Originally posted by PVS
i just said i do occasionally watch his show.
what would i know? what the hell would YOU know about what i watch?i anxiously await your half witted response....
Calm down PVS, go take your prozac and come back here and post. Your always getting so touchy when you post, relax, its just the internet 🙄
Originally posted by mr.smiley
Loader or not,she didn't answer.
She couldn't answer the question because the question wasn't right.
If she said no he would have claimed a victory if she said yes he would have said she wanted to protect terrorist. She was trying to explain her point and he didn't give her the time to do it. He sucks as a debater
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Why shouldn't they get lawyers? People who are accused of terrorism deserve fair trials just like anyone else.
correct!
but oreilly's question was based on the assumption that everyone held at guantanimo bay is a terrorist, and that its just IMPOSSIBLE for any innocent people to be held there.
she argued that lawyers should investigate to find out who doesnt belong there.
he consistantly cut her off and put words in her mouth, insisting that she wants to protect terrorists and allow them a chance to beat the system, pushing a cheap 'hot button'. all rednecks in unison then say "DEM DAMN LAWYERS IZ WRECKIN DIS COUNTRY!!!! NOW DEY WANNA HELP DEM TERRORISTS!!!"
Originally posted by mr.smiley
Maybe if accused.But if they admit it,i don't think they should have a trial.
Admitting to it under pressure...
They would never admit when the interrogates just ask "Are you a terrorist" "Oh yeah sure." You think that happens? Those guys deserve lawyers because they are accused of something
Originally posted by PVSBut really the only way to filter out the innocent from the guilty would be to give them all a fair shot at pleading there case, so terrorists should have the right to a lawyer. Really the right answer to his question was yes, she should've just said it instead of worrying about his reaction.
correct!but oreilly's question was based on the assumption that everyone held at guantanimo bay is a terrorist, and that its just IMPOSSIBLE for any innocent people to be held there.
she argued that lawyers should investigate to find out who doesnt belong there.
he consistantly cut her off and put words in her mouth, insisting that she wants to protect terrorists and allow them a chance to beat the system, pushing a cheap 'hot button'. all rednecks in unison then say "DEM DAMN LAWYERS IZ WRECKIN DIS COUNTRY!!!! NOW DEY WANNA HELP DA TERRORISTS!!!"
You know, I just got done jamming to Rage Against T3h Machine's "killing in the name of" and it made me realize something. Something my dream told me but I have to remind myself every so often, politics is just the force manifest into concoiunce thought. You only fight cause you're differant, and you only seek to destroy eachother cause you're both immortal.
Wether it's killing babies in an abortion clinic in the name of freedom..
Or killing innocent people in another country in the name of God..
You both inevitably are your own worst enemy. Liberals will always have massive numbers, swarming around thier next victom and poisening them with lies and scorn.
Conservatives will always be the rare but large and quite strong T-Rex, trampeling everything beneath it's feet because everything else is lesser then.
Both think the other is stupid. Look at that reptillian, he thinks he's so great.
Look at those ants, slaves to thier precious queen and biological urges.
Both just want one thing: Survival.
Not just of thier petty lives, but of thier precious thoughts. When we die we want to know our thoughts didn't leave us, and just as we give birth to children to countinue the cycle, so too we implant our thoughts so the wheel moves foward. Our karma can never die, the very notion is maddening.
Killing in the name of..
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
But really the only way to filter out the innocent from the guilty would be to give them all a fair shot at pleading there case, so terrorists should have the right to a lawyer. Really the right answer to his question was yes, she should've just said it instead of worrying about his reaction.
No she shouldn't have...
Because to become a terrorist you must first be proven guilty. You are not a murderer until you are proven guilty until that time you are a suspect nothing more.
If she said he could have made it into sounding like she wanted already convicted Terrorist to have a lawyer. Which IMO is not a bad idea, but something that just isn't going to be popular
That's not really true. The second you kill somebody, you are a murderer.
They should give them all an equal chance to plead their case, some of them are terrorists and some of them aren't. Inevitably, you'd have to give terrorists lawyers too cause you won't know who's a terrorist and who's not until they prove their case. And even after they are proven guitly, they should have the right to a lawyer just like a murderer after they are proven guilty. If she agrees with this, the answer to his question would be yes. If she doesn't, the answer was no.
She didn't choose either. She dodged the question. Yeah if she answered he would've just claimed victory either way but it doesn't matter cause any outsider with a brain who watched it afterwards would know who really won the debate. Besides, he just ended up claiming victory on account of her dodging the question anyway. She should've just said her piece and then let him give his little victory speach.