• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

information on sheriff Arpaio

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Sheriff Arpaio was convicted of a misdemeanor crime committed while in the employ of the State of Arizona, which one may note is not the same as the United States of America. Minor crimes will not affect one's pension or retirement, nor should they.

In my opinion if a government agents pension was at risk, they would think before they commit any crimes, minor or major...
Criminals are criminals no matter how minor the crime and no matter who employes said criminal..

Thank you for your opinion.

My .02
CCJ
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
In my opinion if a government agents pension was at risk, they would think before they commit any crimes, minor or major...
Criminals are criminals no matter how minor the crime and no matter who employes[sic] said criminal..

Interesting summation.

I suppose then, that with the 'equal protection under the law' theory that non-government agents (aka, private citizens) should be held to the same standard?

Should Mr. Greengrocer lose his potential Social Security benefits because he was convicted for improper disposal of out-of-date produce?

Should the country club groundskeeper lose his retirement benefits because he wrote a check for money he didn't have in his checking account?

I'm trying to reconcile this with your hatred of 'civil asset forfeiture' and coming up short. Help me out, Joe, how does seizing someone's lawfully earned retirement money differ from seizing the lawfully earned cash they have in their wallet?

Are some citizens de facto 'second class citizens' by virtue of their employment?
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Interesting summation.

I suppose then, that with the 'equal protection under the law' theory that non-government agents (aka, private citizens) should be held to the same standard?

Should Mr. Greengrocer lose his potential Social Security benefits because he was convicted for improper disposal of out-of-date produce?

Should the country club groundskeeper lose his retirement benefits because he wrote a check for money he didn't have in his checking account?

I'm trying to reconcile this with your hatred of 'civil asset forfeiture' and coming up short. Help me out, Joe, how does seizing someone's lawfully earned retirement money differ from seizing the lawfully earned cash they have in their wallet?

Are some citizens de facto 'second class citizens' by virtue of their employment?

Nice try however we are discussing convicted government employees that committed crimes while employed by the tax-payers.

Your groundskeeping and greengrocer are not government employees receiving a pay check and building their retirement account with tax payer money.

Do you feel that someone convicted of tax fraud or tax evasion, should be entitled to a tax refund?.

Addressing your " second class citizen query..

Government employees would indeed be the " elite class" even tho they work for us the second class..

The groundskeeping, the grocer, the bartender, do not work under the protection of qualified immunity. The groundskeeper, the grocer, the bartender are not privileged enough to carry a weapon into a court of law.. However government employees may, judge, prosecutor, LEO, all three being government employees..

So please let's get back on my query.. Do you feel that government employees that are charged and prosecuted for a crime (minor or major) while employed and being compensated with tax payer funds. Should they lose their tax payer funded pension?

Let me break this down to six-grade thinking for you..

Mr.Clyde Chestnut Barrow is a 20 year employee with the local Sheriff department employed as a payroll master hence he prepares the pay checks for the department employees..

Mr.Barrow is accused, arrested and prosecuted for paying himself and his lady lover also an employee of said department Ms. Bonnie Elizabeth Parker extra money each month in their pay checks.. Both are arrested and found guilty of embezzlement and theft and theft by deception.. Both obviously lose their jobs and are sentenced to 8 years in prison..

Now 109, should Mr. Barrow and Ms. Parker still be entitled to receive their tax payer funded pensions from the same entity ( government) that they were stealing and embezzling therefrom?..

Is there a difference between Mr. Barrow, Ms.Parker and our criminal Mr.Arpaio? All three are convicted of a crime, all three are government employees. all three are compensated by tax payer money, all three have a government pension funded by the hard working tax payers.

Again should government employees convicted of a crime while on the job, be entitled to their tax payer funded government pensions?


Regarding social security pension or whatever its moniker... Are you aware that the SSA does not have a legal obligation to return the funds they stole from you over your working life time? There is case law to support my statement however my Jameson full brain is running slow.:lol:

Also Government asset forfeiture against innocent Americans is unconstitutional.. Revoking a government pension from a government criminal is proper equity sharing in my humble opinion..

My .02
CCJ
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
Pensions are wages. The money is earned as time goes by just like the weekly paycheck. The difference is the money earned weekly is paid weekly but the money for the pension, while earned weekly, is not paid until retirement. Where the money came from, paid by the week or paid at retirement, is immaterial. What is important is the money belongs to the wage earner as it is earned.

Once money is earned, subject to being paid now or payment is deferred until retirement, it belongs to the person who earned it and it doesn't matter if someone worked for a car company, a grocery store, or the government.

And, at least to my mind, taking away the amount of pension earned up to the date of being fired for any reason, including committing a crime, is nothing more than punishment in the form of revenge. And, again to my mind, doing so equates to stealing the money the person already earned using the excuse that they deserved to lose everything they worked for because they were fired... regardless of why they were fired.

And, the way I see it, an employer, whether it be an individual, a company, or a government composed of "we the people", that would use being fired, regardless of the reason for the firing, as an excuse to steal someone's already earned pension money would be acting out of petty meanness and childish spite.

I guess it could be said that the above is my .02
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,328
Location
northern wis
Pensions, SS payments, Health care payments, vacation pay, sick leave, company vehicle, company provided equipment do to the job, company provided housing and any other thing that you are not paying out of you own pocket.

Are part of ones salary system.

A lot of people are very mathematically challenged and do not understand this concept.

Unless it is dollar bills in their hand when they cash their pay check they don't see it has income.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
...

Back to the petty tyrant, hopefully, he will be reunited with some of his old amigos, only this time, he gets to bunk with them. Justice has a way of coming around.

Just witnessing that petty tyrant in hand cuffs and a jump suit with a number on the back will be fine. Also, the civil suits will soon follow, and the petty tyrant will die in shame.

Stay tuned and we'll see how close this one was called.
Trump pardons Arpaio, citing his ‘exemplary service’ to the nation​
via the Washington Times
President Trump issued the first pardon of his tenure Friday to former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, even before the lawman was sentenced for his conviction on a [misdemeanor] contempt of court charge.

The White House said Mr. Arpaio earned the pardon based on a lifetime of public service.
So...
no handcuffs
no jumpsuits with a number on the back
no pink underwear
no 'tent city'​

[video=youtube_share;Bjsl23bx3EM]https://youtu.be/Bjsl23bx3EM[/video]
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I can only assume that some of
you folks, Nightmare, WW, JamesCanby, Gutshot I and II and the fellow from Georgia name begins with F. are in your glory today.. Your rights violating no respect for the rule of law CRIMINAL JOE was pardoned today by another tyrant that also does not respect the rule of law. Please be advised you five members are on record for supporting government agents that violate human rights, that violate the rule of law, and that you support slavery and tyranny.. For did not criminal Joe abuse and enslave other humans, did he not violate all the moral principles of our constitution.. Folks that claim to support the constitution and rule of law yet applaud this pardon are nothing but hypocrites..

If I recall all the aforementioned named above consider themselves "ORIGINALIST".. wow, what hypocrisy they display!

" I am in earnest- I will not equivocate- I will not excuse- I will not retreat a single inch- and I will be heard" William Lloyd Garrison

So noted!

My .02
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Somebody bring a mop, and bucket to the SJW snowflake isle, exploding heads, and overflowing depends.

I would prefer to be remembered as a social justice warrior as opposed to someone that applauds and supports government criminal tyrants and rights violators. You post here and pretend to support rule of law and the constitution yet you support and revere those that violate both.

Your thoughts and words are proof that you are truly a " hypocrite". One cannot espouse that they support the rule of law and the Constitution while they also support violators thereof.. Your hypocrisy is on display for all to see, is that how you wish to be remembered by your posterity?

" May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen". Partial quote from Samuel Adams.

What does one call five people, Nightmare,WW, JamesCanby, Gutshot I-II and Falls from Georgia, five that espouse that they support the constitution and the rule of law, yet support rights violators, support slavery and tyranny? Yes indeed, they would be called " hypocrites" of the highest order.

" Their hypocrisy knows no bounds"..

My .02
CCJ
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
What does one call a person that steals the words and thoughts of others and tries to make them his own? Is it ... plagiarist?
Yes, I think that's the term, plagiarist; a word-thief, a common criminal of the lowest sort.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
What does one call a person that steals the words and thoughts of others and tries to make them his own? Is it ... plagiarist?
Yes, I think that's the term, plagiarist; a word-thief, a common criminal of the lowest sort.

While I may have posted a few words without citing the proper authority possibly in error. I have never claimed to support the Constitution and then support a criminal government agent that clearly violated human rights... I detest tyrants that take an oath to support the document with which we live under and then they violate said document. The only actions close to their lawlessness is when others support the vile criminal actions of government criminals while espousing that they support the constitution.

Falls, one either supports the constitution and the rule of law as it pertains to everyone or one supports petty tyrants and criminals like criminal Joe and other violators.. You can't have it both ways. Clearly you see the hypocrisy therein..

You and the other four" hypocrites" supporters of criminals and rights violators will fall under my watchful eyes and any hypocritical rhetoric expounded
shall be met with severe confutation.

"I am in earnest-I will not equivocate-I will not excuse-i will not retreat a single inch- and I will be heard" William Lloyd Garrison

' I shall be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice" Garrison

Falls, it is hard to defend the indefensible.. In my humble opinion your support of petty tyrants is indeed an injustice to yourself and your posterity.

" Liberty and justice for each, for all and forever" WLG

My .02
CCJ
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
" Enslave the liberty of but ONE HUMAN being and the liberties of the world are put in peril" William Lloyd Garrison

Support those that enslave the liberty of human beings and you yourself are a petty tyrant!

" It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men" Frederick Douglass

" The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous" Frederick Douglass

My .02
CCJ
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Remind me....

What does one call someone who advocates one set of standards for one group and not for another?
Someone who says "... Criminals are criminals no matter how minor the crime and no matter who employes[sic] said criminal..."?
Someone, say... who calls for the forfeiture of assets from a government employee because of a misdemeanor crime and doesn't call for the same level of punishment for someone employed in the private sector?


Is it ... hypocrite? Yes, I think so.
That would make someone not only a plagiarist but a hypocrite as well, methinks.
 
Top