Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (754721)	11/20/2006 6:11:00 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

GZ....before you are ready to just sign away all your civil rights as an American Citizen, review the case of Mr. Padilla...remember him? It could be you. Yeah...it could. time.blogs.com After he was arrested in 2002, Jose Padilla was considered so dangerous that he was held without charges in a military prison for more than three years - accused first of plotting a radiological "dirty bomb" attack and later of conspiring with al-Qaeda to blow up apartment buildings with natural gas. But now, nearly a year after his abrupt transfer into a regular criminal court, the Justice Department's prosecution of the former Chicago gang member is running into trouble. A Republican-appointed federal judge in Miami has already dumped the most serious conspiracy count against Padilla, removing for now the possibility of a life sentence. The same judge has also disparaged the government's case as "light on facts," while defense lawyers have made detailed allegations that Padilla was illegally tortured, threatened and perhaps even drugged during his detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina. The Justice Department denied the allegations of torture last week and is pursuing an appeal of the conspiracy ruling in hopes that the charge will be reinstated. So an American citizen, detained without due process for three years, accused of terribly serious crimes, and allegedly tortured, may not be found guilty, after all. And people wonder why many of us have concerns about the way the Bush administration has handled military detainees.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (754721)	11/21/2006 1:28:35 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Re: "Yes, I mean it... this is my observation of the liberals over the past 5 years..." I could come around to accepting yoor position ONLY if you can accurately define what you mean. Without accurate definitions you leave everything wishy-washy and impossible to prove any assertion, either way. For example, you said (& I quote): "liberal[s] ...hate everyone and they partner with the terrorists." You have to be able to define your terms used, or else the statement has no practical, usable meaning. So: How do YOU define the term 'liberal'? (CONCRETE METHODOLOGY, please! No 'rubber yardsticks' that can be stretched to reach any desired point... no evasions like saying 'everybody knows' ['cause, NO, 'everybody' certainly does not 'know' what is in you mind...] and --- objectively --- the term has WIDELY DIFFERENT MEANINGS all around the world and all throughout history). So: YOUR definition, please, so we can know what you are talking about. SECONDLY: "Hates everyone." (REALLY??????? Be SERIOUS now! That sounds more like a psycho-pathology then a political set of beliefs. Little bit of hyperbole, perhaps?) THIRDLY: "they have fought against the NSA, and any and all national security steps..." WHO 'they'? And, seriously, 'all' national security steps? ALL? (That's just false on it's face... unless your definition of 'liberal' is so narrow and constrictive that you've cut the grouping down to maybe just ONE individual! :-) "...they want the terrorists to have equal rights as a U.S. citizen," Facts not in evidence. Show me someone who wants to extend the rights of American citizens to NON-citizens, and then you can carry on with this claim.... "When they won the recent elections," 'Liberals' won the election? (That's news to me. I did see a lot of fairly 'conservative' Dems win in purple State areas though... and a lot of liberal spending, deficit-running-up, and often Authoritarian or possibly corrupt incumbents lose though. That doesn't indicate to ME any 'shift towards 'liberalism' though.) "the terrorist were dancing in the street" (The only news item saying that that I saw was a totally UNSOURCED one on FOX NEWS, without attribution. So, color me sceptical without proof.... and, anyway --- WHATEVER THE HELL SOME BOZO BUNCH OF THIRD WORLDERS MIGHT GET IN THEIR MINDS TO DO IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES IN FRONT OF TV CAMERAS, in no way would PROVE your contention that *(presumably you meant American) 'liberals' were 'in partnership' with 'terrorists'.)*