[x]

See Where You Rank in Virginia

  1.  
    Originally Posted by norcaljeff View Post

    E

    Pretty standard for his fp. Well his fp actions, not words. And he still shouldbe doing more. But yeah

    It had nothing to do with past crimes?

    They aren't being prosecuted for past crimes. They are being locked up for potential future crimes according to Obama's speech.
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  2. Im very worried lol.

    First they came for the jihadis that swore to muder americans...
    Add norcaljeff to Rail
  3.  
    Originally Posted by norcaljeff View Post

    Im very worried lol.

    First they came for the jihadis that swore to muder americans...

    Then they came for those who attended the same churches and clubs as a suspected terrorist. Then they came for those who posted on or viewed websites linked to terrorist organizations. Then they designated all libertarians as terrorists...
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  4. Libertarians spend their time going to radical mosques and surfing terrorist sites? No wonder you cant get anything accomplished
    Add norcaljeff to Rail
  5. She is still on the air?
    Add darkpoker12 to Rail
  6.  
    Originally Posted by darkpoker12 View Post

    She is still on the air?

    She's the sane one when you consider MSNBC employs Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, and Lawrence O'Donnell.
     
    Add gamma21 to Rail
  7.  
    Originally Posted by norcaljeff View Post

    Libertarians spend their time going to radical mosques and surfing terrorist sites? No wonder you cant get anything accomplished

    People belonging to Oathbreakers or other libertarian organizations have never been labeled by a government agency as a terrorist organization over the past ten years?
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  8. No libertarians have ever been part of a terrorist group? What fun!

    Ps arent the kamps already full from the patriot act?
    Add norcaljeff to Rail
  9.  
    Originally Posted by norcaljeff View Post

    No libertarians have ever been part of a terrorist group? What fun!

    Ps arent the kamps already full from the patriot act?

    Huh?
    Edited By: Dyzalot May 21st, 2012 at 09:25 PM
    Reason: because the sky is blue?
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  10.  
    Originally Posted by gamma21 View Post

    She's the sane one when you consider MSNBC employs Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, and Lawrence O'Donnell.


    Pretty sad but I have to agree with this.
    Add jay_bear to Rail
  11. Kamps at 50%? how many more can we fit in?
    Add norcaljeff to Rail
  12. i find this political thread about 1000% more confusing than the average OT political thread. I'm going to have a cookie now.
    Add Reech to Rail
  13. i'm a traditionalist, chocolate chip.

    it was delicious, btw.
    Add Reech to Rail
  14. Jesus Dyz, you are a fuckin clown
    Add Oh Rale to Rail
  15.  
    Originally Posted by Oh Rale View Post

    Jesus Dyz, you are a fuckin clown

    I love posts like this.
    Add MustbeMoore to Rail
  16.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    No I couldn't because then it would be a blanket statement that isn't true. I'm certainly not giving Maddow any credence when she complains about policies from a president that frees markets, reduces taxation or reduces regulation.

    Trans-Pacific Partnership tho.
    Add nowapowa to Rail
  17.  
    Originally Posted by Willywoo View Post

    this president has done way more good than bad.

    +1
     
    Add killingbird to Rail
  18.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    They aren't being prosecuted for past crimes. They are being locked up for potential future crimes according to Obama's speech.

    If you are against prolonged detention, that's fine. I am a big advocate of civil liberties myself so we probably agree on this issue. However, you need to quit with this "pre-crime" bullshit. It does nothing but muddy the waters of the actual issue at hand. If you want to argue against prolonged detention, man up and argue it on its merits.

    There is NO PRE-CRIME! The issue is that the terrorists that are being held cannot be tried. They cannot be tried because the information pertaining to their guilt was obtained via torture. Said torture makes said evidence inadmissible, thus eliminating any chance of a conviction. This leaves the government in a scramble to figure out what can be done to keep from releasing these terrorists.

    Civil liberties are a real bitch. Hard to win a "release the terrorists" argument but what can you do? Oh yeah, debate pre-crime, I forgot.
    Add TheSilentBob to Rail
  19. So in other words, they aren't being locked up for crimes they committed because our prosecution screwed up so we lock them up for crimes they may commit in the future, you know, kind of like "pre-crime".
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  20. Derp, Derp goes the Dyzalot. If it makes you feel better about yourself, keep calling it pre-crime and railing about it. Whatever makes you happy buddy.

    I'd rather address real issues like what do we do about terrorists, evidence of whose guilt was obtained by torture? Is a terrorist a guilty just because they are a terrorist or must they commit a crime? And my favorite, how can we punish a suicide bomber?
    Add TheSilentBob to Rail
  21.  
    Originally Posted by TheSilentBob View Post

    Derp, Derp goes the Dyzalot. If it makes you feel better about yourself, keep calling it pre-crime and railing about it. Whatever makes you happy buddy.

    I'd rather address real issues like what do we do about terrorists, evidence of whose guilt was obtained by torture? Is a terrorist a guilty just because they are a terrorist or must they commit a crime? And my favorite, how can we punish a suicide bomber?


    Torture doesn't produce evidence. We have no evidence that these people did anything wrong. If we did then we'd try them in court. Instead we hold them to prevent what we think they could do in the future, "pre-crime"...
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  22. Or we hold them because of what we know they did but can't prove. Perhaps we are holding them because Obama secretly wants to do them in the ass. Maybe we're trying out some new mind control techniques and we needed a few test subjects. Just call a spade a spade, ffs. They are being illegally detained because they are terrorists.

    If you are afraid to argue the facts, just admit it. Attacking the label that Rachel Maddow and her writers chose to attach to it is a flat cop-out and you know it. When you're done with your pre-crime stance and are ready to tackle the big boy question, you get back to me. As it stands, I convict your next post of cowardice before you even post it. There's some pre-crime for you.
    Add TheSilentBob to Rail
  23.  
    Originally Posted by TheSilentBob View Post

    Or we hold them because of what we know they did but can't prove.


    Our legal system does not allow for this.

     

    Attacking the label that Rachel Maddow and her writers chose to attach to it is a flat cop-out and you know it.

    Umm... you're the one attacking her label...
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  24.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    Our legal system does not allow for this.

    No shit, Sherlock. That's the whole point. No one disputes that they are being illegally obtained. Instead of talking about that and the reasons why, not to mention what can be done about it, you'd rather argue about the way it's been labeled.

     
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    Umm... you're the one attacking her label...

    You are correct sir but I think you know what I meant. Since you obviously don't want to discuss any of the substantive issues inherent in this topic, I declare my pre-crime statement correct. We now have empirical evidence that pre-crime works, thus ending all debate on this issue. We can all rest easier tonight knowing that our government will now be detaining all these prisoners legally based on their new pre-criminal status. Frankly, I am just amazed at how far we have come. I sure hope pre-shopping is next as that sounds awesome around Christmas time.
    Add TheSilentBob to Rail
  25.  
    Originally Posted by TheSilentBob View Post

    No shit, Sherlock. That's the whole point. No one disputes that they are being illegally obtained. Instead of talking about that and the reasons why, not to mention what can be done about it, you'd rather argue about the way it's been labeled.



    You are correct sir but I think you know what I meant. Since you obviously don't want to discuss any of the substantive issues inherent in this topic, I declare my pre-crime statement correct. We now have empirical evidence that pre-crime works, thus ending all debate on this issue. We can all rest easier tonight knowing that our government will now be detaining all these prisoners legally based on their new pre-criminal status. Frankly, I am just amazed at how far we have come. I sure hope pre-shopping is next as that sounds awesome around Christmas time.

    I have no idea what you meant and I have no idea what you are arguing about. Oh and no one disputes they are being illegally detained? I don't think Obama and his justice department would agree.
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  26. Dude, why are you still posting itt? Don't you get it, you won. Not only did you prove that pre-crime exists but with my help, you proved that it works. So that's it, the argument is finished. No more moral or ethical dilemma's to worry about. OT owes you a debt of gratitude. Further posting by you itt is just vanity at this point. Do you really need to gloat?



    There, is that better?
    Add TheSilentBob to Rail