| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:49 pm: | 
|
Ever notice Southerner is a crybaby?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3131
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
I don't get that impression. And I'd pick Southerner in a fight over you. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
I mean what's this "They are targetting New York and DC because as posters on this board often state - all the smart people and things of interest are located there."?
I call that passive-agressive. Or is he being serious? Are we supposed to feel bad because his feelings are hurt? I don't get it.
|
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 1835
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
I can hear that damn music again:
"Macho Macho Man. I wanna be a Macho Man".
Don't ya just love arm-chair warriors ?. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 864
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
"...I'd pick Southerner in a fight..."
Do mean a fist fight, or a battle of wits? Because I hear them Southern boys likes to fight dirty, but as Trivial Pursuit partners, I dunno... |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3132
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
"Trivial Pursuits" exposes the wit of an individual? And you fear Social Security Reform due to a bad experience with Easy Money, no doubt. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
it's a better test of wits than a punch-up, however. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 867
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
cjc: how 'bout a rip-snapping game of Jeopardy? You and Southerner can be spotted the "celebrity" week questions... |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
As soon as I get my braces off I'm gonna take karate, then you can't pick on me anymore. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 551
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Not that it matters, but I think Southerner is actually a woman.
Let's settle this with a libs vs cons softball game. On second thought I don't think we can field a team of ten.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 868
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Guy: now softball would be a good way to settle things in the senate. Would certainly make CSPAN more interesting... |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 705
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
For a moderate stipend, I'd be happy to play on the cons team. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 869
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
"For a moderate stipend, I'd be happy to play on the cons team."
That's funny, isn't that what most journalists are saying these days? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 706
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
kinda my point... |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 870
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
oh |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Softball?
I'd be more into a no holds barred Ultimate Fight off. Any takers for the Octagon?
I'd love to engage in a battle of wits with the ultra lefties of MOL, but my moral character won't let me fight unarmed opponents. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
quote:I'd love to engage in a battle of wits with the ultra lefties of MOL, but my moral character won't let me fight unarmed opponents.
I don't know you, so maybe you would indeed crush all comers in a battle of wits. But I must tell you, you've got yourself off on the wrong foot, starting with a line that was ancient when Milton Berle was in his cradle. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Ever see the Seinfeld where Kramer takes karate, and it's all 12 year olds?
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1582
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Sorry, should have included a ;) after that... |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
maybe so, but the  doesn't make it any wittier. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Tom,
Those guys detained aren't United States citizens and thus are not afforded the same rights as we are. I understand that you believe everyone in the world should be treated equally but by law these detainees are neither U.S. citizens nor POW's. They are illegal combatants. The fact that we are releasing them proves that after checking them out we will let them go. Again, we are holding them indefinitely because we legally can.
I understand a lot of you don't like this but the administration who devised this system just got re-elected so a lot of other people do. You must admit, what drives a lot of you nuts is that this admin was smart enough to figure out all the legalities in advance. Any small misstep and your points would have been valid. You just don't like the fact that they are within all legal bounds.
As for the the other silly posts I didn't know my posts invoke such emotion. I didn't realize I had that much power. I'm just giving my opinion. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1482
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:27 pm: |
|
"but by law these detainees are neither U.S. citizens nor POW's. They are illegal combatants."
There's where you show your ignorance. Mind if I ask by what law? Andersonville is a permanent mark of shame on the confederacy. Your should know better. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 505
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Again, I wasn't aware that the Constitution designated American citizens as the sole recipients of the rights enumerated therein.
I was also under the impression, given by the President and his stated policy, that the extension of rights to ALL people was a principal interest of American policy, not to mention that they were entitled to those rights anyway.
Do you find it acceptable that an innocent person would be held, interrogated and possibly mistreated for months, years even, before it was decided that they were not a threat? I do not, and would go so far as to call it a violation of human rights.
What prevents another nation from using our action as a 'legal' precedent to mistreat soldiers that they deem 'illegal' combatants?
There is no law designating these people as illegal combatants. It was an executive policy decision contrived to prevent the application of the Geneva Convention in their cases. So, as to being within legal bounds, I say that claim is specious at best. The Geneva Convention is the standing international law with regard to prisoners of war. I would have thought that a reasonable interpretation included any person captured during any military conflict. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4339
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:10 pm: |
|
In the decision last fall in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it was determined that a detainee had a right to court proceedings on the legality of his detention, before being tried in the military tribunals instituted under the President's orders.
In that opinion, the judge noted that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in another detainee case "does little to clarify the Constitutional status of Guantanamo Bay but may contain some hint that non-citizens held at Guantanamo Bay have some Constitutional protection."
In other words, just because they're not citizens, and may be labeled "illegal combatants" by the Executive branch, they may still have some basic rights under our system of justice.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:15 pm: |
|
How do you know that the prisoners are not U.S. citizens? They've been held in secret and very little is known about their actual cases. It's not always safe to assume that the government is truthful. Moreover, even if they are not U.S. citizens, the U.S. has treaty obligations with most countries that require consular notification and due process of law.
What we're seeing here is criminal behavior by the Bush Administration, which in the long term will damage America's standing in the world. It's deeply painful to watch this taking place. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page