Bangkoktraveler Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Also rogie' date=' you have not answered your position on Habeas Corpus.[/quote'] [color:red]Retard. We are not talking about Habeas Corpus. Can't you stick to the subject?[/color] rogie, all I want is for you to state your position on Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus has everything to do with Gitmo. Your are right, but rogie refuses to state his position on Habeas Corpus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Also rogie' date=' you have not answered your position on Habeas Corpus.[/quote'] Retard. We are not talking about Habeas Corpus. Can't you stick to the subject? rogie, all I want is for you to state your position on Habeas Corpus. As usual you post utter garbage rogie, can you stick to the topic? What is your position on Habeas Corpus? I guess I win the argument. rogie does not believe in Habeas Corpus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Also rogie' date=' you have not answered your position on Habeas Corpus.[/quote'] Retard. We are not talking about Habeas Corpus. Can't you stick to the subject? rogie, all I want is for you to state your position on Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus has everything to do with Gitmo. On the off chance you were genuinely fooled by BT, rather than just playing along, I'll point out to you that his (01/16/09 12:44 AM) post contains two fraudulent replies attributed to me that I did not post. BT's various personas are arguing among themselves again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 False. The communications at issue here are those that originate overseas from sources suspected of being terrorists. I don't object to this surveillance. Also, mainsail, you'd be doing yourself a favor if you asked yourself how you have gotten to this late juncture in the debate yet are only just now realizing that the surveillance under discussion is of this type to which you do not object? Why did you let the leftists fool you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 rogie, I am still waiting for your position on Habeas Corpus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weird Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 "But many nations have resisted Bush administration efforts to repatriate the prisoners back home" Let's all hold hands and sing. Words can stop bomb blasts. Hide under the bed and be scared like a good little Republican... If the people in Gitmo were guilty of something' date=' they'd be tried by now, since the US is desperate to have at least a couple of convictions (still waiting on those ). Why do Republicans claim to love America, but hate all she stands for? We have an accepted way of dealing with people whom we do not have enough untainted evidence to convict: we release them. Some of the people we release are guilty, and some are very dangerous: Mafia bosses, murderers, rapists, people who beat up their spouses or molest their children. We have always thought that maintaining our commitment to the rule of law meant that despite these dangers, we should not lock people up if we don't have evidence against them that's admissible in court. That's what decent societies do. Cheers, SD[/quote'] Nice post Yes, nice and rediculous. So where exactly do you plan to put the 'freed' people who their own countries won't accept? Wait, why do I bother with people who won't even read anyway. We have SD who uses any chance he has to bash Republicans and the USA and Faustian who can't see past his own nose. You're so right. I'm a psychoanalyst (eclectic), so what would I know about anything? Well done weird. Your qualifications are........? Good dodge. Or not. My question still stands apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Clinton's impeachment could be seen as vindictive more than violation of law. Impeachment is a political process as well as legal. It is impossible to completely separate politics and the law when analyzing Clinton's impeachment. His disbarment is a different matter' date=' however.[/quote'] I was disappointed that the Republicans neglected precedence and the spirit of what the founders intended for impeachment when they went after Clinton. For me, when you reverse the will of the people you better have a damned good reason to do it. Clinton, hate him or love him, was voted in legally and by the will of the people. Clinton lied in a civil lawsuit (subject of which was dodgy anyway). He was not acting on behalf of the office or as President. The impeachment articles suggest that it is when the President abuses or misuses his power as President. Aaron Burr was a sitting VP when he illegally (according to the laws of New Jersey) dueled Hamilton. The Congress did not honor extradition requests from New Jersey because Burr was responding to a personal insult and acting on his own behalf and was not representing the office of the Vice President when he dueled Hamilton. The Republicans successfully argued that tax evasion be removed from Nixon's articles of impeachment because he evaded taxes as Nixon the citizen tax payer and was not evading taxes as the President or representing the Presidency on his tax form. The impeachment of Clinton was both vindictive and outside the spirit of what impeachment was meant to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 As for Clinton, I believe polls have shown, most men would deny they received foreign blowjobs especially if the wife can find out the results of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted January 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 He didn't deny it. He just insisted oral sex wasn't really sex. I doubt that Hillary bought his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 He didn't deny it. He just insisted oral sex wasn't really sex. I doubt that Hillary bought his argument. I think that the world-wide publicity given to this "non-sexual" conduct was extremely helpful in shaping the attitudes of bargirls toward providing oral sex. Was not that long ago that you could only count on oral sex about 20% of the time from BKK whores. (Okay, 20 years ago.) HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.