Cosby Sentence

[Shell B]

Based on your personal experience, do you see any scenario where you'd keep in contact?

Yes, and I know other women who have.

[CapnAwesome]

If you can't see the problem with that, than I don't really know what to say.

---

You didnt adress my questions.

#1 Do you think the constitution did intend to give some persons special treatment before the law?
#2 Do you personally think some people should get preferred treatment before the law?

Someone being immune from arrest is preferred treatment from the law imho.

Well they aren't immune from arrest. They just need to be impeached or they can be arrested when they are out of office. I don't think it's a matter of special treatment before the law as much as making that consession to maintain a functioning government.

I'm not sure what the consititution intended. Honestly those guys who wrote it were coming from an era of kings, obviously some of what I'd in it is a rebellion against the idea of kings and some of it clearly is left over from the idea of having a king. Which is probably why we have a president to start with.

[J a c k]

Fuck me sideways. So no comment on him admitting to it, Hugster? Just a link to him being off from admission due to a legal technicality?

Never run across a real life rape apologist before. Guess that’s crossed off the list of “Things I Never Hope to See”.

Again, you’re a detestable fuck.

Really? I've met several here. And slavery apologists. And murder apologists.

I’m with rob. You haven’t been reading a lot around here if this is a first.

[Deesse23]

You didnt adress my questions.

#1 Do you think the constitution did intend to give some persons special treatment before the law?
#2 Do you personally think some people should get preferred treatment before the law?

Someone being immune from arrest is preferred treatment from the law imho.

Well they aren't immune from arrest. They just need to be impeached or they can be arrested when they are out of office. I don't think it's a matter of special treatment before the law as much as making that consession to maintain a functioning government.

I'm not sure what the consititution intended.  Honestly those guys who wrote it were coming from an era of kings, obviously some of what I'd in it is a rebellion against the idea of kings and some of it clearly is left over from the idea of having a king. Which is probably why we have a president to start with.

I am German and (i think i) know abit about my countries recent past, particularly Weimar and how it failed.

One of the few major reasons Weimar failed was that the Reichspräsident´ position was given too much power and exempt. Specifically the "Notstandsgesetzte" were a waekenss (a concession as you put it) that was exploited in the later stages of Weimar and led to its demise. The Notstandsgesetze were palanned with good intened to try to keep the government working in special times of danger to the republic. Those powers were only inteneded to be tied to special situations and being temporal. Yet, ways were found to use this exempt as a loophole to undermine the authority of parliament, cause permanent damage to the system and kill what was left of the popularions trust in the system of this democracy.

Likewiese i have serious doubts, that such exemptions within the american republic may lead down a similar road. Of course i understand your objections to the president being able to be arrested by every redneck/hillbilly sherrif. But as we learned from Weimar, exemptions form vital rules of an otherwise fair system of rule can lead down to chaos due to mans creative nature to deal with things. The intentions of exempting the US president from certain fundamental rules of democracy may were based on good intent. However when politicians are hell bent on some goal the will do anything needed to achieve their goal. They did so in Weimar with devastating results (part of them wanted to keep the system by abusing it, and part of them wanted to destroy it).
As we see currently, what will happen when people are hell bent on outlawing abortion, ending the separation of church and state, putting back minorities and women to "where they belong" and keep distributing wealth from the poor to the already rich and powerful, and the president is on board with this and profits from special privlileges before the law?

[CapnAwesome]

Well they aren't immune from arrest. They just need to be impeached or they can be arrested when they are out of office. I don't think it's a matter of special treatment before the law as much as making that consession to maintain a functioning government.

I'm not sure what the consititution intended.  Honestly those guys who wrote it were coming from an era of kings, obviously some of what I'd in it is a rebellion against the idea of kings and some of it clearly is left over from the idea of having a king. Which is probably why we have a president to start with.

I am German and (i think i) know abit about my countries recent past, particularly Weimar and how it failed.

One of the few major reasons Weimar failed was that the Reichspräsident´ position was given too much power and exempt. Specifically the "Notstandsgesetzte" were a waekenss (a concession as you put it) that was exploited in the later stages of Weimar and led to its demise. The Notstandsgesetze were palanned with good intened to try to keep the government working in special times of danger to the republic. Those powers were only inteneded to be tied to special situations and being temporal. Yet, ways were found to use this exempt as a loophole to undermine the authority of parliament, cause permanent damage to the system and kill what was left of the popularions trust in the system of this democracy.

Likewiese i have serious doubts, that such exemptions within the american republic may lead down a similar road. Of course i understand your objections to the president being able to be arrested by every redneck/hillbilly sherrif. But as we learned from Weimar, exemptions form vital rules of an otherwise fair system of rule can lead down to chaos due to mans creative nature to deal with things. The intentions of exempting the US president from certain fundamental rules of democracy may were based on good intent. However when politicians are hell bent on some goal the will do anything needed to achieve their goal. They did so in Weimar with devastating results (part of them wanted to keep the system by abusing it, and part of them wanted to destroy it).
As we see currently, what will happen when people are hell bent on outlawing abortion, ending the separation of church and state, putting back minorities and women to "where they belong" and keep distributing wealth from the poor to the already rich and powerful, and the president is on board with this and profits from special privlileges before the law?

Interesting points about the Weimar. As for whether the American system will last, I guess we'll see. You've been seeing a frightening increase in the power of the American president in the last 20 years. I don't wonder if all systems tend to have a drift in that direction.

[downbeatplumb]

Based on your personal experience, do you see any scenario where you'd keep in contact?

"Things can be complex" is not an idea that has found much ground in the religious sphere. 
Simple, easy answers for everything.

[Huggy Bear]

Based on your personal experience, do you see any scenario where you'd keep in contact?

"Things can be complex" is not an idea that has found much ground in the religious sphere. 
Simple, easy answers for everything.

Hey dummy, in the case of Cosby's accuser she initially told police that contact with Cosby was "brief and rare" following the incident, but according to her phone records she contacted him 72 times.

So yeah that's pretty simple to see for what it is.

If you want to read through the list of contradictions, be my guest.

http://www.yc.news/2017/06/12/cosby-tria...testimony/

[Fake Messiah]

Huggy you should have been Cosby's lawyer and present these inconsistencies and 72 calls to Cosby in the court and Bill would be free. But then again his lawyers did this and still jury convicted him because of the context about it, plus over 60 other women accusing him of drug rape and also other stuff like Cosby's obsession with drugging women in order to have sex with them.





Now maybe the whole judiciary system is corrupt and poised to sentence a black man or maybe you are poised to defend every black guy that sexually and deadly assaults women, even when they are caught on tape like that bishop that groped Ariana.

[Huggy Bear]

I guess you forgot that this was the second Cosby trial? The first trial, the jury was deadlocked, so it clearly wasnt an open and shut case like you're pretending it to be.

[arewethereyet]

I guess you forgot that this was the second Cosby trial? The first trial, the jury was deadlocked, so it clearly wasnt an open and shut case like you're pretending it to be.

Let me get this straight...your defense of Cosby is that he's black?

If that's not correct, your posts pretty much read that way.

Here, let me save you some time with your response...

Hey Dummy...