Hardcore troubadour 15,713 Posted December 20, 2016 You tried to move the goalposts when I showed you were wrong. That's what trolls do. Enjoy. You wanted to know how there could be thousands of federal criminals convicted of non-violent crimes. Most federal criminals are convicted of non-violent crimes. Most, as in around 90%. You try to change the definition, then you try to change the question. And, you think I'm the troll? Too funny. Still, no answer. But you're a good boy, you accept definitions as they are dictated to you. Never question anything as long as you agree with it. Baaa baaa Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted December 20, 2016 Still, no answer. But you're a good boy, you accept definitions as they are dictated to you. Never question anything as long as you agree with it. Baaa baaa I answered one of your made up BS questions already, what makes you think you rate more than that? Do you... You think I'm defending Obama? That's it, isn't it? Listen, you've voted for Obama far more often than I have, I have zero interest in defending him. I occasionally point out the crap propogated by some of the posters here, but that's it. You can try to change the legal definition in your own mind, but it really doesn't affect the real world. What part are you assuming I agree with? The pardons? Nope. I'd rather see any and all presidential pardons be required to accure before the election. Let them put it out there when it could matter for the election, and you'd see a lot less pardons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,713 Posted December 20, 2016 I answered one of your made up BS questions already, what makes you think you rate more than that? Do you... You think I'm defending Obama? That's it, isn't it? Listen, you've voted for Obama far more often than I have, I have zero interest in defending him. I occasionally point out the crap propogated by some of the posters here, but that's it. You can try to change the legal definition in your own mind, but it really doesn't affect the real world. What part are you assuming I agree with? The pardons? Nope. I'd rather see any and all presidential pardons be required to accure before the election. Let them put it out there when it could matter for the election, and you'd see a lot less pardons. Legal definition of "non-violent"? Schools out kid. You failed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted December 20, 2016 Legal definition of "non-violent"? Schools out kid. You failed. And you're still wrong. Good try, good effort. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,713 Posted December 21, 2016 39 in the latest round had weapons charges. So much for that non-violent claim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 1,006 Posted December 21, 2016 Presidential pardons were created so George Washington could pardon the Whiskey Rebellion protestors. 200+ years later and the power is disgustingly abused by every stinkin President for political favors, campaign donations, and to mop up their own dirt. IMO this power should be given exclusively to Federal Judges. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites