Rudy Blasts Obama's Idiotic Move

[Vast LWC]

Giuliani brings up 2 points in his little piece of BS FoxNews video (where no countering opinion is presented, or countering questions even asked, mind you) that might be considered "Legal Implications".

One is a "Change of Venue" motion. This case is being held in the Federal District Court where the crimes occurred.

A "Change of Venue" would never be granted by a New York Federal Judge. What possible reason could they give?

*The crime occurred in the district in question.

*There is no place in the country where there is a more diverse population that includes so many of the Terrorists own demonination.

*There is no place in the country where they would find a jury pool that was "untainted" by 9/11 images.

The second point was whether evidence could be omitted as "too graphic" to be put into play. This is a complete line of garbage. No judge in his right mind would even listen to this line of argument for longer than it took to get out of the defense attorney's mouth.

 

[bodecea]

I'm still waiting for a single rightie to explain to me why we had no problem trying McVeigh and the blind sheikh, but suddenly, the U.S. Court system is incapable of trying a mass murderer.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

Because it is a Democrat Administration Justice Dept doing it. Duh.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So far, the Islamists have attacked us twice under the reign of the Boy King Obama.

According to religionofpeace.com there were 23 Islamic terror attacks on US soil on Bush's watch, not counting 9/11.

 

[Ravi]

Clearly, once again, you people are trying to use the concept of some vague terrorist threat to make political points.

Or some vague references to some sort of "Legal Implications".

The only implications of having the case in a criminal court is that we consider these people to be "Criminals", which means the "War on Terror" would be effectively over, and that scares the hell out of you people.

After all, without the fearmongering of the "War on Terror" your party won't have a political leg to stand on.

I think what they mean is that when KSM is convicted and thrown into the dungeon AQ will be so angered that they will attack us again. So if we never convict KSM of anything, AQ will be happy and leave us alone.

 

[jillian]

Wrong again.

The LEFT is the side that "has" abortion. And many on the right are simply not all that worked up about Gay Marriage.

The post you are commending, itself, of course, was stupid.

I'm not sure that reproductive choice is a left-right issue as opposed to a religious right issue. Certainly, true conservatives don't believe in interfering with personal choices such as sexuality, drugs, and yes, abortion.

I'd argue that the abortion is an issue of the "right" insofar as the right is using their "fight" against abortion rights to raise money and gather grass roots support. Had they actually wanted to do anything about it, they had six years where they had all the marbles.

You see anything change during that time?

 

[Liability]

I'm still waiting for a single rightie to explain to me why we had no problem trying McVeigh and the blind sheikh, but suddenly, the U.S. Court system is incapable of trying a mass murderer.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

You are waiting for something that has been patiently explained regularly.

McVeigh was a doemstic criminal, not an international terrorist. Just because what some fuck does is akin to terrorism does not make it a part of international terrorism.

The Santa-Claus looking blind sheik perhaps should NOT have been tried as a mere criminal. The fact that he was is only evidence that this is not the first time in history we have made a mistake. It hardly qualifies as a sound basis for repeating it.

And what the 9/11 Islamoshits did was not "mass murder." It was a set of illegal acts of war.

One does not "try," in some courtroom, the opposition for acts of war. One wages war against them. If captured, under the right circumstances, one may detain such "warriors" for the duration of the war. Otherwise, one sometimes may rightfully put the warriors summarily to death.

I'm guessing you still don't get any of this though. Hmmmmmmmm?

 

[Sinatra]

Giuliani brings up 2 points in his little piece of BS FoxNews video (where no countering opinion is presented, or countering questions even asked, mind you) that might be considered "Legal Implications".

One is a "Change of Venue" motion. This case is being held in the Federal District Court where the crimes occurred.

A "Change of Venue" would never be granted by a New York Federal Judge. What possible reason could they give?

*The crime occurred in the district in question.

*There is no place in the country where there is a more diverse population that includes so many of the Terrorists own demonination.

*There is no place in the country where they would find a jury pool that was "untainted" by 9/11 images.

The second point was whether evidence could be omitted as "too graphic" to be put into play. This is a complete line of garbage. No judge in his right mind would even listen to this line of argument for longer than it took to get out of the defense attorney's mouth.

At least you finally viewed the actual video that you were already commenting on prior to viewing it.

Now here is the first part of Giuliani's comments from this same interview - it is also quite strong...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jS-LJpG3HI]YouTube - Rudy Giuliani on KSM's trial in NYC (1 of 2)[/ame]

 

[Liability]

The only distancing I see is in the editorial spin.

Are you actually claiming that you DON'T see how her odd choice of words reflects the fact that she IS distancing herself from this stupid-ass decision?

Come on.

She had the option, naturally, of saying NOTHING whatsoever. Instead she said THAT mess, that cluster-fuck of a "comment?"

And you see no distancing except in the editorialization?

Ravi, your credibility blows at the best of times. You just murdered it.

Right, saying no comment...now that would have been distancing.

You guys are pathetic.

No stupid. It is your response that is "pathetic." I did not say that she should have said no comment. I simply (and correctly) noted that she was ABLE to say nothing. Instead, she CHOSE to say that miasma of a quote.

NORMALLY when one chooses to speak, it is for a reason (this general rule excludes random idiots such as you, Ravi). Assuming for a moment that Shrillary is not quite the random bastard that you are, it would be logical to infer that she was attending to a purpose in saying what she said.

You can pretend otherwise, but the rest of us readily see that her words don't come even close to resembling support of the actions/determinations of her boss's Administration.

 

[Vast LWC]

No. The only thing clear is that you, like so many leftards, are once again trying to deny reality (an actually dangerous reality) to suit your petty present political agenda.

If I see flames licking out from under the door in a crowded theater, it is not fear mongering to warn the other movie-goers that the place is on fire and that they need to get out.

Fear might be part of the motivation, but it is a PERFECTLY valid and legitiamte one.

Terrorists are not mere bogeymen under a kid's bed, you simp.

They really do exist, they really are stil engaged in plotting to kill many of us in as many horrible ways as their putrid imaginations wil allow, and they are still moving in directions that will allow them to do so.

Yeah, funny you should mention that "they do really still exist".

7 years of a "War on Terror" and by your own admission, Al Qaeda is still going strong.

Looks like your strategy hasn't worked, has it? In fact, one could clearly determine that your strategy has failed utterly.

Hmmmm, maybe, just maybe, you should stop going down the same damn dead end and try another tactic... hmmm?

 

[Ravi]

Are you actually claiming that you DON'T see how her odd choice of words reflects the fact that she IS distancing herself from this stupid-ass decision?

Come on.

She had the option, naturally, of saying NOTHING whatsoever. Instead she said THAT mess, that cluster-fuck of a "comment?"

And you see no distancing except in the editorialization?

Ravi, your credibility blows at the best of times. You just murdered it.

Right, saying no comment...now that would have been distancing.

You guys are pathetic.

No stupid. It is your response that is "pathetic." I did not say that she should have said no comment. I simply (and correctly) noted that she was ABLE to say nothing. Instead, she CHOSE to say that miasma of a quote.

NORMALLY when one chooses to speak, it is for a reason (this general rule excludes random idiots such as you, Ravi). Assuming for a moment that Shrillary is not quite the random bastard that you are, it would be logical to infer that she was attending to a purpose in saying what she said.

You can pretend otherwise, but the rest of us readily see that her words don't come even close to resembling support of the actions/determinations of her boss's Administration.

You don't even know exactly what he asked her, since he was too much of a coward to include the transcript. I don't find what she said distancing at all...and Georgie is just a political hack with an axe to grind.

 

[Ravi]

Didn't Dubya once say his mess was for future presidents to sort out?

It's quite the shame that he didn't have the balls to convict KSM long ago.

 

[Sinatra]

Are you actually claiming that you DON'T see how her odd choice of words reflects the fact that she IS distancing herself from this stupid-ass decision?

Come on.

She had the option, naturally, of saying NOTHING whatsoever. Instead she said THAT mess, that cluster-fuck of a "comment?"

And you see no distancing except in the editorialization?

Ravi, your credibility blows at the best of times. You just murdered it.

Right, saying no comment...now that would have been distancing.

You guys are pathetic.

No stupid. It is your response that is "pathetic." I did not say that she should have said no comment. I simply (and correctly) noted that she was ABLE to say nothing. Instead, she CHOSE to say that miasma of a quote.

NORMALLY when one chooses to speak, it is for a reason (this general rule excludes random idiots such as you, Ravi). Assuming for a moment that Shrillary is not quite the random bastard that you are, it would be logical to infer that she was attending to a purpose in saying what she said.

You can pretend otherwise, but the rest of us readily see that her words don't come even close to resembling support of the actions/determinations of her boss's Administration.

Correct - she knew she would be asked this question, and her response was clearly less than fully supportive.

Perhaps she has a better understanding of the implications this civil trial will actually pose for America - far more than the untested, inexperienced, and overtly naive Obama White House...

 

[Ravi]

I think Rudy has been watching too many crime dramas, btw. The jury pool is asked if they feel they can be impartial...not if they are unfamiliar with the case. It won't be too hard to find twelve people that feel they can be impartial.

 

[Ravi]

Right, saying no comment...now that would have been distancing.

You guys are pathetic.

No stupid. It is your response that is "pathetic." I did not say that she should have said no comment. I simply (and correctly) noted that she was ABLE to say nothing. Instead, she CHOSE to say that miasma of a quote.

NORMALLY when one chooses to speak, it is for a reason (this general rule excludes random idiots such as you, Ravi). Assuming for a moment that Shrillary is not quite the random bastard that you are, it would be logical to infer that she was attending to a purpose in saying what she said.

You can pretend otherwise, but the rest of us readily see that her words don't come even close to resembling support of the actions/determinations of her boss's Administration.

Correct - she knew she would be asked this question, and her response was clearly less than fully supportive.

Perhaps she has a better understanding of the implications this civil trial will actually pose for America - far more than the untested, inexperienced, and overtly naive Obama White House...

Or maybe, just maybe, she has no reason to second guess Holder.

 

[bodecea]

Right, saying no comment...now that would have been distancing.

You guys are pathetic.

No stupid. It is your response that is "pathetic." I did not say that she should have said no comment. I simply (and correctly) noted that she was ABLE to say nothing. Instead, she CHOSE to say that miasma of a quote.

NORMALLY when one chooses to speak, it is for a reason (this general rule excludes random idiots such as you, Ravi). Assuming for a moment that Shrillary is not quite the random bastard that you are, it would be logical to infer that she was attending to a purpose in saying what she said.

You can pretend otherwise, but the rest of us readily see that her words don't come even close to resembling support of the actions/determinations of her boss's Administration.

Correct - she knew she would be asked this question, and her response was clearly less than fully supportive.

Perhaps she has a better understanding of the implications this civil trial will actually pose for America - far more than the untested, inexperienced, and overtly naive Obama White House...

Fascinating how you hang on Hillary's every word and nuances now.

 

[Vast LWC]

At least you finally viewed the actual video that you were already commenting on prior to viewing it.

Now here is the first part of Giuliani's comments from this same interview - it is also quite strong...

1. I was commenting on Rudy Giuliani, not the actual content of his interview, prior to viewing it.

and

2. I have one simple question.

Did Rudy Giuliani not run for the office of President of the United States based entirely on 9/11 and it's significance on national foreign affairs?

Or did I imagine that?

Wouldn't that make the man a little biased on this particular issue, as changing the "War on Terror" to a criminal issue would completely undermine Mr Giuliani's own significance on the national stage?

 

[Vast LWC]

If the War on Terror goes away, Rudy falls back into obscurity...

 

[Sinatra]

At least you finally viewed the actual video that you were already commenting on prior to viewing it.

Now here is the first part of Giuliani's comments from this same interview - it is also quite strong...

1. I was commenting on Rudy Giuliani, not the actual content of his interview, prior to viewing it.

___

Exactly - you, like so many others in here, comment on your version of the messenger while ignoring the actual message and content of the actual thread.

Grow up and begin to educate yourself on these critical issues prior to speaking to them so often from a position of ignorance...

 

[Vast LWC]

Exactly - you, like so many others in here, comment on your version of the messenger while ignoring the actual message and content of the actual thread.

Grow up and begin to educate yourself on these critical issues prior to speaking to them so often from a position of ignorance...

That's right. Because if Osama Bin Laden delivers a message on world peace, I'm probably going to have something to say on the subject before I listen to what he has to say, if I listen at all.

Clearly, Mr Giuliani has a specific reason to keep this a major part of US policy. He spent an entire campaign season explaining to us why.

 

[Sinatra]

Exactly - you, like so many others in here, comment on your version of the messenger while ignoring the actual message and content of the actual thread.

Grow up and begin to educate yourself on these critical issues prior to speaking to them so often from a position of ignorance...

That's right. Because if Osama Bin Laden delivers a message on world peace, I'm probably going to have something to say on the subject before I listen to what he has to say, if I listen at all.

Clearly, Mr Giuliani has a specific reason to keep this a major part of US policy. He spent an entire campaign season explaining to us why.

While I understand you attempts to explain your by-your-own-admission ignorance, it does not excuse it.

In the future, please educate yourself on the topic at hand prior to sharing your views on said topic. That way, you will greatly increase the likelihood of you actually having something to say vs simply saying something...