Why "likely"?
Printable View
Since we were talking about points raised in the Fran O'Sullivan article ... the fact you haven't read it is most unhelpful to intelligent debate.
You go on to defend the SFO conduct. You conveniently ignore the fact that the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard makes this case singular - the oppressive power of the state is complete, in this case - the power to investigate is also complete and beyond the evidential conventions that apply in the judicial system.
Then again, if you had read the article this point would have been clear.
You raise a number of points concerning your views of legal procedure and make the claim that the SFO is conducting business as usual. Further, you conclude with the somewhat startling assertion that given SFO obligations are being met that your standards are somewhat higher than mine.
Given your prior posts asserting how profit motivated Pike River investors were causal factors in the Pike River mine disaster followed on by this latest view that Allan Hubbard is being treated according to judicial convention, by the SFO - I have to seriously doubt whether you are in full possession of your faculties.
You are doing the intellectual equivalent of "dribbling".
You conveniently ignore the fact that the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard makes this case singular - the oppressive power of the state is complete, in this case - the power to investigate is also complete and beyond the evidential conventions that apply in the judicial system.I notice a few libertarian/Randian types (including O'Sullivan) are desperately attempting to spin this into a spooky nanny state/govt power issue now that charges have been laid. And libertarians are supposed to be against fraud :scared:.
As an astute poster said at NBR "Does a ring come with those beliefs?"
No, just a cerebral cortex ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist
So, Balance, tell me how Destiny Church upholds the principles of objectivist libertarianism?
Capitalist may wish to explain how Statutory Management is consistent with "due process" and "natural justice" principles that have been foundation elements of our legal system since the Magna Carta. (Principles which incidentally are at the foundation of our political system, not just our legal system; and are certainly not exclusive to objectivism or libertarianism).
I know your intention is make a jokes rather than dwell on the serious issues at hand. However, jokes would be funnier if you demonstrated a basic understanding of the principles you are making light of.
I ask:
In reply:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enumerate
No Balance, you are dribbling again, go back and read the initial question. If you have any trouble with the big words ... you can always Google ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance