is to a 2013 (not colored by current events), somewhat autobiographical interview he gave. I include it (he doesn't WIKI) so you can see that he's not a piker.

I admit that, as this unravels, I'm going to need some help with the play by play and Joe sounds like a good candidate for the job.

The Obama Administration's 'Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton' Starting To Seep Out

YOUTUBE 31:19

A Conversation With Joseph diGenova

SOURCE

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Innocent until proven guilty

Innocent until proven guilty was entered into the lexicon by lawyers who wished to insure their continued employment. It is much more difficult to prove guilt after the fact than it is to prove innocence. The right to trail by jury was included in the Constitution to protect the falsely accused from punishment by the government. This right can be waived by the accused since it is not a mandate.

I was living and working in Saudi Arabia when a grandson of King Feisal killed him during on of his meetings with his subjects. He was apprehended just after he committed the deed and was beheaded before one week had passed. If this same crime was committed in the United States today and someone assassinated the President, he would be apprehended, accused of the crime, be subjected to a trial lasting who knows how long and would languish in prison for years before being put to death and in this case would never be put to death because the Federal Government is loath to do so because of the possibility of public outcry.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Why wasn't he killed by the

Why wasn't he killed by the King's guards on the spot?

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Because the King did not have

Because the King did not have any guards. He does now. Remember, Lincoln, the first assassinated President didn't have any guards at the theatre either. We are so obsessed with turning this country into an armed camp (police state) we have lost sight of the fact that someone bent on killing someone for whatever reason, is going to find a way to do it.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
whatta ya mean "we?" Maybe

whatta ya mean "we?" Maybe you have, but I haven't.

That doesn't mean there aren't means to defend against a significant majority of the threats; would you suggest that not be done?

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Consider this: If every one

Consider this: If every one of the students and the teacher were armed, the perpetrator would need shoot only one and flee and the remainder would most likely begin shooting each other, not knowing who the perpetrator was and in the end all would either be dead or wounded. This has been pictured in many of our old western movies and even recently on series like MASH, where two men in a bar begin a brawl and before long a full melee breaks out. Of note is the fact that such antics have always involved men.

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
PMCONUSA - " Remember,

PMCONUSA - " Remember, Lincoln, the first assassinated President didn't have any guards at the theatre either."

Not quite accurate. Lincoln had a body guard...John Frederick Parker. The story about him is, sadly, very familiar to much we see today. Lincoln died that night because law enforcement administration was derelict in their duty. Parker should never have been on the force and never should have assigned to Lincoln's protection. He was a whoring, drunken, low life who should have been fired over a myriad of transgressions. He left his post at Ford Theater that night to go to a nearby bar to get some booze. While fu*king off at the bar, Lincoln was shot.

Where'd he go?

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Having a drunk as a guard is

Having a drunk as a guard is like having none at all. Why do you suppose few men are volunteering for the police force in Brunswick for example? Because you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you shoot an armed civilian, even in the commission of a crime you are likely to be charged with overreacting unnecessarily and lose your job. As with the guard that didn't respond promptly in the recent school shooting it is very likely his lack of response will require the town to dismiss him for dereliction of duty.

War has no rules, other than kill or be killed. Why is it that before we go in to help one side in a civil war we do not do so until their government agrees to not hold our soldiers libel for the deaths of their opponents? Why we do in the first place I have addressed on innumerable occasions on this blog and it is to keep the military industrial complex in business and save jobs. You will note that the bulk of the troops engaged on the front lines of these conflicts are not regulars but militia troops, some of whom are working on multiple tours.

I have asked AMGers how many Al-Qaeda or Taliban Troops the just authorized new $6 billion aircraft carrier and is unlikely to be ready in 5 years is going to eliminate? No one seems to be willing to answer.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
23,431.5

23,431.5

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
.5 ? He quit after the first

.5 ? He quit after the first air strike saying "sweet mother of Allah that was close!

pmconusa
I have a response to your fascination with my alleged friendship.

At least I have one !

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
I feel sorry for you then

I feel sorry for you then because I have many. Yours is not a friendship but an equal denial of the truth.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
It just never ends.

It just never ends.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
WTF

WTF
Inability to understand the word least !
I believe you covered that quite nicely as in past !

Log in to post comments