what a load of crap

[DKSuddeth]

Drunk congressman not liable for deaths while on duty

Court: drunk Congressman 'on duty,' immune


RAPID CITY, S.D., July 14 (UPI) -- A federal judge in South Dakota said a drunk former Congressman who killed a motorcyclist in a wreck was on duty and so not liable for civil damages.

U.S. Magistrate Arthur Boylan's ruling means that any damages that may be awarded to the estate of the motorcyclist will come from taxpayers -- not former Rep. Bill Janklow, the Sioux Falls Argus reported Wednesday.

The family of motorcyclist Randy Scott, 55, of Hardwick, Minn., filed a lawsuit in the Aug. 16 death, and Boylan's Tuesday ruling means the federal government, not Janklow, must be listed as the defendant.

The family plans an appeal.

Janklow, who was elected to Congress in 2002 after serving 16 years as governor, spent 100 days in jail after being convicted of speeding, running a stop sign, reckless driving and second-degree manslaughter.

 

[HGROKIT]

Right! The government put a gun to his head amn made him drink and then get in his car.

Our judiciary has lost it.

 

[NewGuy]

There have been laws passed to give these guys immunity if en route to work.

Funny.

This gives them escape (if it were even legal to pass the laws) from the high crimes and misdemeanors part regarding their impeachment.

Interesting, no?

 

[phadras]

That decision is horseshit!!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

THis is crap. However it doesn't warrant full revolution.

 

[freeandfun1]

no revolution but it should show America what these guys do behind our backs (passing special laws just for them). This is a dangerous precedence folks.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
THis is crap. However it doesn't warrant full revolution.

That's right.

The communists aren't in power yet and RWA hasn't decided it is ok.

:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
That's right.

The communists aren't in power yet and RWA hasn't decided it is ok.

:

A certain amount of corruption is inevitable. It's part of reality. Utopia is not an option. This doesn't warrant revolution. I'm sure a majority vote would back me on this one, and that is how things are done here!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
A certain amount of corruption is inevitable. It's part of reality. Utopia is not an option. This doesn't warrant revolution. I'm sure a majority vote would back me on this one, and that is how things are done here!

1. Inevitable or acceptable?

2. You are wrong. A majority vote ISNT done around here. This is a Constitutional Republic. We don't elect by popular vote.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
1. Inevitable or acceptable?

2. You are wrong. A majority vote ISNT done around here. This is a Constitutional Republic. We don't elect by popular vote.

A certain amount of corruption is INEVITABLE, did I stutter.

Don't bother me with your sophistry, ant.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
A certain amount of corruption is INEVITABLE, did I stutter.

Don't bother me with your sophistry, ant.

Big words. Small phallus.

Inevitable means acceptable when you are too yellow to stand against corruption.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Big words. Small phallus.

Inevitable means acceptable when you are too yellow to stand against corruption.

Your stands tend to be overdone in scope, and fringing on loony. This should be undone in some way, sure. I'm saying it doesnt warrant a revolution. You must think it does, hence the static on me saying it doesn't. capiche, NeoHominid?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Your stands tend to be overdone in scope, and fringing on loony. This should be undone in some way, sure.

Overdone because they are absolute?

Do you believe in moral relativity or something?

I'm saying it doesnt warrant a revolution. You must think it does, hence the static on me saying it doesn't. capiche, NeoHominid?

Nope.

I just want you consistent.

Take a stand and be logical and absolute with it.

Don't whore yourself to a party because they give you a label and tax rebate.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Overdone because they are absolute?

Do you believe in moral relativity or something?



Nope.

I just want you consistent.

Take a stand and be logical and absolute with it.

Don't whore yourself to a party because they give you a label and tax rebate.

Purists fail in life, unless they can become tyrant. It's much more effective to choose battles based upon a hierarchy of importance. Right now the war on terror is at the top, for normal people.

Where's my money, Trick?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Purists fail in life, unless they can become tyrant.

Main Entry: ty·rant
Pronunciation: 'tI-r&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tirant, from Old French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power


Actually, according to this you are wrong. The flip side would be a Constitutionalist who insures liberty by Constitution. You just can't face moral absolutes by your previous statement.

RWA.

You just admitted to being a moral relativist. -A commie.

Congratulations.

Where's my money, Trick?

I'm sorry. Your head was so far up your backside I couldn't hear you. Could you repeat that?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Main Entry: ty·rant
Pronunciation: 'tI-r&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tirant, from Old French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power


Actually, according to this you are wrong. The flip side would be a Constitutionalist who insures liberty by Constitution. You just can't face moral absolutes by your previous statement.

RWA.

You just admitted to being a moral relativist. -A commie.

Congratulations.



I'm sorry. Your head was so far up your backside I couldn't hear you. Could you repeat that?

Your arguments are unwarranted and orthogonol. Tyrants are often purists. It's their way or the highway, and everyone who disagrees must have their head up it. I know you get off on being extreme, but reasonableness generally wins the day.

Do you think this incident warrants a revolution? Yes or no please. A revolution now is unadvised, because the country is at war.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Purists fail in life, unless they can become tyrant. It's much more effective to choose battles based upon a hierarchy of importance. Right now the war on terror is at the top, for normal people.

If that were the case, then we wouldn't have BS marriage amendments, freedom fries, congressional raises, and pork barrell spending like we have, right?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
If that were the case, then we wouldn't have BS marriage amendments, freedom fries, congressional raises, and pork barrell spending like we have, right?

No politician is a purist. These are calculated ploys to mobilize and energize certain sections of the electorate.


Wop bob a looba a wop bam boom.
Tutti Frutti, oh rudy.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Your arguments are unwarranted and orthogonol. Tyrants are often purists. It's their way or the highway, and everyone who disagrees must have their head up it.

Which clearly states your position in any discussion.



Point still proven. You are what you hate. -A compromising Commie.

Do you think this incident warrants a revolution? Yes or no please. A revolution now is unadvised, because the country is at war.

The fact that the corruption continues warrants action. Define your terms which ever way you want.

Commie moral relativists like that. They call other people by labels while claiming their party affiliation superior because they have no morality.

They crush through corrupt politics using military because they individually have no backbone.

Kind of like......You.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Which clearly states your position in any discussion.



Point still proven. You are what you hate. -A compromising Commie.



The fact that the corruption continues warrants action. Define your terms which ever way you want.

Commie moral relativists like that. They call other people by labels while claiming their party affiliation superior because they have no morality.

They crush through corrupt politics using military because they individually have no backbone.

Kind of like......You.

Yeah. I'm a commie. my 4k+ posts should illustrate the absurdity of your statement.

you're just pissed because I check your attempts to transform the board into a haven for Christian Nationalist Anarchist Crackpots. The CNAC as it's known. Don't take it personally, newguy, I think your quite a brilliant person. Targetting me as public enemy number one will prove to be an ineffective strategy.