Franken: 'So thrilled' at Minn. Senate race win

One of the favored tools of the ideolouge is the moral equivilency.

Ethics, right and wrong don't exist in shades of grey.

Either you believe in right and wrong or you don't.

You are right here telling us you don't, so why should anyone take your opinion seriously, when you just showed us all you have no moral center, that its all about party affiliation?

When people think for themselves the world changes for the better.

When they don't you hear excuses and the bad times roll.

Do you think I gave back my salary? Fuck that. Not my responsibility.

How about the people who worked for Bernie Madoff? Should his maids give their salaries back?

Creditors stand in line. I just pushed my way to the front of the line. And some people at the back of the line didn't get paid. Same with Al Franken. If you work for someone like that, its either cash in advance or fuck you. And I got burned a weeks pay being careful. Sorry I wasn't a sucker like all of Bernie Madoff's victims.

And you don't answer my questions because they would prove I'm right. Instead you come back with "the favored tools of the ideolouge is the moral equivilency.". It seems the only way to get thru to you black and white RIGHT or wrong right wing hypocrites.

See, this is what's wrong with Republicans. They want to hold Al Franken, Kerry, Clinton and Al Gore and me up to higher standards than they themselves can live up to. Franken has a clean record and is a good man.

See, things aren't always black and white. I had a new neighbor threaten me with a baseball bat. He invited me over, I got a bad vibe from the drunk and left, and a half hour later he came over telling me to give him back his money or else. I didn't take shit. I called the cops and he didn't come to the door when they knocked. I wanted to tell him face to face I didn't take shit and let the cops see how drunk and irrational he was. I also didn't want him to hit me with a baseball bat. So, later that night someone beat him within an inch of his life. Was he wrong for threatening me with a baseball bat? Yes. If I did go B&E and A&B him, would I be wrong for doing it? Maybe. Of course a jury woudl have convicted me, but all my cop buddies say he had it coming for what he did earlier. But technically I could have gone to prison and been a convicted felon if I did do such a thing, but I'm not saying I did, but the cops decided to not persue the charges. Insufficient evidence. Plus witnesses placed me at their establishments at the time of the attack. Plus he said he only thought it was me. He wasn't sure. :eusa_shhh:
 
What a nut job. :cuckoo:

But I love it. At least you are honest.

You die hard right wing constitutionalists admit that you consider our so called "rights" debatable.

And you say dems are the one taking away rights when they ban smoking but you allow Bush to take important rights away like due process and privacy.

No seperation of chuch and state? So we are now a muslim nation? Because Obama is a muslim, right?

Bill of rights. Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel


Yes, due process is a right.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


wikiwikiwiki shut up!

There is no "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution...

And Habeas Corpus is Documentably a Suspendable Priviledge...

You can Attack me instead of Dealing the Facts, but the Facts Remain.

:)

peace...
 
Poor, poor Rushpublicans. They have to live in a Democracy. They cannot torture people anymore. They cannot ignore Hebeas Corpus anymore. They cannot snatch citizens of foreign nations off the streets of other nations anymore, and ignore the laws of all nations involved. Poor, poor Rushpublicans.

What a lot of whining, sniveling, and general dipshit crying going on. But it will all get better. We will have a real Health Care System. And a real Energy Policy that is not administered by big energy corperations. We will get the economy turned arround, then adapt regulations that prevent this debacle from happening again, And even set things up so the assholes that created the debacle pay their fair share of taxes. Ah yes, things are going to be much better. Then we will address other issues during President Obama's second term.

Have you actually seen Santa or the Easter Bunny?
 
One of the favored tools of the ideolouge is the moral equivilency.

Ethics, right and wrong don't exist in shades of grey.

you think liberals or the left is the only ones praticing situational ethics?

Either you believe in right and wrong or you don't.

you can still believe in right or wrong but you can still be a total hypocrite about it

You are right here telling us you don't, so why should anyone take your opinion seriously, when you just showed us all you have no moral center, that its all about party affiliation?

When people think for themselves the world changes for the better.

When they don't you hear excuses and the bad times roll.

I worked for a guy who was found guilty on fraud for robbing the students of a private christian university. William Tyndale U. He owed me a weeks pay too.

Do you think I gave back my salary? Fuck that. Not my responsibility.

How about the people who worked for Bernie Madoff? Should his maids give their salaries back?

and if you think sealy is such a joke why are y ou engaging with him? just curious

in my opinion....the democrats now have total control...not a good thing....for either party....franken is a joke...a bad one




see? you are a true minority bones. A democwat with a thinking brain. :clap2:
 
One of the favored tools of the ideolouge is the moral equivilency.

Ethics, right and wrong don't exist in shades of grey.

you think liberals or the left is the only ones praticing situational ethics?

Either you believe in right and wrong or you don't.

you can still believe in right or wrong but you can still be a total hypocrite about it

You are right here telling us you don't, so why should anyone take your opinion seriously, when you just showed us all you have no moral center, that its all about party affiliation?

When people think for themselves the world changes for the better.

When they don't you hear excuses and the bad times roll.

I worked for a guy who was found guilty on fraud for robbing the students of a private christian university. William Tyndale U. He owed me a weeks pay too.

Do you think I gave back my salary? Fuck that. Not my responsibility.

How about the people who worked for Bernie Madoff? Should his maids give their salaries back?

and if you think sealy is such a joke why are y ou engaging with him? just curious

in my opinion....the democrats now have total control...not a good thing....for either party....franken is a joke...a bad one

Why is Franken a joke? What specific positions does he hold on any issue that make him a joke.

Why does Willow call you a democrat if you think dems having control is a bad thing? Is she wrong? Are you not a Dem?
 
One of the favored tools of the ideolouge is the moral equivilency.

Ethics, right and wrong don't exist in shades of grey.

you think liberals or the left is the only ones praticing situational ethics?

Either you believe in right and wrong or you don't.

you can still believe in right or wrong but you can still be a total hypocrite about it

You are right here telling us you don't, so why should anyone take your opinion seriously, when you just showed us all you have no moral center, that its all about party affiliation?

When people think for themselves the world changes for the better.

When they don't you hear excuses and the bad times roll.

and if you think sealy is such a joke why are y ou engaging with him? just curious

in my opinion....the democrats now have total control...not a good thing....for either party....franken is a joke...a bad one




see? you are a true minority bones. A democwat with a thinking brain. :clap2:

How can a democrat have the opinion that dems having control is a bad thing? What kind of Dem is that? Me thinks he is not a Dem.

Is this the same thing as when O'Reilly said he wasn't a Republican?
 
and if you think sealy is such a joke why are y ou engaging with him? just curious

in my opinion....the democrats now have total control...not a good thing....for either party....franken is a joke...a bad one




see? you are a true minority bones. A democwat with a thinking brain. :clap2:

How can a democrat have the opinion that dems having control is a bad thing? What kind of Dem is that? Me thinks he is not a Dem.

Is this the same thing as when O'Reilly said he wasn't a Republican?

How can a dem think that? because throughout history, when one party controls, they fuck it up.
 
i am a democrat...i am also a realist...one party in control does not mean effective government ..it means rubber stamping government...get over thinking i will toe the "party line" ...obama is not making a lot of good moves right now...you realize the government is now taking part of your credit card payment? no legalize of smoke....gays are pissed...i dont look for much from this admin but debt and talk. perhaps i will be more favorable of this admin...when it does more than tell me to hope and change....i want him to do what he said he would do...one unitify this country towards a common goal...two....real solutions to the energy problems....three...pull out of iraq and afghanistan....
four...work on unemployment....five...hit the ground running....not falling fall on his face out of the gate..which in my opinion is all he has done so far.
 
i am a democrat...i am also a realist...one party in control does not mean effective government ..it means rubber stamping government...get over thinking i will toe the "party line" ...obama is not making a lot of good moves right now...you realize the government is now taking part of your credit card payment? no legalize of smoke....gays are pissed...i dont look for much from this admin but debt and talk. perhaps i will be more favorable of this admin...when it does more than tell me to hope and change....i want him to do what he said he would do...one unitify this country towards a common goal...two....real solutions to the energy problems....three...pull out of iraq and afghanistan....
four...work on unemployment....five...hit the ground running....not falling fall on his face out of the gate..which in my opinion is all he has done so far.

