Let's Roll - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

Flame Wars

Let's Roll (Page 1)

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Let's Roll
Sv JAG	posted 12-17- 09:12 AM Anyone hear this new Niel Young tune for Sept 11th? AWESOME. Any stupid liberal (not the smart ones) should put this song along side "Ohio" - to see that there is no such thing as a "party line" to base your beliefs on. Niel has always been a big defender of cival liberties... and his point is like "look, we can and MUST give up some freedom to fight evil and win, we can ALWAYS get them back, they are OUR rights... don't worry so much about it... its not like they are "taken away" - we are just dealing with a situation." There are times where the differnce between conservative and liberal stances fades away completely... and now is such a time. I am against more government, but I am 100% for the government taking over airport security forever. But why certain liberal political leaders are siding with the terrorists, I have no idea. They claim they are doing it to protect our rights... but who needs rights after a plan is flown into your forhead? This is just stupid thinking... as stupid as other certain idoit leaders who tried to argue that airports would be more secure if kept private. That makes no sense at every level... some tasks in life just don't work with a profit incentive. This may suprise people here, but I have always been for the government taking over all insurace business. Anything that citizens are forced to have or use... like roads between cities... there can not be choise here... so it is best left to the government. Capitalism makes no sense in a situation where there is no choice... I also think that the utilities should ne government controlled. Now you can still have private energy generation... just not distribution. Also the communication lines shoule be government owned... but private companies should lease these lines and compete for service on them... Anyway, you gotta hear this Niel tunem simply awesome. You can use Morpheus to download it (the new Napster) - it is not commercially available. IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 12-17- 11:20 AM SV - I will be emailing you something today.... IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-17- 04:29 PM >There are times where the differnce between conservative and liberal stances fades away completely... and now is such a time. Agreed >I am against more government, but I am 100% for the government taking over airport security forever. But why certain liberal political leaders are siding with the terrorists, I have no idea. Exactly who is siding with the terrorists? I haven't heard of any Liberal political leaders even coming close to siding with the terrorists. >They claim they are doing it to protect our rights... You're being a bit vague here. Who is doing what to protect which rights? >but who needs rights after a plan is flown into your forhead? The people who didn't have planes flown into their foreheads? [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-17-2001).] IP: Logged
Sv JAG	posted 12-17- 07:57 PM The pathetic duo... looking to stop the government from using military tribunals and to stop them from rounding up the enemy. The enemy have invaded us, they are here, we must find them to prevent their victories. Its one thing to "say" we should proceed with care when doing this, it is another thing to try as hard as you can to stop it. IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 01:48 PM >The pathetic duo... looking to stop the government from using military tribunals and to stop them from rounding up the enemy. A few Senators have expressed concerns about the use of military tribunals. That doesn't mean they're "siding with the terrorists". Furthermore, if you truly believe that this is a time when Liberals and Conservatives should come together, you wouldn't make such inflammatory and baseless accusations. [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
Sv JAG	posted 12-18- 02:05 PM Did you not see the Ashcroft hearings? IP: Logged
Jerry+ Pilot	posted 12-18- 02:20 PM Inflamatory and baseless? JT, you read my post about the Portland, OR city liberals refusing to allow the police department to assist the FBI in questioning people who matched the same profile as ALL the highjackers. Now who do you think they are helping the most here.....American citizens or potential terrorists? IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 02:27 PM >Did you not see the Ashcroft hearings? Of course I did, what is your point? IP: Logged
Sv JAG	posted 12-18- 02:55 PM You know what drives me nuts about you JT? If you just came out with it and said, "look, I am worried about military tribunals and I think Senator Kennedy is doing a good job by trying to stop Bush and Ashcroft from having these new abilities they want." Then I would be happy, and we would just differ in opinion. But instead you prentend that Kennedy is not doing anything at all... whistle, whistle... ho hummm... Just what the hell is your concept of "expressing concern" anyway? Do you think that Kennedy woudl be happy if, because of the hearing, Bush and Ashcroft lost their ability to round up terrorists and have military tribunals??? Of course he would!!! He is trying has HARD as he can do achieve this. I have heard many liberals, and even more conservatives "voice concern" about these issues... but Kennedy and Leahy go way beyond this... they are fighting against it, not just debating it. We're at war, and Kennedy and Leahy are fighting as hard as they can to protect the rights of fucking terrorists!!!!!!!! [This message has been edited by Sv (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 03:10 PM >I have heard many liberals, and even more conservatives "voice concern" about these issues... but Kennedy and Leahy go way beyond this... they are fighting against it, not just debating it. Exactly what do you think they are doing that goes "way beyond" a voicing of concern? IP: Logged
Sv JAG	posted 12-18- 03:54 PM They WANT to win... they want to remove Ashcroft's power to do certain things he is doing- trying to call some of these new steps "unconstitutional" is their approach. Luckily it is not a strong argument. A hearing is a little more than a debate... especially when there is so much for everyone to be doing. And what troubles me so much is the possible ramifications... what if they make progress and stop the efforts of Bush and Ashcroft? To my way of thinking, this is a large victory for the terrorists and sets the stage for more attacks and more progress for the enemy. Bin Laden is using the same reasoning that Iraq uses... and the same reasoning that Hitler used. They think we are weak because we are scared to fight... and weak because we spend all day fighting for the rights of animals and criminals. They figure we will self destruct... Bin Laden said it exactly... he felt that the last presidential election showed that the US was about to crumble!!! To a large degree I agree that it weakens us to have freedom and justace the way we do. But the trick is that when we are attacked we all bad together and do ANYTHING it takes to stop the enemy. Then we go back to life as normal. This is exactly what the Niel Yong song is about... amazing. That is why I am so upset about what Kennedy does... because during this time where we need to defeat the enemy AT ALL COST, he is busy working on the side of the enemy!!!! Do you know that Bin Laden's slef-admitted biggest allie is the American population??? He said that all he needs to do is wait for the anti-war rallies to start... SO IF YOU find yourself fighting against this particular war effort, then you have just join Bin Laden's side. What is the counter argument to this? And just why else would Ashcroft want the powers he has asked for? To fuck people over and put the poor innocent people in jail? Is he more evil than Bin Laden? Or are American rights so weak and ill-concieved that once you take some measures that reduce personal freedom to fight an enemy, you can never regain them again? IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 04:43 PM >They WANT to win... they want to remove Ashcroft's power to do certain things he is doing- trying to call some of these new steps "unconstitutional" is their approach. I ask you to explain exactly what it is you think they are doing that is beyond calling for debate, and your answer is "They WANT to win"? Is that your final answer? Sen. Leahy clearly stated that the goal of the hearings on The Patriot Act was to examine the powers Ashcroft was asking for. Where on Earth do you get the notion that the purpose of the hearings was to "remove Ashcroft's power to do certain things"? Do you have some quote or written document that proves this? >That is why I am so upset about what Kennedy does... because during this time where we need to defeat the enemy AT ALL COST, he is busy working on the side of the enemy!!!! Again, exactly WHAT is he doing that is upsetting you? Is anyone who questions or criticizes Ashcroft "working on the side of the enemy"? Do you honestly believe that Kennedy wants the terrorists to win? Do you honestly think he is on their side? If you say yes, you are not being intellectually honest. It's one thing to say that Sen. Kennedy is wrong to criticize Ashcroft's tactics. It's quite another thing to say that Sen. Kennedy is "siding with the terrorists". Why do you feel the need to try to convince us that Sen. Kennedy is actually on Bin Laden's side? This is why I keep coming after you on this issue. You go too far. You accuse Leahy and Kennedy of nothing short of treason and yet you have absolutely nothing to back that accusation up. >He said that all he needs to do is wait for the anti-war rallies to start... SO IF YOU find yourself fighting against this particular war effort, then you have just join Bin Laden's side. I see, so... in your opinion, a debate on the specifics of the Patriot Act is no different from an anti-war rally? Anyone who questions Ashcroft's tactics is really protesting against the war? Excuse me... but as far as I know, NO ONE in our government opposes this war. >And just why else would Ashcroft want the powers he has asked for? To fuck people over and put the poor innocent people in jail? Is he more evil than Bin Laden? Of course not, but by the same token, is anyone who merely questions or criticizes Ashcroft's power grab "more evil than Bin Laden"... or, as you put it previously, "siding with the terrorists"? So, I ask you once again... exactly what is your proof that Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Leahy have gone "way beyond" a voicing of concern on this matter? [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
$mokey Cadet	posted 12-18- 05:26 PM Sv, You out argue yourself. You have construed Kennedy and Leahey to be "on the side of the terrorists". It wouldn't be to hard, using your logic, to bring these two Senators up for trial at a military tribunal. This is exactally the reason any powers given to a president and atty. general must be scrutinized very carefully. When did you ever see government give up powers once they have them? It is a very short step from exercising powers against one group of people to exercising those powers against all people. Bob Barr even says that this goes too far. When him and I agree on something it must be right because I usually don't agree with anything he says. Sorry we can't all get on your Bush bandwagon. We all want to see the terrorists defeated as quickly as possible but due to the dubious mannor in which Bush got his job some of us don't exactally trust him and those he appoints very much. It doesn't make us unpatriotic or beint on the terrorists side. [This message has been edited by $mokey (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
Jerry+ Pilot	posted 12-18- 05:40 PM >"It wouldn't be to hard, using your logic, to bring these two Senators up for trial at a military tribunal. This is exactally the reason any powers given to a president and atty. general must be scrutinized very carefully." Smokey, not only would it be very hard, it would be impossible! The last time I checked both Kennedy and Leahy were US citizens. Therefore they can NOT be subject to the military tribunals. Since this was the only reason you gave for requiring such close scrutiny you must be satisfied to let Ashcroft and Bush proceed....right? Or is your true reason because they are Republicans and you don't trust anything Republicans do? IP: Logged
$mokey Cadet	posted 12-18- 05:52 PM Read my edit while you were posting. I believe once you start having trials such as military tribunals it wouldn't be hard to change the US citizen exception. This thing will probably go on for a long time. During that time some US citizens may be found to be terrorists (John Walker). What if the government feels, in order to combat terrorism it is necessary to have tribunals for citizens? It's not too much of a stretch to see US citizens in a tribunal. No, I don't trust republicans. If I did i would vote for them. Bush got his job by people being denied the right to vote and not having all votes counted accurately. It's hard to trust someone who stole the position they're in. Look at the way republicans persecuted Bill Clinton. Do I think they would try democrats if they got a chance? Yes, and their buddys on the supreme court would back them. [This message has been edited by $mokey (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 05:52 PM >Smokey, not only would it be very hard, it would be impossible! The last time I checked both Kennedy and Leahy were US citizens. Therefore they can NOT be subject to the military tribunals. Ok... well, then forget tribunals in this case. Using Sv's logic, Leahy and Kennedy could still be tried for treason. Do you honestly agree with SV that Kennedy and Leahy should be charged with treason? IP: Logged
Jerry+ Pilot	posted 12-18- 06:26 PM No JT,not treason, just partisan politics when we can least afford them. To put your party before your country isn't treason, just stupid. IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 12-18- 06:27 PM No where in the above did sv claim that Leyhe and Kennedy should be charged with treason. IMHO, they are VERY guilty of putting their political futures ahead of that of the entire country. When did you ever see government give up powers once they have them? When it is written into the act that the powers expire. As far as how Bush got into office, it was so close that the same stigma would have been held against Gore as well. In this case, we got lucky and the one better to rally the country in a crisis won... BTW - Walker will never be tried for treason. Read the constitution.... IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 06:33 PM >No where in the above did sv claim that Leyhe and Kennedy should be charged with treason. IMHO, they are VERY guilty of putting their political futures ahead of that of the entire country. SV clearly and repeatedly accused Kennedy and Leahy of "siding with the terrorists". If siding with the terrorists isn't treason, then what is? [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
