[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

From NBC? LMFAO!

(The report is about what he said in an NBC interview - just in case you missed that - you know the "thrill up my leg when Obama speaks" network?)

You keep spinning this hard and you're gonna puke from dizziness.

NBC owns New York Post and Real Clear Politics?

You do know there are conservatives working at NBC right?

Chris Matthews is not a liberal.

[The Final Dakar]

Judging from their comedy ratings, yeah.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

NBC owns New York Post and Real Clear Politics?

You do know there are conservatives working at NBC right?

The New York Post and RCP are reporting on the interview NBC had with Obama.

And name ONE Conservative at NBC - just one.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The point, Hyteckit, that you are apparently deliberately missing is that even the INTERVIEWER had to ASK for clarification.

I'll grant you that. However, these are the relevant facts IMO:

1. President Obama's statement could reasonably be interpreted as being conditional (or not).

2. Clarification was asked for (as was proper) and given.

3. The headline from the NY Post was inaccurate on its face and misleading. Instead of quoting the President directly, they chose to change the words to make it more likely that they would be interpreted as non-conditional .... even though the President had already clarified his statements to the contrary.

And in light of that, the point of this thread is what exactly?

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The New York Post and RCP are reporting on the interview NBC had with Obama.

And name ONE Conservative at NBC - just one.

The New York Post and RCP are NOT reporting. They are DISTORTING.


I think you meant MSNBC.

Joe Scarborough

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I thought that much was obvious.

I think Laminar is either in love with me or stalking me. Maybe both.

Laminar post twice in this thread. Both times about me and nothing about the topic.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Chris Matthews is not a liberal.

Since when?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

What do you expect the Attorney General (who is untimately in charge of this prosecution) and his boss to say? If Holder and Obama weren't speaking with such certainty, wouldn't those of you who don't agree with the decision be getting on their case anyway?

You can argue with whether we should be trying KSM in a civillian court or a military court if you like. But now that the decision is made, you can hardly fault the prosecution for speaking confidently that they have a case.

I expect him and his boss to say that the man will get his day in court, regardless of their feelings. They should learn to STFU.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And in light of that, the point of this thread is what exactly?

OAW

the point?

1. Obama is an idiot who stuck his foot in his mouth again.

or

2. He doesn't understand due process and the rule of law.

Take your pick.

[turtle777]

Why can't it be both ?

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why can't it be both ?

-t

Well, it is both, but getting to admit to that is impossible.

[OAW]

What I said early bears repeating ....

Originally Posted by OAW

Only in the minds of a right-winger does confidence in the strength of the prosecution's case become a problem when it's expressed by someone who is not.

You guys are in here quibbling over the word when. But the fact of the matter is that prosecutors all over this country on a daily basis say "the people will show .....", "the accused will be convicted ....", "our case will be successful ...."

Yet not one of you will argue that the prosecutor is stacking the deck or that such a statement interferes with the due process of law. At some point blind partisanship crosses the line into pure foolishness. Clearly there are those of you who passed that point quite some time ago on this topic.

OAW

[Shaddim]

I've not heard a prosecutor say that a person will be convicted, ever. Besides, when did Barry become the prosecution for this case?

Foolishness is Obama being too much or an ignorant tw*t to know what he should, or shouldn't, say.

[OAW]

Dude ... by law a prosecutor is not even supposed to take a case to trial if s/he is not reasonably confident that there case will result in a conviction.

Besides, President Obama's statement in no way made him the "prosecution". He simply stated the obvious. Which is that that (if and) when KSM is convicted all those who are having a hissy fit over a civilian trial won't have sh*t else to say about the topic. They'll just find something else to nitpick about.

OAW

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The New York Post and RCP are NOT reporting. They are DISTORTING.


I think you meant MSNBC.

Joe Scarborough

Joe Scarborough is a RINO - not a Conservative.
He's as Conservative as you are.

[Shaddim]

Obvious that the guy will be convicted. Obvious that he shouldn't even be tried. Right? ****, let's just take the dude out back and put a slug in his head and save the taxpayers some $$$. Hell, I'll even pull the trigger if you're too squeamish.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Joe Scarborough is a RINO - not a Conservative.
He's as Conservative as you are.

Conservatives don't exist. They are imaginary creatures.

I mean, how can anyone in real life be so crazy and idiotic as these imaginary "Conservatives".

Conservatives think Pres. Obama is a Muslim.
Conservatives think Pres. Obama is born in Kenya.
Conservatives think Pres. Obama said "KSM will be convicted and executed".

To be a conservative, you must ignore facts and live on some fantasy world and believe in all these idiotic fictional things.

Haha...

[Macrobat]

You obviously have NO clue what a Conservative thinks.

You just project what you THINK they think.

Then attempt your version of humor.

Conservatives believe in small, fiscally responsible government, self-sufficience and the rule of law.

Live your own life, be respectful of others living theirs, the government is not the nanny who is responsible for supplying everything.


Pretty much everything Liberals don't.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You obviously have NO clue what a Conservative thinks.

You just project what you THINK they think.

Then attempt your version of humor.

Conservatives believe in small, fiscally responsible government, self-sufficience and the rule of law.

Live your own life, be respectful of others living theirs, the government is not the nanny who is responsible for supplying everything.


Pretty much everything Liberals don't.

Joe Scarborough received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.

Just because Joe Scarborough isn't as crazy and derange as Glenn Beck, doesn't mean Joe Scarborough isn't a conservative.

[Macrobat]

Gee, rated conservative by a lobbying group - geeeeee.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Gee, rated conservative by a lobbying group - geeeeee.

Gee.. ACU sponsors CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) where Rush Limbaugh was a the speaker in 2009.

I get it. Conservatives don't exist. Just imaginary creatures.

I know.

[Macrobat]

They rated him that way when he was a sitting Congressman, based solely on his voting record.

Even that great liberal icon the Huffington Post knows he is no longer any such thing:

How Joe Scarborough Went From Conservative Congressman To Liberal Favorite Talk Show Host

Hate to break it to you, but Glenn Beck - himself - says he is NOT a Conservative, he is a Constitutional Libertarian.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

They rated him that way when he was a sitting Congressman, based solely on his voting record.

Even that great liberal icon the Huffington Post knows he is no longer any such thing:

How Joe Scarborough Went From Conservative Congressman To Liberal Favorite Talk Show Host

Hate to break it to you, but Glenn Beck - himself - says he is NOT a Conservative, he is a Constitutional Libertarian.

Like I've said, there are no conservatives.

Conservatives are imaginary creatures.

CPAC and ACU are imaginary conservative organizations awarding imaginary conservatives.

It's all a scam.

Conservatives don't exist.

[Macrobat]

Much like intelligent Liberals don't exist?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Much like intelligent Liberals don't exist?

Imaginary conservatives don't believe there are intelligent liberals.

[Macrobat]

Well, you're well on your way to convincing them differently.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Well, you're well on your way to convincing them differently.

What's the point of convincing imaginary creatures? It's like trying to convince Leprechaun and unicorns that humans exist.

Only imaginary conservatives can convince imaginary conservatives.

Here's how it works.

imaginary conservative ebuddy says: Obama, speaking brilliantly says "KSM will be convicted and executed".

imaginary conservative shaddim response: Obama is an idiot for saying "KSM will be convicted and executed". Obvious that the guy will be convicted. Obvious that he shouldn't even be tried. Right? ****, let's just take the dude out back and put a slug in his head and save the taxpayers some $$$. Hell, I'll even pull the trigger if you're too squeamish.


See? That's how imaginary conservatives convince other imaginary conservatives.


Fact is Pres. Obama never said "KSM will be convicted and executed". But facts are in the real world.

Imaginary conservatives like ebuddy and Shaddim operate in the imaginary world. Facts are irrelevant in the imaginary world where there imaginary conservatives operate.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

... [not quote worthy] ...

Fact is, you are a word-twisting Liberal.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Fact is, you are a word-twisting Liberal.

-t

Fact is that I enjoy eating turtles for breakfast. They have a juicy but tiny brain.

[hyteckit]

Democrats won an election.

Imaginary conservatives: Voter Fraud. ACORN. ACORN. Voter Fraud.

Poll: Majority Of Republicans Don't Think Obama Won 2008 Election

Only 27% of Republicans think Obama won the Presidency legitimately. Haha..

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Fact is, you are a word-twisting Liberal.

-t

So that would put him about on a level with Glenn Beck claiming he's not a conservative?

[Big Mac]

I think Glenn Beck clearly defines himself as conservative. He says he isn't a Republican, and that's at least somewhat credible because he seldom if ever endorses Republicans.

Btw, for those who aren't keeping track, this thread went double retard on the retarded thread scale pretty early on.

Chuckit, the problem with the President and the A.G. saying on national TV that they're assuring a conviction is that defense attorneys will claim the entire national jury pool has been prejudiced against their client as a result, and they will move to get all the charges thrown out. Putting this in civilian court guarantees a legal circus. I'd have more faith in a MacNN Forums Tribunal at this point.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Dude, it's sad. Did you not finish high school?

turtle will finally get a job when he finally finishes high school.

I don't think turtle will finish high school though.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

I was warned by a mod for a similar statement. Just letting you know.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Imaginary conservatives like ebuddy and Shaddim operate in the imaginary world. Facts are irrelevant in the imaginary world where there imaginary conservatives operate.

Your shameless attempt at defending the indefensible is noted. You need to learn the art of spin my friend. This isn't imaginary conservatism. This is simply "unbrilliant" speaking. Have you ever heard the phrase "it's not a matter of if, but when."? One implies future potential, the other implies future fact. Obama, former president of Harvard Law Review and teacher of constitutional law; tried, convicted, and sentenced KSM to death. He predicted the outcome of the case by using the word "when" which implies something of fact in the future. He knew this when he immediately backpedaled trying to claim he wasn't prejudging the case- after he prejudged the case. He did so while the sitting Attorney General assured his audience that these cases cannot fail- Failure is not an option.

How can one be presumed innocent when the POTUS and the US Attorney General not only presume guilt, but claim conviction is the expected outcome and nothing else is an option? Because neither one of them are interested in due process near as much as they are saying what they think people want to hear and facilitating the subsequent dog and pony show that will distract the populace from this Administration's failed ideology in practice.

Are they really trying to suggest that a military trial would be less fair than this public lynching?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You guys are in here quibbling over the word when. But the fact of the matter is that prosecutors all over this country on a daily basis say "the people will show .....", "the accused will be convicted ....", "our case will be successful ...."

Holden didn't say this. The POTUS said this. Holden spoke like a prosecutor, Obama spoke like someone unfamiliar with the principle of presumed innocence.

Yet not one of you will argue that the prosecutor is stacking the deck or that such a statement interferes with the due process of law. At some point blind partisanship crosses the line into pure foolishness. Clearly there are those of you who passed that point quite some time ago on this topic.

Certainly you understand that blind partisanship is not a novel accusation in light of the amount of spin necessary for the blindly partisan to lodge it. My first complaint was of the POTUS, who is of course not the prosecutor. The complaint of the OP (if I do say so myself) is that this is nothing more than a dog and pony show as evidenced by the premature trial, conviction, and sentencing of the "presumed innocent" on an NBC news interview. You can't have it both ways.

You cannot defend your choice to employ American judicial integrity from the highest, most public office on the globe by undermining it before it has been applied.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So the reason it's bad that Obama did this is because a horrible mass murderer lost his trial after claiming another president did something kind of similar. Do you even read this stuff before you post it? Would you care this much if it had been Bush or McCain boasting?

huh? Just read the first paragraph if you need to make it easier. The other stuff is just red meat to piss off Obamatons... and confuse mods (I guess).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Congratulations on attacking the messenger without addressing the message.

Have you never complained about the bias of the media? That's *also* attacking the messenger without addressing the message.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Here's the link Macrobat provide.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama Expresses Confidence KSM Will Be Convicted; Says He Isn't "Prejudging" Verdict

Pres. Obama even clarifies what he meant.

Obama: I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

Obama: Look — what I said was people will not be offended IF that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging, I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury.

I hate "Gotcha Journalism".

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your shameless attempt at defending the indefensible is noted. You need to learn the art of spin my friend. This isn't imaginary conservatism. This is simply "unbrilliant" speaking. Have you ever heard the phrase "it's not a matter of if, but when."? One implies future potential, the other implies future fact.

The fact that you chose to totally ignore the comments that I and others posted that clearly demonstrated that the word when also implies conditionality in certain contexts is duly noted.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your shameless attempt at defending the indefensible is noted. You need to learn the art of spin my friend. This isn't imaginary conservatism. This is simply "unbrilliant" speaking. Have you ever heard the phrase "it's not a matter of if, but when."? One implies future potential, the other implies future fact.

'when' is use in place of 'if' as a conditional statement because 'when' is a more concise and definitive term which it limited to time or an event.

'if' is more general and broad.
'when' is more concise and definitive.

[The Final Dakar]

Give it up hyteckit. The mark of a good orator is this kind of debate over intended meaning isn't possible from a simple statement he gives.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

'when' is use in place of 'if' as a conditional statement because 'when' is a more concise and definitive term which it limited to time or an event.

'if' is more general and broad.
'when' is more concise and definitive.

And what part of limited to time don't you understand ?

This is what I was saying all along.

-t

[hyteckit]

Never underestimate the insanity of the imaginary conservative base.

Joe Scarborough is not a conservative. I don't care if Joe Scarborough says he's a conservative.
Glenn Beck is not a conservative. I don't care if Glenn Beck says he's a conservative.
George W. Bush is not a conservative. I don't care if George W. Bush says he's a conservative.

Liberals run the media, the schools, and everything in the world.

Pres. Obama is a Muslim. I don't care if Obama said he's a Christian. He's a "secret" Muslim.

Pres. Obama is not born in the US. I don't care if Obama showed his birth certificate. It's not his "live" birth certificate.
Pres.

Pres. Obama said "KSM will be convicted and executed". I don't care if Obama had to clarified what he meant so people don't misinterpret his meaning. I'm going to interpret the way I want and not base it on some video of what Pres. Obama said on liberal media.


See, that's how the imaginary conservatives think.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And what part of limited to time don't you understand ?

This is what I was saying all along.

-t

So you agree that both 'if' and 'when' can be use as a conditional clause, but 'when' is more concise and definitive.

[Chongo]

Depends on what the meaning of is is

[ebuddy]

To forum Obamatons in full-on spin mode:

If one expresses offense or concern over the notion of these henchmen being granted the legal rights and privileges of a US citizen through a civilian trial and you respond to me with; "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." you are attempting to assuage my concern by claiming that he will be convicted and executed. Period. There is no parsing of words, there is no "when does when become if".

- Obama: I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

- Translation: There's nothing to worry about here, you'll see. When he's convicted and executed you'll have a little more faith in applying our judicial system to terrorists.

- Meaning: It's not about displaying the integrity of the US judicial system, civil rights, Habeas Corpus, and presumption of innocence because of course none of those are reasonably expected in a combat theatre and because we've already tried, convicted, and executed the presumed guilty from the highest, most public office in the land in order to assuage those who needed their ears massaged. What's left? The dog and pony show. We opted out of denigrating the CIA by exposing memos and photographs so we'll get them with a dog and pony show; a terrorist trial extravaganza. This will make an excellent distraction for the next piece of highly unpopular legislation we'll jam down the populace throat.

One more time for clarity;

• child: Dad, I'm concerned I won't have a car of my own.
• Father: you won't be concerned when we're at the car dealership and you have a set of keys to a new car in your hand.
• child: Really?!?
• Father: No you silly, naive little damaged thing. I meant, IF you're at a dealership SOMEDAY, it's because you might be shopping for cars.
• child: