The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[JoeB131]

No, McDonald's was liable because most sensible people don't expect coffee to be so scalding hot it melts skin.

You don't know that boiling water can seriously scald your skin? Seriously? You don't know that?

But that's the point. It shouldn't be boiling. It shouldn't be scalding.

Use a bit of common sense. I mean, I know you guys are generally willing to throw yourselves in the middle of the road to protect big corporations, but apply a little common sense.

 

[JoeB131]

[

First of all, dumb-ass here skips right over John Gotti because he knows it proves him wrong.

No, guy, I only have time to correct so many of things of you being wrong.

[
Then, out of pure desperation, he attempts a narrative that OJ Simpson really was innocent and a good guy (even though he knows OJ was guilty as hell, just like the rest of us). Here's the thing - "GUY" - Mark Fuhrman wasn't on trial. OJ Simpson was. So it doesn't matter how many times Furman used the word ****** or how many times he lied about using the word ******. What mattered was that OJ Simpson committed a heinous double-homicide and then walked free because defense attorney's ensure that assholes such as yourself sit on the jury.

OJ was on trial because Mark Fuhrman found evidence against him. Mark Fuhrman was a liar. And a Racist. So you can kind of see why people would wonder, hey, what else are they lying about?

Incidently, I think he was as guilty as a cat in a canary cage, but the cops and prosecutors fucked it up.

You do get this, right. That when justice isn't seen as fair, people react to it as such.

[
But the funniest **** up in your post is your ignorant and inaccurate claim that Al Capone was only on trial once in his life. The guy had about half a dozen trials before he was out of his 20's!

Police took Al Capone's mug shot for the first time in 1929 after he was arrested on a concealed weapons charge in Philadelphia. He had been attending a gathering of organized crime leaders in Atlantic City, New Jersey with his bodyguard, Frank Cline. On the way home, he stopped at the Stanley Movie Theater, where two detectives arrested him. Although Capone had been previously apprehended for a host of crimes, most of which he was never tried or convicted for; he had not been photographed or fingerprinted prior to this May 16, 1929 arrest. For the concealed weapons charge, Capone was given a one-year prison sentence. He served most of the sentence at Eastern State Penitentiary, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, earning two-months off for good behavior.

Famous Law Enforcement Records: The Al Capone Mugshot - Crime.Answers.com

Oops! Looks like somebody needs to check their history.

Sorry, man, he was never tried most of the times he was arrested, you just admitted that.

One minor gun beef, where he was convicted. That's it. So two times he was tried, two times he was convicted.

Wasn't your somewhat retarded point is that we shouldn't trust juries because they don't get it right. Sounds like they got it right.

 

[kaz]

No, McDonald's was liable because most sensible people don't expect coffee to be so scalding hot it melts skin.

You don't know that boiling water can seriously scald your skin? Seriously? You don't know that?

But that's the point. It shouldn't be boiling. It shouldn't be scalding.

Use a bit of common sense. I mean, I know you guys are generally willing to throw yourselves in the middle of the road to protect big corporations, but apply a little common sense.

WTF are you talking about? Coffee is boiling water run through coffee grinds. Coffee sucks if you run warm water though coffee grinds. That is what it is ... boiling water ... coffee grinds. You seriously didn't know that? Really? How old are you? How could you possibly live in this country and not know what "coffee" is? It's not possible to protect mental simpletons like you from life dude no matter how hard you try.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't know that boiling water can seriously scald your skin? Seriously? You don't know that?

But that's the point. It shouldn't be boiling. It shouldn't be scalding.

Use a bit of common sense. I mean, I know you guys are generally willing to throw yourselves in the middle of the road to protect big corporations, but apply a little common sense.

WTF are you talking about? Coffee is boiling water run through coffee grinds. Coffee sucks if you run warm water though coffee grinds. That is what it is ... boiling water ... coffee grinds. You seriously didn't know that? Really? How old are you? How could you possibly live in this country and not know what "coffee" is? It's not possible to protect mental simpletons like you from life dude no matter how hard you try.

Okay, guy, I know you are really trying here...

But it should not be STILL Scalding or Boiling when the customer gets it.

Seriously, what kind of retard are you?

For the record, not a coffee drinker.

 

[Borillar]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....


Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.

After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.

More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.

The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.

Well, if you don't consent to be governed or obey the laws of the land, you can always move. I hear that Somalia has warm winters, anarchy, and lots of guns. You ought to feel right at home there. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you on your way out.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

No, people should look at past decisions that were made and why they were made.

For instance, Heller overturned US v. Miller, which was a very sensible precedent set when people were machine-gunning each in the streets during Prohibition. It found the Second Amendment's clause about "Well Regulated Militias gave the Feds, States and Muncipalities the power to regulate guns. And 80 years of supporting decisions continued to uphold that until Scalia had a brain fart.

Originally, you posted Heller as an example of right wingers not following original intent. This one I gotta disagree with you upon. All it is is an example of right wingers not following precedent from the early 1900's, hardly original. Simply because the SCOTUS in the Prohibition days found wiggle room in the wording that spelled out the justification of the right (not even the wording that spelled out the right itself. . . you know, the "shall not be infringed" part?) does not mean that their 80 year old decision retroactively dictated the original intent any more than the Citizens United decision means that the Founding Fathers must have wanted corporate personhood.

You can't say that right leaning supreme court decisions fly in the face of original intent while simultaneously implying that left leaning supreme court decisions dictate it, that's just silly.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

To start with, the reason WHY Miller had to be decided was that effectively, "Militias" were eliminated when states created National Guards. So a redefinition of "Militias" and who could own a gun was called for.

Hense, we didn't want Al Capone and his boys owning Tommy Guns and mowing down Bugs Moran's Gang. That wasn't "A Well-Regulated Militia". It was actually, you know, Common Sense. And you had 80 years of additional decisions that saw it was common sense that cities, states and the Feds should regulate guns and who owns them.

Conversely, what Heller was is nothing near common sense. It's Scalia and the other right wingers being owned by the gun lobby.

Understanding that there was a reason why things were changed the way they were still doesn't dictate original intent.

When the constitution was written, militia was defined as every able bodied male between like, 15 and 50 (can't remember the exact number).

I stand by my position, albeit a small one.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well, you know what, Japanese and German corporations, workers have a vote on what the leadership is... so no problem there.

Frankly, I've seen Corporate leadership. Also known as "SNiffing their own flatulence and thinking it smells like roses."

Yeah, good call. Blue collar workers all know their shit, so they should make the decisions. Guys who go into management are all arrogant and greedy and shouldn't decide anything.

What an obviously well researched world view you have. Such simple sentiment -must- be taking all things into account.

If I said, "I've met blacks. Trust me, they drink 40's." That would be no more ignorant than what I've quoted from you. "Of course he loves money. He's a jew." That sorta thing.

Now you went completely off the rails.

Again, the German and Japanese Auto makers involve workers in corporate decisions.

Who beat the pants off the American Auto Makers. Toyota, VW, Nissan, etc. That's why I always find it hilarious when some wingnut claims the Auto Unions destroyed the Auto industry...

My whole point is that you're over-simplifying things, and so to rebut that point you simplify them even further? Awesome.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are many other differences between the different car companies aside from how their leadership is chosen. For instance, every car company has a -different- crew of engineers designing their new rigs. Crazy, right? They're not all producing the exact same product, either. With all these different ideas and different types of products, people have all sorts of different opinions on which ones they want. They also deal with different sets of regulatory standards, labor standards, environmental standards, etc.

But you've got a point. German and Japanese automotive companies vote on their management, and they're doing better than American car companies, and nothing else really needs to be taken into account. Correlation proves causality, after all.

What's funny is that I don't even consider this a bad idea, letting the workers vote on management. The primary aspect that I thought you were over-simplifying was, "guys who go into blue collar good, smart, guys who go into management bad, arrogant". So, no, not off the rails at all. When you paint an entire demographic with a broad brush, you paint an entire demographic with a broad brush. "Blacks run fast, whites can't dunk." "Asians do good math, blacks can't read." The reason those seem more offensive than what you've said is because we've all been programmed by society to have massive, negative emotional reactions to people painting with a broad brush based on race. However, the fact that it was not based on race doesn't make your version any more logical.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....


Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.

After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.

More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.

The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.

Well, if you don't consent to be governed or obey the laws of the land, you can always move. I hear that Somalia has warm winters, anarchy, and lots of guns. You ought to feel right at home there. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you on your way out.

I like your debate style. You basically said, "Oh yeah? Well **** YOU!"

But you included some of the key vocabulary words from the debate that was going on, so people who aren't smart enough to actually analyze what you were getting at (nothing relevant to the crux of the argument), will actually be under the mistaken impression that you had a valid point to make. Well played.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.

Well, if you don't consent to be governed or obey the laws of the land, you can always move. I hear that Somalia has warm winters, anarchy, and lots of guns. You ought to feel right at home there. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you on your way out.

I like your debate style. You basically said, "Oh yeah? Well **** YOU!"

But you included some of the key vocabulary words from the debate that was going on, so people who aren't smart enough to actually analyze what you were getting at (nothing relevant to the crux of the argument), will actually be under the mistaken impression that you had a valid point to make. Well played.

