Drudge: PRAVDA chides U.S. media for ignoring Sherrif Joe Arpaio investigation...

[Publicani]

"Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds. Or is usurped the more accurate term?

The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal?"

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-03-2012/120708-arizona_sheriff_obama-0/

[CaptainAmerica]

No one should be listening to Arpaio period. Arpaio is an animal! He had a woman chained on the ankles while giving birth just because she was supposedly an "illegal immigrant" even though she was given no right to an attorney or trial.No matter how "illegal " a person is a pregnant woman giving birth should NEVER be chained down and treated like garbage that way especially in the U.S. regardless of creed. Arpaio just wants to pander to his voting base.

[heavenlyboy34]

No one should be listening to Arpaio period. Arpaio is an animal! He had a woman chained on the ankles while giving birth just because she was supposedly an "illegal immigrant" even though she was given no right to an attorney or trial.No matter how "illegal " a person is a pregnant woman giving birth should NEVER be chained down and treated like garbage that way especially in the U.S. regardless of creed. Arpaio just wants to pander to his voting base. That is only one of Joe's many crimes against humanity and liberty. :(:mad:

[Publicani]

I thought Ron Paul supporters don't use argumentum ad hominem.

[openfire]

I thought Ron Paul supporters don't use argumentum ad hominem.

Agreed.

OJ was innocent because Mark Furman was a racist. Is that the logic here?

[PolicyReader]

Agreed.

OJ was innocent because Mark Furman was a racist. Is that the logic here?
Off-Topic (because it doesn't pertain to the rest of the thread) but having a racist directly involved in an investigation like that could legitimately create reasonable doubt (depending on how involved and in what capacity the individual in question served). And that's the standard, it's not "which is more likely guilt or innocents" it's "is guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

Sorry, pet peeve, as stated not a comment on the thread or points being made therein one way or another, just something that seems oft forgotten (or at least unmentioned) in modern discourse. And something vital to retain if we are to sustain liberty.

[Publicani]

Off-Topic (because it doesn't pertain to the rest of the thread) but having a racist directly involved in an investigation like that could legitimately create reasonable doubt (depending on how involved and in what capacity the individual in question served). And that's the standard, it's not "which is more likely guilt or innocents" it's "is guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

Sorry, pet peeve, as stated not a comment on the thread or points being made therein one way or another, just something that seems oft forgotten (or at least unmentioned) in modern discourse. And something vital to retain if we are to sustain liberty.

You use exactly the (wrong) logic of OJ jury. What does it mean "racist?" Was Joe Arpaio sentenced for any crime? Does it mean that he was accused of being racist? By you? By somebody else? By press? Is "racist" the only card that will make you not consider the facts? What if he is accused of, I don't know, being corrupt? Stupid? Ignoring Constitution? Beating his wife?

Reasonable doubt is a different concept. You may be skeptical of him, and don't trust him, but his investigation established certain facts, such as the BC is fake. I wouldn't mind if you, being skeptical, claiming "racism" and all that, went over his arguments and tell us where he made a mistake. But dismissing all of these is just playing the game of any dictator who through a willing media would accuse any critic of it in something bad, like "racism."

And we saw it with anybody who dares to criticize our government, right? We've heard that Tea Party was racist, Glenn Beck was racist, Hannity and Rush were racists, heck, even Ron Paul, once he threatened to win Iowa, was labeled "racist."

I don't like the majority of American people for not voting Ron Paul. Should I ignore all facts established in USA?

And by the way, WTF moved this thread to "hot topics"? and why?

[heavenlyboy34]

And by the way, WTF moved this thread to "hot topics"? and why?
TPTB around here have been really absurd lately. :(

[Publicani]

TPTB around here have been really absurd lately. :(
"Absurd" is the right word. Pravda published that, Drudge published that, but this site is trying to be politically correct by hiding the discussion of an extremely important Constitutional issue in "hot topics."