Originally posted by randye: You are WRONG once again.
This is a constant pattern with you.
Hint: HB23-1135 (EFFECTIVE June 7, 2023)
It's nauseating how you are apologizing for such sick behavior.
No I am not wrong at all. The Colorado law for indecent exposure requires "sexual intent". Nudity alone is not enough. So Joe could not be convicted of indecent exposure with his own daughter in his own house unless there was some sexual element.
Originally posted by BingB: No I am not wrong at all. The Colorado law for indecent exposure requires "sexual intent". Nudity alone is not enough. So Joe could not be convicted of indecent exposure with his own daughter in his own house unless there was some sexual element.
You do not understand the law.
I'm just curious, are you arguing this because you're really concerned about this area of law, or are you just arguing because you like to argue? I want to believe it's the later...
Originally posted by BingB: No I am not wrong at all. The Colorado law for indecent exposure requires "sexual intent". Nudity alone is not enough. So Joe could not be convicted of indecent exposure with his own daughter in his own house unless there was some sexual element.
When did SCOTUS rule that using Title 42, section **** to restrict immigration was unconstitutional, ?
Every SCOTUS decision has a brief made by each Justice. Find just one.
They did not overturn Title 42. It can be used in the future if another medical emergency arises that justifies it use. However when the pandemic was over the use of Title 42 was no longer an issue. Here is the court's ruling. I have posted it before, but I guess you just can't read or understand it.
Yes I do. This House Bill only addresses THE PENALTY for indecent exposure. In order to find out the ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME you have to look at C.R.S. 18-7-302 (1) (a)
Section 18-7-302 Indecent exposure definitions (1)A person commits indecent exposure: (a)If he or she knowingly exposes his or her genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of any person; (b)If he or she knowingly performs an act of m***********n in a manner which exposes the act to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.
Nudity alone is not enough to get a person convicted of indecent exposure. It has to cause "affront or alarm". There has to be the "intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desire".
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 05-25-2024).]
Yes I do. This House Bill only addresses THE PENALTY for indecent exposure. In order to find out the ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME you have to look at C.R.S. 18-7-302 (1) (a)
[i]Section 18-7-302
For the sake of Pennock's, I'd suggest you clear out a couple of the words used in here. As I've mentioned before, this gets picked up by Google Ads and it directly affects Cliff's ability to advertise on this site. So, I'd respectfully ask that you remove several of the words you copy/pasted from in there. We understand the point you're making, but the actual words are not necessary... maybe you can talk around them. I'm not a mod, I just care about the forum's well being.
Originally posted by BingB: Yes I do. This House Bill only addresses THE PENALTY for indecent exposure. In order to find out the ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME you have to look at C.R.S. 18-7-302 (1) (a)
In order to know if Biden can use Title 42 you have to look at Title 42, section ****.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-24-2024).]
For the sake of Pennock's, I'd suggest you clear out a couple of the words used in here. As I've mentioned before, this gets picked up by Google Ads and it directly affects Cliff's ability to advertise on this site. So, I'd respectfully ask that you remove several of the words you copy/pasted from in there. We understand the point you're making, but the actual words are not necessary... maybe you can talk around them. I'm not a mod, I just care about the forum's well being.
We know Fred saw this, since we can see the last time his IP visited the forum. Unfortunately, this tells me he could actually care less about the message board, and it's actually "all about him."
Narcissism. One thing we know about narcissism, is that it's based in insecurity.
Biden_Joe in the Oval Office, taking a toot. How much Bogota Blow has Biden_Joe had delivered to the White House ? Keys hustled into the West Entrance, a US Marine escort, directly from Andrews AFB, the USAF Sabreliner flight landing from Colombia, the attache cases loaded into the limousine on the tarmac. Cocaine and it's effect on the deviant's mind, instilling confidence, a fuzzy feeling when applied topically as an anaesthetic. Ah yes, Tara Reade, President Donald J. Trump's first debate questions for the imbecile Biden_Joe. ' Biden_Joe, did you grab Tara Reade by her pushy ? Up against the wall ? Snagging her panties to the side ? Inserting your middle index finger into the twenty nine year old's vee jay jay ? ' How about your own daughter Ashley's allegations Biden_Joe ? Did you insert your middle index finger into her twelve year old kootchie, in the shower ? Did you compel her to fellate you, in the shower, when she was twelve ? ' ' Biden_Joe, did you administer copious amounts of cocaine to Ashley's nethers to numb the nerves of her kootchie ? ' ' Biden_Joe needs to be in prison for a life sentence, an incestuous rapist ! ' This debate is over ! ' ' I have no further questions for the pedophile, I can only hope the American People can now see what a maniac, a monster, that the pretendadent Biden_Joe really is, and what a great danger he represents to this, our Constitutional Republic ! ' ' Biden_Jill too, is an accessory, unlawfully having first-hand knowledge of Biden_Joe's felony rape crime, then conspired to conceal the evidence to suppress the truth about Biden_Joe's serial rapist inclinations, a monster ! ' ' fjb ! They represent a clear and present danger to the United States of America ! ' The insane megalomaniac, the monster, could start a nuclear war to grip power tighter, to conceal his crimes.
What a groper Biden_Joe is, a prevert with enough power to crack the surface crust of the Earth. What could possibly go wrong if he pucks things up some more ? fjb again to ensure he croaks in a Leavenworth prison cell, then, buried beneath the concrete of the toilets in the lavatory !
[This message has been edited by Valkrie9 (edited 05-27-2024).]
Well, maybe, it's worse than that. ' Mommy, Daddy keeps bugging me, buggering me ! My bum hurts. ' ' Oh ! Ashley, you mustn't tell anyone ! You will ruin everything your father has accomplished, he's a great man ! You must be silent ! ' How that conversation went when Ashley was seventeen in the Delaware mansion's kitchen. That would then make Biden_Jill an accessory. Yep ! The sordid tale of an imbecile, diddling his child for his own sexual gratification, nutting his daughter's kootchie while high on coke. Addicts do sheet like that, Biden_Joe is an addict, has been for decades. fjb with an indictment for treason ! ' Look Joe, you know the score. Here's the deal, you plead guilty of treason or we prosecute you for diddling Ashley ! ' How do you like that ?
You are the one with reality issues. You said SCOTUS ruled that Biden could not use Title 42, section **** to control illegal alien entries.
Not sure what you mean by "section ****". there is no such section in title 42. But it is 1005 correct that Biden can niot use title 42 to control immigration now that there is no longer a medical emergency. If there is another pandemic then he can.
if you could just get some one to read the courts decision to you i would not have to keep repeating this over and over again.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 05-27-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: Not sure what you mean by "section ****".
You claim to be a teacher. You also claim telling your students to do their own research. "section **** " is the section which allows Biden to Title 42 to control / stop immigration.
Look it up. Then you can quit doubling and tripling down on being stupid about what which you don't know.
You claim to be a teacher. You also claim telling your students to do their own research. "section **** " is the section which allows Biden to Title 42 to control / stop immigration.
Look it up. Then you can quit doubling and tripling down on being stupid about what which you don't know.
There is no section that allows him. The Supreme Court said so. I have done the research and posted a link to the decision to prove that I am correct.
The reason you do not cite the section is because it does not exist. You live in make believe world.
If I am wrong just post the section to prove it.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 05-27-2024).]
I found it very funny that I found the exact section in an article you listed which you called proof of your superiority.
You did not find anything. You live in make-believe land.
I have no idea what you are even trying to say. Lets start with the very basics. Are you willing to admit that there was a legal action titled Arizona v Mayorkas that was brought before the Supreme Court to address the use of Title 42 to control immigration? Or did that never happen in your make believe world?
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 05-28-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: You did not find anything. You live in make-believe land.
You believe that because you want to.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Are you willing to admit that there was a legal action titled Arizona v Mayorkas that was brought before the Supreme Court to address the use of Title 42 to control immigration? Or did that never happen in your make believe world?
No, it happened.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Unlike you I am not satisfied to live in a world of make believe. I wish I could. I am sure i would be much happier. But I just can't.
Yet you are living in you make believe world.
Do ,you really think anyone believes you when you do not even know the law, ?
Do ,you really think anyone believes you when you do not even know the law, ?
I am not asking anyone to believe me. That is why I posted the link to the decision so that everyone could read for themselves. I am not giving anyone my opinion.. I am quoting directly from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Shame you can't read and understand what it says for yourself.
?
