aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
galenrox said:And I agree there needs to be more leeway with it, considering you don't always know who the foreigner is calling, and you can't expect an 11 person court to approve thousands upon thousands of warrants.
But that's not the issue. The issue is that you said democrats want "No more listening to the phone calls of terror suspects (as if foreigners or even citizens have some telephone privacy right that trumps preventing mass murder)." This is a lie, plain and simple.
galenrox said:And once again, I disagree with them. But you claimed the democrats wanted to stop arresting them as POW's, which is clearly false, since they weren't being held as POW's in the first place.
galenrox said:Yeah, cause God forbid someone address the complexities of the illegal immigration issue.
galenrox said:I get enraged that you call the Democratic party pro-crime when you've presented no evidence that they're pro-crime. Would you consider evidence of a few out of the millions of republicans out there being sympathetic towards abortion clinic bombings as evidence that the Republican party was pro-abortion clinic bombing? Of course not, because there is no reason to generalize the actions and beliefs of a few to the whole without evidence that it should be done. You call it a natural conclusion, and I say that you call it that because you can't actually prove your point.
galenrox said:Note the emboldened part. Since their is a qualifier, saying that they want to stop wiretapping is a lie. This isn't debatable, you lied.
galenrox said:If you understood the logical process you'd know that this proves nothing. I explained it my last post.
galenrox said:Clinging to an anal interpretation? You mean intepreting you saying that democrats don't want to allow any more wiretapping as you claiming that the democrats don't want to allow any more wiretapping?
galenrox said:So what you're arguing is that I should accept your claim because it's too hard for you to prove? Fantastic logic!:roll:
galenrox said:Really? Do you have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe it's a similar situation, or is this just another random claim you're making to try to make up for the fact you don't have a leg to stand on?
aquapub said:Hundreds.
-Liberals found excuses not to do anything about eight years of Al Queda attacks.
-They have rushed to the defense of the New York Times when they needlessly revealed the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program, and when they called two terror cells to warn them that the FBI was coming to raid them.
-100% of the terrorists who have hijacked American planes have been young, Arab, Muslim males. Yet liberals refuse to let anyone consider this when scanning for threats at airports.
I can write abook on all the ways liberals constantly side with militant Islam over their victims. It never fails. It is a sure thing.
THAT is why I roll my eyes when you tell me Democrats are merely trying to ensure the proper execution of the law when they crucify Bush for listening to the phone calls of terror-suspects just after 9/11.
I can write a book on the number of times Democrats have proved they don't care one bit about the law...unless it happens to end up on the side of militant Islam. .
galenrox said:Alright, **** it, I'm done talking to you. This is flat out preposterous, I've already adressed this point. If you still don't understand, then you never will. It saddens me that you vote.
galenrox said:Exactly, and to proove that you can generalize first you must provide evidence that your evidence can be generalized. You haven't done that. You've cited a few examples of liberals being soft on crime, but you've provided no evidence that these examples can be generalized. .
galenrox said:Hispanics, as a whole, don't speak spanish. There are large portions of the Hispanic population that speak Portugese. You could say a large portion of Hispanics speak spanish, and evidence that that's fair to say is that many large Hispanic nations are spanish speaking, but to ignore nations like Brazil would just be goofy.
Muddy Creek said:http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html
Here's just one of your lies exposed. It's free speech the ACLU is defending for NAMBLA...not sexual rights. Course, then you Right wingers don't care much for free speech...nor accurate for that matter. Look at your support of FOX and it's place of William's paid government endorsement of No Child Left Behind presented as a news release...and the government paid him to support it on his shows, too, to the tune of $240,000.
No, accuracy in media is not a trait the republicans support. I'll expose the rest of your lies tonite..unless you decide to spring a moral fiber and recant them yourself today....
Muddy Creek said:http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html
Here's just one of your lies exposed. It's free speech the ACLU is defending for NAMBLA...not sexual rights. Course, then you Right wingers don't care much for free speech...nor accurate for that matter. Look at your support of FOX and it's place of William's paid government endorsement of No Child Left Behind presented as a news release...and the government paid him to support it on his shows, too, to the tune of $240,000.
No, accuracy in media is not a trait the republicans support. I'll expose the rest of your lies tonite..unless you decide to spring a moral fiber and recant them yourself today....
aquapub said:I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…
1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181214,00.html
This has been disputed across the nation with information demonstrating the total amount of time the judge sentenced this man to was 25 years. More spin and lies. Seems to me your party has quite a "Read My Lips" reputation this country.
2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.
But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.
3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).
5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.
And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.
6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275
7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200411080818.asp
Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.
Muddy Creek said:One more dispelled lie...you going to come clean on the rest of the lies and propaganda, or just wait to be exposed?
aquapub said:I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…
1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181214,00.html
2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.
But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.
3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).
5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.
And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.
6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275
7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200411080818.asp
Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.
George Bush and Dick Cheney are afraid they will be charged with war crimes, so they want to change the law. They're in a hurry, because the Republicans are likely to lose control of Congress after the November election. R. Jeffrey Smith reports in the Washington Post:
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.
CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen reports the decision is good news for DeLay because it narrows the scope of the case against him and other defendants. By kicking out the conspiracy charge but keeping in place the money laundering charge, it makes it tougher, but not impossible, for prosecutors to gain a conviction because it requires them to focus more in specific DeLay acts, Cohen said.
In asking that the case be thrown out, DeLay lawyer Dick DeGuerin argued that one of the charges — conspiracy to violate the Texas election code — did not even take effect until September 2003, a year after the alleged offenses occurred.
Prosecutors, however, said the crime of conspiracy was already on the books, and could be applied to the election code even though such uses were not explicitly in state law at the time.
The judge was unpersuaded by that argument, and dismissed the conspiracy charge. But the judge upheld charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Those charges involve an alleged attempt by DeLay to conceal the source of the campaign contributions by funneling the money through his own political action committee and then an arm of the Republican National Committee.
Bill Clinton issued 457 in eight years in office; Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, issued 77 in four years in office; Ronald Reagan issued 406 in eight years, and Jimmy Carter issued 563 in four years. Since World War II, the largest number of pardons and commutations — 2,031 — was issued by Harry S. Truman, who served 82 days short of eight years.”
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/16/328035-bush-pardons-17-minor-criminals
Muddy Creek said,
“It's free speech the ACLU is defending for NAMBLA...not sexual rights.”
“Among many other things they’re asking the judge to do is issue a “gag order” on the boy’s parents and to suppress a large training manual issued by NAMBLA on how to molest children. Why doesn’t the ACLU want the public to hear about the manual?”
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/aug%202001/801sight.htm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?