|
Author
|
Topic: Hovind's solitary considerations
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
Message 46 of 87 (418388)
08-27-2007 11:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 10:58 PM
|
|
Re: .......
Hovind followed the rules to the best of my inquiry into the situation. I'd be absolutely delighted for you to explain your "inquiry" process that makes you more of an expert on tax laws than the judge who heard the case, the AUSA who tried the case, and the defense attorney who represented Hovind at trial, none of who came to the conclusion that federal income tax is unconstitutional.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 10:58 PM | | Ihategod has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 47 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:28 PM | | subbie has not replied |
|
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 235 Joined: 08-15-2007
|
|
|
Message 47 of 87 (418395)
08-27-2007 11:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by subbie
08-27-2007 11:05 PM
|
|
Re: .......
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by subbie, posted 08-27-2007 11:05 PM | | subbie has not replied |
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.1
|
|
|
Message 48 of 87 (418401)
08-27-2007 11:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 11:28 PM
|
|
Please Mr. Moderator, I don't wanna link!
Can we squelch this off-topic bare link behavior? OTOH, he may be a Christian, so some discrimination may apply.
Real things always push back.-William James
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:28 PM | | Ihategod has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:54 PM | | Omnivorous has replied |
|
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 565 Joined: 10-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 49 of 87 (418402)
08-27-2007 11:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 11:28 PM
|
|
Re: Wiki
Does your link somehow support your view? The last sentence on the page, I believe, is the best summary presented so far to go against what you believe.
Wiki writes: These and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 11:28 PM | | Ihategod has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: Conservative High-Heaven Hypocrisy
You are merely tossing out red herrings which are by definition off-topic. Moderator, heed thyself. One was investigated, charged and convicted by a duly appointed prosecutor of the law. The other was not, to my knowledge. Correct me if wrong. This was, imo, a ligitimate on topic analogy. Branching off from that would be to lead off topic as was the case. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Omnivorous, posted 08-27-2007 11:02 PM | | Omnivorous has replied |
|
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 235 Joined: 08-15-2007
|
Re: Please Mr. Moderator, I don't wanna link!
I apologize it was off topic. Instead of gossiping like small children and sharing secret smiles, perhaps a thread should be opened examining why it was unconstitutional to throw Hovind in jail and why no one seems to understand the law and its special relevance to those who have redeemed their straw man account. Please continue on topic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by Omnivorous, posted 08-27-2007 11:39 PM | | Omnivorous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 6:17 PM | | Ihategod has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 52 of 87 (418767)
08-30-2007 8:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 10:58 PM
|
|
Re: .......
quote:
You hate him because he shakes your foundations.
I don't hate him. Mostly, I don't think about him at all. How has he shaken anyone's foundations? He has no effect whatsoever upon science or scientists, and his arguments are even rejected by the leading Creationist organizations. I feel sorry for him, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be in jail for tax evasion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 10:58 PM | | Ihategod has not replied |
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.1
|
|
|
Message 53 of 87 (418849)
08-30-2007 6:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
08-28-2007 9:44 AM
|
|
Re: Conservative High-Heaven Hypocrisy
Buzsaw writes: One was investigated, charged and convicted by a duly appointed prosecutor of the law. The other was not, to my knowledge. Correct me if wrong. Okay. Yes, one was investigated, charged and convicted. The other was investigated, too, but not charged--because there was no case. In one case, there was a finding of criminal activity; in the other, there was not. You seem to be claiming that any investigation of a liberal (especially a Clinton) that does not result in charges and/or convictions must be a miscarriage of justice. Your attitude, it seems to me, does not reflect privileged knowledge of a crime having been committed but rather a prejudiced outlook on political enemies. Nonetheless, even if you can cite an example of one guilty person evading prosecution (a questionable citation, as guilt requires a trial), that does not make the prosecution of another guilty person wrong. The solution is to make justice more even-handed by prosecuting all parties against whom there is strong evidence, not to make excuses for those who are successfully prosecuted. Despite multiple intensive investigations spurred by conservative political enemies, no credible evidence of criminal activity by Hillary Clinton was found. It was a red herring to contrast those outcomes (Hovid & Clinton) because you offer no evidence whatsoever to support your claim of evidence against Hillary Clinton, while Hovind was convicted with overwhelming evidence.
Real things always push back.-William James
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 08-28-2007 9:44 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.1
|
|
|
Message 54 of 87 (418850)
08-30-2007 6:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by Ihategod
08-29-2007 11:54 PM
|
|
Re: Please Mr. Moderator, I don't wanna link!
Vashgun writes: Instead of gossiping like small children and sharing secret smiles Sneering innuendo is about as welcome and efficacious here as a bare link--which is to say, not at all.
perhaps a thread should be opened examining why it was unconstitutional to throw Hovind in jail We throw all kinds of tax cheats in jail. Hovind is nothing special.
and why no one seems to understand the law and its special relevance to those who have redeemed their straw man account. Those must be special code words among the tax evading camp--I can find no sense in them.
Please continue on topic. Please get on topic. Just once.
Real things always push back.-William James
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by Ihategod, posted 08-29-2007 11:54 PM | | Ihategod has not replied |
|
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: 09-08-2003
|
|
|
Message 55 of 87 (418852)
08-30-2007 6:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
08-27-2007 11:04 PM
|
|
Re: Biblical Christian = proof of diminshed capacity?
Jar writes: "Should the fact that someone is a Biblical Christian be accepted as proof of diminished capacity?" Oh my... I was trying to decide my position on this issue and was taking Percy's comments seriously - until I read your above quote.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by jar, posted 08-27-2007 11:04 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 6:54 PM | | iceage has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 56 of 87 (418854)
08-30-2007 6:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by iceage
08-30-2007 6:37 PM
|
|
Re: Biblical Christian = proof of diminshed capacity?
Well the question is, if Jo Hovind was just being the "Good Christian Wife" when she made several deposits or withdrawals a day that were just under the $10,000 limit for Fed notification, if she was just being the "Good Christian Wife" when she neglected to withhold and pay employee taxes, then should that also be a defense if a "Good Christian Wife" just follows her husbands direction and Aides and Abets any other crime. Should we recognize that "Good Biblical Christians" are simply not capable of honest behavior expected from the general populus and thus any sentences waived on the grounds of dimished capacity.
diminished capacity
n. essentially a psychological term which has found its way into criminal trials. A contention of diminished capacity means that although the accused was not insane, due to emotional distress, physical condition or other factors he/she could not fully comprehend the nature of the criminal act he/she is accused of committing, particularly murder or attempted murder. It is raised by the defense in attempts to remove the element of premeditation or criminal intent and thus obtain a conviction for a lesser crime, such as manslaughter instead of murder. While the theory has some legitimacy, at times juries have been overly impressed by psychiatric testimony. The most notorious case was in People v. Dan White, the admitted killer of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, who got only a manslaughter conviction on the basis that his capacity was diminished by the sugar content of his blood due to eating "Twinkies." Should being a "Biblical Christian" be grounds for the "Twinky Defense"? As Buz stated:
Buz writes: The difference is that my sister was not as Biblically strict as Mrs Hovind was on submission to the husband. I don't blame either Kent or Jo for the sentencing. He was doing what he believed was right Constitutionally and Biblically.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by iceage, posted 08-30-2007 6:37 PM | | iceage has not replied |
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.1
|
|
|
Message 57 of 87 (418859)
08-30-2007 7:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by jar
08-30-2007 6:54 PM
|
|
Letting witches live
jar writes: As Buz stated:
Buz writes: The difference is that my sister was not as Biblically strict as Mrs Hovind was on submission to the husband. I don't blame either Kent or Jo for the sentencing. He was doing what he believed was right Constitutionally and Biblically. So if a Christian husband learned that one of his wife's friends was a Wiccan, and he reminded her that the Bible tells us we should not "suffer a witch to live," then when the wife cuts her friend's throat, she should walk, right? Or maybe face a reduced charge due to self-defense?
Real things always push back.-William James
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 6:54 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 8:01 PM | | Omnivorous has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Twinky Defense
I certainly think that a great case for diminished capacity based on Christian Biblical Principles and that the "Twinky Defense" could and should be made which would justify a reduced charge at a minimum.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 7:47 PM | | Omnivorous has replied |
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.1
|
|
|
Message 59 of 87 (418864)
08-30-2007 8:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
08-30-2007 8:01 PM
|
|
I certainly think that a great case for diminished capacity based on Christian Biblical Principles and that the "Twinky Defense" could and should be made which would justify a reduced charge at a minimum. Since the Constitution defends religious liberty, I guess the same qualified legal principles must apply to other religions. So deaths required by strict interpretation of jihad must be as strongly defended by the American religious right as tax evasion by husband's instruction. Wait...I must have gone awry on a premise or two...
Real things always push back.-William James
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 8:01 PM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 08-30-2007 9:52 PM | | Omnivorous has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Murder and a relatively small deposit of money are apples and oranges.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Omnivorous, posted 08-30-2007 8:24 PM | | Omnivorous has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2