Jump to content

Rich kid kills 4, suffers from affluenza


Recommended Posts

This is a story that will warm the hearts of the nutjobs here at NHB. I Texas repub judge agrees with the "affluenza" defense. The judge sympathized with him because he grew up so wealthly. Aaaawwww, poor baby, we certainly can't look him up. He's got his trust funds to look after.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-rich-teen-dui-probation-12112013,0,1854556.post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is a story that will warm the hearts of the nutjobs here at NHB. I Texas repub judge agrees with the "affluenza" defense. The judge sympathized with him because he grew up so wealthly. Aaaawwww, poor baby, we certainly can't look him up. He's got his trust funds to look after.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-rich-teen-dui-probation-12112013,0,1854556.post

 

Pissed me off when I heard the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This horrible accident happened a couple miles from my home. Our entire community is fucking thunderstruck at this 'verdict', to say the least. And we all know this effeminate little shit that caused it.

 

We don't have too many of these liberal cunt judges here in these parts and it just gives us another reason to fucking detest these goddamn fucking liberals.

 

As if we really needed another reason. phhht

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This horrible accident happened a couple miles from my home. Our entire community is fucking thunderstruck at this 'verdict', to say the least. And we all know this effeminate little shit that caused it.

 

We don't have too many of these liberal cunt judges here in these parts and it just gives us another reason to fucking detest these goddamn fucking liberals.

 

As if we really needed another reason. phhht

 

You're blaming liberals for this? The American Conservative ran an article on this and nowhere did the article mention the judge's politics. Do you think if she were liberal they would have let that by?

 

A liberal judge would have done all he or she could to get that kid behind bars. After all, we're supposed to hate the wealthy, right?

A conservative judge would have let him go, which is about what happened. Conservatives love and protect the wealthy, don't they?

 

You might not agree with the 2nd sentence above, but I'm reasonably sure you think liberals hate the wealthy. So why would a liberal judge allow a wealthy kid to get away with something that a middle class or poor kid would have faced heavy consequences for?

 

Are you just someone who blames liberals (or any other group you don't like) for every bad thing that happens? I thought you folks were supposed to be so logical. Your reaction was 100% emotional. You hate liberals, something outrageous happens; ergo, it must be the fault of liberals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kid was abused. Abused with money. Same type of thinking we get when a kid is let off (after the 3-35 different arrests) because he was poor, he was black, his father left home, he was bipolar and every other tearjerker defense. This type of sentence was why they had mandatory sentencing. We will read about this kid again. After his rehab he has a 10 year probation. I am betting he doesn't make it. Nothing will happen then either. No one is responsible for anything they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're blaming liberals for this? The American Conservative ran an article on this and nowhere did the article mention the judge's politics. Do you think if she were liberal they would have let that by?

 

A liberal judge would have done all he or she could to get that kid behind bars. After all, we're supposed to hate the wealthy, right?

A conservative judge would have let him go, which is about what happened. Conservatives love and protect the wealthy, don't they?

 

You might not agree with the 2nd sentence above, but I'm reasonably sure you think liberals hate the wealthy. So why would a liberal judge allow a wealthy kid to get away with something that a middle class or poor kid would have faced heavy consequences for?

 

Are you just someone who blames liberals (or any other group you don't like) for every bad thing that happens? I thought you folks were supposed to be so logical. Your reaction was 100% emotional. You hate liberals, something outrageous happens; ergo, it must be the fault of liberals!

You live in a dream world. This is the kind of idiocy that is part and parcel of the left. Either she is liberal or is being paid off somehow. The rich are the ones who are the gbiggest liberals. You fools on the left just keep up the lie about Republicans just work for the rich. Why do you ignore the real facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This judge is a registered Republican. This judge sentenced a non-wealthy 14-year-old black kid to 10 years lockup. The kid punched someone out and the guy fell down, hit his head, and died.

 

The 16-year-old rich kid is going to exclusive "rehab" facility where he can train, ride horses, watch tv, etc. He killed 4 people. This judge shows all the signs of a Texas "conservative" (wink, wink).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This judge is a registered Republican. This judge sentenced a non-wealthy 14-year-old black kid to 10 years lockup. The kid punched someone out and the guy fell down, hit his head, and died.

 

The 16-year-old rich kid is going to exclusive "rehab" facility where he can train, ride horses, watch tv, etc. He killed 4 people. This judge shows all the signs of a Texas "conservative" (wink, wink).

Big difference between the 2 cases. Going out with the intent on harming someone is not the same as this drunk rich kid. With that being said, I thinkthe drunk should have been sent to jail for a very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weak, very weak. I could argue that when you punch someone out, you are not intending to kill them. I could also argue that when you drive a F-350 with a BA of 0.23, you are knowingly risking the lives of many. How the 14 yo gets 10 years lockup and the wealthy 16 yo gets the $450,000/year resort is shocking, and by the same repub judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You live in a dream world. This is the kind of idiocy that is part and parcel of the left. Either she is liberal or is being paid off somehow. The rich are the ones who are the gbiggest liberals. You fools on the left just keep up the lie about Republicans just work for the rich. Why do you ignore the real facts.

 

Yes, she just couldn't be conservative, because you are conservative and refuse to entertain even the idea that conservatives could do anything wrong, or that they could be on the side of the rich. Conservative Republicans turn deaf ears to organizations who help the poor unless it's to their political advantage, to make themselves look like they care. When legislation is proposed to help the poor, Republicans vote against it. Republicans want to gut SS and Medicare, and you say they aren't on the side of the rich?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weak, very weak. I could argue that when you punch someone out, you are not intending to kill them. I could also argue that when you drive a F-350 with a BA of 0.23, you are knowingly risking the lives of many. How the 14 yo gets 10 years lockup and the wealthy 16 yo gets the $450,000/year resort is shocking, and by the same repub judge.

I agree with you, Huntfishlib.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how is what the judge did any different than what the parents did? He's getting off again. This time he is getting away with killing 4 people. It's always someone else's fault.

Gee, Isn't THAT a liberal trait (It's Bush's, it the Repub's fault, It's Bush's fault, it's the insurance co. fault, It's Bush's fault, It's Fox New's fault, It's Bush's fault, etc)?

The little prick should be sentenced to life in prison (20 years for each death)! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weak, very weak. I could argue that when you punch someone out, you are not intending to kill them. I could also argue that when you drive a F-350 with a BA of 0.23, you are knowingly risking the lives of many. How the 14 yo gets 10 years lockup and the wealthy 16 yo gets the $450,000/year resort is shocking, and by the same repub judge.

I have punched a few people out in my time as has millions of others. I have never walked up to a person that I did not know and punch them for fun. I have been behind the wheel way 2 many times while I was drinking. I would say that most people have. I never thought I would hurt someone while doing it. It certainly was not my intent. Doesn’t make it right and I was wrong every time I did it.

 

What both did resulted in the death of others and that is wrong and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, she just couldn't be conservative, because you are conservative and refuse to entertain even the idea that conservatives could do anything wrong, or that they could be on the side of the rich. Conservative Republicans turn deaf ears to organizations who help the poor unless it's to their political advantage, to make themselves look like they care. When legislation is proposed to help the poor, Republicans vote against it. Republicans want to gut SS and Medicare, and you say they aren't on the side of the rich?

 

Socialism makes people poor.

 

The problem with most leftists is that they hate rich people even more then they hate poverty and they will hurt rich people even if that means hurting the poor.

 

The data do not support your conclusion concerning the views of Republicans towards the poor as Republicans give far more to Charity, both in total dollars and even as a percent of income, than do Democrats. They demonstrate every day that they care more about poverty than do Democrats whose primary interest is in creating and maintaining a dependency class that can be exploited for political power.

 

I saw an advertisement on television last night, on MSNBC, in which the State of New York was offering 10 years of tax free status to any corporation that would move to New York or expand their footprint in New York. Deep down in their nasty cruel hearts, even the Democrats who run the State of New York know that free enterprise is what creates prosperity even if it also results in a small number of very rich people. If we truly wanted to help the poor, the very best thing we could do would be to end all taxes on corporations permanently, corporations only collect taxes from their customers anyway, and we would in very short order enjoy a rapidly expanding economy which would be creating many millions of jobs. The problem is simply that Democrats hate rich people so much, and Democrats derive so much of their political power from those who subsist on government welfare programs, that they will do everything they can to rip down the escalators of opportunity continually erected by the private sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism makes people poor.

 

The problem with most leftists is that they hate rich people even more then they hate poverty and they will hurt rich people even if that means hurting the poor.

 

The data do not support your conclusion concerning the views of Republicans towards the poor as Republicans give far more to Charity, both in total dollars and even as a percent of income, than do Democrats. They demonstrate every day that they care more about poverty than do Democrats whose primary interest is in creating and maintaining a dependency class that can be exploited for political power.

 

I saw an advertisement on television last night, on MSNBC, in which the State of New York was offering 10 years of tax free status to any corporation that would move to New York or expand their footprint in New York. Deep down in their nasty cruel hearts, even the Democrats who run the State of New York know that free enterprise is what creates prosperity even if it also results in a small number of very rich people. If we truly wanted to help the poor, the very best thing we could do would be to end all taxes on corporations permanently, corporations only collect taxes from their customers anyway, and we would in very short order enjoy a rapidly expanding economy which would be creating many millions of jobs. The problem is simply that Democrats hate rich people so much, and Democrats derive so much of their political power from those who subsist on government welfare programs, that they will do everything they can to rip down the escalators of opportunity continually erected by the private sector.

 

Except that personal giving has never begun to cover all the bases regarding poor. Never. Further, psychologists have a pretty good idea that people give for selfish reasons, i.e., to make themselves feel good.

 

Since it has always been known that personal giving alone is never going to cut the mustard, why do intelligent righties fight the only organizations that have the power to help significantly, which is federal and state governments? Inefficiency? SS and Medicare, the most successful government actions in history, have done more to reduce and even prevent poverty among the elderly than any action taken by anyone since the advent of the Republic. So why do Republicans want to gut the very things that have been the most successful while at the same time calling themselves oh-so-altruistic in their giving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that personal giving has never begun to cover all the bases regarding poor. Never. Further, psychologists have a pretty good idea that people give for selfish reasons, i.e., to make themselves feel good.

 

Since it has always been known that personal giving alone is never going to cut the mustard, why do intelligent righties fight the only organizations that have the power to help significantly, which is federal and state governments? Inefficiency? SS and Medicare, the most successful government actions in history, have done more to reduce and even prevent poverty among the elderly than any action taken by anyone since the advent of the Republic. So why do Republicans want to gut the very things that have been the most successful while at the same time calling themselves oh-so-altruistic in their giving?

BS If the left gave more than all the problems they fight for would go away. The left is sitting on trillions in wealth. It just shows me that they do not really care about the things they say they care about. Why should the left even bring up what the right gives or doesn’t give? They have the ability to do so much more but refuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a firm believer that the wealthy should have special rights and perks. a reward for being the best of the best. however, this spoiled rotten piece of sh*t kid should go to jail for life. he knowingly got behind the wheel of a vehicle intoxicated and started driving. end result 4 people dead. no different then if he took a gun in to a restaurant and randomley started shooting. fry the little prick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that personal giving has never begun to cover all the bases regarding poor. Never. Further, psychologists have a pretty good idea that people give for selfish reasons, i.e., to make themselves feel good.

