America's War on Children--Legislative Cruelty
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
Reformed,
Thanks for your efforts. It appears you don't know enough of the details of the situation to respond to my post intelligently. CMHAHAHAHA so rather than show me the proof you just try to insult me. That's funny and really dismisses your case. Why don't you man up and take my points one by one?
Why do you continue to support criminals?
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
Reformed,
Thanks for your efforts. It appears you don't know enough of the details of the situation to respond to my post intelligently. CMHAHAHAHA so rather than show me the proof you just try to insult me. That's funny and really dismisses your case. Why don't you man up and take my points one by one?
Why do you continue to support criminals?
Sir, I am sorry you feel this way. I very sorry you took it that way. I have no invested interest in insulting you. What I put forth is so. You don't seem to be aware of the points I raised. That's all. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
Reformed,
Thanks for your efforts. It appears you don't know enough of the details of the situation to respond to my post intelligently. CMHAHAHAHA so rather than show me the proof you just try to insult me. That's funny and really dismisses your case. Why don't you man up and take my points one by one?
Why do you continue to support criminals?
Sir, I am sorry you feel this way. I very sorry you took it that way. I have no invested interest in insulting you. What I put forth is so. You don't seem to be aware of the points I raised. That's all. CM
And I asked you for references. Other points I addressed specifically. I am also still waiting on why you support criminal activity and want to support criminals?
-
@reformed said:
And I asked you for references.
Come on check your news feed, newspaper, TV, etc. What I said is available to you, just look.
Other points I addressed specifically. I am also still waiting on why you support criminal activity and want to support criminals?
My friend, in your heart, you know this is not true. Reformed, you have no documents or statements to support such. I'm not interested in any nonsensical back and forth. So, please, be more accurate in your exchanges. Please don't confuse my expressions of compassion for the support of criminal activities. CM
-
Actually Reformed is spot on. CM, you obviously don't know a thing except to regurgitate the liberal hatebites foisted on the ignorant by a ravening media. That has been made clear a few times, but I guess you have momentum and can't stop.
-
@GaoLu said:
Actually Reformed is spot on. CM, you obviously don't know a thing except to regurgitate the liberal hatebites foisted on the ignorant by a ravening media. That has been made clear a few times, but I guess you have momentum and can't stop.GaoLu,
You said, "you obviously don't know a thing." Why would you say this? Is it because it's true? Is it because we do see eye to eye on many points or you're just being nasty because we're online? What have I done to cause you to draw such conclusion of me?It may be helpful for you to cite some examples of my regurgitating the "liberal hatebites foisted on the ignorant by a ravening media." GaoLu, you seem to be upset about something else.
Do you have a preferred newsfeed, broadcast, news channel, newspaper, commentator, etc., for me to consult? Do you want me to think like you? Calm down, the sky is not falling. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
And I asked you for references.
Come on check your news feed, newspaper, TV, etc. What I said is available to you, just look.
Other points I addressed specifically. I am also still waiting on why you support criminal activity and want to support criminals?
My friend, in your heart, you know this is not true. Reformed, you have no documents or statements to support such. I'm not interested in any nonsensical back and forth. So, please, be more accurate in your exchanges. Please don't confuse my expressions of compassion for the support of criminal activities. CM
Your compassion is what is supporting the criminals. Do you agree these people are criminals and deserve to be prosecuted yes or no?
@GaoLu said:
Actually Reformed is spot on. CM, you obviously don't know a thing except to regurgitate the liberal hatebites foisted on the ignorant by a ravening media. That has been made clear a few times, but I guess you have momentum and can't stop.Exactly
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
Actually Reformed is spot on. CM, you obviously don't know a thing except to regurgitate the liberal hatebites foisted on the ignorant by a ravening media. That has been made clear a few times, but I guess you have momentum and can't stop.GaoLu,
You said, "you obviously don't know a thing." Why would you say this? Is it because it's true? Is it because we do see eye to eye on many points or you're just being nasty because we're online? What have I done to cause you to draw such conclusion of me?It may be helpful for you to cite some examples of my regurgitating the "liberal hatebites foisted on the ignorant by a ravening media." GaoLu, you seem to be upset about something else.
Do you have a preferred newsfeed, broadcast, news channel, newspaper, commentator, etc., for me to consult? Do you want me to think like you? Calm down, the sky is not falling. CM
I'm still waiting on you to provide sources for your nonsense.
-
@C_M_ said:
Do you have a preferred newsfeed, broadcast, news channel, newspaper, commentator, etc., for me to consult? Do you want me to think like you? Calm down, the sky is not falling. CMI do. It is called broad past and present ongoing personal experience. The media is not even in the ballpark.
-
@reformed said:
Your compassion is what is supporting the criminals. Do you agree these people are criminals and deserve to be prosecuted yes or no?A brief intrusion from me, reformed.
I find your passion for the prosecution of "criminals" - in this case, likely those guilty of a first-time misdemeanor offense - to be less than consistent.
Remember your view of former national security adviser Michael Flynn's guilty plea to lying to the FBI? Of his own volition he signed a plea agreement in which, directly and without escape clause, he confessed to having lied to federal agents, a crime that is a felony, not a misdemeanor. The document Flynn signed under penalty of perjury unmistakably declared that he had signed the agreement because he was in fact guilty of the felony therein described, because he had in fact lied to the FBI. Your response?
"They caught him on a technicality, he did not lie...."
So in your view, people from other countries who, in search of asylum, cross the border in misdemeanor violations of the law are "criminals and deserve to be prosecuted," but a high-level White House adviser who confessed to felonious lying to the FBI did not in fact lie, but was caught in a technicality.
That SURE sounds like you have more compassion and concern for the felon than you do for the people guilty of misdemeanors. But let me ask: In your view, are confessed felons "criminals," and do they "deserve to be prosecuted" every bit as much as people who commit misdemeanors? Do you believe Flynn's felony crime is less serious, more serious, or about as serious as the crime of a person who commits a misdemeanor illegal border crossing?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Your compassion is what is supporting the criminals. Do you agree these people are criminals and deserve to be prosecuted yes or no?A brief intrusion from me, reformed.
I find your passion for the prosecution of "criminals" - in this case, likely those guilty of a first-time misdemeanor offense - to be less than consistent.
Remember your view of former national security adviser Michael Flynn's guilty plea to lying to the FBI? Of his own volition he signed a plea agreement in which, directly and without escape clause, he confessed to having lied to federal agents, a crime that is a felony, not a misdemeanor. The document Flynn signed under penalty of perjury unmistakably declared that he had signed the agreement because he was in fact guilty of the felony therein described, because he had in fact lied to the FBI. Your response?
"They caught him on a technicality, he did not lie...."
So in your view, people from other countries who, in search of asylum, cross the border in misdemeanor violations of the law are "criminals and deserve to be prosecuted," but a high-level White House adviser who confessed to felonious lying to the FBI did not in fact lie, but was caught in a technicality.
It's not the same thing Bill. They set a trap for him. The FBI doesn't believe Flynn intentionally lied. These people intentionally crossed the border.
-
@reformed said:
It's not the same thing Bill. They set a trap for him. The FBI doesn't believe Flynn intentionally lied. These people intentionally crossed the border.In what passed for the "cover letter" attached to the plea agreement Flynn signed, special prosecutor Mueller's office told to the Court... (emphasis added)
"On or about January 24, 2017, defendant MICHAEL T. FLYNN did willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit, the defendant falsely stated and represented to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, D.C., that: . . ."
I think the government's court filing directly refutes your claim that "the FBI doesn't believe Flynn intentionally lied." On what factual basis do you make it?
And how does a person unintentionally lie?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
It's not the same thing Bill. They set a trap for him. The FBI doesn't believe Flynn intentionally lied. These people intentionally crossed the border.In what passed for the "cover letter" attached to the plea agreement Flynn signed, special prosecutor Mueller's office told to the Court... (emphasis added)
"On or about January 24, 2017, defendant MICHAEL T. FLYNN did willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit, the defendant falsely stated and represented to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, D.C., that: . . ."
I think the government's court filing directly refutes your claim that "the FBI doesn't believe Flynn intentionally lied." On what factual basis do you make it?
And how does a person unintentionally lie?
How does someone unintentionally lie? If you say something and believe it to be true and it is wrong, that is an unintentional lie is it not?
That being said, plea bargains are what people agree to, not necessarily what happened. Surely an educated man as yourself understands that.
The purpose of a plea bargain is to agree to certain charges to get off of a greater charge or a shorter or more lenient sentence. A plea bargain is not necessarily what actually happened.
-
@reformed said:
Do you have a preferred newsfeed, broadcast, news channel, newspaper, commentator, etc., for me to consult? Do you want me to think like you? Calm down, the sky is not falling. CM
I'm still waiting on you to provide sources for your nonsense.
Given that you're free to leave a comment on any post in this public forum, try being respectful. Is this too much to ask? Besides, what you are commenting on was addressed directly to GaoLu. You're free to comment, but don't become a slave to that freedom. Thanks. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
Do you have a preferred newsfeed, broadcast, news channel, newspaper, commentator, etc., for me to consult? Do you want me to think like you? Calm down, the sky is not falling. CM
I'm still waiting on you to provide sources for your nonsense.
Given that you're free to leave a comment on any post in this public forum, try being respectful. Is this too much to ask? Besides, what you are commenting on was addressed directly to GaoLu. You're free to comment, but don't become a slave to that freedom. Thanks. CM
Still waiting. I have not yet been disrespectful. If you would like me to be I can.
-
@GaoLu said:
@C_M_ said:
Do you have a preferred newsfeed, broadcast, news channel, newspaper, commentator, etc., for me to consult? Do you want me to think like you? Calm down, the sky is not falling. CMI do. It is called broad past and present ongoing personal experience. The media is not even in the ballpark.
In your answer to my questions, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say, sorry. CM
-
@reformed said:
Your compassion is what is supporting the criminals...
I guess the Pope supports criminals too. I am not him but in good company.
President Donald Trump and Pope Francis meet at the Vatican, May 24, 2017.
Pope Francis has criticized the Trump administration's policy of separating migrant families at the Mexican border, saying populism is not the answer to the world's immigration problems.
Speaking to Reuters, the Pope said he supported recent statements by U.S. Catholic bishops who called the separation of children from their parents "contrary to our Catholic values" and "immoral."
Do you agree these people are criminals and deserve to be prosecuted yes or no?
What I do know the Pope doesn't and millions of other truly compassionate people in the USA, DON'T THINK SO. CM
-
Good. I accept that there were FBI representatives who held the view that Flynn hadn't lied. But in our system, the FBI investigates; it doesn't charge. And in our system, no one coerces people to sign, under penalty of perjury, documents that confess to lying.
The document Flynn signed says openly and without the possibility of misinterpretation that he "willfully and knowingly" made "materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations." In our system, such a confession overrules the surmises of FBI personnel.
If when he signed the plea agreement, he believed/knew he had NOT "willfully and knowingly" made false statements to the FBI, then he lied when he signed the plea agreement, part of which says...
"I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because l am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully.
"I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct."
So Flynn lied to the FBI or he lied when he signed the plea deal. Either way he lied.
That being said, plea bargains are what people agree to, not necessarily what happened. Surely an educated man as yourself understands that.
Flynn's deal did "not necessarily" reflect "what happened"? I encourage you to re-read the plea agreement and the statement of acceptance Flynn signed under penalty of perjury.
"An educated man" such as I understands that one who signs a document in which he or she declares "I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because l am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged," a document in which he or she "declare(s) under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct," is confessing his or her guilt of the charges made in that document... or is lying by signing a statement he or she knows not to be true.
The purpose of a plea bargain is to agree to certain charges to get off of a greater charge or a shorter or more lenient sentence. A plea bargain is not necessarily what actually happened.
Read the plea agreement and Flynn's statement which he signed under penalty of perjury. Either he lied to the FBI or he lied when he signed the statement.
How does someone unintentionally lie? If you say something and believe it to be true and it is wrong, that is an unintentional lie is it not?
An "educated man" such as I knows that a "lie" is defined as an intentionally false statement. Statements thought to be true when made, but later discovered to be false, are false statements, but BY DEFINITION are not lies. By definition, there is no such thing as an "unintentional lie."
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
Your compassion is what is supporting the criminals...
I guess the Pope supports criminals too. I am not him but in good company.
President Donald Trump and Pope Francis meet at the Vatican, May 24, 2017.
Pope Francis has criticized the Trump administration's policy of separating migrant families at the Mexican border, saying populism is not the answer to the world's immigration problems.
Speaking to Reuters, the Pope said he supported recent statements by U.S. Catholic bishops who called the separation of children from their parents "contrary to our Catholic values" and "immoral."
Do you agree these people are criminals and deserve to be prosecuted yes or no?
What I do know the Pope doesn't and millions of other truly compassionate people in the USA, DON'T THINK SO. CM
So these illegal immigrants are not breaking United States Law? Yes or no?
-
@reformed said:
The purpose of a plea bargain is to agree to certain charges to get off of a greater charge or a shorter or more lenient sentence. A plea bargain is not necessarily what actually happened.AN ADDITIONAL RESPONSE:
You correctly note that a common function of plea agreements is to "get off of a greater charge, or a shorter or more lenient sentence." So what OTHER crimes did Mueller's team have Flynn on that convinced him to cop to a false statements charge? Given the pressure Mueller and Co has placed on Paul Manafort, there's no way Flynn's plea deal was just Mueller's good deed for the day.Seems to me you have correctly identified a fact in the case that demonstrates Flynn likely committed additional, more serious, crimes - probably also felonies - and signed the plea deal to avoid conviction on those, WHICH MAKES THIS A PERFECT TIME to re-pose my question from earlier in our exchange:
So in your view, people from other countries who, in search of asylum, cross the border in misdemeanor violations of the law are "criminals and deserve to be prosecuted," but a high-level White House adviser who confessed to felonious lying to the FBI in order to avoid conviction on more serious charges did not in fact lie, but was caught in a technicality.
That SURE sounds like you have more compassion and concern for the felon than you do for the people guilty of misdemeanors. But let me ask: In your view, are confessed felons who take plea deals to avoid more serious charges "criminals," and do they "deserve to be prosecuted" every bit as much as people who commit misdemeanors? Do you believe Flynn's felony crime(s) are less serious, more serious, or about as serious as the crime of a person who commits a misdemeanor illegal border crossing?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
The purpose of a plea bargain is to agree to certain charges to get off of a greater charge or a shorter or more lenient sentence. A plea bargain is not necessarily what actually happened.AN ADDITIONAL RESPONSE:
You correctly note that a common function of plea agreements is to "get off of a greater charge, or a shorter or more lenient sentence." So what OTHER crimes did Mueller's team have Flynn on that convinced him to cop to a false statements charge? Given the pressure Mueller and Co has placed on Paul Manafort, there's no way Flynn's plea deal was just Mueller's good deed for the day.Incorrect. Often a plea bargain is issued to save everyone the time of going to court and the prosecution gets an easy win.
Seems to me you have correctly identified a fact in the case that demonstrates Flynn likely committed additional, more serious, crimes - probably also felonies - and signed the plea deal to avoid conviction on those, WHICH MAKES THIS A PERFECT TIME to re-pose my question from earlier in our exchange:
Lot's of speculation here Bill with no merit.
So in your view, people from other countries who, in search of asylum, cross the border in misdemeanor violations of the law are "criminals and deserve to be prosecuted," but a high-level White House adviser who confessed to felonious lying to the FBI in order to avoid conviction on more serious charges did not in fact lie, but was caught in a technicality.
Not the same thing. Though the misdemeanor is worse in this case even if it is not legally worse.
That SURE sounds like you have more compassion and concern for the felon than you do for the people guilty of misdemeanors. But let me ask: In your view, are confessed felons who take plea deals to avoid more serious charges "criminals," and do they "deserve to be prosecuted" every bit as much as people who commit misdemeanors? Do you believe Flynn's felony crime(s) are less serious, more serious, or about as serious as the crime of a person who commits a misdemeanor illegal border crossing?
First, I think it is ridiculous that crossing the border illegally is only a misdemeanor. Second, you are not comparing like crimes. Third, does he "deserve" to be prosecuted? Of course, and he was, and took a plea deal.
-
AN ADDITIONAL RESPONSE:
You correctly note that a common function of plea agreements is to "get off of a greater charge, or a shorter or more lenient sentence." So what OTHER crimes did Mueller's team have Flynn on that convinced him to cop to a false statements charge? Given the pressure Mueller and Co has placed on Paul Manafort, there's no way Flynn's plea deal was just Mueller's good deed for the day. > @reformed said:@reformed said:
Incorrect. Often a plea bargain is issued to save everyone the time of going to court and the prosecution gets an easy win.
First, this is a new rationale for plea agreements, one you chose not to include in your previous posts.
Second, how in the world do you call my summary "incorrect"?! I was basically quoting YOU!!! YOU previously posted...
"The purpose of a plea bargain is to agree to certain charges to get off of a greater charge or a shorter or more lenient sentence. A plea bargain is not necessarily what actually happened.
What in the record of the charges Mueller has filed - particularly against Paul Manafort - demonstrates the slightest intent to "save everyone the time of going to court and the prosecution gets an easy win"?
Seems to me you have correctly identified a fact in the case that demonstrates Flynn likely committed additional, more serious, crimes - probably also felonies - and signed the plea deal to avoid conviction on those, WHICH MAKES THIS A PERFECT TIME to re-pose my question from earlier in our exchange:
Lot's of speculation here Bill with no merit.
YOU'RE THE ONE who first offered that "speculation." (see above) Why didn't you note the lack of merit to your speculation when you first posted it?
Not the same thing. Though the misdemeanor is worse in this case even if it is not legally worse.
What matters in legal matters, of course, is the law, not your or my personal views.
First, I think it is ridiculous that crossing the border illegally is only a misdemeanor. Second, you are not comparing like crimes. Third, does he "deserve" to be prosecuted? Of course, and he was, and took a plea deal.
- Don't like the current law? Work to change it. Until the law changes, however, first time border crossings are misdemeanors, making false statements to federal agents is a felony, and as a group, felonies are more serious crimes than misdemeanors.
