Rangel: An Attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans (Merged)

[nt250]

First off, at least I backed up my COUNTER-claim to your original one, which you even failed to address. Second, what is wrong with Wikipedia? Can you provide evidence that suggests that it is a bad source? In fact, if you had even bothered to read the link you would see that some of what is said about Chavez might even back up SOME of your claims. But being the lazy arse that you are, you didn't even bother did you?

Don't you know that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody with access to the internet? You don't have to register, you don't have to log in. I just went to the Karl Marx page at Wikipedia and I added the sentence "KarlMarx is also the name of a poster at US Message Board".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

Try it yourself. My sentence didn't stay there long. When I saw you weren't online I went back to remove it and it was gone. So Wikipedia has improved their system in the last year. But it is still not a valid source to be used as anything but a quick reference guide.

No, I do not decide what is a valid argument or evidence. Example: George Bush is president of the US. That is a fact. John Kerry is a traitor. That is not a fact. That is in the eye of the beholder. Ditto re blogs etc...capice?

That's not true. Not only did John Kerry commit treason, he admitted it himself on the floor of the Senate on April 22, 1971. I could supply you with a link to his full testimony but I doubt you would read it. I could also supply you with the description of treason from the United States Constitution which is proof that he is guilty of treason, but I doubt you will care.

What's in the "eye of the beholder" about John Kerry being a "traitor" is the definition of traitor and the reasons why he was never charged with treason. He committed treason by his own admission. That's a fact. He was never charged with treason. That's a fact. He betrayed his fellow service members by lying about them, that makes him a traitor. The only thing that's left to the beholders eye, is whether they give a shit or not. You obviously don't.

 

[Dr Grump]

Don't you know that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody with access to the internet? You don't have to register, you don't have to log in. I just went to the Karl Marx page at Wikipedia and I added the sentence "KarlMarx is also the name of a poster at US Message Board".
Try it yourself. My sentence didn't stay there long. When I saw you weren't online I went back to remove it and it was gone. So Wikipedia has improved their system in the last year. But it is still not a valid source to be used as anything but a quick reference guide.

Yes I do know Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. It also asks for references (which are supplied). As you noticed by the fact your weak attempt was deleted, they have moderators, and in fact the link I posted about Chavez has been scutinized and questioned. Also, on another messageboard, it was pointed out that the references and sources of wikipedia are just as valid as any other and in some cases are more factual. If you can prove otherwise, please do so (I reiterate, the fact your own edit was removed ASAP seems to validate that). Here's an idea NT, instead of giving me your opinion on the Wiki, how about refuting the information in the link I provided. Shouldn't be too hard...

That's not true. Not only did John Kerry commit treason, he admitted it himself on the floor of the Senate on April 22, 1971..

Not only did I read it, I heard it. Care to point out which parts were treasonous?

.I could also supply you with the description of treason from the United States Constitution which is proof that he is guilty of treason, but I doubt you will care.

no, no, no.....I care lots. Please point out the description of treason in the constitution and the proof that he is guilty of such. Take you time....

.What's in the "eye of the beholder" about John Kerry being a "traitor" is the definition of traitor and the reasons why he was never charged with treason. He committed treason by his own admission. That's a fact. He was never charged with treason.

Jaysus! You haven't even answered the question and you are already backtracking/making excuses....don't hold back..go for it!

He betrayed his fellow service members by lying about them, that makes him a traitor..

He did lie about them? really? What were the lies? What is your proof that he was lying? Where in the constitution does it say lying about servicemen (and proving it of course) is treason?

The only thing that's left to the beholders eye, is whether they give a shit or not. You obviously don't.

Oh, I give a shit! I give a shit so much, and that he lied so badly, and that everybody knows that, that I'm real glad he was charged with treason!!! Oh, that's right, he wasn't!! For such an open and shut case, I'm really surprised about that!

 

[KarlMarx]

That in itself tells others on this board (well, those that are fair-minded) how lame your debating skills are. You are dismissed....

Do you think you're speaking to a sub-ordinate? What's this "you're dismissed" nonsense?

Thanks, you just proved my point. It's not your positions on the subject of the thread I am contending with now, it's your attitude I have a problem with, Grump.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you think you're speaking to a sub-ordinate? What's this "you're dismissed" nonsense?

Thanks, you just proved my point. It's not your positions on the subject of the thread I am contending with now, it's your attitude I have a problem with, Grump.

Deal with my positions first (if you are able), then we'll deal with the attitude. The FACT you don't deal with my positions speaks volumes of your inability to refute them. Go figure....

 

[KarlMarx]

Deal with my positions first (if you are able), then we'll deal with the attitude. The FACT you don't deal with my positions speaks volumes of your inability to refute them. Go figure....

I've been "dismissed" remember?

Deal with your attitude first, then we'll debate.

 

[Dr Grump]

I've been "dismissed" remember?

Deal with your attitude first, then we'll debate.

Ok, you are no longer dismissed. Now, debate. Take your time.

 

[KarlMarx]

Ok, you are no longer dismissed. Now, debate. Take your time.

You don't get it, do you? Who do you think you are to take that kind of tone with people on this board? You're not addressing a plantation slave!

Go learn some manners!!!!!

I direct you to a link


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

 

[Dr Grump]

You don't get it, do you? Who do you think you are to take that kind of tone with people on this board? You're not addressing a plantation slave!

Go learn some manners!!!!!

I direct you to a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

You really are reaching. You failed the basics of 101 debating. Realising your position is weak, you feint, weave and bob...even change the subject. Karl...where's your arse...I have a platter for it. You obviously have no ability to debate on the merits of the subject and try to change the goal posts. I have no interest in debating the subject any more. If you had any ammo, you would have shot me down in the first instance. Instead you start addressing your poor widdle sensibilities. Bottom line? People who support my position will support it, those that support yours, ditto. The neutrals see you for what you are....go figure. If you want to refute my initial assertions, be my guest. If you want to try and extract yourself from the situation by trying to change the subject, also, be my guest. People can read. They are not fools.

 

[nt250]

Yes I do know Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. It also asks for references (which are supplied). As you noticed by the fact your weak attempt was deleted, they have moderators, and in fact the link I posted about Chavez has been scutinized and questioned. Also, on another messageboard, it was pointed out that the references and sources of wikipedia are just as valid as any other and in some cases are more factual. If you can prove otherwise, please do so (I reiterate, the fact your own edit was removed ASAP seems to validate that). Here's an idea NT, instead of giving me your opinion on the Wiki, how about refuting the information in the link I provided. Shouldn't be too hard...

I don't care what Wikipedia says about Chavez. I use Wikipedia, too. It is a good, quick tool. My point was that it should not be used as a definitive source, and it certainly should not be defended as such.

Not only did I read it, I heard it. Care to point out which parts were treasonous?

Do you want me to give you the actual quotes themselves or is your memory good enough? He said he met with the enemy in Paris. Later, he obviously knew he had crossed the line because he compares his own actions with a Senator who had also met with the enemy. I'll give you the quotes if you want me to. Later that same day he held a press conference with the wives of POW's where he advanced Madam Bihn's agenda. Ring any bells?

no, no, no.....I care lots. Please point out the description of treason in the constitution and the proof that he is guilty of such. Take you time....

It's Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

Section. 3.
Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Emphasis added

If you want to agrue about whether the floor of the United States Senate is an "open Court" or not go right ahead. But before you do, you should ask a lawyer about that.

He did lie about them? really? What were the lies? What is your proof that he was lying? Where in the constitution does it say lying about servicemen (and proving it of course) is treason?

First of all, if you don't know the definition of the word "lie" I can't help you. Telling a lie is saying something you know to be untrue. On April 22, 1971 John Kerry not only knew that many of the stories told at Winter Soldier were lies, he himself was instrumental in pressuring some of those men TO lie. I can supply you with a full transcipt of the Winter Soldier Investigation so you can read it for yourself. There was more than one moderator, and they are not identified by name, but John Kerry was one of them.

Second of all, I didn't say his lies were proof of treason. They weren't. They're proof of his betrayal, which makes him a traitor to his fellow service members. Go look up "traitor" at Wikipedia.

Oh, I give a shit! I give a shit so much, and that he lied so badly, and that everybody knows that, that I'm real glad he was charged with treason!!! Oh, that's right, he wasn't!! For such an open and shut case, I'm really surprised about that!

So am I. Jane Fonda was never charged with treason either. Go figure.

 

[jillian]

You don't get it, do you? Who do you think you are to take that kind of tone with people on this board? You're not addressing a plantation slave!

Go learn some manners!!!!!

I direct you to a link


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Interestingly enough, Karl... right-wingers on this board take that "tone" with people who disagree with them all the time.. not all, and I've had excellent discussions with many people on the "other side", but certainly enough of them to make the "tone" pervasive at times. No?

While I think it is admirable to seek civil debate, perhaps if such requests went both ways, they'd be appreciated more. Just saying...

 

[jillian]

I don't care what Wikipedia says about Chavez. I use Wikipedia, too. It is a good, quick tool. My point was that it should not be used as a definitive source, and it certainly should not be defended as such.





Do you want me to give you the actual quotes themselves or is your memory good enough? He said he met with the enemy in Paris. Later, he obviously knew he had crossed the line because he compares his own actions with a Senator who had also met with the enemy. I'll give you the quotes if you want me to. Later that same day he held a press conference with the wives of POW's where he advanced Madam Bihn's agenda. Ring any bells?





It's Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:



If you want to agrue about whether the floor of the United States Senate is an "open Court" or not go right ahead. But before you do, you should ask a lawyer about that.





First of all, if you don't know the definition of the word "lie" I can't help you. Telling a lie is saying something you know to be untrue. On April 22, 1971 John Kerry not only knew that many of the stories told at Winter Soldier were lies, he himself was instrumental in pressuring some of those men TO lie. I can supply you with a full transcipt of the Winter Soldier Investigation so you can read it for yourself. There was more than one moderator, and they are not identified by name, but John Kerry was one of them.

Second of all, I didn't say his lies were proof of treason. They weren't. They're proof of his betrayal, which makes him a traitor to his fellow service members. Go look up "traitor" at Wikipedia.





So am I. Jane Fonda was never charged with treason either. Go figure.

No one is guilty of treason unless they have been charged and convicted. It's funny how that works here... "great country, America", as my Belorusian grandfather used to say.

Now, while it may be your "opinion" that certain acts were/are traitorous, they are only your "opinion" unless, of course, they have been borne out in open Court and a conviction follows.

So, while your citing the Constitution, when we all know what it says, is interesting (although irrelevant in this instance), it fails to prove your assertion.

Oh... and pssssssssssst.... same goes for Jane Fonda. While you may not like what she did (I, frankly think it was ill-considered and dumb) she was never charged or found guilty of treason either.

The rest is just opinion. And while you're certainly free to have that opinion, it holds no greater weight than the opinions of those who disagree with you.

 

[Gunny]

No one is guilty of treason unless they have been charged and convicted. It's funny how that works here... "great country, America", as my Belorusian grandfather used to say.

Now, while it may be your "opinion" that certain acts were/are traitorous, they are only your "opinion" unless, of course, they have been borne out in open Court and a conviction follows.

So, while your citing the Constitution, when we all know what it says, is interesting (although irrelevant in this instance), it fails to prove your assertion.

Oh... and pssssssssssst.... same goes for Jane Fonda. While you may not like what she did (I, frankly think it was ill-considered and dumb) she was never charged or found guilty of treason either.

The rest is just opinion. And while you're certainly free to have that opinion, it holds no greater weight than the opinions of those who disagree with you.

 

[nt250]

No one is guilty of treason unless they have been charged and convicted. It's funny how that works here... "great country, America", as my Belorusian grandfather used to say.

Actually, that's not true. I'm not a lawyer, so if there are any lawyers here correct me if I'm wrong. But a verdict of guilty in a court of law does not mean a person did what they were accused of doing, and a verdict of not guilty does not mean a person is "innocent" of what they were accused of doing. Our courts are predicated on the idea of the presumption of innocence. That means you can be guilty as sin, but if the state, or in the case of treason it's the federal government, can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, you get off. In criminal cases it's the "reasonable doubt" standard. In civil cases it's the "a preponderance of the evidence" standard.

I don't think I ever said that John Kerry was guilty of committing treason, but if I did I meant it in it's non-legal sense. He admitted to it, so in that respect he is guilty of it. The fact that he was never charged or convicted of it doesn't change that fact.

Now, while it may be your "opinion" that certain acts were/are traitorous, they are only your "opinion" unless, of course, they have been borne out in open Court and a conviction follows.

Again, we're getting back to the definition of the word "traitor" which I thought I made pretty clear in my post. Betraying someone makes you a traitor to them. Ask a Vietnam veteran if they felt betrayed by Kerry's lies.

So, while your citing the Constitution, when we all know what it says, is interesting (although irrelevant in this instance), it fails to prove your assertion.

No it doesn't. The United States Congress is a court of law. John Kerry admitted to treason in an "open court". If you want to debate whether Congressional hearings are the same as a judical branch court hearing, then fine. But you can't argue that Kerry didn't admit to treason. He admitted it. Just because he didn't come right out and say it, and he later tried to weasel his way out of it, doesn't change what he himself admitted to. Or what he did later that same day.

Oh... and pssssssssssst.... same goes for Jane Fonda. While you may not like what she did (I, frankly think it was ill-considered and dumb) she was never charged or found guilty of treason either.

The rest is just opinion. And while you're certainly free to have that opinion, it holds no greater weight than the opinions of those who disagree with you.

Yes, my opinion does hold more weight. Why? Because I happen to be right.

 

[KarlMarx]

Interestingly enough, Karl... right-wingers on this board take that "tone" with people who disagree with them all the time.. not all, and I've had excellent discussions with many people on the "other side", but certainly enough of them to make the "tone" pervasive at times. No?

While I think it is admirable to seek civil debate, perhaps if such requests went both ways, they'd be appreciated more. Just saying...

Granted, I'm sure I'm guilty of the same from time to time.

Let's just say there's some history here... and I won't get into it. Let me just say that I've found responding to certain people's idea of "debate" as.... tiresome and futile... I think I have better things to do with my time... like cleaning the china.

 

[jillian]

Actually, that's not true. I'm not a lawyer, so if there are any lawyers here correct me if I'm wrong. But a verdict of guilty in a court of law does not mean a person did what they were accused of doing, and a verdict of not guilty does not mean a person is "innocent" of what they were accused of doing. Our courts are predicated on the idea of the presumption of innocence. That means you can be guilty as sin, but if the state, or in the case of treason it's the federal government, can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, you get off. In criminal cases it's the "reasonable doubt" standard. In civil cases it's the "a preponderance of the evidence" standard.

Well, I am a lawyer, but I, admittedly, don't do any criminal work (though I did criminal appeals for the State AG's office when I was in school), so I claim no expertise on the subject. Our courts ARE premised on a presumption of innocence. A finding of "not guilty", however, does not mean innocence, it means you weren't found guilty. And, yes, there's a different standard in civil cases, but that isn't what we're talking about in regards to Kerry or Fonda or any of the other people with whom you guys like throwing around the term "treason".

Kerry was never charged. There was never ANY burden ... or any finding or lack of finding on either a civil or criminal level. Therefore, it is purely your "opinion", which has value which is neither lesser nor greater than anyone else's.

I don't think I ever said that John Kerry was guilty of committing treason, but if I did I meant it in it's non-legal sense. He admitted to it, so in that respect he is guilty of it. The fact that he was never charged or convicted of it doesn't change that fact.

Kerry did not admit to treason. He admitted to having been misled on some facts. The fact that YOU believe those facts amount to treason is, again, your opinion, and nothing more.

Again, we're getting back to the definition of the word "traitor" which I thought I made pretty clear in my post. Betraying someone makes you a traitor to them. Ask a Vietnam veteran if they felt betrayed by Kerry's lies.

Actually, the only two Vietnam Vets I know personally have no problem with Kerry's testimony. And, again, that would be THEIR opinion, and nothing more or less.

No it doesn't. The United States Congress is a court of law.

No it isn't. There are no evidentiary rules and no jury (on criminal issues). The only time Congress "acts" as a Court is when the Senate hears an impeachment.

John Kerry admitted to treason in an "open court".

No. He didn't.

[QOTE]If you want to debate whether Congressional hearings are the same as a judical branch court hearing, then fine.

There IS no debate on that subject... it isn't.

But you can't argue that Kerry didn't admit to treason.

Kerry stated things that, IN YOUR OPINION, are treasonous. He did not admit to treason.

He admit it. Just because he didn't come right out and say it, and he later tried to weasel his way out of it, doesn't change what he himself admitted to. Or what he did later that same day.

ER... see the above.

Yes, my opinion does hold more weight. Why? Because I happen to be right.

RAFLMAO... IN YOUR OPINION.... which doesn't make it correct. It only makes it your opinion. A little arrogant of you, but good try... lol...

Oh... and just for the record, we ALL think our opinions are correct, or we wouldn't hold to those opinions. D'uh...

 

[dilloduck]

Interestingly enough, Karl... right-wingers on this board take that "tone" with people who disagree with them all the time.. not all, and I've had excellent discussions with many people on the "other side", but certainly enough of them to make the "tone" pervasive at times. No?

While I think it is admirable to seek civil debate, perhaps if such requests went both ways, they'd be appreciated more. Just saying...

You're "tone" just goes to shit when you get busted in another lie.

