Are liberal Democrats the new black helicopter loonies?

Captal de Buch | 12-10-01 | Captal de Buch

[Captal de Buch]

Are the liberal Democrats becoming the black helicopter loonies of the new millennium?

 

Remember the black helicopter loonies of the 90’s? Linda Thompson, Mark from Michigan and the other crazies, remember how all their stupid ranting seem to stick to conservatives like Velcro? Those bozos created all sorts of credibility problems for anyone who spoke up about issues in the Clinton administration. Any time a conservative criticized the Clinton administration he or she would be dismissed as just another Clinton hating black helicopter loony. This dismissible conservative credibility in the eyes of the American public seemed to embolden Clinton to do what he damn well pleased without fear of retribution from the public, even to the point of lying to Congress and the American people.

 

Is the shoe on the other foot now?

 

Charles Schumer, Maxine Waters and others from the left appear have taken up the mantel of un-credible loonies whose words and actions are destroying any credibility the Democrats have when it comes to criticizing the Republicans and the Bush administration. Their ranting doesn’t seem to change Bush’s popularity ratings, in fact they make it look like the Democratic Party agenda is simply a sour grapes plot to get Bush.

 

Do the Republicans realize this? If they do realize this can they take advantage of the situation or will the innate Republican fear of doing something stupid turn into another round of not doing anything at all?

[A.J.Armitage]

Clever. However, the fact remains that the federal government does want to own every one of us.

[A.J.Armitage]

You mean Ron Paul can't sponsor and enact a bill that gives you the right to possess kitty porn?

Now where did that come from? The eagerness of some of you people to talk about that kind of thing, even when it has nothing to do with anything, is more than a little disturbing.

[Doctor Doom]

You mean Ron Paul can't sponsor and enact a bill that gives you the right to possess kitty porn?

1) I do not like cats.

2) I'm guessing you do.

3) Child porn, if that's what you mean, is a crime because the production of it violates the rights of a child, while the purchase or possession of it directly contributes to its production.

[harrowup]

...Notice that Demi was drawn to a thread about "loonies" like a moth to a flame.

What I noticed was that you added them to your list before Demidog arrived.

Your hypocrisy and dishonesty continue to disgust me. You should apologize to him.

[sinkspur]

It is not my place to give them. God did that. You do believe in God don't you?

God doesn't care whether Osama is tried before a jury of American citizens, a military tribunal, or is shot through the forehead at close range.

WE get to choose how a mass murderer is treated, especially a foreigner.

You clowns are hilarious. You actually assert, with a straight face, that a foreign non-citizen who has admitted to murdering 3000 Americans, has the same rights as your elderly grandmother who's lived in America her entire life?

You don't know jack-sh*t about what the Constitution says, or doesn't say, about non-citizens.

[BurFred]

Make your jokes, but when the probing begins You will know my pain. All real Americans must realize that Col.Sanders along with the Elks, Masons, Reynolds foil inc, Proctor and Gamble and J.K Rowling are trying to infiltrate America. I would go in to more detail, but my fillings are telling me to burn my Perry Como C.D.'s.

[VA Advogado]

3) Child porn, if that's what you mean, is a crime because the production of it violates the rights of a child, while the purchase or possession of it directly contributes to its production.

So you agree that Ron Paul couldn't sponsor a bill that would bar your prosecution for such? I.E. give you the right to it.

[Doctor Doom]

Pssst. Is this VA guy really into nudie pics of young cats?

[Doctor Doom]

Government is not the source of individual rights.

Government exists only to protect individual rights. Nothing more.

Individual rights are encompassed by any action consenting adults take that do not trespass on the same rights of other individuals.

Hope this helps. Meanwhile, we can get you help for you feline-o-philia.

[Demidog]

You clowns are hilarious. You actually assert, with a straight face, that a foreign non-citizen who has admitted to murdering 3000 Americans, has the same rights as your elderly grandmother who's lived in America her entire life?

Firstly, he hasn't admitted to doing that.

Secondly, geography has no bearing on rights. I think you'd do well to stop speaking for God. You have no idea.

[VA Advogado]

You never answered the question. Could Ron Paul pass a law to give you a right to possess that stuff seeing that its currently illegal?

[sinkspur]

Your hypocrisy and dishonesty continue to disgust me. You should apologize to him.

Hypocrisy?

My only violation was discourtesy in not flagging him.

But, like a male dog drawn to a female in heat, he saw the word "loonie" and high-tailed it over here.

I will not apologize to a poster who was kicked off of FR in late September for his anti-American threads.

IMO, he ought to have never been allowed back on.

[Doctor Doom]

I answered it quite clearly. Government cannot grant rights. There is no "right to produce or possess child pornography" because you do not have a right to take any action which violates the rights of individuals.

Are you having some problem with reading comprehension? We can get you help for that and your feline-ophilia, too.

[motzman]

Thanks for the ping

[VA Advogado]

If you check the bible God speaks there and lays out a number of ways such people are to be killed. you certainly can't be knowledgable of the bible if you posted a question like that.

[THEUPMAN]

Some still survive and have infested this site. Roll call of shame:

looks like a list I'd like to be on !

[SauronOfMordor]

3) Child porn, if that's what you mean, is a crime because the production of it violates the rights of a child, while the purchase or possession of it directly contributes to its production.

Let's say 17-year-old girl makes a video of herself doing interesting things while nude, holds onto it until after her 18th birthday, then tries to market it.

Should she be arrested for making and distributing child porn? If so, why?

[VA Advogado]

There is no "right to produce or possess child pornography"

Thank you. That's all I wanted to know from you.