LawTalkers - Politics: J'accuse!

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Politics: J'accuse! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=561)

More Proof that Appeasing Terrorists Only Causes More Terrorism

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
That wasn't what you were doing. You were trying to say the way I speak (write) here somehow proves what I do or do not do for a living. That is reeeediculous.

If you take issue with my using the words proof or cause then say why. But don't say silly things about what words indicate someone is or is not a litigator. Litigators make all kinds of reeediculous claims in front of juries. And many times, that sort of shit wins a case for them. They try to make their client look like the good guy and the other side look like the bad guy. They dumb it down for juries all the time. Especially in technical cases.

I am embarassed to say, it works far too often because most jurors are close to retarded.

No. I believe you are a lawyer. I was suggesting that your post said nothing in it suggesting proof of causation.

More Proof that Appeasing Terrorists Only Causes More Terrorism

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Better. If we also include More proof that attacking Iraq doesn't stop terrorism we'll be two-thirds of the way toward a syllogism.

How about attacking Iraq doesn't stop terrorism outside of the US.

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

--- John Stuart Mill, letter to Sir John Pakington, MP (March 1866)

Bill would let Congress reverse high court. Cosponsors. Shouldn't reading the Constitution be a prerequisite to federal elective office?

Well someone needs to tell Dick Gephardt that. He vowed on the campaign trail that if he were elected president, we would override wrong Supreme Court decisions by executive order:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90124,00.html

Seems that stupidity is bipartisan. FYI - gephardt is a U of MI law school grad. I think that makes it even worse.

More Proof that Appeasing Terrorists Only Causes More Terrorism

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
I believe that terrorists would have been more focused on US attacks if we would have not invaded Iraq.

You have long been an advocate for this notion that we are safer because the terrorists are all flocking to Iraq. Do you have any reason to think this is true? Spencer Ackerman says it's bunk:

Quote:

The problem is the evidence doesn't seem to fit the contention that Iraq is "currently serving as a focal point for foreign jihadist fighters ... to build their extremist credentials." This after a few months when every explosion in Iraq was followed by administration spokesmen hollering "Zarqawi!" As John F. Burns reports from Baghdad,

only a small number of the 12,000 detainees currently held at American-run camps across Iraq are foreigners from the swath of Muslim countries across Asia, the Middle East and Africa who have been the principal activists of Al Qaeda and its associated groups elsewhere. American officials have said that fewer than 150 of the detainees are foreigners, the rest Iraqis. The United States command has occasionally announced the arrest of a suspected Islamic terrorist, but has then fallen silent. On Tuesday, before the Falluja attacks, General [Mark] Kimmitt, the American military spokesman, appeared to back off at least somewhat from the emphasis on Islamic militants as the principal enemy. At a briefing, he offered an overview of the war in which he suggested that what has occurred, in effect, is a merging of the Saddamist insurgents and the Islamic terrorists into a common terrorist threat, and that, either way, "we just call them targets."

Now, it's surely imprecise to judge foreign infiltration by arrest numbers. But this means foreigners account for only 1.25 percent of suspected terrorists/insurgents/bad guys in custody in Iraq. Surely the terrorists can't be so stealthy as to escape coalition detentions in such overwhelming numbers. Even if you assume the Zarqawi memo to be a pinpoint accurate portrait of jihadi activity in Iraq, it explicitly bemoans how an Iraqi willing to make his home a nest of terrorist activity is "rarer than red sulphur," which has led to Zarqawi's confreres wearing "ourselves out on many occasions sheltering and protecting the brothers." Furthermore, Black's testimony terms the next generation of Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists "no longer the seasoned veteran Al Qaeda trainers from Afghanistan's camps or close associates of Al Qaeda's founding members." If the new terrorists are greener, they're probably not so overwhelmingly wily as to consistently evade over 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Which suggests that the administration is confusing where the terrorists are for where it would like them to be.

(internal links omitted)

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Well someone needs to tell Dick Gephardt that. He vowed on the campaign trail that if he were elected president, we would override wrong Supreme Court decisions by executive order:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90124,00.html

Seems that stupidity is bipartisan. FYI - gephardt is a U of MI law school grad. I think that makes it even worse.

The linked article quotes Gephardt as talking about "overcoming" the Supreme Court's decision, not "overriding" it. Particularly in the civil rights context, the former word has a different meaning.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The linked article quotes Gephardt as talking about "overcoming" the Supreme Court's decision, not "overriding" it. Particularly in the civil rights context, the former word has a different meaning.

How praytell does an executive order override/overcome/overwhatever a supreme court decision ruling a law unconstitutional?

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
How praytell does an executive order override/overcome/overwhatever a supreme court decision ruling a law unconstitutional?

You are sounding like a lawyer. I already said I believe you.

Gephardt's comments translate as:

Bad Supreme Court decision for people who vote in Democratic primaries. I'm running for President! You should vote for me! I'll solve this problem, and your other problems too! Never mind how white I am, I would like to evoke the Civil Rights movement. Thank you and good night.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Gephardt's comments translate as:

Bad Supreme Court decision for people who vote in Democratic primaries. I'm running for President! You should vote for me! I'll solve this problem, and your other problems too! Never mind how white I am, I would like to evoke the Civil Rights movement. Thank you and good night.

I agree that he was just speaking out of his ass when he said that, but I was mostly addressing AG's comments that conservatives are stupid. Neither the conservatives nor the liberals have a monopoly on stupidity.

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Shouldn't reading the Constitution be a prerequisite to federal elective office?

Yes, because it's eminently clear in that document that the Supreme Court has the final say as to what the law is. That's why Marbury is such a breezy read.

I'm convinced Hank and Not Me are the same person. You never see them in the same room at the same time. Too coincidental.

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm convinced Hank and Not Me are the same person. You never see them in the same room at the same time. Too coincidental.

What on earth brought that on? If I am anyone's sock, I am bilmore's sock.

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm convinced Hank and Not Me are the same person. You never see them in the same room at the same time. Too coincidental.

Fuck all of you. I would never answer myself. You know I had a real shitty week at work, lived through it. did my post quality drop? If you say so, okay. But I add to this board and i'll be fucked if i'll take much more shit.

I mean , are you joking? i lack the energy to do anything but snide repartee, notme is like the energizer bunny on a topic- if we're socks, i need me some kind of award.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fuck all of you. I would never answer myself. You know I had a real shitty week at work, lived through it. did my post quality drop? If you say so, okay. But I add to this board and i'll be fucked if i'll take much more shit.

I mean , are you joking? i lack the energy to do anything but snide repartee, notme is like the energizer bunny on a topic- if we're socks, i need me some kind of award.

[confidential to Hank]Don't worry, I think we fooled them this time with us both showing up at the same time and all ;) I think your "I'm pissed off and won't take it any more" schtick really sealed the deal.[/confidential to Hank]

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
I was mostly addressing AG's comments that conservatives are stupid. Neither the conservatives nor the liberals have a monopoly on stupidity.

Re-read the quotation, brainiac.

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Re-read the quotation, brainiac.

I read the quotation ass fuck and I find the distinction meaningless.

You are living proof that conservatives do not have a monopoly on stoopidness.