Is this the exchange you are moaning about ? ?
Originally Posted by Zathras
Bush: lift ban on off shore drilling
Originally Posted by Sonnabend post 53
In which case we still qualify as the average Aussie has twice your IQ points and three times the common sense.
Originally Posted by Megimoo post 54
You forgot the better looking part and your feet dont sting as much ! " a simple typo should read stink,I missed it !
Originally Posted by El Boco Grande post 55
Step on one sting ray.
Originally Posted by Sonnabend 56
1. He didn't step on it, he swam PAST it and it fired the barb at him.
2. You dont "step" on stingrays as they normally stay away from humans as this was a freak occurrence and they usually stay on the move, havng gills as they do, and needing to keep moving so as they can breathe...you unutterable, uneducated FOOL
3. Steve Irwin was fifteen times the man, twenty times the father and a hundred times the hero then you will ever be or hope to be and will remain an icon to conservationists everywhere.
His daughter is loved and adored by all Australians, she and her mother are carrying on his legacy and have the popular support of EVERYONE..Bindi is her father's daughter and we could not be more proud of her....if I were you, I'd never make that comment in the hearing of any Australian...
4. That one remark, was I an admin, would be enough to ban your ass PERMANENTLY for one of the most offensive comments in living history.
On the advise of PM counsel (much more wise and powerful in this forum than Sonnabend) - Iím letting this go. Not worth the resource. ;)
I also hope he advised you to post elsewhere,you are irrational !
Originally Posted by LogansPapa
Ah, nothing witty to say...must be true then.
Originally Posted by LogansPapa
I just read the original thread and I have no idea how that exchange could be construed as cowardice on Megi's part. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that LP is off of his meds again.
Originally Posted by Zathras
What did I miss?
Who made the anti-semitic slur?
What was it?
Who is the closet liberal here?
I confess to being a "liberal" but I don't know what the word means anymore.
Another example of how these "open-minded progressives" totally suppress any form of honest debate at their little inlet of intolerance. God help us if their poster child obama wins the presidency, and their ilk take control of Congress. We will all be sent to "re-education camps" so that we too can learn to be "open-minded".
The drama under discussion in this thread aside, lets get back to the topic.
Originally Posted by megimoo
(Moderator, take notice and please extract the drama into a thread of it's own following. As I'm sure some members would rather discuss the topic as posted vice a disagreement between members).
I've read the opinion of the SCOTUS as well as the dissent of Scalia and his joinees. I believe that the rule of the constitution *should* cage the federal government, not matter how long it's arms become. The constitution is a set of rules and regulations that define the federal government as well as the extent of its power. Geographical location does not void these rules anymore than the nationality of the subject in question does. However, that isn't really the question here is it? The liberals would like America to believe that geographical location is the question...but it's not.
The real question is simple: Are the detainees at GetMo an enemy combatant (I.E. a POW) or are they a civilian suspected of a crime? If they are a POW, then they are processed the exact same as a VC insurgent was processed in 1965. That means each GetMo detainee can take one of three paths. If they are suspected of a war crime, then they get a tribunal. If they are 'foot soldiers', who do not, 'think for themselves', then they can be expected to be paroled or to be held until an end to hostilities. This isn't anything new. Holding POWs until the end of hostilities is at least as old as the revolutionary war. No one gave the hundred of thousands of German and Japanese prisoners any right to trial, it would have been impossible. Likewise, no one hesitated to hold tribunals for Axis WWII OICs.
It should be simple, but it's not. It' s because of the internal politics of the Republican party. We can blame no one else. Everyone expects voices of dissent to be silenced within the socialist party...er democrats...whatever. Everyone expects democrats to present a unified front while it burns every voice who disagrees with a particular point. The Republican party used to be different in that respect. What made the republican party so successful was that, in the Goldwater era, we would have had debate internally about this issue, and both sides would have been aired. The Republicans should be addressing the status of GetMo prisoners through public, very public, discourse and debate. Instead they flay and burn anyone who says they should be given a trial. I find it absurd that the republican party is so afraid of dissent, that it doesn't even want to hear suggestions from within it's own party.
I seriously, and honestly believe that if the G.Q. Public were to witness a debate over weather Al-Haminijad -Ali Mohommed Al-Akram was a civilian suspected of a crime or an enemy of the U.S. in combatant status, we would have different story.
Basically the republican party has gone the way of the democrats by silencing or ridiculing public discourse against party standing. That means the only party left who accepts the practice of 'talk it out' is the Libertarian party. Thats hurtful to the republicans in two areas: First, the libs have a head start on silencing voices of dissent. They are way better at silencing those who go against the status quo than we are. They've been doing it since formation. Finally, republican positions, with the exception of the religious angle, simply cannot survive public scrutiny unless they are the right thing to do.
The idea of the Republican party providing a choice of leaders to the market of voters is not new. The Democrats only ever....ever.....provide a single leader to lead us to Marxist beauty. Usually the republicans provide a marketplace of different opinions and trust their "core" to choose the most likely. That didn't happen in this election, otherwise Huck Vs. Paul would have been a reality. Instead McCain was given the nod, *without addressing dissents in opinions among the repub party!!*. The Republican party figured that dissent didn't need to be addressed.....after all, if you dissent from the republican party, you are a non-hacker,a non-American
Well, now the republican party is faced with double digit Hussein Obama leads. Those of you who refused to accept discourse and public debate were essentially sacrificing a public quorum for your individual ideas of right and wrong.
I don't know how better to summarize my argument other than: Democrats have historically won elections through deceit or misdirection. How else would anyone vote for a Marxist within these borders? However, over the last few years Republicans have been elected using the same ploys. Any tool the republican party has at keeping their chosen tool in check has been rendered ineffective. Therefore, we Republican voters have to be more die hard, we have to be more astutue. WE don't want another Bush Jr. in the oval office. We want Goldwater Sr. to have his chance.
Yeah after reading it I dont get it either. I think its just more baseless name calling so he can try and champion himself as the "enlightened and brave liberal that is sticking it to those nasty rethuglicans". He sounds like an idiot.
Originally Posted by Odysseus