Amsterhammer said:Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says
Lord Vader announced the killing of Obi-Wan Kenobi at the Imperial Palace on Coruscant
Cool man.
That was a good laugh, while the whole page is great to read.
Thank you ! lol
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Amsterhammer said:Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says
Lord Vader announced the killing of Obi-Wan Kenobi at the Imperial Palace on Coruscant
ChrisE said:The whole concept of the bill of rights is lost on you.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
rhubroma said:Actually, in the legal sense, no. If we go on just emotions and put reason and principle aside, then, technically, we behave no better than the terrorists, for which trials under all the legal protocols do not exist. Or at the very least in an anti-Western constitutional manner.
Many jurists believe that had the US been able to capture Bin Laden alive, then he should have been allowed the right to due process just like anybody else. And that this would have served the image of a modern democracy and state of law (with its legal guarantees) better than having "taken him out" so to speak as we did.
It was likely the more popular result to have executed Bin Laden, which catered more to a desire for vendetta within the public squares and streets, than it did to projecting an image of a civilized state that demonstrates a clear refutation of the ways of barbary.
Scott SoCal said:Bill of Rights? Lessee, for Bin Laden? Yeah, Chris, you are right. I have no clue.
al-Awlaki? Bill of Rights? If we catch him in a routine traffic stop in LA.... sure.
These guys espouse cold-blooded murder on the grandest scale possible. They are drenched in the blood of innocents.... kill anybody.
But Chris, I have apparently lost the plot.
Scott SoCal said:I don't disagree with one word of this.
But lets say we allow Bin Laden to stand trial. No matter what the verdict, how does this change any extremist attitude toward the west?
It changes nothing. It just makes people who think like you feel better about (ultimately) killing him. That's not a slam, by the way.
Scott SoCal said:I don't disagree with one word of this.
But lets say we allow Bin Laden to stand trial. No matter what the verdict, how does this change any extremist attitude toward the west?
It changes nothing. It just makes people who think like you feel better about (ultimately) killing him. That's not a slam, by the way.
ChrisE said:I'm not talking about bin Laden, I'm talking about American citizens. Please pay attention to which post of yours I replied to.
The BoR explicitly states what the govt. cannot do. That includes unilaterally killing American citizens, if they are not in the act of committing a crime that is causing immenent danger to others.
It's debatable whether al Awlacki was doing that, but using your reasoning "he gets the same rights as those he is complicent in killing" is not the same argument, and the reason for my reply.
American citizens (and others some may argue) are afforded a right to trial by jury, and thus have an opportunity to defend themselves against what the govt. claims they did. The govt. is not judge, jury, and executioner just because the accused is a bad buy (according to the govt, ironically).
Get it now?
Scott SoCal said:I guess we'll have to wait for him to blow away a few thousand of your fellow countrymen before we declare him an enemy of the state. Sure wouldn't want to disturb such delicate sensibilities.
Interesting how the Yemen govt (he's a 'citizen' of Yemen too) also has a standing shoot to kill order on the guy. Also, I highly doubt he considers himself an American citizen, but who knows...
I take it you have not seen any of his videography? Somehow I doubt the US govt produced these vids.... I could be wrong. Hard to imagine, with the info available to you, that you could see anything other than an enemy that does not want to reason with you. He just wants to lop your head off.
rhubroma said:My feelings don't come into play here. That's where you are mistaken, because I allow myself to be governed be reason.
If there is anyone between us allowing their position to be governed by an emotional investment, my dear Scott SoCal, then that would be you.
ChrisE said:All of this is irrelevant to the argument. It is just further proof you haven't the foggiest idea wtf you are talking about, or pretend to believe in when convenient.
Scott SoCal said:Oh yeah, the bill of rights. We gonna disagree on this.
ChrisE said:Yeah, you want to suspend it for some Americans and just let the govt. determine unilaterally what is best for us to "defeat the evildoers".
No wonder you guys are against Obama so much....don't want him unilaterally determining wingnuts from OC don't have any rights.
Scott SoCal said:Your feelings are absolutely in play. In fact, a reasonable person would understand there are extremists that can not be reasoned with.
Arrest them, mirandize them, try them, convict them, acquit them... it won't matter. The next one will kill you in a heart beat as their aim is the destruction of western civilization. Whatever it takes.
ChrisE said:Yeah, you want to suspend it for some Americans and just let the govt. determine unilaterally what is best for us to "defeat the evildoers".
No wonder you guys are against Obama so much....don't want him unilaterally determining wingnuts from OC don't have any rights.
just let the govt. determine unilaterally what is best for us to "defeat the evildoers"
rhubroma said:You are a citadel of brainlessness.
Hugh Januss said:Well sure, because you know what a fan Scott is of "Government".
I am sure he is fine with leaving everything up to them.
Scott SoCal said:Oh I am such a hypocrite. I am actually looking for the govt to do what they are supposed to be doing.
Hands off for protecting our sovereign nation but hands on for mandated health insurance.
Did I get that right?
Glenn_Wilson said:You guys are being way personal.
redtreviso said:Yes scott is most likely a drunk.. and proud of it..
redtreviso said:It's that drunk thing that makes him so appealing to scotty.
redtreviso said:Carry on with your getting drunk, cleaning your glock9 and defending republican morons. What a way to go through life
redtreviso said:You're crazy.. must be the alcohol..
redtreviso said:I need some laughs..but I can(would rather not) listen to drunk conservatives just by conversing with my neighbors while watering the yard.
redtreviso said:You probably hear it when you talk to yourself. A self admiration thing. " I want him to rule the world, he's a drunk like me"
redtreviso said:You must drink a lot..
redtreviso said:It takes prolonged use of alcohol to be like that.
redtreviso said:Did I insult another one of your drunk heroes...
redtreviso said:Of course drunk post turtles are admired by drunks.
redtreviso said:You must have drank a lot at that Irish Bar.
redtreviso said:foxnews + alcohol= scotties with guns.
The Hitch said:Im not sure that the plural is neccesary here. See if you can find a pattern in the names of the users that accuse others of being drunks.
And probably most offensive of all, saying ScotSoCal is like the guy who shot that woman. (Breaks about 5 cnf rules right here)
The Hitch said:Putting people on ignore doesnt stop you from seeing them when they get quoted
Glen quoted you hence i saw the comment.
Brought back the memories of the times you told me I was an alcocholic (which btw arent quoted here, I just did the anti Scot ones, so, mods, yes there is more of red telling people they are drunk).