unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,997|6193|USA

rawls2 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

This is just crazy.  It really saddens me to see people who fancy themselves "civil rights activists" aid terrorists.  It gives a bad name to all those who stand up for the "little guy."

It's never good to stand up for the little guy that wants to blow you up....
I hate it when you make sense, it totally disarms me.............stop it.
Well gentlemen, I hate to break it to you but people like her is what make this country the greatest. As retarded as it sounds, defending the guilty is part of are justice system and thats what sets us apart from the Axis of Evil.
No, you have it backwards. It's: defending the innocent until proven guilty.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6072|USA
SO you are telling me, there are "degrees" of treason?? She is a smart woman, an accomplished attorney, please don't act like she is some naive soccer mom who got mixed up in a bad relationship.
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|5891|Little Rock, AR

lowing wrote:

SO you are telling me, there are "degrees" of treason?? She is a smart woman, an accomplished attorney, please don't act like she is some naive soccer mom who got mixed up in a bad relationship.
No, I'm saying she didn't commit treason at all.  She wasn't willfully trying to harm America.  I suppose it would be similar to the difference between murder and manslaughter.  Manslaughter is not murder because manslaughter lacks premeditated intent.  What she did was the "manslaughter" to treason (I don't know if there is a crime for this).  There was no premeditated intent in this case.  And actually, while we're on the point, I suppose there are "degrees" to treason, but no matter what the degree the traitor would deserve death in my opinion.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,997|6193|USA

https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/unnamednewbie13/ANeedlessSinkingMED.jpg
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|5891|Little Rock, AR
yes, yes, loose lips sink ships.  very cute.  however, that pertains to classified information.  during WWII, any time one of ships was going anywhere, it was classified.  therefore, if you talked about when aunt ethel was boarding a ship from new york to london, you were divulging a state secret.  this woman didn't share state secrets.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6072|USA

kilgoretrout wrote:

yes, yes, loose lips sink ships.  very cute.  however, that pertains to classified information.  during WWII, any time one of ships was going anywhere, it was classified.  therefore, if you talked about when aunt ethel was boarding a ship from new york to london, you were divulging a state secret.  this woman didn't share state secrets.
Where in the article did it say what messages she delivered from the convicted terrorist to his subordinates??
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,997|6193|USA

kilgoretrout wrote:

yes, yes, loose lips sink ships.  very cute.  however, that pertains to classified information.  during WWII, any time one of ships was going anywhere, it was classified.  therefore, if you talked about when aunt ethel was boarding a ship from new york to london, you were divulging a state secret.  this woman didn't share state secrets.
It wasn't meant in the literal sense, thilly. But then again, how would an American have been treat if he was caught transferring messages from Nazi POW's to Berlin? I'd say this lady got off light.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-16 19:43:34)

kilgoretrout
Member
+53|5891|Little Rock, AR

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

yes, yes, loose lips sink ships.  very cute.  however, that pertains to classified information.  during WWII, any time one of ships was going anywhere, it was classified.  therefore, if you talked about when aunt ethel was boarding a ship from new york to london, you were divulging a state secret.  this woman didn't share state secrets.
Where in the article did it say what messages she delivered from the convicted terrorist to his subordinates??
oh, come on.  the judge knew what she shared and gave her 2 years.  if you really think it was extremely damning information, you're delusional.
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|5891|Little Rock, AR

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

yes, yes, loose lips sink ships.  very cute.  however, that pertains to classified information.  during WWII, any time one of ships was going anywhere, it was classified.  therefore, if you talked about when aunt ethel was boarding a ship from new york to london, you were divulging a state secret.  this woman didn't share state secrets.
It wasn't meant in the literal sense, thilly. But then again, how would an American have been treat if he was caught transferring messages from Nazi POW's to Berlin? I'd say this lady got off light.
I did say the lady got off light.  Over, and over.  I just said I don't think she deserves to be killed for it.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6072|USA

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

yes, yes, loose lips sink ships.  very cute.  however, that pertains to classified information.  during WWII, any time one of ships was going anywhere, it was classified.  therefore, if you talked about when aunt ethel was boarding a ship from new york to london, you were divulging a state secret.  this woman didn't share state secrets.
Where in the article did it say what messages she delivered from the convicted terrorist to his subordinates??
oh, come on.  the judge knew what she shared and gave her 2 years.  if you really think it was extremely damning information, you're delusional.
"The judge said Stewart was guilty of smuggling messages between the sheik and his followers that could have "potentially lethal consequences." He called the crimes "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct.""

Sure doesn't sound like she was passing along her chocolate chip cookie recipe.
rawls
Banned
+11|6236|California, USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

lowing wrote:


I hate it when you make sense, it totally disarms me.............stop it.
Well gentlemen, I hate to break it to you but people like her is what make this country the greatest. As retarded as it sounds, defending the guilty is part of are justice system and thats what sets us apart from the Axis of Evil.
No, you have it backwards. It's: defending the innocent until proven guilty.
And we also still try to protect those already convicted, ie. ACLU.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5826|North Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

lowing wrote:


I hate it when you make sense, it totally disarms me.............stop it.
Well gentlemen, I hate to break it to you but people like her is what make this country the greatest. As retarded as it sounds, defending the guilty is part of are justice system and thats what sets us apart from the Axis of Evil.
No, you have it backwards. It's: defending the innocent until proven guilty.
Oops... I didn't catch that part...  My mind had automatically inserted "innocent until proven guilty" when I read that post...  doh....
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|5891|Little Rock, AR

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:


Where in the article did it say what messages she delivered from the convicted terrorist to his subordinates??
oh, come on.  the judge knew what she shared and gave her 2 years.  if you really think it was extremely damning information, you're delusional.
"The judge said Stewart was guilty of smuggling messages between the sheik and his followers that could have "potentially lethal consequences." He called the crimes "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct.""

Sure doesn't sound like she was passing along her chocolate chip cookie recipe.
Yes, you've already quoted that, and I already pointed out that the judge's actions speak a lot louder than those words.  It seems like his quote is rhetoric considering he only gave her 2 years.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5826|North Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

yes, yes, loose lips sink ships.  very cute.  however, that pertains to classified information.  during WWII, any time one of ships was going anywhere, it was classified.  therefore, if you talked about when aunt ethel was boarding a ship from new york to london, you were divulging a state secret.  this woman didn't share state secrets.
It wasn't meant in the literal sense, thilly. But then again, how would an American have been treat if he was caught transferring messages from Nazi POW's to Berlin? I'd say this lady got off light.
I'm a little confused by this...  When you say Nazi POW's, do you mean prisoners of the Nazies or prisoners that ARE Nazies?

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-10-16 19:56:34)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6072|USA

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:


oh, come on.  the judge knew what she shared and gave her 2 years.  if you really think it was extremely damning information, you're delusional.
"The judge said Stewart was guilty of smuggling messages between the sheik and his followers that could have "potentially lethal consequences." He called the crimes "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct.""

Sure doesn't sound like she was passing along her chocolate chip cookie recipe.
Yes, you've already quoted that, and I already pointed out that the judge's actions speak a lot louder than those words.  It seems like his quote is rhetoric considering he only gave her 2 years.
and I already pointed out that HER actions SHOULD speak louder than her "I didn't know what I was doing" words.
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|5891|Little Rock, AR

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:


"The judge said Stewart was guilty of smuggling messages between the sheik and his followers that could have "potentially lethal consequences." He called the crimes "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct.""

Sure doesn't sound like she was passing along her chocolate chip cookie recipe.
Yes, you've already quoted that, and I already pointed out that the judge's actions speak a lot louder than those words.  It seems like his quote is rhetoric considering he only gave her 2 years.
and I already pointed out that HER actions SHOULD speak louder than her "I didn't know what I was doing" words.
Yes, that's why she's going to jail and not being freed.  I also agree that she deserves a stiffer punishment.  But I think the death penalty that you've suggested is rather over-the-top.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6002|the dank(super) side of Oregon
your associating a woman who lost her son in Iraq to a dyke lawyer who was looking for a book deal?  tell me lowing, are you purposing trying to make yourself sound like a completely ignorant, asshole?  Where is the "debate and serious talk" in this thread?  Should I make a new thread about Bush invading Iraq titled "new nazi hero to stand next to Adolf Hitler"?  Does that fit well into your little black and white world?

Last edited by Reciprocity (2006-10-16 20:00:48)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6072|USA

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:


Yes, you've already quoted that, and I already pointed out that the judge's actions speak a lot louder than those words.  It seems like his quote is rhetoric considering he only gave her 2 years.
and I already pointed out that HER actions SHOULD speak louder than her "I didn't know what I was doing" words.
Yes, that's why she's going to jail and not being freed.  I also agree that she deserves a stiffer punishment.  But I think the death penalty that you've suggested is rather over-the-top.
I think flying airplanes into buildings, blowing up trains, and subways, and hotels, and markets, and churches, and embassies and night clubs and beheading videos, etc.....is also, "over the top". Yet this is the company she keeps. She deserves nothing less than life in prison IF you don't put her down.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6072|USA

Reciprocity wrote:

your associating a woman who lost her son in Iraq to a dyke lawyer who was looking for a book deal?  tell me lowing, are you purposing trying to make yourself sound like a completely ignorant, asshole?  Where is the "debate and serious talk" in this thread?  Should I make a new thread about Bush invading Iraq titled "new nazi hero to stand next to Adolf Hitler"?  Does that fit well into your little black and white world?
Go ahead, and I will debate it with you. I am surprised, it took 3 pages before you liberals started with the name calling. Might be a record.


Oh, and yes, I compare

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/moth … -book-deal

Last edited by lowing (2006-10-16 20:09:45)

Reciprocity
Member
+721|6002|the dank(super) side of Oregon

lowing wrote:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/mother-sheehan-got-her-book-deal
ooh, an article from some Neocon "news" page.  do you expect me to read that tripe analytically?  Should I learn something?  Yeah, sheehan is in the News as the anti-bush/anti-war posterchild.  are you saying that being anti-bush/anti-war is treason?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6072|USA

Reciprocity wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/mother-sheehan-got-her-book-deal
ooh, an article from some Neocon "news" page.  do you expect me to read that tripe analytically?  Should I learn something?  Yeah, sheehan is in the News as the anti-bush/anti-war posterchild.  are you saying that being anti-bush/anti-war is treason?
LOL, no I expect you to recognize the comparison that you said wasn't there, Sheehan has herself a book deal as well
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6002|the dank(super) side of Oregon

lowing wrote:

LOL, no I expect you to recognize the comparison that you said wasn't there, Sheehan has herself a book deal as well
yay, semantics.  ok, what exactly do Sheehan and Stewart have in common?  Besides a book deal.  I come back to; are you arguing that being anti-bush/anti-war is treason?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,997|6193|USA

Turquoise wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

yes, yes, loose lips sink ships.  very cute.  however, that pertains to classified information.  during WWII, any time one of ships was going anywhere, it was classified.  therefore, if you talked about when aunt ethel was boarding a ship from new york to london, you were divulging a state secret.  this woman didn't share state secrets.
It wasn't meant in the literal sense, thilly. But then again, how would an American have been treat if he was caught transferring messages from Nazi POW's to Berlin? I'd say this lady got off light.
I'm a little confused by this...  When you say Nazi POW's, do you mean prisoners of the Nazies or prisoners that ARE Nazies?
I meant the captured and imprisoned troops of Nazi Germany. Shuttling info back and forth between a jailed kraut officer and the active German forces would've probably been a pretty big no-no.

Reciprocity wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/mother-sheehan-got-her-book-deal
ooh, an article from some Neocon "news" page.  do you expect me to read that tripe analytically?  Should I learn something?  Yeah, sheehan is in the News as the anti-bush/anti-war posterchild.  are you saying that being anti-bush/anti-war is treason?
Most sources are biased in some manner. When a liberals present 'neocons' with liberal news links, won't a neocons be justified in reacting likewise? Isn't hearing both sides of an issue important?

Reciprocity wrote:

your associating a woman who lost her son in Iraq to a dyke lawyer who was looking for a book deal?  tell me lowing, are you purposing trying to make yourself sound like a completely ignorant, asshole?  Where is the "debate and serious talk" in this thread?  Should I make a new thread about Bush invading Iraq titled "new nazi hero to stand next to Adolf Hitler"?  Does that fit well into your little black and white world?
The mere fact that the word 'asshole' exists in your post nullifies your 'call to reason.'

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-17 01:09:07)

Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|5982
Oh yes, releasing a statement, how horrible......................................
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6002|the dank(super) side of Oregon

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The mere fact that the word 'asshole' exists in your post nullifies your 'call to reason.'
Perhaps asshole is a strong word, but if he's going to imply that anti-war/anti-bush sentiment is treason, he needs to explain that right off.  Was his goal to sound ignorant and inflamitory?  If he want to create a thread about some stupid lawyer commiting an act of treason, good for him, but the title he chose says much more than that.  And he needs to truthfully acknowledge his own title.  I read through three pages of drivel and bickering with no explanation.  let's have a discussion of the defintion of treason as it relates to sheehan, which he implied.  I lost my patience, and I apologize, but I'd still like to hear his answer.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard