The Fox Gagle
31,648 Views |
808 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by 4th and Inches
Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I love your version of surrender when you realize you've been positing something stupid. "Play dumb, run in circles, deny facts, giggle"Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Still haven't watched the video, huh?Wangchung said:I love your version of surrender when you realize you've been positing something stupid. "Play dumb, run in circles, deny facts, giggle"Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Round and round we go.Sam Lowry said:Still haven't watched the video, huh?Wangchung said:I love your version of surrender when you realize you've been positing something stupid. "Play dumb, run in circles, deny facts, giggle"Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
I hope it's not the vax that has you in a brain fog. You're posting some trippy *****Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Have you?Sam Lowry said:Still haven't watched the video, huh?Wangchung said:I love your version of surrender when you realize you've been positing something stupid. "Play dumb, run in circles, deny facts, giggle"Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
And yet, we know that several of the rioters were bailed out only to commit violent crimes.
So there's that.
"So supporting bail reform means you didn't watch the video?!?"Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
And yet, we know that several of the rioters were bailed out only to commit violent crimes.
So there's that.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing…as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. A total buffoon.
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. And that's what this was.
As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Right, it really doesn't matter who the perp is. Bail is just gross. Or so some seem to believe.4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Only when paid for by other parties with the sole intent of bypassing the judge's discretion.Sam Lowry said:Right, it really doesn't matter who the perp is. Bail is just gross. Or so some seem to believe.4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Precisely.Wangchung said:Only when paid for by other parties with the sole intent of bypassing the judge's discretion.Sam Lowry said:Right, it really doesn't matter who the perp is. Bail is just gross. Or so some seem to believe.4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Glad you came around to my point of view!Sam Lowry said:Precisely.Wangchung said:Only when paid for by other parties with the sole intent of bypassing the judge's discretion.Sam Lowry said:Right, it really doesn't matter who the perp is. Bail is just gross. Or so some seem to believe.4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Bingo. It's so elementary that even a child could understand.
Unless you're their family (and even then that might be questionable), why are you supporting a fund that puts violent looters and rioters who committed acts so despicable they got arrested for them back on the street while businesses are being looted and burned to the ground and people assaulted? Why throw more logs on the fire? It's completely absurd.
I suspect Sam would support politicians publicly supporting bail funds for serial killers in the name of "bail reform" and then claim anyone against that is against bail. What a clown.
Sam Lowry said:Right, it really doesn't matter who the perp is. Bail is just gross. Or so some seem to believe.4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
SMDH. My god you are obtuse. I've never seen anything like it.
Get some help.
Protesting = serial killing? Wow. Tell us how you really feel.Mothra said:4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Bingo. It's so elementary that even a child could understand.
Unless you're their family (and even then that might be questionable), why are you supporting a fund that puts violent looters and rioters who committed acts so despicable they got arrested for them back on the street while businesses are being looted and burned to the ground and people assaulted? Why throw more logs on the fire? It's completely absurd.
I suspect Sam would support politicians publicly supporting bail funds for serial killers in the name of "bail reform" and then claim anyone against that is against bail. What a clown.
Sam Lowry said:Protesting = serial killing? Wow. Tell us how you really feel.Mothra said:4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Bingo. It's so elementary that even a child could understand.
Unless you're their family (and even then that might be questionable), why are you supporting a fund that puts violent looters and rioters who committed acts so despicable they got arrested for them back on the street while businesses are being looted and burned to the ground and people assaulted? Why throw more logs on the fire? It's completely absurd.
I suspect Sam would support politicians publicly supporting bail funds for serial killers in the name of "bail reform" and then claim anyone against that is against bail. What a clown.
Try to use your brain, dufus. Use the same line of logic you've been using to serial killers (or whatever crime you want) and watch your logic fall apart.
This post illustrates the real disagreement. You just don't think violent looting and vandalism are that big a deal - unless it occurs at the capitol of course.
i have a family member in jail right now.. i didnt help him with his bail because I knew what would happen. He was out on probation for offense number 2 when he needed bail for crime number 3. He was out on bail(somebody else in family helped) and got picked up for crime number 2 probabtion violation and also picked up charge number 4.Sam Lowry said:Right, it really doesn't matter who the perp is. Bail is just gross. Or so some seem to believe.4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Helping those that need bail money seems like a noble cause but in many instances it's a wasted effort.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
And by your logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Protesting = serial killing? Wow. Tell us how you really feel.Mothra said:4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Bingo. It's so elementary that even a child could understand.
Unless you're their family (and even then that might be questionable), why are you supporting a fund that puts violent looters and rioters who committed acts so despicable they got arrested for them back on the street while businesses are being looted and burned to the ground and people assaulted? Why throw more logs on the fire? It's completely absurd.
I suspect Sam would support politicians publicly supporting bail funds for serial killers in the name of "bail reform" and then claim anyone against that is against bail. What a clown.
Try to use your brain, dufus. Use the same line of logic you've been using to serial killers (or whatever crime you want) and watch your logic fall apart.
This post illustrates the real disagreement. You just don't think violent looting and vandalism are that big a deal - unless it occurs at the capitol of course.
Sam Lowry said:And by your logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Protesting = serial killing? Wow. Tell us how you really feel.Mothra said:4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Bingo. It's so elementary that even a child could understand.
Unless you're their family (and even then that might be questionable), why are you supporting a fund that puts violent looters and rioters who committed acts so despicable they got arrested for them back on the street while businesses are being looted and burned to the ground and people assaulted? Why throw more logs on the fire? It's completely absurd.
I suspect Sam would support politicians publicly supporting bail funds for serial killers in the name of "bail reform" and then claim anyone against that is against bail. What a clown.
Try to use your brain, dufus. Use the same line of logic you've been using to serial killers (or whatever crime you want) and watch your logic fall apart.
This post illustrates the real disagreement. You just don't think violent looting and vandalism are that big a deal - unless it occurs at the capitol of course.
Indeed, it might be. It depends on the circumstances. Certainly, when burning, looting, and rioting was happening all across the United States, releasing bad actors responsible for the carnage during the middle of the carnage to commit further carnage could indeed be seen as tacit support or at the very least a lack of care or concern for the safety of the general public.
As with pretty much all things, we will just chalk this up to another issue you are on the wrong side of. It's shocking how bad your takes are.
NTSA data shows 1/3 of DWI are repeat offendersSam Lowry said:And by your logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Protesting = serial killing? Wow. Tell us how you really feel.Mothra said:4th and Inches said:um.. yeah that is sound logic. I dont expect the vice president to bail those aholes out either..Sam Lowry said:Then by the same logic, bailing out domestic abusers is tacit support for domestic abuse, bailing out drunk drivers is tacit support for drunk driving, etc.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:As far as we've seen from the evidence you've presented, nothing that Kamala said or did had the intention or the effect of supporting communist riots, looting, or burning. The same is true of the bail fund. So unless you're just mad because Kamala exists and she's a Democrat (which I'll admit is a distinct possibility), I don't know what else there is.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:If you're asking whether people have been released in other situations having nothing to do with the riot, I'm sure they have. And that's my point--that's what you're really mad about. You and Mothra just don't like what the bail fund does and what it always has done.Wangchung said:It has been proven that they haven't broken the law and been released by activist democrat DAs in other situations? %A0Link? Or is it your contention that somehow, magically, ALL the criminals that rioted, looted and assaulted people and police alike found the straight and narrow after suffering zero consequences? THAT is your argument?Sam Lowry said:Most or all of the others were released without bail. It hasn't been shown that any rioters were bailed out by the fund and went on to commit violent crimes (again per the earlier link).Wangchung said:Except for all the ones that weren't, right? We can just pretend those violent criminals and even murderer don't exist, And you're right, no bail has even been set while taking into consideration the amount the defendant has the ability to pay.Sam Lowry said:If they're a flight risk or a danger they can be held without bail (which is what happened in most or all the cases where it was an issue, per my earlier link).Wangchung said:The suspected criminal is the one who is supposed to pay it as bail is set at a level meant to keep some suspects incarcerated while they await trial. Flight risks and dangers to society shouldn't be bailed out by democrat politicians because they rioted for democrats. That's called funding terrorism.Sam Lowry said:Bail is a fine and decent thing%85as long as no one pays it.Mothra said:Who said the S.C. is irrelevant to abortion law? %A0Your obtuseness is worse than usual today. %A0Are you upset or something? Wife mad at you?Sam Lowry said:I see you're taking a page from Mothra's playbook. If the Supreme Court is irrelevant to abortion law, I guess the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to bail.Wangchung said:Go ask all the people sitting in jail who cannot afford their bail.Sam Lowry said:So there's a difference between personally paying bail and merely upholding the right?Wangchung said:How many were bailed out thanks to the $35,000,000 Kamala helped raise for their actual bail money? How many criminals did the founders free by personally paying their bail? You and "logic" are like Kamala and the border.Sam Lowry said:
How many violent criminals have been bailed out because of the 8th Amendment? Did the founders support violent crime? By your logic it appears they did.
Gotta love semantics.
I'm not even going to ask how y'all feel about the right to counsel.
Perhaps I've given you too much credit. %A0You're an absolute moron if you think my problem is with bail funds in general. %A0 A total buffoon. %A0
A VP supporting a bail fund to bail out violent rioters who were looting and burning cities in the name of an organization led by communists is what I have a problem with. %A0And that's what this was.
There's plenty of evidence. You're simply too obtuse and pig-headed to acknowledge it. Instead you prefer to mischaracterize others argument and pretend they're arguing something they're not. It's your modus operandi.
Bailing out violent rioters responsible for the BLM riots is tacit support for same. You're simply too big an imbecile to acknowledge it.
Bingo. It's so elementary that even a child could understand.
Unless you're their family (and even then that might be questionable), why are you supporting a fund that puts violent looters and rioters who committed acts so despicable they got arrested for them back on the street while businesses are being looted and burned to the ground and people assaulted? Why throw more logs on the fire? It's completely absurd.
I suspect Sam would support politicians publicly supporting bail funds for serial killers in the name of "bail reform" and then claim anyone against that is against bail. What a clown.
Try to use your brain, dufus. Use the same line of logic you've been using to serial killers (or whatever crime you want) and watch your logic fall apart.
This post illustrates the real disagreement. You just don't think violent looting and vandalism are that big a deal - unless it occurs at the capitol of course.
Not sure you are helping your case Sam..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “