The Terrorists arrive in Qatar...

[Little-Acorn]

Tried that several times. I appreciate your plea.

Don't "try".

[Little-Acorn]

How many American lives would that save?

Of course, then we'd have to deal with Crazy Uncle Joe.

Well, one disaster at a time, is all I can say.

[aboutime]

How many American lives would that save?

Of course, then we'd have to deal with Crazy Uncle Joe.

Well, one disaster at a time, is all I can say.

Little-Acorn. That would be true. OBAMA couldn't do it.
BUT...What about CRAZY JOE BIDEN?
If Obama is Impeached. Guess who becomes the President?
MOST Americans have no idea how the system works. Since...few even know what the Constitution says.

My apologies for repeating what you said. I fear JOE would be much worse than Obama.

[Gaffer]

Jokin Joe couldn't find his way to the bathroom. He'll spend months just deciding on a VP. Maybe impeach both of them. I'm sure the jokster is a co-conspirator in all this.

[fj1200]

You consistently give terrorists consideration they couldn't possibly deserve... blah, blah, blah...

Your imagination betrays you and I state nothing more than fact. The Geneva Convention does apply, SCOTUS says so and even Bush stated that prisoners would be treated humanely.

Bush declared in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that al-Qaeda members were not entitled to the formal protections of the Geneva Conventions, siding with White House and Defense Department lawyers over objections from the State Department. But he said the prisoners would be treated humanely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071100094.html

Your hero betrays you too.

[Drummond]

Your imagination betrays you and I state nothing more than fact. The Geneva Convention does apply, SCOTUS says so and even Bush stated that prisoners would be treated humanely.

Still confused, I see ...

1. My 'imagination' isn't in play at all. My memory, however, serves me well.

2. You go on to prove the point !! Here you are, enthusiastically pushing the 'we must afford terrorists all possible rights and privileges' line. I've learned to expect such enthusiasm for this sort of thing from you. In fact, I'm expecting you at any moment to tell me, to insist against all evidence to the contrary, that terrorists are (ahem) 'human beings' ... again .. !!! ....

Needless to say, I don't share such thoughts, biases, beliefs. I am no friend to terrorists, and have not the slightest interest in fighting for them in any imaginable way.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071100094.html

Your hero betrays you too.

Admittedly I skimmed this (.. I tend to do that with the stuff you offer ..). But I'm sure you are in error, FJ. Margaret Thatcher was not mentioned in the article at all.

Or do you think otherwise ? Point out where she was, if you can.

This, however, WAS mentioned ... I quote ...

The release of the England memo, first disclosed by the British newspaper the Financial Times, came as Congress began hearings responding to the June 29 Supreme Court ruling. The court essentially invited Congress to establish a system of justice for the detainees, and lawmakers plunged into debate yesterday over the level of access that such prisoners should have to lawyers, evidence and cross-examination of accusers.

I find that most curious. It seems that such matters are far from being as 'standard' and 'grounded in precedent' as you like to make out. Which makes sense, considering WHAT those terrorists are, and the measures deemed necessary to most appropriately detain them.

On the question of WHAT THOSE TERRORISTS ARE ... have you figured that one out yet ?

Focus, my son. FOCUS.

You can do it if you really try. Forget the BBC, forget the Daily Mirror ...

[aboutime]

Still confused, I see ...

1. My 'imagination' isn't in play at all. My memory, however, serves me well.

2. You go on to prove the point !! Here you are, enthusiastically pushing the 'we must afford terrorists all possible rights and privileges' line. I've learned to expect such enthusiasm for this sort of thing from you. In fact, I'm expecting you at any moment to tell me, to insist against all evidence to the contrary, that terrorists are (ahem) 'human beings' ... again .. !!! ....

Needless to say, I don't share such thoughts, biases, beliefs. I am no friend to terrorists, and have not the slightest interest in fighting for them in any imaginable way.



Admittedly I skimmed this (.. I tend to do that with the stuff you offer ..). But I'm sure you are in error, FJ. Margaret Thatcher was not mentioned in the article at all.

Or do you think otherwise ? Point out where she was, if you can.

This, however, WAS mentioned ... I quote ...



I find that most curious. It seems that such matters are far from being as 'standard' and 'grounded in precedent' as you like to make out. Which makes sense, considering WHAT those terrorists are, and the measures deemed necessary to most appropriately detain them.

On the question of WHAT THOSE TERRORISTS ARE ... have you figured that one out yet ?

Focus, my son. FOCUS.

You can do it if you really try. Forget the BBC, forget the Daily Mirror ...

Sir Drummond. I found the final answer and description anyone would need when pitted against 'fj' or gabby. This is how I imagine both of them here.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. I found the final answer and description anyone would need when pitted against 'fj' or gabby. This is how I imagine both of them here.

Perhaps at this point it's time for me to stop feeding the trolls ....

[NightTrain]

While I loathe Joe, he's still better than Obama.

Anyone is better than Obama.

[aboutime]

If Obama was somehow removed from office by Impeachment.

This is what I believe JOE BIDEN would do to the WHITE HOUSE....

Where Joe finds Indians....

[Drummond]

Little-Acorn. That would be true. OBAMA couldn't do it.
BUT...What about CRAZY JOE BIDEN?
If Obama is Impeached. Guess who becomes the President?
MOST Americans have no idea how the system works. Since...few even know what the Constitution says.

My apologies for repeating what you said. I fear JOE would be much worse than Obama.

I wouldn't worry too much. If Biden took over, he'd have to start plagiarising from Neil Kinnock's speeches to find anything interesting to say. And I don't think Kinnock has any new (or worthwhile) material to offer ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ck-speech.html

The speech by Mr Kinnock, as he desperately tried to remodel and rebuild the Labour Party, was widely judged to be a dramatic and powerful piece of political rhetoric - making it particularly tempting, but also unusually unwise, for Mr Biden to borrow its most significant passage without attribution to the British politician.NEIL KINNOCK at Welsh Labour Party conference May 1987:

"Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because our predecessors were thick? Does anybody really think that they didn't get what we had because they didn't have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand"

JOE BIDEN IN Sept 1987 during his first presidential campaign:

"Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife... is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? ...Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand."

[aboutime]

I wouldn't worry too much. If Biden took over, he'd have to start plagiarising from Neil Kinnock's speeches to find anything interesting to say. And I don't think Kinnock has any new (or worthwhile) material to offer ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ck-speech.html

[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Sir Drummond. BUT.....That kind of stuff doesn't bother Joe. He knows, most of the people he, and Obama managed to fool for so long...have no idea what the word "PLAGIARISING" means.
The people who voted for Obama, and Biden come from the American class of people who are always IMPRESSED by anyone who uses BIG WORDS...they do not understand.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. BUT.....That kind of stuff doesn't bother Joe. He knows, most of the people he, and Obama managed to fool for so long...have no idea what the word "PLAGIARISING" means.
The people who voted for Obama, and Biden come from the American class of people who are always IMPRESSED by anyone who uses BIG WORDS...they do not understand.

.. Explains much, I suppose. 'Indebtedness' is a big word. Used to describe your nation's debts, Obama and Biden must be impressing their followers with the size of it all ....

We had the same problem over here, courtesy of our Labour Party. When the Credit Crunch kicked in, in 2008, Labour greatly compounded it by, if anything, ratcheting UP their overseas borrowing. Bank bailouts, which I gather were at least put to the vote in America before being implemented, were just ORDERED to happen by Gordon Brown, the then-PM. No accountability. Just a tide of mounting debt; chosen, arranged, no realistic means available to stop the Labour Party's sabotage of our economy. Not until Labour were booted out of Office, anyway, in 2010.

It's A Leftie Thing ...

[fj1200]

... stop feeding the trolls ....

But you keep applauding the banana.

[fj1200]

Still confused...

I didn't enthusiastically do anything. I merely stated fact which is why you're confused.

Admittedly I skimmed this...

Which is what happens when you let your imagination lead you down paths you can't get out of.

I find that most curious.

You find it curious that Congress is in charge of passing laws? That's the height of your stupidity right there. But then again you grant the highest authority to the state which is curious for one who claims to be a conservative.