Don't shoot the messenger.

An rhetoric question

what has he achieved by doing this? except from being on the run for the rest of his life.

NOTHING!! the only different will be that the NSA, CIA, FBI a.s.o will be more careful in the future.

Do you really think that they will stop monitor your life, now that they have been exposed?

Markus

Is it?
If someone has claimed to be a legal expert can it not be mentioned when a legal issue is being discussed?
No, evidence suggests that is a statement of fact which was made.

No, it is no different from saying he is ignorant of the issue. Which has been proven.:yep:
It might be insulting if he showed he did know what the topic was and I called him oblivious of it as that would clearly be a false statement which woud be insulting.
ignorant, unaware, oblivious, unknowing, nescient, bewildered, uninformed....all the same as clueless. Which are insulting and which are not?
Or is it all down to your random interpretation depending on the quirk of the day?


Really?
And what is offensive in that passage?
"irrelevant hot air" perhaps?

As I've told him many times, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. You might not want to keep arguing about this if you don't want to make it worse.

All of them. It's not debating, it's name-calling. Either debate the topic properly and show where he's wrong, or discuss it like a gentleman.
From the rules: Nothing random about it. It's all about the name-calling. Stop it.


First, calling him "bubbles". Part of your tactic seems to be to pervert peoples' names in a manner designed to insult. And yes, saying that everything he wrote is "irrelevant hot air" is an insult. If you take the time to prove it so, then it's proven. If you just say it, it's meaningless. Again, you say it in intentionally provocative ways. That is close to trolling again.

Which western democracy are we talking about? The western democracy that spies on it's citizens, uses drones to execute without due process those it accuses of being terrorists and arbitrarily suspends certain citizens' rights and sends them into prison camps indefinitely; that invades and overthrows foreign governments that don't do as they're told to or just happen to have resources it needs. That western democracy?

Is it name calling or an accurate description of the situation.
The evidence relating to the arrest is a matter of public record.
You had no problem finding that tip-ex had been used to falsify the custody record. For someone to insist that no documentation was falsified shows that they do not know even the most basic information available, that person can only fit one of those perfectly normal everyday words.

Is it?

How?
Everything relates to a specific set of actions, anything not related to those actions is hot air (bluster, empty talk, gas.....) Which is by its nature irrelevant.
However one aspect of that bluster can be relevant if you stretch it, the persecution complex.
But if you follow that stretch to its logical conclusion it only condemns the officer for illegally falsifying the record while giving the reason why he felt he had to illegally cover up his legal actions.

Very often so that you could sit in your nice place and have privilege to rant about it...but not always...sometimes or more often things are judged by the end results.

NO he is not a criminal! What is wrong with you? Wake up! The Government does not have the right to do what they are doing.Do you think that you are somehow protected? You are not. This is not the type of thing supposed to go on in the US. How long do you think it is before some scandal breaks about misuse of this info or someone being wrongly targeted based on info gathered from this "sweep"? This is immoral, unamerican and disgusting.Who cares if he leaked "classified" material? The same jagoffs violating our rights are the one's labeling things classified. Betrayed his country? NO! he was defending his country against the president, his people, and anyone else in the government who have betrayed their country !! WAKE UP!

He is a criminal if he committed a felony; unauthorised disclosure of government material is a felony. This is not some speeding fine or jaywalking incident. The government does have the right. The right to protect all our freedom from enemies within and without, and for intel to stay out of public domain.

Tribes insults, trolls because he has nothing better to say, even if he is wrong etc he will never admit it.There are times when it's a matter of opinion but of course he insults or as you pointed out Steve, he tries to use little names etc as a way of insulting someone, it's petty and childish, but amusing.

Anyways, first he was not just an "officer" or "Deputy" would be correct, he is the SHERIFF of that county.

Oh lovely little hypothetical you conjured up Tribes, real cute but answer is no, if someone is mistakenly arrested etc, all records should be disposed of, if someone is arrested and not convicted, should automatically be erased forever.The Sheriff stood up for the Second Amendment after one of his deputies violated this man's constitutional rights, plain and simple. I know you do not live here, do not understand this, and that is fine.

It's name calling.

Correct, and if you had left it there we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Maybe, but as soon as you point it out, especially the way you usually do, you change the subject from the case in question to the other person. That's where you go wrong.

Since you only do it when you're busy putting somebody down, yes it obvious.

Because it's not aimed at what he wrote, but at him personally.

It's also not relevant to your argument. It's name-calling, pure and simple, and you've been warned against it many times now.

No more name-calling or insults. You've made a habit of it for far too long.

They do not only shoot the messengers (meanwhile more than one), but completely ignore the reason why those people may have decided to let certain information be known by the public, despite knowing they had to face court martial sooner or later.
The information handed down itself does not seem to stir up most of the people either.


OT, but related to last paragraph - I just read a statistic, about which people in Germany vote for the right wingers, usually accepting what the government does without much questioning. To my astonishment it was not only the 'rich' who would have a reason to protect their property from the poor masses (if you would think of class war, which has died out), but foremost more poor and uneducated people - or, to say this in numbers, more than 70 percent of the population.
I do now understand where those numbers in elections come from, i somehow still do not understand why they do that.

There are a lot of people here you would call 'parasites', living from state welfare and never intending to work and get a job - but just of all those are the loudest bigmouths when it comes to condemning real poor people and foreigners who deserve welfare, as well those bigmouths always vote for the political 'right wingers'.
I admit i do not quite understand the mechanisms of opinion formation.
:06: :hmmm:

MM you are right, i also should buy a boat and ... :yep:

Young man, you cannot falsify custody records.
They exist for a very good reason and must be kept for that very good reason.
It really is as simple as that.

You really need to learn to discuss things properly. Yelling and shouting does nothing for your case.

And now you're doing exactly the same thing. Everything I've said to him applies to you as well. You're both treading a very fine line.

And so are a great many of the things you post. You, like him, don't seem to be able to see it. I've told you many times about the way you say things, but you always seem to fall back into the same way of doing things. You, like him, don't seem to understand how debate and discussion work. You've already been warned once in this thread. I suggest you quit while you can.

And you continue in the same vein, with demeaning names and an insulting tone. Trust me, "he started it" won't work here.

About the case itself:

The deputy made an arrest. He may have been mistaken, but it was his mistake to make. Did the sherrif falsify documents. You say no. Were you there? It looks like it is the arresting authority's decision whether to press the charges, and the court's decision concerning the verdict. If he is reinstated are you going to shout "See, I was right!"? If he is found guilty are you going to rail about "injustice"? Your mind seems to be already made up, yet you know no more about it than anyone else. Once again you literally shout your opinion as if it were fact, and get upset and shout even more if anyone points that out.