cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 12:17 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
So now, you can be convicted of a crime on "intent?"


The answer is yes. There are numerous laws involving nothing more than conspiracies to do something unlawful - both in this country and most others.

If you think for a moment cicerone, you will appreciate that it would be very foolish to do otherwise.


And who exactly is "policing" all those intents to do wrong?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 12:19 pm
It's usually way past the point of intent; convictions for crimes are after the fact.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 12:38 pm
Well, Hussein clearly had the intent, and we prevented him from us having to deal with after the fact, didn't we.

I still have lingering questions unanswered. How come Syria has some of the nuclear stuff they do, and how come we aren't more concerned? Was stuff transported out of Iraq when attack became iminent? Who did the Antrax attack?

Aside from all of the above, Valerie Plame believed Hussein might use WMD on our troops when they entered Iraq, as they were entering. Proof positive the CIA advised Bush, and Bush did not make any of it up. Clinton was saying the same thing about Hussein before Bush even got to Washington. Well, Bush is the only guy with enough spine to actually do something to back up his words, the CIA's words, the U.N.'s words and the libs are too spineless to admit it. Finally a president that does what he means and means what he says, and wouldn't you know it, some people just can't take it, they would rather have a spineless flip flopper.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 12:41 pm
Quote:
Finally a president that does what he means and means what he says


An interesting construction.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 12:42 pm
Well, I got close, is it "says what he means and means what he says?" You know what I mean.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 01:09 pm
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 01:28 pm
Quote:
Why is it so difficult for Oblama to say he was WRONG


He's not his own man...
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 01:34 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
So now, you can be convicted of a crime on "intent?"


The answer is yes. There are numerous laws involving nothing more than conspiracies to do something unlawful - both in this country and most others.

If you think for a moment cicerone, you will appreciate that it would be very foolish to do otherwise.


And who exactly is "policing" all those intents to do wrong?


Elementary, my dear Cicerone Smile

Quote:
One of the fundamental purposes of the criminal law is to prevent conduct that is harmful to society. Accordingly, the law punishes conduct that threatens to produce the harm, as well as conduct that has actually produced it. However, the law does not punish all persons shown to harbor a criminal intent. Everyone occasionally thinks of committing a crime, but few actually carry the thought into action. Therefore, the law proceeds only against persons who engage in acts that sufficiently demonstrate their firm intention to commit a crime.


http://law.jrank.org/pages/717/Conspiracy-agreement.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 01:40 pm
Wiki's definition of conspiracy (intent) that is prosecutable by law:
Quote:
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.


Anybody have any evidence of any kind the Saddam Hussein ever repented about anything?

Obama (and his devoted followers--is that an acceptable term Cyclop?) are quite naive in thinking that Saddam Hussein was a toothless tiger and would not have become quite dangerous again once restored to full international privileges. Further the well-intended sanctions to keep him in check until he did repent and cooperate with the UN inspectors to prove it were causing untold suffering for the Iraqi people. The most modest estimates are that 50,000 Iraqis, many or most children, died from malnutrition and neglect during the 12 years of sanctions. To have continued them would have been cruel and, in my opinion, unconscionable.

Whatever one believes about Iraq, how we got there, whatever evils may have occurred while we have been there, the only humane course of action now is to leave the Iraqi people with the power and resources to determine their own destiny.

McCain understands that.

I don't believe Obama or his devoted followers do.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 01:40 pm
High Seas, Do you read something before you post it? Your post: "Accordingly, the law punishes conduct that threatens to produce the harm, as well as conduct that has actually produced it."

It punishes conduct, not intent. I can intend to rob a bank, but until its turned into "conduct," there is no crime. And just how do you know what my intents are? Magic?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 01:51 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
..............."Accordingly, the law punishes conduct that >>>>>> >
threatens to produce the harm
<<<<<<<<as well as conduct that has actually produced it."



This is the most elementary parsing of the law on intent:

"threatens to produce the harm"

and if you still can't grasp it perhaps you could get someone to read it back to you slowly. As to magic - read the link I posted explaining no magic is involved.

Terribly sorry to see you've had such a lapse in mental processes, Cicerone, and certainly I wish you a speedy recovery Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 02:10 pm
Barack Obama 08' Iraq

Quote:


I personally think he overstates the AQ issue as even reports have said that AQ is unable to operate successfully in Iraq now, but on the whole I agree with the problems he states and the solutions he presents. We simply can not keep up the effort of this surge or we can not confront other dangers such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reports have said as much there as well.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 02:21 pm
Given Obama's frequent flip flops lately, and the fact that he has just this last day or two purged his entire website of ALL the scathing criticism of the Iraq war and the surge that was there. . . .

. . . and he now has his spokespeople saying that he NEVER said that the surge would not reduce violence--this even though I'm pretty sure that I personally have heard him say the exact opposite of that--. . . .

. . . the man simply will not, cannot, won't say that he is wrong about anything.

Those of us who want to keep him honest better start copying some other stuff on the website for prudent use. He should not be with impunity allowed to do a 180 on his 'message of hope' and pretend that he didn't. I'm sure he told himself 'yes I can'. Well, no he can't.

This is the first time I am actually angry that 1) he is no better than other politician about lying through his teeth and 2) he treats the American people like such idiots.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 02:42 pm
High Seas wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
..............."Accordingly, the law punishes conduct that >>>>>> >
threatens to produce the harm
<<<<<<<<as well as conduct that has actually produced it."



This is the most elementary parsing of the law on intent:

"threatens to produce the harm"

and if you still can't grasp it perhaps you could get someone to read it back to you slowly. As to magic - read the link I posted explaining no magic is involved.

Terribly sorry to see you've had such a lapse in mental processes, Cicerone, and certainly I wish you a speedy recovery Smile



"threatens to produce the harm"

Okay, how do you know that my intent will "threaten to produce the harm?" You can read the criminal's mind?

Definition of "intent - firmly directed, earnest, n. an intending 2 something intended, purpose or meaning..."

How do you measure "intent?"
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 02:51 pm
Obama hasn't done half the **** that the lying right would have us believe. And even the questionable stuff he has done is so minor only a complete moron would give a ****. He's thinking, evaluating, and making new assessments as things change. That is what good leaders do. His core ideas haven't changed, and that's what matters.

Of course phonies like Foxfyre and Okie won't ever admit that, and will instead take every chance they can to yell "flip-flopper!" or bitch about some minor issue as if it were worse than treason, or say, attacking a sovereign nation based on lies and horseshit. I guess if you're an old dried-up conservative partisan tw*t with an axe to grind, you see it differently. But that's just old politics. The dinosaur politics of lying and hate. That's what Obama is going to hopefully defeat this year. That win-at-all-costs brand of stupidity that has turned our government into two teams trying to destroy one another, instead of working together for compromise.

But you ultra-partisan tw*ts just keep on firing away. You're missing the mark by a mile, because you just don't get it. You are liars, and if things go the way they should, you will soon be obsolete.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 03:04 pm
kickycan wrote:
Obama hasn't done half the **** that the lying right would have us believe.


Obama hasn't done half the **** the left believes he has and he will never do most of the **** he has promised to do.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 03:05 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Obama hasn't done half the **** that the lying right would have us believe.


Obama hasn't done half the **** the left believes he has and he will never do most of the **** he has promised to do.


We can only hope.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 03:05 pm
kickycan wrote:
Obama hasn't done half the **** that the lying right would have us believe. And even the questionable stuff he has done is so minor only a complete moron would give a ****. He's thinking, evaluating, and making new assessments as things change. That is what good leaders do. His core ideas haven't changed, and that's what matters.

Of course phonies like Foxfyre and Okie won't ever admit that, and will instead take every chance they can to yell "flip-flopper!" or bitch about some minor issue as if it were worse than treason, or say, attacking a sovereign nation based on lies and horseshit. I guess if you're an old dried-up conservative partisan tw*t with an axe to grind, you see it differently. But that's just old politics. The dinosaur politics of lying and hate. That's what Obama is going to hopefully defeat this year. That win-at-all-costs brand of stupidity that has turned our government into two teams trying to destroy one another, instead of working together for compromise.

But you ultra-partisan tw*ts just keep on firing away. You're missing the mark by a mile, because you just don't get it. You are liars, and if things go the way they should, you will soon be obsolete.



HummmÂ…I think I see what you mean about getting more intellectual and sophisticated in your political posts, Kick. Certainly an improvement over the old rascally self you use to project. Stick to this higher plane. It suits you. And I think your honorable opponents truly deserve the respect you are paying them.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 03:07 pm
Frank! Are you merely a figment, or are you back?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jul, 2008 03:11 pm
Indeed. snood. I see Frank disappeared from late Feb to mid-May. Nice to see him.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 988
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 08/01/2025 at 12:42:16