Fairweather Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 BHO and the Dems can kiss Congress goodbye. And if this trial goes awry--which it likely will--he may not even finish his term. Can you say the I-word? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8360018.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Wait. We're actually using our own judicial system to try the bad guys? Why that's just sheer madness! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 Military Tribunals. Good enough for SCOTUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 isn't impeachment, like, for high crimes n' misdemeanors n' whatnot? what's illegal about this? as for the, holy-shit, we can't keep the american public safe if we have a trial - is this really the first trial in human history of a terrorist? i can't imagine there'll be that many guards snoozing 'roudn the courthouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Federal judiciary system has a 100% conviction rate against terrorists accused of committing terorrist acts on US soil, BTW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Who the fuck cares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Now I understand your love of deep space imagery Fairweather. You're really out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 wingnutia isn't too far off the lunatic fringe. We should be ready for anything, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Someone has been spending waaaayyyyyy too much time teabagging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 Now I understand your love of deep space imagery Fairweather. You're really out there. Why? Do you think the Supreme Court is "out there" too? My position that this particular terrorist--above all others--doesn't deserve to touch American soil is actually pretty main-stream. Now, if you're talking about my belief that Obama will pay the heaviest political price; well, we'll just have to wait and see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 Federal judiciary system has a 100% conviction rate against terrorists accused of committing terorrist acts on US soil, BTW. Were any of them water-boarded like Khaled? Where will an impartial jury be found? How will jurors be kept safe? What evidence will be allowed/disallowed? Will the trial be open? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Some serious ODS up in here tonight -- what is it, Rush Limbaugh's birthday or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 BHO and the Dems can kiss Congress goodbye. And if this trial goes awry--which it likely will--he may not even finish his term. Can you say the I-word? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8360018.stm This might be only a drop in the bucket compared to the monumental changes that could issue forth from his administration. Why was Obama granted the Nobel Peace Prize when he has not deviated dramatically from the Bush administration stance concerning foreign policy with regard to war? Perhaps it signals homage to the potential role the Obama administration will play in transforming America under the aegis of the international body. [video:youtube]PMe5dOgbu40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Do you think the Supreme Court is "out there" too? That's a valid question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Monckton is a crackpot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 [video:youtube]xGKRSAwrkXo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 come on, he is an active global warming denier with a degree in journalism. As I said, he is a crackpot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 come on, Al Gore is an active global warming alarmist with an early career in journalism. As I said, he is a crackpot. Oh, the irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I don't see any irony in what I said. Falsely pretending to have the expertise to assess a scientific theory without having the training nor the experience is charlatanism. Now if you want to argue the opposite, you'll have to be more explicit because your innuendos aren't sufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I didn't see at first that you changed my quote (ha ha)and I am here to tell you that your logic fails. Al gore is only popularizing what the immense majority of scientists say about the evolution of climate. AL Gore isn't pretending to know better than ~99% of the experts, which is exactly what Monckton the cranck does. Do you see the difference, now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I don't see any irony in what I said. Falsely pretending to have the expertise to assess a scientific theory without having the training nor the experience is charlatanism. Now if you want to argue the opposite, you'll have to be more explicit because your innuendos aren't sufficient. You truly are oblivious. The evidence speaks for itself. [video:youtube]_jqcnBugnl8 The journalists who ran interference for Gore, including Baltimore Sun environment reporter Tim Wheeler, defended their actions. Wheeler wrote on the SEJ blog that he was just enforcing the rules for the question-and-answer session by refusing to let McAleer monopolize the mic. But the reality is that Wheeler and his colleagues violated at least two principles of the ethics code drafted by the Society of Professional Journalists: Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant. Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. It's clear from their coverage that environmental journalists find the views of skeptics like McAleer repugnant, but that's precisely why they should have let him press Gore for answers in a public forum. McAleer showed himself to be vigilant and courageous in holding Gore accountable for spreading propaganda in public schools, and he deserved the SEJ's support. Al Gore’s Journalistic Shield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 You truly are oblivious. The evidence speaks for itself. If it's so obvious it should be easy for you to explain what you mean because I don't see anything here incriminating for Gore or that would change my opinion that Monckton is a charlatan. As to the denialists' accusations toward Gore, most of them are complete non-sense. I am no great fan of Gore but his film was very well received among climate scientists, and the British judge who criticized the movie should stick to law because he clearly has no expertise to place judgment on the science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Were any of them water-boarded like Khaled? Precisely why they need to let him go. Where will an impartial jury be found? Precisely why they need to let him go. How will jurors be kept safe? recisely why they need to let him go. What evidence will be allowed/disallowed? Precisely why they need to let him go. Will the trial be open? There is no more complete bullshit in the world than Gitmo. Talk about a complete disrespect for basic human rights. Hold people solely on suspicion. Try them in a court of law, convict or set them free. They get the same rights you would want yourself. The US has sunk to there level. Makes me want to puke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 Were any of them water-boarded like Khaled? Precisely why they need to let him go. Where will an impartial jury be found? Precisely why they need to let him go. How will jurors be kept safe? recisely why they need to let him go. What evidence will be allowed/disallowed? Precisely why they need to let him go. You know, Kev, I have rarely stooped to your level. In fact, you may have noticed I hardly pay you any attention at all--but you can't possibly be serious about your posts. This man admits (Pre waterboard) to planning and carrying out the murder of almost 3000 of your fellow Americans. I do think you personify the vast majority of Democratic voters though--and it's very sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Were any of them water-boarded like Khaled? Precisely why they need to let him go. Where will an impartial jury be found? Precisely why they need to let him go. How will jurors be kept safe? recisely why they need to let him go. What evidence will be allowed/disallowed? Precisely why they need to let him go. You know, Kev, I have rarely stooped to your level. In fact, you may have noticed I hardly pay you any attention at all--but you can't possibly be serious about your posts. This man admits (Pre waterboard) to planning and carrying out the murder of almost 3000 of your fellow Americans. I do think you personify the vast majority of Democratic voters though--and it's very sad. Innocent until proven guilty. Ever heard of that? Admitting a crime does not make him guilty. I agree this is a messed up situation….but the US government did this to itself. This person is 100% innocent until proven guilty. Done, end of story…… PS….it is shameful of you to post pics of 9/11 like I forgot or something just because you and I disagree on who did it and how it should be dealt with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.