- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Can you show that this is the case here?Well in some cases a D next to ones name will lead to nit picky selective partisan hackery.
Can you show that this is the case here?Well in some cases a D next to ones name will lead to nit picky selective partisan hackery.
Can you show that this is the case here?
So... your answer is no, you cannot show that this is the case here.You just have to look in the mirror.
So... your answer is no, you cannot show that this is the case here.
And I am -astounded- that someone would accept the idea that it is OK for the President to enforce the law based on what HE thinks should and should not be illegal.
:roll:Well since you already showed the case I really don't have to.
You're discussing two different things -- investigation of violations of federal laws dealing with the purchase of firearms, and the investigation of murders.
Chances are, the murder investigation is a state, not federal, investgation; if it were a federal investigation, the FBI, not the BATF, would be in the lead.
But all of that is beside the point -- I'm not at all sure how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds any water whatseoever.
And I am -astounded- that someone would accept the idea that it is OK for the President to enforce the law based on what HE thinks should and should not be illegal.
I answered your hypothetical directly, and with a perfectly sound response -- its not my fault you didnt ask a question narrow enough to generate an answer within a range that you wanted.so instead of answering the hypothecal you decide to just weasel out of it.. I see.
Again:Lets simplify this, and make them both federal crimes so you don't split hairs.
Should a gun registration violation have the same priority as someone who is smuggling AK-47's into Montana across the Canadian border to sell to whomever has the money for them?
Why would the --prosecution-- of these be anything --other-- than chonological? Everyone has the same right to a speedy trial.Your answer is it should be chronological? A prosecutor should dedicate resources to the registration violation instead of the gun smuggling because it happened first?
Why would the --prosecution-- of these be anything --other-- than chonological? Everyone has the same right to a speedy trial.
I'm sorry -- when did I specifically say that?So a gun registration case has a higher priority than a smuggling case.. ok.
Wow. Way to make stuff up that suits your argument.The prosecutor should not decide that the registration case is low priority offense and take a plea bargain so that they may develop a sound case to take the gun smuggler to trial. All because the registration case happens to be chronologically superior.
Especially when you make things up to suit your position, and dont have an understanding of what's being discussed.Makes sense to me :doh
makes sense to me :doh
Not if it wants to "faithfully execute" its job as CLEO.That's what the executive branch does.
Says he who willfully misunderstands and deliberately mis-represents the posts he is responding to.Dont sweat it, he has established his ignorance in regards to resource allocation as a function of time (aka opportunity cost) a few pages back. And because of this, he will continue to spew his "chrono" bs time and again.
It's his discretion.
Yes -- because I have no right to openly disagree with the policies or the President and/or claim that he isnt doing his job.If what you say is true, Goobieman, the solution is simple: impeach him. Anything else is hot air.
Says he who willfully misunderstands and deliberately mis-represents the posts he is responding to.
:roll:
Says he who willfully misunderstands and deliberately mis-represents the posts he is responding to.
:roll:
Still sniping from the shadiows, eh?You gotta be kidding.
Says he who willfully misunderstands and deliberately mis-represents the posts he is responding to.You cannot just state your opinion (which is not in line with reality), and expect people to take it as self evident. If the US legal system performed in the manner of which you prescribe, it would likely collapse.
Says he who willfully misunderstands and deliberately mis-represents the posts he is responding to.
I'm sorry -- given that you are forced to blatantly lie to make your points, I see no need to give any considersation whatsoever to anything that you have to say.Like they always say, if you cannot beat 'em, shhhhhhhhuffle! Not only have you lost this debate, your credibility is sinking to new lows (which for you is worrisome).
I'm sorry -- given that you are forced to blatantly lie to make your points, I see no need to give any considersation whatsoever to anything that you have to say.
Yes -- because I have no right to openly disagree with the policies or the President and/or claim that he isnt doing his job.
Oh, if I had only known that when all the BDS droolers were out...
:roll:
Still sniping from the shadiows, eh?