Socialist Stew

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:09 am

His surveillance cameras caught the attackers lobbing at least six Molotov cocktails at his house and bombing his doghouse, singeing one of his Siberian Huskies. But when Mr. Thomson handed the video footage to Niagara Regional Police, he found himself charged with careless use of a firearm.

The local Crown attorney’s office later laid a charge of pointing a firearm, along with two counts of careless storage of a firearm. The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said.

But this is the quote that really disturbs me:

“That’s why the courts are there, to give a person an opportunity to explain their actions.”

*Capitalism is the respect for other's property and contracts and the antithesis of socialism.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:37 am

What does this have to do with socialism?

Why does that quote disturb you? That is what the courts are for and why there are jury trials to establish exactly what happened. Due process. The jury will decide whether his action was reasonable in the circumstances and I doubt very much any jury will find him guilty or he will go to jail. Jury trials are one of the foundations of a fair legal system - What do you suggest as the alternative?

You do have jury trials in the states do you not?

actually you do, it's in your constitution in the top ten.

Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel

Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel

civil cases as well.

Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel

Why do you object to trial by jury? Who do you believe should decide guilt or innocence?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:58 am

Mr. Thompson hardly sleeps anymore and two of the three men have been caught? Would Mr. Thompson be sleeping any better had he shot two of the three?

It sounds to me like Mr.Thomson has made more enemies than he's letting on. There is, more often than not, reasons people believe they need the security of firearms. Their fear usually extends from their own behavior.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:54 am

Well, he was careless.

He should have used the rifle, popped all three of the culprits and dumped the bodies on the lake. Then he should have wiped the surveillance tapes and cleaned up the mess and got on with his life.

For crying out load, what a loser.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:24 am

gmc;1351408 wrote: What does this have to do with socialism?

Why does that quote disturb you? That is what the courts are for and why there are jury trials to establish exactly what happened. Due process. The jury will decide whether his action was reasonable in the circumstances and I doubt very much any jury will find him guilty or he will go to jail. Jury trials are one of the foundations of a fair legal system - What do you suggest as the alternative?

You do have jury trials in the states do you not?

actually you do, it's in your constitution in the top ten.

civil cases as well.

Why do you object to trial by jury? Who do you believe should decide guilt or innocence?

I knew the point would go right by you.

The big difference between free people and you commies is that here the state must prove your guilt. You are not required to prove your innocence. Heck, you're not even required to say anything.

Under our laws, the state's thin case would go before a Grand Jury and they would 'no bill' you. No trial.

In the state where I live, we have a 'Castle Doctrine' that gives you the right to defend force with force.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:26 am

Ahso!;1351409 wrote: Mr. Thompson hardly sleeps anymore and two of the three men have been caught? Would Mr. Thompson be sleeping any better had he shot two of the three?

It sounds to me like Mr.Thomson has made more enemies than he's letting on. There is, more often than not, reasons people believe they need the security of firearms. Their fear usually extends from their own behavior.

:rolleyes: Woosh!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:02 am

It appears (at least to you) you're just much smarter than the rest of us, BD. Or is it you don't communicate so well? I pick the communication flaw.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:46 am

gmc;1351408 wrote: What does this have to do with socialism?

Why does that quote disturb you? That is what the courts are for and why there are jury trials to establish exactly what happened. Due process. The jury will decide whether his action was reasonable in the circumstances and I doubt very much any jury will find him guilty or he will go to jail. Jury trials are one of the foundations of a fair legal system - What do you suggest as the alternative?

You do have jury trials in the states do you not?

actually you do, it's in your constitution in the top ten.

civil cases as well.

Why do you object to trial by jury? Who do you believe should decide guilt or innocence?

He shouldn't have been charged to begin with. IMO, it was attempted murder and were I to find myslef on the jury, he'd be free to go and also have the state pay court costs. He should have shot them.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:56 am

We still don't know what Thompson did to provoke these people. If we would have found out before this particular incident took place, for all we know you just might say they should throw Molotov Cocktails at his house.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:35 am

Ahso!;1351437 wrote: We still don't know what Thompson did to provoke these people. If we would have found out before this particular incident took place, for all we know you just might say they should throw Molotov Cocktails at his house.

I don't care if he stood there pissing on their lawn all day and night. I don't care if he killed a chicken that strayed onto his property after he warned them to keep them off. They should have reported him.

They were the vigilantes here, not him. He protected his home and life. He should get a commendation IMO, not condemnation.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:37 am

BaghdadBob;1351400 wrote: Capitalism is the respect for other's property and contracts and the antithesis of socialism.

How do you know the attackers aren't capitalists? The "new world" wouldn't even exist if we seriously respected other people's property.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:15 am

BaghdadBob;1351400 wrote:

But this is the quote that really disturbs me:

“That’s why the courts are there, to give a person an opportunity to explain their actions.”Why does this quote distress you?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:48 am

flopstock;1351439 wrote: I don't care if he stood there pissing on their lawn all day and night. I don't care if he killed a chicken that strayed onto his property after he warned them to keep them off. They should have reported him.

They were the vigilantes here, not him. He protected his home and life. He should get a commendation IMO, not condemnation.I have no problem with people protecting their home. From what I read here, the 2007 chicken incident with the neighbor had nothing to do with the firebombing.

I've been searching the internet for more information and the only other thing I can find is that Weaver and Lee apparently broke into a store. Weaver was on probation, for what I don't know. It just seems odd to me that this would have been unprovoked and random. Should Weaver and Lee had done what they did? No, of course not.

The NRA is constantly saying that the gun laws on the books should be enforced, but when they are, gun rights activists cry foul.

I wonder if Thomson yelling, "I have a gun" first would have both frightened off the intruders and prevented him from being charged. If a verbal warning doesn't work, firing warning shots would then seem appropriate to me. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to maintain a cool head. Once the bullet leaves the chamber there ain't no pulling it back, so you had better be sure, because if you're wrong and the courts don't fix it, a relative might. Then we're talking Deadwood times.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:21 pm

yaaarrrgg;1351440 wrote: How do you know the attackers aren't capitalists? The "new world" wouldn't even exist if we seriously respected other people's property.

We stole America fair and square!

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:24 pm

Ahso!;1351433 wrote: It appears (at least to you) you're just much smarter than the rest of us, BD. Or is it you don't communicate so well? I pick the communication flaw.

I vote that you're utterly clueless.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:33 pm

Ahso!;1351433 wrote: It appears (at least to you) you're just much smarter than the rest of us, BD. Or is it you don't communicate so well? I pick the communication flaw.

I feel bad for you. You do know that liberalism has been identified as a mental illness, right?

While your still in skewl, mebbe you could take courses in political science, economics, and history. Mite help you understand the world around you.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:05 pm

BaghdadBob;1351453 wrote: I feel bad for you. You do know that liberalism has been identified as a mental illness, right?

While your still in skewl, mebbe you could take courses in political science, economics, and history. Mite help you understand the world around you.

Just as much as whatever right wing everything I don't agree with is nazi, socialist, communist, fascist, muslim terrorism ideal you hold is a mental disorder.

I suggest that you take courses in history, philosophy, and astronomy it may help you understand what is included in the terms fascist, socialist, communist, capitalist, etcetera. It may also help you understand that these ideals, and other philosophies about economics, government, etectera developed in a universe where you are not in the center of it.

Maybe you should also take a lesson on debating, and learn how to make a good defense of you opinion by stating facts, and evidence to back it up. Instead of stating your opinion and belittling those who disagree with you.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:21 pm

littleCJelkton;1351454 wrote: Just as much as whatever right wing everything I don't agree with is nazi, socialist, communist, fascist, muslim terrorism ideal you hold is a mental disorder.

I suggest that you take courses in history, philosophy, and astronomy it may help you understand what is included in the terms fascist, socialist, communist, capitalist, etcetera. It may also help you understand that these ideals, and other philosophies about economics, government, etectera developed in a universe where you are not in the center of it.

Maybe you should also take a lesson on debating, and learn how to make a good defense of you opinion by stating facts, and evidence to back it up. Instead of stating your opinion and belittling those who disagree with you.

Your home labotomy kit is NOT for everyday use.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:11 pm

Ahso!;1351446 wrote: I have no problem with people protecting their home. From what I read here, the 2007 chicken incident with the neighbor had nothing to do with the firebombing.

I've been searching the internet for more information and the only other thing I can find is that Weaver and Lee apparently broke into a store. Weaver was on probation, for what I don't know. It just seems odd to me that this would have been unprovoked and random. Should Weaver and Lee had done what they did? No, of course not.

The NRA is constantly saying that the gun laws on the books should be enforced, but when they are, gun rights activists cry foul.

I wonder if Thomson yelling, "I have a gun" first would have both frightened off the intruders and prevented him from being charged. If a verbal warning doesn't work, firing warning shots would then seem appropriate to me. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to maintain a cool head. Once the bullet leaves the chamber there ain't no pulling it back, so you had better be sure, because if you're wrong and the courts don't fix it, a relative might. Then we're talking Deadwood times.

I really don't see what there was left to question here. If folks in masks are throwing firebombs at your home and your pets, you'd have to be a total moron to not assume they intend harm. These weren't paint packets being lobbed at the home and pet, this was firebombs. I think he was generous in shooting past them rather than through them.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:22 pm

BaghdadBob;1351457 wrote: Your home labotomy kit is NOT for everyday use.

I am not sure it would help you if it was.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:32 am

BaghdadBob;1351426 wrote: I knew the point would go right by you.

The big difference between free people and you commies is that here the state must prove your guilt. You are not required to prove your innocence. Heck, you're not even required to say anything.

Under our laws, the state's thin case would go before a Grand Jury and they would 'no bill' you. No trial.

In the state where I live, we have a 'Castle Doctrine' that gives you the right to defend force with force.

Amazing the things I don't know. When did Canada become communist?

He was charged and then the state had to prove the case in front of a jury. The police enforce the law you can't have them deciding just to let someone off because they feel like it. There is no mention of what happened to the fire bombers, since they were masked it's hard to identify who they were and it boils down to one persons word against another's, if they were arrested the state would have to be able to prove their guilt. Don't know about american law but I can't just accuse my neighbour of doing something and expect him to be arrested and charged on my say so. The trial is to establish whether he is actually guilty of anything and the jury decides not the judge, not the police and not the state. Canadian law is also based on english law so the basic principles are the same.

As an american you are in no position to lecture anyone about their system of justice. Dare I say Guantanimo? Why are you afraid to put people on trial? How about Bradley Manning, held incommunicado without being charged for six months. State terrorism at it's very best. Bet he doesn't get a jury trial either because the state can't afford to have him acquitted by a jury of his peers for whistleblowing - good grief other people might start reporting illegal acts carried out by your government. Habeas corpus comes from english common law and is designed to protect the individual from the power of the state.

You seem to think the state should be all powerful and people should be able to shoot at anyone they like without the actual circumstances being investigated. Why don't you wait and see what comes out at the trial before making assumptions as to what will happen? It'll all come out at the trial is a common saying in english, I would have thought you have similar sayings American English.

While your still in skewl, mebbe you could take courses in political science, economics, and history. Mite help you understand the world around you.

If you studied these things how come you don't know anything about the legal system of Canada, I mean they are right next door to you?

We stole America fair and square!

I thought that was manifest destiny or something.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:50 am

flopstock;1351475 wrote: I really don't see what there was left to question here. If folks in masks are throwing firebombs at your home and your pets, you'd have to be a total moron to not assume they intend harm. These weren't paint packets being lobbed at the home and pet, this was firebombs. I think he was generous in shooting past them rather than through them.
Tru dat, yo!

If the shooter was a bad guy himself, maybe the firebombers were the enforcers of some loan shark just trying to get their boss' money back. Doesn't matter. They're lucky they weren't shot. I think that in my area the police wouldn't have charged him even if he had shot & killed the firebombers, but they'd definitely do a thorough investigation trying to find out why they were there in the first place.

eta: I don't get how capitalism fits in the OP.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:55 am

Here's my favorite line from the blogs I'm reading on this

it's not like the people attacking him are allowed to sue him for psychological damage as would likely be the case in the states.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:07 am

Accountable;1351540 wrote: Tru dat, yo!

If the shooter was a bad guy himself, maybe the firebombers were the enforcers of some loan shark just trying to get their boss' money back. Doesn't matter. They're lucky they weren't shot. I think that in my area the police wouldn't have charged him even if he had shot & killed the firebombers, but they'd definitely do a thorough investigation trying to find out why they were there in the first place.You'd think the police where you live would make certain the shooter doesn't flee during the investigation, so they'd have to charge him with something in order to keep him local.

Accountable;1351540 wrote: eta: I don't get how capitalism fits in the OP.I think BD is attempting to make the case that it is the arm of capitalism and the gun lobby which has caused American law to suit the gun owner more so than in Canada. It's an interesting argument with merit.

I'd still like him to explain why he was unset over the quote.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:44 am

gmc;1351529 wrote: Amazing the things I don't know. When did Canada become communist?

The police enforce the law you can't have them deciding just to let someone off because they feel like it. There is no mention of what happened to the fire bombers, since they were masked it's hard to identify who they were and it boils down to one persons word against another's, if they were arrested the state would have to be able to prove their guilt. Don't know about american law but I can't just accuse my neighbour of doing something and expect him to be arrested and charged on my say so. The trial is to establish whether he is actually guilty of anything and the jury decides not the judge, not the police and not the state. Canadian law is also based on english law so the basic principles are the same.

As an american you are in no position to lecture anyone about their system of justice. Dare I say Guantanimo? Why are you afraid to put people on trial? How about Bradley Manning, held incommunicado without being charged for six months. State terrorism at it's very best. Bet he doesn't get a jury trial either because the state can't afford to have him acquitted by a jury of his peers for whistleblowing - good grief other people might start reporting illegal acts carried out by your government. Habeas corpus comes from english common law and is designed to protect the individual from the power of the state.

You seem to think the state should be all powerful and people should be able to shoot at anyone they like without the actual circumstances being investigated. Why don't you wait and see what comes out at the trial before making assumptions as to what will happen? It'll all come out at the trial is a common saying in english, I would have thought you have similar sayings American English.

If you studied these things how come you don't know anything about the legal system of Canada, I mean they are right next door to you?

I thought that was manifest destiny or something.

He was charged and then the state had to prove the case in front of a jury.
Consider the language used in the article. The mindset that that it was up to him to prove his innocense.

The trial is to establish whether he is actually guilty of anything and the jury decides not the judge, not the police and not the state.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the gun use aspect would never get to trial here. Free men are free to use deadly force to resist deadly force except in the commission of another crime. For example; you're not free to shoot someone whilst you're robbing their store because the store owner produced a handgun and fired at you. Let's take this one step further; had he shot and killed one of the firebombers, the other, if caught, would have been charged with murder of the one that was shot.

As an american you are in no position to lecture anyone about their system of justice. Dare I say Guantanimo? Why are you afraid to put people on trial? How about Bradley Manning, held incommunicado without being charged for six months. State terrorism at it's very best.
That's a question best directed at asho!. He's a drone supporter of the current administration. I doubt a direct answer from him as he's loath to criticize his messiah for doing the exact same things as Dubya. He fancies himself the grand inquisitor and never having to put himself into a position of publicly defending the failed policies of the left.

On a more serious note, most detainees at Gitmo were detained in combat situations and are POW's. Soldiers are not cops and are not in a position to be cops. The detainees are not entitled to the same rights as a common criminal caught on the streets. Their status along with proposed tribunals have been thoroughly vetted in our courts. Hopefully, they'll be tried fairly by tribunal and then executed, heh.

