My wife and I disagree on a hot button topic.

On the show Dateline they set up a sting of child predators contacting their victims via the internet. They all described what they wanted to do to the child they thought they were chatting with. They were all caught red-handed when they showed up at a rondevous and were arrested.

Their pictures were posted on an internet site designed to warn the public about these criminals. My wife thinks that that is unconstitutional even though they haven't yet been convicted, and I think it's a valuable tool in warning the public. Just showing up for an intended interlude with a minor is a crime. Child molesting has almost a 100% recitivism rate.

If you've been caught red-handed why do you deserve privacy? Can't due process be suspended when the crime is witnessed and videotaped? What defense could there be for showing up to a meeting for sex with a child?

Full story on a future show.

Right, but we should give terrorists due process and get a court order before monitoring them, so they can have enough time to execute an attack. Not only that, but we should try these NON-AMERICAN, NON-GENEVA PROTECTED TERRORISTS under American Law, as though they were citizens.

Liberals=Hypocrites.

Way to go hijacking Barry's thread

fossten is good at that.:(

Hijacking a thread sounds sooo dramatic. He simply brought up a very good point on Barry's way of thinking. Why don't you whine and cry about it instead of defending the position or rebutting the comment to show it's falseness.

What would you call it Mark , if high jacking is sooo dramatic.

What would you call it Mark , if high jacking is sooo dramatic.


Discussing the concept of a subject-matter... Drawing a parellel? I am sure I can come up with a few more. lol.

Not defending anyone here, but just settle down and stop crying wolf, people.

Fox News has been on top of how "Esters" are getting off with a slap of the wrist
for some time.

Discussing the concept of a subject-matter... Drawing a parellel? I am sure I can come up with a few more. lol.

Not defending anyone here, but just settle down and stop crying wolf, people.
The subject matter here is quite clear and there is no parellel to be drawn. Who is crying Wolf?

fossten is good at that.:(

What are you good at? Parroting other people's comments? :rolleyes:

Must have hit the nail on the head, or you sycophants wouldn't be reacting this way.

What are you good at? Parroting other people's comments? :rolleyes:

Must have hit the nail on the head, or you sycophants wouldn't be reacting this way.
First of all I don't parrot anyones comments, you High jacked a thread dealing with child molesters pictures being posted on the internet warning the public and calling me a sycophant is really uncalled for,I do not seek favor from anyone least of all you :p :p :p

Another typical example of David's misdirection. Try answering the question if your narrow focus on GWB can let you.

So, In David's twisted mind his post was not a personal attack. Talk about a coward.

I'm all about suspending due process for these "people". Straight to General Population in prison and make sure to tell everyone why they are there...

Maybe David was attempting to point out the inconsistency demonstrated by the liberal viewpoint on certain subject matters.

I agree that preying child molesters should be revealed. That said...

If you show up at the door thinking you are meeting a minor for ANY reason, tough crap for you. But I also feel that if we capture a terrorist and your phone number is on his speed dial, tough crap for you too. The burden is now on you to prove yourself NOT to be involved. Guilt by association is what is being argued here.

So on the one hand the Left wants to lock up a guy and throw away the key even though the molester hasn't molested yet, but we should let a terrorist be free because he hasn't terrorized yet? Yes, David, I see the inconsistency. Just don't expect many others to as well.

I take great satisfaction in pointing out discrepancies in liberal positions. If you Fibs don't like it, stop being inconsistent hypocrites.

:N

Barry is so quick to take a jab at David when David is trying to provide an alternative point of view. So why is it not OK for David to do the same thing to Barry. This is exactly the same type of reasoning that Barry has been doling out on this site. Taking little snipes at everything that Davis posts. We are all adults here, we can agree to disagree, but if you are going to make snide comments about someone elses post, then Barry, why do you get your panties in a wad when someone draws a direct parallel to your reasoning. By your admitted reasoning, it is OK for us to out a child molester by subversive means who is most likely a citizen(and believe me I am in total agreement with you on this point), but not ok to keep an eye and spy on suspected terrorists? All David was pointing out was the total disparity of your two publically stated views. He wasn't trying to hijack your thread.

If we all had the exact opinions all of the time, this place would be boring as hell. Lighten up guys, we are all entitled to our opinions.

Please show where I said it wasn't OK to spy on a suspected terrorist. Just admit that this was just David's cowardly way of presenting a personal attack even though he agrees with my viewpoint. Talk about a hypocrite. He defines the word.

We are all on the same page when it comes to potential molesters. I am postulating that terrorists or potential terrorists should be treated the same way as the Left wants to treat these potential molesters. The whole argument from the Left is that Bush is targeting innocent civilians and invading their privacy which we all know is patently false. However, if you run around and email or telephone people outside of the U.S. and say the magic words.....SURPRISE, welcome to the monitoring club.

I believe David's intention, and yet I know my intention is, to point out how quick the Left is ready to take away the civil liberties of ordinary Americans when it conflicts with their viewpoint, yet the same doesn't fly when it comes to dealing with a farther ranging, less direct threat.

The more you want to argue this apparent conflict, the funnier I find it to be. You can try but you can't have it both ways.

If we are going to destroy someone's life becasue they communicated with a minor, I say we should maybe apply the same philosophy when it comes to terrorists and those they conspire with. Seems fair to me.

What you apparently missed was the fact that the first batch of child molestors was let free because there was no warrant or court order to implement the sting.

I'm all in favor of wiretapping suspected terrorists within the legal bounds of the "piece of paper" as GWB puts it.

Again, please point out wher I've posted against legal wiretaps. If not, then shut up and admit it was a personal attack.

What you apparently missed was the fact that the first batch of child molestors was let free because there was no warrant or court order to implement the sting.SEE. That's what I'm talking about. We let the guilty go free on technicalities. That is the same thing the left wants to do with terrorists. We need to react fast. That day, that minute. That second. This stuff about a court order is bull feces.

I'm all in favor of wiretapping suspected terrorists within the legal bounds of the "piece of paper" as GWB puts it.I'm not! Like I said, if you say the magic words, tough crap for you. I walked up to the gate and paid cash for an airplane ticket several years back and I have been on the NTSB's list ever since. I get pulled out of line, all my bags searched for no reason. Just for showing up. Guess what, tough crap for me.

Again, please point out wher I've posted against legal wiretaps. I can point out again and again where you posted about Bush MAKING illegal wiretaps, which I must again point out, are not the same thing as MONITORING CALLS for speech patterns that are international in nature, but you choose to ignore that simple fact because it doesn't neatly fit into your 'Bush is a liar and criminal' schtick.

If not, then shut up and admit it was a personal attack.I looked at it from the standpoint of a personal attack and in my estimation, it wasn't. Anybody else think it was? Chime in. Maybe I read it wrong.

The subject matter here is quite clear and there is no parellel to be drawn. Who is crying Wolf?



Ok let me break it down for those of you (pepperman) with apparent reading comprehension problems. First of all there are a few parallels. Only one of which I will bother to address for purpose of brevity.

The constitutionality of due process when discussing both these matters was brought up. If one gets punished/treated one way then why doesn't the other get treated the same way. Parallel......Saaaaaaay it with me.....paaaaarrrrraaallllleeeellllll... Good!


As for the crying wolf? That was when thamarkman got all on the poor fella's case for simply adding to the thread by drawing his own parrellel/example to the situation. Then you haul off and add to the snide comment about hijacking the thread. C'mon man settle down. Stop to take it from the other persons angle before being so quick to judge.