Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The President does not enlist in, and he is not inducted or drafted into, the armed forces. Nor, is he subject to court-martial or other military discipline. On the contrary, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that ‘The President, [Vice President] and All Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ . . . The last two War Presidents, President Wilson and President Roosevelt, both clearly recognized the civilian nature of the President’s position as Commander in Chief. President Roosevelt, in his Navy Day Campaign speech at Shibe Park, Philadelphia, on October 27, 1944, pronounced this principle as follows:–‘It was due to no accident and no oversight that the framers of our Constitution put the command of our armed forces under civilian authority. It is the duty of the Commander in Chief to appoint the Secretaries of War and Navy and the Chiefs of Staff.’"
No one ever said that it was a Florida law. You really shouldn't let your imagination inform you so often. That is the second thing that you have imagined in this thread. Stop it.
No one ever said it was any state, other than the person who linked to the California law. I asked you what state and you didn't answer. YOU made the claim that you knew someone convicted of being a sex offender because that person had pulled off the road and was peeing in the bushes. YOU should have provided the state.
Very bad thread title and argument. Certainly not what I would call "mensa"...
Then lets have the discussion. The thread was titled so as to be thought provoking. Obviously ff someone thinks that he should not have to register than they think there is nothing to the allegations. Those are the type of arguments that I want to hear.
Your third sentence is not true. By saying somebody shouldn't be required to register for a crime they were never convicted of, that doesn't mean I/we think there is no truth to the allegations - it simply means we believe in waiting until a conviction to take further action, as any lawyer or judge would agree is lawful & appropriate.
I honestly don't know if their allegations have any credibility, since I have not read any legal documents or accounts of these accusations... so I guess you can count me as a "maybe" on that, but a "definitely not" on registering him as a sex offender without a conviction. Fair enough?
No one ever said it was any state, other than the person who linked to the California law. I asked you what state and you didn't answer. YOU made the claim that you knew someone convicted of being a sex offender because that person had pulled off the road and was peeing in the bushes. YOU should have provided the state.
Very bad thread title and argument. Certainly not what I would call "mensa"...
There you go with your imagination again. I never said that I knew any such person. Would you please stop making up stories?
I am Mensa130. You are correct, that is obvious. Thank you.
Now, back on topic. Do you agree with the allegations or not? Explain why please.
I have repeatedly given answers to your very misleading posts and thread title.
I do NOT agree with the allegations made by various people. I do not personally know any of those people, and, therefore, cannot vouch for their truthfulness. If those women wanted to have Clinton charged with those things, they could have gone directly to the prosecutor and, like EVERYBODY ELSE in the world, reported the accusations formally and let the prosecutor investigate their claims and decide whether or not they had enough evidence to charge Clinton with a crime.
I know that a person who stops on the side of the road and relieves themselves in the bushes or woods can be, and many have been, convicted as a sex offender. These people have to register as such for life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mensa130
There you go with your imagination again. I never said that I knew any such person. Would you please stop making up stories?
There is your quote. I misread it and thought you said you specifically knew an individual who had done such a thing; I was wrong.
HOWEVER, you did say that you knew many had been convicted as sex offenders for such a crime, but you would NOT disclose what state you were talking about nor offer any substantiation for your claim. I asked what state. You refused to answer. You have made so many vague, generalized accusations about Democrats, Republicans, Bill Clinton, etc., etc. in this thread that you have little credibility at all. If you want to play word games (even though you're not good at that at all either) maybe you should find somewhere else to do it.
The thread is only "absurd" because certain people don't want to have an honest discussion about the allegations against the former president. They would prefer to deflect and "play word games".
Why don't you begin by stating why you feel the allegations have no merit?
What ever happened to honest discussion and debate?
The thread is only "absurd" because certain people don't want to have an honest discussion about the allegations against the former president. They would prefer to deflect and "play word games".
Why don't you begin by stating why you feel the allegations have no merit?
What ever happened to honest discussion and debate?
I would suggest that the thread title and many of your posts are enormously misleading, and not an honest discussion....in fact your posts are full of "word games." Silly, misleading word games. Is that an "honest discussion"?
I have already answered your question about whether or not I agree with the allegations and why I think at this point they have no merit. I DO NOT personally know the people making the allegations, nor do I know whether or not those people have ulterior motives for making the accusations, therefore I cannot blindly assume they are telling the truth. HOWEVER, if they had chosen to take their complaints to a prosecutor who could have filed charges against the President, and that prosecutor's office had indeed investigated and filed charges against him, I would be much more inclined to trust in the veracity of the accusers......just as I have done in the Zimmerman case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Certainly not what I would call "mensa"...
