The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

Even More Less-Sane:

Lieberman Proposes Taking Away Citizenship Of Suspected Terrorists

 

 

How about we charge them with treason instead?

 

I know, right?

[Rex Kickass]

We must preserve our family values and not allow the gays to marry.

 

Rekers responds to gay blogger Joe.My.God. Apparently he his turning gay boys straight by hiring them one by one for travel companionship on expensive european vacations.

 

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/dr-ge...on-of-male.html

 

I have spent much time as a mental health professional and as a Christian minister helping and lovingly caring for people identifying themselves as “gay.” My hero is Jesus Christ who loves even the culturally despised people, including sexual sinners and prostitutes. Like Jesus Christ, I deliberately spend time with sinners with the loving goal to try to help them. Mark 2:16-17 reads, “16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." In fact, in a dialogue with hypocritical religious leaders, Jesus even stated to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. " (Matthew 21:31).

 

Like John the Baptist and Jesus, I have a loving Christian ministry to homosexuals and prostitutes in which I share the Good News of Jesus Christ with them (see I Corinthians 6:8-11). Contrary to false gossip, innuendo, and slander about me, I do not in any way “hate” homosexuals, but I seek to lovingly share two types of messages to them, as I did with the young man called “Lucien” in the news story: [1] It is possible to cease homosexual practices to avoid the unacceptable health risks associated with that behavior, and [2] the most important decision one can make is to establish a relationship with God for all eternity by trusting in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins, including homosexual sins. If you talk with my travel assistant that the story called “Lucien,” you will find I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirability of abandoning homosexual intercourse, and I shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail.

[Balta1701]

Good to see that the no-fly list still doesn't work.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Even More Less-Sane:

Lieberman Proposes Taking Away Citizenship Of Suspected Terrorists

 

 

How about we charge them with treason instead?

 

I honestly don't see why that's such an insane idea.

[Balta1701]

I honestly don't see why that's such an insane idea.

I suspect you are a terrorist. You are now no longer a citizen. No, you have no ability to contest this in court, and now you've lost your right to prove your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt because you're no longer a citizen. Goodbye.

[Cknolls]

Good to see that the no-fly list still doesn't work.

 

 

No fly worked great. The no-boarding list failed miserably!

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I suspect you are a terrorist. You are now no longer a citizen. No, you have no ability to contest this in court, and now you've lost your right to prove your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt because you're no longer a citizen. Goodbye.

 

Ugh. Not shocked by this response but whatever.

 

In no way should this be applied like a 1690's Salem situation as you are implying, but if there was an incident like the one that just occurred and a person was found guilty beyond a reasonably doubt, I don't see why this would be such a big deal or bad thing. Charges that come with terroristic acts are not all life sentences keep in mind.

 

And I'm not saying I'd fully support this, but I definitely see no reason to just poo-poo it or blow it off as 'insane'.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ugh. Not shocked by this response but whatever.

 

In no way should this be applied like a 1690's Salem situation as you are implying, but if there was an incident like the one that just occurred and a person was found guilty beyond a reasonably doubt, I don't see why this would be such a big deal or bad thing. Charges that come with terroristic acts are not all life sentences keep in mind.

 

And I'm not saying I'd fully support this, but I definitely see no reason to just poo-poo it or blow it off as 'insane'.

I think you sort of missed what McCain said - he said SUSPECTED. What you describe here is CONVICTED. That is a huge difference. No one should ever lose their citizenship based on suspicion alone, of anything.

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I think you sort of missed what McCain said - he said SUSPECTED. What you describe here is CONVICTED. That is a huge difference. No one should ever lose their citizenship based on suspicion alone, of anything.

 

I wasn't commenting on what McCain said. I was referring to the Lieberman quotes that AHB posted as insane.

 

"If you've joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you should sacrifice your rights of citizenship"

 

"It just seems to me if you're attacking your fellow Americans in an act of war, you lose the rights that come with citizenship,"

 

That isnt something based on suspicion. I read that as something that would come about as a result of a conviction.

[bmags]

if he's in jail for life who gives a damn if he's still a citizen.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

if he's in jail for life who gives a damn if he's still a citizen.

 

They aren't all life sentences.

[BigSqwert]

They aren't all life sentences.

Somehow I doubt he'd serve less than a life sentence if convicted for this attempted mass murder.

[bmags]

which one's haven't been?

[NorthSideSox72]

I wasn't commenting on what McCain said. I was referring to the Lieberman quotes that AHB posted as insane.

 

 

 

That isnt something based on suspicion. I read that as something that would come about as a result of a conviction.

Sorry, I meant Lieberman. I get my rebels mixed up.

 

As long as we're talking about CONVICTION, and as long as they have some other country to go back to (what if they were born and raised here?), then I agree with you.

 

[Balta1701]

Why would another country want to accept a convicted terrorist who is no longer a citizen of that country?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Sorry, I meant Lieberman. I get my rebels mixed up.

 

As long as we're talking about CONVICTION, and as long as they have some other country to go back to (what if they were born and raised here?), then I agree with you.

 

That would be a problem and that is why you can't just blindly go along with what Lieberman was saying. My point was just to say that I hardly think it was an insane statement or idea that was unworthy of discussion.

 

And to bmags, I don't have any specific individuals, and I'm not going to bother googling one, but I know I've read articles about convictions of 10, 15, 20 years etc for involvement in plots or attempted plots.

Edited May 5, 2010 by ChiSox_Sonix

[bmags]

I can't argue with that research.

[jasonxctf]

when does Joe say you should take away his citizenship rights, before or after he's found guilty of a crime?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I can't argue with that research.

 

There's a shocking response...

 

Title XVIII - § 2339A

 

(a) Offense.— Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842 (m) or (n), 844 (f) or (i), 930 ©, 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, or 2340A of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123 (B) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

 

Don't know why this is even necessary but there ya go.

Edited May 5, 2010 by ChiSox_Sonix

[bmags]

you don't know why it's necessary to back up claims with evidence?

 

Nonetheless, you are not taking into account that that is only one charge, they can lump a whole bunch of charges together. And for this individual, he did not provide the resources, he used them.

[BigSqwert]

Can someone explain to me--hopefully using graphs, and small words--why Joe Lieberman is willing to share the precious blessing of American citizenship with Charles Manson, Gary Ridgeway, and David Berkowitz, but wants citizenship stripped from a guy who strapped some firecrackers to a bag of non-explosive fertilizer?

 

via

[HuskyCaucasian]

Talk about completely sleazy:

 

The GOP like to think of itself as the "morals" party, right? How does running an ad like this work out for them?

[StrangeSox]

Talk about completely sleazy:

 

The GOP like to think of itself as the "morals" party, right? How does running an ad like this work out for them?

 

The Lt. Gov. of Ohio is responsible for the world-wide economic meltdown!

 

This makes my brain hurt.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The Lt. Gov. of Ohio is responsible for the world-wide economic meltdown!

 

This makes my brain hurt.

Not only that, they took a picture of him shirtless at home then "maasked" it to look like he was getting a BJ.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

you don't know why it's necessary to back up claims with evidence?

 

I have degrees in statistics and in history, i'm very aware of why it is necessary to back up claims with eveidence. I was just amazed that someone who is seemingly as informed as you appear to be has never once read an article or seen a news story where they talked about a crime related to terrorism carrying something other than a life sentence. It seemed as if you were being difficult for the sake of being difficult by making me "prove it".

 

Nonetheless, you are not taking into account that that is only one charge, they can lump a whole bunch of charges together. And for this individual, he did not provide the resources, he used them.

 

You're right, they can, and often will. But the only point I was trying to make was that it was very conceivable that someone could be convicted of an attempted terrorist attack or with aiding in one or whatever, and then one day being eligible for release. That all stems from your initial statement of what would it matter if they were in prison the rest of their life. I was only trying to illustrate that that may not always be the case.

Edited May 5, 2010 by ChiSox_Sonix