Conquer Club

pimpdave wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:OK, let's throw the bums out!

Except for Al Franken. He can stay. He's the best.

Al Franken??

Are you retarded?

oops....sorry i should have said "mentally challenged"

my bad

pimpdave wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:OK, let's throw the bums out!

Except for Al Franken. He can stay. He's the best.

I hated Norm Coleman a lot, and have mixed feelings about the corrupt nature of MN's senatorial election. Like Titanic driving off a cliff, in my new Convertible. Most of you probably have not even heard what happened here. It was really bad. I can't remember all the names, but secretaries and judges got all tangled up in the mess, and over 70% of the votes discovered after the election deadline were counted for Franken, despite a virtual tie from all of the other votes, including ballots "discovered" in someone's trunk. We were getting 2 different sides of every story, and that made it impossible for the local media to sort out, to the point of overwhleming them so badly that the media didn't even seem to want to cover the events. Franken is bought and paid for by moveon.org. whether frankens veiws refelct moveons, or moveons told franken what his views are, I don't care. Jesse Ventura should have run for senate here. but then, of course we would not have the wonderful conspiracy series on TRUtv

I had forgotten about the votes found in the trunk...things like that make me wonder how long our elections process can remain...I've no doubt, none what so ever that both Republicans and Democrats cheat in elections and justify it based on the moral superiority of their policy positions.

While I do believe one side's policy positions are almost all morally superior, I don't think cheating should be allowed no matter how immoral you believe the other side is - so I will pose the question how do you stop it?

rockfist wrote:I had forgotten about the votes found in the trunk...things like that make me wonder how long our elections process can remain...I've no doubt, none what so ever that both Republicans and Democrats cheat in elections and justify it based on the moral superiority of their policy positions.

While I do believe one side's policy positions are almost all morally superior, I don't think cheating should be allowed no matter how immoral you believe the other side is - so I will pose the question how do you stop it?

grass roots, local level genuine support for genuine candidates. the electorate is motivated. I am very excited about the future.

Turns out the Obama adminstration has not released A SLEW of information regarding the Fort hood Shooter. But thank you to all of you Terrorist supporters and lone-nut theory backers. You thought exactly as the gov't wanted you to think. Now we can get the real story, if the bi-partisan subpoenas hold, Obama will have to let us in on the real story, and I'm sure he will apologize for making all his voters defend the terrorist.

Phatscotty wrote:Turns out the Obama adminstration has not released A SLEW of information regarding the Fort hood Shooter. But thank you to all of you Terrorist supporters and lone-nut theory backers. You thought exactly as the gov't wanted you to think. Now we can get the real story, if the bi-partisan subpoenas hold, Obama will have to let us in on the real story, and I'm sure he will apologize for making all his voters defend the terrorist.

Is presumption of innocence before being proven guilty now a liberal thing?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Turns out the Obama adminstration has not released A SLEW of information regarding the Fort hood Shooter. But thank you to all of you Terrorist supporters and lone-nut theory backers. You thought exactly as the gov't wanted you to think. Now we can get the real story, if the bi-partisan subpoenas hold, Obama will have to let us in on the real story, and I'm sure he will apologize for making all his voters defend the terrorist.

Is presumption of innocence before being proven guilty now a liberal thing?

No, thinking he may be innocent with a slew of eye-witnesses is.

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Turns out the Obama adminstration has not released A SLEW of information regarding the Fort hood Shooter. But thank you to all of you Terrorist supporters and lone-nut theory backers. You thought exactly as the gov't wanted you to think. Now we can get the real story, if the bi-partisan subpoenas hold, Obama will have to let us in on the real story, and I'm sure he will apologize for making all his voters defend the terrorist.

Is presumption of innocence before being proven guilty now a liberal thing?

No, thinking he may be innocent with a slew of eye-witnesses is.

So, if I said I saw you rape a child, and got someone to back me up, you'd be guilty?

Nah- a trial is necessary.

Of course, the idea that withholding information from the public might be the best way to ensure there is a real trial and conviction just never occured to either of you.

Symmetry wrote:So, if I said I saw you rape a child, and got someone to back me up, you'd be guilty?

No, you'd be smoking crack.


The trial is not the issue. It's the suspension of reality that is the issue. And lets not fall back on the "rule of law" ONLY when it's convenient. The hypocrisy is astounding.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Of course, the idea that withholding information from the public might be the best way to ensure there is a real trial and conviction just never occured to either of you.

I believe it's a military trial. I don't believe the public is permitted to serve on a military jury (I'm basing that purely on A Few Good Men).

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Of course, the idea that withholding information from the public might be the best way to ensure there is a real trial and conviction just never occured to either of you.

I believe it's a military trial. I don't believe the public is permitted to serve on a military jury (I'm basing that purely on A Few Good Men).

You want the truth????? You can't HANDLE the truth!!!!

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, if I said I saw you rape a child, and got someone to back me up, you'd be guilty?

No, you'd be smoking crack.


The trial is not the issue. It's the suspension of reality that is the issue. And lets not fall back on the "rule of law" ONLY when it's convenient. The hypocrisy is astounding.

So suspending the idea of guilt until proven so is just a convenience?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Turns out the Obama adminstration has not released A SLEW of information regarding the Fort hood Shooter. But thank you to all of you Terrorist supporters and lone-nut theory backers. You thought exactly as the gov't wanted you to think. Now we can get the real story, if the bi-partisan subpoenas hold, Obama will have to let us in on the real story, and I'm sure he will apologize for making all his voters defend the terrorist.

Is presumption of innocence before being proven guilty now a liberal thing?

presumption of innocence does not mean people must pretend to be complete retards about what happened. not even a nice try. do you just do this for fun? My statement had nothing to do with guilt, everything with proving we do not have half of the story.

Woodruff wrote:Political correctness, in and of itself, is not a bad thing...it's simply politeness. Just as with anything, when it is taken to the extreme is when it becomes ridiculous.

Yes your right but i think people are taking it to the extreme.
For example people want to chang baa baa black sheep
and remove black or some crap.

LikeYestrdaysJam wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Political correctness, in and of itself, is not a bad thing...it's simply politeness. Just as with anything, when it is taken to the extreme is when it becomes ridiculous.

Yes your right but i think people are taking it to the extreme.
For example people want to chang baa baa black sheep
and remove black or some crap.

why did not you just declare you are a child. Oh well, you will be banned soon enough

Symmetry wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, if I said I saw you rape a child, and got someone to back me up, you'd be guilty?

No, you'd be smoking crack.


The trial is not the issue. It's the suspension of reality that is the issue. And lets not fall back on the "rule of law" ONLY when it's convenient. The hypocrisy is astounding.

So suspending the idea of guilt until proven so is just a convenience?

I'm saying you get a guy on video shooting people and the libs come out and yell, "He's innocent until proven guilty!" Well duh? But I don't think that's going to be that difficult to prove!

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, if I said I saw you rape a child, and got someone to back me up, you'd be guilty?

No, you'd be smoking crack.


The trial is not the issue. It's the suspension of reality that is the issue. And lets not fall back on the "rule of law" ONLY when it's convenient. The hypocrisy is astounding.

So suspending the idea of guilt until proven so is just a convenience?

I'm saying you get a guy on video shooting people and the libs come out and yell, "He's innocent until proven guilty!" Well duh? But I don't think that's going to be that difficult to prove!

If it's so easy: What's your problem? Give the person a fair trial where their guilt is proven.

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, if I said I saw you rape a child, and got someone to back me up, you'd be guilty?

No, you'd be smoking crack.


The trial is not the issue. It's the suspension of reality that is the issue. And lets not fall back on the "rule of law" ONLY when it's convenient. The hypocrisy is astounding.

So suspending the idea of guilt until proven so is just a convenience?

I'm saying you get a guy on video shooting people and the libs come out and yell, "He's innocent until proven guilty!" Well duh? But I don't think that's going to be that difficult to prove!

Good. So, speedy, fair trial and he's proven guilty. Until you prove somebody guilty of a crime, they're not proven guilty. I am just ace with the logic today.

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So, if I said I saw you rape a child, and got someone to back me up, you'd be guilty?

No, you'd be smoking crack.


The trial is not the issue. It's the suspension of reality that is the issue. And lets not fall back on the "rule of law" ONLY when it's convenient. The hypocrisy is astounding.

So suspending the idea of guilt until proven so is just a convenience?

I'm saying you get a guy on video shooting people and the libs come out and yell, "He's innocent until proven guilty!" Well duh? But I don't think that's going to be that difficult to prove!

So if it's so simple, then let's run through the procedures and prove it.

When 3 people say essentially the same response jay, you know you missed something.

Hey, Jay: you were wrong.

Obama administration defies congressional subpoena on Fort Hood documents

After days of negotiations, the Pentagon and Justice Department informed a Senate committee that they would not comply with congressional subpoenas to share investigative records from the Nov. 5 shootings

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042703170.html

What are they trying to hide this time? No one truly believes this is a matter of national security, unless that is defined as security for corrupt national officials.

Phatscotty wrote:Obama administration defies congressional subpoena on Fort Hood documents

After days of negotiations, the Pentagon and Justice Department informed a Senate committee that they would not comply with congressional subpoenas to share investigative records from the Nov. 5 shootings

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042703170.html

What are they trying to hide this time? No one truly believes this is a matter of national security, unless that is defined as security for corrupt national officials.

When it comes to the military, there is little that isn't national security-related.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that this guy is somehow going to get off or be shown innocent. What the government is doing is working on the entire system. That IS military business. Assessing the psycology of soldiers has absolute security import. This guy is not going to get away, but the military should reassess its psycologic evaluations and such as a result and do it without having to explain and justify it to the rest of us.