The Great Hippo wrote:
Impeach wrote:I didn't say 'treason' because I don't like Obama, as you suggested.
There are two possibilities here: Either you're using 'treason' because you don't like Obama, or you're using 'treason' because you genuinely don't understand what the word 'treason' means.
Gosh the sheer arrogance
of some people. You would make an excellent scientist.
Or both. So, three possibilities.
Impeach wrote:The word 'treason' is not "inflammatory political rhetoric' unless you get upset.
By criticizing the President, I hereby find you guilty of treason against the United States.
Now let's spend the rest of this thread arguing about why I'm right.
Don't like it? Too bad; describing you as guilty of treason isn't inflammatory political rhetoric unless you get upset.
True, it's not inflammatory rhetoric, it's just really stupid. You can spend the rest of this thread doing whatever you want, man.
Bharrata wrote:Who pays for the public defender during your free trial? Who pays for the judge and his impartial opinion? Who pays for the jury of your peers to listen to your case? Who pays for the bailiff?
Your right to a free trial includes the right to their respective labors, does it not?
Is this right to a free trial contingent upon your willingness to share your labor as a juror (or judge or lawyer depending on your occupation) in kind when you are called to do so for a peer?
In what way is this right to a free trial different than a right to healthcare if it is predicated upon all parties' recognition that when they provide for the common good such provision provides for themselves as well?
I think this has been pretty much covered since my last post. A trial is the plaintiff's one chance to prove your guilt, not your chance to prove innocence. You are already innocent until proven guilty. The courthouse belongs to the people and in order to punish someone for a crime you must first give them a fair trial. Because nobody is allowed to punish someone for a crime without giving them a fair trial, you can be assured that you will also have one. Often times the loser pays the court fees and the state pays some as well and it is probably not perfectly fair but lets not suggest that there is no right to a fair trial.
Impeach, that video had Senator Sessions put more words in Panetta's mouth than you do. I watched the video, and it was just Senator Sessions trying to accuse Panetta of ignoring the war powers act, and then getting upset that Panetta didn't change his wording.http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/07/politics/ ... index.html
I am really not interested in the opinion of some random CNN guy when I can look at the video for myself and watch Panetta saying "When it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a coalition and work with our international partners, obviously we would like to have some kind of international legal basis on which to do it, as we did in Libya"
You remember Libya, right? Remember how congress did not authorize war? What was Obama's response?
"Do I think that our actions in any way violate the war powers resolution? My answer is no so I don't even have to get to the constitutional question."http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politi ... powers.cnn
What about the part where he says "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress"
"Well I said I met with my senators. They were at the missoula county fair last year and both of them were bullshitters. My brother was there and we talked to Tester for almost an hour strait during which time he assumed us that he was for smaller government, civil liberties, and end to the wars and blah blah nothing but bullshit. Went home, looked him up, found that out and now I'm not voting for him, but you aren't really asking how it went you are implying that you think I was lying, right? "
Uh, I was actually going to ask you how you treated your own senator, but fuck you very much for the accusation good sir. Nice of you to say that you talked for over an hour, but then disregarded everything he told you. So did he say he was for that smaller government crap and his google search of his record proved contradictory?
Essentially, yes. I had lived in Montana for all of two weeks when the fair was going on so I never bothered to know the senators. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason so I talked with Tester for a while to get to know my senator. Did some research, saw he voted for NDAA, decided not to support him. At the polls I actually met Gary Sanders who was running for district rep. Wasn't planning to even vote for district rep but, while he may have lied, he promised to go after any an all legislation that violated the US or montana state constitution, which earned him my vote too.
You've made extreme claims with only the lightest of dialogue that even looks like evidence. Do you got something tangible, or are you just gonna try to scare me by claiming talks over foreign policy amounts to tyranny?
Extreme claims, huh? Which ones? I would be more than happy to back them up with something concrete? Honestly. But please don't sit there and think that your posts are all that scholarly either. Care to back some of this up?
"The only reason the GOP would like Libertarian positions would be as an excuse to get stuff they want."
"fuck ronpaul, he's a racist piece of shit who takes money from white power groups."
Or how about your concept of "compromise?"
"Ok, let's talk about compromising. The upcoming election is about Romney and Obama. What's more important to you, extra growth in the military spending or avoiding a tax on healthcare?
"how important is keeping all your principles? It's just one rape a month, I'm sure that's worth ending the war on drugs."
Can you clarify what gave you the idea that you do not have a right not to be raped at all?