USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Because he's
Last edited:
Obama opponents NEVER satisfied
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
Because he's
You can thank CrispieFlan915 for bringing TouchedLiberal here.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
And who can we slap for bringing your dumbass over?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Yourself.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I'm addressing those who read the thread, which is my perrogative....I do it when it becomes painfully obvious that a rational debate with someone like Bravo is no longer possible, to let the audience know I'm onto his lame tricks....so I'm pretty much done with him on this point.
It should be evident to you that I don't need "backers" to handle the likes of Bravo in a debate or discussion. I just occasionally do it, so just ignore it when I do....no big deal.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Except I wasn't.
No shit, sherlock....which goes to show how incredibly fucked up the Shrub and jokers like you who support him are....because that puts this country right on par with the countries that use to have "witnesses" wearing disguises to come into court to indentify the accused. McCain was tortured, he signed a "confession" so according to you and the Shrub's minions, McCain is a legit traitor posing as a GOP Senator!
As I said, thank God cooler heads prevailed.
Clearly, you're just full of it Damo. Like it or not, the neocon driven GOP swore that what transpired for Ghailani couldn't have been done. Well, YOU AND ALL THE REST WERE WRONG. Grow up and deal with it, will ya? Jeezus, a terrorist conspirator tried and convicted...the world sees the American system works without using Inquisition tactics, and YOUR so partisan bent you trying to disparrage it.
1. I asserted that tribunals were set up for exactly this kind of trial, which is a truth.
2. I asserted that Obama voted for these, also a truth.
3. You asserted that I was "proven wrong", which was not a truth.
4. I pointed out that my facts are correct, that is a truth.
5. You came back with this weak post trying to maintain that I "support Bush" based on what you want to "feel" about things.
You are wasting our time with worthless emotive nonsense. Obama should have used the tribunals that were set up specifically for this purpose by the Democrat Party-Run Senate.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Again, you're just spewing neocon sour grapes. My post brings out you clowns like a hard rain brings up worms......we have a successful prosecution of a terrorist collaborator/conspirator in civilian court...the country is still standing, the legal system hasn't bankrupt NY state. You and the neocon cabal you agree with/support or whatever the hell you want to call it....WERE WRONG! Deal with it.
Yes, yes, yes.....IT BEGS REPEATING.....
That is absolutely hilarious....TCPinhead claims in post #28 that the sentence is "mandatory" (now correctly spelled)....and then wants to use that lie, to prove the same lie now, that its not a lie....
Its the old, "If you don't believe me, just ask me" routine.....
He actually thinks "minimum sentence" means "mandatory sentence".....
When its shown you think there is no difference between "minimum" and "mandatory"....its time to stick a fork in 'em.....you're pretty much done
That is absolutely hilarious....TCPinhead claims in post #28 that the sentence is "mandatory" (now correctly spelled)....and then wants to use that lie, to prove the same lie now, that its not a lie....
Its the old, "If you don't believe me, just ask me" routine.....
He actually thinks "minimum sentence" means "mandatory sentence".....
When its shown you think there is no difference between "minimum" and "mandatory"....its time to stick a fork in 'em.....you're pretty much done
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yes, yes, yes.....IT BEGS REPEATING.....
That is absolutely hilarious....TCPinhead claims in post #28 that the sentence is "mandatory" (now correctly spelled)....and then wants to use that lie, to prove the same lie now, that its not a lie....
Its the old, "If you don't believe me, just ask me" routine.....
He actually thinks "minimum sentence" means "mandatory sentence".....
When its shown you think there is no difference between "minimum" and "mandatory"....its time to stick a fork in 'em.....you're pretty much done
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=734424&postcount=34
Poor Bravo's insipid stubborness and congenital stupidity just keeps playing like a scratched record.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I would hardly call 1 count out of 270+ counts sought, a "success." Most people would view that as an abject FAILURE, not a success. When you also factor in, this guy was acquitted on the more severe murder charges, and found guilty on a much lesser charge of 'conspiracy', it's beyond any intelligent belief that a pinhead is here touting this as a "success" by any stretch of the word. He literally missed walking completely by the skin of his teeth. If I were his attorney, this would have likely been the "best case scenario" I would have presented him going in. I'm not sure what you would have viewed as a "failure" here, you must have the bar set fairly low, if you consider this a "success."
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You're a day late and a dollar short on this little diatribe of yours, my little Dixie dunce....it was already paraded by several other neocon wonks on this thread....and was completely debunked for the sour grapes that they were.
A solid 20 years with the possiblity of life without parole isn't exactly getting away "by the skin of his teeth". The prosecution couldn't make the case for the verdict you want....but they sure as hell got this clown off the grid for 20 years or more...and at his age, that ain't no small gig.
And it was done with NONE of the political detractors predictions coming true.
The world sees a conviction in a fair court of law...NOT some kangaroo court with torture induced witnesses and testimony. It's another piece of the terrorist agenda/propaganda machine taken down....but Obama/liberal/Democrat hating wonks like you don't care about that. It's your ideology that must remain intact...and that requires Obama failing on all accounts, even it that means endangering American lives or furthering the terrorist propaganda machine. That is why I find you and your like minded cohorts disgusting, Dixie.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well you can use all the fancy-shmancy quips you like, moron, you've not debunked a goddamn thing in this thread. All along the way, those from the right have paraded in and made an utter fool of you, and continue to do so, but you act as though you've made some profoundly astute point here.
This has nothing to do with my ideology or politics, I would have opposed civilian court trials for these people regardless of who proposed it. There is a reason we have military tribunals, and as Damo and others have pointed out, this case would have been better served in a military tribunal. It serves as an excellent example of why these trials SHOULDN'T be held in civilian courts! But here you are, in all your naked pinhead glory, running around like an idiot, claiming it proves something totally opposite of what it proves. You've not made any case for that, you just keep repeating your misinformation about him getting "a solid 20 years" when that will likely not be the case. IF he gets a 20 year sentence, he will be eligible for parole in 10 years.... that FACT seems to be flying completely over your pinhead! You've not debunked it, you've not presented one goddamn thing to contradict it. You just keep blathering your stupidity and hope no one notices. I got news for ya, Chicklet, everyone already knows what an idiot you are, it can't be hidden or disguised by talking with big words.
Nothing shows you've lost, Taichi, like a post from you with "chronology of the posts" anywhere in it. That is solely a lazy attempt to pretend others cannot read. What I said is a truth, you've not "proven me wrong" on any point of it because it is a simple truth. Obama did vote for this and said it was a good thing, then chose not to use it.
Inane. A man was barely convicted of one charge out of hundreds on what Holder said was a "slam dunk". That isn't very successful at all, IMO. It shows that contrary to what Holder and Obama say these are not "slam dunks."
For a guy who is so suspicious of government that you suspect the BLS of manipulating CPI data for unknown purposes, you really have an odd take on government power when it comes to indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, due process and the appropriate remedy for government violations of the law.
Also, there is no such thing as "barely convicted." It's kind of like being pregnant. Either you are or you ain't.
Last edited:
Not really. I said long ago I think they should be tried using the tribunals. That we've dragged our feet so long is a terrible tragedy. And yes, when there was a very real possibility of even that charge not sticking, when it was only one out of so many, that is too close to being a total failure. That is "barely"...
If it was a "slam dunk" like Holder said, that would not have been the result. Such a result should get Holder to rethink the "slam dunk" position.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Well you can use all the fancy-shmancy quips you like, moron, you've not debunked a goddamn thing in this thread. All along the way, those from the right have paraded in and made an utter fool of you, and continue to do so, but you act as though you've made some profoundly astute point here.
This has nothing to do with my ideology or politics, I would have opposed civilian court trials for these people regardless of who proposed it. I highly doubt that....but for the sake of argument if that were true, you would STILL be wrong. Just ask Justice Stevens to explain it to you. There is a reason we have military tribunals, and as Damo and others have pointed out, this case would have been better served in a military tribunal. It serves as an excellent example of why these trials SHOULDN'T be held in civilian courts! As I explained to Damo and others, there protests are not only moot, but have been rendered irrelevent. The trial was successful...you had a conviction, the country is secure, NYC isn't under seige. Only the insane or just insipidly stubborn neocon wonks would keep insisting otherwise. But here you are, in all your naked pinhead glory, running around like an idiot, claiming it proves something totally opposite of what it proves. Really? A conviction proves that the civilian judicial system doesn't work?I always suspected you were on crack, Dix. Let's see the fantastic tale you spin to explain this latest mental flatulence of yours. You've not made any case for that, you just keep repeating your misinformation about him getting "a solid 20 years" when that will likely not be the case. IF he gets a 20 year sentence, he will be eligible for parole in 10 years.... that FACT seems to be flying completely over your pinhead! You've not debunked it, you've not presented one goddamn thing to contradict it. You just keep blathering your stupidity and hope no one notices. I got news for ya, Chicklet, everyone already knows what an idiot you are, it can't be hidden or disguised by talking with big words.
Dixie, for a few days now I've asked your equal stubborn cohorts to produce something other than the opinion of some columnist that the court sentence decreed that Ghailani is eligible for parole in 10 years. To date, I just keep getting a regurgitation of opinions, supposition and conjecture...but NO contrary report on the court decision that Ghailani's 20 years is mandatory...that the 20 years is the MINIMUM of his sentencing, as an additional life without parole hangs in the balance shortly.So, my dumb little Dixie....keep squawking the same neocon mantra and sour grapes until your beak falls off....it won't change the facts or give you the cojones to meet a simple challenge. Carry on.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once again folks, you have the new neocon mantra....a minimum 20 year sentence with the possibility of life without parole added on is "barely convicted" in the Limbaugh-esque world. Neocon clowns like Damo want you to forget the FACT that the neocon driven GOP politicos and their punditry in the media SWORE that either such trials couldn't be done or shouldn't be done for various proposed reasons.
THEY WERE WRONG.....but being the intellectually dishonest cowards that they are, they NEVER admit it. Hence the supposition and conjecture driven drivel by Damo and all his cohorts on this threads these few days......failure under Obama is something they HOPE for regardless of the price America would pay. Damo's so beside himself on this that he's taken to using quotes by Holder on a totally different case in an effort to what, discredit by association??!
The truth is like garlic to this neocons, they just can't stand it!
Last edited:
Once again "folks" (as if people are following our conversation like some vapid audience at the local theater), we have somebody presenting an opinion on what he thinks others "feel".
The reality. I'm glad he was convicted, and I wish he was convicted of more as he would have been in a tribunal.
However the fact that he was acquitted on 100s of charges because of the rules of civilian court as opposed to those of the tribunals shows a trend that makes it clear the prediction of Holder and Obama that these cases are a "slam dunk" false. I hope that Holder takes a little bit of introspection time and changes course, now that he and we all know it is no "slam dunk".
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once again "folks" (as if people are following our conversation like some vapid audience at the local theater), we have somebody presenting an opinion on what he thinks others "feel".
Once again Damo, you're lying your ass off (as the chronology of the posts will verify)....I DEFY you or any of your like minded cohorts to produce documented FACTS that show the sentence to include the possibility of parole after 10 years. To date, NONE OF YOU CAN....but that hasn't stopped you dullards from trying to pass off your opinions, suppositions and conjecture as fact.
Oh, and for the record.....I started this thread about 2 weeks ago...according to the records, it's had 583 views since then, with 58 replies. So obviously (at least obvious to someone who isn't a blinders wearing neocon parrot), people are reading the exchanges. THAT'S whom I'm addressing when I say "folks", you twit.
The reality. I'm glad he was convicted, and I wish he was convicted of more as he would have been in a tribunal.
Back to square one: Seems you're okay in throwing the basis of our Constitution and Bill of Rights out the window by allowing torture drawn confessions and testimony to be used against the accused.
However the fact that he was acquitted on 100s of charges because of the rules of civilian court as opposed to those of the tribunals shows a trend that makes it clear the prediction of Holder and Obama that these cases are a "slam dunk" false. I hope that Holder takes a little bit of introspection time and changes course, now that he and we all know it is no "slam dunk".
Was he not convicted?
Was it not a sentence of hefty time....with the final decision of life without parole STILL hanging in the balance?
When you take a gander at any court case that has multiple charges against the defendent, it's not unusual for many charges not to stick, or to be dismissed for one reason or another.
Bottom line: you're just repeating the same neocon whine, Damo. Trying to belittle or dismiss the FACT that a successful conviction was reached with a serious sentence under the Obama Administration despite the GOP and it's neocon peanut gallery swearing that it couldn't and shouldn't be done. You don't like it, TFB. Go whine to Rush Limbaugh about it, because he couldn't give a damn so long as he's getting paid.
And could you please produce the direct quote from Holder that said the civilian trial(s) of Ghailani or any Gitmo detainee in civilian court would be a "slam dunk". I believe that quote is from the nonsense about the self described new Black Panther and voter intimidation case.