Comments on: Proposed law: Strip citizenship, then kill them

By: eve

eve — Tue, 11 May 2010 04:57:17 +0000

How can Joe Lieberman propose a bill that would strip American citizens of their rights when he himself holds “dual-citizenship” with a foreign country?
How much does his American citizenship mean to him?

By: Jeffery Haas

Jeffery Haas — Sun, 09 May 2010 16:50:37 +0000

A special law JUST for Al-Qaeda?
I was under the impression that treason and sedition already addressed this.

By: b mcclellan

b mcclellan — Sun, 09 May 2010 02:08:57 +0000

I’ve one question,
my country tis of thee,

Wherein lies the argument ?

What Al said in spades..

By: Almandine

Almandine — Sat, 08 May 2010 12:46:28 +0000

Agenda? Read Ross Wolf above.

By: bmclellan

bmclellan — Sat, 08 May 2010 12:27:00 +0000

Yep, can’t convict the ones guilty of of the very act, if they make the law.

By: Almandine

Almandine — Sat, 08 May 2010 12:07:39 +0000

What I find ludicrous, and the basis of my comment is your internally-inconsistent, diametrically-opposed, rhetoric, i.e, the lawyering up of your positions. Or as my attorney once told the opposition… “you don’t have to explain it to me, cause we were both trained to take either side of this argument.”

In this case I’ll harken to your posts on immigration over the last few days or so, where the rule of law was anathema to reason, insofar as your opinion was concerned, and then here we are – you throwing legalities as if they were your raison d’etre.

That shows me mere process, not substance… mere argument for argument’s sake… which I alluded to in my first post above, which was both in agreement with your position in this thread and a continuation of my position against your statutes-be-damned mob rule attitude regarding illegal immigration in another thread.

As for traitors, Carl’s not the only one with that opinion of Lieberman and Clinton… and, in fact, it would seem that since you take the constitutional argument you have here, in opposition to the proposal made and endorsed by those very two (sworn to uphold it) , you would have essentially the same attitude about them yourself, perhaps leaving “certified” aside.

It’s hard to find the substance in arguments that shape shift so fast.

By: Carl Nemo

Carl Nemo — Sat, 08 May 2010 03:18:26 +0000

Yo G-lawyer,

I meant to compliment on your fine “cut and paste” job concerning the 14th Amendment along with your j-lawyerly analysis…NOT! / : |

The bruthas are waitin’ for you down in the yard. They be lookin’ for some axion.. : D

Nemo **==

By: Carl Nemo

Carl Nemo — Sat, 08 May 2010 03:10:33 +0000

Oy vey…! )

Nemo **==

By: Guardhouse lawyer

Guardhouse lawyer — Sat, 08 May 2010 02:36:26 +0000

Oh, my. Another one. without substance? spew some more3.

When it comes to lack of substance and spewing, I cannot hold a candle to you and your ilk.

I posted a reasoned, researched, and referenced post and what I got back was crap about certified traitors?

It would be funny if it were not so ludicrous.

By: Guardhouse lawyer

Guardhouse lawyer — Sat, 08 May 2010 02:32:58 +0000

There you go again. I ask a question and all you can do is belittle the questioner. Because you cannot answer the question, perhaps?

OH! OH! He asked me for proof. I must call him a pain in the ASS. That will make people think I just choose not to answer him when I really cannot. Personal attacks make up for spouting bulls–t.

But I can make people overlook the BS. Just scream and call names.

Sheesh.