- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 18,930
- Reaction score
- 1,040
- Location
- HBCA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Is cnredd an anachromym for:Originally posted by cnredd:
EX PARTE! EX PARTE! EXPARTE! EX PARTE! EX PARTE! EX PARTE! EX PARTE!
Two EX PARTE walk into a bar....
The team won...they scored three and their opponenets scored EX PARTE....
Shuttle spacewalk earlier....They had to fix the EX PARTE....
Rafael Palmiero got caught with EX PARTE in his system.....
We the People, in order to form a more perfect EX PARTE.....
That EX PARTE $hit is one of the most gutless and immoral things in our court system. To rule on motions without the other parties present is immoral. Not to give the other party a voice in a decision that affect them goes against our Constitution that a person has the right to face their accusor and cross examine them in a court of law in front of a jury of their peers. I know this was not the point you were making. I'm just fresh off a personal experience with this EX PARTE $hit. So I go a little nuts whenever see this term.
I don't care who came up with it, I think it's chicken-$hit! As for the "Sedition act", I'm not familiar with it.Originally posted by jamesrage:
Was it a liberal or was it a conservative who came up with the EX PARTE QUIRIN?
Nothing to say about the Sedition act of 1918?
Billo_Really said:Is cnredd an anachromym for:
Careless Neo Ridicules Everyone's Democratic Dialogue
Are you starting to mellow? Soon we'll be like two bud's having brew's at the bar.Originally posted by cnredd:
OK,OK...That one wasn't bad...
You're still a doofus who can't count and has an irreversible genetic disorder...
But I will give credit where it's due...
I can only assume you had help....
Billo_Really said:Are you starting to mellow? Soon we'll be like two bud's having brew's at the bar.
Have you seen the new show on FX?
Sedition is defined as any utterance tending to upset the authority of a standing government, the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918 made speech that was against the U.S. WWI effort punishable by imprisonment or death, if the law was still in effect, we would have quite a few less problems in the senate today IMHO.Billo_Really said:As for the "Sedition act", I'm not familiar with it.
How about the mother of all lies that the U.S. Supreme Court "selected" G.W.B., nevermind the fact that all they did was inform the Fl. Supreme court that it overstepped it's bounds by ordering too many recounts with lax standards for what a valid vote was(yes, there were ambiguous ones) when the Florida court was given the chance to fix itself, it "stayed the course" which was deemed a bad judgement, so the SCOTUS had to drop the hammer, and by the way, an independent media recount showed that Bush did win the election by the original margin. Thank you for your time and queries.Billo_Really said:Name one lie!
LaMidRighter said:How about the mother of all lies that the U.S. Supreme Court "selected" G.W.B., nevermind the fact that all they did was inform the Fl. Supreme court that it overstepped it's bounds by ordering too many recounts with lax standards for what a valid vote was(yes, there were ambiguous ones) when the Florida court was given the chance to fix itself, it "stayed the course" which was deemed a bad judgement, so the SCOTUS had to drop the hammer, and by the way, an independent media recount showed that Bush did win the election by the original margin. Thank you for your time and queries.
Now I get it. This is what I would say to that...Originally posted by LaMidRighter:
Sedition is defined as any utterance tending to upset the authority of a standing government, the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918 made speech that was against the U.S. WWI effort punishable by imprisonment or death, if the law was still in effect, we would have quite a few less problems in the senate today IMHO.
I didn't come down to your level, I came over to your level. Don't beat yourself up so much!Originally posted by cnredd:
Remember, you're little shot at me is the same thing that you've accused me of doing for weeks here...By you coming down to "my level" shows that you can't live up to your own standards.
I can think of bigger lies that would be classified as a "Mother."Originally posted by LaMidRighter:
How about the mother of all lies that the U.S. Supreme Court "selected" G.W.B., nevermind the fact that all they did was inform the Fl. Supreme court that it overstepped it's bounds by ordering too many recounts with lax standards for what a valid vote was(yes, there were ambiguous ones) when the Florida court was given the chance to fix itself, it "stayed the course" which was deemed a bad judgement, so the SCOTUS had to drop the hammer, and by the way, an independent media recount showed that Bush did win the election by the original margin. Thank you for your time and queries.
I don't care who came up with it, I think it's chicken-$hit! As for the "Sedition act", I'm not familiar with it.
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...
So what! I think it is chicken-$hit to make decisions about a party without that party being present and given the opportunity to rebut.Originally posted by jamesrage:
Chicken ****?Are you aware that the EX PARTE QUIRIN kept the scumbag lawers from representing nazi spies until WWII was over?As for who came up with it or wo responsible for it's creation was FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT.
Thank you for enlightening me. Now that I know what the Sedition Act is, its quite a relief to know that I still obey the laws. Even the ones I didn't know about. Because there is not one post I have made in this forum that has been proven false. But there have been many posts I've made that have immediately been treated as ridiculous or anti-American without going thru any process of discovery.Originally posted by jamesrage:
As for the sedition act
Quote:
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...
Originally Posted by Billo_Really
So what! I think it is chicken-$hit to make decisions about a party without that party being present and given the opportunity to rebut.
Are you saying it is "treason" to protest government when its leaders do not obey the law of the land? When their actions will do more harm than good to the nation.Originally posted by jamesrage:
Here is one of my favorite quotes that you can read which is the other half of my signature.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."
Originally Posted by Billo_Really
Are you saying it is "treason" to protest government when its leaders do not obey the law of the land? When their actions will do more harm than good to the nation.
You lost me. I'm not following what your saying.Originally posted by jamesrage:
All I am saying is that spies are very resourceful and that the quote basicly sums up what they do,the government has the responsibility to make sure that these spies do not have contact with the outside world.
You lost me. I'm not following what your saying.
Without compromising national security, how do they decide who is a spy or enemy combatant other than the obvious (ie., strapping explosives to your person, posting info on known terrorist websites, financial assistance to know terror cells, etc.). I'm just winging it here.Originally posted by jamesrage:
During a time of war the government has a responsibility to make sure the spies and enemy combatants that are caught are not let back into society.The EX PARTE QUIRIN ensures that these people are not let back into society during war time.
Would the enemy combatants at Gitmo, Cuba be considered terrorist in your eyes or do you think they should get an American trial. Most of these combatants were captured during real war situations at the battle of Afganastan. The fact that they were not organized and uniformed like a real army of a country is what keeps them from the prisoner of war status.(which also keeps them from protections from the Geneava Convention Treaty.)Billo_Really said:Without compromising national security, how do they decide who is a spy or enemy combatant other than the obvious (ie., strapping explosives to your person, posting info on known terrorist websites, financial assistance to know terror cells, etc.). I'm just winging it here.
.
I think they are.Originally posted by alienken:
Conservative Judges are not the activist judges that are legislating from the bench. The Suprem Court has become a poltical branch of the gov..That is why Roberts is being examined by what his political views are. It takes a liberal judge to make ruling on seperation of church and state (not in the constitution) and right to privacy(not in the constitution). Liberal judges will even refer to laws in other countries to make a decision. How is that interpeting our constitution?
I think if we do not follow the tenants that this country was based on, then the terrorists win. Everyone deserves due process no matter who they are or what they have done. EVERYONE! And we do not torture anyone under any condition for any reason. We should follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter.Originally posted by jamesrage:
Would the enemy combatants at Gitmo, Cuba be considered terrorist in your eyes or do you think they should get an American trial. Most of these combatants were captured during real war situations at the battle of Afganastan. The fact that they were not organized and uniformed like a real army of a country is what keeps them from the prisoner of war status.(which also keeps them from protections from the Geneava Convention Treaty.)
1).If you think prisoners of war should have access to our courts, think about the mess that would make. The enemy has a platform for spreading there propaganda and our military would always get dumped on because the one thing defense lawyers do is make the defendant look like a victim.Do you really mean- everyone deserves due process? EVERYONE?! The only thing a terrorist deserves is a bullet in the head.2). Yes we do follow GC even though it does not apply because that is the kind of country we are.There is no torture being done in Gitmo and there wasn't any in Abu Ghraib.Billo_Really said:I think if we do not follow the tenants that this country was based on, then the terrorists win. Everyone deserves due process no matter who they are or what they have done. EVERYONE! And we do not torture anyone under any condition for any reason. We should follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter.
Anyone trying to make a case to justify renditions, and what we are doing to prisoners during interrogation at GITMO and Abu Ghraib, is lower than garbage in my book.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?