Jerry+ Pilot	posted 12-18- 06:37 PM Smokey, it's stupid to think that taking away a US citizen's right to a civil trial requires no more than a change in the wording of the tribunal code. "Oh ye of such little faith" Timothy McVeigh was a US citizen terrorist, why do you think they didn't use a military tribunal for him? All you and Kennedy and Leahy are illustrating is your lack of faith in your own political system and our Bill of Rights. It's no more than paranoid gibberish. We are still a nation of laws and military tribunals for military personnel and non-citizens has been the law for a long time. Why change it now? I know you don't trust Bush. Fortunately 91% of Americans do. You're out of touch with reality Smokey, as usual. IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 06:38 PM >No JT,not treason, just partisan politics when we can least afford them. To put your party before your country isn't treason, just stupid. Then you must agree that SV's claim that Kennedy and Leahy are "siding with the terrorists" is unfair, right? All I'm trying to do is make you guys see is that words are important. When you accuse someone of "siding with the enemy", you'd better be prepared to back that accusation up with some facts. [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 12-18- 06:50 PM quote: Originally posted by JT: Then you must agree that SV's claim that Kennedy and Leahy are "siding with the terrorists" is unfair, right? There is a difference between the quote above and saying "...he is busy working on the side of the enemy..." (sv's words). It is possible to do things that benefit the nemy without necessarily siding with the enemy. Listen to the sound track on SDOE for crying out loud!!! No, sv's statement was not unfair. What constitutes treason? The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, 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. I dont think anyone here has said anything that would indicate they are guilty of the above.... Merely stupid partisanship. [This message has been edited by Snickers (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
casualty26ac Pilot	posted 12-18- 06:56 PM "They think we are weak because we are scared to fight... and weak because we spend all day fighting for the rights of animals and criminals." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defending animals? America kills more cows, chickens, and fish daily than most other countries do in a year. OTOH, you have people saying vegetarians love animals more than they do people, despite the fact that 80% of grain grown is used to feed cattle. 80% is fed to cattle that we'll eat while children starve. Coronary kills more people than smoking. Here's an excerpt from The Mad Cowboy by Howard F. Lyman: "Suddenly the circle came together for me. We were, as a civilization, making one big mistake. This mistake was killing us as individuals just as it was destroying our land and our forests and our rivers. We were eating animals, and it wasn't working. If those animals had set out to take their revenge on us, they couldn't have done a better job. And I became, right then and there, something I never dreamed I'd become: a vegetarian. Within a year of eating no meat, my health problems all started to go away. Not only did I feel better physically, but I felt better knowing that there was one answer to many of the different ills afflicting both ourselves and our environment. Everything revolves around the fork. We must ask ourselves as a culture whether we want to embrace the change that must come or resist it. I would love to see organic farming replace chemical agriculture. I would love to know that I've wandered into my nation's heartland by the sweet smell of grain and not the forbidding smell of excrement. I can no longer fathom what there is to be afraid of except the status quo. While writing my book I returned to Montana. At the largest commercial supermarket in Great Falls, I could hardly believe my eyes. Soy milk and rice milk on the shelves. Soy hot dogs, veggie burgers, tofu, seitan. It's not hard anymore to be a vegetarian in America. If it can be done in Great Falls, it can be done anywhere." Oh yeah, I hope FBI profilers will seriously began watching bald men with smaller than average genitalia. They're a real problem in this country always trying to prove what "men" they are. And anyone that doesn't share my opinion is a liberal commie IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 07:00 PM >There is a difference between the quote above and saying "...he is busy working on the side of the enemy..." (sv's words). No there isn't. And, just for the record, SV also said... "But why certain liberal political leaders are siding with the terrorists, I have no idea." >It is possible to do things that benefit the nemy without necessarily siding with the enemy. Right, but saying that Kennedy is "busy working on the side of the terrorists" is EXACTLY the same as saying that he is on their side. Whether you accuse someone of "siding with terrorists" or "working on the side of the terrorists" you are, in no uncertain terms, accusing that person of believing in and taking up the cause of the terrorists. Plain and simple. If SV really meant to say that "Kennedy and Leahy are inadvertantly helping the terrorists" then he should have said that "Kennedy and Leahy are inadvertantly helping the terrorists". It makes a world of difference. [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-18-2001).] [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
$mokey Cadet	posted 12-18- 07:07 PM The scary part is ASHCROFT believes anyone who disagrees with him is helping the terrorists and said as much in the Senate hearing. Aiding and abetting is considered treason. The news has been saying this all week. I don't know what else helping terrorists would be. Here's a good one, since it's quick I'll just stick it in here. "Forgiving Bin Laden is God's job. Arranging the meeting is our job." --United States Marine Corps [This message has been edited by $mokey (edited 12-18-2001).] IP: Logged
Jerry+ Pilot	posted 12-18- 07:21 PM quote: Originally posted by JT: >No JT,not treason, just partisan politics when we can least afford them. To put your party before your country isn't treason, just stupid. Then you must agree that SV's claim that Kennedy and Leahy are "siding with the terrorists" is unfair, right? All I'm trying to do is make you guys see is that words are important. When you accuse someone of "siding with the enemy", you'd better be prepared to back that accusation up with some facts. [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-18-2001).] Semantics JT. Don't get you're shorts in an uproar. Doing something that the terrorists would like you to do can be construed as "siding with the terrorists". You know damn well they would prefer a US civil trial than a military tribunal, so doing anything that hinders the military tribunal process is "siding" with the desires of the terrorists. Again, just semantics.....and a knee-jerk reaction on your part trying to defend your fellow liberals. IP: Logged
Sv JAG	posted 12-18- 08:17 PM No, I don't think Kennedy is literally on the side of the terrorists! Of course not... what I mean is that I disagree with what they are doing very much. I really think what they are doing is helping our enemy beat us... but this is not at what treason is all about. Ok, let's put it like this: If you were a senator right now, what would you be doing? I would be supporting the president and Ashcroft and asking what I can do to help my country... I would understand that this is a very serious situation... many people have died and there is a promise that very many more will die soon unless we take action. Would you be trying to dampen the efforts of those who are fighting for you fellow citizen's lives? Not all senators are doing this... not even all democrat senators are doing this... I do not think this is a political partisan thing at all... I really think that Kennedy etc are honestly doing what they think is right. This is what scares/upsets me the most! I want to explain away why they are taking the wrong path... so wrong to me... I really can not see the sense in it at all. The good news is this is hurting them pretty bad... some people are starting to see what being a modern liberal is all about. It is good to see the liberals I respect distancing themselves from that mess... This shows show clearly to me where people like Kennedy lean... in his world the terrorists are the victims... this is bizzaro upside down world where the guys who go to work everyday and work their asses off are the greedy evil people, and the cop killers are saints. This is what the world looks like in Kennedy's eyes. My dad is on Kennedy's side... at least he was before the hearings... he was upset about the tribunals and rounding up terrorists. This was before those ideas... this was my plan. I think we can go a very long way to wining the domestic side of this if we can break out of the old criminal-is-victim mentality and go back to the old trite "criminals are the bad guys" thing. People are way too worried about the fucking cop killers. I want you to explain yourself to the 10,000 orphaned children, TEN FUCKING THOUSAND. Do you have any FUCKING idea how many ten thousand children is? My desire is for Kennedy to have to be the one to tell each child the terrible chilling news... and why we still need to turn the other cheek... and explain that racial profiling is wrong. and just cause that guy is not a US citizen, came from Saudi, talks to Bin Laden on his cell phone each night, and collects box cutters... BUT HE HAS FUCKING RIGHTS. FUCK ME YOU FAT BASTARD TEDDY KENNEDY. I don't call Kennedy a treasoner, but I do hope this leads to his defeat at election time. So what did Kennedy "do?" How act like a royal fuking idiot and try to cling to his un-American attitude that there is no right and wrong, and that you can't fight against bad people without being unconstitutional. He has showed the depth of lack