Obama’s childhood best friend charged in brutal rape

Truth Detector said:
I'm glad you have the patience to deal with the hypocrisy and lies of these lefttards. It's hard to keep up with all their bullshit; you need hip waders in here.
Click to expand...

They do have a propensity to make up shit as they go along to fit the argument.

This in turn, causes normal people to have to dig up links to disprove their idiocy... then they disappear to start all over in a new thread.
 
Taft2016 said:
They do have a propensity to make up shit as they go along to fit the argument.

This in turn, causes normal people to have to dig up links to disprove their idiocy... then they disappear to start all over in a new thread.
Click to expand...

Yes they do; I call this the never ending circle of leftist stupidity. ;)
 
Taft2016 said:
Wrong again, Alpo breath.

We had an extensive biography of Reagan prior to his election. We knew Dutch's pals from his college days, lifeguard days, sports caster days, and Hollywood years.

The only friends we know Obama had are two bomb throwers (who became his friends *AFTER* their convictions), a psychotic racist preacher, and now a rapist.

Time to own up to it. You blindly voted for a blank slate with no documented past. Anyone with a smidge of honesty would admit that and be expressing buyer's remorse by now.
Click to expand...

You mean that extensive partially-fictionalized biography of the hollow man, by his imaginary contemporary? Please.

Edmund Morris had access to everything you mentioned and still couldn't put together a definitive picture of his life and personality. People knew precious little about reagan but it didn't stop him from getting elected to several offices as a result of his movie-star training and superficial charm.

October 10, 1999 The Hollow Man
A biography of the 40th President turns to fiction in an effort to take his true measure.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/10/10/reviews/991010.10weismat.html
 
Last edited:
Taft2016 said:
No, it is not. It's called an "accident."

I could embarrass you by telling you what I do for a living, where I do it, how long I've been doing it, and what my rank is... but why bother? You're stone-headed and are incapable of listening.

I tried to steer you in the right direction by telling you about the qualifiers like; criminal negligence, recklessness, depraved indifference, but ZOOM!, that soared right over your head.

According to your theory, if you run a stop sign the police should arrest you for reckless driving. But they don't, do they? They give you a ticket for going through a stop sign. Getting into an accident doesn't raise the level of the offense, even if someone dies. It's a traffic violation.

The only way it becomes a crime is if there are one of the qualifiers listed above, like criminal negligence. Those take the form of things like being drunk, texting while driving, etc. At that point it becomes more than just passing through a stop sign.

Just about every fatal car accident involves some sort of traffic violation, but they don't arrest everyone involved in a fatal car wreck, do they?

Meh, keep blabbing.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you do for a living, and I raised my own qualifier of recklessness re: Laura's stop-sign violation. Why did you ignore that? Laura admitted she was chatting to her friend in the car and not paying attention to traffic because they were hurrying to a drive-in movie. It's in her book. I read that book.

FYI Ted Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, one of your qualifiers. He received a suspended sentence and lost his driving license for a year. Everything was wrapped up nice and tidy within the legal system, using your own criteria. So explain to me again why his accident was worse than Laura's. Laura wasn't even ticketed for reckless driving, i.e. running a stop sign.
 
christiefan915 said:
And the very next sentence to your bolded one reads "The crash remains under investigation."

Get back to me with the results of the investigation and we'll talk.
Click to expand...

What is this aversion you have to being wrong about something you don't know anything about anyway?

"Under investigation" would be the toxicology reports. Blood tests for controlled substances, etc. They check other driver as well, post-mortem.

Meanwhile, it's just an accident caused by a traffic violation. Fatality involved, no arrest. There was a traffic violation committed, a fatality, and no arrest. Just like Laura Bush's case, and hundreds more every year.

You're wrong. Just admit it.
 
Taft2016 said:
What is this aversion you have to being wrong about something you don't know anything about anyway?

"Under investigation" would be the toxicology reports. Blood tests for controlled substances, etc. They check other driver as well, post-mortem.

Meanwhile, it's just an accident caused by a traffic violation. Fatality involved, no arrest. There was a traffic violation committed, a fatality, and no arrest. Just like Laura Bush's case, and hundreds more every year.

You're wrong. Just admit it.
Click to expand...

And if the tox report shows elevated blood alcohol level what happens? More charges? Nothing?
 
christiefan915 said:
And if the tox report shows elevated blood alcohol level what happens? More charges? Nothing?
Click to expand...

Are you genuinely retarded or something?

How may times did I say a traffic violation could slip over into a crime if aggravated by circumstances like drunken driving or texting...

... which could give a state of mind such criminal negligence or recklessness, and therefore create criminal liability?

Do you just type and not read what you're responding to?
 
Taft2016 said:
The only way it becomes a crime is if there are one of the qualifiers listed above, like criminal negligence. Those take the form of things like being drunk, texting while driving, etc. At that point it becomes more than just passing through a stop sign.
Click to expand...

There's the second time I said it.

Any more stupid questions?
 
christiefan915 said:
Involuntary manslaughter is by far the most common crime charged in vehicle-related deaths. Good examples include:[/I]

  • A driver running a red light and then crashing into another car, killing the other driver
  • Speeding, losing control of the car, crossing over into opposite lanes of travel and colliding with another car, killing a driver or passenger
  • Driving at night without headlights and striking and killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk
Click to expand...

I did some Googling and found your link,which you didn't post, and probably for good reason. You deliberately left out the part that supports everything I've been saying:

http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/When-a-Drivers-Actions-Amount-to-Manslaughter.html

In many states, a motorist who drives an automobile recklessly or in a grossly negligent manner and unintentionally kills another is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Generally, this means driving without any thought of or care for the safety of others.
Click to expand...

Running a stop sign inadvertently does NOT rise to the level of depraved indifference called for here. If it did, then everyone who went through a stop sign would be arrested.
 
Last edited:
Taft2016 said:
Are you genuinely retarded or something?

How may times did I say a traffic violation could slip over into a crime if aggravated by circumstances like drunken driving or texting...

... which could give a state of mind such criminal negligence or recklessness, and therefore create criminal liability?

Do you just type and not read what you're responding to?
Click to expand...

Are you genuinely evading my comments about reckless driving or what? You just wrote above "a traffic violation could slip over into a crime if aggravated by circumstances like drunken driving or texting..."

Why are you trying to pretend that running a stop sign isn't as much a violation as texting? They are both moving violations, numbskull.
 
christiefan915 said:
Are you genuinely evading my comments about reckless driving or what? You just wrote above "a traffic violation could slip over into a crime if aggravated by circumstances like drunken driving or texting..."

Why are you trying to pretend that running a stop sign isn't as much a violation as texting? They are both moving violations, numbskull.
Click to expand...
Examples of moving violations


 
christiefan915 said:
Are you genuinely evading my comments about reckless driving or what? You just wrote above "a traffic violation could slip over into a crime if aggravated by circumstances like drunken driving or texting..."

Why are you trying to pretend that running a stop sign isn't as much a violation as texting? They are both moving violations, numbskull.
Click to expand...

The question about you being retarded was rhetorical. That's de facto at this point.

Where did I ever say texting wasn't a violation? It is. In New York State at the moment, it happens to be a heavy violation though. This state puts violation points on your driver's license, and texting is now a heavy. The penalty in fact, was just upped this week. Penalties and case law are still going through growing pains, so it's not all settled across the country yet.

If you run a stop sign, because you're too busy texting, a case can be made that you are operating a vehicle recklessly. Same thing with being drunk. Being drunk is settled law, texting is still evolving.

Not wearing a seatbelt is also a moving violation. If you get into a car accident and kill somebody, but weren't wearing your seatbelt, do you think the person should be arrested for driving recklessly, with criminal negligence, or depraved indifference? Do you have an ounce of common sense in your head?

But this all irrelevant, unless Laura Bush was driving with her feet, because she had a martini in each hand, while texting with her nose, and driving 120 mph.

"ZOMG! I bet she was!"
 
Damocles said:
And?

Look, I don't like Obama's policies, but who cares what some guy he knew in 10th grade has done?

Of my best friends when I was growing up (about 8 kids in our regular group), I and one other are the only ones that have spent no time in jail. Does this mean I am "bad"?
Click to expand...

Here we have a glimmer of the old Damocles who I respect.
 
christiefan915 said:
Kennedy had an accident, just like Bush. She was speeding and not paying attention to the road. Today her accident would be called vehicular manslaughter. No charges were filed on her, not even for a traffic violation. She came from a wealthy family in her town also, even though it was Midland wealthy, not Kennedy wealthy. Stop acting like you didn't know any of this.

I like Laura Bush as a person far more than I ever liked Kennedy but I'm not blind to what she did, teenager or not. Your comment that the comparison is ridiculous is dishonest and laughable.
Click to expand...

Kennedy was charged for failing to report the accident, not for anything having to do with the accident itself. Laura Bush came from a very powerful and prominent family. She "accidently" ran over and killed a boyfriend who had just broken up with her, on a single lane road as he walked to his car.
 
Taft2016 said:
Wrong. She wasn't speeding. She went through a stop sign. Yeah, they both had accidents, but that's where the similarities end. Going through a stop sign and getting into a car accident is not a crime. Leaving the scene of a fatal car accident, however, *IS* a crime. Which is why Kennedy had to go to court.



And what the hell are you basing that on? That's unmitigated bullshit that you just made up.

If you go through a stop sign, get into an accident, and the other party complains of pain or injury.... under your theory you would be arrested for vehicular assault.

There's no criminal intent, criminal negligence, or depraved indifference involved in passing through a stop sign. Unless you're driving while intoxicated, or now days texting someone.



Nor can there be if the police officer did not witness it. Violations must be committed in the presence of the officer. Violations are not crimes. Misdemeanors and felonies are crimes, and the police officer does not need to witness them. The standard of proof for arrest for crimes is "probable cause." For violations it must have "in fact" happened in front of the officer. Go ahead, ask yourself how I know this....



Stop acting like there's even a comparison. It's silly.



She went through a stop sign. I've missed stop signs before too. I guess I should be behind bars too. You too probably.



You're a moron who makes up stuff as you go along to fit an argument, regardless of any basis in reality.
Click to expand...


You are a silly moron, if what you are saying were true, nobody could ever get a traffic infraction for causing a traffic accident, unless a police officer happened to be watching. That's not how it works, officers take statements and interview witnesses and issue citations when they see fit, regardless of if the themselves witnessed the infraction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top