Comments on: Democratic senators stay with Reid… so far

By: Mrs. Godzilla

Mrs. Godzilla — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:28:07 +0000

Let’s see

Future POTUS defends Brit Army dudes accused of Boston Massacre in Boston….

Just a little insight into the founding fathers.

Perhaps if the victims were called potential Americans….maybe if they were called blastocyst Americans…..

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:59:08 +0000

The weak, needy, cowardly, rancid Repugs will wear them down – thereby once again snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory. Onward to – the 1950’s!!!

By: Rightwing Troll

Rightwing Troll — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:23:19 +0000

“Cue the psychotics.”
Already been queued…

By: Rightwing Troll

Rightwing Troll — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:19:15 +0000

And I’m still waiting for that emuneration of the ills in your life(s) directly caused by anything Obama has done (not “what will” happen, but what has happened)… anybody???

For example:
Has Obama and Rahm showed up on your doorstep to collect your firearms? If yes, then your life has been adversely affected, if no, “Obama’s going to come get my guns” will not suffice.

By: Rightwing Troll

Rightwing Troll — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:15:24 +0000

I completely stand by what I’ve said. Young, fresh and full of NEW ideas, or the same old extremist rightwing nut sacks. Our country does much better when the Gov is balanced. It forces the nut sacks and moonbats to be “mouth breathing aisle reachers”… we all are much better off when that happens.

By: Old Vet

Old Vet — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:49:49 +0000

Only people who’ve never been in the military believe that military justice is fair and impartial. Whether it’s merely “office hours” for being a few hours late from leave or a full court martial, you’re guilty before the talking even starts. Overseas observers would view a trial before a military tribunal in the same way we used to view one of the old Soviet show trials.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:31:32 +0000

Normal

[[By treating these men to the same justice system that we would want,]]

These guys never fell into any of the protections from the start – what we’ve done is thru necessity on our part. No one at the start made a serious case these guys were entitled to full US Constitutional protections (warrants, Miranda, etc). But their very status, lack of uniforms, not being part of a national military force or signatories, they were not entitled to Geneve protections. So the Bush administration (and now the Obama administration) have made bungled attempts to harmonize existing systems rather than come up with something original.

But back to your earlier point, we’d want anything that wasn’t common practice before (execution out of hand for those in civilian clothes conducting military operations and killing civilians). The first break from this to going through legal proceedings was WWII with nonuniformed Germans captured in the continental US in WWII. They were not put in civilian court – it was military court.

By: AmVet

AmVet — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:28:10 +0000

“Legitimately Conservative”
AmVet;
That is your label, not mine.

Joey, sorry, but that is factually incorrect.

Otherwise please cite.

At 9:57 I quoted you – “legitimate conservative voice” And who determines what or who’s voice is legitimately conservative?” – at 9:37.

Enough parsing and evasion though.

Again, in your estimation who are these “legitimately conservative” people and what exactly do they posit to warrant such a claim?

Surely out of this great “movement” you could name a dozen or two off the top of your head and with some limited effort explain why they are so labeled?

How about two or three for starters?

Again, I am just curious about this over(mis?)used term…

By: RW-(the original)

RW-(the original) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:24:30 +0000

Jay B finally built a room upstairs……

By: Gale

Gale — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:22:41 +0000

1984 comment from the non-sports fan. I read that twice thinking, “A 472 yard pass?!. Wow!