SkyDekker
-
Content
21,691 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
96 -
Feedback
0% -
Country
Canada
Everything posted by SkyDekker
-
Like the public being told that Saddam might give chemical, biological or maybe even nuclear weapons to terrorist, while intelligence officials had indicated that was very unlikely. Or, repeated claims that Iraq had trained AQ operatives in the use of poison gas.....all while pentagon officials seriously doubted that was true. One might start to think the public was being deliberately mislead to gain support for an invasion.....
-
Not about my world view. Your logic and reasoning are seriously flawed, regardless of my world view. I am more concerned about the public being mislead.
-
And I don't disagree with that. However, most all of us can agree that there are limitations on the right to own personal property. The question is always where that line is drawn.
-
Uhmm, obviously they would not be briefed with the information that was dismissed. Or when they found out that the information they were shown was screened and Intel not supporting that position was surpressed?
-
Is it not possible that in the year leading up to the invasion, Intel not supporting the president's position was dismissed? That this Intel was never presented to anybody? Congress wouldn't know. They would still hold onto their old position, without having knowledge the Intel they were relying in was not correct. This is a scenario that is impossible to you?
-
What twist? You stated it was the same intel. You stated the story line was the same for 15 years. It makes the question i raised perfectly valid. Do you believe the Intel that was used to make the decision to go to war was 15 years old?
-
You mean to tell me that the decision to go to war with Iraq was made on Intel that was 15 years old? If he relied on then current (cooked) Intel, well then your whole argument falls apart.
-
Hold on a second here. That is usually the logic and argument used by the "anti-gun" crowd. That killing by means other than guns is much more complicated and less reliable. YOUR counter argument to that is that when people are determined enough to kill, they will do it by any means that they can. Sounds to me like you will say anything as long as it supports your position. The rest of your post is so childish I can't believe they let you have guns.
-
Shooting him won't help either. Logic often used by the pro-gun side of this argument would dictate that they would simply switch to remote detonation.
-
Interesting. I didn't read it that way, where the actual service part refered back to those being in the Militia. I read it as refering to a seperate group. I read it as excluding those in the land and naval forces. Excluding those in the militia. Excluding those in actual service in time of War or public danger. Reading it now, your version makes more sense.
-
This just doesn't make any sense. Just because other people said something doesn't mean Bush didn't lie. Also doesn't mean he did lie, it just doesn't prove anyting. As far as logic goes, they are not even related. I believe intel was deliberately pushed and dumped based on what the current administration wanted to hear.
-
Does the judicial system in the US treat the Militia as mentioned in the 5th Amendment to only mean the organized militia as defined in the Militia Act you quoted above? (Which based on the wording of the 5th would have some merit)
-
I that scenario, I wouldn't think I am. I see some similarities. I'm sure you won't.
-
We generally don't accept "Johhny did it first" from our kids either, but boy that line has been used by both sides of the aisle on these forums...
-
Just as a hypothetical: If you show me a forged document that convinces me that you own a tank. Then I turn around and tell other people that you own a tank. Am I lying?
-
I had heard that. But doesn't that mean that the vast majority of Americans do not have to be indicted by a Grand Jury if accused of a federal crime? I have never understood why the militia in the 2nd amendment is different from the militia in the 5th amendment.
-
Who knows. At the end of the interrogation he dangles a carrot. Get me out of Peru and I'll "help" with the Holloway case.
-
And I have no issue with that. I also agree that the 2nd Amendment in the US grants you that right. I have one other question though, how is militia defined as used in the 2nd Amendment?
-
Funny thing is, you arent really a democracy and further, there are much purer democracies which do not have an armed populace to the extent the US does. Furthermore, there are countries presently and in history where a dictator rules over a heavily armed populace. That particular argument just doesn't make any sense, and I can't understand why anybody would want to use it to justify a right to arms.
-
The Dutch have already stated they are not interested in any extradition until after he has served his sentence. I sure hope they stick to that.
-
Not really, it is only human nature to be upset only when money is being spent on things you don't agree with. Hence, when massive amounts of money are being spent to kill brown people. Some people cheer and some people oppose. When massive amounts of money are being spent on trying to help Americans, those cheering and opposing seem to be on opposite sides.
-
He claimed he entered with $25,000 US. He further explains where the money comes from (most of it from some Dutch tv show that paid for info from him or something like that) I think he lists $6,000 or $9,000 from the family private investigator for information regarding the case. Also details how he killed her and that he put on some of her clothes after the killing. He did take the money from her wallet, doesn't seem like there was a whole lot in it though. He claims she hit him on the head first, which infuriated him so much that he elbowed her in the nose, strangeled her with his hands and subsequently with his shirt.
-
Yes, you are right. I was working form old information. Turns out it was overturned by a federal appeals court. Reasoning: against the 14th Amendment of the constitution.
-
The notes give a pretty good account of who was there, who was doing the interrogating and who was there from the Dutch Embassy to do the translating for him. What happened outside of what is described in the notes, you are right, we don't know the circumstances.
-
his lawyer was there
