• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ted Kennedy Dies of Brain Cancer at Age 77

F107HyperSabr said:
Come on now I did look at the first one and if the other two are like that yes they are the fringe of the fringe.


Bee serious now !!! Look at the right wing side!! Sarah ( Igloo ) Palin and radio talk show "hosts" made claims about non existent "death panels and they were nlot fringe. Look at the tea backers and birthers and now healthers they are not fringe they are part of the standard deal here.
Click to expand...

Take off the blinders and stop drinking the cool aid long enough to see the truth. Then post actual evidence instead of hyper partisan opinion.

As I have shown it is not the fringe of the fringe.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
What river in Egypt ?? There were some people who did call the younger Bush a person of diminished intellect and some did claim that he was a deserter but yes theyare on the fringe of the fringe.
Click to expand...
So you consider CBS on the fringe of the fringe? :roll:

.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
What are the "threats to liberty " that Ted Kennedy was responsible for ? I know that he is on the liberal side but I ahd no idea that he in any way violated our constitution!!
Click to expand...




couple ideas here:




Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Steadfast opponent of vouchers. (Jan 2001)

Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Quality health care is a fundamental right, not a privilege. (Aug 2008)





and that was just skimming.
 
Hey remember when he left that girl to die in his car? that zany old teddy
 
mikhail said:
Hey remember when he left that girl to die in his car? that zany old teddy
Click to expand...
It was brought up over 30 pages ago. Yup we remember. :mrgreen:
 
American said:
It was brought up over 30 pages ago. Yup we remember. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yea i know im just amazed how people are able to gloss over it like it was just a minor thing.
 
mikhail said:
Yea i know im just amazed how people are able to gloss over it like it was just a minor thing.
Click to expand...

And then there are those who have obsessed about it for decades, and have all but declared that there is no way he can ever atone for that sin and that he will rot in Hell (I bet God didn't appreciate having some mere humans try to usurp his job of passing final judgment).
 
Birdzeye said:
And then there are those who have obsessed about it for decades, and have all but declared that there is no way he can ever atone for that sin and that he will rot in Hell (I bet God didn't appreciate having some mere humans try to usurp his job of passing final judgment).
Click to expand...

I think allot of it is the fact his father or family if you would used their connections to get him off with no punishment. So people see this as no justice for Mary Joe.

So what could he have done to atone? After getting off, nothing.
 
Blackdog said:
I think allot of it is the fact his father or family if you would used their connections to get him off with no punishment. So people see this as no justice for Mary Joe.

So what could he have done to atone? After getting off, nothing.
Click to expand...

How about giving his millions to support MADD or battered womens shelters?
how about not living the good life while so many are less fortunate, while putting up the image that it is the wittle peeple he cares about...peeing on them
 
TOJ said:
So you consider CBS on the fringe of the fringe? :roll: .
Click to expand...

When did CBS call Bush "diminished intellectually" ? When did CBS attack Busg ? The only time an element of CBS had something negative about Bush was that 60 minutes cabal ( which by the way I have been boycotting since 1992) when they used aa poorly vetteed peice of information. Which BTW was most likley a poor recreation of the original so they made fools out of themselves.

Yet after the seventies the left wing whackadoos have been the frimge of the fringe.

You should eveluate your own posts before you go off making derogatory remarks about your fellow posters since some most people cannot see their own "blinders".
 
Kennedy at his best; this one is basically his view of all Conservatives:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNaasFvvFlE"]YouTube - Flashback: Ted Kennedy 'Borking' Bork (1987)[/ame]

This became known as "Borking" a candidate.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
couple ideas here:




Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Steadfast opponent of vouchers. (Jan 2001)

Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Quality health care is a fundamental right, not a privilege. (Aug 2008)
and that was just skimming.
Click to expand...

You really should take your show to an open mike commedy night. Besides the cell phone wiretapping which reasonable people may be able to make a reasonable leap of and stretch into an arguement over Constitutionality the rest of your "examples" are nothing more than your opinion.


I really love the "voucher" one !! he he he !! How on earth can oppposition to vouchers be "trampling" or "hurting" the Constitution ?

You can argue whether of not the free use of national parks should be allowed for a private enetrprise but how is that an "unconstitutional " position ?

"Quality health care is a fundamental right, not a privilege" I have challenegd others to try and show us where oh where in the Constitution is there a prohibition against the facilitation of healthcare as a fundamental right ?

Not sure how " trigger locks" are "unconstitutional" but maybe someone can argue that one.

You have not even made a scratch in your attempt to prove your point.
 
Birdzeye said:
And then there are those who have obsessed about it for decades, and have all but declared that there is no way he can ever atone for that sin and that he will rot in Hell (I bet God didn't appreciate having some mere humans try to usurp his job of passing final judgment).
Click to expand...

No i think the kennedys are treated like royality by certain segments of the American press and in their view what is one womens life compared to a beloved mans political career.He acted in a way that was trying to defend his own political aspirations and luckily alot of the people who should of been investigating felt the same way as him.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLVsIpejFgM"]YouTube - Chaser Eulogy Song[/ame]
 
F107HyperSabr said:
You really should take your show to an open mike commedy night. Besides the cell phone wiretapping which reasonable people may be able to make a reasonable leap of and stretch into an arguement over Constitutionality the rest of your "examples" are nothing more than your opinion.


I really love the "voucher" one !! he he he !! How on earth can oppposition to vouchers be "trampling" or "hurting" the Constitution ?

You can argue whether of not the free use of national parks should be allowed for a private enetrprise but how is that an "unconstitutional " position ?

"Quality health care is a fundamental right, not a privilege" I have challenegd others to try and show us where oh where in the Constitution is there a prohibition against the facilitation of healthcare as a fundamental right ?

Not sure how " trigger locks" are "unconstitutional" but maybe someone can argue that one.

You have not even made a scratch in your attempt to prove your point.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read the Constitution and its amendments? You should try it sometime.
 
DeeJayH said:
How about giving his millions to support MADD or battered womens shelters?
Click to expand...

He did give to charity. So what?

DeeJayH said:
how about not living the good life while so many are less fortunate, while putting up the image that it is the wittle peeple he cares about...peeing on them
Click to expand...

That is ridicules and you know it.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
You really should take your show to an open mike commedy night. Besides the cell phone wiretapping which reasonable people may be able to make a reasonable leap of and stretch into an arguement over Constitutionality the rest of your "examples" are nothing more than your opinion.
Click to expand...


ok point Reverend.


I really love the "voucher" one !! he he he !! How on earth can oppposition to vouchers be "trampling" or "hurting" the Constitution ?
Click to expand...


Show me in the USC where the federal government can regulate how states run its schools.


Advantage Reverend.


You can argue whether of not the free use of national parks should be allowed for a private enetrprise but how is that an "unconstitutional " position ?
Click to expand...


Eminent domain in this case clearly violates the 5th amendment.


Point Reverend


"Quality health care is a fundamental right, not a privilege" I have challenegd others to try and show us where oh where in the Constitution is there a prohibition against the facilitation of healthcare as a fundamental right ?
Click to expand...


This is a loaded question. The proper question, is to show me in the USC the enumerated right to take from one to pay for anothers healthcare.


If by your logic there is a right to healthcare, then there is a right to food, housing, car ins, etc....


Point Reverend


Not sure how " trigger locks" are "unconstitutional" but maybe someone can argue that one.
Click to expand...


I refer you to the 2nd amendment.

Point Reverend


You have not even made a scratch in your attempt to prove your point.
Click to expand...



You 0, The Good Reverend 5


Sorry... you lost. :lol:
 
DeeJayH said:
no i don't. if he is such a champion of the little people, why did he keep so much money for himself, instead of helping people with it
Click to expand...

I am not saying he is a champion of little people I am saying you are in no position to sit in judgment of how much anyone gives to charity. It is their money, and that is that. What they do with it is their business.

Lets be serious I was one of the ones dancing on his grave. This path you have chosen to argue is nothing but a fallacy appeal to emotion.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
ok point Reverend.





Show me in the USC where the federal government can regulate how states run its schools.


Advantage Reverend.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for jumping in here but I fail to see your logic. Providing vouchers, wouldn't that be the government encroaching? You're talking about the government putting tax dollars to funding children going to private school. This seems more like the government jumping in.




Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I refer you to the 2nd amendment.

Point Reverend
Click to expand...

How exactly do gun locks prevent you from owning a gun?
 
PogueMoran said:
I'm sorry for jumping in here but I fail to see your logic. Providing vouchers, wouldn't that be the government encroaching? You're talking about the government putting tax dollars to funding children going to private school. This seems more like the government jumping in.
Click to expand...


No more so than the extensive taxes we already pay, this just puts the choice back with us Parents. :2wave:




How exactly do gun locks prevent you from owning a gun?
Click to expand...



How am I supposed to defend my family and property if I have to ask the badido to hold on a sec while I unlock my pistole. :doh



It's an infringment.
 
PogueMoran said:
I'm sorry for jumping in here but I fail to see your logic. Providing vouchers, wouldn't that be the government encroaching? You're talking about the government putting tax dollars to funding children going to private school. This seems more like the government jumping in.
Click to expand...

I don't think you comprehend what these "vouchers" are. You already pay property taxes to support your local school. If you want to pull your child out and place them in a school that teaches instead of indoctrinates, you can, but you still pay the property taxes for public schools.

Vouchers are a return of YOUR money BACK to YOU so that you can pay for the education of your child with money you gave the government for schools your kids no longer attend.

Short explanation; it is YOUR money. The Government is just giving it back. What a concept eh?

PogueMoran said:
How exactly do gun locks prevent you from owning a gun?
Click to expand...

No one suggests that gun locks prevent you from owning a gun. They prevent you from defending yourself with the gun due to an asinine Liberal idea that we need to make guns useless for the purpose for which they are intended in order to support an asinine agenda that assumes if we disarm law abiding citizens, we can make them safe from crime.

I know, this makes ZERO sense; but that is the mentality of the disarm America crowd which crows about Constitutional rights but when it comes to your second amendment rights, all bets are off.

:2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
No one suggests that gun locks prevent you from owning a gun. They prevent you from defending yourself with the gun due to an asinine Liberal idea that we need to make guns useless for the purpose for which they are intended in order to support an asinine agenda that assumes if we disarm law abiding citizens, we can make them safe from crime.
Click to expand...

I think the point of gun locks is this... A hefty percentage of weapons used by criminals out on the streets are actually stolen from the law-abiding gun owners during burglaries and car burglaries. A gun lock makes it more difficult for a gun to be stolen and used.

I never really thought this point was difficult to understand, but clearly, it is for some people.

A gun lock can also protect your children by making it impossible for them to use the gun when you aren't around.

A good friend of mine, a sergeant in a gang unit in Utah...his daughter killed herself with his service revolver, which he kept on the top of his dresser.

It's possible that a trigger lock MIGHT have prevented that.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
I think the point of gun locks is this... A hefty percentage of weapons used by criminals out on the streets are actually stolen from the law-abiding gun owners during burglaries and car burglaries. A gun lock makes it more difficult for a gun to be stolen and used.

I never really thought this point was difficult to understand, but clearly, it is for some people.

A gun lock can also protect your children by making it impossible for them to use the gun when you aren't around.

A good friend of mine, a sergeant in a gang unit in Utah...his daughter killed herself with his service revolver, which he kept on the top of his dresser.

It's possible that a trigger lock MIGHT have prevented that.
Click to expand...

While I sympathize with the friend whose suffered the tragedy, it was entirely preventable without a gunlock. A child has a better chance of getting hurt or killed playing in the house or walking to school.

But I can hardly see where it makes the case that rendering a handgun useless somehow makes sense when the purpose of the handgun is for the defense of one's home, person or property.

Many thousands more children and individuals die from senseless traffic accidents, should we make cars inoperable?

Tragic accidents will happen. And don't get me wrong, I have no problem with someone who CHOOSES to put a gun lock on their weapon; it is only when the Government MANDATES it in a sinister effort to render weapons useless for those who purchased them that I have the issue.

Let’s remember the reason many purchase a handgun is that they desire to protect their life and property, something the police and Government cannot guarantee. To force them to render the firearm useless defeats the whole concept of self defense; and that is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom