Profiles In Liberal Hypocricy

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Butterfly has one thing right--this is a bait thread.

Suppose the Madame could prove that Michael Moore has stock in Halliburton? Who gives a rat's ass? I don't, and Michael Moore does not speak for me, nor does he form my views for me.

This is a pathetic attempt to attack other members here with an hilariously inept accusation of guilt by association. I don't associate with Michael Moore, and he has never gotten one penny of mine, because i've never watched his goofy movies.

Bait thread, that's all this is. But sadly, the Madame has succeeded in getting her sad, sad jolies slinging turds at others here.

Poppycock!
Bait? Then why did you post on the thread?

Because i enjoy jerking your chain.

Too late . . . i've already done it . . .

We're no longer discussing your loopy guilt by association thesis . . . my work here is done . . .

Setanta wrote:

We're no longer discussing your loopy guilt by association thesis . . . my work here is done . . .

Outstanding....move along then, make room for serious posters.

Then we have Harry Reid who is against abortion but will never try to help the unborn babies that are being killed. Hypocricy.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Setanta wrote:

We're no longer discussing your loopy guilt by association thesis . . . my work here is done . . .

Outstanding....move along then, make room for serious posters.

riiiighttt.....

Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat
By Jim Kouri CPP (09/24/05)


A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.

Unfortunately most states -- especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings -- continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.

At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio's Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF's goal is to protect American's from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer's efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat -- a right they wish to deny other citizens -- met with limited results.

Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of the US Congress -- slammed Schumer's use of police resources for personal protection. It's clear that Schumer believes he's special. He wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.

"No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much -- he's able to protect himself," says a 25-year police veteran.

Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.

And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco -- an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.

Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O'Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O'Donnell doesn't carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn't it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?




Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores. Kouri holds a bachelor of science in criminal justice and master of arts in public administration and he's a board certified protection professional. He is a Staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.

No, we don't, because we disagree with the President on this issue.

You may recall from your Constitutional Law studies that the President Nominates a candidate, and the Senate confirms. Therefore the Senate has just as much say as the Prez does about who becomes a Federal judge.

There is no incongruity here...

Cycloptichorn

Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat
By Jim Kouri CPP (09/24/05)


A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.

Unfortunately most states -- especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings -- continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.

At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio's Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF's goal is to protect American's from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer's efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat -- a right they wish to deny other citizens -- met with limited results.

Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of the US Congress -- slammed Schumer's use of police resources for personal protection. It's clear that Schumer believes he's special. He wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.

"No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much -- he's able to protect himself," says a 25-year police veteran.

Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.

And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco -- an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.

Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O'Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O'Donnell doesn't carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn't it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?




Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores. Kouri holds a bachelor of science in criminal justice and master of arts in public administration and he's a board certified protection professional. He is a Staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, we don't, because we disagree with the President on this issue.

You may recall from your Constitutional Law studies that the President Nominates a candidate, and the Senate confirms. Therefore the Senate has just as much say as the Prez does about who becomes a Federal judge.

There is no incongruity here...

Cycloptichorn

Litmus tests are unconstitutional. The opposing party can vote for or against on the qualifications/soundness, not on something that isn't even in the Constitution, not for political purposes.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, we don't, because we disagree with the President on this issue.

You may recall from your Constitutional Law studies that the President Nominates a candidate, and the Senate confirms. Therefore the Senate has just as much say as the Prez does about who becomes a Federal judge.

There is no incongruity here...

Cycloptichorn

Litmus tests are unconstitutional. The opposing party can vote for or against on the qualifications/soundness, not on something that isn't even in the Constitution, not for political purposes.

The opposing party can vote however they want, for whatever reasons they want, and have done so many many times.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, we don't, because we disagree with the President on this issue.

You may recall from your Constitutional Law studies that the President Nominates a candidate, and the Senate confirms. Therefore the Senate has just as much say as the Prez does about who becomes a Federal judge.

There is no incongruity here...

Cycloptichorn

Litmus tests are unconstitutional. The opposing party can vote for or against on the qualifications/soundness, not on something that isn't even in the Constitution, not for political purposes.

The opposing party can vote however they want, for whatever reasons they want, and have done so many many times.

Cycloptichorn

No question they can, IF the opposing party doesn't hold up the vote because they don't like the results of an unconstitutional litmus test.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, we don't, because we disagree with the President on this issue.

You may recall from your Constitutional Law studies that the President Nominates a candidate, and the Senate confirms. Therefore the Senate has just as much say as the Prez does about who becomes a Federal judge.

There is no incongruity here...

Cycloptichorn

Litmus tests are unconstitutional. The opposing party can vote for or against on the qualifications/soundness, not on something that isn't even in the Constitution, not for political purposes.

The opposing party can vote however they want, for whatever reasons they want, and have done so many many times.

Cycloptichorn

No question they can, IF the opposing party doesn't hold up the vote because they don't like the results of an unconstitutional litmus test.

You do realize that saying something is UnConstitutional, doesn't make it so?

I don't think that it is written anywhere in the Constitution that the opposing party can't hold up the vote if they like to do so, or that they can't vote against someone for whatever reasons they wish.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, we don't, because we disagree with the President on this issue.

You may recall from your Constitutional Law studies that the President Nominates a candidate, and the Senate confirms. Therefore the Senate has just as much say as the Prez does about who becomes a Federal judge.

There is no incongruity here...

Cycloptichorn

Litmus tests are unconstitutional. The opposing party can vote for or against on the qualifications/soundness, not on something that isn't even in the Constitution, not for political purposes.

The opposing party can vote however they want, for whatever reasons they want, and have done so many many times.

Cycloptichorn

No question they can, IF the opposing party doesn't hold up the vote because they don't like the results of an unconstitutional litmus test.

You do realize that saying something is UnConstitutional, doesn't make it so?

I don't think that it is written anywhere in the Constitution that the opposing party can't hold up the vote if they like to do so, or that they can't vote against someone for whatever reasons they wish.

Cycloptichorn

There is no guarantee of right to privacy in the Constitution. The litmus test the dems give is unconstitutional.
http://jb-williams.com/9/13/05.htm