CREEPY: Leftist Asks Senator During Town Hall If His Daughter Was Kidnapped

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
CREEPY: Leftist Asks Senator During Town Hall If His Daughter Was Kidnapped


"We've been here for a while," Radecki said. "You probably haven't seen the news. Can you confirm whether or not your daughter Bridget has been kidnapped?"

There was an eerie, frightening silence that ensued with Toomey simply responding with an "uhhhhh" for about four seconds, before Radecki said, "The reason I ask is because that’s the reality of families that suffer deportation..."

A visibly irked Toomey then promptly dismissed the question as "ridiculous"; Radecki was escorted out of the town hall and is now likely to face charges of disorderly conduct.
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
Radecki was escorted out of the town hall and is now likely to face charges of disorderly conduct.
I get escorting him out because that specific question probably was construed to be a potential threat. But to charge with disorderly conduct (assuming he wasn't yelling and screaming and causing a commotion; the story didn't indicate this was the case) seems to be over the top. Charging disorderly conduct for asking a public official a question, even one as reprehensible as the one asked, is a real threat to the 1st Amendment.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Charging disorderly conduct for asking a public official a question, even one as reprehensible as the one asked, is a real threat to the 1st Amendment.


depends on the definition of 'disorderly'

its a good catch all cops can arrest you for anything law ...... IMHO misapplied a lot of the time
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
But to charge with disorderly conduct

The story didn't say he was charged with disorderly conduct; DailyWire just speculates that he *could* be. Unless there is more to the story, you are correct that it's not against the law to simply ask a question of an elected official, even a dumb question. Too bad making a faulty equivalency isn't against the law, either, otherwise there would be a ton of these folks in the pokey.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
But to charge with disorderly conduct

The story didn't say he was charged with disorderly conduct; DailyWire just speculates that he *could* be. Unless there is more to the story, you are correct that it's not against the law to simply ask a question of an elected official, even a dumb question. Too bad making a faulty equivalency isn't against the law, either, otherwise there would be a ton of these folks in the pokey.
 

AnthonyJames

R.I.P. My Brother Rick
"We've been here for a while," Radecki said. "You probably haven't seen the news"
Implies there is news and the questioner has knowledge of it
Can you confirm whether or not your daughter Bridget has been kidnapped?"
States the news is that his daughter has been kidnapped, or an attempt has been made to kidnap her and is asking if it was successful.

Sounds like the questioner has conspired to kidnap a family member of an elected official to me. Arrest the dummy and hold him without bail while it is investigated.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Implies there is news and the questioner has knowledge of it States the news is that his daughter has been kidnapped, or an attempt has been made to kidnap her and is asking if it was successful.

Sounds like the questioner has conspired to kidnap a family member of an elected official to me. Arrest the dummy and hold him without bail while it is investigated.

That's a big stretch. My take is that this guy, like so many hysterical ideologues, went too far in trying to make a point and ended up looking like a psycho.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
That's a big stretch. My take is that this guy, like so many hysterical ideologues, went too far in trying to make a point and ended up looking like a psycho.

Let's hope that would that qualify him for a mandatory 72-hour psych evaluation?
 

Restitution

New Member
If the child is not an illegal, the parents can always take the child with them when they are escorted home. No one is telling them "You must leave BUT, the child has to stay."

If the child is illegal, then isn't that like saying "The police kidnapped the felon that escaped prison?" It just wouldn't make sense. False equivalent!
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I might have asked if it was in fact, HIS daughter that was hit by a drunken illegal alien -
Or if she was the one shot in the back by an illegal alien -
Or if it was his wife that stabbed all his children, all here illegally -
Or maybe his daughter murdered in an MS-13 Satanic ritual -

I can't remember all the details - so please, enlighten me.

Two can play that game. There's the "horror of deportation" and the horror of being killed by someone who should NEVER HAVE BEEN HERE.

Now - that said - I think there ought to be a path for citizenship for those who have been here and demonstrated they can be good citizens;
That they can hold a job, have an education and can take care of themselves without government support;
But that they must in addition to going through the normal channels of citizenship should agree to some kind of service to the nation they intend to join, whether military or otherwise.
They must agree that THIS is their nation, and not some foreign nation. This is the oath that citizens take when they are naturalized.
Unless there's some medical reason why they can't go through this, they don't belong here at all.

And if the situation were reversed, I can't think of any nation that would hesitate to send my ass back to my own country.
If I'd been in their country illegally for years, I wouldn't be surprised if they told me that I could never return, either.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
If the child is not an illegal, the parents can always take the child with them when they are escorted home. No one is telling them "You must leave BUT, the child has to stay."

Are there cases/examples where the children are legal residents but the parents are not? Anyone who is a "Dreamer" is obviously not here legally except for the illegal waiver via DACA. A lot of them aren't children any more either, so...
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
If the child is not an illegal, the parents can always take the child with them when they are escorted home.

HERE'S the dilemma, because I don't have any problem with deporting whole families while the children are all still young but also here illegally -

Many of these young people who came here illegally came here as school children and are now young adults, many of whom have graduated from school and are working on their own.
They've spent most of their life here and have hitherto been undetected as here illegally and as many as a thousand are serving in our military.

It would be roughly equivalent to examining my son's paperwork and determining he'd never entered here legally (which he has, but ..) and sometime when he is grown, shipping his butt back to Russia, a nation he has never known. (I say "roughly" because it's only the same in experience, not legality).

I think a case can be made to look at individuals and see if they merit being able to stay but no blanket amnesty. Cases are resolved - support yourself, educated, no criminal record? We can put you on a path to citizenship BUT - in fairness to the millions who wait - you must EARN it. You must give your time to the nation you're choosing to enter. If that's too much to ask, then you don't belong here.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I think a case can be made to look at individuals and see if they merit being able to stay but no blanket amnesty. Cases are resolved - support yourself, educated, no criminal record? We can put you on a path to citizenship BUT - in fairness to the millions who wait - you must EARN it. You must give your time to the nation you're choosing to enter. If that's too much to ask, then you don't belong here.

That ^ is about where I am on the issue...and what I hope serves as the basis for compromise in the legislation that has to be passed. I'm only on that wagon if said legislation includes beefing up border security and revising (downward) immigration quotas or limits.
 

Restitution

New Member
HERE'S the dilemma, because I don't have any problem with deporting whole families while the children are all still young but also here illegally -

Many of these young people who came here illegally came here as school children and are now young adults, many of whom have graduated from school and are working on their own.
They've spent most of their life here and have hitherto been undetected as here illegally and as many as a thousand are serving in our military.

It would be roughly equivalent to examining my son's paperwork and determining he'd never entered here legally (which he has, but ..) and sometime when he is grown, shipping his butt back to Russia, a nation he has never known. (I say "roughly" because it's only the same in experience, not legality).

I think a case can be made to look at individuals and see if they merit being able to stay but no blanket amnesty. Cases are resolved - support yourself, educated, no criminal record? We can put you on a path to citizenship BUT - in fairness to the millions who wait - you must EARN it. You must give your time to the nation you're choosing to enter. If that's too much to ask, then you don't belong here.

To use your analogies from above....

If one of these Dreamers murdered your son when they were 14 or 15.... didn't get caught until they were 35 years old. They have a family, a good job, and so on.

Should they be punished..... Dad?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
To use your analogies from above....

If one of these Dreamers murdered your son when they were 14 or 15.... didn't get caught until they were 35 years old. They have a family, a good job, and so on.

Should they be punished..... Dad?


Is this supposed to be a trick question? There's no statute of limitations for murder.
The only question really should be - should he be put in jail HERE and then be shipped back home - or be shipped back home and THEN put in jail?

My "conditions" do involve not having a criminal record. Crooks get kicked out.
 

Restitution

New Member
Is this supposed to be a trick question? There's no statute of limitations for murder.
The only question really should be - should he be put in jail HERE and then be shipped back home - or be shipped back home and THEN put in jail?

My "conditions" do involve not having a criminal record. Crooks get kicked out.

I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on illegals either.....

My opinion is that illegals should be given a small grace period to complete citizenship application. If they do not want to OR if they do not complete on time.... BYE!
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on illegals either.....

My opinion is that illegals should be given a small grace period to complete citizenship application. If they do not want to OR if they do not complete on time.... BYE!

Then they can hop back over the border, be "newly illegal" and be in your small grace period again. Great solution.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
If the child is not an illegal, the parents can always take the child with them when they are escorted home. No one is telling them "You must leave BUT, the child has to stay."

If the child is illegal, then isn't that like saying "The police kidnapped the felon that escaped prison?" It just wouldn't make sense. False equivalent!

Actually I think they are implying that the Trump Administration will deport children, you know, like Clinton did..

EVEN if the children are now 30 years old and have done nothing to gain citizenship.
 
Top