America... Spying on Americans

Tico's double standard falls all over creation. He thinks Arab Americans are not "we." He thinks "in our country" means the neocon interpretation of America. His "we" presumes he speaks for all Americans. One thing is for sure; he's a first class arse.

"American should not let Iran get nukes" presumes the majority of Americans think as you do. That's a huge presumption on your part.

As for "tiresome jerk" you should try reading your own stuff. I only react to people's opinions that tend to talk down or shows indifference.

Your "remedial reading" comment is not appreciated, and will be challenged with harsher retort whether you like it or not. Grow up!

Yeah, it's rebuttable at trial, through the presentation of evidence, and a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course prosecutors have evidence against a defendant, or they won't bring charges against them, but that doesn't mean the presumption is rebutted prior to trial, regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt in a given matter. You, apparently, feel this presumption need not be afforded to those you don't like, and proclaim them guilty without a trial.

Nice double standard you've got going.

"American should not let Iran get nukes" presumes the majority of Americans think as you do. That's a huge presumption on your part. As for "tiresome jerk" you should try reading your own stuff. I only react to people's opinions that tend to talk down or shows indifference.

Your "remedial reading" comment is not appreciated, and will be challenged with harsher retort whether you like it or not. Grow up!

Your rhetoric supercedes your ability at civil discourse. Go take your Geritol.

Tico, you mis-represent Deb's argument in your last post:

Quote:

Yeah, it's rebuttable at trial, through the presentation of evidence, and a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course prosecutors have evidence against a defendant, or they won't bring charges against them, but that doesn't mean the presumption is rebutted prior to trial, regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt in a given matter. You, apparently, feel this presumption need not be afforded to those you don't like, and proclaim them guilty without a trial.

Nice double standard you've got going.

Deb is not proclaiming them 'guilty' in a technical sense, for she is not calling for them to be punished without a trial. On the contrary. She is calling for a trial.

You know as well as I do that Deb is stating that there exists more than enough evidence to bring these matters to a trial, through the course of Justice Department or Special investigators, and that she believes the administration will be found guilty. The same way you make your declarations about Iran as if you could see the future of what they will do.

She 'stated what I believed to be the best course for America.'

Cycloptichorn

The guilty bastards, the president, the vice-president, the attorney general, and their cohorts are criminals and belong in prison. We don't want criminals sitting in the White House.

The evidence with respect to Bush's and his cohorts' unlawful conduct is more than sufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence and to prove to a jury that the bastards are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

No Tico, You still don't "get it." When you say "America should...." it implies our country as a whole. If you wish to not include all Americans, you must state "Some Americans...." It's a very simple method to write clearly for comprehension.

cicerone imposter wrote:

"American should not let Iran get nukes" presumes the majority of Americans think as you do. That's a huge presumption on your part. As for "tiresome jerk" you should try reading your own stuff. I only react to people's opinions that tend to talk down or shows indifference.

Your "remedial reading" comment is not appreciated, and will be challenged with harsher retort whether you like it or not. Grow up!

Your rhetoric supercedes your ability at civil discourse. Go take your Geritol.

Frankly, maybe it's a good idea that they should have one. That would give Chickenhawks that have no more courage than to drive an armchair some food for thought!!

Anon

As I said, nice double standard.

Tico, You are the one that is dilussional about Iran's nuclear program. It's not "America's" problem alone. America is in no condition to control the nuclear programs of all other countries. That is the issue for the world community to address. The US cannot military-wise or cost-wise undertake such a responsibility unilaterally. Your dilusions of superpower status has gone to your head without any idea about logistics or foreign policy issues.

I agree with Bush's point. If the Democrats think its a crime what the NSA program is doing, run on the platform of shutting it down. If it so serious that Bush should be sitting in jail, then make that their number one campaign message. Has a single one of them advocated that yet?

Well, if the Euroweenie mentality prevails at the UN, we may not have a choice.

Quote:

I agree with Bush's point. If the Democrats think its a crime what the NSA program is doing, run on the platform of shutting it down. If it so serious that Bush should be sitting in jail, then make that their number one campaign message. Has a single one of them advocated that yet?

Yes, they have; and they will run on it, don't worry. There are a ton of corruption issues that the Dems will run on.

Remember the 'Contract with America?' It didn't come out until pretty close to the election. The Dems are keeping their powder dry for another few months, while the scandals drag along and do their work for them.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

As I said, nice double standard.

It isn't a double standard, becuase the accused have no right to be 'innocent until proven guilty' in the court of opinion. Only in the court of law.

It is foolishness to claim that because we - who have studied the various cases in question in depth, or at least as much as we can - believe that the accused are guilty, then we are abandoning due process and their right to be presumed innocent by the court of law. No such thing has happened. In fact, we both have called for trials.

The 'presumption of innocence' does not and has never applied to people's opinions. This is just another straw man that you've thrown up to avoid actually addressing the cases in question.

Cycloptichorn

No, it isn't a different platform. It's all part of the same thing: the Republican party has become riddled with corruption, all the way to the top. If it isn't illegal lobbying, it's illegal spying, or illegally outing a CIA agent, or illegally impersonating the Secret Service, or illegally managing Ohio retirement funds, illegally lying about war intelligence.

The Republicans have come to believe that the law simply doesn't matter any longer. It's just one platfrom with many different facets.

As I said, the Dems are keeping their powder dry. There isn't much point in starting a coordinated campaign against the Prez and the Republicans right now; they are doing such a great job of turnign the public against them already, and the concept of 'peaking' is important when it comes to rounding up votes.

Cycloptichorn