Death is too good for this monster

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yeah, I did think of that. It's possible, but there is no reason to assume it. Further, I am not so sure being unrepentant is the best way to protect the SO from litigation.



It's a year old and there still nothing to establish that they intend to change their policy.

Nothing has come of it? I assume you mean a lawsuit? There was no physical injury. She is an illegal immigrant, so that would seriously hurt any case she might bring and I don't know if she has any standing to sue. Does not make what happened right.

of course there is a reason to assume it....you even considered it....thus, it is a possibility and a rational assumption

of course she has standing to sue...but apparently there is nothing illegal or tortious about what happened....not even a civil rights violation....yet watermark wants to kill this guy

 

[Timshel]

I charge a fee, to provide an education to the uninformed, and reading your osts, I would have to charge you an awful lot.

Uh-huh and I am happy to inform you of reality for nothing. But don't call me an altruist.

There is very little I am uninformed about. On this subject I am certain.

No real response again. This goes for your other post too. Simply saying I am wrong is not a counter argument. Maybe for some of you Dumbfucks, but in the real world it is worthless. Tell me where I am wrong. I have admitted error before so if you can show me again, I will be happy to amend my views.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Arpaio needs to be arrested and spend the rest of his life in prison. It is a shame to all Americans that subhuman thugs like this walk free. Justice needs to be done.

 

[Timshel]

of course there is a reason to assume it....you even considered it....thus, it is a possibility and a rational assumption

I considered it, makes it a rational assumption. Thanks, but no. Like you said it's been a year and no lawsuit has been filed. Time to correct the error.

If I fuck up on my job, and I have peoples lives hanging in the balance, I admit it. I look to correct my error and limit the harm. Apparently, you think we should entrust incredible power to those who have a CYA attitude.

of course she has standing to sue...but apparently there is nothing illegal or tortious about what happened....not even a civil rights violation....

Not a lawyer, I don't know if she has a case. Again, whether she does or not, does not make what happened right.

I thought you had initially came out against the policy. If you think it is cool to lock up a birthing mother and separate her from her child, then we have a different argument.

yet watermark wants to kill this guy

Watermark likes hyberpole. I don't think he believes that Arpaio actually deserves death for this instance alone or even with his other crimes. I am a little less against the death penalty than Watemark. Arpaio is a serious and serial criminal. Still, I'd only say he deserves life in prison. If i trusted the state, I might say death, but...

 

[Beefy]

If i trusted the state, I might say death, but...

Big government conservatives trust the state to have the only legal power to kill an otherwise incapacitated person.

I don't trust the government so far as they can throw a wrench.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I don't necessarily think that Arpaio needs LWOP, but he's so old he'd probably die in prison if you gave him a couple of years.

 

[Damocles]

I never said anything about Zogby, so your supposition and conjecture is so much hot air.

Hence the "probably" in my post. You really do have a comprehension problem. I read your link, it doesn't say what you want it to say.

Again, do you have a link that Rasmussen was "always" in the positive for Bush? So far you have nada, zero, zip. Your link doesn't say what you pretend it says, you have nothing but silly ad homs and conjecture.

 

[christiefan915]

of course there is a reason to assume it....you even considered it....thus, it is a possibility and a rational assumption

of course she has standing to sue...but apparently there is nothing illegal or tortious about what happened....not even a civil rights violation....yet watermark wants to kill this guy

I can't imagine there's nothing illegal or tortious about this.

If you have kids, ask your wife if she would have minded being shackled during labor.

If you don't have them now but plan to, ask your wife the same question when she's in labor.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I can't imagine there's nothing illegal or tortious about this.

If you have kids, ask your wife if she would have minded being shackled during labor.

If you don't have them now but plan to, ask your wife the same question when she's in labor.

red herring....my wife would mind simply being locked up because she has done nothing illegal....

as i said, i don't support this policy and don't see its need as convicted felons who are serving prison sentences do not require being shackled while giving birth....that said, my opinion doesn't mean it is illegal or tortious...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Hence the "probably" in my post. You really do have a comprehension problem. I read your link, it doesn't say what you want it to say. Typical Damo....when properly challenged, you start BS'ing. The recorded post shows your folly....I'll call you on what you infer, insinuate, allude to, or suggest. You don't like it...don't do it.

Again, do you have a link that Rasmussen was "always" in the positive for Bush? So far you have nada, zero, zip. Your link doesn't say what you pretend it says, you have nothing but silly ad homs and conjecture.

Again, stop BS'ing when you can't weasel out of just being wrong. I gave you a link that can date back to the 8 years of the Shrub and gives a list of ALL the major pollsters....Rasmussen had consistently a higher percentage of favoring the Shrub AGAINST the majority of other polls. .But in the interests of moving this along, I'll just this once do some of your due diligence for you: Check out this rasmuseen report as to the Shrubs last year. See how they word it, then rate it against the other research polls. Then check out a recent question to Pollsters regarding Rasmussen.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...political_updates/president_bush_job_approval

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-bush.php

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Uh-huh and I am happy to inform you of reality for nothing. But don't call me an altruist.

There is very little I am uninformed about. On this subject I am certain.

No real response again. This goes for your other post too. Simply saying I am wrong is not a counter argument. Maybe for some of you Dumbfucks, but in the real world it is worthless. Tell me where I am wrong. I have admitted error before so if you can show me again, I will be happy to amend my views.

You want me to show you where you are in error, when you've shown nothing but your own opinion??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I can't imagine there's nothing illegal or tortious about this.

If you have kids, ask your wife if she would have minded being shackled during labor.

If you don't have them now but plan to, ask your wife the same question when she's in labor.

Is that befoe or after she commits what ever crime it is, that she's going to be locked up for??

 

[christiefan915]

red herring....my wife would mind simply being locked up because she has done nothing illegal....

as i said, i don't support this policy and don't see its need as convicted felons who are serving prison sentences do not require being shackled while giving birth....that said, my opinion doesn't mean it is illegal or tortious...

It's not a red herring. When a woman is in labor, the only thing she wants to escape is the pain. Imagine this piece of equipment going back and forth over your abdomen.

Now I'm not saying there can't be a few of those criminal Xena, Warrior Princess types who might grit their teeth and try to make a run for it. But the possibilities are very, very slim.

 

[Damocles]

Again, stop BS'ing when you can't weasel out of just being wrong. I gave you a link that can date back to the 8 years of the Shrub and gives a list of ALL the major pollsters....Rasmussen had consistently a higher percentage of favoring the Shrub AGAINST the majority of other polls. .But in the interests of moving this along, I'll just this once do some of your due diligence for you: Check out this rasmuseen report as to the Shrubs last year. See how they word it, then rate it against the other research polls. Then check out a recent question to Pollsters regarding Rasmussen.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...political_updates/president_bush_job_approval

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-bush.php

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/

Which again, does not say what you pretend it says.

You said that they 'ALWAYS polled in the POSITIVE' for Bush. The polls you link to from Rasmussen are not 'in the positive' for Bush.

The reality is, you simply were "exaggerating" (read: lying) and have problems simply saying, "I exaggerated, but they polled higher for Bush than others even when he was down..."

I would have then asked for proof of that, and you would have posted polls (like these ones) with different dates, and links (like your middle one in the quote here) that don't even include numbers from Rasmussen, and blogs (like your last one) in the hopes that I wouldn't notice.

I've noticed that particularly about you, you rarely have any evidence, you just hope people don't actually read your links and pretend that you provide evidence. The reality is that Rasmussen didn't poll "always" in the positive for anybody, and reality number two is the fact that they were more accurate in the past two Presidential elections than Gallup and other of your "more favored" polls....

 

[Taichiliberal]

O

riginally Posted by Taichiliberal
Again, stop BS'ing when you can't weasel out of just being wrong. I gave you a link that can date back to the 8 years of the Shrub and gives a list of ALL the major pollsters....Rasmussen had consistently a higher percentage of favoring the Shrub AGAINST the majority of other polls. .But in the interests of moving this along, I'll just this once do some of your due diligence for you: Check out this rasmuseen report as to the Shrubs last year. See how they word it, then rate it against the other research polls. Then check out a recent question to Pollsters regarding Rasmussen.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...h_job_approval

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-bush.php

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/

Which again, does not say what you pretend it says.

You said that they 'ALWAYS polled in the POSITIVE' for Bush. The polls you link to from Rasmussen are not 'in the positive' for Bush. No, I wrote, "Oh yeah, Ramusessen consistently polled in favor of the Shrub & company and every neocon mind fart AGAINST the average of every other valid American pollster group....no big surprise with this latest BS.

The reality is, you simply were "exaggerating" (read: lying) and have problems simply saying, "I exaggerated, but they polled higher for Bush than others even when he was down..." As I've shown above, YOU couldn't even get the quote right, so you look pretty ridiculous in calling me a liar when a simple copy and paste is beyond you. Then to further embarass yourself, your "revision" of what I wrote essentially REACHES THE SAME CONCLUSION. Jeez Damo, are you that ego-centric that YOU have to state something before it's true EVEN THOUGH OTHERS STATE THE SAME THING? Deny it all you want, but the proof is in the recorded posts.
I would have then asked for proof of that, and you would have posted polls (like these ones) with different dates, and links (like your middle one in the quote here) that don't even include numbers from Rasmussen, and blogs (like your last one) in the hopes that I wouldn't notice.

Actually, I gave an example of all the pollsters for a specific time period, then gave Rasmussens AS AN EXAMPLE. You want more, get off your duff and do the research yourself with the guideline (source material) I provided. I also gave an example showing a discussion similar to ours. TFB for you if it doesn't jibe with your preconceived notion. Grow up and stop lying about what others write and what has previously transpired.

I've noticed that particularly about you, you rarely have any evidence, You're a liar....as the previous post here and on any subject shows. you just hope people don't actually read your links and pretend that you provide evidence. Again, you lie...as I've shown here and as previous posts show. You're just pissed because I can disagree with you and effectively debate the issue contrary to your beliefs...and I don't take any condescending BS off of you...and can give it back in spades. The reality is that Rasmussen didn't poll "always" in the positive for anybody, and reality number two is the fact that they were more accurate in the past two Presidential elections than Gallup and other of your "more favored" polls....

Pay attention: Rasmussen calling the elections for the Shrub is consistent with there polling in favor of him and his political agenda....so it's no mental strain for them to call elections in his favor and be right when the Shrub stole into office (yeah, I said "stole", as in dishonest and dubious circumstances)to date YOU haven't provided any proof to support what you say. Do the honest research, and you'll see how from 2000 -2008 Rasmussen was more a Shrub supporter against the average.

 

[Damocles]

O



Pay attention: Rasmussen calling the elections for the Shrub is consistent with there polling in favor of him and his political agenda....so it's no mental strain for them to call elections in his favor and be right when the Shrub stole into office (yeah, I said "stole", as in dishonest and dubious circumstances)to date YOU haven't provided any proof to support what you say. Do the honest research, and you'll see how from 2000 -2008 Rasmussen was more a Shrub supporter against the average.

Pay attention. They were right, and calling the election for GWB when he won was correct, they were also correct when they called the election for Obama in the last election, and their results actually were significantly closer to the actual end result of the election than your "favored" polls.

So far, you have provided evidence that I am correct and links with polls that don't list Rasmussen or show you to be correct. The one link from Rasmussen you provided did not have GWB "in the positive" and was actually evidence that I was correct. Thanks for playing, but this is bowling. Why did you bring golf clubs?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Pay attention. They were right, and calling the election for GWB when he won was correct, they were also correct when they called the election for Obama in the last election, and their results actually were significantly closer to the actual end result of the election than your "favored" polls.

And here we go...you keep repeating a moot point as if it somehow negates what I stated previously. Hint: it doesn't. You keep making all these claims WITHOUT proof. At least I brought something to the table beyond my personal speculation....you haven't on this particular subject to date.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=562357&postcount=95

So far, you have provided evidence that I am correct and links with polls that don't list Rasmussen or show you to be correct. Another lie by you, as the previous posts explains. The one link from Rasmussen you provided did not have GWB "in the positive" and was actually evidence that I was correct. In reality, I gave one link to a SERIES of polls and one link to Ramussen in the same time frame, which proved my point. I also gave a link to a person who's question reflects my points...the answer was very fair and balanced. So once again, you're caught in a lie. Thanks for playing, but this is bowling. Why did you bring golf clubs?

You need to stop staring at the mirror when you type this drivel of yours....it's not all that clever, and also distorts reality for you. Grow up, man...you can be better than this.

 

[Damocles]

You need to stop staring at the mirror when you type this drivel of yours....it's not all that clever, and also distorts reality for you. Grow up, man...you can be better than this.

Your previous post explained nothing. The links do not say what you pretend they do. And better than pointing out the total lack of any actual information that supports your theory of "always in the positive" when you post a poll with Bush at 35% approval from the source you say was "always in the positive" for Bush?

Please. You are like a child caught with his hand in the jar and crumbs on his face trying to tell people you were just counting the cookies.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Your previous post explained nothing. The links do not say what you pretend they do. And better than pointing out the total lack of any actual information that supports your theory of "always in the positive" when you post a poll with Bush at 35% approval from the source you say was "always in the positive" for Bush?

My actual quote, which you keep lying about: "Oh yeah, Ramusessen consistently polled in favor of the Shrub & company and every neocon mind fart AGAINST the average of every other valid American pollster group....no big surprise with this latest BS"
The example I sourced showed the majority of the pollsters having the number LOWER. In that instance, Rasmussen was on par with a few more pollsters, but STILL in the minority of giving better numbers to the Shrub.

Please. You are like a child caught with his hand in the jar and crumbs on his face trying to tell people you were just counting the cookies.

Once again, you take a condescending attitude despite the FACT that you've been caught TWICE lying about a quote. You've got no credibility on this one, as the post show. Grow the fuck up and stop wasting time and space. You can have the last predictable lie/distortion/dodge/whine/etc., I'm done with you.

 

[Damocles]

Once again, you take a condescending attitude despite the FACT that you've been caught TWICE lying about a quote. You've got no credibility on this one, as the post show. Grow the fuck up and stop wasting time and space. You can have the last predictable lie/distortion/dodge/whine/etc., I'm done with you.

Liar. Your actual quote was that they were "consistently in the positive for Bush"...

I asked for a link that proved that, you provided one that proved the opposite.

Wipe the cookies off your face before you lie like that. You have hope of people believing you if you do that. And yes, I condescend towards childlike insistence that they are "right" even in the face of your own evidence betraying you.