Re: Physical and property searches without warrants next?
Debra_Law wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I do not advocate "bombing the crap out of the Iranian people." That is a wilfull misrepresentation of my position.
You advocated bombing. The fact that thousands of people on Iranian soil will be killed when those bombs explode and splatter their body parts equals bombing the crap out of the Iranian people. Why do you deny it?
I do not advocate "bombing the crap out of the Iranian people." I advocate bombing the nuclear reactors and facilities. This is another misrepresendation, and you are wrong ... yet again.
Quote:Quote:You advocate the capturing, torturing, and detaining of perceived enemies without providing them any fair process for securing their freedom.
Quote:Incorrect. You are doing nothing but demonstrating you utter lack of awareness of my position.
I've read many of your posts on the detainees. I am aware of your position. If I missed your stray post where you advocated a position where the United States ought to recognize and protect the civil liberties and human rights of detainees, please provide a link.
I certainly have. And I'm not going to research this for you, because I simply don't have the inclination. The point is you just falsely stated another position you think I advocate, which is completely erroneous.
Quote:Quote:It is clear to most of us that you're the one drowning in double standards.
Quote:For someone suffering under the delusions you appear to be suffering under, it's no wonder you think as much.
What delusions?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one. If you aren't suffering under delusions, you are just willful in your misrepresentation of my positions.
Quote:Quote:You think you ought to be able to advocate whatever position you want without criticism. When it's pointed out that your advocacy to threaten and bomb makes you no better than an terrorist, you whine that your right of free speech is being chilled. Boo hoo.
Quote:I wasn't "whining," Debra. I was pointing out yet another instance of your rampant hypocrisy.
When and if I become a government actor and threaten to punish you under the color of law for exercising your right of free speech and you curtail your speech because of those threats, then you might have a valid argument that I'm "chilling" your speech. Until then, however, your accusation of hypocrisy is pure nonsense.
I don't see any evidence that your speech has been chilled by anything I have said. You're still voicing your opinions.
And . . . nothing you have whined about has chilled my speech. I'm still voicing my opinions. You can't stiffle my voice with your "boo hoo" arguments.
You advocate a position that would chill my right to free speech. You claim my speech on this thread constitutes the acts of a terrorist. (I'm setting fully aside the fact that your argument in that regard is completely preposterous.) Yet you insist -- under other circumstances -- on the right of free speech. You, as I said, are a hypocrite.
Quote:Quote:I can no more deprive Bushco of the "presumption of innocence" than I can deprive you of your freedom of speech. Again, since it escaped you attention the first time I said it, if the criminals are prosecuted for their crimes, I'm sure defense counsel will request a proper jury instruction on the presumption. Since I am not a government actor acting under the color of law, it is NOT within my power to deprive the guilty bastards of any of THEIR civil rights. Bush and his cohorts, however, ARE government actors acting under the color of law, and they must be held accountable for their lawbreaking conduct.
Quote:You presume to be an advocate for civil rights in this country, but when you fix your targets on an opponent you don't like, you seem to abandon all of your beliefs in an intense desire to "win." Thus, you advocate a position that would chill my right to free speech, and you would deny the presumption of innocence to someone who has not been charged, much less tried. No, you are not acting under color of law, but that does not make you any less a hypocrite.
According to you, an advocate of civil rights must stiffle his/her own right of free speech and refrain from criticizing or condemning the oppressive opinions/conduct of others, or government lawbreakers, or violators of civil liberties and human rights. That wholly defeats the purpose of advocating for civil rights.
You need better arguments, Tico.
No, that is not what I've claimed. That is another misrepresentation of my argument by you, whether willful or because of your delusions. You have the right of free speech, and you are free to condemn or criticize Bush all you want. And you can even proclaim him guilty, and assert he belongs in prison. As I've said, your doing so either renders you both a hypocrite and someone who's obvious bias has clouded her ability to reason.
And I only need arguments sufficient to beat yours.
Quote:Quote:While you shed your crocodile tears and whine about your allegedly "chilled speech" or Bush's "presumption of innocence," most of us have you pegged for the two-faced manipulator that you are. Like it or not, the American people have the right to scrutinize the unlawful conduct of our government actors, condemn them in the court of public opinion, and call for their removal.
Quote:You have every right to scream into the wind with your ridiculous opinions, just I have the right to point out when I find them ridiculous, and why. Are you claiming I have advocated a position where you would not be entitled to voice your ridiculous opinions?
You don't like it when people criticize and condemn Bushco for their criminal conduct, so you resort to whining about your allegedly chilled speech and Bush's presumption of innocence. Boo hoo.
Your tactics aren't working . . . try something new.
As I said, you are free to criticize and condemn Bush based on your ridiculous notions, and I'm free to point out the ridiculousness of your positions, and the fact that you are a big, fat hypocrite -- which you don't like.
Your responses to me aren't working. You should just stop.
Quote:Quote:Most Americans are committed to "to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
Based on all the facts and circumstances that prove that Bush and his cohorts are lawbreakers, I say that Bush and his cohorts are criminals and belong in prison. You don't like my unpleasantly sharp attack upon your government idols? So what? You don't have standing to sue me. You have no power to silence my voice. All you can do is invent straw man arguments about someone eles's alleged double standards while you avoid looking at yourself in the mirror.
Quote:You may think they are criminals and belong in prison, but when you pronounce them guilty before ANY evidence has been presented against them, and before they have had a chance to confront their accuser, and mount a defense, in addition to ignoring the presumption of innocence, you display a bias that renders your opinion unworthy of serious consideration by any readers of your rants.
They are guilty. All the facts and circumstances prove that Bush and his cohorts are guilty of violating FISA and the civil rights of the American people under the color of law in violation of the federal criminal code. The fact that you defend the bastards in the face of overwhelming evidence of their guilt demonstrates YOUR bias, not mine.
It is your opinion they are guilty, and whether they are guilty or not has yet to be proven. The facts and circumstances only show guilt to someone as prejudiced and biased against them as yourself. They have a wonderful defense to any such charges that might be brought -- which is an incredibly remote possibility.
-----
By the way, I didn't see your answer to the question posed to you about Clinton. Do you think he belonged in prison for lying under oath? If not, why not?
