DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
So what are saying DS, is if its for a conservative person, they should not have the book thrown at them for spending money to corrupt government? You know how I can always level the charge that conservatives never hold their candidates or elected persons to office to the same level, if not, TWICE, that of the Democrats for being accountable and responsible with power? Stuff like this! If it was a Democrat, we would see dozens of posts from the conservative/libertarians on this forum in the first five minutes the thread went live. But when its a conservative, wooooh! If he gets 'the book thrown at him' that means other conservatives might get scared of contributing money to the GOP/TP and thus, lose elections to Democrats. So naturally, conservatives would not want that penalty to be anything more than a slap on the wrist. If it was a liberal, oh hell yeah, conservatives would want not just one book, but twenty more thrown at the person.
I say the courts should make an example of him. Put posters up of the face of the corrupter. The sort of personality that wishes to undermine the United States of America from within. Hopefully keep conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, and any other political philosophy from doing the same thing in the future.
Fuck that twice shit. That's bullshit and you know it.
If it was a Liberal/Progressive person in the same position, I'd still be supporting the typical penalties. I just hope that, if he's found guilty, he gets sentenced according to the law and at a severity that is commensurate with the severity of the crime, and, that he accept that he broke the law and accept his penalty.
The allegation is that he broke the law by donating under other names, essentially funding donations beyond the limits of campaign finance reform. His getting the book thrown at him isn't going to scare people away from donating to the GOP/TP. That's a stupid response. It's not about reducing the donations to a candidate, but the illegal donations.
I put something out about a conservative being indicted for campaign finance fraud, and support the idea that if he's found guilty, he should face the typical consequences. Your response is to whine that conservatives/Libertarians would be screaming foul if it was a Democrat.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
An which side of the political philosophies supported Voter ID as a way to combat the massive fraud going on? With very stiff penalties unleashed on those that broke the law? Oh, that would be conservatives and libertarians! Go back in the threads, and you'll see the evidence is there. In addition, the evidence that shows what conservatives were stating was bogus and voter fraud was not taking place on anywhere near the level 'reported'. An why was voter fraud not anywhere near the level conservatives/libertarians were yelling at?
The penalty was more severe than the reward.
This wasn't voter fraud. It was campaign finance fraud. Very different, innit?
quote:
So now here is a case of a conservative breaking voter laws in an effort to undermine the system. An you want to go lenient on this guy? Because his political philosophy is similar to yours? Throw the book at him, so that others are not tempted to travel down this path. I'm pretty sure our FBI's resources could be better spent on other projects than dealing with voting fraud by conservatives.
Go lenient? Not at all. I stated that I support the standard penalty for guilt in this area. That means, whatever is the standard penalty for cases like his. I don't want the book thrown at him (at the level of fraud he was at, that wouldn't be standard). I don't want a slap on the wrist (that wouldn't be standard, either). When someone commits fraud at the level D'Souza committed it, whatever the "normal" penalty is, that should be his penalty.
quote:
You dislike the idea of holding people you vote and support into public office. I believe you called it 'bullshit'? No, Bullshit is saying your in favor of 'Limited Government' but can never define what that exactly means in the real world. Taking into account the good and bad of such a viewpoint. My viewpoint means that sooner or later, some liberal will get out of line, and he or she or they will need the book thrown at them, to keep others from being tempted. Elections are very important in America. If and when they are undermine, the rest of the system can be easily undermined. Say what you wish that the entire system is corrupted; that's for a different thread.
I'm not taking issue that you hid from this story. No, you get points for bringing it up. I take issue that you wish to give the guy a lenient sentence because he shares the same political view as you. Are you in favor of voter fraud, DS? Of course not! So why promote giving this guy a lenient sentence? Conservatives are usually pretty draconian in their views in regards to law breakers. I would be lenient on someone that made an honest mistake at the polls and was caught for possible voter fraud. This guy KNEW it was illegal and did it anyway for the prospect of the reward.
You might want to take a step back and think about something: this guy isn't a politician. He's a pundit and author.
If D'Souza is found guilty (he's been indicted, but the case has not been tried), he should face the consequences of his actions. I don't disagree with that at all. I don't think his penalty should be more severe, or less severe than what is the norm.
But do go on slinging shit. That's your norm.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
I wonder how much this will get blown out of proportion... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread