no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> The US constitution says Americans have to abide
> by international law even if it threatens our
> soverignty?
>
> are you for real??
>
> what international law say that a country has to
> let everyone in without registering or becoming a
> citizen?
>
>
>
>
> liberal moron.


International law - which our Senate and President agreed to follow by ratifying our treaties - says we have to recognize certain rights, regardless of whether a person is a citizen of this country or not.

There is no law saying that you have to let everyone into the country. There are laws, though, about providing due process to people, whether or not they are citizens.

FYI - I'm not a "liberal." Personally, I would vote for John McCain if he got the Republican nomination, which he won't. (And no, I didn't like his position on immigration, but I think he has it right when it comes to dealing with Al Qaeda).

I don't like illegal immigration either. But that shouldn't provide an excuse for normally intelligent people to act like members of the Klan simply because you stick the word "illegal" in front of "immigrant."

You people are way to confusing to me.

First, International Law is one thing abd Treaties are another. If the Federal Government signs a treaty, it is bound by the terms of that agreement.

The US is free to disobey "international law" if we so choose. And under our current administration, it is disobeyed nearly every day. Our current leaders just make sure Hague is not in their travel plans.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, having the name of the actual case might
> help. If you feel so confident about it, let's see
> the actual case so we can decide if it applies in
> this instance.

What is this? Mr. Coleman's 9th grade math class, where I am required to show my work? You never provided any citations or backup when you declared it was unconstitutional.

I'll make a deal with you though, I will back up my assertion, and you back up your assertions of unconstitutionality and we'll see where the chips lie. Deal?

The case was Muehler v. Mena (2005). Here is a link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1423.pdf

Still think a legally detained person is not allowed to be asked about his or her immigration status under the U.S. Constitution?

People like you and Fairfax MF---er should be more careful when they say "blatantly unconstitutional." It is far from "blatantly unconstitutional" and probably closer to "blatantly constitutional."

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last time I was arrested, the officers questioned
> me about the Lindberg baby, D B Coopers money, and
> that situation in Canada I would rather not have
> to explain, again
>
> Officers can question about whatever they want
> during a detention. I fail to see your point.

You seriously don't see the point. What grade are you in?

I will go slow so that you can see the point.

WashingToneLocian and Fairfax MF---er were claiming that the Prince William County Ordinance dealing will illegal immigrants was blatently unconstitutional.

The ordinance states that incident to any lawful detention for a violation of a state law or county ordinance, police officers shall inquire into the immigration status of the detained person is there is probable cause to believe the detained person is in violation of federal immigration law and when such inquiry will not expand the duration of the detention.

Now, do you get the point. In case you missed it, the point is that the United States Supreme Court has already found these types of inquiries constitutional. So, it directly rebuts WashingToneLocian's and Fairfax MF---er's claims the ordinance is unconstitutional.

MG3151980 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The ordinance states that incident to any lawful
> detention for a violation of a state law or county
> ordinance, police officers shall inquire into the
> immigration status of the detained person is there
> is probable cause to believe the detained person
> is in violation of federal immigration law and
> when such inquiry will not expand the duration of
> the detention.
>
> Now, do you get the point. In case you missed it,
> the point is that the United States Supreme Court
> has already found these types of inquiries
> constitutional. So, it directly rebuts
> WashingToneLocian's and Fairfax MF---er's claims
> the ordinance is unconstitutional.


I keep hearing about this Supreme Court decision, but nobody seems to be able to point out the case. Point out the case. If not, quit bringing it up.

The problem with the ordinance is "probable cause." What is probable cause? Being Hispanic? So if you are a Hispanic guy - even if you are a citizen - you have to prove you are here legally. How? Driver's License? Social Security number? Birth certificate? Most illegals have those and many citizens don't. What if the illegal immigrant is from Canada? Or from Russia? Or from South Africa? If their English is good enough, will they be asked to prove their citizenship?

That's where you get into the whole equal protection thing. It sounds good on paper, but the application makes it unconstitutional.

Sorry. I hadn't seen the link to Muehler v. Mena (2005). She was asked about her immigration status because she was associated with a gang tied to the illegal immigrant community. Technically, Prince William county doesn't even need an ordinance to do this kind of questioning of suspects and should be doing it already. The problem with the new ordinance is that it gives police the leeway to ask anyone if they are an illegal immigrant based on "probable cause" not linked to the specific crime at hand. That is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Radiophile tear down that wall

LOL!

---

slimey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No need for "racial profiling" here. White people
> too should be questioned about
> their residency if their is sufficient reason.

fucking canadians are invading! xD

---

this argument is so old. can we just kill everyone and get it over with?

Quote
predictable dumbass
no, but we can kill you

"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry. I hadn't seen the link to Muehler v. Mena
> (2005). She was asked about her immigration status
> because she was associated with a gang tied to the
> illegal immigrant community. Technically, Prince
> William county doesn't even need an ordinance to
> do this kind of questioning of suspects and should
> be doing it already. The problem with the new
> ordinance is that it gives police the leeway to
> ask anyone if they are an illegal immigrant based
> on "probable cause" not linked to the specific
> crime at hand. That is a violation of the 4th
> Amendment.

The Supreme Court Ruled that officers do not need probable cause when asking a detained person about their immigration status.

Specifically, the court stated: "The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena's Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F. 3d, at 1264-1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage." Bostick, supra, at 434-435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status."

If the officers did not need "reasonable suspicion," they certainly did not need "probable cause." The Supreme Court did not say that because Mena was associated with illegal gangs, it made it OK. they said it was OK in any lawful detention.


Please re-read the case and then compare it to the ordinance in Prince William County located here: http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/006881.pdf . It appears to be in step with the Mena decision. According to the aforementioned case, probable cause is immaterial during a lawful detention when asking about status, I think it is an extra shred of protection put in because of an abundance of caution to ensure it withstands a constitutional challenge. I would also urge you to look at the 287(g) programs mentioned by Flarefax earlier.

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The difference between the Democrats and the
> > Republicans is that the Democrats aren't out
> their
> > touting unenforceable "laws" like the
> Republicans
> > are.
>
> The Democrats are out there doing NOTHING. Or,
> conversely, many are promoting policies of amnesty
> and sanctuary.
>
Have you been paying attention during the last few years? We've had a republican majority, and the problem hasn't been solved. There are some democrats that are trying to do something about the problem, but the republicans are only saying they will get rid of illegals to win votes when they know they will not be able to do so.

>
> fucking canadians are invading! xD
>
>

I agree, From the Mclaughlin Group May 19th....

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, I do think that there is a tremendous expansion of the security of -- the border security to the south. The one thing we haven't protected, of course, is against Canadians. I'm a Canadian, which --

Mort got it right! Secure the Canadian Border!!!!!

MG3151980,

I just finished reading the case and you are dead on. I hadn't read it or known of it prior to today. Excellent citation. I seriously doubt, however, that you will get Fairfax MF---er stop misrepresenting or relying on his warped interpretation of facts.

MG3151980 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

>
> If the officers did not need "reasonable
> suspicion," they certainly did not need "probable
> cause."


It's in the F-ING ORDINANCE!!!! You keep talking about the ordinance. Have you read it and/or do you understand it???

As I said before, what you are claiming the authorities can do is already legal under current law. The ordinance is much broader than the Supreme Court ruling. It also covers denial of services, etc.

The problem comes down to "probable cause." What is that "probable cause?" A person is brown? A person speaks Spanish? If that is probable cause, you will start to cross into the equal protection area because there are plenty of illegals who speak perfectly decent English and plenty of Hispanic people who are legally here or who are citizens who may not be able to prove it easily. The ordinance itself is the problem.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's in the F-ING ORDINANCE!!!! You keep talking
> about the ordinance. Have you read it and/or do
> you understand it???
>
> As I said before, what you are claiming the
> authorities can do is already legal under current
> law. The ordinance is much broader than the
> Supreme Court ruling. It also covers denial of
> services, etc.
>
> The problem comes down to "probable cause." What
> is that "probable cause?" A person is brown? A
> person speaks Spanish? If that is probable cause,
> you will start to cross into the equal protection
> area because there are plenty of illegals who
> speak perfectly decent English and plenty of
> Hispanic people who are legally here or who are
> citizens who may not be able to prove it easily.
> The ordinance itself is the problem.


This is why we need to make English the official language of the United States of America. ¿No habla ud. inglés? ¡Papeles, por favor!

Just kidding, actually.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MG3151980 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > If the officers did not need "reasonable
> > suspicion," they certainly did not need
> "probable
> > cause."
>
>
> It's in the F-ING ORDINANCE!!!! You keep talking
> about the ordinance. Have you read it and/or do
> you understand it???
>
> As I said before, what you are claiming the
> authorities can do is already legal under current
> law. The ordinance is much broader than the
> Supreme Court ruling. It also covers denial of
> services, etc.
>
> The problem comes down to "probable cause." What
> is that "probable cause?" A person is brown? A
> person speaks Spanish? If that is probable cause,
> you will start to cross into the equal protection
> area because there are plenty of illegals who
> speak perfectly decent English and plenty of
> Hispanic people who are legally here or who are
> citizens who may not be able to prove it easily.
> The ordinance itself is the problem.

The problem DOESN'T COME DOWN TO PROBABLE CAUSE! Read the frigging case. When someone is legally detained, you do not need probable cause to ask them their status. I have read the ordinance. You seem to think that just because there is a section asking the police chief to come up with what probable cause is that it is unconstitutional. I am telling you that section was probably done in order to be overly cautious. Under the current law, you don't need that section. I assume all of the the jurisdictions who have been doing this for 10 years is doing so unconstitutionally as well?

For the record, I am not going to reiterate this again -- "[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual." Do you understand this? Probable cause is immaterial!!!!!!

Flarefax,
I am beginning to see the frustrations you endured dealing with some of these morons.

What great illegal immigration do we have? I personally think this is an over-hyped "problem" designed to distract people from the horrible ituation the Republican Party has created over the Iraq War.....the loss of civil liberties and the presidential power play over Commander In Chief oversight (or lack thereof) by the Congress.

Everyone cries how much of their tax dollars are spent on illegals....well guys and gals, if you think it's so great to be an illegal taking advantage of our generoscity...You are a fool! Immigrants le\gal and illegal generate more wealth then they ever drian from our pockets! The vast majority are hard working people..the violent ones should be expelled. But they should not fear to approach our law enforcement officials - go to our hospitals..our schools.

Prince William County Republican politicians should be asahmed of the environment of hate and distrust they are creating. The rest of you should just take a pill...relax and treat decent people decently!

MG3151980 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The problem DOESN'T COME DOWN TO PROBABLE CAUSE!
> Read the frigging case. When someone is legally
> detained, you do not need probable cause to ask
> them their status. I have read the ordinance.
> You seem to think that just because there is a
> section asking the police chief to come up with
> what probable cause is that it is
> unconstitutional. I am telling you that section
> was probably done in order to be overly cautious.
> Under the current law, you don't need that
> section. I assume all of the the jurisdictions
> who have been doing this for 10 years is doing so
> unconstitutionally as well?
>
> For the record, I am not going to reiterate this
> again -- "ven when officers have no basis for
> suspecting a particular individual, they may
> generally ask questions of that individual." Do
> you understand this? Probable cause is
> immaterial!!!!!!
>


"Probable cause" IS the issue because it IS in the language of the ordinance. Race and language are not "probable cause." Yet, that is what this will be administered under.

As I mentioned in my previous post, and in agreement with what you are saying, you DON'T need this ordinance at all. But codifying something that will lead to discrimination is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If the commissioners in Prince William County weren't trying to play politics with this issue and cost the county an ass-load of legal costs they would simply ask the police to do this if they weren't already.

I'm all for securing the borders (not!). Why don't we get some ex-Soviets wall builders over here, I hate to outsource this job to them, but that Berlin wall seemed to work pretty well, until freedom broke out. The wall could be based on that design. It should be 2 walls separated by a mine field. And we should have sentry towers with a clear range of fire every x number of yards, enough to guarantee a pretty effective kill zone. But if we're talking about border security, because of terrorists, then common sense tells me one wall along Mexico isn't going to do the job. We've got this other border up north with Canada. I mean any self-respecting terrorist who is worth being afraid of is not going to let a wall with Mexico stop him, and he's probably not going to let a wall with Canada stop him either. And then we'll have to mine every beach in America, every river landing, etc. And that probably won't stop him. Damn magic carpets! Trust me when I tell you if a bunch of Cubans or Haitians can come aground on our soil by boat, any of them terrorists can do it too. Mining the beaches,in Miami and the entire Gulf Coast, that means we'd have to start paying for topless entertainment, I am not down for that at all.

Conclusion: If you think that a wall with Mexico will protect you from terrorists, then I'd just like to remind you that Maginot (Google it.) and Mexico rhyme.

Expelling all the illegals is probably not going to solve any of the economic problems that the Mexicans are causing. Outsourcing jobs to China and India, high gas and electricity prices, high insurance rates, higher home prices in some areas a depressed real estate market in others, for hiding Saddam's chemical weapons and messing up the reconstruction of Iraq and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Put 2 and 2 together (cuatro.) America, illigals from Mexico are the least of our problems...stop whining...GET OVER IT!

Bring on the next pseudo-issue destroying America. I'm hoping it's cell phones...I hate cell phones!

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have found that anybody who has to wear their
> education/experience on their sleeve the way
> Flarefax does is usually an utter failure at their
> chosen profession. People who are successful don't
> need to drag out their education/experience to
> feel good about themselves.

What do you call someone who ridicules the education of people who are successful in their chosen field, the way you did with Hannity, Limbaugh and Boortz?

I would say, maybe jealous, you friggen hypocrite. You wish you had any amount of success in your life! You define success by how many posts you can put up on Fairfax Underground!

Hannatized Wrote:

>
> What do you call someone who ridicules the
> education of people who are successful in their
> chosen field, the way you did with Hannity,
> Limbaugh and Boortz?
>
> I would say, maybe jealous, you friggen hypocrite.
> You wish you had any amount of success in your
> life! You define success by how many posts you
> can put up on Fairfax Underground!


No. I define success by how many morons like you get their panties in a wad over my posts. Heh.

Of course, I could be like you and post under....

MG3151980
Flarefax
no longer a dem

...in an effort to show that more than one person thinks the way that I do. What other names are you using?

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. I define success by how many morons like you
> get their panties in a wad over my posts. Heh.
>
> Of course, I could be like you and post under....
>
> MG3151980
> Flarefax
> no longer a dem
>
> ...in an effort to show that more than one person
> thinks the way that I do. What other names are you
> using?

Please don't lump me in with WMAL listeners. There is not an independent thought amongst them.

What a shame that the original inhabitants of North America didn't have a stronger anti-immigration policy, although I'm not sure that they would have built a fence to keep others out. Had they slaughtered all of the Europeans who set foot on the continent, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

Democrats win, Virginia is now Democratic. Finally we can get Virginia back on track and stop having these bleeding heart religious Republicans feeding their pockets.

Amen Brother! Its a little thing...but as an act of protest I scribble the "God" in "In God We Trust"...on all my paper currency....spread the word. god is dead!

NovaGal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a shame that the original inhabitants of
> North America didn't have a stronger
> anti-immigration policy, although I'm not sure
> that they would have built a fence to keep others
> out. Had they slaughtered all of the Europeans
> who set foot on the continent, we wouldn't be
> having this discussion now.


It wasn't for lack of effort. In fact some studies state that Native Americans were actually more culpable in committing atrocities. Native Americans committed roughly 9,000 atrocites compared to 7,000 by Europeans. What really wiped them out was a lack of resistence to disease. Ironically, it is disease that may very well be the biggest problems associated with illegal immigrants today. They have been known to bring tuberculosis, hepatitis, dengue fever, chagas, and even leprosy. The tuberculosis strains they are bringing with them are resistent to drugs used to treat them. In the 40 years prior to 2005 there were 400 known cases of leprosy - Today there are over 7000 reported cases. This is all very reassuring knowing that a great many of these illegal immigrants are the ones handling our food and washing our dishes.

Thank you for your input, honey, now go back to the kid's table.

I love the way some folks can read something and completely misinterpret it. Reading comprehension tests must have been a bitch, huh?

NOVAGal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love the way some folks can read something and
> completely misinterpret it. Reading comprehension
> tests must have been a bitch, huh?

And what did I miss in your oh so profound earlier statement? You said "What a shame that the original inhabitants of North America didn't have a stronger anti-immigration policy." They actually did, it was called violence. It just happened they were on the losing end of it and got wiped out because of disease.

Kids table is waiting, honey, and don't forget your juice box. This is grown up talk.

Oh -- grown up talk just like experienced in the school playground -- I see now.

Still no change in attitude -- must be nice to be able to make everything you read match up to your worldview.

Done now.

NOVAGal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh -- grown up talk just like experienced in the
> school playground -- I see now.
>
> Still no change in attitude -- must be nice to be
> able to make everything you read match up to your
> worldview.
>
> Done now.

Not really. In a way ignorance IS bliss. The harsh realities of the world tarnish the polyannic outlook of children. You'll see one day, little one.

Hannatized Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What do you call someone who ridicules the
> education of people who are successful in their
> chosen field, the way you did with Hannity,
> Limbaugh and Boortz?
>


Anyone else wonder why Limbaugh's show doesn't run at drive time, but instead during mid-days when only the unemployed and mentally ill listen? I remember when his TV show was on. It always ran at 1am.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone else wonder why Limbaugh's show doesn't run
> at drive time, but instead during mid-days when
> only the unemployed and mentally ill listen? I
> remember when his TV show was on. It always ran at
> 1am.

FINALLY, I agree with you on something. You also can't leave out the fact that he would probably be too loaded to conduct a show any later in the day.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hannatized Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > What do you call someone who ridicules the
> > education of people who are successful in their
> > chosen field, the way you did with Hannity,
> > Limbaugh and Boortz?
> >
>
>
> Anyone else wonder why Limbaugh's show doesn't run
> at drive time, but instead during mid-days when
> only the unemployed and mentally ill listen? I
> remember when his TV show was on. It always ran at
> 1am.


limbaugh has 20 million listeners a week. why do you think the dems want to censor him?

Limbaugh is nothing more then a drug addict...who pays for his dope by whipping people into a senseless frenzy over things they cannot control.

Talk about what comes around...goes around! I love it!

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> limbaugh has 20 million listeners a week. why do
> you think the dems want to censor him?


Please provide an example of how Dems want to censor him.

Limbaugh may have 20 million listeners, but who are those listeners? Mostly older, uneducated and living near the low end of the income scale. Hardly the audience advertisers are craving.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no longer a dem Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > limbaugh has 20 million listeners a week. why
> do
> > you think the dems want to censor him?
>
>
> Please provide an example of how Dems want to
> censor him.
>
> Limbaugh may have 20 million listeners, but who
> are those listeners? Mostly older, uneducated and
> living near the low end of the income scale.
> Hardly the audience advertisers are craving.


WRONG AGAIN!

From the Pew Research Center:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1068

Judged by their answers to three news knowledge questions, the most informed audiences belong to the political magazines, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the O'Reilly Factor, news magazines, and online news sources. Close behind are the regular audiences for NPR and the Daily Show.

Audiences with the highest educational achievement, by far, are the literary magazines and online news outlets. Readers of news magazines, political magazines and business magazines, listeners of Rush Limbaugh and NPR, and viewers of the Daily Show, and C-SPAN also are much more likely than the average person to have a college degree.

NovaGal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a shame that the original inhabitants of
> North America didn't have a stronger
> anti-immigration policy, although I'm not sure
> that they would have built a fence to keep others
> out. Had they slaughtered all of the Europeans
> who set foot on the continent, we wouldn't be
> having this discussion now.

They wouldn't even have had to slaughter us...they could have just not helped the first settlements survive the first winter. They damned near didn't as it was.

Native Americans could have prevented us from establishing a beach head for at least a couple hundred years. By the late 1800's and Little Big Horn and all that...it was way too late.

Well put.

proof...


they tried to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, which would shut down conservative talk raido.




they tried to censor Rush Limbaugh on a phoney, phoney soldier debacle which backfired


as far as your opinion of rush limbaughs listeners, seems as though you've manipulated by liberal dems into adopting the opinion they want YOU to have.

In my opinion, anyone who believes what the dems tell you to believe without checking it out yourself is weak minded

Never was a Dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Audiences with the highest educational
> achievement, by far, are the literary magazines
> and online news outlets. Readers of news
> magazines, political magazines and business
> magazines, listeners of Rush Limbaugh and NPR, and
> viewers of the Daily Show, and C-SPAN also are
> much more likely than the average person to have a
> college degree.

Sorry to tell you, but a completion certificate from the Food Service Academy isn't a "college degree." Too bad the people who filled out the questionnaire were too stupid to know that.

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> In my opinion, anyone who believes what the dems
> tell you to believe without checking it out
> yourself is weak minded


Hate to tell you, but not checking out what either Dems OR Republicans have to say makes you weak minded. That's the problem with Republicans like you. You NEVER question what people like Hannity and Limbaugh are feeding you. I question what pundits from both sides tell me all of the time.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no longer a dem Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > In my opinion, anyone who believes what the
> dems
> > tell you to believe without checking it out
> > yourself is weak minded
>
>
> Hate to tell you, but not checking out what either
> Dems OR Republicans have to say makes you weak
> minded. That's the problem with Republicans like
> you. You NEVER question what people like Hannity
> and Limbaugh are feeding you. I question what
> pundits from both sides tell me all of the time.


you are the one quoting liberal nonsense.


I posted actual facts, not some information someone told me to think.. like you did.

I'm not a republican.. never have been, I am now a independent.

you are just a gullible fool

W_____________H!!!!



Umm, Pat. I'd like to buy a vowel.



"A"



Wow! There's 9 A's in the puzzle. Care to solve? LOL.

Here's some facts...
>
>
> they tried to bring back the Fairness Doctrine,
> which would shut down conservative talk raido.
>
Talking about the Fairness Doctrine isn't the same as "brining it back." Where is the bill? There isn't one.

>
>
> they tried to censor Rush Limbaugh on a phoney,
> phoney soldier debacle which backfired
>

Some Dems condemned him and asked for an apology. As far as I can tell, they never utilized the FCC, DOJ or other government body to try to "censor" him.
>
> as far as your opinion of rush limbaughs
> listeners, seems as though you've manipulated by
> liberal dems into adopting the opinion they want
> YOU to have.
>
I've personally known a lot of Limbaugh listeners. They are ALL stupid like you. My mistake was using "uneducated" instead of "unintelligent." There are plenty of people with college degrees who are complete morons. Our President is a good example of that fact.

> In my opinion, anyone who believes what the dems
> tell you to believe without checking it out
> yourself is weak minded

Unlike you, I question what I hear - from EVERYONE.

Hi. This is Allison Starling here to report that somebody just got OWNED. More news at 11.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's some facts...
> >
> >
> > they tried to bring back the Fairness Doctrine,
> > which would shut down conservative talk raido.
> >
> Talking about the Fairness Doctrine isn't the same
> as "brining it back." Where is the bill? There
> isn't one.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Tuesday that the government should revive the Fairness Doctrine, a policy crafted in 1929 that required broadcasters to balance political content with different points of view.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” he said.

Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic Party’s 2004 presidential nominee, also said recently that the Fairness Doctrine should return.

Maurice Hinchey introduced legislation last Congress to reinstitute the so-called Fairness doctrine. He is still in office and will likely reintroduce it.

It is refreshing however that you are starting to care about facts, now if you could just get them right. Something you failed to do regarding school funding and Congress "slashing" Border Patrol, etc.

Hi. It's Allison Starling again and our top investigative research team just revealed that Flairfax is a douche.

Ahmed Samir, constitutional law professor of GWU, had this to say, "Clearly, Flairfax missed out on the ABCs of law. His utter refusal to stick his head in the sand and focus on his so-called career leads me to believe that he is a troll, and nothing but a troll. His lack of personality is evident by his humorless fact-checking abilities. If only he would seek help for his mental illness achieved in semi-retirement, then there would be hope that his overly broad usage of fact checking would be supplemented by at least a smidgen of comedic banter; something that really makes this message board thrive. Perhaps he would be better off in a political or legal-based forum, unless ofcourse, he was previously booted for his fact checking usage. The only legal term I can think of that would describe his actions is, res ipsa loquitor douchery."

Prof. Samir is the ranking authority on calling-out of legal douchery and has testified as an expert witness in this subject matter in over 100 trials and arbitrations. Renee, back you in the studio.