- I know I'm not comparing like crimes. Felonies are more serious than misdemeanors.
- I'm glad you think Flynn deserved to be prosecuted. That fact wasn't clear to me when your initial response was to say that he hadn't lied even though under penalty of perjury he had confessed to lying.
-
According to Mr. Trump's recent thinking, the mother and children will not be given a chance to "plea bargain" or anything else without their children. There are more children incarcerated than first reported. Is there still a US Law that covers asylum? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
According to Mr. Trump's recent thinking, the mother and children will not be given a chance to "plea bargain" or anything else without their children. There are more children incarcerated than first reported. Is there still a US Law that covers asylum? CMAccording the Trump Administration, this week there are more than 3,000 kids still separated from their parents. That number is higher than last week's number because it includes children separated before this latest fiasco.
The fact that, again according to the Administration, no children were reunited with their parents in the last week adds pressure to a Court's order that all kids under the age of five be reunited with their parents by next Tuesday.
It's REALLY hard to argue that the Trump Administration cares about anything or anyone other than itself and the 30-35% of Americans who support it. A heartless, shameless embarrassment to our nation in so many ways.
-
I know someone
who may have sneaked across an international border and escaped by the skin of their teeth from men with machine guns. They expected trouble if they got caught.
3000 kids separated? So many adults involved in international criminal activity? Good grief. And there are people even here that defend this nonsense. Foolishness. Shame. Embarrassment. Heartless. Those who enable these crimes by defending them are themselves criminals against America and those 3000 children.
Same thing with abortion. Same kind of people. -
@GaoLu said:
I know someone who may have sneaked across an international border and escaped by the skin of their teeth from men with machine guns. They expected trouble if they got caught.
3000 kids separated? So many adults involved in international criminal activity? Good grief. And there are people even here that defend this nonsense. Foolishness. Shame. Embarrassment. Heartless. Those who enable these crimes by defending them are themselves criminals against America and those 3000 children.
Same thing with abortion. Same kind of people.Pope Francis and US Cardinals and Bishops along with 65% of Americans support the children and the parents. That's a lot of shame and "fools". GaoLu, Calm down and rethink your position on this matter. This is too emotional. Your words are getting ahead of your sobriety of thoughts. Slow down, you don't mean what you said. We understand your passion, but we don't endorse your outburst. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Pope Francis and US Cardinals and Bishops along with 65% of Americans support the children and the parents. That's a lot of shame and "fools".
Most sensible thing I can recall you ever saying.
-
Your expressions and reasonings remind me of a see-saw. Unfortunately, you're on the downside on this issue, in light of your recent remarks above.
Deep in my heart, I believe your so much better than what you're expressing in these forums recently. CM
-
You are thinking now instead of just feeling. That is a big step up. Congratulations. You may go far with this new skill.
-
@GaoLu said:
You are thinking now instead of just feeling. That is a big step up. Congratulations. You may go far with this new skill.Sorry, you're late. I had it for more years than...
-
War on Children-- Proper use of a Gun by a Police Officer?
Officer caught on camera pulling gun on young kids
An El Paso, Texas, police officer has been relegated to desk duty after a disturbing video surfaced of the cop pointing a gun at a group of children and roughly arresting one of the boys last week.
The incident took place on Thursday when police said they responded to a call about a group of young boys trespassing near a recreation center in the western Texas city bordering Mexico.
The video, which was uploaded to a user's Facebook page on Friday, appears to show a police officer pushing one of the boys against a wall with his knee while the other boys taunt the officer and hurl profanity at him.
The officer can then be seen drawing his gun and pointing it at some of the boys, who recoil, before the cop quickly re-holsters his service weapon.
Are these American children criminals? Are they a threat to this officer?
--------------------------------------------------
Less than Half of Child Reunions Will Meet Deadline, ACLU Claims
REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez
The Trump administration will—in about half of the cases—miss its court-ordered Tuesday deadline to reunite young children who were separated from their families at the U.S. border, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The administration reportedly gave the ACLU a list of 102 children under 5 years old, but the list shows that “less than half will be reunited” by the deadline. The Justice Department claimed on Monday that the administration has “worked tirelessly” over the weekend to “promptly [reunify] families while ensuring the safety of the children.” The DOJ has reportedly asked U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw for more time, and he said he would consider certain exceptions, according to the Associated Press. “It’s extremely disappointing that the Trump administration looks like it will fail to reunite even half the children under 5 with their parent,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt told the AP. “These kids have already suffered so much because of this policy, and every extra day apart just adds to that pain.”
Just another day? CM
