Jump to content

Democrat voter fraud in East Texas... say it ain't so Barry


gamewatcher63

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Youngcoach123 said:

Ok, can anyone define thugs, cause I don’t get it. 

thug
/THəɡ/
plural noun: thugs
  1. 1.
    a violent person, especially a criminal.
    "he was attacked by a gang of thugs"
    2. HISTORICAL
    a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.
     
    Well if we read the definition correctly, then "thugs" would not be the correct term at this moment, because while indicted, they have not been convicted of a crime yet, just indicted. So I am trying to figure out if they are "thugs" or not. because the definition for a "criminal" is a person who has committed a crime.--Have they committed the crime and that is why they are being indicted, or do we have to wait to see what the trial says to find out if they are a criminal? 
     
    So if you are stopped for and receive a speeding ticket--that should make you a criminal--because you "committed a crime"--something against the law. Another question, if you commit a crime and don't get caught--does that still make you a criminal? So many questions, so little time on a Friday. 
     
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

I appreciate your take, Jett. I gotta ask: Does that same "Innocent until proven guilty" apply to the officers in the Breonna Taylor case? None of them were indicted in her death, and the only officer who was indicted was on a different charge.

My honest opinion murder is different.. to many officers have gotten off with crimes they've committed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JETT said:

My honest opinion murder is different.. to many officers have gotten off with crimes they've committed 

So everyone is innocent until proven guilty, except when a police officer kills someone--That to me, and I suspect others, is a little hypocritical. 

If we all believed that EVERYONE was innocent until proven guilty--we'd be much better off. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DannyZuco said:

So everyone is innocent until proven guilty, except when a police officer kills someone--That to me, and I suspect others, is a little hypocritical. 

If we all believed that EVERYONE was innocent until proven guilty--we'd be much better off. 

I'm referring to the breoona case not all murders, I should've been more specific 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JETT said:

I'm referring to the breoona case not all murders, I should've been more specific 

So then, in this certain case, the police officers are guilty--even though a grand jury has looked at all the evidence, which we don't have--and couldn't find criminal intent. 

Maybe we were filled full of lies from the outset, I don't know, I wasn't there, I haven't seen all the evidence. Only the media accounts, the protesting accounts, and a lawyers account, but NOT one single fact about what happened when they entered the apartment. 

But I again say--if they are found GUILTY of a crime--hang'em high. But until then, they are innocent until PROVEN guilty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

So then, in this certain case, the police officers are guilty--even though a grand jury has looked at all the evidence, which we don't have--and couldn't find criminal intent. 

Maybe we were filled full of lies from the outset, I don't know, I wasn't there, I haven't seen all the evidence. Only the media accounts, the protesting accounts, and a lawyers account, but NOT one single fact about what happened when they entered the apartment. 

But I again say--if they are found GUILTY of a crime--hang'em high. But until then, they are innocent until PROVEN guilty. 

He has to much pride to say he got duped by the media. It’s ok, let him make it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

Why did you call them 'THUGS'? How is that appropriate to this? 

They were trying to hold on to power which is also a definition of a thug, they just weren't using violence to do so.  While this definition only mentions white people and politicians, I think it includes all races.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thug .  This new generation and their definitions for words are so wrong.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DannyZuco said:
thug
/THəɡ/
plural noun: thugs
  1. 1.
    a violent person, especially a criminal.
    "he was attacked by a gang of thugs"
    2. HISTORICAL
    a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.
     
    Well if we read the definition correctly, then "thugs" would not be the correct term at this moment, because while indicted, they have not been convicted of a crime yet, just indicted. So I am trying to figure out if they are "thugs" or not. because the definition for a "criminal" is a person who has committed a crime.--Have they committed the crime and that is why they are being indicted, or do we have to wait to see what the trial says to find out if they are a criminal? 
     
    So if you are stopped for and receive a speeding ticket--that should make you a criminal--because you "committed a crime"--something against the law. Another question, if you commit a crime and don't get caught--does that still make you a criminal? So many questions, so little time on a Friday. 
     

See the definition by Merriam Webster.  This does provide the context of how it was originally used.  So the term is true, since they were trying to stay in power through criminal behavior if found guilty.  We'll see how a jury decides, and I will accept their verdict.  If they did commit voter fraud then they do deserve prison time, all of them regardless of what they do in person.  One can act like a Christian and still commit criminal acts or sins, so if he repents and pays his restitution he will be forgiven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DaveTV1 said:

They were trying to hold on to power which is also a definition of a thug, they just weren't using violence to do so.  While this definition only mentions white people and politicians, I think it includes all races.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thug .  This new generation and their definitions for words are so wrong.  

Nope, his intention was very clear to me, but nice try. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BarryLaverty said:

Nope, his intention was very clear to me, but nice try. 

Your mind is limited and slanted, and I can see it.  You want to claim that the thug life if only about t-shirts that you've seen or what you've heard in the hallways.  A thug life has never been limited to that, and you should realize it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...