More apologist crap.

[heliochrome85]

My biggest issue with the Tea Party is its lack of leadership. I have nothing but disdain for the two/three major voices of its leadership.
Michelle Bachman
Sarah Palin
and now Glenn Beck.

I have never heard a coherent set of ideas for the Tea Party. "Taking back america" sounds great. Hell, who doesnt want to sign up for that. But what are you going to do with it once you "take it back." Who are you taking it back from? How is sending 535 fresh faces to Congress going to help us steer this titanic of an economy from the icebergs that lay ahead? The notion just scares me to my core.

As Srelim would say, a 3rd party vote isnt a wasted on. that being said, i dont think the Tea Party counts as a 3rd party, if they dont have a set of core beliefs they want to achieve. They are a mixture of people who have different political ideologies, which share the core desire to "Take Back America" and "Prevent Socialism." What that means, varies from person to person.

[IBCoupe]

My apologies to both of you for the foul language.

WD, you found my rage button. I've told Greg about this on past threads - arguing from a position that assumes I'm ignorant or arguing that something about me makes me incapable of understanding a thing pisses me off to no end. I put care into crafting arguments and I put a lot of thought into analyzing the arguments that people make against me. When people become dismissive because of a person's background or experience (or lack thereof), rather than on the basis of the merits of their arguments, it seems so dishonest to me as to end the rational discussion and debate.

In other words: in my view, when you reply to an argument with anything other than a response to the actual arguments made, the debate is over.

You're right to say that you did have a point with the UCMJ, which is why I separated it out from the rest of my response to your post. I'm not aware of the terrorism provisions of the UCMJ, but the source I found shows that, had a plot been discovered (which it wasn't), he could have been tried in federal court. As it stands, he's being tried for premeditated and attempted murder under the UCMJ. Punishable by death (though nobody's been executed under UCMJ since 1961) for sure and I don't debate that point.

[WDRacing]

My apologies to both of you for the foul language.

WD, you found my rage button. I've told Greg about this on past threads - arguing from a position that assumes I'm ignorant or arguing that something about me makes me incapable of understanding a thing pisses me off to no end. I put care into crafting arguments and I put a lot of thought into analyzing the arguments that people make against me. When people become dismissive because of a person's background or experience (or lack thereof), rather than on the basis of the merits of their arguments, it seems so dishonest to me as to end the rational discussion and debate.

No need to apologize, I poked you in the eye first As far as rage buttons go, I have lots of them. So no worries on that count either.

The people investigating said link will find exactly what they are told to find. I don't mean to insert a conspiracy theory here, but any investigation done on a federal level is suspect. It doesn't benefit the current Admin, or any Admin for that matter, to have found any connection with terrorism. Home grown terrorism is a scary thing and I'm sure that played a major role in the charges brought against said traitor.

Regardless, this guy attacked and killed other service members at a time of war. Punishable by death is easily on the list of options being discussed. Nothing short of excruciating pain until death would suit me better. I've stood in those processing lines hundreds of times getting ready to deploy. Makes me sick to my stomach to think a Major in the United States Military did what he did. So this is a very personal matter for me, baring in mind that my wife still stands in those lines.

[stebo0728]

When was the last time you heard of actual bi-partisan support of a bill rather than strict obstructionalism?

Not to say that I agree whole heartedly with the repub's, but to be fair, obstructianalism is more prevalent because most legislation being brokered these days is very much reprehensible to conservative minds.

Forming this thought also made me think, will there ever be a day when most law that is necessary will ever be made? Are we feasibly there now? I mean when you take posession of a Secion 8 home, theres lots of house cleaning to do, but eventually you get it all done right? Maintenance for sure, but isnt it logical that at some point all the major stuff is already dealt with, and inventing new major stuff seems a bit counter-productive?

[AZhitman]

WD, you found my rage button. I've told Greg about this on past threads - arguing from a position that assumes I'm ignorant or arguing that something about me makes me incapable of understanding a thing pisses me off to no end. I put care into crafting arguments and I put a lot of thought into analyzing the arguments that people make against me. When people become dismissive because of a person's background or experience (or lack thereof), rather than on the basis of the merits of their arguments, it seems so dishonest to me as to end the rational discussion and debate.

