Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Already done so at least two other times on this board in the past 3.5 years. Not about to do that research AGAIN, just for you. It's on here and if you are interested you'll find it. Or are you just another partisan hack after a cheap shot (rhetorical question)?
What a sleazy way to decline defending your flaccid post.
No doubt you shook with fear, knowing full well how flimsy your arguments are.
You have chosen your own label: self-identified as a pedantic, insipid partisan and fall into the 'bumper-sticker' class of poster.
So you're too lazy to look huh? You want somebody else to do your work for you. Being an uber conservative, why am I not surprised. As I said, it's already been done twice, if you're too lazy to look, that's on you.
Sleazy? Do you even know what the word means? (again, a rhetorical question).
As for drooling partisan, didn't I see your pic next to the word in my kids' picture dictionary?
LOL!!!!
So.. let's see, imprisoning them in Gitmo without access to U.S. Legal protections is unconstitutional so let's bring them to the U.S., hold a show trial and kill them.
God you people are stupid.
"My kid's picture dictionary"?
YOU are the kid!
Only a child would think that your response is anything other than obfuscation!
Let's review:
1. You, an experienced USMB poster, use some throw-way bumper sticker comment.
2. I call you on it and demand that you back up your sentiments.
3. So you say "I said it once or twice over the last 2-3 years. Go find it yourself!"
4. Cowardly...or-
5. simply retract your original post, and admit you are unable to defend it.
Try again?
LOL!!!!
So.. let's see, imprisoning them in Gitmo without access to U.S. Legal protections is unconstitutional so let's bring them to the U.S., hold a show trial and kill them.
God you people are stupid.
"My kid's picture dictionary"?
YOU are the kid!
Only a child would think that your response is anything other than obfuscation!
Let's review:
1. You, an experienced USMB poster, use some throw-way bumper sticker comment.
2. I call you on it and demand that you back up your sentiments.
3. So you say "I said it once or twice over the last 2-3 years. Go find it yourself!"
4. Cowardly...or-
5. simply retract your original post, and admit you are unable to defend it.
Try again?
So, let me get this straight. I believe the Bush admin should be brought to trial on a couple of issues - and said so on this board over three years ago. Somebody calls me on it, I produce my evidence and a lively debate ensues (the people who debated me, vigorously opposed my POV by the way). Approximately a year later, the same thread appears, I say the same, get called, do my research and have a debate - again a vigorous one with differing POV.
Now two years later, on the say-so of some lazy, partisan hack, I should go out of my way and do it again?
Don't think so.
If you are too lazy and can't be bothered hitting the search function, I believe you should either STFU, or at least go easy on the spade with that hole you are digging for yourself.
I refuse to jump through hoops YET AGAIN, for somebody who probably survives on foodstamps and the good will of others (if your lack of drive on this subject is anything to go by)
If you were truly interested in my 'evidence' or POV, then you would happily hit the search button. You are not. You are child pouting petulantly because I won't play your silly little game.
Isn't there a sandpit you can play in somewhere...even in cyberspace?
No, no, no- let ME get this straight.
You don't mind making some deprecating statements about the prior administration, statements that exist only in fantasy and in your opinion, and you not only don't feel that you should be held to account for them, but claim that I'm the lazy one for not researching data to prove your bogus points?
So, how are things in bizarro world?
And leave my food stamps outa' this.
Gummint says I'm a client, not a recipienct!
No, no, no- let ME get this straight.
You don't mind making some deprecating statements about the prior administration, statements that exist only in fantasy and in your opinion, and you not only don't feel that you should be held to account for them, but claim that I'm the lazy one for not researching data to prove your bogus points?
So, how are things in bizarro world?
And leave my food stamps outa' this.
Gummint says I'm a client, not a recipienct!
But what you don't seem to be getting PC is that I have been held accountable to them - twice, on this board. Which part of that DON'T you understand.
You don't even have to research the data, I've done that for you. All you have to do is research for the posts, but you can't be bothered..
Oh, so now you trust the govt and what it's saying....
Oh, did you have a tough day?
...while I sat here eating Bon Bons and watching Oprah??
Too bad, sucka. I had a job once, I think it was '92 or '93. For a whole week.
Enough chit-chat:
If ya' post it, document it!
Either that, or crawl away from it with your tail...you know the rest.
Or I will beat you like a rented mule!
LOL!!!!
So.. let's see, imprisoning them in Gitmo without access to U.S. Legal protections is unconstitutional so let's bring them to the U.S., hold a show trial and kill them.
God you people are stupid.
Justice has to be seen to be done. The US - in the form of its govt spokespeople or the man on the street, or even on a messageboard - has shouted ad infinitum that you are the greatest country in the world, has the greatest type of govt, legal system, blah, blah, blah. But when push comes to shove, the old Uber cons like to resort to Commie and Fascist tactics of not having a fair trial. Go figure, and why am I not surprised...
Oh, and what is the problem with putting the previous admin on trial?
Nothing, if that is what Holder/Obama wish to do, they should. Just shouldn't be doing so with the trial of the mastermind of 9/11.
what a military trial or tribunal.....would you support that?
Oh, and what is the problem with putting the previous admin on trial?
Nothing, if that is what Holder/Obama wish to do, they should. Just shouldn't be doing so with the trial of the mastermind of 9/11.
.
Nothing, if that is what Holder/Obama wish to do, they should. Just shouldn't be doing so with the trial of the mastermind of 9/11.
.
If indeed, that is what they are doing...
Who says it's a show trial? You? Fox? Other uber cons?
Has Holder or Obama said it was a show trial?
have you seen the questions lawyers are going to ask the defendant, which directly relat to the Bush admin? How would anything relate to the Bush admin that would be relevant?
Thought the dude was going to plead guilty anyway, so there might not be a chance to even garner an opinion.
Too much supposition and assuming....
If indeed, that is what they are doing...
Who says it's a show trial? You? Fox? Other uber cons?
Has Holder or Obama said it was a show trial?
have you seen the questions lawyers are going to ask the defendant, which directly relat to the Bush admin? How would anything relate to the Bush admin that would be relevant?
Thought the dude was going to plead guilty anyway, so there might not be a chance to even garner an opinion.
Too much supposition and assuming....
Perhaps. Read through the thread and links. Some pretty smart folks think just that, including Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted the blind sheik, though recognizes that that trial gave al Qaeda valuable info that they exploited.
so many thoughts so many responses which one is right. So Obama is treating war like a crime, thats all.
Clinton treated terrorism as a crime, that is why we got attacked, so Obama does the same thing, it resulted in the Ft. Hood massacre.
I see no problem taking KSM into court, he freely admits his guilt, what happens when you go to court and plead guilty, there is no trial, you are sentenced right then and there. KSM is admitting he attaced the World trade center twice, once in 1993 and again on 9/11, the 1993 attack ties the 9/11 attack to Iraq, so if there is a trail this should come out.
But this is not about justice, this is about Obama, the guy is full of himself, Obama makes himself look good by making others look bad, not by accomplishments. It is the same as Obama standing next to a pile of dog shit and making a speech about how good Obama smells.
Justice, predetermined outcome, the Marxist did this under Mao, the accused were already considered guilty and the trial was a Marxist propaganda show, so this is just another example how Obama is a Marxist.
Do you believe the shit you spout? Seriously....
so many thoughts so many responses which one is right. So Obama is treating war like a crime, thats all.
Clinton treated terrorism as a crime, that is why we got attacked, so Obama does the same thing, it resulted in the Ft. Hood massacre.
I see no problem taking KSM into court, he freely admits his guilt, what happens when you go to court and plead guilty, there is no trial, you are sentenced right then and there. KSM is admitting he attaced the World trade center twice, once in 1993 and again on 9/11, the 1993 attack ties the 9/11 attack to Iraq, so if there is a trail this should come out.
But this is not about justice, this is about Obama, the guy is full of himself, Obama makes himself look good by making others look bad, not by accomplishments. It is the same as Obama standing next to a pile of dog shit and making a speech about how good Obama smells.
Justice, predetermined outcome, the Marxist did this under Mao, the accused were already considered guilty and the trial was a Marxist propaganda show, so this is just another example how Obama is a Marxist.
Do you believe the shit you spout? Seriously....
Your response validates my post, do you wipe your mouth with toilet paper after you shit.
If indeed, that is what they are doing...
Who says it's a show trial? You? Fox? Other uber cons?
Has Holder or Obama said it was a show trial?
have you seen the questions lawyers are going to ask the defendant, which directly relat to the Bush admin? How would anything relate to the Bush admin that would be relevant?
Thought the dude was going to plead guilty anyway, so there might not be a chance to even garner an opinion.
Too much supposition and assuming....
Perhaps. Read through the thread and links. Some pretty smart folks think just that, including Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted the blind sheik, though recognizes that that trial gave al Qaeda valuable info that they exploited.
If indeed, that is what they are doing...
Who says it's a show trial? You? Fox? Other uber cons?
Has Holder or Obama said it was a show trial?
have you seen the questions lawyers are going to ask the defendant, which directly relat to the Bush admin? How would anything relate to the Bush admin that would be relevant?
Thought the dude was going to plead guilty anyway, so there might not be a chance to even garner an opinion.
Too much supposition and assuming....
Perhaps. Read through the thread and links. Some pretty smart folks think just that, including Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted the blind sheik, though recognizes that that trial gave al Qaeda valuable info that they exploited.
That bolded word - as I said, supposition and assuming..
They could be right of course. You'll know soon enough I guess..
