Democrats want you to fund Terriorist
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
July 21, 2007 12:36am CST
There are reports out that the Democratics in the House of Represintives are opposing an Amendment that would give immunity from law suits to anyone who in good faith reports suspicious activity to the Authoritys. This Amendment was proposed because the "Flying Emamus" who flew out of Minneapolis/St Paul Airport and are suing the passengers on the plane because they reported the suspecious activity of the Emamus. If this Amendment is defeated it will mean that people like actor James Woods could be sued for reporting what is now beleived to be a dry run for the 9/11 hijackings. He reported four Middle Eastern men who were acting strange. After 9/11 he was questioned by the FBI about the incident and he beleives that some of the men he reported were hijackers on 9/11.
Why would anyone oppose such an Amendment that would protect Citizens doing their Civic Duty. It makes one think that those opposing the amendment want to see the US attacked again or they are supporting the Trial Lawyers who could make Big Bucks filing law suits.
2 people like this
2 responses
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Jul 07
The key to understanding the dumbocrat's position is to know that the trial lawyers lobby is one of their biggest political fund contributors.
The dumbocrats are going to oppose any sensible legislation that benefits the public at large while reducing lawyers' income.
Just imagine what would happen if the public was allowed to eliminate this particular kind of wasteful lawsuit? Horrors! Other wasteful lawsuits of all kinds might be next.
BTW: A dumbocrat is any democrat who cares more about special interests than their constituents. If you are a true democrat, please, chase the dumbocrats out of your party. Likewise, you republicans should chase the retardicans out of your party.
1 person likes this
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
22 Jul 07
Well, first of all, what you're describing is not at all equivalent to Democrats wanting me to fund terrorists, as the title of your discussion states.
I haven't read the amendment you're talking about, but I know a lot of proposed laws coming from the right-wing are worded so vaguely that they leave a lot of room for abuse. If this amendment is a full immunity for anyone who accuses anyone else of suspected terrorist activity with no consideration for the circumstances concerning that accusation, I would oppose it, too.
What is being amended? Even if this amendment is well-written with little room for abuse, it may be attached to a bill that isn't as good. Attaching popular amendments to unpopular bills so that the bill will get passed is an old trick these days. Yeah, I know both the left and the right do this.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
23 Jul 07
As the congress works the amendment was attached to the College funding bill which also included amentments to do some military funding also. The amendment stated that there would be limited immunity. This usually means that if a reasonable and prudent person would be concerned about it. Being an Arab would not be reason to be conceerned but making comments or acting in a threatning manner would be reason to be concerned.
1 person likes this