In other words: in my view, when you reply to an argument with anything other than a response to the actual arguments made, the debate is over.

That probably sounded good coming out on to the keyboard, but it's still a tiny bit arrogant and flawed.

Certain things MUST be experienced to be understood, and that's why you'll see ME get hot under the collar when people spew nonsense about something they've not had experience with. It's kinda like childbirth - You've never been there, so you don't profess to know the first thing about it. You'd have a damn hard time convincing me that you're an authority on marriage or child-rearing. If you've never lived in a border state, you can't speak to the experiences of those who have. If you've never attended grade school in the early 70's in the Deep South, you can't comprehend the differences. If you've never lost a spouse to cancer, you can't really comment on the realities of what it's like. If you've never taken stock of your life on the eve of your 40th birthday, you can only guess what it'll be like.

So, while your blustery fit on what annoys you is duly noted, you're gonna have to learn to deal with it, because that's a YOU problem, not a ME problem. As a future attorney, you'd best get that lesson down before you take even ONE MORE class.

Just a little tip from a semi-old guy.

[AZhitman]

I don't mean to insert a conspiracy theory here, but any investigation done on a federal level is suspect. It doesn't benefit the current Admin, or any Admin for that matter, to have found any connection with terrorism.

THIS.

You simply cannot discount the apologist tone of the current Administration.

POTUS is so busy trying to make people who hate us, like us, that he's making them hate us more.

Maybe the Community-Organizer-in-Chief never got this lesson, since he didn't have a daddy - but men are men above all else, and even mortal enemies respect and respond to strength and leadership.

[WDRacing]

One thing I've learned, perhaps the hard way, is that you really do have to experience things for yourself in order to truly appreciate the "process. Take crashing your bike after you tried to be cool for instance. You learned right then that if you're gonna talk s***, you better be damn sure you can back it up. Some people never rode bikes...

Life has lessons for everyone, but most can't be read about. Everything we learn growing up makes us who we are today. In fact our personalities are basically set by age 6, the rest is all set and setting.

Anyway, aren't you teetering on the big 50 Greg? I do recall you had a Vette purchase awhile back, perhaps suggesting the midlife has come.

[AZhitman]

Chug a gallon of pureed d!ck.

[heliochrome85]

Chug a gallon of pureed d!ck.

someone seems to have seen Paris Hilton drink

[AZhitman]

She's WAY cuter then Brian, I can tell you that.

Plus, he dribbles.

[heliochrome85]

[heliochrome85]

she is guarding us against socialism.

[heliochrome85]

also, could that be considered a Fap-pacino?

[AZhitman]

I think I just shat.

Yep. Dammit.

[heliochrome85]

I think I just shat.

Yep. Dammit.

you know what i think when i see that?
Job Security.

[IBCoupe]

Certain things MUST be experienced to be understood, and that's why you'll see ME get hot under the collar when people spew nonsense about something they've not had experience with. It's kinda like childbirth - You've never been there, so you don't profess to know the first thing about it. You'd have a damn hard time convincing me that you're an authority on marriage or child-rearing. If you've never lived in a border state, you can't speak to the experiences of those who have. If you've never attended grade school in the early 70's in the Deep South, you can't comprehend the differences. If you've never lost a spouse to cancer, you can't really comment on the realities of what it's like. If you've never taken stock of your life on the eve of your 40th birthday, you can only guess what it'll be like.

When was the last time you saw me writing about the experiences of others, Greg?

That's not how I do, and here's why: If I write about how other people should feel about a thing, you can come back to me and say, "You haven't lived that life," and you'd be right to do so. If, however, I write about what's legal and what's logical, you can't do that, because neither thing is wrapped up in "experience." So when I do that and you come back to me and say, "You haven't lived that life," I can turn around and say, "So the f*** what? Are you illiterate?" And I'd be right to do so.

[IBCoupe]

And, as a policy, I don't respond to conspiracy theories as to what might be secretly happening somewhere. Just ask Stebo.