It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Laws and law breakers.

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron




Wonderful. So, will you promise to stand with network dude and me and be unbiased, and not support ANY witch hunts until charges are filed?

That means not participating in Trump bashing threads, nor Hillary, nor Obama or any other person you can think of unless charges are filed by prosecutors.

In the interest of bring us closer on these boards, bridging the gap and being consistent when we take to pitchforks.


No, but only because your conditions are ridiculous. I thought we were talking about the witch hunt occurring in Washington, not the petty squabbles going on at ATS.


We cannot really affect what goes on in Washington, but we can be mindful of how we're being manipulated and we can take a stand here. We do have the power to control what we say and how we present information, and we can be consistent in our beliefs, regardless of how Washington does it.

Will you stand with us, here on these boards and be unbiased and treat all accusations equally until there are charges filed in court?




posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




Deflect from what?

I was trying to highlight exactly what you said, not deflect from it.

This OP and it's premise could be applied to many other people. Including Hillary and Obama. So to say what you said, seems either dishonest or ignorant.


Then go ahead and apply it to many other people. It could be applied to Joan of Arc if you feel like it. But, of course, the argument isn't about any other people.


So you only stand on principle when the situation fits? Your principles are...relative?
edit on 24-5-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




So when someone says: "There is only one witch hunt going on," he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.


Talk about all the witch hunts if you want to. Hell, we could go all the way back to Salem. Whatever gives you enough room to deflect.


Deflect from what? I was trying to highlight exactly what you said, not deflect from it.

This OP and it's premise could be applied to many other people. Including Hillary and Obama.

So to say what you said, seems either dishonest or ignorant.


But you seem to forget that with regards to Ms. Clinton, the former (actual at the time) head of the FBI listed the crimes she was found to have committed. Did you not understand that part?


Was she found guilty? That is the condition you set in the OP.

It does appear that your conditions are changing a bit though, as the language changed from "guilty" to "committed".

If that is the road you want to go down, it changes the context of the entire conversation and ends-up putting Trump in a similar boat to Hillary.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron




We cannot really affect what goes on in Washington, but we can be mindful of how we're being manipulated and we can take a stand here. We do have the power to control what we say and how we present information, and we can be consistent in our beliefs, regardless of how Washington does it.

Will you stand with us, here on these boards and be unbiased and treat all accusations equally until there are charges filed in court?


I don't stand with anyone. But yes, I do believe in the presumption of innocence.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




So you do not stand on principle when the situation fits? Your principles are...relative?


No.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sumary here: www.theatlantic.com...

Sexual harrasment in Germany 2015, Anti-trust laws, race discriminatoin laws.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
I continue to see some laughable comments that are never backed up, and it makes me think there are a whole lot of misinformed people out there. A Law is a rule that has been voted into existence. They usually carry penalties for those who break them. They are usually spelled out quite clearly as to what they entail.

So when I see people complain about all the laws Trump has broken, then ask them to elaborate and list them, I get......crickets.

By the same token , when I ask about the laws that previous political figures have broken and not received any punishment, some of those same people will argue that since no punishment was given, there was no wrong being done.

So has the rule of law been re-written? Did the rules change and nobody told the public? Is a law only important if someone is punished?

So here is the challenge, if Trump is guilty of breaking a law, please list it, and explain what he did, and then we can all look into what punishment would fit. I can make a pretty safe bet that if you have a valid concern that he broke a law, there are important people who will listen.

And please, even though this is the mud pit, trying to belittle me would be a bit childish, so try to stick to the topic, which isn't me.


I agree with you. I hold this same arguement for anyone saying to arrest Hillary or that everything Obama did was illegal. They'll bring up the constitution but there's usually not a specific law that you can point to. Especially with those in political power in the US. Sometimes it seems like there may be a broken law...an actual specific, but those in power always find away around it or the wording is vague enough as to be ineffective.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron




We cannot really affect what goes on in Washington, but we can be mindful of how we're being manipulated and we can take a stand here. We do have the power to control what we say and how we present information, and we can be consistent in our beliefs, regardless of how Washington does it.

Will you stand with us, here on these boards and be unbiased and treat all accusations equally until there are charges filed in court?


I don't stand with anyone. But yes, I do believe in the presumption of innocence.


Well, you stand with the current government, I thought you could stand with us too. It's alright, moving on.

I take it then you will be applying that presumption of innocence equally in all threads? I want to be clear here -- that means, if information comes up about Obama that may look incriminating, or information about Trump or Hillary that may look equally incriminating -- you will defend all of them until they are proven guilty in court?

I want to make sure that when you say you believe in the presumption of innocence that we're talking about the same thing. If I am wrong in what that means and I didn't describe it well, can you please explain how you take it?



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Kharron
I see a lot of what you say from both sides, network dude -- biased reporting, making stuff up and defending one side, only to hear crickets when it's the opposite.

For two decades now we've been reading that Obama broke the law, or GW broke the law, or Rumsfeld did, or Hillary did and should be jailed, or that Trump and his people did... and for those two decades not one of them has been held accountable for a single action, for a single one of those hundreds of broken laws.

So either they are all angels or they are all above the law. Being above the law does not mean no crime was committed, it just means the people have no power in this country.

Here's one example of when I hear crickets a lot... when people post what seems to be compelling evidence against Hillary and ask for her arrest, and over the last month I believe I've posed this question four or five times in those threads:

- Why is she not in jail? Why was that promise not kept? Why is someone who has access to all information, can take any step necessary, avoiding prosecuting Hillary or at least appointing a Counsel, or anything really? And thread after thread all I get is... crickets, from both sides.

I simply cannot believe that he cannot find anything wrong in her work to keep that promise... there must be more to it.

So, to wrap up, does Obama, or GW or Hillary not having been charged ever mean that they are innocent?


I Agree that calling someone a criminal with no crimes to be accountable for is wrong. That's kind of why I wrote this thread. So can I count on your to help me out here and admit the same?


Absolutely, I didn't think there was a doubt about me, I'm pretty clear -- I want all these crooks investigated and I'm impatiently waiting to know more. You've never heard me say I want someone arrested or impeached, and I won't until the investigators give us proof it's needed.

So, can we count on you that if investigations into Hillary or Obama or Trump end up calling for removal or imprisonment, you will be equally unbiased and supportive?


I'll be completely honest with you here. If Hillary isn't punished for the crimes Comey laid out in his briefing I listed a bit earlier, I will be angry. I was in the military and subject to those same rules, and I'm quite sure had I broken just one of them, I'd have been punished.

But if an investigation (a real one) lets her off, I will have no choice but to accept the results.
Is that fair enough? (honest question)


How did this discussion turn into one about Hillary? Oh, right...



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Feel free to call me out when I go against my principles. You don't need my permission, and I don't need your reminders.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickyD

People around Trump are, by definition, criminals.


By "definition"? Really? What "definition" is that? That is one of the more absurd statements I have ever read on ATS. It shows an almost blissful lack of understanding of what "breaking a law" is and is a perfect example of what OP is suggesting. You obviously have no legal training whatsoever and claiming what you just did shows a complete lack of credibility on your part. You are simply partisan with no evidence whatsoever. You don't like Trump. I get that. But to claim that people around are Trump, by definition, criminals is laughable in the extreme. I guarantee one thing. If you asserted such a ridiculous proposition in court, you would be laughed out of it.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron

Feel free to call me out when I go against my principles. You don't need my permission, and I don't need your reminders.


Sounds good. And it's good to know for a fact that you will defend the presumption of innocence in all threads.

I support it too. Take care.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kharron

Feel free to call me out when I go against my principles. You don't need my permission, and I don't need your reminders.



I support it too.


Good man.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




So when someone says: "There is only one witch hunt going on," he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.


Talk about all the witch hunts if you want to. Hell, we could go all the way back to Salem. Whatever gives you enough room to deflect.


Deflect from what? I was trying to highlight exactly what you said, not deflect from it.

This OP and it's premise could be applied to many other people. Including Hillary and Obama.

So to say what you said, seems either dishonest or ignorant.


But you seem to forget that with regards to Ms. Clinton, the former (actual at the time) head of the FBI listed the crimes she was found to have committed. Did you not understand that part?


Was she found guilty? That is the condition you set in the OP.

It does appear that your conditions are changing a bit though, as the language changed from "guilty" to "committed".

If that is the road you want to go down, it changes the context of the entire conversation and ends-up putting Trump in a similar boat to Hillary.


Um, there was an investigation. THE FBI conducted it. IT was even the same FBI that she owned. They found proof that she violated the law. IF you find that with say the Mueller investigation and Trump is said to have committed crimes, do you think I will be able to act like a little bitch about him? I think not. So it seems you really don't have that option here. Unless you choose to that is.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude



So when I see people complain about all the laws Trump has broken, then ask them to elaborate and list them, I get......crickets


Well, he's been accused of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and violations of the emolument clause, for starters.


I dont count it if it is accused by leftist. Plus, not claimed by anyone else but the flaming left and especially not the FBI, DOJ or Mueller.
edit on 24-5-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickyD

People around Trump are, by definition, criminals.


By "definition"? Really? What "definition" is that? That is one of the more absurd statements I have ever read on ATS. It shows an almost blissful lack of understanding of what "breaking a law" is and is a perfect example of what OP is suggesting. You obviously have no legal training whatsoever and claiming what you just did shows a complete lack of credibility on your part. You are simply partisan with no evidence whatsoever. You don't like Trump. I get that. But to claim that people around are Trump, by definition, criminals is laughable in the extreme. I guarantee one thing. If you asserted such a ridiculous proposition in court, you would be laughed out of it.


Those that plead guilty are, by definition, criminals.

Not sure why you have a hard time understanding that.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



Um, there was an investigation. THE FBI conducted it. IT was even the same FBI that she owned. They found proof that she violated the law.


Was she tried, found guilty and now considered a criminal? Or is she a criminal without a conviction? If that is the case, it may be quite reasonable to call Trump a "criminal".

Again, your standards (goalposts) seem to be very fluid. Let's find one and stick to it.



IF you find that with say the Mueller investigation and Trump is said to have committed crimes, do you think I will be able to act like a little bitch about him?


I think you are going to act like a little bitch, no matter what the case may be or who is involved. That's obvious, but not the topic at hand.



So it seems you really don't have that option here. Unless you choose to that is.


What option? To act like a little bitch? No thanks.

What I can do is continue to point-out the absurdity of your OP and the ever-changing standards/principles people claim to hold.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So I can count on you to stand up for Donald Trump even if Mueller find crimes, until he's tried in a court of law?

Best think a good bit about your answer while you struggle with those goal posts you mentioned.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



So I can count on you to stand up for Donald Trump even if Mueller find crimes, until he's tried in a court of law?


Absolutely. I've never said anything that would indicate otherwise.



Best think a good bit about your answer while you struggle with those goal posts you mentioned.


My beliefs and principles are the same, regardless of how you twist and turn in your posts.

You should have thought about your OP a good bit before you posted it. You've now set a standard I expect to see you holding others to as well.

We shall see how principled you are.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


We shall see how principled you are.



Likewise



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join