Originally posted by whodeyLike the 4th amendment with stop and frisk laws? I agree! Stop and frisk laws violate the 4th Amendment of our constitution word for word on what the 4th amendment is suppose to protect us against.
The Constitution routinely is violated without any consequences, so why would I not think there is more to come?
Originally posted by whodeyB.S.
The freedom of the press has waned significantly under Obama, being compared to the former Nixon administration in terms of control over the media.
In terms of freedom of the press, the US dropped to 49th in the world in terms of freedom of the press.
Originally posted by whodeyTheir not conservatives, They are regressive's.
Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign has issued a threat to a major conservative website that should have all conservatives — and anyone that believes in the First Amendment — very concerned.
The Daily Caller reported that Clinton’s campaign sent out a fundraising email wi ...[text shortened]... facts, they throw around words like “bigot” and “racist” to try and silence dissenting voices.
Originally posted by kmax87Nay. I can think of a whole gang of right-wing conservative internet bullies that need to be banned long before Duchess. They know who they are. I have never had a problem with Duchess. If you do not like her, then grow up and do not talk with her. Simple as that.
While I agree with much that constitutes the Duchess' worldview, after more than a year's worth of toxic debating style peppered with all caps, forever shouting her innocence, would the debates forum be better off if the Duchess were given a lengthy Debate's ban?
While I might also agree with the sentiment of defending anyone's right to speak even when I d ...[text shortened]... her the boot?
Say yeah or nay and add your comments in support or rejection of a ban please.
Originally posted by Duchess64Did the Watergate burglary or the protracted cover-up result in President Nixon's downfall? Well, actually both did. However, since Nixon did not know about the break-in until after they got caught, the cover-up that he attempted afterword along with the republican party was his downfall. He and the republican party blatantly lied to the people and they got caught red handed.
I concur that the attempted cover-up was much worse than the original minor vandalism.
If a person drops something and breaks it in a shop, the situation may be quickly and quietly
resolved by paying for the damages. So some people have wondered about whether
Ryan Lochte or the other swimmers were attempting to cover up something more embarrassing.
Did the Watergate burglary or the protracted cover-up result in President Nixon's downfall?
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom all witness accounts I have read, including the man who translated between the Olympic Americans and security guards; said that two guards did pull guns out; however, they never pointed them at the athletics. I do not feel it would be to much to ask if the money was given to the owners of the gas station. However, I'm fairy certain the security guards worked for the gas station and the money was turned over to the owners. If they were being robbed I'm sure they would have taken all their money and valuables, not just $55.00.
Got the age wrong BUT:
Lochte, Bentz and police do all agree on one thing: A gun was brandished, and money exchanged hands.
Would it be to much to ask if the security guards turned that money over to the business?
Originally posted by no1marauderRyan Lochte is 32 years old; and, all witnesses said a gun was never pointed at them.
If the USOC or the Olympic Committee or other governing body elects to punish Lochte in accordance with their rules and in line with other punishments in the past, I have no objection.
The whole incident to me shows little more than that 20 something drunks occasionally do stupid things and then aren't totally honest about them. I doubt this is the ex ...[text shortened]... nor and you do wonder why the security guard found it necessary to draw a gun (if that is true).
Originally posted by no1marauderI have no problem putting aside their drunken, slight vandalism, it's the outright lies and false witness that they were robbed at gun-point. Then, filing a false police report saying so, and then, going on world television spouting this lie and false witness to the world. They still have not apologized for that either. That is the problem I have with their white privilege and I feel lying and bearing false witness is one of the major problems in the USA today. Especially among the white conservative supposed evangelical Christians.
Sanest comment on this molehill came from the Olympic spokesperson:
Mario Andrada, who sighed of the furore now that the US swimmers had been found out: “Let’s give these kids a break. Sometimes you make decisions you later regret. They had fun, they made a mistake, life goes on.”
Originally posted by JS357Thank you for clarify your stance. My apologies.
"... every time a white person does something terrible, other white people say "well what about people of color...."
I was expecting people to realize that there were no other news reports of 2016 Rio Olympic gold winners behaving in such a career limiting manner as Lochte's stupid vandalism at the gas station and presumptuous lies to the police. Apparently ...[text shortened]... dards of PC-ness while discussing this situation. But we must not let that stifle communication.
Originally posted by JS357How come every time a white person does something terrible, other white people say "well what about people of color?" White people are guilty of most violent crime in America period. That includes rape and murder. Whites always want to talk about black on black murder when there are far more white on white murders every year in our nation. When white people start looking in their mirrors and taking responsibility for their actions and how they raise THEIR CHILDREN; then we would have a much better nation of people. BTW, I am white.
Let's have a list of young athletes of color who did something so career-ending.
Originally posted by techsouthWhat the hell does this have to do with 1979. And those people held then were hostages. Much different story. Let's take Pastor Saeed. He was an Iranian to begin with who moved to the USA and ended up getting dual citizenship. He would travel home and preach Christianity in Iran which is against their law. They warned him several times to stop; however, he continued to do so and was arrested. He broke their laws and ended up in prison. This is not a hostage, this is someone who broke their laws and ended up in jail. Lesson learned, don't go to Iran and preach Christianity unless God physically comes to you and tells you to do so. Even then you can expect to go to jail for breaking their laws. This was not a trumped up charge, this was him knowingly breaking
Ironic that you accuse me of focusing on word semantics when that is exactly what you're doing. But still, there is nothing in my post that hinges on the definition of "ransom" nor "hostage".
But fair enough, the 52 hostages in Iran from 1979-1980 were actually "guests".
A headline in an Islamic Republican newspaper on November 5, 1979, read "R ...[text shortened]... icker to "settle". Can't you see that without squabbling about what the word "ransom" means?
Originally posted by techsouthTechnically they were not hostages. They were prisoners held in their prisons for breaking their laws. No matter how insane those laws are or how trumped up the charges were, it is still their country and their laws. We owed them that money; however, we told them we were not going to pay them back until our Americans were released from their prisons. It is you that is debating the semantics of words. It was not a ransom paid. It was paying them back money we owed them. End of story.
You have an unusual interest in wanting to debate semantics of words, yet seem to not care about gaining any other understanding from a conversation.
Iran's claim may have had merit. But "settling" because you find yourself dealing with an uncomfortable hostage situation encourages others to take hostages. Hey, I predict other countries will have fina ...[text shortened]... quicker to "settle". Can't you see that without squabbling about what the word "ransom" means?
Originally posted by whodeyNo. The USA had already agreed to pay them back their money with the nuclear inspection deal. However, nothing was going to be done until the hostages were released. I find it funny that the far-right was screaming about these hostages being released and blaming Obama for them not being released; and then when they are released, they turn it into more lies and false witness against him. Go figure...
The Iranians will simply have to round up more US hostages to collect the rest of the $800 billion I reckon.
Originally posted by whodeyAnd, the money we owed them was not paid until the hostages were released. Now take your toys and go home and come back with better lies and false witness than this dumb arse.
The prisoners were not leaving until the money landed.
That's a ransom dingleberry.
Now go do something useful like you always do like creating a thread on how Hillary never lies.
Originally posted by whodeyHe did not pay any ransom. He gave them back THEIR money that the USA owed them that was frozen in the banking system by America. They did not get back the first third of their money until the hostages were released which is a smart move. BTW, we still owe them 800 million more. Do you right-wing freaks even know what truth is?
President Obama paid a ransom for Iranian prisoners who were recently released. Of course, he denies this but the hostage on the plane said that his captors were waiting for another plane to arrive, the one with $400 million, before they could take off and release him.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/proof-obama-lied-us-iranian-hostage-abedini-say ...[text shortened]... -ransom-plane-arrived-video/
Apparently taking American hostages is good business these days.