It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama speech undercuts federal charge for judge's murder

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:39 AM
Well, I am just going by this component in the article. By the way, please give me some sources for eveyone's point please.

I thought that is what ATS was all about. You know everyone has an opinion.

By the way, my source is the article. What are your peeps?

From the article-

As a legal matter, Obama's view (which tracks with the public narrative offered by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik) may be irrelevant, but it probably doesn't help to have the President of the United States emphasizing the social aspect of Roll's stop to see Giffords on Saturday, rather than the reason prosecutors claim drew him there.

Also, since most of you are using media as your source. Please give the source of information you are saying to be true, to their source.

Otherwise it is HEARSAY and irrelevant. But this is not hearsay, Obama specifically interjected himself into the case by giving his speech.

Boy, wonder if the defense is going to call totus as a witness. Now wouldn't that be quite ironic.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

U.S. District Judge John Roll, who had just stopped by to see his friend Giffords after attending Mass

Written Saturday and updated on Sunday.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by whatukno

This is about the TEA Party Hero Loughner....

ERRRRrrrr... Aren't you forgetting Loughner is a liberal/leftist according to his classmates and the guy with the GUN who helped detain him is the CONSERVATIVE????

You seem to be swapping the villian and the hero but that is OK. After all Marxism has a completely different theory of what constitutes truth. Truth is that which advances the Marxist agenda.

Marxism as the Ideology of Our Age

This view of man and his morality induces Marxism to maintain a theory of truth which radically contradicts the tradition of the occidental world. Truth, according to this theory, is a function of Progress. Whether a claim, a theory or a philosophy contributes to man's mastery over the universe and to his emancipation from his dire past, it is true; if it does not contribute to it, it is false, no matter how empirical, scientific or lofty it may be.

This amounts to saying that, according to Marxism, objective truth is nothing but a bourgeois trick. Truth is by its very nature partial: what retards or even hinders Progress is always false and in most cases a conscious lie. In other words, Marxism is an ideology which makes of its bias a precondition of truth....

When I left Europe in 1960 to become professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, I had worked for almost seven years under, and later with, one of the best Western specialists on Soviet Marxism, Father Bochenski. I knew my Marxism-Leninism from first to last - Professor Nikolaus Lobkowicz

Just thought I would clear up that bit of philosophy so the rest of ATS would understand where you get your "Truth" from.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:04 AM
reply to post by Sinnthia

Well, I would like to include another comment from that article. Some would say that the Sheriff let out his vile and heinous political partisanship in many statements. Heck even the totus congratulated the Sheriff for his vile and heinous words, some would say.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

But, since words in an article, can an article be subpoenaed? I do not think so.

Oh, why did you not include the whole sentence? Because the AUTHOR of that article did not include the SOURCE for that information.

Here is the whole sentence-

He said Giffords was among 19 people wounded in the melee that killed six people, including a 9-year-old girl, an aide for the Democratic lawmaker and U.S. District Judge John Roll, who had just stopped by to see his friend Giffords after attending Mass. Dupnik said the rampage ended only after two people tackled the gunman.

NOW, notice THE FACT that the previous comment is inside quotations. You do know what quotes mean right?

Tell me from THAT article, who or what is the source of the information in regards to why the judge was there?

Sorry, you did not read very much into it right? You are just here to do what?

Anyway, some would say the Sheriff has acted VERY stupidly in this case. Some would say vile and heinous.

Myself, I would say he acted criminally. I would suggest to the defense attorney to call to the witness stand anyone in the government that has made comments or has given thanks to those that acted vilely and heinously. See, words have consequences in a court of law.

But of course, it all depends on what the definition of is, is. Right?

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:10 AM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Derailing your own thread already????
I think that is a record. I am really not sure what any of your post has to do with your OP. Is it that hard to just admit this thread was a failed premise?

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:14 AM
Good for Obama. Arizona has the death penalty, so if convicted, Loughner will likely get death. More importantly, let the state of Arizona pay for the trial rather than the federal government trying the case with our tax money.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:19 AM
Hey, If anyone knows how to put someone on ignore now, give me a heads up.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I will stop tossing facts all over your fantasies but you have to agree to stop claiming I said things I never did. In fact, how about you do not mention me at all anymore?

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:32 AM
Like others have said...this was already known in the media and had been reported.

It will come down to the courts deciding if attending a political event is considered "on the job" doesn't matter a bit if he was at mass before hand...that is irrelevant.

People are trying really really hard to try to put some type of blame on Obama during this tragic event...and then cry about the media doing it to Palin...sounds like some people are being hypocrites. I understand that you guys are very upset that Obama is on the rebound...that his numbers are rising...and that he handled this tragic event better than any other politician has to date.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:41 AM

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
By the way, please give me some sources for eveyone's point please.

My source is in my post.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Tell me from THAT article, who or what is the source of the information in regards to why the judge was there?

There are MANY articles stating why the judge was there. To see Gabrielle Giffords. You do realize it's possible that he was there to say hello AND to discuss business, don't you?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

That's so true!

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:07 AM
I don't think it will be an issue. For tax purposes, if my wife and I go out to dinner, and we talk about her business even a little, we can legally write off the cost of the meal as business expense. I am sure some sort of similar rule applies to the judge, and who is going to argue (besides Laughtner's lawyer) that a Fed judge and a Congresswoman met up at an event and didn't talk shop?

Oh and TYVM to the mod who civilized page 1! That was nice too see happen right after I read through it!

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

I am very outraged at the way the political parties are using the death of the people in the incident, no body remember our death soldiers dying everyday for a big corporate money making wars.

But now the government has made a mockery of murder making the incident as big as 9/11.

Well people die everyday just put then to rest underground as usual.

I am sick and tired of the political twisting.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Seriously .. that's damn sick of you.

It's no sicker than you repeatedly referring to the memorial service as a "frat party". You are guilty of what you charge, I'm afraid.

Um .. you are wrong again BH.

Whatukno continuallys calls the shooter a 'hero of the tea party'. That's sick and absurd.
The behavior of those attending the memorial service was inappropriate.
The hoots and hollar's etc etc. MANY people feel their behavior was inappropriate
and more like a college frat bunch then a group of mourners.
To expose the obvious .. that they were misbehaving .. isn't 'damn sick'.
But for whatukno to continually call the shooter a 'tea party hero' definately IS.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

I am just calling it as I see it.

I just hope that people can survive more incidents of "lone crazy non partisan gunmen" at political events.

I just hope the truth is told at the trial and we learn really what his motivations were.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

I would bet though the judge stopped by, well because he was a judge. Therefore the argument would still have to overcome that the judge was not there to support official business of the congress woman on a professional basis. Maybe the congress woman asked that he stopped by.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:24 AM
Interesting, that in this time an age, now we glorify death by murder, but then again our founder fathers were also in the categories of murder, traitors and enemies of the status quo.

Death by murder is not acceptable in our society, those that comity it are prosecuted, but the sickening thing that is eating at my gore is the fact that our nation's government is using this type of incidents to glorify death while making martyrs of their choice.

I am so sick of the twisted and dirty way that now our elite government is working out the population to create division and keep them away from organizing against them.

Because is sad that we call heroes now anybody that the government seems to target as so once in death


I wonder when the memorial will be erected. . .

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Well I don't think he was really liberal/leftist or tea partier, but you can't call him a leftist because his republican former classmate that hadn't seen him in years no really associated with him said it on twitter. What are the odds she actually new. She said herself she wasn't his friend.

The reason politics were drawn in to this was because Gifford was taped saying the Palin's rhetoric had caused violence aimed toward her and her staff which it likely did and Palin's words WERE in fact reckless. So a lot of people jumped to conclusion that it was the same thing that caused earlier violence against her that caused this violence and it took it a few days to get corrected every where.

That is all.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:32 PM
Obama didn't really want to be there. He couldn't care less about the victims or the victims families. He couldn't care less about Rep. Giffords. He only went because it was advised for him to go. If he had to make the call, he'd be on the golf course somewhere.

This was only a photo op for him and it was all done for political gain.

Nothing he said in his speech was from the heart. What a pathetic human being he is.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Here's something you and the article's author don't seem to realize.

Popular opinion ends at the doors of the courtroom. President Obama is a civilian who is uninvolved with the case. He could say that Binky the Clown killed all those people, then turned invisible and got away, framing Loughner in his stead, and it would have zero impact on the trial.

Now, if the case' prosecutor said this, then there would be a problem.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:17 PM
Alright, I cannot say what the author of the article's reasonings were, why this could be relevant to the case, but this is my interpretation.

When a prosecution is presented, they must turnover all evidence. Now the federal government is going to try this case first. So the reasoning of why the judge was there, even if it was for a photo op, could be construed as business of the federal government.

BUT, with the President stating that he was there to see his friend, this does not allow a federal prosecution then.

It seems a lot of people in our government do not care about proper procedure when investigating or prosecuting crime. Procedures are IMPORTANT to not screw up the process. Just like the Sheriff to attempt to say that the vitriol had something to do with this heinous and vile act of an insane criminal. Just because he is insane does not mean he is not a criminal, IMO.

This will probably be the show trial of the century.

Remember ol Obama's statement in regards to the terrorist trials? Even if found not guilty they would never get out of prison. How is that cognitive dissonance working for everyone so far? By the way, one charge on the first terrorist trial. How did that one work out?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in