Have you ever...

[actsnoblemartin]

repped someone because they were your friend: YES

repped someone because they were your enemy: YES

repped someone cause you agreed with them: YES

repped someone cause you disagree with them: YES

Repped someone, positive or negative because you were asked to: YES

repped someone, because you had an agreement, in the past, or presently, officially or un-officially, to pos rep each other. YES

Be Honest....

I apologize to the entire board for my actions, I will not name any names, I am not a rat, I believe in loyalty, I take full responsibility
There was no excuse, and i accept whatever consequences the mods decide to dish out to me

[Dilloduck]

I've done all that---and MORE ! :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

I've done all that---and MORE ! :laugh2:

I'll say! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Keep repping like that and you'll go blind...

[Abbey Marie]

Disagreement on an issue is not a good reason for neg repping, imo. Abusiveness or nastiness can be.

[Dilloduck]

Keep repping like that and you'll go blind...

Especially if someone blabs !:laugh2:

[jackass]

repped someone because they were your friend: NO

repped someone because they were your enemy: NO

repped someone cause you agreed with them: YES

repped someone cause you disagree with them: NO

Repped someone, positive or negative because you were asked to: NO

repped someone, because you had an agreement, in the past, or presently, officially or un-officially, to pos rep each other. NO

There shouldnt even be any talk about reps between people. Only 4 people know who I have repped. The 2 Mods, me and the person I rep. Thats how it should be.

[Kathianne]

Acts, I'm assuming this is related to the other thread you started? In all honesty, I've repped 'friends' more than 'enemies', but not over and over. As Jim said, look at some in the top 10, while prolific, they are not all the best posters, but they do have friends.

I've repped you many times, but not gratuitously. Nor RSR. Mostly because of either a very good post or showing good judgment on a thread. Sometimes I find myself repping positively simply because someone backs down when heading over the top. I think that's justified, but with 1099 rep points, perhaps not fair to those that post great stuff, but my points went elsewhere.

I've never been part of a circle, my personality probably precludes it. :laugh2:
I'm pretty sure I've been fair to you, but I've never held back in stating when you were off, including some neg rep, not much, but some. Never without a pm either, to let you know why. Most often, you've thought it over, after sometimes negging me too, but we've come to a 'meeting of the minds', at least for a bit.

On the other hand, if I just repped you to rep you, that is wrong. That is what I think, Jim is getting at.

Mtnbkr, for instance doesn't post all that often, but when he does, he usually has something to say or a witty response to what others have said. I don't know if he's way up in rep or not, but he should be. Same with Jeff. We use to agree on most things, not so much anymore. At the same time, his posts are nearly always thought provoking, so I rep.

Jim's posts I most often rep, because they are so few and far between! :laugh2: Besides, I like his snarkiness.

There are many people here I like, but the rep doesn't just follow them. I don't see it as 'us' against others. In the past week, I think I've repped Gabby and LN more than others, because they went across my perception of them.

That's what I do with rep.

[Gaffer]

I rep based on the post. If I like it I pos rep, if its really bad neg rep. I don't rep based on friendship or because someone says I should. I have never had a rep exchange with anyone. I have occasionally given a pos rep to counter a neg rep they got from someone else.

When someone neg reps me I will usually give them a backatcha.

[Dilloduck]

Speaking of blabbers :laugh2:

[hjmick]

I rep for good posts, for good points made in posts, whether I agree with them or not. I rep if you make me laugh, sometimes a sense of humor is too rare. I will rep anyone with whom I have enjoyed the exchange of ideas, whether I agree with their point of view or not. I have been know to rep for Jimmy Buffett references...go figure...

I have never and will never give a neg rep. Just as I believe personal attacks are a sign someone has gotten under your skin, so goes the neg rep.

As some have noticed, I always try to send a thank you message for positive reps. My feeling is, if you can take the time to tell me you liked my post, I can certainly take the time and be polite to say "thank you." I do not expect the same, I do it simply because that's the way I am.

[Kathianne]

I rep for good posts, for good points made in posts, whether I agree with them or not. I rep if you make me laugh, sometimes a sense of humor is too rare. I will rep anyone with whom I have enjoyed the exchange of ideas, whether I agree with their point of view or not. I have been know to rep for Jimmy Buffett references...go figure...

I have never and will never give a neg rep. Just as I believe personal attacks are a sign someone has gotten under your skin, so goes the neg rep.

As some have noticed, I always try to send a thank you message for positive reps. My feeling is, if you can take the time to tell me you liked my post, I can certainly take the time and be polite to say "thank you." I do not expect the same, I do it simply because that's the way I am.

I used to be better at this. Something Jeff wrote a long time ago caused me to cut back, I'm not certain that's a good idea. At the same time, I kind of thought it might be an encouragement to keep repping me, but not what I meant by saying thanks. Sigh. One of those 'can't win for losing.'

[hjmick]

I used to be better at this. Something Jeff wrote a long time ago caused me to cut back, I'm not certain that's a good idea. At the same time, I kind of thought it might be an encouragement to keep repping me, but not what I meant by saying thanks. Sigh. One of those 'can't win for losing.'

I can't imagine that a simple thank you would encourage anyone to rep more often, but then again, I've never really thought about it. I hope that a thank you would never be the impetus for giving me a rep. I only ask that I be judged by the content of my post, not the color of my text...or something like that...

[Dilloduck]

I used to be better at this. Something Jeff wrote a long time ago caused me to cut back, I'm not certain that's a good idea. At the same time, I kind of thought it might be an encouragement to keep repping me, but not what I meant by saying thanks. Sigh. One of those 'can't win for losing.'

Holy Mackeral----it's a fricknig game. Don't get your panties in a wad. Think over and over ---IT JUST DOESN"T MATTER !!!!!

[Kathianne]

I can't imagine that a simple thank you would encourage anyone to rep more often, but then again, I've never really thought about it. I hope that a thank you would never be the impetus for giving me a rep. I only ask that I be judged by the content of my post, not the color of my text...or something like that...

Now that made me laugh and I'll rep if possible. BTW, thanks for all rep you've ever given or will give or thought of giving me. Does that cover it? :laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

Now that made me laugh and I'll rep if possible. BTW, thanks for all rep you've ever given or will give or thought of giving me. Does that cover it? :laugh2:

now THAT'S the attitude !!!!! Good job ~~

[hjmick]

Now that made me laugh and I'll rep if possible. BTW, thanks for all rep you've ever given or will give or thought of giving me. Does that cover it? :laugh2:

Everyone is covered, it's just a quirk I have. LOL

[hjmick]

Holy Mackeral----it's a fricknig game. Don't get your panties in a wad. Think over and over ---IT JUST DOESN"T MATTER !!!!!

You know, I can not find the "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER" scene from Meatballs anywhere on the net...

[Dilloduck]

You know, I can not find the "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER" scene from Meatballs anywhere on the net...

I looked everywhere !!!! That clip was even pulled from some sites, dammit !!

[jackass]

I have never and will never give a neg rep. Just as I believe personal attacks are a sign someone has gotten under your skin, so goes the neg rep.



I used to think the same way but recently have changed my mind. I dont think its a sign that someone got under your skin at all. I think its the duty of the community of the board to let people know what posts are acceptable and what ones are not.

I try to send thank yous also.

[Yurt]

i wonder what NM thinks about this thread....

[April15]

I don't believe I have sent reps but I have gotten a few negative ones. They seem like a silly way to tell someone to get screwed. Not that I give a hoot about the person giving the negative as they most likely are an asshole anyway.

[nevadamedic]

i wonder what NM thinks about this thread....

Awwww how sweet, you actually care what I think? What a tool. Being that I barely rep anyone anymore it shouldn't matter what I think.

[Yurt]

Awwww how sweet, you actually care what I think? What a tool. Being that I barely rep anyone anymore it shouldn't matter what I think.

were you ever part of a circle that agreed to rep each other?

[nevadamedic]

were you ever part of a circle that agreed to rep each other?

You and I have had this conversation. I have never agreed to rep anyone actually. I just repped who I wanted. There were several people I was asked to negative rep and never did, you being one of them and Liberalnation another, Dilloduck being another and many more.

[5stringJeff]

Mtnbkr, for instance doesn't post all that often, but when he does, he usually has something to say or a witty response to what others have said. I don't know if he's way up in rep or not, but he should be. Same with Jeff. We use to agree on most things, not so much anymore. At the same time, his posts are nearly always thought provoking, so I rep.

I think we agree more than you think we do, if not on the issues of the day, than on the "fundamentals." I just don't post enough nowadays to get all my opinions across. Too busy with grad school! :)

[Kathianne]

I think we agree more than you think we do, if not on the issues of the day, than on the "fundamentals." I just don't post enough nowadays to get all my opinions across. Too busy with grad school! :)

here's some rep. Grad school is exhausting and family deserves better! Feeling guilty now? :laugh2:

[5stringJeff]

here's some rep. Grad school is exhausting and family deserves better! Feeling guilty now? :laugh2:

At this moment, my wife is out with the wives of five of my classmates, watching 27 Dresses, and I'm at home with the kids. So I guess I know what the wife thinks of "family time," eh? :laugh:

[nevadamedic]

At this moment, my wife is out with the wives of five of my classmates, watching 27 Dresses, and I'm at home with the kids. So I guess I know what the wife thinks of "family time," eh? :laugh:

Hmmmmmmm, role reversal....................

[Kathianne]

At this moment, my wife is out with the wives of five of my classmates, watching 27 Dresses, and I'm at home with the kids. So I guess I know what the wife thinks of "family time," eh? :laugh:

Good for both of you! So where are you going to end up? East coast, west coast, Chicago? (no bias here!)

[5stringJeff]

Good for both of you! So where are you going to end up? East coast, west coast, Chicago? (no bias here!)

Currently, Atlanta. There are no Army bases near Chicago, so that pretty much rules out that particular option. I'm looking for promotions in Huntsville, AL, San Antonio, and/or Fayetteville, NC. I'll know more in a couple of months.

[waterrescuedude2000]

repped someone because they were your friend: YES

repped someone because they were your enemy: YES

repped someone cause you agreed with them: YES

repped someone cause you disagree with them: YES

Repped someone, positive or negative because you were asked to: YES

repped someone, because you had an agreement, in the past, or presently, officially or un-officially, to pos rep each other. YES

Be Honest....

I apologize to the entire board for my actions, I will not name any names, I am not a rat, I believe in loyalty, I take full responsibility
There was no excuse, and i accept whatever consequences the mods decide to dish out to me



repped someone because they were your friend: YES

repped someone because they were your enemy: YES

repped someone cause you agreed with them: YES

repped someone cause you disagree with them: YES

Repped someone, positive or negative because you were asked to: HELL NO

repped someone, because you had an agreement, in the past, or presently, officially or un-officially, to pos rep each other. HELL NO

Look I think everybody gives reputations to their friends so what?? If you don't like someone I also don't see anything wrong with taking them down a few notches. I was never a member of a "rep circle" thats just not true.
And I also would like to see the rep system left how it was since I joined.

[Dilloduck]

repped someone because they were your friend: YES

repped someone because they were your enemy: YES

repped someone cause you agreed with them: YES

repped someone cause you disagree with them: YES

Repped someone, positive or negative because you were asked to: HELL NO

repped someone, because you had an agreement, in the past, or presently, officially or un-officially, to pos rep each other. HELL NO

Look I think everybody gives reputations to their friends so what?? If you don't like someone I also don't see anything wrong with taking them down a few notches. I was never a member of a "rep circle" thats just not true.
And I also would like to see the rep system left how it was since I joined.

It's a game ----""It just doesn't matter !!!!""

[Kathianne]

It's a game ----""It just doesn't matter !!!!""

not to him, or NM, they negged me. Not that i care. I negged NM for a reason, he responded for just that and some words.

Cool dude, you aren't worthy of comment from her on in. Either persona. NM and Waterdude are one in same, yet they rep each other, with others. No news.

[Dilloduck]

not to him, or NM, they negged me. Not that i care. I negged NM for a reason, he responded for just that and some words.

Cool dude, you aren't worthy of comment from her on in. Either persona. NM and Waterdude are one in same, yet they rep each other, with others. No news.

Why bother neg repping anyone?

[retiredman]

not to him, or NM, they negged me. Not that i care. I negged NM for a reason, he responded for just that and some words.

Cool dude, you aren't worthy of comment from her on in. Either persona. NM and Waterdude are one in same, yet they rep each other, with others. No news.


waterdog neg repped me constantly... for ZERO reason.

total prick.

[nevadamedic]

waterdog neg repped me constantly... for ZERO reason.

total prick.

If there was a so called rep circle it would be more then waterrescue negative repping you..................

[manu1959]

Why bother neg repping anyone?


it is like waterboarding.....doesn't really hurt anyone but it sure pisses people off

[retiredman]

If there was a so called rep circle it would be more then waterrescue negative repping you..................

the rep circle positive reps each other to build up rep power...

that is the only possible explanation for some of the people in the top ten list.

[nevadamedic]

it is like waterboarding.....doesn't really hurt anyone but it sure pisses people off

There's nothing wrong with Waterboarding at all.

[actsnoblemartin]

unless its done to you :laugh2:

Sorry I couldnt resist


There's nothing wrong with Waterboarding at all.

[Kathianne]

If there was a so called rep circle it would be more then waterrescue negative repping you..................

most of us see you, waterdudefuktad, rsr, and acts. Seems to me that two of the 4 are probably dupes.

[nevadamedic]

the rep circle positive reps each other to build up rep power...

that is the only possible explanation for some of the people in the top ten list.

So your saying I negative rep you like Waterrescue? Hmmmmmmm interesting.

[nevadamedic]

most of us see you, waterdudefuktad, rsr, and acts. Seems to me that two of the 4 are probably dupes.

You couldn't see anything even if it hit your right across the face and you just proved it by jumping to conclusions.

[Dilloduck]

it is like waterboarding.....doesn't really hurt anyone but it sure pisses people off

Sorry cant' rep ya for that either !!!:laugh2::laugh2:

[manu1959]

the rep circle positive reps each other to build up rep power...

that is the only possible explanation for some of the people in the top ten list.

Jealousy…………one of the seven deadly sins……..

[Kathianne]

You couldn't see anything even if it hit your right across the face and you just proved it by jumping to conclusions.

A post that shows why you are held in such high esteem rep wise across the board. Enjoy!

[manu1959]

A post that shows why you are held in such high esteem rep wise across the board. Enjoy!

should i ding him......:laugh2:

[Yurt]

You couldn't see anything even if it hit your right across the face and you just proved it by jumping to conclusions.

.

haha, this is fun, ever seen this movie?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a335/Spagbol/rep_club.jpg

[nevadamedic]

how many times has WRD repped you in the past couple of months? and you, how many times you rep him.

haha, this is fun, ever seen this movie?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a335/Spagbol/rep_club.jpg

Or how about a message I recieved from someone basically begging to be part of a rep circle that didn't exist.

[Kathianne]

how many times has WRD repped you in the past couple of months? and you, how many times you rep him.

haha, this is fun, ever seen this movie?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a335/Spagbol/rep_club.jpg

More sad, I fear I've repped him, won't happen in the future.

[Yurt]

Or how about a message I recieved from someone basically begging to be part of a rep circle that didn't exist.

how was the movie?

message?

[nevadamedic]

how was the movie?

message?

Yup, don't play dumb. I know it comes natural to you and everything.

[Yurt]

Yup, don't play dumb. I know it comes natural to you and everything.

huh?

[82Marine89]

Or how about a message I recieved from someone basically begging to be part of a rep circle that didn't exist.

Even though Martin admits it exists?

I have a proposal. How about Jimmy remove the reps that Martin gave to all those folks? Including the reps he gave me which I have already stated that I did not deserve. I figure I would be around 90,000 points. How low would you drop?

[Abbey Marie]

http://home.student.uu.se/anhe8197/can_t_we_all_just_get_along.jpg

[manu1959]

i am thinking of forming a rep circle......who's in......

[Dilloduck]

http://home.student.uu.se/anhe8197/can_t_we_all_just_get_along.jpg

Are you kidding !!!!!! :lmao::lmao:

[Dilloduck]

i am thinking of forming a rep circle......who's in......

count me in----- I want lots of this stuff that doesnt matter !!!!! :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

i am thinking of forming a rep circle......who's in......

I think you are the most handsome, fairest, cutest, tallest, smallest, wonderfulest, etc. Please, let me be in the circle...

[82Marine89]

i am thinking of forming a rep circle......who's in......

As long as you don't jerk me around. :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

I get along with you, youre a sweetie


http://home.student.uu.se/anhe8197/can_t_we_all_just_get_along.jpg

[Dilloduck]

As long as you don't jerk me around. :laugh2:

Kathianne gets middle !!!:laugh2:

[Yurt]

i am thinking of forming a rep circle......who's in......

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a335/Spagbol/rep_club.jpg

[manu1959]

I think you are the most handsome, fairest, cutest, tallest, smallest, wonderfulest, etc. Please, let me be in the circle...

sadly the new rep rules preclude me from giving you or mr duck a green square......

[emmett]

i am thinking of forming a rep circle......who's in......

Pick me.......unt.....unt......(hand waving in air).........pick me!!!!!!

[actsnoblemartin]

how about a friend circle instead?


i am thinking of forming a rep circle......who's in......

[manu1959]

Kathianne gets middle !!!:laugh2:

the creamy white filling in the oreo cookie......that is dp

[emmett]

Could I have a double Crown, a small pink pill and a rolling paper please. This conversation about folks wanting to be popular is boring the hell out of me and I need to escape.

[Dilloduck]

the creamy white filling in the oreo cookie......that is dp

:lmao::lmao::lmao:


oh dude---your killing me here

[Dilloduck]

Could I have a double Crown, a small pink pill and a rolling paper please. This conversation about folks wanting to be popular is boring the hell out of me and I need to escape.

heyyyyyy A little rep will get you out of the dumps big, boy !!!!! :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

i am thinking of forming a rep circle......who's in......

I wouldn't agee to circle or any such yet would say that I admire you enough to consider your recommendations. Is that your point?

[manu1959]

I wouldn't agee to circle or any such yet would say that I admire you enough to consider your recommendations. Is that your point?

plausible deniability.....

[emmett]

If we form a rep circle, can we all hold hands? I wanna hold hands with Kathianne and Bonnie and Abbey and Stephanie and Shattered.

Burp!



Bartender, gimme another drink! Please!

[Kathianne]

If we form a rep circle, can we all hold hands? I wanna hold hands with Kathianne and Bonnie and Abbey and Stephanie and Shattered.

Burp!



Bartender, gimme another drink! Please!I'll hold your hand and Manu's, Abbey's , Bonnies-though she's way gone....

[Dilloduck]

If we form a rep circle, can we all hold hands? I wanna hold hands with Kathianne and Bonnie and Abbey and Stephanie and Shattered.

Burp!



Bartender, gimme another drink! Please!



See Abbey----we can all get along !!! Great idea emmett !!!!:clap:

[Dilloduck]

BTW great thread Martin !!! :dance:

[actsnoblemartin]

aww, thank you dillo

I really appreciate it

:salute:


BTW great thread Martin !!! :dance:

[Dilloduck]

aww, thank you dillo

I really appreciate it

:salute:

just consider it your kudos from me in the NEXT wacko thread you started !!!!! :laugh2:

[emmett]

aww, thank you dillo

I really appreciate it

:salute:

It is so nice to see the two of you acting all warm and fuzzy, isn't it everyone?

[Dilloduck]

It is so nice to see the two of you acting all warm and fuzzy, isn't it everyone?

shhhhhhhhhh I'm trying to talk him out of that rainbow t-shirt !! :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

noted :laugh2:, ill try to minimize , preferably eliminate the wackiness


just consider it your kudos from me in the NEXT wacko thread you started !!!!! :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

but i like rainbows :laugh2:


shhhhhhhhhh I'm trying to talk him out of that rainbow t-shirt !! :laugh2:

[manu1959]

if i am forming a circle with abbey and kath and bonnie and steph we ain't holdin hands.....that is for god damn sure....

[actsnoblemartin]

what about a square or rectangle?

:lol:


if i am forming a circle with abbey and kath and bonnie and steph we ain't holdin hands.....that is for god damn sure....

[nevadamedic]

Even though Martin admits it exists?

I have a proposal. How about Jimmy remove the reps that Martin gave to all those folks? Including the reps he gave me which I have already stated that I did not deserve. I figure I would be around 90,000 points. How low would you drop?

Martin obviously feels the need to be a part of something and a need to be accepted so he will say or do anything he can to achieve that status. Nothing wrong with being like that at all, but that is obviously where that and a lot of other things he says comes from.

[Yurt]

Martin obviously feels the need to be a part of something and a need to be accepted so he will say or do anything he can to achieve that status. Nothing wrong with being like that at all, but that is obviously where that and a lot of other things he says comes from.

so you're calling martin a liar?

[nevadamedic]

so you're calling martin a liar?

I'm calling him more then that.

[jimnyc]

repped someone because they were your friend: YES

repped someone because they were your enemy: YES

repped someone cause you agreed with them: YES

repped someone cause you disagree with them: YES

Repped someone, positive or negative because you were asked to: YES

repped someone, because you had an agreement, in the past, or presently, officially or un-officially, to pos rep each other. YES

Be Honest....

I apologize to the entire board for my actions, I will not name any names, I am not a rat, I believe in loyalty, I take full responsibility
There was no excuse, and i accept whatever consequences the mods decide to dish out to me

I've repped friends before, but generally only if they've made an exceptional post. I don't consider those who have a different viewpoint to be my "enemy", but I have neg repped before when I felt someone truly deserved it. I've repped people I have agreed with, but not simply just because I agree, but because they made an exceptional post. I don't neg rep people simply because I disagree with them. I don't rep people upon request, nor have I been asked to anyway. Never had any type of "rep agreement" before.


repped someone because they were your friend: YES

repped someone because they were your enemy: YES

repped someone cause you agreed with them: YES

repped someone cause you disagree with them: YES

Repped someone, positive or negative because you were asked to: HELL NO

repped someone, because you had an agreement, in the past, or presently, officially or un-officially, to pos rep each other. HELL NO

Look I think everybody gives reputations to their friends so what?? If you don't like someone I also don't see anything wrong with taking them down a few notches. I was never a member of a "rep circle" thats just not true.
And I also would like to see the rep system left how it was since I joined.

Here's my "perception" of what the 2 of you have been honest about. I'm not complaining, just trying to get you guys to understand my point of view.

If you send positive reputation to people simply because they are your friends - when they accumulate enough points to make the top list, do they truly deserve to be there just because of who they are friends with?

Do those you consider to be your "enemies" deserve to be "knocked down" for making posts that aren't "trolling or baiting", but more likely for making posts that you just don't like?

Do only people that share your same point of view deserve to be acknowledged for making quality posts? Is that the criteria for a quality post, that they wrote something you agree with?

And why send a negative reputation if you just disagree with someone? Doesn't that go against the whole premise of this board, which is freedom of speech? I can understand if they get testy with you, but why neg rep someone simply for disagreeing?

The idea of any type of "rep agreement" in private is kind of silly. I'd much rather earn my reputation and know that people actually enjoy my posts than think I'm getting reputation as a favor from someone. I've made a post or 2 in the past laughing about my rep and "begging" for reps, but that's meant to be funny and I don't expect members to continually rep me just for the hell of it.

[5stringJeff]

There's nothing wrong with Waterboarding at all.

Except that it's torture. Otherwise, yeah, it's great.

[Gaffer]

He who dies with the most rep wins.

[Dilloduck]

He who dies with the most rep wins.

Are post-mortem reps legal ???? :laugh2:

[Gaffer]

Are post-mortem reps legal ???? :laugh2:

Only if the libs figure out a way to tax em. :laugh2:

[dan]

shhhhhhhhhh I'm trying to talk him out of that rainbow t-shirt !! :laugh2:

You better buy him dinner and get him drunk first! :gay:

[Immanuel]

repped someone because they were your enemy:


What enemies?

I like most people on the boards. Sometimes, I tend to get ticked off at some people, but I can't think of any enemies I have on the board.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

If we form a rep circle, can we all hold hands? I wanna hold hands with Kathianne and Bonnie and Abbey and Stephanie and Shattered.

Burp!



Bartender, gimme another drink! Please!

Emmett! Are you saying you're looking at us beautiful women through beer goggles? :cheers2: :slap: :alcoholic: :D

[nevadamedic]

Except that it's torture. Otherwise, yeah, it's great.

And it gets results. That's all that matters. Why so we care about if were torturing them, did they show compassion when they killed over 3,000 people on 9/11? Nope, I didn't think so.

[Immanuel]

And it gets results. That's all that matters. Why so we care about if were torturing them, did they show compassion when they killed over 3,000 people on 9/11? Nope, I didn't think so.

Feel free to torture the 19 individuals that pulled off 9/11. :lol: You won't get any argument from me on that, but until you prove that the people whom you are speaking of had anything to do with 9/11, well, I just think it is wrong. IMHO

:)

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

Feel free to torture the 19 individuals that pulled off 9/11. :lol: You won't get any argument from me on that, but until you prove that the people whom you are speaking of had anything to do with 9/11, well, I just think it is wrong. IMHO

:)

Immie

What if you have reason to believe they were connected with 9-11, but they continually deny it?

[Immanuel]

What if you have reason to believe they were connected with 9-11, but they continually deny it?

I thought people were innocent until proven guilty? At least that was what they keep telling me... not that I believe it.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

I thought people were innocent until proven guilty? At least that was what they keep telling me... not that I believe it.

Immie

You said if they had something to do with 9-11, then torture was ok, but if they didn't, then it's not. If we 100% sure they are guilty, then we preumably already have the information we need. It's when we do not have all the info that we most need it. How do you propose to find out the information you need to stop an attack, for example, without waiting for a time-consuming future trial to determine guilt? That's just not going to work.

Also, what if they are not really connected with 9-11, but we have some evidence (but no irrefutable proof of guilt) that they may be plotting to blow up the White House? OR JFK airport? Don't those count just as much?

[retiredman]

What if you have reason to believe they were connected with 9-11, but they continually deny it?

you mean like how we invaded Iraq because we had reason to believe he might have WMD's?

What do you say to the poor arab guy who was picked up in error... taken to Gitmo... tortured... only to find out that he really wasn't a terrorist after all?

"Oops... sorry.... here are your fingernails back"?

[Immanuel]

You said if they had something to do with 9-11, then torture was ok, but if they didn't, then it's not. If we 100% sure they are guilty, then we preumablt alread have the information we need. It's when we do not have all the info that we most need it. How do you propose to find out the information you need to stop an attack, for example, without waiting for a time-consuming future trial to determine guilt? That's just not going to work.

Actually I did not say it was okay. Note: I said the 19 who pulled off 9/11. Unless they have been reincarnated or re-animated, it would be a little difficult to torture them. ;)

As for having all the information we need, well, we all know people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit. Ask one of them what they think about your statement.

How would I purpose to stop such an attack? Good question. I wish I had a magic ball that would allow me to predict the future. That would make things so much easier. However, what if you're wrong and the person your torturing has no information? Until we prove a person is involved in terrorism they should be treated as human beings even when they are Muslim or of Middle Eastern decent.



Also, what if they are not really connected with 9-11, but we have some evidence (but no irrefutable proof of guilt) that they may be plotting to blow up the White House? OR JFK airport? Don't those count just as much?

If this were true then the police should be able to bust down your door and arrest you on suspicion that you are planning on murdering your spouse at some point in the future ie just on suspicion not on conspiracy.

Immie

[jackass]

you mean like how we invaded Iraq because we had reason to believe he might have WMD's?

What do you say to the poor arab guy who was picked up in error... taken to Gitmo... tortured... only to find out that he really wasn't a terrorist after all?

"Oops... sorry.... here are your fingernails back"?

Works for me. Its better than :
...and the latest attack on American soil was twice as deadly as the attacks of 9/11.

[Abbey Marie]

you mean like how we invaded Iraq because we had reason to believe he might have WMD's?

What do you say to the poor arab guy who was picked up in error... taken to Gitmo... tortured... only to find out that he really wasn't a terrorist after all?

"Oops... sorry.... here are your fingernails back"?

Why do you assume our intelligence guys are so inept that picking up the wrong guy would be so commonplace as to make it your major concern? That's an unsubstantiated attitude, that looks only at th emost negative possibilites. And before you go all 'WMD' on me, that intelligence was believed and proposed by most if not all of the major intelligence agencies in the world. Why are you so sure WMD's were never there? Do you have evidence of their non-existence? Say I believe they were moved out of Iraq in the endless months in the run up to the war. Prove to us that they were not moved.

Focusing on one imaginary mistaken guy is a deflection. What about all the guys who are correctly picked up? What do you do if you believe they have crucial information that can avoid a major attack on our country, but they refuse to speak? Shrug and say "Oh well..."?

[actsnoblemartin]

you lying piece of garbage, you asked me if we could start repping each other on here and at usmessageboard, and would even go so far as to bitch at me on days where i didnt give you youre double rep here, and youre 4-6 reps there.

My conchence is clear, I have stopped repping you altogether, because you talk shit behind my back, waterrescue's back, and youre rude, mean, and vicious to everyone on this board, youre not worthy of being my friend, let alone anyone's else

Atleast I have the balls to come clean and tell the truth, and accept the consequences, and I wanna gonna leave your name out of it, take all the blame, even if it meant a perma ban, and all my rep lost, but you have to continue to be a no class jerk, a liar, and a mean vile person

Screw you

:fu:


I'm calling him more then that.

[nevadamedic]

you mean like how we invaded Iraq because we had reason to believe he might have WMD's?

What do you say to the poor arab guy who was picked up in error... taken to Gitmo... tortured... only to find out that he really wasn't a terrorist after all?

"Oops... sorry.... here are your fingernails back"?

What about the millions of Iraqui's that were slaughtered? What about the hundreds of women that were raped and murdered by Saddam and his family members and sons? What about the Olympic athletes who were tortured and killed for not placing in the Olympics? What about all the funding, weapons and praise Saddam gave Bin Laden and his bunch of pansies? What about Saddam wanting to control the Middle East with the threat of Nuclear Weapons? What about all the other crimes against humanity that Saddam and his family and sons committed?

You are an idiot the WMD's that Saddam had were only a small part of it. You just let your typical uneducated Liberal hates everything logical attitude tak over. :fu:

:salute:

[nevadamedic]

you lying piece of garbage, you asked me if we could start repping each other on here and at usmessageboard, and would even go so far as to bitch at me on days where i didnt give you youre double rep here, and youre 4-6 reps there.

My conchence is clear, I have stopped repping you altogether, because you talk shit behind my back, waterrescue's back, and youre rude, mean, and vicious to everyone on this board, youre not worthy of being my friend, let alone anyone's else

Atleast I have the balls to come clean and tell the truth, and accept the consequences, and I wanna gonna leave your name out of it, take all the blame, even if it meant a perma ban, and all my rep lost, but you have to continue to be a no class jerk, a liar, and a mean vile person

Screw you

:fu:

You are obviously a compulsive liar and wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face. Go back and watch your porn little boy and let th adult's talk.

[Abbey Marie]

Actually I did not say it was okay. Note: I said the 19 who pulled off 9/11. Unless they have been reincarnated or re-animated, it would be a little difficult to torture them. ;)


Actually, you went beyond the 19 when you typed this:


but until you prove that the people whom you are speaking of had anything to do with 9/11, well, I just think it is wrong. IMHO

It more than implies that if these other people did have anything to do with 9-11, it's ok.




If this were true then the police should be able to bust down your door and arrest you on suspicion that you are planning on murdering your spouse at some point in the future ie just on suspicion not on conspiracy.

Immie

You are comparing enemy combatants with US citizens. Apples and oranges, and not mandated by our Constitution.

Btw, ask any battered woman how she feels about having to wait until her husband/boyfriend actually puts her in ICU, or in the grave, before the police will step in.

[actsnoblemartin]

cant face the truth can you?


You are obviously a compulsive liar and wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face. Go back and watch your porn little boy and let th adult's talk.

[retiredman]

Why do you assume our intelligence guys are so inept that picking up the wrong guy would be so commonplace as to make it your major concern? That's an unsubstantiated attitude, that looks only at th emost negative possibilites. And before you go all 'WMD' on me, that intelligence was believed and proposed by most if not all of the major intelligence agencies in the world. Why are you so sure WMD's were never there? Do you have evidence of their non-existence? Say I believe they were moved out of Iraq in the endless months in the run up to the war. Prove to us that they were not moved.

Focusing on one imaginary mistaken guy is a deflection. What about all the guys who are correctly picked up? What do you do if you believe they have crucial information that can avoid a major attack on our country, but they refuse to speak? Shrug and say "Oh well..."?


Disproving a negative after the fact is really nothing I care to engage in... we were told that there was no doubt about the presence of stockpiles of WMD's. We were told, in fact, that we even knew where they were. Moved? They could have been teleported to an alien spacecraft for that matter....but I don't think that's very likely either. I am betting that they were used or destroyed or became ineffective due to degradation and Saddam didnt want to lose street cred with his neighbors so he continued to bluster about as if he still had them... that doesn't matter. He didn't have them. We had, according to our President, one real mission and that was to disarm Saddam... and we have spent five years, nearly a trillion dollars and 31K dead and wounded to disarm a guy who didn't have arms to begin with... and you seem to be just fine with that.

Regarding torture...It doesn't have to be commonplace. Is torturing innocents only onerous to you if we torture LOTS of them?

In regards to your question: I would use aggressive interrogation techniques that stop just short of torture.

[actsnoblemartin]

From the classy nm


Actually your the liar and you dont want to play this game with me little boy

[Immanuel]

Actually, you went beyond the 19 when you typed this:



It more than implies that if these other people did have anything to do with 9-11, it's ok.

No, it did not imply that... it implied nothing more than that the burden of proof is upon you... see what jumping to conclusions gets you? ;)





You are comparing enemy combatants with US citizens. Apples and oranges, and not mandated by our Constitution.


So, to be accused means one is guilty?

Not mandated by our constitution?

Must the Constitution mandate what is right before we do it?

We are talking about human rights. Rights that President Bush wants you to believe can be removed at any time because of a perceived fear. Rights that every human being is entitled to whether or not he or she is a citizen of the U.S.

And we sure as heck are not talking about what they in the Middle East would do to us if they caught us. I learned that age old statement about two wrongs don't make a right at about 5 years old.


Btw, ask any battered woman how she feels about having to wait until her husband/boyfriend actually puts her in ICU, or in the grave, before the police will step in.

Ask the man whose wife falsely accuses him of beating her what he thinks about the presumption of innocence and fair treatment by those in authority.


Immie

[nevadamedic]

From the classy nm

full disclosure: i neg repped him first: I thought about if i should, and decided to because he was being rude and vile to me

and the little basterd threatens me

Actually your the liar and you dont want to play this game with me little boy

this is what i said in my neg rep: Your a liar, and a cheap shot artist

Yup, I tend to negative rep liars and people who negative rep me.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dislike you, but not enough to risk losing all my rep power and points and/or being perma banned.

You can act like roger clemons all you want, but all i really need to know is my conchence is clear, and I will no longer pos rep or neg rep for no reason, or because they are my friends.

I feel good about myself, and no matter what you call me, or do, im at peace with myself.


Yup, I tend to negative rep liars and people who negative rep me.

[actsnoblemartin]

edited by request

[actsnoblemartin]

edited by request

[Yurt]

Yup, I tend to negative rep liars and people who negative rep me.

dude, everyone knows you belonged to the rep club. last summer OCA ripped you about your low rep when you have such a high post count. immediately thereafter you went on a repping spree from hell.

[MtnBiker]

Yup, I tend to negative rep liars and people who negative rep me.

Are you trying to deny that you and few other members have repped each other to purposely gain rep points?

If you are trying to deny such I suggest you think about doing so. I do have access to rep comments and can prove otherwise.

[JohnDoe]

First and utmost, i rep people when they break the tension and make me laugh, no matter what side of the aisle they are on, wit and humor usually provokes a positive rep by me.

then i rep posts that i agree with or that i think a hidden point is made quite well.

Then sometimes i rep people gbecause i want to say howdy or make another point to their post but do not want to tyoe a post or go in to sending a pm.
(that could be wrong, but i have done this)

all and all, i don't think the rules should change, even if people are abusing it....i am really not a rules kind of person when it comes to message boards.

jd

[Abbey Marie]

No, it did not imply that... it implied nothing more than that the burden of proof is upon you... see what jumping to conclusions gets you? ;)


I didn't jump to conclusions, Immie; I just read what you yourself typed in your post. If you did not mean it the way it read, you need to choose your words more carefully. :>)




So, to be accused means one is guilty?

Not mandated by our constitution?

Must the Constitution mandate what is right before we do it?

We are talking about human rights. Rights that President Bush wants you to believe can be removed at any time because of a perceived fear. Rights that every human being is entitled to whether or not he or she is a citizen of the U.S.

And we sure as heck are not talking about what they in the Middle East would do to us if they caught us. I learned that age old statement about two wrongs don't make a right at about 5 years old.

The Constitution is our best guide for granting Consitutional rights, yes. If you are not protected by the Constitution, because, for example, you are an enemy combatant and not a U.S. citizen, it becomes partly a cost vs. benefit analysis. You think that giving enemy combatants Constitutional rights is a huge and overriding benefit, whereas I think protecting thousands if not millions of innocent American lives from people bent on our destruction, is a the biggest benefit.




Ask the man whose wife falsely accuses him of beating her what he thinks about the presumption of innocence and fair treatment by those in authority.

Immie

Well, at least you are consistent: focusing always on that rarest of beings- those accused, with lots of evidence against them, who turn out to be innocent. It's a lovely utopia to live in, while destruction threatens to rain down around the truly innocent in the real world. (I know that you mean well, though).

I feel confident that all those poor women who live in fear that the shadow behind them, or that knock on the door, will turn out to be the ex who wants to murder them, will likely side with me. As for Mr. Falsely Accused Batterer, the evidence should bear out his side of the story.

[jimnyc]

you lying piece of garbage, you asked me if we could start repping each other on here and at usmessageboard, and would even go so far as to bitch at me on days where i didnt give you youre double rep here, and youre 4-6 reps there.

My conchence is clear, I have stopped repping you altogether, because you talk shit behind my back, waterrescue's back, and youre rude, mean, and vicious to everyone on this board, youre not worthy of being my friend, let alone anyone's else

Atleast I have the balls to come clean and tell the truth, and accept the consequences, and I wanna gonna leave your name out of it, take all the blame, even if it meant a perma ban, and all my rep lost, but you have to continue to be a no class jerk, a liar, and a mean vile person

Screw you

:fu:


You are obviously a compulsive liar and wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face. Go back and watch your porn little boy and let th adult's talk.


Are you trying to deny that you and few other members have repped each other to purposely gain rep points?

If you are trying to deny such I suggest you think about doing so. I do have access to rep comments and can prove otherwise.

Interesting. Martin is angry with NM and makes a post "spilling the beans". NM denies it. The board administrator states he can backup Martin's claims.

Raise your hand if you're surprised! :coffee:

[Immanuel]

The Constitution is our best guide for granting Consitutional rights, yes. If you are not protected by the Constitution, because, for example, you are an enemy combatant and not a U.S. citizen, it becomes partly a cost vs. benefit analysis. You think that giving enemy combatants Constitutional rights is a huge and overriding benefit, whereas I think protecting thousands if not millions of innocent American lives from people bent on our destruction, is a the biggest benefit.

I guess then that in your book the Constitution trumps human rights. It sounds to me like you are saying that if you are not a citizen of the U.S. you are not human and do not have any rights at all.

How long before the U.N. takes that attitude and all countries are forced to conform to its way of thinking or else? God Help Us.


Well, at least you are consistent: focusing always on that rarest of beings- those accused, with lots of evidence against them, who turn out to be innocent. It's a lovely utopia to live in, while destruction threatens to rain down around the truly innocent in the real world. (I know that you mean well, though).

I feel confident that all those poor women who live in fear that the shadow behind them, or that knock on the door, will turn out to be the ex who wants to murder them, will likely side with me. As for Mr. Falsely Accused Batterer, the evidence should bear out his side of the story.

No, I focus on the innocent. Those who the Constitution was written to protect. Those who are accused of crimes that they have not committed. Those who are accused of being terrorists who have done nothing at all against the U.S. or any other nation.

Isn't that just wonderful of you, thinking so highly of "Mr. Falsely Accused Batterer"? Geez, How many years should he rot in jail before he gets heard? 10 years? 20? 50? After all, he is accused he must therefore be guilty juast as any accused terrorist must be a terrorist. After all, no woman would ever falsely accuse her husband of abuse.

I believe that our constitutional rights were developed to protect the innocent from abuses of power not the guilty. They were written to prevent the government from over-stepping its authority. They were written to protect us. AND they were based upon our view of human rights. They are good and right and they should be upheld at all costs.

I will grant you that an Iraqi has no right to any rights granted to American Citizens under the U.S. Constitution. However, that does not preclude us from defending his human rights. Just because he is accused of being a terrorist does not mean it is the case. If he is guilty... "the evidence should bear out" that fact. Why is America so afraid of "the evidence"? Why is it that we conservatives no longer want to live by the rules that were developed to protect the innocent and have served this country so well for 230 years?

I don't give a damned about the terrorist. If he is guilty, the evidence will play out and he will be condemned. I care about the soul of this country. I care about what we have become or are becoming. When we throw out the protections of the U.S. Constitution, we kill the Soul of the United States of America.

Immie

[actsnoblemartin]

I only named NM when he called me a liar, I was willing to take all the blame and punishment,

whatever my punishment is, i take it like a man

Im an honest man now


Interesting. Martin is angry with NM and makes a post "spilling the beans". NM denies it. The board administrator states he can backup Martin's claims.

Raise your hand if you're surprised! :coffee:

[Dilloduck]

I guess then that in your book the Constitution trumps human rights. It sounds to me like you are saying that if you are not a citizen of the U.S. you are not human and do not have any rights at all.

How long before the U.N. takes that attitude and all countries are forced to conform to its way of thinking or else? God Help Us.



No, I focus on the innocent. Those who the Constitution was written to protect. Those who are accused of crimes that they have not committed. Those who are accused of being terrorists who have done nothing at all against the U.S. or any other nation.

Isn't that just wonderful of you, thinking so highly of "Mr. Falsely Accused Batterer"? Geez, How many years should he rot in jail before he gets heard? 10 years? 20? 50? After all, he is accused he must therefore be guilty juast as any accused terrorist must be a terrorist. After all, no woman would ever falsely accuse her husband of abuse.

I believe that our constitutional rights were developed to protect the innocent from abuses of power not the guilty. They were written to prevent the government from over-stepping its authority. They were written to protect us. AND they were based upon our view of human rights. They are good and right and they should be upheld at all costs.

I will grant you that an Iraqi has no right to any rights granted to American Citizens under the U.S. Constitution. However, that does not preclude us from defending his human rights. Just because he is accused of being a terrorist does not mean it is the case. If he is guilty... "the evidence should bear out" that fact. Why is America so afraid of "the evidence"? Why is it that we conservatives no longer want to live by the rules that were developed to protect the innocent and have served this country so well for 230 years?

I don't give a damned about the terrorist. If he is guilty, the evidence will play out and he will be condemned. I care about the soul of this country. I care about what we have become or are becoming. When we throw out the protections of the U.S. Constitution, we kill the Soul of the United States of America.

Immie


Should human rights trump the Constitution ?

[avatar4321]

I only rep people when i like what they say.

I only negative rep people when they act like @$$es

[avatar4321]

Should human rights trump the Constitution ?

nothing should trump the constitution as the law. if people want to trump the constitution, amend it like its set forth.

[Immanuel]

Should human rights trump the Constitution ?

Is the Constitution the supreme law of the world? If so, then why are not all human beings entitled to the protections of the Constitution?

Are we the policemen of the world?

Immie

[Dilloduck]

Is the Constitution the supreme law of the world? If so, then why are not all human beings entitled to the protections of the Constitution?

Are we the policemen of the world?

Immie

That's the point. It's just the American supreme law. You wanna go by UN rules or something ?

[retiredman]

nothing should trump the constitution as the law. if people want to trump the constitution, amend it like its set forth.

I suggest you start, then, by amending article VI.

[Immanuel]

That's the point. It's just the American supreme law. You wanna go by UN rules or something ?

No, the point is that we have no right to force our laws on citizens of other nations and IF we are going to invade another country and force our laws upon them, then we are obligated to treat them humanely. Unless of course you want to be a barbarian nation.

Immie

[Dilloduck]

No, the point is that we have no right to force our laws on citizens of other nations and IF we are going to invade another country and force our laws upon them, then we are obligated to treat them humanely. Unless of course you want to be a barbarian nation.

Immie

What terrible US laws are we forcing on Iraqis ?

[Immanuel]

What terrible US laws are we forcing on Iraqis ?

I don't know, what would you think if an army invaded your homeland, took you captive, moved you to a God-Forsaken Prison on an island you may never have heard of and held you prisoner without any hope of release? Oh, and for what crime? Some trumped up charges of being an enemy combatant against a country that you knew very little about maybe nothing more than the fact that this country is the one that is invading your homeland?

If Russia invaded and took me captive for defending America and refused to give me basic human rights, I wouldn't be too pleased either.

Immie

[Dilloduck]

I don't know, what would you think if an army invaded your homeland, took you captive, moved you to a God-Forsaken Prison on an island you may never have heard of and held you prisoner without any hope of release? Oh, and for what crime? Some trumped up charges of being an enemy combatant against a country that you knew very little about maybe nothing more than the fact that this country is the one that is invading your homeland?

If Russia invaded and took me captive for defending America and refused to give me basic human rights, I wouldn't be too pleased either.

Immie

I would think that the US military and I had temporarily lost. When your a loser in a battle you don't get to demand any kind of treatment.

[JohnDoe]

Dillo and others....

Here is a copy of our Bill of Rights:


Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


NOT ONE of those Rights given in our constitution's Bill of Rights is given SOLELY to a CITIZEN of the United States.


The word "citizen" is not even used, but person and persons is used...

FYI, everyone, according to our constitution is protected by our Bill of Rights if in the united states....legally or illegally.

When we take in prisoners, no matter what country we are in or the prisoners are in when we take them captive, it would seem that we would be required by our Constitution to afford them the same rights that any person in the usa would have because we have taken these people in to our custody?

Also, there is no such thing as an illegal combatant in the Constitution, so WHERE THE HELL did that term come from, and what in the constitution makes the administration say that our constitution does not apply to POW's that we have taken in to our custody? or "illegal combatants" in to our custody?

i guess i just don't git it?

jd

[5stringJeff]

I suggest you start, then, by amending article VI.

I believe that if a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. For example, if the UN passes a treaty banning handgun use, in direct violation of the Constitution, that treaty would not be valid/enforceable.

[JohnDoe]

I believe that if a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. For example, if the UN passes a treaty banning handgun use, in direct violation of the Constitution, that treaty would not be valid/enforceable.We HAVE to sign the treaty Jeff, once it is ratified by the senate via 2/3's yes vote and signed by the president, a treaty is constitutional.

Wrold wide treaties that are not signed and ratified by us do not count and are not constitutional.

jd

[5stringJeff]

We HAVE to sign the treaty Jeff, once it is ratified by the senate via 2/3's yes vote and signed by the president, a treaty is constitutional.

Wrold wide treaties that are not signed and ratified by us do not count and are not constitutional.

jd

The way it works is, the President (or an ambassador) signs the treaty, then it goes to the Senate for ratification. We don't have to sign any treaties we don't want to - and in this example we shouldn't. But even if we did sign and ratify the treaty, it would violate the Second Amendment, and would therefore be unlawful.

[JohnDoe]

The way it works is, the President (or an ambassador) signs the treaty, then it goes to the Senate for ratification. We don't have to sign any treaties we don't want to - and in this example we shouldn't. But even if we did sign and ratify the treaty, it would violate the Second Amendment, and would therefore be unlawful.

i think that would take a suit, and a supreme court decision, ruling it unconstitutional.....otherwise, i think it would supercede the constitution via the constitution.

Every one of those senators voting yes for the ratification and the president for signing the treaty too in your example, should be impeached or removed from office for breaking their oath to defend the constitution imho.

[5stringJeff]

i think that would take a suit, and a supreme court decision, ruling it unconstitutional.....otherwise, i think it would supercede the constitution via the constitution.

Every one of those senators voting yes for the ratification and the president for signing the treaty too in your example, should be impeached or removed from office for breaking their oath to defend the constitution imho.

Nothing supersedes the Constitution. That's my whole point.

[JohnDoe]

Nothing supersedes the Constitution. That's my whole point.

It would temporarily Jeff, until the SC ruled the treaty unconstitutional imo.

We would be bound by the treaty via the Constitution until the treaty were proven to be unconstitutional.

I would hope that there is something in our system that could prevent the treaty from being ratified in the first place since it would violate the 2nd amendment, but i am not certain?

jd

[Immanuel]

I would think that the US military and I had temporarily lost. When your a loser in a battle you don't get to demand any kind of treatment.

So we take over the world, throw everyone who disagrees with us in prison and no one gets any human rights? Are you sure you don't work for the U.N.?

Immie

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

I have had disagreements, and positive repped others....even after name calling and childish behavior.....and then my mom made me sit in the corner.


Disagreement on an issue is not a good reason for neg repping, imo. Abusiveness or nastiness can be.

[Gaffer]

I don't know, what would you think if an army invaded your homeland, took you captive, moved you to a God-Forsaken Prison on an island you may never have heard of and held you prisoner without any hope of release? Oh, and for what crime? Some trumped up charges of being an enemy combatant against a country that you knew very little about maybe nothing more than the fact that this country is the one that is invading your homeland?

If Russia invaded and took me captive for defending America and refused to give me basic human rights, I wouldn't be too pleased either.

Immie

The prisoners in Gitmo are a mix of nationalities that were't defending their country. They were there to attack America. They were fighting US troops. They were in Afghanistan not iraq. They are ALL members of AQ. They were shipped off to Gitmo after extensive questioning to determine their status. Gitmo is a major Naval Base. They are not on a desolate island. How desolate do you think cuba is? They get three meals a day. A place to sleep. A prayer rug and qoran movies, TV, recreation time and a better life than many Americans have. Most are arabs from various middle east countries. They got caught up when we invaded and their train camps were over run.

They are not like you, they don't think like you, dream like you, feel compassion like you. The are the exact opposite of you, if you can imagine that and put yourself in that position.

[Gaffer]

Dillo and others....

Here is a copy of our Bill of Rights:



NOT ONE of those Rights given in our constitution's Bill of Rights is given SOLELY to a CITIZEN of the United States.


The word "citizen" is not even used, but person and persons is used...

FYI, everyone, according to our constitution is protected by our Bill of Rights if in the united states....legally or illegally.

When we take in prisoners, no matter what country we are in or the prisoners are in when we take them captive, it would seem that we would be required by our Constitution to afford them the same rights that any person in the usa would have because we have taken these people in to our custody?

Also, there is no such thing as an illegal combatant in the Constitution, so WHERE THE HELL did that term come from, and what in the constitution makes the administration say that our constitution does not apply to POW's that we have taken in to our custody? or "illegal combatants" in to our custody?

i guess i just don't git it?

jd

Here is a copy of the Preamble. Where it stays WE the people of the United States;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't say a word about foreign peoples rights. Just the people of the US. It's "citizens".

Prisoners taken in war are given the rights of the GC. It wasn't always so. The GC protects POW's the same as the Constitution protects the US citizen.

As for the term illegal combatant. That is a recently invented term. A PC way of saying enemy soldier captured in the war. But since AQ is not a country they have to call them something besides solder. They have to treat them like prisoners of war when they are really nothing more than thugs. Instead of going after the countries these thugs come from we go after the thugs themselves. The countries they come from claim to be fighting these thugs and are allied with us. These same countries don't want the thugs back when we capture them.

This country is run by lawyers, which is why we have silly terms like illegal combatant. It's why this country will fail in this war until the lawyer shackles are removed and we can fight it the proper way.

And for everyones information. IRAQ is a FRONT in the overall war with islam. It is a global war and every country in the world is involved in some way. Appeasement, compromise and PC are all just roads to defeat lined with lawyers.

[JohnDoe]

Here is a copy of the Preamble. Where it stays WE the people of the United States;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't say a word about foreign peoples rights. Just the people of the US. It's "citizens".

Prisoners taken in war are given the rights of the GC. It wasn't always so. The GC protects POW's the same as the Constitution protects the US citizen.

As for the term illegal combatant. That is a recently invented term. A PC way of saying enemy soldier captured in the war. But since AQ is not a country they have to call them something besides solder. They have to treat them like prisoners of war when they are really nothing more than thugs. Instead of going after the countries these thugs come from we go after the thugs themselves. The countries they come from claim to be fighting these thugs and are allied with us. These same countries don't want the thugs back when we capture them.

This country is run by lawyers, which is why we have silly terms like illegal combatant. It's why this country will fail in this war until the lawyer shackles are removed and we can fight it the proper way.

And for everyones information. IRAQ is a FRONT in the overall war with islam. It is a global war and every country in the world is involved in some way. Appeasement, compromise and PC are all just roads to defeat lined with lawyers.

But Gaffer, what constituted them being citizens at the time of the Constitution? We didn't have a Consitution yet, people in the united states, in the various different states, that joined were from all over the place, they were British and Germans and French by roots in some cases?

I think it covered anyone here, in the united states of America, because the Constitution SPECIFICALLY NOTES, when citizenship is required....like to be president of the united states, and to be a Senator it states you must have been a citizen of that state for at least 14 years or something like that, it might have been 7 years, or a citizen in order to have the right to vote if over...NOW 18 yrs old, (it was later than that in the beginning but an amendment to the constitution was drawn to give 18 year olds the right to vote....btw, i just learned that today on this awesome site on the Constitution i found! :) )

My point being, the Constitution specifically mentions when it applies only to citizens, otherwise it applies to anyone on our soil....imho....at least at this stage in my "self imposed Study"!:laugh2:

jd

[Gaffer]

But Gaffer, what constituted them being citizens at the time of the Constitution? We didn't have a Consitution yet, people in the united states, in the various different states, that joined were from all over the place, they were British and Germans and French by roots in some cases?

I think it covered anyone here, in the united states of America, because the Constitution SPECIFICALLY NOTES, when citizenship is required....like to be president of the united states, and to be a Senator it states you must have been a citizen of that state for at least 14 years or something like that, it might have been 7 years, or a citizen in order to have the right to vote if over...NOW 18 yrs old, (it was later than that in the beginning but an amendment to the constitution was drawn to give 18 year olds the right to vote....btw, i just learned that today on this awesome site on the Constitution i found! :) )

My point being, the Constitution specifically mentions when it applies only to citizens, otherwise it applies to anyone on our soil....imho....at least at this stage in my "self imposed Study"!:laugh2:

jd

Everything has a beginning. It was written to include all those who lived in the colonies at the time. All colonists became US citizens. There were already many generations of colonists here. The years of being a citizen was to protect the country from someone coming from another country and acquiring a position of power. Especially Englishmen.

The voting age being lowered was a good thing. If a man could be drafted and fight in a war, he should be allowed to vote. However it was also designed to increase the number of people who would vote democrat as it created a huge voting block that the dems had been playing too for years up to that point.

[nevadamedic]

Gitmo is a much needed base and prison.

[82Marine89]

Martin obviously feels the need to be a part of something and a need to be accepted so he will say or do anything he can to achieve that status. Nothing wrong with being like that at all, but that is obviously where that and a lot of other things he says comes from.

Did you have a rep agreement with Martin? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Said1]

All this fuss over rep points? :lame2:

[82Marine89]

All this fuss over rep points? :lame2:

Let's talk about boobies. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/whemoticons/sex/titties.gif

[Dilloduck]

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER !!!!!

[Kathianne]

Everything has a beginning. It was written to include all those who lived in the colonies at the time. All colonists became US citizens. There were already many generations of colonists here. The years of being a citizen was to protect the country from someone coming from another country and acquiring a position of power. Especially Englishmen.

The voting age being lowered was a good thing. If a man could be drafted and fight in a war, he should be allowed to vote. However it was also designed to increase the number of people who would vote democrat as it created a huge voting block that the dems had been playing too for years up to that point.

What he said plus, they were working at the time under the Articles of Confederation, (which gave them barely enough authority to have the Convention and write the Constitution), and had just won the Revolutionary War, cutting all ties with England.

[MtnBiker]

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER !!!!!

boobies don't matter?

[Dilloduck]

Let's talk about boobies. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/whemoticons/sex/titties.gif

Talk hell-----we need a booby pic forum !!! :dance:

[Said1]

Let's talk about boobies. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/whemoticons/sex/titties.gif

Sure. How big are yours?

[Dilloduck]

Sure. How big are yours?

eeeewwwwwww not man boobies again !!!!!! :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Did you have a rep agreement with Martin? A simple yes or no will suffice.

since he has already stated he has told me the answer:

his answer was "no"

i think its pretty clear who is telling the truth and who is not on this thread. acts volunteered this information against his best interest, e.g., he had nothing to gain to by it. acts did not call NM on it until NM called him a liar. then and only then did acts name NM.

there is a legal maxim (latin phrase) that applies:

uoya effa iriara

[5stringJeff]

It would temporarily Jeff, until the SC ruled the treaty unconstitutional imo.

We would be bound by the treaty via the Constitution until the treaty were proven to be unconstitutional.

I would hope that there is something in our system that could prevent the treaty from being ratified in the first place since it would violate the 2nd amendment, but i am not certain?

jd

So, if the UN passed a treaty, subsequently signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, that stated that all the governmental power of the US would be invested in a dictator for life, would the Congress then be dissolved until the Supreme Court heard the case? Would the Supreme court be dissolved, and the dictator "hear" the case?

[82Marine89]

Sure. How big are yours?

Want a link to a photo of them? :cheers2:

[JohnDoe]

So, if the UN passed a treaty, subsequently signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, that stated that all the governmental power of the US would be invested in a dictator for life, would the Congress then be dissolved until the Supreme Court heard the case? Would the Supreme court be dissolved, and the dictator "hear" the case?

I will repeat.... I would hope that there is something in place that would prevent such a treaty being signed/ratified...as that it would be unconstitutional...maybe the Supreme Court steps in before ratification???

Do you know if there is a procedure to stop it from being ratified ahead of time?

if it can not legally be stopped, then i would surmise by revolt of the people!!!!!


Jeff, it is hard for me to speculate on your scenario because i can't imagine that something like that would ever be ratified in the first place without a revolution taking place by the people.

BUT, as you said, it would not be constitutional, and would not usurp the constitution, so, i guess i am agreeing with you! :salute:

jd

[manu1959]

I will repeat.... I would hope that there is something in place that would prevent such a treaty being signed/ratified...as that it would be unconstitutional...maybe the Supreme Court steps in before ratification???
Do you know if there is a procedure to stop it from being ratified ahead of time?
if it can not legally be stopped, then i would surmise by revolt of the people!!!!!
Jeff, it is hard for me to speculate on your scenario because i can't imagine that something like that would ever be ratified in the first place without a revolution taking place by the people.
BUT, as you said, it would not be constitutional, and would not usurp the constitution, so, i guess i am agreeing with you! :salute:
jd

you should google un treaties that the us is a party to....nothing as drastic as jeffs scenario but troublesome none the less.....

[5stringJeff]

BUT, as you said, it would not be constitutional, and would not usurp the constitution, so, i guess i am agreeing with you! :salute:

jd

That's my point exactly! :thumb:

[MtnBiker]

Yup, I tend to negative rep liars and people who negative rep me.

Are you trying to deny that you and few other members have repped each other to purposely gain rep points?

If you are trying to deny such I suggest you think about doing so. I do have access to rep comments and can prove otherwise.


Hey Nevadamedic, any comment on this post??

[Kathianne]

Are you trying to deny that you and few other members have repped each other to purposely gain rep points?

If you are trying to deny such I suggest you think about doing so. I do have access to rep comments and can prove otherwise.


Hey Nevadamedic, any comment on this post??

and still doing so? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Are you trying to deny that you and few other members have repped each other to purposely gain rep points?

If you are trying to deny such I suggest you think about doing so. I do have access to rep comments and can prove otherwise.


Hey Nevadamedic, any comment on this post??

:dance:

[jackass]

Going.....Going.....

[actsnoblemartin]

Gone :poop:


Going.....Going.....

[nevadamedic]

Are you trying to deny that you and few other members have repped each other to purposely gain rep points?

If you are trying to deny such I suggest you think about doing so. I do have access to rep comments and can prove otherwise.


Hey Nevadamedic, any comment on this post??

Actually I would rep the people I like and if I was attacked maliciously I would negative rep them and burn reps so I could negative rep them again, just like several members who are in this thread talking shit have done to me.

[Yurt]

:popcorn:

[MtnBiker]

Actually I would rep the people I like and if I was attacked maliciously I would negative rep them and burn reps so I could negative rep them again, just like several members who are in this thread talking shit have done to me.

Then explain why you repped another member and in your comment you ask for rep back so you (yourself and the other member) can rule the board?

And later the same member repped you and the comment was "shoot me some back and we will soon own the board"?

Explain that.

[dan]

Then explain why you repped another member and in your comment you ask for rep back so you (yourself and the other member) can rule the board?

And later the same member repped you and the comment was "shoot me some back and we will soon own the board"?

Explain that.

This oughta be good....

[hjmick]

Ruh Roh Raggy...

[Yurt]

:popcorn:

[MtnBiker]

Actually I would rep the people I like and if I was attacked maliciously I would negative rep them and burn reps so I could negative rep them again, just like several members who are in this thread talking shit have done to me.

Then explain why you repped another member and in your comment you ask for rep back so you (yourself and the other member) can rule the board?

And later the same member repped you and the comment was "shoot me some back and we will soon own the board"?

Explain that.

[dan]

Then explain why you repped another member and in your comment you ask for rep back so you (yourself and the other member) can rule the board?

And later the same member repped you and the comment was "shoot me some back and we will soon own the board"?

Explain that.

*crickets chirping*

I don't think he's coming back.

[5stringJeff]

Then explain why you repped another member and in your comment you ask for rep back so you (yourself and the other member) can rule the board?

And later the same member repped you and the comment was "shoot me some back and we will soon own the board"?

Explain that.

Ha!

http://www.owned.com/Owned_Pictures/Owned_Mouse.jpg

[MtnBiker]

nevadamedic's explaination;


Besides posting what someone said to me in a Rep comment doesn't prove anything.


nevadamedic you should consider how this presents yourself to the board and what effect that it may have on the perception of the rest of your posts.

[Yurt]

what someone else said? he said it too.

[actsnoblemartin]

Expecting nm to be honest is like expecting barry bonds to come clean about steroids... not gonna happen :coffee:


what someone else said? he said it too.