cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Advisor

tale of 2 speeches

Them dang thumpers and conservatives with their danged paranoia.   A person ought to be happy knowing the president is keeping us safe locking up people that don't think like we do.

 

9 Replies
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: tale of 2 speeches

Kudos to Rachel Madow!  I do believe the Lady is jolly well starting to understand!  I would like to give her a big fat sloppy heterosexual kiss right on the lips for that!

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: tale of 2 speeches

Lets not get carried away.
Highlighted
Advisor

Re: tale of 2 speeches

On MSNBC too! Were you tuned in bart?

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: tale of 2 speeches

Bet GTO fell to the floor, foamed at the mouth, and started twitching.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Incorrect spelling

No offense intended but it's not Madow, it's Madcow

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Incorrect spelling

Thanks for posting that Samnospam.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: tale of 2 speeches

Rachel Madow does not spend any of her time addressing part of what Obama said, and what Bush and Cheney reacted to.....how do you handle people that have ALREADY committed crimes in the past.....crimes that they cannot be legally tried for because of the way the evidence has been tainted, and that pose a current and future threat to the rest of Americans. People ALREADY GUILTY, not people that MAY commit some FUTURE CRIME.

 

Our system seems to work over time, we seem to be able to eventually get the thugs and murderers off the streets and into cells.With common criminals, like an OJ SImpson, what is the downside if one trial goes bad? Someone else gets murdered? A rapist gets off, and one more woman gets raped and/or murdered? Our American choice, with innocent until proven guilty is to take the tradeoff of freedom for the risk of someone else losing their life and all of their tomorrows. We live with that tradeoff. OJ Simpson would not now be in prison except for the recognition that the original trial went wrong, and the next step out of line would mean long incarceration. And the guy was harassed for years by the Florida police, too, before he got sent to the big house. He was not as free as people would think.

 

BUt what is the balance when the risk is for an entire city to be destroyed? Do we live with that risk , too, or do we take steps to ensure that people and organizations capable of such destruction are permanently removed from society. Does anyone want to have a NY City or an Los Angeles or any other city nuked so that we prove how free our society is? These are not simple questions to be answered. Rachel makes it seem like their is an obvious second choice.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: tale of 2 speeches

Depends on who you consider a terrorist.

 

 

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: tale of 2 speeches

First, when Obama mentioned tainted evidence, he said "such as", meaning its one example of why they'd hold someone. If someone is not a citizen then treat them as a POW hold them for however long, but the constitution is pretty clear on this. It even defines how to handle treason. You have to prove a crime. The moment it doesn't need to be proven we are all at risk of being accused and having no recourse to defend ones self.