of creativity... he is a slave to the now out-dated idea that the bad guys are the good guys, and the good guys are the bad guys. People will stop caring about the cop killers when the cop killers turn into citizen-killers... and that time has come. Do you have no concept that these people are after YOU? And they can do damage, oh yeas, but we can stop them! But we must be creative, and all pull together to do WHATEVER it takes to win. Don't let our open society be our downfall... close it down, filter out the maggots, send them back to Saudi - or much better Allah. Then don't let them back, not even the so-called "innocent" middle east people. That's right, tough luck. The US constitution does not cover your sorry asses you fucking anti-American towel heads. Looks like your FRIENDS blew it for the rest of you... Or do you want to be the next on the list of 5000? As much as I can't stand all the excessive liberals around today, I'll take ten thousand to one terrorist out to kill my children. I think we could be losing an American city every day to nukes, and the Kennedy's would still be against doing anything about... I really feel this way. They are trapped in Lennon's "imagine" world. Well I will tell you, that song should be called "pretend" 'cause it ain't happenin'. "but if we just all love and forgive then all this will go away." That has never worked and never will. Listen to the song, Neil says it much better than I ever could... Let's Roll. What ever happened to heroes? Even heroes are villains to Kennedy... Kennedy is on that plane... and he is holding back the American... and the plane is headed for the Capitol building. Don't let Kennedy hold him back, for the love of America... for the love of freedom and for the quick coming tomorrow when all this concern about the mythical "slipper-slope" towards losing more rights is a dim and irrelevant memory. IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 11:34 PM >Doing something that the terrorists would like you to do can be construed as "siding with the terrorists". You know damn well they would prefer a US civil trial than a military tribunal, so doing anything that hinders the military tribunal process is "siding" with the desires of the terrorists. Well, let's try your argument in a different scenario... Let's say that our military finds out that Al Qaida members are hiding out amongst innocent civilians in some city in Afghanistan. If the military decides not to carpet bomb or nuke the city, would they guilty of "siding with the enemy"? Here's another... You are a sniper. You spot Bin Laden near the border of Pakistan. He surrounded by children. If you decide not to take the shot, are you "siding with the terrorists"? IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-18- 11:41 PM >No, I don't think Kennedy is literally on the side of the terrorists! Of course not... what I mean is that I disagree with what they are doing very much. I really think what they are doing is helping our enemy beat us... but this is not at what treason is all about. Well, fair enough. I still don't see how examining the Patriot Act helps the terrorists, but at least I can be sure we aren't going to be putting poor old Ted in front of the firing squad IP: Logged
DanW Pilot	posted 12-18- 11:45 PM Sv, How long did you serve in the military? IP: Logged
DanW Pilot	posted 12-18- 11:49 PM How come Tim McVeigh wasn't tried by a military tribunal? I understand he was a terrorist as well. Any difference between Osama and Tim? I'm curious. What do the Limbaugh kids think? IP: Logged
Jerry+ Pilot	posted 12-19- 01:09 AM quote: Originally posted by JT: >Doing something that the terrorists would like you to do can be construed as "siding with the terrorists". You know damn well they would prefer a US civil trial than a military tribunal, so doing anything that hinders the military tribunal process is "siding" with the desires of the terrorists. Well, let's try your argument in a different scenario... Let's say that our military finds out that Al Qaida members are hiding out amongst innocent civilians in some city in Afghanistan. If the military decides not to carpet bomb or nuke the city, would they guilty of "siding with the enemy"? Here's another... You are a sniper. You spot Bin Laden near the border of Pakistan. He surrounded by children. If you decide not to take the shot, are you "siding with the terrorists"? I'm sure the Al Qeada would love it if we carpet bombed a city and killed lots of civilians. They would use it as an illustration of the "infidels" hatred for Islam. So not bombing the city would be against their desires and NOT siding with them. Any decent sniper could pull off a head shot without harming the children. JT, if you have to come up with such far out examples to make your point you have already lost the arguement. Give it up. IP: Logged
