Ho, hum... So what's the stock market doing?
Yer Pal Al
"From indictment to trial, the civilian case against the 9/11
terrorists will be a years-long seminar, enabling al-Qaeda and its
jihadist allies to learn much of what we know and, more important, the
methods and sources by which we come to know it. But that is not the
half of it. By moving the case to civilian court, the president and
his attorney general have laid the groundwork for an unprecedented
surrender of our national-defense secrets directly to our most
committed enemies." - Andrew McCarthy
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MWMwN2UyNzYwN2M1Y2JkNTdiODk1OWMyYmVmYTA2YmU=
Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorist abroad as dithering continues:
"President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he was still weeks away
from deciding how many more U.S. troops to send to Afghanistan..."
http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/1578189.html
Barry Hussein surrenders America's dignity:
http://www.bokbluster.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/091116boklores.jpg
http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=2e37e193db97c4b6df5ba5e597ced82c&w=750.0
Barry Hussein winning fight against freedom - buy insurance or go to
jail:
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9039241
Ivan Skavinsky Skavar
Juan
>
Were you born a coward or did you turn yellow when you started
watching Fixed News? Wow. Scared shitless by a gaggle of ragheads.
Man, you are fucking pathetic. And you call yourself a "patriot," eh?
LOL! You're no more a patriot than Rush Limpbaugh and his bullshit "I
can't serve in the military because I got a boil on my ass" excuse.
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 18, 2:34 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Were you born a coward
Do they know you are a vile Jew-hater here Osito?
http://www.itpreport.com/default.asp?Mode=Page&P=1002
If you have any questions or comments regarding ITP or its use of
information please send email to feed...@itpreport.com
News Desk
For all news submissions email edit...@itpreport.com
Curt
> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
When a post starts out like that, you just know there's no reason to
keep reading.
Curt
Curt
>
> Can you fire a president?-
Actually, as the elections of 06 and 08 showed, you can fire an Entire
Party!
Curt
LDosser
news:Ivan-2C30CB.1...@news-wc.giganews.com...
See Lee Harvey Oswald and Richard M. Nixon.
Juan
TOUCHE! :)
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
>
> When a post starts out like that,
So you don't think imbuing a foreign terrorist with AMERICAN legal
rights is a "surrender"????
You're too dangerously stupid to draw breath.
Yer Pal Al
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt
to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of
that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. ... For my part,
whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the
whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." - This was
Patrick Henry, the complete opposite of Curt.
Yer Pal Al
Was Khalid Sheik Mohammed read his Miranda rights? Was he given a
speedy trial? How many secrets are going to come out in the trial and
how many American deaths will those secrets lead to? The worst
incongruity is that military tribunals are still going on for lesser
known terrorists. The obvious message: The more people you kill, the
more rights you have.
Can you imagine if Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets off on a technicality?
The good news is that will be the end of Obama. The other good news is
that Mohammed will stop breathing about 30 minutes after the next
president takes office.
mrmcafee
> On Nov 19, 8:33 am, Alex DeLarge <kor...@milk.bar> wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
>>> When a post starts out like that,
>> So you don't think imbuing a foreign terrorist with AMERICAN legal
>> rights is a "surrender"????
>>
>> You're too dangerously stupid to draw breath.
>
> Was Khalid Sheik Mohammed read his Miranda rights?
Yes.
> Was he given a
> speedy trial?
Compared to Tom DeLay's trial, yes. Very speedy.
> How many secrets are going to come out in the trial and
> how many American deaths will those secrets lead to?
The guy has been in captivity for a very long period of time. I'm sure
that nothing involved in his trial is still current.
> The worst
> incongruity is that military tribunals are still going on for lesser
> known terrorists. The obvious message: The more people you kill, the
> more rights you have.
The message I get is that Mohamed is a criminal, the other guys just
soldiers. Perhaps you disagree.
>
> Can you imagine if Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets off on a technicality?
Entirely possible considering that it was the Bush administration that
handled his capture, torture, and violated our American values. I'm
pretty sure that the prosecutes are capable and would not have pressed
charges in criminal court if they didn't think that they could get a
conviction. I believe in the American system of justice. Why don't you?
> The good news is that will be the end of Obama.
I thought that you said that the health care insurance reform was that?
> The other good news is
> that Mohammed will stop breathing about 30 minutes after the next
> president takes office.
So much for your respect of rule of law.
>
What a sorry commentary you have made on the American spirit, Pal. We
stand for high ideals, and by your comments you appear to discredit
those lofty principles. You would have us be no better than the fascist
of the last century.
mrmcafee
Such respect for the truth! Makes me wonder why you are so opposed to
the open, public trials of the criminals of 911.
Curt
You, sir, are no Patrick Henry.
Curt
Phxbrd
"mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5KmdnfZ3KPA0DJjW...@giganews.com...
You don't expect much honest reporting of the upcoming trials, do you? You
know damned well that the defense will involve their attacking our country
because we attacked theirs. If it wasn't their specific country that we
attacked without provocation, it was their fellow Moslem nations that we
attacked and continue to do so. What US news organization do you think
honest enough to report that simple truth? Have you seen any of it so far?
mrmcafee
> "mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5KmdnfZ3KPA0DJjW...@giganews.com...
>> Yer Pal Al wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 11:35 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
>>>> When a post starts out like that, you just know there's no reason to
>>>> keep reading.
>>> "It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt
>>> to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of
>>> that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. ... For my part,
>>> whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the
>>> whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." - This was
>>> Patrick Henry, the complete opposite of Curt.
>>
>> Such respect for the truth! Makes me wonder why you are so opposed to the
>> open, public trials of the criminals of 911.
>
> You don't expect much honest reporting of the upcoming trials, do you?
Of of course I do. Some of them might even be televised.
> You
> know damned well that the defense will involve their attacking our country
> because we attacked theirs.
Seth, if Saudi Arabia had attacked the US then that would be an entirely
different situation. If that had been the case, and these clowns were
legitimate soldiers in the employ of their country, then military
tribunals etc. would be called for. Saudi Arabia (nor any other nation)
attacked us. These guys are civilians. That makes them criminals and
devoid of any respect a soldier serving his country deserves.
> If it wasn't their specific country that we
> attacked without provocation, it was their fellow Moslem nations that we
> attacked and continue to do so. What US news organization do you think
> honest enough to report that simple truth? Have you seen any of it so far?
Yep. We know about Guantanamo, and "special rendition" all because of
our news organs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Juan
>
> You don't expect much honest reporting of the upcoming trials, do you? You
> know damned well that the defense will involve their attacking our country
> because we attacked theirs. If it wasn't their specific country that we
> attacked without provocation, it was their fellow Moslem nations that we
> attacked and continue to do so. What US news organization do you think
> honest enough to report that simple truth? Have you seen any of it so far?
Are you what passes for intelligence in your family? You think a
federal trial will be decided by how the news covers it? Where do you
live, Russia? Venezuela? Cuba?
The Wiz
The Wiz
If you are too stupid to understand, you should stay home with your
crayons and coloring book.
The Wiz
>> You don't expect much honest reporting of the upcoming trials, do you?
>
> Of of course I do. Some of them might even be televised.
Oh goody, Mikey will be entertained. He won't understand what is really
going on, but he'll be entertained.
>
>
>> You know damned well that the defense will involve their attacking
>> our country because we attacked theirs.
>
> Seth, if Saudi Arabia had attacked the US then that would be an entirely
> different situation. If that had been the case, and these clowns were
> legitimate soldiers in the employ of their country, then military
> tribunals etc. would be called for. Saudi Arabia (nor any other nation)
> attacked us. These guys are civilians. That makes them criminals and
> devoid of any respect a soldier serving his country deserves.
You are very confused and misinformed. You just don't get it.
>
>
>> If it wasn't their specific country that we attacked without
>> provocation, it was their fellow Moslem nations that we attacked and
>> continue to do so. What US news organization do you think honest
>> enough to report that simple truth? Have you seen any of it so far?
>
> Yep. We know about Guantanamo, and "special rendition" all because of
> our news organs.
>
You think you know, you don't know shit about Gitmo or anything there
except what the Marxist talking points are. You're getting dementia.
The Wiz
It will be decided by trying the US instead of the terrorists. Obama's
Muslim buddy, the Attny Gen. Holder is doing the terrorists the biggest
favor they could ask. A civilian trial.
Phxbrd
"Juan" <fly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7e17436-fdd2-440a...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
---------------
Learn to read for comprehension and then get back to us.
Juan
Learn to think for reality and then get back to us.
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 19, 8:33 am, Alex DeLarge <kor...@milk.bar> wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
>>> When a post starts out like that,
>> So you don't think imbuing a foreign terrorist with AMERICAN legal
>> rights is a "surrender"????
>>
>> You're too dangerously stupid to draw breath.
>
> Was Khalid Sheik Mohammed read his Miranda rights?
Get this, according to Holder - YES, he was!
Amazing...
Then he confessed.
No why would we have done that IF a deal was not in the works?
Consider...
> Was he given a
> speedy trial? How many secrets are going to come out in the trial and
> how many American deaths will those secrets lead to? The worst
> incongruity is that military tribunals are still going on for lesser
> known terrorists. The obvious message: The more people you kill, the
> more rights you have.
It boggles the mind.
> Can you imagine if Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets off on a technicality?
> The good news is that will be the end of Obama. The other good news is
> that Mohammed will stop breathing about 30 minutes after the next
> president takes office.
Amen.
Alex DeLarge
)
(
( ) (
) _ )
( \_
_(_\ \)__
(____\___))
cccp
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 19, 4:45 pm, "Phxbrd" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You don't expect much honest reporting of the upcoming trials, do you? You
>> know damned well that the defense will involve their attacking our country
>> because we attacked theirs. If it wasn't their specific country that we
>> attacked without provocation, it was their fellow Moslem nations that we
>> attacked and continue to do so. What US news organization do you think
>> honest enough to report that simple truth? Have you seen any of it so far?
>
> Are you what passes for intelligence in your family?
Hey fatboi, at least he's not morbidly obese like you.
mrmcafee
> Mikey, you are a buffoon. A real prize buffoon.
So, you know what I've said is the truth.
Alex DeLarge
SHUT YOUR FAT FUCKING PUERTA RICAN OBESE PIEHOLE, YOU DIAPERBOI!
Alex DeLarge
LDosser
Obama and Holder have queered the deal already. They'll all get off on
unable to get a fair trial.
Barack Hussein Bohica
<obadia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 4:08�pm, Ivan Skavinsky Skavar <I...@borscht.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you fire a president?-
>
>Actually, as the elections of 06 and 08 showed, you can fire an Entire
>Party!
And all it cost was the economy...
Barack Hussein Bohica
wrote:
>TOUCHE! :)
Juan is fantasizing about molesting little kids again...
Yer Pal Al
> Yer Pal Al wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 8:33 am, Alex DeLarge <kor...@milk.bar> wrote:
> >> Curt wrote:
> >>> On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
> >>> When a post starts out like that,
> >> So you don't think imbuing a foreign terrorist with AMERICAN legal
> >> rights is a "surrender"????
>
> >> You're too dangerously stupid to draw breath.
>
> > Was Khalid Sheik Mohammed read his Miranda rights?
>
> Yes.
Really? And he was allowed access to a lawyer while he was being
waterboarded?
> > Was he given a
> > speedy trial?
>
> Compared to Tom DeLay's trial, yes. Very speedy.
Tom Delay was arrested?
> > How many secrets are going to come out in the trial and
> > how many American deaths will those secrets lead to?
>
> The guy has been in captivity for a very long period of time. I'm sure
> that nothing involved in his trial is still current.
I'm sure that no one undercover is still undercover. Or maybe it will
come out that Valierie Plame caught him single-handed.
> > The worst
> > incongruity is that military tribunals are still going on for lesser
> > known terrorists. The obvious message: The more people you kill, the
> > more rights you have.
>
> The message I get is that Mohamed is a criminal, the other guys just
> soldiers. Perhaps you disagree.
As long as the dichotomy is applied to you as well since you are just
a foot soldier.
> > Can you imagine if Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets off on a technicality?
>
> Entirely possible considering that it was the Bush administration that
> handled his capture, torture, and violated our American values. I'm
> pretty sure that the prosecutes are capable and would not have pressed
> charges in criminal court if they didn't think that they could get a
> conviction. I believe in the American system of justice. Why don't you?
A lot of guilty people get off on technicalities in the American
justice system and the Bush admin had a safe way of dealing with these
special cases.
> > The good news is that will be the end of Obama.
>
> I thought that you said that the health care insurance reform was that?
I don't think I said that. The reason being is that Obama wants to act
like the big mover in American politics but he's not going to let that
boondoggle occur during his administration - he's pushing it off on
the next guy.
> > The other good news is
> > that Mohammed will stop breathing about 30 minutes after the next
> > president takes office.
>
> So much for your respect of rule of law.
I didn't say that someone wasn't going to break the law. As soon as he
leaves the country he's a miltary target. Do you have a problem with
us dropping a bomb on OBL or is capturing and giving him a trial in
the US the only acceptable option?
> What a sorry commentary you have made on the American spirit, Pal. We
> stand for high ideals, and by your comments you appear to discredit
> those lofty principles. You would have us be no better than the fascist
> of the last century.
And you think the "American Spirit" is to be a surrender monkey.
Yer Pal Al
Because I'd prefer not to know our military/CIA secrets.
Yer Pal Al
Of course. He was far more religious and far more influential on the
founding of this nation. He's what conservatives apire to and liberals
try to ignore.
Yer Pal Al
> Mikey, you are a buffoon. A real prize buffoon.
Stay away from Midway at that carnival.
Yer Pal Al
This time it's little French kids.
Sancho Panza
>> You don't expect much honest reporting of the upcoming trials, do you?
>
> Of of course I do. Some of them might even be televised.
Federal trials are never televised. Learn some of the basic rules of Federal
procedure.
mrmcafee
You're not seriously suggesting that this current depression wasn't
caused by the deregulation and non-enforcement of existing regulations
policies of the GOP, are you?
mrmcafee
> On Nov 19, 10:40 am, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>> Yer Pal Al wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 8:33 am, Alex DeLarge <kor...@milk.bar> wrote:
>>>> Curt wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
>>>>> When a post starts out like that,
>>>> So you don't think imbuing a foreign terrorist with AMERICAN legal
>>>> rights is a "surrender"????
>>>> You're too dangerously stupid to draw breath.
>>> Was Khalid Sheik Mohammed read his Miranda rights?
>> Yes.
>
> Really? And he was allowed access to a lawyer while he was being
> waterboarded?
After the Bush Administration tortured him (in opposition to our
American standards).
http://tinyurl.com/2tg7kh
>
>>> Was he given a
>>> speedy trial?
>> Compared to Tom DeLay's trial, yes. Very speedy.
>
> Tom Delay was arrested?
Even indicted. Where have you been? It has been YEARS ago and despite
DeLay's insistence when he was first arrested that he wanted a speedy
trial, he has managed to avoid one.
>
>>> How many secrets are going to come out in the trial and
>>> how many American deaths will those secrets lead to?
>> The guy has been in captivity for a very long period of time. I'm sure
>> that nothing involved in his trial is still current.