You're dealing with a partisan hack in bobo. He doesn't operate in reality.
 
i am a democrat...i am also a realist...one party in control does not mean effective government ..it means rubber stamping government...get over thinking i will toe the "party line" ...obama is not making a lot of good moves right now...you realize the government is now taking part of your credit card payment? no legalize of smoke....gays are pissed...i dont look for much from this admin but debt and talk. perhaps i will be more favorable of this admin...when it does more than tell me to hope and change....i want him to do what he said he would do...one unitify this country towards a common goal...two....real solutions to the energy problems....three...pull out of iraq and afghanistan....
four...work on unemployment....five...hit the ground running....not falling fall on his face out of the gate..which in my opinion is all he has done so far.

Except that supposedly Dems have all the control now, and they still can't get anything done. The Filibuster is a powerful tool.
 
CORRECTION ALERT, esp. TO NIK

You were right...and I was (gasp!) WRONG.

It seems that when Lincoln first suspended writ of HC, congress (1861 to cope with the draft riots) was not in session.

Then they were in session, Congress STILL didn't confirm the Lincolns suspension.

It wasn't until 1863 that Congress finally supended the writ of HC.

So, for those of you who have been saying that Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus Corpous illegally, you are CORRECT.

Evidence of my grevious error below.

You self decalaring consitutional scholars who claim that Lincoln illegally suspended writ of Habeas Corpus don't know the constituion as well as you pretend to"
US consitution
Article 1 Section 9

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Lincoln did illegally suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus. Article 1 of the Constitution isn't about the presidents powers.

Congress suspended the writ, Nik, not Lincoln.

The POTUS probably requested it,and naturally, since that article was written expressly for just such an occassion, it passed muster.
 
Last edited:
How can a dem think that? because throughout history, when one party controls, they fuck it up.

They stopped caring about checks & balances once the Ossiah was annointed...

That was a "Booooosh era gripe"....

Pretty much.

But they own it now. And their idiotic policies can only fail. No one to blame, what will they do?

They'll try to get as much traction with "he inherited all bad things from Booooooosh", but we're coming up on the statute of limitations for that...

Barry had the "Buck Stops Here" transferred to Plugs Biden's desk.. Maybe they'll blame him...

Should be interesting to see who get's the blame...:popcorn:
 
What a nut job. :cuckoo:

But I love it. At least you are honest.

You die hard right wing constitutionalists admit that you consider our so called "rights" debatable.

And you say dems are the one taking away rights when they ban smoking but you allow Bush to take important rights away like due process and privacy.

No seperation of chuch and state? So we are now a muslim nation? Because Obama is a muslim, right?

Bill of rights. Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel


Yes, due process is a right.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


wikiwikiwiki shut up!

There is no "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution...

And Habeas Corpus is Documentably a Suspendable Priviledge...

You can Attack me instead of Dealing the Facts, but the Facts Remain.

:)

peace...

The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free.

And in 2005, U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right.

This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.)

Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated).

The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus.
 
What a nut job. :cuckoo:

But I love it. At least you are honest.

You die hard right wing constitutionalists admit that you consider our so called "rights" debatable.

And you say dems are the one taking away rights when they ban smoking but you allow Bush to take important rights away like due process and privacy.

No seperation of chuch and state? So we are now a muslim nation? Because Obama is a muslim, right?

Bill of rights. Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel


Yes, due process is a right.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


wikiwikiwiki shut up!

There is no "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution...

And Habeas Corpus is Documentably a Suspendable Priviledge...

You can Attack me instead of Dealing the Facts, but the Facts Remain.

:)

peace...

The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free.

And in 2005, U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right.

This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.)

Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated).

The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus.

don't forget FDR and the camps for Japanese. and remind us when Obama is going to overturn to the 2005 suspension.
 
There is no "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution...

And Habeas Corpus is Documentably a Suspendable Priviledge...

You can Attack me instead of Dealing the Facts, but the Facts Remain.

:)

peace...

The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free.

And in 2005, U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right.

This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.)

Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated).

The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus.

don't forget FDR and the camps for Japanese. and remind us when Obama is going to overturn to the 2005 suspension.

And remind us how the GOP got the Dems to go along with invading Iraq or else look weak on national defense/terrorism.
 
The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free.

And in 2005, U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right.

This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.)

Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated).

The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus.

don't forget FDR and the camps for Japanese. and remind us when Obama is going to overturn to the 2005 suspension.

And remind us how the GOP got the Dems to go along with invading Iraq or else look weak on national defense/terrorism.

for the 50th time, dumbass, the top democrats continued to support the war LONG after it was clear there were no weapons.
 

Forum List

Back
Top