Originally Posted By BPSJP <a href="http://www.homelandsecurityresponse.com/forum/topics/obamas-assistant-attorney" target="_blank">http://www.homelandsecurityres...attorney</a> Yea I was right about Obama admin wanting to read terrorists their right on the battlefield. So this does ask the question, why did we not read OB his rights, and bring him to NY for trial like Obama has wanted for the terrorists of 9-11? I'm sure there is a logical answer to this but having hard time with it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Hey Einstein - you do realize that Miranda rights are read to people AFTER they are captured, not in the heat of battle, right? And they take about 15 seconds to read and are designed to cover OUR butt more than anything? So this wouldn't apply to the OBL situation, but nice try and keep grasping at those straws.
Originally Posted By BPSJP "Hey Einstein" This is as far as I got on this reply. I don't name call, and have no intrest in reading what a person who does says. I don't know what the person said, but maybe someone could post the persons point in a respectful manner, if the persons point is worth repeating I would be happy to read it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Weak. The obvious refuge of someone who knows his point has been disproven.
Originally Posted By BPSJP Again, if someone could make this persons point without the name calling I would be happy to read it. I was brought up to respect others rights to their own opinion. And I ask others to act like an adult and not name call if they are having a hard time making their point.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh, please. It's a simple fact that Miranda rights are read AFTER arrest, not in the heat of the battle. This is not a disputable point, or a matter of opinion. An incorrect statement of fact does not deserve respect, actually. You simply lost this one. Accept it, if you want to be thought of as an adult rather than the petulant teen you're coming across as.
Originally Posted By BPSJP Again skipped to the last few words of post and saw name calling again. So I'm done, have no idea what you said, and no intrest in being drown into the path of your anger. Bye
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Again skipped to the last few words of post and saw name calling again. So I'm done, have no idea what you said...>> The alleged name calling came at the very end of the post. There is no way you could have *not* read the post in order to find the "petulant teen" comment at the end. Therefore, you are lying through your teeth about not knowing what Dave had stated about Miranda rights being read *after* arrest and not during the battle. It's not as though you were skimming through the post looking for profanity. "Petulant teen" doesn't stick out like the F word or the B words. You had to have read the post in order to discover that phrase at the end. And FWIW, very few individuals would consider Dave's statement as name calling. He was simply suggesting that you might want to try a different tactic with your posts if you'd like for other posters to think of you as a rational, mature adult because you don't always come across as one. How convenient to use alleged "name calling" as an excuse to walk away from an argument you were clearly losing.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***So I'm done*** Good. Go away, then. Your anti-American sentiment has no place here. You are clearly friendly towards terrorists.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So I'm done, have no idea what you said, and no intrest in being drown into the path of your anger. Bye> Translation: fingers in ears saying "la la la la, I can't hear you!!" And then he objects to being called out on acting like a petulant teen. Ironic.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Yea I was right about Obama admin wanting to read terrorists their right on the battlefield. So this does ask the question, why did we not read OB his rights, and bring him to NY for trial like Obama has wanted for the terrorists of 9-11? I'm sure there is a logical answer to this but having hard time with it." You're not even close to being right. What the AG's office was saying that once they're detainees and the decision is made to try them in either a military commission or a court of law, they're concerned Miranda rights might come into play as far as admissible evidence is comcerned. Please note the Obama Administration didn't open Guantanamo and decide to locj up every Arab they came across. Now that a new Administration has to clean up the mess, they have to analyze all the possibilities. Allowing these people to become detainees and hold them created this situation.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin Sorry...I just threw that in...it was a quote from a great American...
Originally Posted By BPSJP >>How convenient to use alleged "name calling" as an excuse to walk away from an argument<< Sorry if you can not skim for name calling, I can. And as far as walking away because of name calling, I do it because I have no interest in talking to people who can not defend their arguments without calling a person names. And also, there are a few very abusive people on here who I avoid because they are to intolerant of the views of others. Most people on LP are wonderful, so I would rather talk to them then the name callers who are just worth my time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 He accuses people of the very things he does. As usual. Just a matter of time before he gets canned again.
Originally Posted By Donny "Yea I was right about Obama admin wanting to read terrorists their right on the battlefield."The white house has changed it's story about the capture of OBL to the point were even Rachel Madow had to acknowledge that she wondered what really happened.