>
> I'm sure that no one undercover is still undercover. Or maybe it will
> come out that Valierie Plame caught him single-handed.
She may have helped, but Cheney will suppress that information with his
every effort. Too bad that the VP committed a felony (some say treason)
by outing a secret agent woman. Why you guys support such behavior is
beyond me.
>
>>> The worst
>>> incongruity is that military tribunals are still going on for lesser
>>> known terrorists. The obvious message: The more people you kill, the
>>> more rights you have.
>> The message I get is that Mohamed is a criminal, the other guys just
>> soldiers. Perhaps you disagree.
>
> As long as the dichotomy is applied to you as well since you are just
> a foot soldier.
A non answer. Well think about it. Do these Al Qaeda leaders deserve the
honorable status of "soldier" or are they criminals and thus devoid of
all honor? I know my stance.
>
>>> Can you imagine if Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets off on a technicality?
>> Entirely possible considering that it was the Bush administration that
>> handled his capture, torture, and violated our American values. I'm
>> pretty sure that the prosecutes are capable and would not have pressed
>> charges in criminal court if they didn't think that they could get a
>> conviction. I believe in the American system of justice. Why don't you?
>
> A lot of guilty people get off on technicalities in the American
> justice system and the Bush admin had a safe way of dealing with these
> special cases.
Safe? You call subversion of our Constitution and our high ideals
"safe". Maybe you should re-think that.
>
>>> The good news is that will be the end of Obama.
>> I thought that you said that the health care insurance reform was that?
>
> I don't think I said that. The reason being is that Obama wants to act
> like the big mover in American politics but he's not going to let that
> boondoggle occur during his administration - he's pushing it off on
> the next guy.
Hide and watch. Us Democrats know that we have just this 2 year window
to finally push this particular boulder up over the crest of the
opposition hill. If we fail now, it will be the end of any significant
progress by the Obama Administration. Clinton all over again.
>
>>> The other good news is
>>> that Mohammed will stop breathing about 30 minutes after the next
>>> president takes office.
>> So much for your respect of rule of law.
>
> I didn't say that someone wasn't going to break the law. As soon as he
> leaves the country he's a miltary target. Do you have a problem with
> us dropping a bomb on OBL or is capturing and giving him a trial in
> the US the only acceptable option?
If he dies in combat, that's one thing. If he is assassinated, that's
another. My understanding is that we have a law against the assignation
of the oppositions leadership, but that applies to heads of state and
bin Laden isn't a head of state, and it also doesn't apply to leadership
that in in the chain of command for a state's military. bi Laden, being
a civilian, and a criminal, should be taken alive if the opportunity
presents itself. It won't.
You really don't have faith in the best judicial system in the world
(ours). You need to rethink that.
>
>> What a sorry commentary you have made on the American spirit, Pal. We
>> stand for high ideals, and by your comments you appear to discredit
>> those lofty principles. You would have us be no better than the fascist
>> of the last century.
>
> And you think the "American Spirit" is to be a surrender monkey.
For a clue, read the Bill of Rights. They stem from a history of the
abuse of power and our society's desire for a just civilization.
mrmcafee
Wait and watch. I'm sure that one of the defense motions will be to
change the trial location to someplace out of New York.
mrmcafee
That's right. I was thinking of the OJ trial which was in state court.
mrmcafee
Don't listen.
mrmcafee
He was a borderline anarchist who opposed the ratification of the
constitution. The only reason I can think of that the Libertarians
haven't "beatified" him as one of their "saints" is that he was so
unreliable (unhinged some might say) that the Continental Congress would
not entrust him with a command of any substantial number of troops thus
insulting him to the point that he would not accept a commission. Like
Jefferson and despite his many inflammatory speeches, I don't think that
Henry ever face an armed enemy nor fired a shot in anger.
Phxbrd
-----------------------
Do you actually have anything in the way of a rebuttal, or are you simply
frustrated because you have none?
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yer Pal Al" <caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a8e5156-2cd8-4764...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Quoting Patrick Henry to prove something about the meaning of the
Constitution is not unlike quoting George W. Bush to prove something about
the meaning of the Democratic Party Campaign Platform.
Yer Pal Al
It coincided with Democrat congress talking up oil futures and then
the Barney Frank / Chris Dodd housing melt down. Other than that, it
would have only been a blip.
Phxbrd
"LDosser" <L...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:he5im6$phj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
McAfee again shows his lack of bright. It's not uniformed soldiers we're
killing in Iraq/Afghanistan, it's all civilians we call "insurgents".
Doesn't it only seem logical that it would be their civilians now attacking
our civilians in return?
See Tit For Tat
Yer Pal Al
> Yer Pal Al wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 10:40 am, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Yer Pal Al wrote:
> >>> On Nov 19, 8:33 am, Alex DeLarge <kor...@milk.bar> wrote:
> >>>> Curt wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
> >>>>> When a post starts out like that,
> >>>> So you don't think imbuing a foreign terrorist with AMERICAN legal
> >>>> rights is a "surrender"????
> >>>> You're too dangerously stupid to draw breath.
> >>> Was Khalid Sheik Mohammed read his Miranda rights?
> >> Yes.
>
> > Really? And he was allowed access to a lawyer while he was being
> > waterboarded?
>
> After the Bush Administration tortured him (in opposition to our
> American standards).http://tinyurl.com/2tg7kh
I torture you with logic so obviously what he have different
perceptions on what is torture.
> >>> Was he given a
> >>> speedy trial?
> >> Compared to Tom DeLay's trial, yes. Very speedy.
>
> > Tom Delay was arrested?
>
> Even indicted. Where have you been? It has been YEARS ago and despite
> DeLay's insistence when he was first arrested that he wanted a speedy
> trial, he has managed to avoid one.
So you really think that if the defense slows down the process that
they can be let off because they didn't get a speedy trial? Is that
what you think the law means?
> >>> How many secrets are going to come out in the trial and
> >>> how many American deaths will those secrets lead to?
> >> The guy has been in captivity for a very long period of time. I'm sure
> >> that nothing involved in his trial is still current.
>
> > I'm sure that no one undercover is still undercover. Or maybe it will
> > come out that Valierie Plame caught him single-handed.
>
> She may have helped, but Cheney will suppress that information with his
> every effort.
Because he has that power in his current roll as President in the
shadow government?
> Too bad that the VP committed a felony (some say treason)
> by outing a secret agent woman. Why you guys support such behavior is
> beyond me.
We are still awaiting a conviction that has anything to do with
actually telling someone that Plame worked for the CIA. Her cases just
dismissed handily even though she did at Armitage in her suit. She
lost. Too bad, so sad.
> >>> The worst
> >>> incongruity is that military tribunals are still going on for lesser
> >>> known terrorists. The obvious message: The more people you kill, the
> >>> more rights you have.
> >> The message I get is that Mohamed is a criminal, the other guys just
> >> soldiers. Perhaps you disagree.
>
> > As long as the dichotomy is applied to you as well since you are just
> > a foot soldier.
>
> A non answer.
You are saying there is a dichotomy in our justice system and that's
the American way.
And what is one Holder's reasons for doing this? Because they attacked
civilians? What the fuck is the Pentagon?
> Well think about it. Do these Al Qaeda leaders deserve the
> honorable status of "soldier" or are they criminals and thus devoid of
> all honor? I know my stance.
They were trained in para-military training camps. They were fighting
Americans in uniform and out.
> >>> Can you imagine if Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets off on a technicality?
> >> Entirely possible considering that it was the Bush administration that
> >> handled his capture, torture, and violated our American values. I'm
> >> pretty sure that the prosecutes are capable and would not have pressed
> >> charges in criminal court if they didn't think that they could get a
> >> conviction. I believe in the American system of justice. Why don't you?
>
> > A lot of guilty people get off on technicalities in the American
> > justice system and the Bush admin had a safe way of dealing with these
> > special cases.
>
> Safe? You call subversion of our Constitution and our high ideals
> "safe". Maybe you should re-think that.
Our Constitution does not apply to non-Americans outside this country.
That's safe.
> >>> The good news is that will be the end of Obama.
> >> I thought that you said that the health care insurance reform was that?
>
> > I don't think I said that. The reason being is that Obama wants to act
> > like the big mover in American politics but he's not going to let that
> > boondoggle occur during his administration - he's pushing it off on
> > the next guy.
>
> Hide and watch. Us Democrats know that we have just this 2 year window
> to finally push this particular boulder up over the crest of the
> opposition hill. If we fail now, it will be the end of any significant
> progress by the Obama Administration. Clinton all over again.
'94 all over again.
> >>> The other good news is
> >>> that Mohammed will stop breathing about 30 minutes after the next
> >>> president takes office.
> >> So much for your respect of rule of law.
>
> > I didn't say that someone wasn't going to break the law. As soon as he
> > leaves the country he's a miltary target. Do you have a problem with
> > us dropping a bomb on OBL or is capturing and giving him a trial in
> > the US the only acceptable option?
>
> If he dies in combat, that's one thing. If he is assassinated, that's
> another. My understanding is that we have a law against the assignation
> of the oppositions leadership, but that applies to heads of state and
> bin Laden isn't a head of state, and it also doesn't apply to leadership
> that in in the chain of command for a state's military. bi Laden, being
> a civilian, and a criminal, should be taken alive if the opportunity
> presents itself. It won't.
So Obama is going to either let him be or break some kind of law.
> You really don't have faith in the best judicial system in the world
> (ours). You need to rethink that.
It's the best, but it is not perfect.
> >> What a sorry commentary you have made on the American spirit, Pal. We
> >> stand for high ideals, and by your comments you appear to discredit
> >> those lofty principles. You would have us be no better than the fascist
> >> of the last century.
>
> > And you think the "American Spirit" is to be a surrender monkey.
>
> For a clue, read the Bill of Rights. They stem from a history of the
> abuse of power and our society's desire for a just civilization.
Stick to what you know: Marx.
Yer Pal Al
I'd prefer no one who doesn't need to to know.
You align yourselves with our enemies quite well.
Curt
Watch -- he'll try to blame Barney Frank.
Curt
The Wiz
You can't talk sense to a person who wants what you have and is
motivated by greed and a belief in Communism.
The Wiz
>>> stand for high ideals, and by your comments you appear to discredit
>>> those lofty principles. You would have us be no better than the fascist
>>> of the last century.
>>
>> And you think the "American Spirit" is to be a surrender monkey.
>
> For a clue, read the Bill of Rights. They stem from a history of the
> abuse of power and our society's desire for a just civilization.
You must have been a truant in your younger years. MAy be you just have
a desire to be dominated by a stronger man with a foreign accent.
The Wiz
> "Juan" <fly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b7e17436-fdd2-440a...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 4:45 pm, "Phxbrd" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> know damned well that the defense will involve their attacking our country
>> attacked without provocation, it was their fellow Moslem nations that we
>> attacked and continue to do so. What US news organization do you think
>> honest enough to report that simple truth? Have you seen any of it so far?
>
> Are you what passes for intelligence in your family? You think a
> federal trial will be decided by how the news covers it? Where do you
> live, Russia? Venezuela? Cuba?
> ---------------
>
>
> Learn to read for comprehension and then get back to us.
>
You are in the secondary stages of dementia. Better get training wheels.
The Wiz
that
> Henry ever face an armed enemy nor fired a shot in anger.
Neither have you, but you sure like to take away the liberties and
rights of Americans who have.
Al
<b7e17436-fdd2-440a...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Juan <fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 4:45�pm, "Phxbrd" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > You don't expect much honest reporting of the upcoming trials, do you? �You
> > know damned well that the defense will involve their attacking our country
> > because we attacked theirs. �If it wasn't their specific country that we
> > attacked without provocation, it was their fellow Moslem nations that we
> > attacked and continue to do so. �What US news organization do you think
> > honest enough to report that simple truth? �Have you seen any of it so far?
>
> Are you what passes for intelligence in your family? You think a
> federal trial will be decided by how the news covers it? Where do you
> live, Russia? Venezuela? Cuba?
The purpose of the trial is not justice, that already existed. Instead
of accepting his guilty plea and putting the mad muzzie down quietly in
Guantanamo, Obama & Holder are going to spend millions for a farcial
trial in order to appease Obamas kook base - morons like you - because
the defense is obviously going to put the US and the past administration
on trial.
mrmcafee
You can set your watch by them.
mrmcafee
Liberties and rights? I support homosexual marriage. I think Americans
should have the liberty to marry whomever they please. You?
Yer Pal Al
> Yer Pal Al wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 12:46 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 9:49 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 18, 11:35 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
> >>>> When a post starts out like that, you just know there's no reason to
> >>>> keep reading.
> >>> "It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt
> >>> to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of
> >>> that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. ... For my part,
> >>> whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the
> >>> whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." - This was
> >>> Patrick Henry, the complete opposite of Curt.
> >> You, sir, are no Patrick Henry.
>
> > Of course. He was far more religious and far more influential on the
> > founding of this nation. He's what conservatives apire to and liberals
> > try to ignore.
>
> He was a borderline anarchist who opposed the ratification of the
> constitution.
So did the Father of the Bill of Rights.
> The only reason I can think of that the Libertarians
> haven't "beatified" him as one of their "saints" is that he was so
> unreliable (unhinged some might say) that the Continental Congress would
> not entrust him with a command of any substantial number of troops thus
> insulting him to the point that he would not accept a commission.
This is result of speculation from people who don't like America and
seek first to discredit America.
> Like
> Jefferson and despite his many inflammatory speeches, I don't think that
> Henry ever face an armed enemy nor fired a shot in anger.
How many other Founding Fathers could you say the same of? Probably
most.
If you actually have a point it must be something like Patrick Henry
was a coward like Obama and Clinton but in Henry's case he would have
been hung if he were captured by the British.
Yer Pal Al
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Yer Pal Al" <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2a8e5156-2cd8-4764...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Nov 19, 12:46 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You, sir, are no Patrick Henry.
>
> >Of course. He was far more religious and far more influential on the
> >founding of this nation. He's what conservatives apire to and liberals
> >try to ignore.
>
> Quoting Patrick Henry to prove something about the meaning of the
> Constitution is not unlike quoting George W. Bush to prove something about
> the meaning of the Democratic Party Campaign Platform.
If you re-read the thread you'll see that I was quoting Patrick Henry
to point out Curt's cowardice.
Yer Pal Al
We can let Barney's home town paper do that:
"these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
kind of financial crisis." - The DC weener when Bush tried to tighten
up regulation on them
Yer Pal Al
"Communism has never been tried and if you just give up some more of
your feedom we might get it to work this time."
Yer Pal Al
> In article
> <b7e17436-fdd2-440a-a433-5049af721...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
For some strange reason they just want to prove we aren't at war with
radical Islam. Their egos are so delicate that they cannot accept that
people don't like them just because.
Yer Pal Al
In this case Curt's watch was exactly 47 minutes slow. Too bad, Curt.
Maybe next time.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Al" <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qaGdnQusHY_lVZvW...@giganews.com...
>
> The purpose of the trial is not justice, that already existed.
Since when is not having a trial "justice"? Perhaps in some repressive
Muslim country, but we're better than that.
>Instead
> of accepting his guilty plea and putting the mad muzzie down quietly in
> Guantanamo, Obama & Holder are going to spend millions for a farcial
> trial in order to appease Obamas kook base - morons like you - because
> the defense is obviously going to put the US and the past administration
> on trial.
Scared the truth will come out?
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yer Pal Al" <caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6bf5348-e366-4063...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Right wingers and Repugs have been trotting out the Communist and Socialist
boogymen for 100 years. Isn't it time to try something besides scaring
people? Or is that all you got?
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yer Pal Al" <caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78857e85-03b4-472c...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>For some strange reason they just want to prove we aren't at war with
>radical Islam. Their egos are so delicate that they cannot accept that
>people don't like them just because.
You really can't be at war with a bunch of criminals. You just want to
justify your bloodlust for Serial Murder.
Alex DeLarge
> "mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:G-GdnZl-QdZSWpjW...@giganews.com...
>> Phxbrd wrote:
>>> "mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:5KmdnfZ3KPA0DJjW...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On Nov 18, 11:35 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Barry Hussein surrenders to terrorists at home:
>>>>>> When a post starts out like that, you just know there's no reason to
>>>>>> keep reading.
>>>>> "It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt
>>>>> to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of
>>>>> that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. ... For my part,
>>>>> whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the
>>>>> whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." - This was
>>>>> Patrick Henry, the complete opposite of Curt.
>>>>
>>>> to the open, public trials of the criminals of 911.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> our country because we attacked theirs.
>>
>> entirely different situation. If that had been the case, and these
>> clowns were legitimate soldiers in the employ of their country, then
>> military tribunals etc. would be called for. Saudi Arabia (nor any
>> other nation) attacked us. These guys are civilians. That makes them
>> criminals and devoid of any respect a soldier serving his country
>> deserves.
>
> Obama and Holder have queered the deal already. They'll all get off on
> unable to get a fair trial.
Consider, is there even ONE American who didn't pay attention to 911?
Shitzie, Bax?
Alex DeLarge
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:08:42 -0800 (PST), Juan <fly...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> TOUCHE! :)
>
> Juan is fantasizing about molesting little kids again...
...in the "loving way"....
Juan
>
> > Learn to read for comprehension and then get back to us.
>
> Learn to think for reality and then get back to us.
> -----------------------
>
> Do you actually have anything in the way of a rebuttal, or are you simply
> frustrated because you have none?
Rebuttal to what, Tonto? To rebut you have to present an argument with
an above-body-temperature IQ. Get back to us when you're ready.
Juan
>
> McAfee again shows his lack of bright. It's not uniformed soldiers we're
> killing in Iraq/Afghanistan, it's all civilians we call "insurgents".
> Doesn't it only seem logical that it would be their civilians now attacking
> our civilians in return?
>
> See Tit For Tat
Actually, see "Prepubescent Arguments 101".
Alex DeLarge
)
(
( ) (
) _ )
( \_
_(_\ \)__
(____\___))
cccp
Alex DeLarge
Juan
>
> The purpose of the trial is not justice, that already existed.
Your opinion has been noted. Sit back down on the litter box, boi. You
and your gaggle of dimwit putzes are all yellow cowards.
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
)
(
( ) (
) _ )
( \_
_(_\ \)__
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
Alex DeLarge
> "LDosser" <L...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:he5im6$phj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> killing in Iraq/Afghanistan, it's all civilians we call "insurgents".
No you stupid, ignorant fuck nozzle, it's TERRORISTS!
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
Alex DeLarge
> -
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 20, 10:28 am, "Phxbrd" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Learn to read for comprehension and then get back to us.
>> Learn to think for reality and then get back to us.
>> -----------------------
>>
>> Do you actually have anything in the way of a rebuttal, or are you simply
>> frustrated because you have none?
>
> Rebuttal to what, Tonto?
The racist Morjuan attacks Indians.
Alex DeLarge
Morbidly obese diaperboi.
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 20, 11:48 am, Al <albert.finney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The purpose of the trial is not justice, that already existed.
>
> Your opinion has been noted.
Yours has been urinated on.
Drop dead.
Alex DeLarge
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:36:56 -0800 (PST), Curt
>>> <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 18, 4:08 pm, Ivan Skavinsky Skavar <I...@borscht.com> wrote:
>>>>> Can you fire a president?-
>>>> Actually, as the elections of 06 and 08 showed, you can fire an Entire
>>>> Party!
>>> And all it cost was the economy...
>> You're not seriously suggesting that this current depression wasn't
>> caused by the deregulation and non-enforcement of existing regulations
>> policies of the GOP, are you?
>
> Watch -- he'll try to blame Barney Frank.
>
> Curt
So he had NO part in it?
Really?
Do explain this:
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us
out of it."
That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the
Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current
financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the
political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The
Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by
people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire
straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market
knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at
his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems;
government is the problem.' "
In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this
present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem;
government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying
much the same thing.
Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share
of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately
just how pitiless the private sector�s discipline can be -- they weren't
the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points
notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding
to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make
ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the
truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and
demanding that they do so - or else.
The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was
when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began
accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks
were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with
weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community
Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to
"meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed
neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting
standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two
government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible"
criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans,
and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among
minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound
business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense.
"Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the
Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare
payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify
for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was
good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial
whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean
when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked
in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving
risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs .
. . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city,
which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and
regulators plans to take the credit?"
Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and
time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good
shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration
proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant
that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any
kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk
for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank
complained that the administration was more concerned about financial
safety than about housing.
Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to
all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this
mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and
private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the
political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a
culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
Yer Pal Al
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Yer Pal Al" <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:f6bf5348-e366-4063...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 8:32 am, The Wiz <anywh...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> You can't talk sense to a person who wants what you have and is
> >> motivated by greed and a belief in Communism.
>
> >"Communism has never been tried and if you just give up some more of
> >your feedom we might get it to work this time."
>
> Right wingers and Repugs have been trotting out the Communist and Socialist
> boogymen for 100 years. Isn't it time to try something besides scaring
> people?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
> Or is that all you got?
We could just call Barry a spendthrift with penchant for social
programs. I guess that the "terrorism" boogyman has been around too
long too and the Socialist/Communists want to avoid that designation
too.
Yer Pal Al
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Yer Pal Al" <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:78857e85-03b4-472c...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> >For some strange reason they just want to prove we aren't at war with
> >radical Islam. Their egos are so delicate that they cannot accept that
> >people don't like them just because.
>
> You really can't be at war with a bunch of criminals.
They are organized. Your problem is that you cannot think outside the
box; political boundaries and uniforms.
> You just want to
> justify your bloodlust for Serial Murder.
I'm against the death penalty so I have no idea what you're talking
about.
Alex DeLarge
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex DeLarge
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
Obwon
<"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>Wait and watch. I'm sure that one of the defense motions will be to
>change the trial location to someplace out of New York.
Not if they represent themselves, then the "trial" will
turn into a mere hate fest, a three ring circus of venom
and bile. They'll then be convicted without any real
evidence being presented or questioned at all.
The only real defense they can mount, that would set them
free if successful, would be to prove that they and their
people had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. That's
going to be way too tall a task for them to mount
personally, if they even realized they could, no less if
they were aware of it's effect if they won. As they're own
counsel, they'll simply consider the trial one big hopeless
mess, with everything stacked against them from the start,
so I expect they'll play it that way and go for the sort of
messages they think they might send.
The "danger" here is that some Arab/Islamist nation or
group, might decide to fund a really highpowered
professional defense team for them. Then the case could get
really interesting, since there are still many questions
unanswered that could yield at least the shadow of doubt
they need. Not that I think that will happen.
Obwon
<anyw...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>Juan wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 4:45 pm, "Phxbrd" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> You don't expect much honest reporting of the upcoming trials, do you? You
>>> know damned well that the defense will involve their attacking our country
>>> because we attacked theirs. If it wasn't their specific country that we
>>> attacked without provocation, it was their fellow Moslem nations that we
>>> attacked and continue to do so. What US news organization do you think
>>> honest enough to report that simple truth? Have you seen any of it so far?
>>
>> Are you what passes for intelligence in your family? You think a
>> federal trial will be decided by how the news covers it? Where do you
>> live, Russia? Venezuela? Cuba?
>
>It will be decided by trying the US instead of the terrorists. Obama's
>Muslim buddy, the Attny Gen. Holder is doing the terrorists the biggest
>favor they could ask. A civilian trial.
He's doing them no favor at all. If you believe in the
American system of justice, then you believe that our
courts can discern betwixt innocense and guilt to a large
degree. True the rules in a U.S. criminal court give the
accused his best shot at proving his innocense, but still
that requires that he has some useful evidence or knowledge
with which to poke holes in the case against him.
Obwon
<albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article
><b7e17436-fdd2-440a...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Juan <fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 19, 4:45�pm, "Phxbrd" <lesliesethhamm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > You don't expect much honest reporting of the upcoming trials, do you? �You
>> > know damned well that the defense will involve their attacking our country
>> > because we attacked theirs. �If it wasn't their specific country that we
>> > attacked without provocation, it was their fellow Moslem nations that we
>> > attacked and continue to do so. �What US news organization do you think
>> > honest enough to report that simple truth? �Have you seen any of it so far?
>>
>> Are you what passes for intelligence in your family? You think a
>> federal trial will be decided by how the news covers it? Where do you
>> live, Russia? Venezuela? Cuba?
>
>The purpose of the trial is not justice, that already existed. Instead
>of accepting his guilty plea and putting the mad muzzie down quietly in
>Guantanamo, Obama & Holder are going to spend millions for a farcial
>trial in order to appease Obamas kook base - morons like you - because
>the defense is obviously going to put the US and the past administration
>on trial.
What?!? You seriously think that will set him free? Or
will it just be ignored, like other rantings, we believers
of freedom of speech are used to.
Alex DeLarge
> The "danger" here is that some Arab/Islamist nation or
> group, might decide to fund a really highpowered
> professional defense team for them.
You really are a crackpot troofer, aren't ya Oddsod?
Get on anti-psychotics and GO AWAY.