Jerry+ Pilot	posted 12-19- 01:15 AM quote: Originally posted by DanW: How come Tim McVeigh wasn't tried by a military tribunal? I understand he was a terrorist as well. Any difference between Osama and Tim? I'm curious. What do the Limbaugh kids think? Duh...gee, I don't know Dan...let's see. McVeigh is a US citizen and OBL isn't. McVeigh killed a few hundred and OBL killed a few thousand. OBL heads up a world wide terrorist organization and McVeigh didn't. OBL worked with the assistance and cooperation of at least one government and McVeigh didn't. McVeigh attacked his own government and OBL didn't. McVeigh attacked one building, OBL attacked 3 and tried for 4. Other than that, they are clones Taliban Dan. So what's your point? IP: Logged
Sv JAG	posted 12-19- 08:20 AM The differnce is we are at war. War time changes things... the enemy is rarely treated like US civilians. Amazing how many people here are for bringing Bin Laden to US court and trying him as a US citizen. Or would you like him to be tried in Spain LOL!!!! I don't understand your scenario JT... I don't see how it relates to what Kennedy is doing. Are you suggesting that what Kennedy is doing is akin to saving innocent civilians in some city in Afghanistan? How so? IP: Logged
$mokey Cadet	posted 12-19- 01:34 PM Jerry, where did you take your sniper training? IP: Logged
Jerry+ Pilot	posted 12-19- 01:59 PM That's classified. IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-19- 02:04 PM >I don't understand your scenario JT... I don't see how it relates to what Kennedy is doing. Are you suggesting that what Kennedy is doing is akin to saving innocent civilians in some city in Afghanistan? How so? No, I'm saying that Sen. Kennedy should be able to disagree with Ashcroft's tactics without you accusing him of "siding with the enemy". That's why I used the above examples. Let me explain it as clearly as possible... If the military decides against bombing a certain target because it's too close to innocent civilians, they could be unwillingly helping the enemy. That doesn't mean they're "siding with the enemy" and it would be unfair to accuse them of that. By the same token, it's not fair to accuse Leahy and Kennedy of "siding with the terrorists" merely because they disagree with or want to examine Ashcroft's tactics. And, just for the record... you still haven't told us exactly what it is you think Kennedy and Leahy have done that goes so far beyond calling for debate? I'm sorry, but "they want to win" is not an answer. It's a simple question. Instead of answering, you keep giving us a lengthy essay that is overflowing with opinions and devoid of facts. [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-19-2001).] IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 12-19- 02:29 PM >Any decent sniper could pull off a head shot without harming the children. Good lord... way to completely miss the point, Jerry. I hope you are not the sniper. >JT, if you have to come up with such far out examples to make your point you have already lost the arguement. Give it up. The only thing that is far out is the effort you put into sidestepping questions that you can't answer. I don't blame you, though... your position is indefensible. Perhaps you missed it, but... SV, the author of the "Senator Kennedy is siding with the terrorists" comment, has just announced to everyone that he never meant the comment literally. But here you are... alone in your bunker defending disavowed misstatements and radical Conservatism... perhaps we can call you Jehad Jerry... has a nice ring to it [This message has been edited by JT (edited 12-19-2001).] IP: Logged
$mokey Cadet	posted 12-19- 02:56 PM The truth of this whole thing is the Senate, including Kennedy and Leahy, are doing their job in exercising oversite with respect to powers which the president and atty. general feel they need. It has nothing to do with "siding with the enemy". IP: Logged
Jerry+ Pilot	posted 12-19- 03:08 PM Poor knee jerk JT. God, being a liberal must be a miserable experience, having to take everything so literally. As I pointed out several times, and will do so again for the brain dead among us, the phrase "siding with" can be construed and interpreted different ways. It was always obvious to me, but not to you over reacting liberals, that Sv was NOT saying that Kennedy had joined the Taliban....only that his efforts, if successful, would aid the terrorists more than Americans. Let me make it clear to you JT, the possible "results" of Kennedy's actions (to hamper the military tribunals) are more on the side of the terrorists than on the side of US citizens. Who else do they help? Hence his position, semantically speaking, can be considered as "siding" with the terroists. It doesn't mean that he is intentionally trying to help OBL. I'm sorry if the subtleties of the English language escape you. I will try to downgrade my posts to a 6th grade level in an effort to make their meaning clearer to you in the future. And what is so radical about my Conservatism? The problem with you liberals is that you are so self-rightous that you view any Conservatism as radical. [This message has been edited by Jerry+ (edited 12-19-2001).] IP: Logged

This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center