Meh. It's a stale old argument, which puts the statist bully in the role of parent and all who dissent into the role of children.

The paternalistic socialist thug really hasn't learned a new trick in at least a century.

 

[bripat9643]

Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....


Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.

After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.

More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.

The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.

Well, if you don't consent to be governed or obey the laws of the land, you can always move. I hear that Somalia has warm winters, anarchy, and lots of guns. You ought to feel right at home there. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you on your way out.

If you have to leave to avoid the terms of the deal, then you haven't given your consent, have you? I don't have to move out of my house if I don't want to sign an insurance policy some hose bag is trying to sell me, do I? Being forced to move from where you live is no more consent than taking a beating from a mugger. It's exactly the same kind of "consent" you give when you pay a mafia extortion racket.

What you have just enunciated are the demands of a thug, not the consent of the governed. Of course, you and all your ilk are thugs. That's why you don't see a problem with what you posted.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, if you don't consent to be governed or obey the laws of the land, you can always move. I hear that Somalia has warm winters, anarchy, and lots of guns. You ought to feel right at home there. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you on your way out.

I like your debate style. You basically said, "Oh yeah? Well **** YOU!"

But you included some of the key vocabulary words from the debate that was going on, so people who aren't smart enough to actually analyze what you were getting at (nothing relevant to the crux of the argument), will actually be under the mistaken impression that you had a valid point to make. Well played.

Meh. It's a stale old argument, which puts the statist bully in the role of parent and all who dissent into the role of children.

The paternalistic socialist thug really hasn't learned a new trick in at least a century.

Borillar is one of the major forum imbeciles. In other words, he's a typical liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

Originally, you posted Heller as an example of right wingers not following original intent. This one I gotta disagree with you upon. All it is is an example of right wingers not following precedent from the early 1900's, hardly original. Simply because the SCOTUS in the Prohibition days found wiggle room in the wording that spelled out the justification of the right (not even the wording that spelled out the right itself. . . you know, the "shall not be infringed" part?) does not mean that their 80 year old decision retroactively dictated the original intent any more than the Citizens United decision means that the Founding Fathers must have wanted corporate personhood.

You can't say that right leaning supreme court decisions fly in the face of original intent while simultaneously implying that left leaning supreme court decisions dictate it, that's just silly.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

To start with, the reason WHY Miller had to be decided was that effectively, "Militias" were eliminated when states created National Guards. So a redefinition of "Militias" and who could own a gun was called for.

Hense, we didn't want Al Capone and his boys owning Tommy Guns and mowing down Bugs Moran's Gang. That wasn't "A Well-Regulated Militia". It was actually, you know, Common Sense. And you had 80 years of additional decisions that saw it was common sense that cities, states and the Feds should regulate guns and who owns them.

Conversely, what Heller was is nothing near common sense. It's Scalia and the other right wingers being owned by the gun lobby.

Understanding that there was a reason why things were changed the way they were still doesn't dictate original intent.

When the constitution was written, militia was defined as every able bodied male between like, 15 and 50 (can't remember the exact number).

I stand by my position, albeit a small one.

Well, it's a stupid point.

When the constitution was written, bleeding people was still considered a valid medical technique.

The laws have to change with the times. And you don't hold a slavish view of "original intent".

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

To start with, the reason WHY Miller had to be decided was that effectively, "Militias" were eliminated when states created National Guards. So a redefinition of "Militias" and who could own a gun was called for.

Hense, we didn't want Al Capone and his boys owning Tommy Guns and mowing down Bugs Moran's Gang. That wasn't "A Well-Regulated Militia". It was actually, you know, Common Sense. And you had 80 years of additional decisions that saw it was common sense that cities, states and the Feds should regulate guns and who owns them.

Conversely, what Heller was is nothing near common sense. It's Scalia and the other right wingers being owned by the gun lobby.

Understanding that there was a reason why things were changed the way they were still doesn't dictate original intent.

When the constitution was written, militia was defined as every able bodied male between like, 15 and 50 (can't remember the exact number).

I stand by my position, albeit a small one.

Well, it's a stupid point.

When the constitution was written, bleeding people was still considered a valid medical technique.

The laws have to change with the times. And you don't hold a slavish view of "original intent".

Well, that's a stupid point.

The Constitution stays, you go.

 

[JoeB131]

Understanding that there was a reason why things were changed the way they were still doesn't dictate original intent.

When the constitution was written, militia was defined as every able bodied male between like, 15 and 50 (can't remember the exact number).

I stand by my position, albeit a small one.

Well, it's a stupid point.

When the constitution was written, bleeding people was still considered a valid medical technique.

The laws have to change with the times. And you don't hold a slavish view of "original intent".

Well, that's a stupid point.

The Constitution stays, you go.

Or we get sensible, progressive judges on the bench, and guess what, we apply common ******* sense.

Like Corporaitons aren't really people.

and

Adam Lanza is not a Well-Regulated Militia.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A nation is a social contract between peoples.

We agree to pay taxes, have one constitution,etc.

 

[Politico]

There is no contract.

 

[P@triot]

Adults- decent ones at least, do look out for each other.

Conservatism has become one big argument for selfishness.

So you let your neighbor drive your car whenever he wants to? Do you pay his medical bills? Do you bring him chicken soup when he has a cold?

. . . . . . . .

I didn't think so.

Apparently you don't lift a finger to help your neighbors. You're all talk. but we already knew that.

Actually, I do all sorts of nice things for my neighbors... Probably to a fault. But that's not the argument we are having here, is it.

The thing is, you guys on the right don't want to live in Somalia. You want government to take care of your interests and protect your property and rights. You just don't want them looking out for the other guy.

If you want to argue with me that the governmetn subsidizes too much bad behavior, I'd probably agree with you. Our priorities on social welfare programs are all wrong.

But the thing about you guys is you really don't want these people being helped at all. It's the kind of mean-spiritedness that's infected the GOP like a disease.

Actually dumb-ass, Somailia is what happens when Dumbocrats get their policy. First of all, what is closer to a lawless, 3rd world, shit-hole right now - Detroit (collapsed because of Dumbocrat policy), or Dallas (flourishing because of conservative policy). Furthermore, Somalia is the result of a manicial fanatic wanting to control others (what is more Dumbocrat than that?!?). Would you like to try again junior?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The constitution is our contract.

 

[P@triot]

No, McDonald's was liable because most sensible people don't expect coffee to be so scalding hot it melts skin.

And McDonald's doesn't expect sensible people to poor their coffee on their skin

Well, guess what, 2 million dollars later, they fuckers know better, don't they?

They are "fuckers" and "should know better" because they didn't expect people to poor the liquids McDonald's serves on their skin?!? Really?

Yes folks - this envious little asshat who hates people who are more successful than him really is this unhinged...

 

[P@triot]

[

First of all, dumb-ass here skips right over John Gotti because he knows it proves him wrong.

No, guy, I only have time to correct so many of things of you being wrong.

Then, out of pure desperation, he attempts a narrative that OJ Simpson really was innocent and a good guy (even though he knows OJ was guilty as hell, just like the rest of us). Here's the thing - "GUY" - Mark Fuhrman wasn't on trial. OJ Simpson was. So it doesn't matter how many times Furman used the word ****** or how many times he lied about using the word ******. What mattered was that OJ Simpson committed a heinous double-homicide and then walked free because defense attorney's ensure that assholes such as yourself sit on the jury.

OJ was on trial because Mark Fuhrman found evidence against him. Mark Fuhrman was a liar. And a Racist. So you can kind of see why people would wonder, hey, what else are they lying about?

Incidently, I think he was as guilty as a cat in a canary cage, but the cops and prosecutors fucked it up.

You do get this, right. That when justice isn't seen as fair, people react to it as such.

But the funniest **** up in your post is your ignorant and inaccurate claim that Al Capone was only on trial once in his life. The guy had about half a dozen trials before he was out of his 20's!

Police took Al Capone's mug shot for the first time in 1929 after he was arrested on a concealed weapons charge in Philadelphia. He had been attending a gathering of organized crime leaders in Atlantic City, New Jersey with his bodyguard, Frank Cline. On the way home, he stopped at the Stanley Movie Theater, where two detectives arrested him. Although Capone had been previously apprehended for a host of crimes, most of which he was never tried or convicted for; he had not been photographed or fingerprinted prior to this May 16, 1929 arrest. For the concealed weapons charge, Capone was given a one-year prison sentence. He served most of the sentence at Eastern State Penitentiary, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, earning two-months off for good behavior.

Famous Law Enforcement Records: The Al Capone Mugshot - Crime.Answers.com

Oops! Looks like somebody needs to check their history.

Sorry, man, he was never tried most of the times he was arrested, you just admitted that.

One minor gun beef, where he was convicted. That's it. So two times he was tried, two times he was convicted.

Wasn't your somewhat retarded point is that we shouldn't trust juries because they don't get it right. Sounds like they got it right.

Never convicted means he was tried but was found "innocent" by a jury that was stacked and/or tampered with (just like the McDonald case where the prosecution made sure losers who hate successful people - such as yourself - sat on the jury and exacted revenge for their own miserable failures in life).

Would you like to try again junior? And you're still dodging John Gotti like the disingenuous little asshat that you are...