 

[nt250]

Well, I am a lawyer, but I, admittedly, don't do any criminal work (though I did criminal appeals for the State AG's office when I was in school), so I claim no expertise on the subject. Our courts ARE premised on a presumption of innocence. A finding of "not guilty", however, does not mean innocence, it means you weren't found guilty. And, yes, there's a different standard in civil cases, but that isn't what we're talking about in regards to Kerry or Fonda or any of the other people with whom you guys like throwing around the term "treason".

Kerry was never charged. There was never ANY burden ... or any finding or lack of finding on either a civil or criminal level. Therefore, it is purely your "opinion", which has value which is neither lesser nor greater than anyone else's.



Kerry did not admit to treason. He admitted to having been misled on some facts. The fact that YOU believe those facts amount to treason is, again, your opinion, and nothing more.



Actually, the only two Vietnam Vets I know personally have no problem with Kerry's testimony. And, again, that would be THEIR opinion, and nothing more or less.




No it isn't. There are no evidentiary rules and no jury (on criminal issues). The only time Congress "acts" as a Court is when the Senate hears an impeachment.



There IS no debate on that subject... it isn't.



Kerry stated things that, IN YOUR OPINION, are treasonous. He did not admit to treason.



ER... see the above.




RAFLMAO... IN YOUR OPINION.... which doesn't make it correct. It only makes it your opinion. A little arrogant of you, but good try... lol...

Oh... and just for the record, we ALL think our opinions are correct, or we wouldn't hold to those opinions. D'uh...

I don't know Jillian. I'm kind of shocked that you're a lawyer and you are still arguing about things you should know better than I do, but obviously don't.

Maybe you misread some of what I said. I'm not sure why you included this sentence: "A finding of "not guilty", however, does not mean innocence, it means you weren't found guilty." You seem to be trying to contradict something I said, when I actually said the same thing. Except I put the word "innocent" in quotes and you put the words "not guilty" in quotes. A verdict in a criminal trial does not prove anything except whether the state proved it's case to the satisfaction of the jury or judge.

As far are the Senate not being an "open court" because it doesn't have a jury? Ever heard of Oliver North? Elliot Abrams? If subpoena power, testifying under oath (which John Kerry apparently did not do since he was apparently never sworn), and the granting of immunity isn't enough of a definition of a court for you, than I give up.


I made two points: Wikipedia is not a reliable source and facts are not disputable. Opinions about facts is not the same thing as denying they are facts.

 

[archangel]

I don't know Jillian. I'm kind of shocked that you're a lawyer and you are still arguing about things you should know better than I do, but obviously don't.

Maybe you misread some of what I said. I'm not sure why you included this sentence: "A finding of "not guilty", however, does not mean innocence, it means you weren't found guilty." You seem to be trying to contradict something I said, when I actually said the same thing. Except I put the word "innocent" in quotes and you put the words "not guilty" in quotes. A verdict in a criminal trial does not prove anything except whether the state proved it's case to the satisfaction of the jury or judge.

As far are the Senate not being an "open court" because it doesn't have a jury? Ever heard of Oliver North? Elliot Abrams? If subpoena power, testifying under oath (which John Kerry apparently did not do since he was apparently never sworn), and the granting of immunity isn't enough of a definition of a court for you, than I give up.


You are absolutely correct...Lt.Kerry knew exactly what he was doing...he was not sworn in before his testimony...therefore his testimony could not be used against him in a court of law! Lt.Kerry is a fraud and deceiver...he is also a gigilo (imho)...married for the sake of money and protection(twice)

 

[nt250]

You are absolutely correct...Lt.Kerry knew exactly what he was doing...he was not sworn in before his testimony...therefore his testimony could not be used against him in a court of law! Lt.Kerry is a fraud and deceiver...he is also a gigilo (imho)...married for the sake of money and protection(twice)

That's not really true, either. Kerry's admission that he met with the enemy, and his furthering of their agenda upon his return (including holding a press conference the same day he testified before the Senate where he advocated the enemies position while exploiting POW's) would have been enough to charge him with treason. The fact that he wasn't sworn in, but simply introduced by a bunch of fawning Senators and allowed to talk, just means he couldn't be charged with perjury for lying.

What will never cease to amaze me is that even if you don't believe what Kerry did was technically treason (which it was), it was still reprehensible. Even if he was telling the truth about the atrocities he described (which he wasn't), he himself was guilty of committing the same acts and of not making any attempt at all to stop others from doing so. Which was his duty as an officer.

Some "hero".

 

[Annie]

More on Harkins, this is one of the leaders, if the DNC pulls off the win in Nov:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015356.php