Need Any More Proof that Democrats are Idiots?
Republicans are trying to insert language into a Homeland Security bill that will protect, from civil liability, Americans who report suspicious behavior to the authorities... ala the Flying Imam's who are currently suing the passengers who reported THEIR suspicious behavior. All the evidence appears to paint a picture of deliberate suspicious behavior. And guess what? Yeah, that's right. Democrats are trying to kill the language that would protect citizens who turn in the bad guys. That means the clerk who reported to the authorities the Fort Dix plot could get sued. Why don't we take it a step further and make it illegal for anyone to report crime anonymously via community "CrimeStoppers" program. That'll teach the dirty snitches.
Have the democrats learned nothing from 9/11? Do they not believe the heated testimony of those who want to kill Americans? Pull out of Iraq? Punish the citizens who report suspicious behavior?
Democrats are too dangerous to hold office.
Have the democrats learned nothing from 9/11? Do they not believe the heated testimony of those who want to kill Americans? Pull out of Iraq? Punish the citizens who report suspicious behavior?
Democrats are too dangerous to hold office.
from the mind of... Eric | 2:28 PM
22 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ER, I would just give your advice back to you. Settle down.
You are getting into a mode where you go off on a tangent at everything EL says and after 9/11 you best get your head out of the sand.
With the logic of the Democrats concerning our security, you could fall victim to some terrible injustice and never be able to prove it to the approval of a court.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I didn't see ER's first comment but it must have been a doozy! Is ER actually defending the Democrats insane idea that informing authorities when someone acts suspiciously is subject to litigation? Does he want to silence ALL free speech, or just the speech that protects America from evil?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Good God, Mark, YOU act suspicoulsy. How boyut somebody reports you, and in this climate of insanity you get busted, locked up, and lose your job, and your house and your kid? THAT's what people should be able to sue over: Abuse of the court system and exploitation of faithless fear.
It's a grandstanding maneuver. Anyone who really sees someone doing something suspicious isn't going to worry about a subsequent lawsuit.
Someone who genuinely reported suspicious behavior doesn't have to worry. Any subsequent lawsuit would be dismissed or judged accordingly in the courts.
However some bigoted Neanderthal that wants to harass an ethnic family out of a neighborhood could use this law as cover.
You regularly rail against Congress passing stupid laws. This proposal would fall in that category.
So sad. EL is trying to leave the impression, I guess, that I'm using profanity or throwing cheap shots. I'm not. The shots I'm throwing are not cheap, but based on EL's own puny rantlets. He has reduced himself to zapping ideas he disagrees with -- and thinks he's being patriotic by doing so. Not.
Actually, I'm deleting such ER niceties as...
"If they don't impeach the Terrorist in Chief and the president..."
"you terrified sumbitches"
"you traitor to freedom"
Which amounts to 'profanity' and 'cheap shots'.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of dealing with folks like you and Dan. And it suddenly occurred to me that I don't have to.
As to not being long for this blog, I'm not leaving blogging... only this blog. I'm tired of it. I want a new format, a new focus, and some fresh air. I'm not the least bit frightened by you, Dan or anyone else for that matter. I've just come to the decision that I'm tired of wading through this cesspit of comments, day in and day out. Everyone thinks they're right... and I'm a nutcase.
Some of you people need serious help, and nothing I do or say here will provide any. Why should I continue to give that which is holy unto dogs? or cast my pearls before swine? Especially since all you, Dan do (and quite often BenT) is trample them under foot and attack me for it?
Please allow me to shake the dust of your fair towns from the soles of my shoes.
BenT at least has been polite tonight. You have not... So sad.
I haven't read the language in question, but from what I have gathered thus far, abuses of the sort BenT referred would not be protected of course. But the jist of it protects those that are being taken to court, like the people who reported the imams and are now facing lawsuits. There should be no reason why a reasonable person who reports behavior that is suspicious should have to weigh doing his duty over the possibility of being sued beyond his ability to weather such actions, just to avoid some potential hurt feelings by the suspicious person. Here's a hint: if people of your religion and ethnicity have recently murdered over 3000 innocent American civilians, perhaps you should pay attention to that which is considered normal behavior in America. Or, even better, simply be aware that through no fault of your own, or your potential accuser, you give some pause. Perhaps you could be a bit more understanding since it's largely people of your ethnicity and religion murdering so many people worldwide. Better still, realize that your new country is under no obligation to bend over backwards to accomodate your very different habits. Don't segregate yourselves and stop whining. OK. My rant is over.
"Especially since all you, Dan do (and quite often BenT) is trample them under foot and attack me for it?"
I've begun to avoid commenting here and am only commenting here to point out that I might ask for examples of where I have ever trampled your pearls underfoot and attacked you, but I know two things:
1. You won't answer because you can't. I have offered polited and reasoned opinions that have differed from yours but that is not the same as attacks and trampling.
2. You won't answer because you rarely if ever have answered when I call you to accountability for misleading or outright wrong comments you make. And THAT is not the same as attacking or trampling either, just holding people accountable for their words.
I honestly like you, Eric. I like your writing style and much about you. That doesn't mean that I won't differ from your opinion and won't ask you for some evidence if you make an unsupported and libelous comment, such as the one above.
Peace.
Well, I stand my my assertion that those slaps were neither profane nor cheap. You needed slapped, in my view, or I wouldn'ta slapped ya. As in: Snap out of it!
I know it's not me you're scared of. But you are scared. I mean, from what you've written the past coupla days, you are demonstrating the object of terrorism -- which is being terrorized. You want to deny access to the courts to those whose lives are ruined by false reports driven by paranoid delusion! A danger to the republic, such ideas are.
Dan wrote: "You won't answer because you can't"
I can, and have, on numerous occasions. It is pointless to respond to his "Why, I never!" 's. But the truth is Dan is unhinged. And his theology is twisted. Case in point (it's a lengthy thread, but it's in there). He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Dan wrote: "You won't answer because you rarely if ever have answered when I call you to accountability for misleading or outright wrong comments you make."
The only answers I have ever given Dan was to point out just how blasted evil his doctrine is. Case in point. He's only ticked because I won't play his little parlour game. He's a one trick pony, and anyone who's ever had to deal with him on their blog knows it. Besides which, who is Dan that I must answer to him? Who made him my confessor? Why the air of smug superiority from Dan? Because his philosophy is twisted and his blind adherence to heresy is... for lack of a better word... idolatrous.
I can't honestly say I like Dan. Truth is, I have trouble separating the man from the message (I guess that makes me human), mostly because the message is so distasteful it makes me want to sick up. But this is not to say that I don't hope the best for Dan. I want him to return to his First Love, as does Jesus. I'd like to see him stop whoring around with other gods and turn to the one that can genuinely save him.
Perhaps Dan has noticed that I don't comment at his place anymore, and haven't for more than a while... shortly after Earth Day, I think it was. There is no edification there for me. I don't get fed.
ER wrote: "But you are scared."
No. Eric instead is simply trying to keep, whoever he can detour, from falling into the abyss. Eric is fearful for the souls of the lost... not as greatly as he should be, but my efforts are aimed toward anyone who will listen. What have I to fear? my God has already won! All I have to do til he calls me home is to stand firm; care for and defend the land he has given me. No matter what the world does to me... I'm still in His hand, and until I can't speak or lift a finger, I will point to the sky and warn whoever will listen that a mighty storm is coming. Get under the shelter of His wings, or not. No one is promised tomorrow, people need to choose today whom they will serve. Today. Not tomorrow. Trip over that final threshold without Jesus and it'll be too late, but if you've been reading anything I've had to say hear, your blood will not be on my hands.
Apologies to one and all. Especially to Dan. I allowed my anger to slip a bit in that last comment. I meant every word I wrote, but I should not have posted every word I wrote.
Calling him unhinged was clearly a breach of etiquette. I am attacked continuously here and I let my anger lash out. I should not have, whatever my personal feelings.
ER,
As I implied with my last, I don't believe that the language of the amended bill woulg inhibit a legitimate suit whatsoever. But quite frankly, there are those of the Islamic persuasion who care not a whit for the sensibilities of those that should be, their fellow Americans. New citizens, or visitors, are required to adapt to the culture of their new country, not the other way around.
Ya know, the best definition I know of blasphemy is attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil. And EL, I think you've crossed that perilous line with Dan.
As I said at the end of your second Case in Point, and I say this with your first Case in Point in mind:
"You are seeing Christians working out what it means to be a Christian. This is it. The Peace that Passes Understanding that Jesus promised has nothing to do with peace as the world understands it; and the love that the faith talks about has nothing to do with getting along all the time. I hope my brothers here agree -- but if they don't, eh, the God we worship is bigger than any of us. So we squabble. So what."
I believe that were you in a position of power, EL, you would burn Dan and I both at the stake. During the Reformation, that is usually what happened to those who brought truth to those clinging to tradition and the establishment.
Your last statement only demonstrates your complete failure to "get" what I'm all about.
I won't take offense to that, but you're thoroughly and entirely wrong on that score.
OK. Well, I'm pretty sure "Dad" would. Maybe I had y'all confused. He should stick around, BTW, if for nothing else than to demonstrate actual constant, spitting hatred, as opposed to the periodic angry retorting that you and I both suffer.
Anyhoo, I'd say you're thoroughly and entirely wrong about Dan. He and his tradition are as much a legitiamate part of the Christian Church as you and yours are, and I and mine are.
I believe that were you in a position of power, EL, you would burn Dan and I both at the stake. >
I have never read anything that EL writes that would give me that impression. I would say that I was over reading a site of one of YOUR buddies that had 3 of the wildest comments on it.....and all it made me think of was of some unhinged, delusional scardy cats that have vivid imaginations and little faith that God is aware of everything going on down here and certainly not in control.
Do what? I consider EL a buddy -- just one I disagree with on most things.
There you go again, as some people favorite president once said.
Trying to divide the dang world up into:
Friends and enemies.
Good and evil.
Us and them.
Them and them others.
Heck fire. I don't even label and pidgeonhole people as much as that!
ER, With friends like you, who needs enemies? If you talk to your friends this way, your enemies would melt from the heat that you blow.
They do.
Post a Comment
<< Home