where are the lefties?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think there should be a new international law
Is your suggestion assuming that no Americans in the future would never commit an act of terrorism in a foreign country and therefore we would never have to be concerned about being at war against the rest of the world as a result?
Absolutely. If we were producing gangs of international terrorists and could do nothing about them ourselves, it would be the responsibility of the international community to deal with it.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
To accuse me of lies when I haven't actually said any of the things you seem to think I have is plain idiotic.
You said "See Ed Brown currently being held without access to lawyer and suffering solitary confinement, sensory deprivation and other forms of turture in the US, as a US citizen, for daring to refuse to obey an illegal tax demand". You did not say that Ed Brown "said" any of those things. You said that he is "being held without access to lawyer and suffering solitary confinement, sensory deprivation and other forms of turture in the US". That is plainly bearing false witness against the good men and women who run the prison that he will hopefully rot away in. That is, unless you can provide evidence of this fact. Can you provide evidence, you pathetic swine? You make so many unsubstantiated claims (i.e. bearing false witness) which I typically dismiss as irrational support of your delusions of persecution. But just for fun, I'll confront you on this particular one. Of course, I know that you'll just ignore my demands for evidence and instead go off on an unrelated tangent composed of innumerable run-on sentences.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Can you provide evidence, you pathetic swine?
The Princess Bride?
This statement was never false.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
your country
I'm Welsh.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
justice and equality under the law
Refusing to pay tax on 2 million dollars of your wife's income is apparently very illegal in the US. As is resisting arrest. No membership of Aryan Nations required. The fact that he is a dreadful human being is just a happy coincidence, rather like seeing Johnathon King arrested as a pederast.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Refusing to pay tax on 2 million dollars of your wife's income is apparently very illegal in the US. As is resisting arrest.
That would be prosecutable under the natural course of law. Not as an enemy combatant right? I think that's the point here. As a citizen, even a detestable one, he still has the right to due process.
This statement was never false.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Can you provide evidence, you pathetic swine?
The Princess Bride?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
The Princess Bride?
Yup! :-D
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
OT but hey ho... I see that's it's not just reading you have a problem with but writing as well. At least that explains a portion of the nonsense you frequently post. Perhaps I should stick to responding with short sentences you can handle. Don't post rubbish. You're wrong and you know you are. Contradicting yourself won't persuade me. Call me crazy if it makes you feel better. I just feel I'd be insulting the intelligence of others who read this forum and can actually handle the occasional parenthetical comment.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Which, as I mentioned, proves that you can't write, let alone satirise. As I'm not being and have not been, thank God, persecuted it would appear that it is you who has a delusion that I am deluded.:doh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
OT but hey ho... I see that's it's not just reading you have a problem with but writing as well. At least that explains a portion of the nonsense you frequently post. Perhaps I should stick to responding with short sentences you can handle. Don't post rubbish. You're wrong and you know you are. Contradicting yourself won't persuade me. Call me crazy if it makes you feel better. I just feel I'd be insulting the intelligence of others who read this forum and can actually handle the occasional parenthetical comment.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
As I'm not being and have not been, thank God, persecuted it would appear that it is you who has a delusion that I am deluded
Fortunately for my sake (and unfortunately for yours) there is no such documented delusion. Delusions of persecution (something you obviously suffer from), however, are fairly common. I suggest that you seek professional help, but I doubt that you will.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
The section of the left who would moan about the US going into Iraq and wrecking the place without UN authorisation but who won't complain when Turkey does likewise because the Turks are Muslem, or not seen as imperialist, or non-white, or whatever. In other words an unjustifyable double standard. If you scream about A doing it then you'd better scream just as loud when B does it or expect no one to take any notice of your initial complaint, is I think what he's getting at. Reasonable to extent that it's a fair comparison in the first place.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
without UN authorisation
I am not aware of who those people are. Is there a large number? Don't the big names in the Democratic Party cite "it's not working" as their reason to get out of Iraq, Not "UN authorization"? This is where the whole "liberals... left" comments just make peoples observations/opinions totally worthless.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Refusing to pay tax on 2 million dollars of your wife's income is apparently very illegal in the US. As is resisting arrest.
That would be prosecutable under the natural course of law. Not as an enemy combatant right? I think that's the point here. As a citizen, even a detestable one, he still has the right to due process.
This statement was never false.
Enemy combatants are by definition not citizens and cannot be charged under the same law. Though I agree they should have access to a decent legal process I don't see how you could use civilian law - soldiers are not policemen and they operate in extraordinary conditions.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
without UN authorisation
I am not aware of who those people are. Is there a large number? Don't the big names in the Democratic Party cite "it's not working" as their reason to get out of Iraq, Not "UN authorization"? This is where the whole "liberals... left" comments just make peoples observations/opinions totally worthless.
Check my posts on this thread, if you can trawl through the mess, and you'll see I make a similar point and try to differentiate between the 'left' who will object consistently on moral grounds, of which I approve, and the 'left' who have no moral basis and will therefore wait until it all goes wrong before complaining as they did with Iraq, except in this case they may not complain at all for the reasons stated.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Absolutely. If we were producing gangs of international terrorists and could do nothing about them ourselves, it would be the responsibility of the international community to deal with it.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
:laugh: When I clicked on the emailed link it sends me to the Soapbox in 2001 into a thread titled: Serious statement regarding bestiality Like you, I think the idea sounds good, certainly the intent is very sound, however I see a potential problem that is familiar, it's in the details.
Stan Shannon wrote:
gangs of international terrorists and could do nothing about them ourselves
That is all very ambiguous and in the "hammering out the definitions" is where disagreement would arise. I mean if one american blows himself up in a McDonalds in Iran does that qualify under the terms and result in the world going to war with us? Of course not but what are the definitions that everyone would agree with?
-
Enemy combatants are by definition not citizens and cannot be charged under the same law. Though I agree they should have access to a decent legal process I don't see how you could use civilian law - soldiers are not policemen and they operate in extraordinary conditions.
Yeah, I was just talking about Ed.
This statement was never false.
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Whereas they do have trouble when it is applied to a country occupied by America.
I don't. If Turkey has a legitimate case that they are under attack from a neighbor, than they should be allowed to defend themselves. Obviously, that raises the possibility of a confrontation between Turk and US forces as the US would necessarily have to defend against a general invasion from Turkey, but as long as the objectives were narrowly defined, they should be allowed to do it. Frankly, I think there should be a new international law - any act of terrorism from the citizens of one nation against the citizens of another can be considered an act of war regardless of whether the government of the nation producing the terrorism was directly responsible for it or not. Further, all members of the UN would be required to participate militarily in the invasion of any nation producing terrorism. The excuse of 'stateless' terrorism should be made legally moot. If they are your citizens than you need to control them. Otherwise, the international community will. -- modified at 8:05 Friday 19th October, 2007
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Heh. Since when did you support the notion of "international law"? I've always seen you as "You're not an american, so fuck off!" kind of guy...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
i'd have thought that the left would stand on their principles and jump up and down about troups entering iraq - though i wonder if they only do it because the USA etc are involved. But the moment an "eastern" or "non western" country is entering the fray its suddenly not their place to say anything...or something along those lines :) you get the drift i'm sure :) bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
Generally speaking, I only get really upset when it's my own country doing the killing. Also, if we were to invade Mexico or Canada, I'd have an easier time with it. This is a foreign country having a border dispute with a neighboring country. Big difference between their proposed invasion of Iraq and ours. I'm not for war in any form, though, just explaining why I am not jumping up and down.
Since CodeProject's privacy policy states that they will not distribute personal information -Eric Speirs, AKA Red Stateler