What Republican President Has Ever...

[Jarhead]

All we have to know is that Hagel is Anti-Zionist.

You say that as if it's a bad thing....

For someone who will be involved in international military decisions and representation?

Yep....it is by all means a bad thing.

 

[Sallow]

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?



You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Complete diversion.

I will ask again....

If the police came due to a call of an apparent break in at the premises...and a man answered the door and claimed to be the nome owner...and the police said "opk, sorry to bother you" and left wiothout checking ID..

And the next day, the professor was found dead and it was revealed that the man who claimed to be the homeowner was, actually, an intruder who had the professor tied up and gagged at the time...

Would you say the police acted stupidly by not asking for ID when the intruder claimed to be the homeonwner?

Why do you keep deiverting from the question?:

Bear in mind.....the scenario I described above is a scenario the police are trained to CONSIDER....."impersoinating" is what many criminals will do when caugfht in the act......

So answer me....what would have been more stupid...asking foir id....or not asking for id?

SwallowTroll cannot answer that one... He is too busy thinking how to turn the play on words on his username back at someone...

No need DiamondFagBoi.

I know exactly what you are asking for..

Answer is no.

 

[Jarhead]

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?



You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Police responded to a disturbance at the property. It was a reasonable search. This is a long standing understanding of the amendment. Actually it would have been preferential treatment had they not checked and also potentially unsafe for the professor.

No it's not.

Professor Gates was on his property.

What part of the amendment aren't you getting?

How did they know it was Professor Gates? Becuase he said so?

Or are you going to divert from that basic question as well?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Except that's not true.

But FOX won't tell ya that.

Point out budgets during Obama - Conservatives call Obama a socialist.

Point out budgets during Bush - Conservatives say they never approved of Bush because he wasn't a true conservative.

Point out budgets during Clinton - Conservatives say that the President doesn't create the budget, Congress gets the credit.

Point out budgets during Reagan - Conservatives are too busy drooling over their Dear Leader to notice anything other than the tingling in their genitals.

 

[Sallow]

I offered you a response and an honest debater would have offered a response to it.

you simply repeated what you originally said.

Please respond to my response.....dont just say "I am right"...which is all you did.

Would you say the police acted stupidly if they did not ask for ID and left...and the professor was murdered by the man who claimed to be him? Imagine it....thge police are called...they arrive...the man at the door saiud he was the homeonwer...the police left without asking for proof...and the professor is mnurdered by the intruders...

That would have been the police acting "smartly"?

And I did not say that the rich did not need to pay more....you eliminated the most impoortant word....divisive.......I said Obama presented it in a divisive way...he could have presented it in the way I demonstrated......

So he IS, in my eyes divisive in his approach.

So now....respond with substance....

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Complete diversion.

I will ask again....

If the police came due to a call of an apparent break in at the premises...and a man answered the door and claimed to be the nome owner...and the police said "opk, sorry to bother you" and left wiothout checking ID..

And the next day, the professor was found dead and it was revealed that the man who claimed to be the homeowner was, actually, an intruder who had the professor tied up and gagged at the time...

Would you say the police acted stupidly by not asking for ID when the intruder claimed to be the homeonwner?

Why do you keep deiverting from the question?:

Bear in mind.....the scenario I described above is a scenario the police are trained to CONSIDER....."impersoinating" is what many criminals will do when caugfht in the act......

So answer me....what would have been more stupid...asking foir id....or not asking for id?

He was on his property.

Simple as that.

There is nothing in the Constitution, by the way, that requires that you identify yourself to agents of the government. Or even carry papers.

You guys are something else.

At best..the police could ask Gates what he was doing..and if he would be well within his constitutional rights to say "I own this place asshole, **** off".

Then..the police would be required to get a warrant.

That's not what happened.

 

[Sallow]

Police responded to a disturbance at the property. It was a reasonable search. This is a long standing understanding of the amendment. Actually it would have been preferential treatment had they not checked and also potentially unsafe for the professor.

No it's not.

Professor Gates was on his property.

What part of the amendment aren't you getting?

How did they know it was Professor Gates? Becuase he said so?

Or are you going to divert from that basic question as well?

He didn't even have to say so..

 

[thanatos144]

Well the Paulbots should love Hagel....Another reason why he isnt qualified.

 

[Jarhead]

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?



You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Complete diversion.

I will ask again....

If the police came due to a call of an apparent break in at the premises...and a man answered the door and claimed to be the nome owner...and the police said "opk, sorry to bother you" and left wiothout checking ID..

And the next day, the professor was found dead and it was revealed that the man who claimed to be the homeowner was, actually, an intruder who had the professor tied up and gagged at the time...

Would you say the police acted stupidly by not asking for ID when the intruder claimed to be the homeonwner?

Why do you keep deiverting from the question?:

Bear in mind.....the scenario I described above is a scenario the police are trained to CONSIDER....."impersoinating" is what many criminals will do when caugfht in the act......

So answer me....what would have been more stupid...asking foir id....or not asking for id?

He was on his property.

Simple as that.

There is nothing in the Constitution, by the way, that requires that you identify yourself to agents of the government. Or even carry papers.

You guys are something else.

At best..the police could ask Gates what he was doing..and if he would be well within his constitutional rights to say "I own this place asshole, **** off".

Then..the police would be required to get a warrant.

That's not what happened.

You are wrong.

Way off.

They did not ask to search his home. They asked him for ID. When a cop asks for ID he is not searching anything...he is asking foir identification to prove you are who you claim you are...IF the cop has reasonable cause to believe you may not be who you say you are.

Now....a NEXT DOOR neighbor claimed to see 2 men climb through the window. The neighbor did not say it looked like the homowner.

SO when the cops arrived and asked for ID they had reasonable cause to ask for such ID...and he is required to show itr to them.

End of conversation.

 

[Jarhead]

No it's not.

Professor Gates was on his property.

What part of the amendment aren't you getting?

How did they know it was Professor Gates? Becuase he said so?

Or are you going to divert from that basic question as well?

He didn't even have to say so..

So when you are driving a car that was reported as stolen...and a cop stops you...and asks for registration to prove ownership...he would need a warrant to do so?

You are debating like a child. What a waste of my time.

 

[DiamondDave]

Complete diversion.

I will ask again....

If the police came due to a call of an apparent break in at the premises...and a man answered the door and claimed to be the nome owner...and the police said "opk, sorry to bother you" and left wiothout checking ID..

And the next day, the professor was found dead and it was revealed that the man who claimed to be the homeowner was, actually, an intruder who had the professor tied up and gagged at the time...

Would you say the police acted stupidly by not asking for ID when the intruder claimed to be the homeonwner?

Why do you keep deiverting from the question?:

Bear in mind.....the scenario I described above is a scenario the police are trained to CONSIDER....."impersoinating" is what many criminals will do when caugfht in the act......

So answer me....what would have been more stupid...asking foir id....or not asking for id?

He was on his property.

Simple as that.

There is nothing in the Constitution, by the way, that requires that you identify yourself to agents of the government. Or even carry papers.

You guys are something else.

At best..the police could ask Gates what he was doing..and if he would be well within his constitutional rights to say "I own this place asshole, **** off".

Then..the police would be required to get a warrant.

That's not what happened.

You are wrong.

Way off.

They did not ask to search his home. They asked him for ID. When a cop asks for ID he is not searching anything...he is asking foir identification to prove you are who you claim you are...IF the cop has reasonable cause to believe you may not be who you say you are.

Now....a NEXT DOOR neighbor claimed to see 2 men climb through the window. The neighbor did not say it looked like the homowner.

SO when the cops arrived and asked for ID they had reasonable cause to ask for such ID...and he is required to show itr to them.

End of conversation.

ShallowThought will not cave, as the reality is against his preconceived idea....

 

[DiamondDave]

No it's not.

Professor Gates was on his property.

What part of the amendment aren't you getting?

How did they know it was Professor Gates? Becuase he said so?

Or are you going to divert from that basic question as well?

He didn't even have to say so..

Absolutely wrong

 

[Jarhead]

Curious Sallow...

If your car was stolen...and you reported it....and the cops found the car and the man driving it said "I am Sallow, the one who reported the stolen car. My mom used it and I didnt realize it"...and they didnt ask the driver for ID, and let him drive away...and the driver was, in fact, the one who stole it...

Would you say the police acted properly and within the constitutional rights of the theif?

 

[Jarhead]

How did they know it was Professor Gates? Becuase he said so?

Or are you going to divert from that basic question as well?

He didn't even have to say so..

Absolutely wrong

Yes. Wrong.
Sallow does not understand the difference beteween the need for a search warrant and the right for the police to ask for ID at the scene of a reported possible crime.

"Officer, I am the bank manager. I am here after houirs to complete some paper work"
"I am sorry to have bothered you sir. Dont forget to lock the doors when you leave"

Sure...that would go over well.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What GOP President has ever nominated a Democrat to a position similar to Secretary of Defense?

Similar?

How's Vice-President?


Republican Abraham Lincoln's vice-president was Democrat Andrew Johnson.

I don't think that Lincoln picks are a very good example. At the time, the Republican party was still in a formational stage, developing from it's primordial ooze, being a breakaway from the Democratic party during a transitory phase in American politics.

 

[saveliberty]

What honest debate?

You ever read the Constitution?



You think that doesn't apply to prominent members of Academia?

Police responded to a disturbance at the property. It was a reasonable search. This is a long standing understanding of the amendment. Actually it would have been preferential treatment had they not checked and also potentially unsafe for the professor.

No it's not.

Professor Gates was on his property.

What part of the amendment aren't you getting?

I understand it the way the US Supreme Court and most district attorneys understand it. What is your malfunction?

 

[Inthemiddle]

All we have to know is that Hagel is Anti-Zionist.

You say that as if it's a bad thing....

For someone who will be involved in international military decisions and representation?

Yep....it is by all means a bad thing.

Translation: You disagree with it, therefore it HAS to be bad.

 

[Dutch]

What GOP President has ever nominated a Democrat to a position similar to Secretary of Defense?

Who cares?...We oppose Hagel based on his positions, not his party plus he's not qulified..Which doesn't matter much to liberals since Obama's not quilified to be president

You oppose Hagel because you are told to oppose Hagel. Just like you guys hated Romney, then loved him. BAAAA! BAAAA!

 

[saveliberty]

I do see a problem with the combination of Obama, Kerry and Hagel. It does send a very passive view by the US going forward. Muslim extremists view that as weakness and attacks might be stepped up.

 

[Jarhead]

You say that as if it's a bad thing....

For someone who will be involved in international military decisions and representation?

Yep....it is by all means a bad thing.

Translation: You disagree with it, therefore it HAS to be bad.

I offered my opinion. I am one on here who always makes it clear that I repsect the oipinion of others when they back it up with reasons as to why they have that opinion.

In this case, I offered my reason as to why I see it as a bad thing. A person with his sentiments about an ally in a region that is extremely volatile and where we have a strong military presence can offer no advantage; but most certainly can offer a disadvantage if that ally feels that the military does not have their back.

Your response does not apply to me.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I do see a problem with the combination of Obama, Kerry and Hagel. It does send a very passive view by the US going forward. Muslim extremists view that as weakness and attacks might be stepped up.

Curly, Larry & Moe indeed.