VABills Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 So long Buckwheat.....we'll miss you!!! 862212[/snapback] You ever watch those old shows. Buckwheat was a whole lot smarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 So long Buckwheat.....we'll miss you!!! 862212[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 You ever watch those old shows. Buckwheat was a whole lot smarter. 862222[/snapback] Yep, Buckweat would have listened to the security guard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Yep, Buckweat would have listened to the security guard... 862232[/snapback] Of course with friends like Spanky and Alfalfa they would have let Buckwheat go hitting a Capital Police officer either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 11, 2006 Author Share Posted December 11, 2006 So long Buckwheat.....we'll miss you!!! 862212[/snapback] :lol: Good find Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Isn't that how our justice system works?... When the government/DA gets recommendation to prosecute... Don't they already have their mind made up? They just take the facts to fit the prosecution and "float their story" in front of the judge, jury and defense... So I see him (molson_golden2002) as acting no different than many other people within the system? Why now with all the ideals Bungee? 862211[/snapback] No, because our justice system requires the prosecution to put their case in front of an impartial jury (yeah, impartiality is largely theoretical, particularly in this day, but the principle is still ther). Impeachment - particularly as espoused by molson here, and particularly as in this day of loyalty to the party above the country - is analogous to the prosecution putting the case in front of itself, since although impartiality in the jury system may exist more in principle than in fact, it doesn't exist at all in Congress. So...yes, in that case I guess molson is acting perfectly consistently with the system as it's set up, come to think of it. Doesn't make it right, any more than it did when Clinton was impeached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 What stuff? 861449[/snapback] You know...stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 So long Buckwheat.....we'll miss you!!! 862212[/snapback] Hey, stop dissing Buckwheat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 So you already know what he did illegally, You've basically already impeached him, you just want the formality of an investigation to justify it ex post facto.sh-- like that is why no one takes you seriously. 861608[/snapback] You got it all wrong there son. To the right wing quasi-fascists an investigation is a formality, or even a made for tv propaganda event. Colin Powell's pathetic presentation to the UN springs to mind. Not to us. We actually plan. We actually think and ask questions. We understand that reality isn't what we make it. So its time to go fishing and see what we can't find. No pre-emptive strike here. No rushing to battle unprepared, without a plan. If this can be done it will have to be done in a way that insures victory. So I think Bush is a dispicable creatin--ever see him looking under that desk as a joke for WMD? LOL, boy that was funny! Especially since our boys were dying at the time actually looking for them. But that's not the point. He deserves to be impeached, but the legal case will have to be built. If it can't the boy blunder can retire and see all his die hard southern supporters and the rest of the fools who love him at his $500 million libraryland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 11, 2006 Author Share Posted December 11, 2006 You know...stuff 862404[/snapback] I like this stuff better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I like this stuff better 862420[/snapback] I would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 We understand that reality isn't what we make it. So its time to go fishing and see what we can't find. 862413[/snapback] You've said a mouthful right there. Have another golden under that maple leaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/08/D8LT24S80.html Doubt it will go very far. The outgoing member of Congress who introduced it sounds like a real winner 861178[/snapback] all about Cynthia: http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individu....asp?indid=1508 Wow, what a treasure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 all about Cynthia:http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individu....asp?indid=1508 Wow, what a treasure! 863539[/snapback] Voted to legalize the killing of babies after they are born You guys thought I was joking. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=851048 Sorry but this is the kind of platform that the libs want and have put forward for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 You guys thought I was joking. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=851048 Sorry but this is the kind of platform that the libs want and have put forward for some time. 863570[/snapback] Oh lord, you find a quote from a non-reputable source, which is extremely twisted, and managed to spin it more. The *only* "proof" of this claim that I could find from that site was this: In 2000 Cynthia McKinney was one of only 15 Members of Congress to vote against the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act." This measure provided that if during the procedure commonly called a "partial birth abortion" a nearly-born infant slipped entirely out of its mother before its brains were vacuumed out, it would acquire the human rights of a person already born. They managed to twist this into "voting to kill babies after they are born". You have them beaten, though. You have stretched this all the way to " having the right to kill children until they are legally an adult". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 No, because our justice system requires the prosecution to put their case in front of an impartial jury (yeah, impartiality is largely theoretical, particularly in this day, but the principle is still ther). Impeachment - particularly as espoused by molson here, and particularly as in this day of loyalty to the party above the country - is analogous to the prosecution putting the case in front of itself, since although impartiality in the jury system may exist more in principle than in fact, it doesn't exist at all in Congress. So...yes, in that case I guess molson is acting perfectly consistently with the system as it's set up, come to think of it. Doesn't make it right, any more than it did when Clinton was impeached. 862395[/snapback] Two things. Anyone who says "in this day and age" should not be taken seriously. I suppose the South Carolinians who found slave traders innocent of the crime in spite of overwhelming evidence were an aberation? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence. That very isue was discussed in that august document. Where juries are from has always been a major issue. Jury impartiality has been an issue ever since they started using them. Secondly, in the end it will be the American people who will have to be convinced of Bush's guilt, hence the need for investigations to produce evidence. Something the 109th Congress roadblocked all the way down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Oh lord, you find a quote from a non-reputable source, which is extremely twisted, and managed to spin it more. The *only* "proof" of this claim that I could find from that site was this: They managed to twist this into "voting to kill babies after they are born". You have them beaten, though. You have stretched this all the way to " having the right to kill children until they are legally an adult". 863584[/snapback] Sure I pushed it soime, but this sicko voted to allow a partial birth abortion to continue if if the baby is being delivered while they are prepping for the abortion. I say it in jest she has no issues with killing a newly born baby, if the mother really didn't want it. Besides partial birth abortions were only supposed to be in extreme cases where the mother is in danger. If the baby is already born what danger is there? Oh I know abortions should be effective retroactively if the mother thought about one at any time during the pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Sure I pushed it some, but this sicko voted to allow a partial birth abortion to continue if if the baby is being delivered while they are prepping for the abortion. I dunno if she really voted for anything, but rather against a bill. Some people were arguing that it wasn't necessary and was more symbolic than anything. I don't know the law well enough to say one way or another. She's a zealous idiot, but you are stretching her actions pretty damn far. Besides partial birth abortions were only supposed to be in extreme cases where the mother is in danger. If the baby is already born what danger is there? Oh I know abortions should be effective retroactively if the mother thought about one at any time during the pregnancy. 863666[/snapback] If I understand it correctly, the law prevents a partial birth abortion from taking place if there is any body part outside the woman's body. To know whether there would be risk or not would to know what exactly the danger is. I would imagine that there are cases where part of the body could be outside of the woman, yet the woman would still be at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 In partial birth abortions the baby is outside the mother except for the head. A needle is stuck in the skull and the brain is suctioned out. That is sick and barbaric, but true. If there is much danger to the mother delivering the baby vaginally, she can get a c-section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 She's a zealous idiot, but you are stretching her actions pretty damn far. 863708[/snapback] Slight correction: She's a zealous idiot whose last day as a congresswomen was last friday, and she's been a lame-duck since August when she lost the run-off in the primary. Cynthia McKinney is a nut, but more importantly, she no longer has any connection to the 110th Congress that will begin meeting in January. The only ones chattering about her at this point will be the Right wing noise monkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts