« ‘Behold the Pale Horse’ in ‘2016’ (updated 27aug12) | Main | Introducing RR Glossary and Semantics – latest V6feb19 »

26 August 2012

Comments

George Rebane

TomK 218pm - You might be a mite modest here. I would say that that has been the stock progressive accusation since the Tea Parties started. It is also the stock application of the Alinsky Alternative.

TomKenworth

One final note on the Tea Party Birthers. Maybe if they had spent the energy at the Reno Airshow, instead of on President Obama, they might have caught the 74 year old flyboy posing as a 59 year old flying a plane with shortened wings (how could have other experienced pilots have missed that?) that killed 10 people and wounded 70 others.

"Nope, he's rich, so he must be honest."

George Rebane

TomK 815am - This instance of liberal reasoning could/should in itself make an exemplary post in RR's Liberal Mind category. For now we'll just let it serve to explain away some of the other dots that you have connected.

Paul Emery

TomK-huh?

TomKenworth

Paul, check yesterday's or Monday's The Union, and see how the hubris of a rich 74 year old set himself up to murder 10 people at last year's airshow in Reno, using an illegally and undeclared modified P-51. He obviously used a false birth certificate somewhere along the line.

TomKenworth

BTW, the outstanding photograph of the P-51 in a vertical dive is the perfect symbol for the Republican party.

http://thecritical-post.com/blog/2011/09/remembering-jimmy-leeward-the-galloping-ghost-p-51-nx79111-after-the-reno-airshow-crash-tcpchicago/

Apparently NTSB did not find God responsible, and this aspect is discussed in the article and especially in the comments.

TomKenworth

Why bother with The Union? Here's the AP story, complete with moment of impact image.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ntsb-to-review-findings-of-sept-2011-crash-of-aircraft-into-spectators-during-reno-air-races/2012/08/27/36c5a9c4-f017-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html

billy T

Rich envy or pilot envy? Or rich pilot envy?

TomKenworth

Envy the arrogant lying dead murderer with the phoney birth certifcate? I don't think so. On your side, over sympathizing with over accomplishment by any means necessary, regardless of results, is no evil? This campaign is very quickly sinking to new lows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv3tadz5Q3o

billy T

We can do better.

George Rebane

TomK 853am - In the quest for clarity, and if not, then only for understanding your comments - what is your definition of 'murder'? You apparently have a unique sense for that word.

TomKenworth

Getting behind the wheel with double the legal limit of alcohol, and anything else similar. If dome methhead modified a vehicle and took it on a public highway and a wheel flew off and it caused a crash that kill members of your immediate family, you'd have no trouble calling it murder. Here the drug seems to have been too much money and power, and too little time, not unlike the drug speed.

billy T

Medicare is going broke. Its now or never. We must do better. Come to the light. We will do better, we can do better. Yes we can. Forward as we leave the guy stuck in the ditch and regain America. Hope with change.

George Rebane

TomK 843am - First, the crash you describe members of my family would be killed would NOT be called murder by me or anyone who thinks like me. But true to form, as corroborated by Dr Gage (see 'The Liberals' Intellectually Baseless Ideology'), you didn't define murder but attempted an issue or example based explication.

Murder is a term that has traditionally been reserved for the illegal and intentional killing of a human.

billy T

Phew, that airplane topic sure came out of left field. Moral equivalent to exactly what? Rich folks? Old folks? Old rich folks who own planes? Tom, you can do better. The new normal is adnormal, even for you. We must do better. Come to the light. Yes, its time to prune the tree of dead wood. Fear not. BART awaits you if things become too real.

TomKenworth

So the methhead or drunk gets off with manslaughter? Don't think that is true anymore, at least not for 2nd degree murder:

http://www.shouselaw.com/watson-murder.html.

George Rebane

TomK 111pm - Don't ever confuse the definitions from the legal lexicon with what is accepted in the normal world. Legal definitions are bizarre by perfidy and design - go ask OJ about 'double jeopardy'. (BTW, I think your link is broken.)

TomKenworth

http://www.shouselaw.com/watson-murder.html period by force of habit.

George Rebane

TomK 218pm - thanks Doug. Here's what's required to prove 'DUI 2nd degree murder' - "In order to convict you of DUI murder in California , the prosecutor must prove the following three facts (otherwise known as "elements of the crime"):

1. the death resulted from an intentional act,
2. the natural consequences of that act are dangerous to human life, and
3. you knowingly acted with conscious disregard for that fact.

It should be noted that there is no "intent" to actively kill another person in second-degree murder, which is what distinguishes DUI homicide from first-degree murder."

With definitions like these, what would prevent tomorrow's legal profession from blaming the subsequent death from lung disease (cancer, etc) of someone exposed to second hand cigarette smoke admittedly from the accused?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad