100,000 Americans murdered since 9/11 (and not by terr'ists)
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Not at quite this rate! Collapsing bridges, exploding steam pipes, increased murders. Why wait for the terr'ists to kill us off and destroy our landmarks when we can just do it to ourselves, all under the watchful eye of George Bush, The Decider?
What do collapsing bridges and exploding steam pipes have anything to do with Bush?
I get all the news I need from the weather report - Paul Simon (from "The Only Living Boy in New York")
Justin Perez wrote:
What do collapsing bridges and exploding steam pipes have anything to do with Bush?
Oh, nothing. How can the DHS defend our infrastructure from terrorists when it can't even defend it from rust?
-
Among the jurisdictions filing reports with PERF, total homicides in 2006 were 10.21 percent higher than they were in 2004. Robberies increased 12.27 percent; aggravated assaults increased 3.12 percent; and aggravated assaults with a firearm increased 9.98 percent.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
total homicides in 2006 were 10.21 percent higher than they were in 2004.
Given the dates in question, It would appear that a democratic majority in Congress caused a sudden increase in violent crime. Bush has been in office since 2000, but this trend started in 2005. The thing that changed at that point was that Democrats gained a majority for the first time in decades. Clearkly this is not Bush's fault but Reed & Pelosi's fault.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
we are less safe than ever. Yet another failure by the Bush administration.
Because you "know" that under a different president the same thing would not have occurred? :rolleyes:
led mike wrote:
Because you "know" that under a different president the same thing would not have occurred?
Why is the word "know" in quotes? Don't conservatives know how to write in our "national language"? Your response also doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter what could have occurred. This article is about what did actually occur. Are you drunk?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
total homicides in 2006 were 10.21 percent higher than they were in 2004.
Given the dates in question, It would appear that a democratic majority in Congress caused a sudden increase in violent crime. Bush has been in office since 2000, but this trend started in 2005. The thing that changed at that point was that Democrats gained a majority for the first time in decades. Clearkly this is not Bush's fault but Reed & Pelosi's fault.
Rob Graham wrote:
It would appear that a democratic majority in Congress caused a sudden increase in violent crime.
Yep. It was a coordinated efford of the "Initiative of Republican Criminals" (IRC) to blame the democrats.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
George Orwell, "Keep the Aspidistra Flying", Opening words -
Not at quite this rate! Collapsing bridges, exploding steam pipes, increased murders. Why wait for the terr'ists to kill us off and destroy our landmarks when we can just do it to ourselves, all under the watchful eye of George Bush, The Decider?
I still don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that they commander in chief is not supposed to defend the country from external threats if the murder rate is increaseing?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
led mike wrote:
Because you "know" that under a different president the same thing would not have occurred?
Why is the word "know" in quotes? Don't conservatives know how to write in our "national language"? Your response also doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter what could have occurred. This article is about what did actually occur. Are you drunk?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
conservatives
led mike???!!!! :laugh:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
total homicides in 2006 were 10.21 percent higher than they were in 2004.
Given the dates in question, It would appear that a democratic majority in Congress caused a sudden increase in violent crime. Bush has been in office since 2000, but this trend started in 2005. The thing that changed at that point was that Democrats gained a majority for the first time in decades. Clearkly this is not Bush's fault but Reed & Pelosi's fault.
Rob Graham wrote:
Given the dates in question, It would appear that a democratic majority in Congress caused a sudden increase in violent crime. Bush has been in office since 2000, but this trend started in 2005. The thing that changed at that point was that Democrats gained a majority for the first time in decades. Clearkly this is not Bush's fault but Reed & Pelosi's fault.
The Democratic majority was obtained in 2006. The linear progression of time is a liberal conspiracy ;)
-
led mike wrote:
Because you "know" that under a different president the same thing would not have occurred?
Why is the word "know" in quotes? Don't conservatives know how to write in our "national language"? Your response also doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter what could have occurred. This article is about what did actually occur. Are you drunk?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
conservatives
led mike???!!!! :laugh:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Yes a real conservative not a "social conservative" (spin term and politically correct term for intolerant religious zealot or bigot ) nor an extremist such as yourself.
led mike wrote:
Yes a real conservative not a "social conservative"
Me either. I'm just a humble constituional conservative.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
led mike wrote:
Yes a real conservative not a "social conservative"
Me either. I'm just a humble constituional conservative.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm just a humble constituional conservative.
No you're a bigot, that desires the majority have the right to legislate the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals because you don't like them. Then you attempt to support that bigoted position by crying the "states rights" song of the bigot. We fought a civil war because states wanted the right to enslave people. They had the majority to support it in those states. It was not a valid argument for oppression then and it isn't now. Live your own freaking life and stop worrying about what those gays next door to you are doing in the privacy of their own home. How fucking hard is that to do? If one of them breaks down your door and sticks his dick in your ass, call me and I will come over and blow his head off with my 12 gauge, until then stop bothering me with your whiny cry-face sissy nonsense.
-
So, despite the billions we've been spending and civil rights we've lost in the effort to keep Americans safe, we are less safe than ever. Yet another failure by the Bush administration. :(
-
Not at quite this rate! Collapsing bridges, exploding steam pipes, increased murders. Why wait for the terr'ists to kill us off and destroy our landmarks when we can just do it to ourselves, all under the watchful eye of George Bush, The Decider?
Are you freakin' serious? The president doesn't have the type of power you imagine him to have.
"I long for combat!" - Unknown Protoss Zealot
Jason Henderson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm just a humble constituional conservative.
No you're a bigot, that desires the majority have the right to legislate the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals because you don't like them. Then you attempt to support that bigoted position by crying the "states rights" song of the bigot. We fought a civil war because states wanted the right to enslave people. They had the majority to support it in those states. It was not a valid argument for oppression then and it isn't now. Live your own freaking life and stop worrying about what those gays next door to you are doing in the privacy of their own home. How fucking hard is that to do? If one of them breaks down your door and sticks his dick in your ass, call me and I will come over and blow his head off with my 12 gauge, until then stop bothering me with your whiny cry-face sissy nonsense.
led mike wrote:
the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals
what rights have been eroded? as a group they have no more nor any less than any other group.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm just a humble constituional conservative.
No you're a bigot, that desires the majority have the right to legislate the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals because you don't like them. Then you attempt to support that bigoted position by crying the "states rights" song of the bigot. We fought a civil war because states wanted the right to enslave people. They had the majority to support it in those states. It was not a valid argument for oppression then and it isn't now. Live your own freaking life and stop worrying about what those gays next door to you are doing in the privacy of their own home. How fucking hard is that to do? If one of them breaks down your door and sticks his dick in your ass, call me and I will come over and blow his head off with my 12 gauge, until then stop bothering me with your whiny cry-face sissy nonsense.
led mike wrote:
No you're a bigot, that desires the majority have the right to legislate the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals because you don't like them.
No true at all. I happen to believe that sex between consenting adults in private is no ones business but their own. I would happily vote in favor of such a law - if free to do so. I would happily use my freedom of speech to argue in favor of it - if I had any meaningful freedom of speech.
led mike wrote:
We fought a civil war because states wanted the right to enslave people. They had the majority to support it in those states.
But the CIvil war did not end slavery - the 13th amendment did. The concept of State's Rights is central to Jeffersonian federalism. The Civil War was not fought to end it - but modern interpretations of the 14th amendment threaten to.
led mike wrote:
Live your own freaking life and stop worrying about what those gays next door to you are doing in the privacy of their own home. How f****ing hard is that to do? If one of them breaks down your door and sticks his dick in your ass, call me and I will come over and blow his head off with my 12 gauge, until then stop bothering me with your whiny cry-face sissy nonsense.
That is a libertarian philosophy, Mike, not a conservative one. As a conservative, I merely claim that my right to free speech is more fundamental to the constitution than is someone else's right to stick his dick in someone's ass. Freedom of speech is there, freedom of ass fucking isn't. Sorry. That view is not based on my moral principles but on my Jeffersonian ones.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Given the dates in question, It would appear that a democratic majority in Congress caused a sudden increase in violent crime. Bush has been in office since 2000, but this trend started in 2005. The thing that changed at that point was that Democrats gained a majority for the first time in decades. Clearkly this is not Bush's fault but Reed & Pelosi's fault.
The Democratic majority was obtained in 2006. The linear progression of time is a liberal conspiracy ;)
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The linear progression of time is a liberal conspiracy
It certainly is.
-
led mike wrote:
the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals
what rights have been eroded? as a group they have no more nor any less than any other group.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
as a group they have no more nor any less than any other group.
As a consequence of federal and state laws granting married couples certain legal rights, yes, they have fewer rights. If the state and federal governments offered no benefits based on marriage, you'd have an argument. If someone's significant other happens to be male, that should not prevent them from standing next to that person on their deathbed. As state and federal law stands now, it does. Personally, I'm shaky on the idea of gay marriage myself. But as long as that disparity in legal rights exists, I'm forced to say they should be allowed to be considered legally married. You'll note how frequently I use the word 'legal' because that's all this is. All of the morality, ethics of it, has been usurped by the use of legal power as a means of control.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
as a group they have no more nor any less than any other group.
As a consequence of federal and state laws granting married couples certain legal rights, yes, they have fewer rights. If the state and federal governments offered no benefits based on marriage, you'd have an argument. If someone's significant other happens to be male, that should not prevent them from standing next to that person on their deathbed. As state and federal law stands now, it does. Personally, I'm shaky on the idea of gay marriage myself. But as long as that disparity in legal rights exists, I'm forced to say they should be allowed to be considered legally married. You'll note how frequently I use the word 'legal' because that's all this is. All of the morality, ethics of it, has been usurped by the use of legal power as a means of control.
Patrick Sears wrote:
As a consequence of federal and state laws granting married couples certain legal rights, yes, they have fewer rights.
valid but not in the context of the question, which was, "what rights have been eroded?" Gays have never had these rights, point in fact homosexual activity has been illegal in many quarters ujtil fairly recently - the end result is not an erosion but increased rights, just not on a par with married hetrosexuals. If anything, hetrosexuals are losing rights through an adversion to marriage, which then puts them on a par with homosexuals.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
As a consequence of federal and state laws granting married couples certain legal rights, yes, they have fewer rights.
valid but not in the context of the question, which was, "what rights have been eroded?" Gays have never had these rights, point in fact homosexual activity has been illegal in many quarters ujtil fairly recently - the end result is not an erosion but increased rights, just not on a par with married hetrosexuals. If anything, hetrosexuals are losing rights through an adversion to marriage, which then puts them on a par with homosexuals.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
valid but not in the context of the question, which was, "what rights have been eroded?" Gays have never had these rights
Ah you're right. Thanks.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
If anything, hetrosexuals are losing rights through an adversion to marriage, which then puts them on a par with homosexuals.
Good point. Hmm that's actually an interesting point.
-
led mike wrote:
the erosion of individual freedom of homosexuals
what rights have been eroded? as a group they have no more nor any less than any other group.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.