 

Since it has always been known that personal giving alone is never going to cut the mustard, why do intelligent righties fight the only organizations that have the power to help significantly, which is federal and state governments? Inefficiency? SS and Medicare, the most successful government actions in history, have done more to reduce and even prevent poverty among the elderly than any action taken by anyone since the advent of the Republic. So why do Republicans want to gut the very things that have been the most successful while at the same time calling themselves oh-so-altruistic in their giving?

 

I am sure that some people do in fact find joy in giving charity. I do not think I would classify this as a selfish motivation to give. I know that I personally find it rewarding to help other people even when they do not even know that I am helping them, which is almost all of the time, but that joy is not my personal motivation. Even our children give. As an example, for several years my oldest son has maintained a garden where he grows food for our food bank at our church and he volunteers weekly helping with handing out the food to families in need. Is he a bad person because he enjoys this labor of love? Perhaps it is a behavior that should be punished?

 

Implying that charity is somehow selfish just because it is enjoyable is like complaining that making love to your wife is bad just because it is enjoyable. There is no sin in either act, nor any selfishness.

 

What is more likely is that most phycologists are also Democrats who are just as stingy and selfish as other Democrats and never give any personal charity at all. Perhaps the best of them experience a tiny bit of guilt over their selfishness and thus do their best to tear down the charitable inclinations of Republicans who not only give far more then Democrats out of their own pockets, but also pay the bulk of the governments taxes that fund government social welfare programs such as SNAP.

 

Private charity, at least when the economy is healthy, can easily provide for all of the needs of the poor. What private charity will never be able to do is satiate all of the desires of a massive dependency class that has lost the ability and the inclination to live a productive life instead of a degrading life subsisting parasitically from government handouts.

 

At one time this country had mutual aid society, groups of people who helped each other without any intervention from the government. Even now, some religious communities, such as some Amish communities, provide for all of the needs of their members, including the needs of the elderly, without any government aid at all. Indeed, Social Security laws provide an exception for members of some religious groups who have a moral objection to the socialism of insurance programs especially when the program involves the government taking from others by force. Theft is a sin.

 

The simply fact that the vast majority of elderly Americans have become dependent on government handouts does not prove that this is the only model that can successfully provide for the needs of the elderly. Nor does it mean that these programs are largely responsible for lower levels of poverty amongst the elderly when, for nearly a century, prosperity has been increasing dramatically throughout all of the population even for those receiving no government benefits at all.

 

"Intelligent righties" know that socialism results in more poverty, not less poverty, and that the more socialist is a society the more members of that society suffer from the deprivations of poverty. It is only when socialism latches onto a strong and vibrant free market economy that it does anything positive for the poor, and this only at the expense of long term economic grown and at the risk of total economic collapse. Socialism is like a leach draining the life blood out of the economy and must be kept in check or the host simply dies and then so also does the leach. The only system that has ever lifted billions of people out of poverty is the unleashed industry of free market economics. For all of human history, until very recently, almost all people have lived on less then 1 inflation adjusted purchasing power parity dollar per day. It is only the event of Western free market industrialization that has lifted up billions of people out of poverty and it is only this enormous success that has made socialism possible at all.

 

Why is it that only "intelligent righties" realize that socialism is a dead end that hurts people? Think of all the millions of Chinese and Slavic people who have died of starvation to teach us this lesson. Who is it that suffers more, the people of North Korea, or the People of South Korea? Why is it that only "intelligent righties" understand that when a man is free, that when a man enjoyed the unalienable right to the outputs of his own labor instead of existing as tax slave to the state, that a free man will work much harder to provide for himself and his family then will a tax slave for what the government gives him, a few scraps from the bejeweled hands of his political masters?

 

SS and Medicare, the most successful government actions in history, where made possible only by the much greater success of free market industrialization and at the expense of even greater prosperity and an even higher standard of living for the American people. It is not the government that has lifted people out of poverty, it is the enormous wealth generated by free men and free women simply striving to make a better life for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...