You seem to think the state should be all powerful ...
You're projecting. That's the position of the left.

If you studied these things how come you don't know anything about the legal system of Canada, I mean they are right next door to you?
Americans are American-centric. WGAF aboot Canada.

I thought that was manifest destiny or something.
Same difference.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:46 am

Ahso!;1351543 wrote: You'd think the police where you live would make certain the shooter doesn't flee during the investigation, so they'd have to charge him with something in order to keep him local.Really?? You can't incarcerate someone simply because you're investigating him. He was protecting his home and pets. The fact that he has a home and pets worth protecting, and that he gave police the video (something he wasn't forced to do, I'm guessing) is evidence that he's not planning to leave.

Ahso!;1351543 wrote: I'd still like him to explain why he was unset over the quote.'Explaining himself' or whatever the quote was, implies he would need to prove his innocence.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:49 am

flopstock;1351439 wrote: I don't care if he stood there pissing on their lawn all day and night. I don't care if he killed a chicken that strayed onto his property after he warned them to keep them off. They should have reported him.

They were the vigilantes here, not him. He protected his home and life. He should get a commendation IMO, not condemnation.What if it was attempted rape or child molestation and the police couldn't do anything about it due to lack of evidence or it went unreported?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:52 am

Ahso!;1351552 wrote: What if it was attempted rape or child molestation and the police couldn't do anything about it due to lack of evidence or it went unreported?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:57 am

Accountable;1351553 wrote:

What?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:32 am

posted by baghdad bob.

Consider the language used in the article. The mindset that that it was up to him to prove his innocense.

What does it matter what the paper has to say? We have tabloid papers which are noted for never letting facts get in the way of a good rant. Perhaps this is a canadian version. Shouldn't believe all you read in the press.

posted by baghdad bob

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the gun use aspect would never get to trial here. Free men are free to use deadly force to resist deadly force except in the commission of another crime. For example; you're not free to shoot someone whilst you're robbing their store because the store owner produced a handgun and fired at you. Let's take this one step further; had he shot and killed one of the firebombers, the other, if caught, would have been charged with murder of the one that was shot.

But even in america when there is a shooting you still investigate do you not? You don't just assume the one doing the shooting was in the right do you? Let's say it was a bunch of kids that did this as to get back at the neighbour who killed their pet dog (or chicken if you prefer) would he still be justified in firing to scare them off or would you expect the police to investigate?

posted by baghdad

On a more serious note, most detainees at Gitmo were detained in combat situations and are POW's. Soldiers are not cops and are not in a position to be cops. The detainees are not entitled to the same rights as a common criminal caught on the streets. Their status along with proposed tribunals have been thoroughly vetted in our courts. Hopefully, they'll be tried fairly by tribunal and then executed, heh.

In that case the geneva protocols apply and they should not be getting tortured - but the US decided the geneva convention doesn't apply, they are insurgents and not POW's. if I remember correctly your own military were not happy about that one.

Guantanamo Bay detention camp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the Justice Department advised that the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, the first twenty captives arrived at Guantánamo on January 11, 2002. After the Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006, that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[4] Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.[5][6][7] The detainees held as of June 2008 have been classified by the United States as "enemy combatants".

The US ignores international law when it suits and then wonders why people laugh when they lecture other nations about human rights.

Americans are American-centric. WGAF aboot Canada.

I know it's very sweet, one of your more endearing qualities:yh_rotfl

Why are you going on about a court case in Canada? Actually why are you reading canadian newpapers at all? I can safely say I have never even seen one.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:53 am

What does it matter what the paper has to say? We have tabloid papers which are noted for never letting facts get in the way of a good rant. Perhaps this is a canadian version. Shouldn't believe all you read in the press.

It's the mindset. It's the mindset. It's the mindset.

But even in america when there is a shooting you still investigate do you not? You don't just assume the one doing the shooting was in the right do you? Let's say it was a bunch of kids that did this as to get back at the neighbour who killed their pet dog (or chicken if you prefer) would he still be justified in firing to scare them off or would you expect the police to investigate?

Investigate? Sure it's what the cops do best; fill out reports. BUT the shooter would not have been arrested / charged.

In that case the geneva protocols apply and they should not be getting tortured ...
A fine point: Geneva Conventions do NOT apply to un-uniformed soldiers. Accordingly, it would have been appropriate to summarily execute them on the field of battle...but the evil Americans didn't do that, did they?

Re: Torture. We interrogated (tortured) 3 people. The Pres had legal opinions from two career (not political appointees) US Justice Department lawyers that water boarding is NOT torture. BTW, the average Gitmo detainee has gained 20 lbs.

The US ignores international law when it suits and then wonders why people laugh when they lecture other nations about human rights.

Substantive difference between ignoring "international" laws and human rights.

On a side note, some of the comparatives you leftists use on here are just plain weird.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:58 am

BaghdadBob;1351584 wrote: On a side note, some of the comparatives you leftists use on here are just plain weird.

They require thought, Bags. You'll get used to that the longer you stick around.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:11 am

Ahso!;1351586 wrote: They require thought, Bags. You'll get used to that the longer you stick around.

The silly liberish non-sequiturs makes sense to you? I thought they were just argumentative straw-men.

Understood, but get help for yerself.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:03 am

posted by baghdad bob

It's the mindset. It's the mindset. It's the mindset.

Which is something you should bear in mind when you read a newspaper. Does the paper report thing objectively or is it a tabloid trying to stir things up for the sake of it. Just because it's in the paper doesn't make it true.

Investigate? Sure it's what the cops do best; fill out reports. BUT the shooter would not have been arrested / charged.

Surely that rather depends on the circumstances or is it that you can just fire a gun at someone in the states and everybody thinks it's OK? In the UK the police might charge you but they do not decide if the case goes to court or not - I presume it's the same in Canada.

Re: Torture. We interrogated (tortured) 3 people. The Pres had legal opinions from two career (not political appointees) US Justice Department lawyers that water boarding is NOT torture. BTW, the average Gitmo detainee has gained 20 lbs.

Your government says that man is a terrorist and you believe them. Your government says water boarding is not torture and you believe them. Your government tghrows people in jail without trial and you think it's all OK. If they ask you to jump is all you will say is how high? What if they decide you are a terrorist will you just plead guilty because they are right.

YouTube - Dick Cheney Says The Powers Of The President Are Unlimited

Do you really live in an elected dictatorship? It was in the paper as well so it must be true.

YouTube - George W. Bush Blames Torture Policy on U.S. Troops

Substantive difference between ignoring "international" laws and human rights.

That's a good one. How is ignoring international laws that are intended to protect human rights not the same as ignoring human rights.

Let's take the international treaty on the rights of the child. Why will the states not ratify it?

On a side note, some of the comparatives you leftists use on here are just plain weird.

Some day, who knows, you might start investigating a bit instead of just believing what you are told or read in the papers. If you don't understand the comparatives why not ask for clarification - after all we might be wrong and you right. There's no fun if we all see things the same way

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:08 pm

Which is something you should bear in mind when you read a newspaper. Does the paper report thing objectively or is it a tabloid trying to stir things up for the sake of it. Just because it's in the paper doesn't make it true.

{SIGH}

Surely that rather depends on the circumstances or is it that you can just fire a gun at someone in the states and everybody thinks it's OK? In the UK the police might charge you but they do not decide if the case goes to court or not - I presume it's the same in Canada.

Weren't discussing a particular case and not just some hypothetical? I've already xplaned the particulars of how it would be handled here. Why the bizarre comment about firing a gun being OK?

Your government says that man is a terrorist and you believe them. Your government says water boarding is not torture and you believe them. Your government tghrows people in jail without trial and you think it's all OK. If they ask you to jump is all you will say is how high? What if they decide you are a terrorist will you just plead guilty because they are right.

In each case, each individual gave up info that indicated they were indeed terrorists. One, if not more, entered pre-trial guilty pleas. So, are you suggesting that they pulled random ppl off of the streets and tortured them for no apparent reason? That while we are under a threat of terror that we just goof around waterboarding ppl? Are you alledging some broad multi-level conspiracy? Just what the hell is your point? What kind of craphole do you live in that you think like that?

Let's take the international treaty on the rights of the child. Why will the states not ratify it?

Because we love children especially stir fried or with shake-n-bake.

Does it really friggin matter? I'm sure all of the signatories are upstanding 'human rights' advocates.

Some day, who knows, you might start investigating a bit instead of just believing what you are told or read in the papers. If you don't understand the comparatives why not ask for clarification - after all we might be wrong and you right. There's no fun if we all see things the same way

heh

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:11 pm

BaghdadBob;1351588 wrote: The silly liberish non-sequiturs makes sense to you? I thought they were just argumentative straw-men.

Understood, but get help for yerself.

I am working on a 24 hour labotomy kit so we will have you up and running in no time BB.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:19 pm

littleCJelkton;1351650 wrote: I am working on a 24 hour labotomy kit so we will have you up and running in no time BB.

There you go, LilC (That's your name street name. It gives you creds), a great non-sensical post to top off the day.

Why do I get the impression you're a yellow dog donk?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:47 pm

BaghdadBob;1351653 wrote: There you go, LilC (That's your name street name. It gives you creds), a great non-sensical post to top off the day.

Why do I get the impression you're a yellow dog donk?

I don't know what impression you get from anything, but non-sense begets non-sense when one fails to talk sense. Is a yellow dog donk like a man bear pig?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:33 am

littleCJelkton;1351717 wrote: Is a yellow dog donk like a man bear pig?

Google is your friend.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:15 am

posted by baghdad bob

In each case, each individual gave up info that indicated they were indeed terrorists. One, if not more, entered pre-trial guilty pleas. So, are you suggesting that they pulled random ppl off of the streets and tortured them for no apparent reason? That while we are under a threat of terror that we just goof around waterboarding ppl? Are you alledging some broad multi-level conspiracy? Just what the hell is your point? What kind of craphole do you live in that you think like that?

You don't know that do you? because they haven't been put on trial. The point is Your government has the right to arrest people and hold them without trial. It's not some conspiracy theory it's a fact of life in modern USA. Your problem though not mine.

Because we love children especially stir fried or with shake-n-bake.

Does it really friggin matter? I'm sure all of the signatories are upstanding 'human rights' advocates.

It's more interesting to look at who hasn't signed it. The US and somalia are the only two that haven't. If you don't think human rights matter why do americans feel they are entitled to lecture other nations on the subject?

Weren't discussing a particular case and not just some hypothetical? I've already xplaned the particulars of how it would be handled here. Why the bizarre comment about firing a gun being OK?

Why did you highlight it as being an example of socialism in action when it has nothing to do with socialism. The fire bombers could equally be capitalist property developers trying to terrorise someone in to selling their land to them.

He's been charged, he might or might not stand trial and if he does a jury will decide whether it was self defence or not. You don't know the full facts of the story or the outcome and you quote a tabloid newspaper as being a credible source.

In the States you have banks repossessing properties on which they have no claim and the courts back them up. If a property owner fires on the police will it still be the case that charges would not be laid against the shooter

If you are happy to live in a county where someone can discharge a firearm at another who happens to be on their property and just have it accepted that it was self defence then that's fine but why do you think everybody else should be the same? If I'm out walking on the hills and some landowner tells me I can't be on his land he's going to get a very short answer. Every country is different.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:09 pm

BaghdadBob;1351744 wrote: Google is your friend.
Like a friend on facebook or the guy you go to the bar with? You knew a guy named Google all this time and now you tell us?

librtyhead · Post by **librtyhead** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:40 pm

When dealing with the likes of Daniel Pearl executioners, water boarding is tame.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:27 am

librtyhead;1351859 wrote: When dealing with the likes of Daniel Pearl executioners, water boarding is tame.The They Did It First excuse? "Yeah, we're assholes, but we're just following their lead." Good one.