OT: Excerpt from the Constitution

Just because he can, doesn't mean it's the ethical thing to do.

Your leftist twisted "ethics"? Those that kowtow to ANTIFA crap?

Cite to me where, in the Constitution, your opinion matters >:-} ...Jim Thompson

Who cares, all Trump did was piss off even more judges and DOJ officials to please an 85 year white supremacist who likely never would have done any time regardless and some geriatric Arizona bootlickers who already worship DT as the Second Coming anyway.

Go 'head, pardon Timothy McVeigh while you're at it. The KKK is a super-important election demographic.

The US constitution regulates the interaction between the governed and the governing. It does it rather badly.

Bitrex is a member of the group being governed, and his opinion does matter.

As evidenced by the process that lead to the US constitution being written in the first place, if the governing class don't pay enough attention to the opinions of those being governed, they end up ceasing to be the governing class.

Trump pardoning Sheriff Joe is definitely an act calculated to upset a lot of the people being governed. It made Jim happy, which isn't a good sign.

Like all leftists you editorialize to suit your twisted agenda.

The odds of Trump pardoning McVeigh are negative.

Your ignorance is underwhelming.

I bet off-hand you can't even recite the very basics of the court case and the general arguments thereto... n'est-ce pas??

As for pissing off judges appointed by Obama... let the good times roll... it's time for a slew of judicial impeachments. ...Jim Thompson

Splitting is pretty fascist :-(

Every fascist in modern history likely at some point operated more-or-less within the accepted bounds of the legal documents governing the powers of their office. Big deal. It's not like anyone can point to a precise time like 9:37 PM on a Thursday in November when Dictator X stopped being a legal governing official and started being a dictator.

In any case I'm sure it's trivially easy to find some media outlet somewhere who will call your politician of choice a "fascist" nowadays. Oh look, here's an article that calls _both_ Obama and Trump fascists.

Like "nazi" or "hater" or "leftist" or "feminist the term has become genericized to the point that it's basically lost all meaning. Yeah, who isn't.

The fact that Trump action is permitted by the US constitution doesn't prev ent it from being fascist - whatever that may mean.

One ill-informed right-wing pardoning another right-winger who doesn't seem to have known US law, let alone know how it was supposed to work, is the k ind of right-wing cronies helping one another that is characteristic of fas cist regimes, but also of a whole lot of other regimes that don't pay that much attention to legal niceties.

As if Jim doesn't do that. Jim's agenda is twisted in a different way from Bitrex's, and it may be that all the "twist" in Bitrex's agenda that Jim pe rceives comes from warped nature of Jim's agenda, but why buy into that.

McVeigh being safely dead, this is right. It wouldn't buy Trump the good op inion of any of his deplorables.

Not that Jim knows enough to be able to call anybody else ignorant, or more fact of which Jim is not aware.

This is generally accessible information. Who but an idiot would memorise i t?

Jim-out-of=touch-with-reality-Thompson at the peak of his form.

The fact that Trump's action is permitted by the US constitution doesn't pr event it from being fascist - whatever that may mean.

One ill-informed right-winger pardoning another right-winger who doesn't se em to have known US law, let alone know how it was supposed to work, is the kind of "right-wing cronies helping one another" antic that is characteris tic of fascist regimes, but also of a whole lot of other regimes that also don't pay that much attention to legal niceties.

As if Jim doesn't do that. Jim's agenda is twisted in a different way from Bitrex's, and it may be that all the "twist" in Bitrex's agenda that Jim pe rceives comes from warped nature of Jim's agenda, but why buy into that?

McVeigh being safely dead, this is right. It wouldn't buy Trump the good op inion of any of his deplorables.

Not that Jim knows enough to be able to call anybody else ignorant, one mor e fact of which Jim is unaware.

This is generally accessible information. Who but an idiot would memorise i t?

Jim-out-of=touch-with-reality-Thompson at the peak of his form.

On 08/28/2017 01:51 AM, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote: ]

David Duke, maybe.

Or anywhere, on Earth?

Any group that is extreme either way doesn't represent me nor I'd suspect m ost Americans. You however seem to bow to an extreme-right ideology.

What I find surprising here is despite all the Republicans who have voiced their disapproval of Trump's pardon, they are somehow backstabbing, traitor ous people. He pardoned a person who willfully ignored a judge's orders. I don't care who appointed him; a judge follows the law, and what this guy was doing was essentially racial profiling.

So before going and accusing me of having "twisted" ethics, take a look at the camp that agrees with you.

Take your smug attitude and shove it. It goes both ways buddy.

A question that Mike Terrell could also ask himself.

In as far as Mike Terrell's opinion mostly seems to be a "me-too" to Jim-ou t-of-touch-with-Reality-Thompson's opinion, the only people interested woul d seem to be students of pathological psychology, and since this user-group alone provides enough cannon-fodder for numerous Ph.D. theses (each more b oring than the last) the correct answer in Mike's case would seem to be nob ody. I'm a nobody, so there's the QED.

Smug amused superiority or abusive righteous indignation are the only attitudes on offer I'm afraid, you'll need to pick one lol

"In the end, the winning argument was the Federalist position that executive pardons were necessary to correct miscarriages of justice."

Trump's actions are exactly the kind of abuse the framers argued against. In the case of Arpaio, he's not worth the expense of jailing, a complete non-entity and a non-event.

There is a sound Constitutional argument that Contempt of Court can only result in punishment after a jury trial.

Interesting point. I've never had the courage to abuse a judge, but I've had a lot of fun taunting attorneys in patent panel/deposition/court who _thought_ they understood electronics >:-}

They're the perfect 'straight man' to dump on. ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

Antifa's war cry, "No Trump, no wall, no USA at all!" Victory for Antifa would be the destruction of society.

-Hector Morenco (@hectormorenco) August 28, 2017

Right, picking on folks who can hit back just as hard is never much fun.

The attorneys could... IF they were competent... they weren't... they're not supposed to ask a question they don't already know the answer to... trying to trip me up on a circuit *I* designed... that's plain foolish.

Are you really an attorney ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson