SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#548 Mar 14, 2013
I wonder how they would react given the scenario of a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, on American soil that had been avoiding capture while sporadically bombing killing large numbers of people along with property and the only way to get them before once again avoiding capture was using drones.
Let it keep happening because drones are the wrong way to end the destruction?

I'm not worried about the use of drones against American citizens the way they are. But I can't help but believe they would be calling for drones if that were the only way, or even quickest way to end the widespread terrorist devastation on American soil.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#549 Mar 14, 2013
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>LOL!
Youve made more posts in the last month.
Are you counting?
How many do you have under your registerd name?
Nice try though!
Epic Fail.
Your such a sophisticated oaf. Guess you have nothing better to do but come on here with or superficial postings, make your ridiculous claims, and think that its just all fine and dandy? Is that it?
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#550 Mar 14, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>You certainly are fixated on the number of posts. Why don't you grow a pair and register? Scared that your constant stalking and haranguing of people would warrant the same treatment? What a child you are.
and you said Hitler was a Jewish, born of Jewish parents.

And I asked you to cite your sources.

Still waiting.

And you're twisting and misinterpreting what Holder said so that you can sit on your ass at a keyboard and find fault with he and Obama over this stupid b.s. you and other crackpots have dreamt up regarding presidential powers to defend Americans against attacks on American soil by terrorists who happen to be Americans.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#551 Mar 14, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
What's amazing to me is crackpots like you who see no problem with this and think it would be lawful. Fortunately, you and others on Topix like you, represent a very small minority of Americans.
Your turn to provide credible citations that show it's lawful and constitutional for the POTUS or any 'high level official' to order the execution of a citizen without due process for any reason at all. McCarthy, anyone? You're good at demanding credible sources, cough some up yourself.
Oh...and as for your 'credible information', remember that we had 'credible information' that Iraq had WMD...credible enough that both sides of the aisle believed it. Just goes to show you, credible doesn't always equal infallible.
Powers of the president to order the execution a citizens without due process and for any reason at all? you are f'n nuts. Without any reason at all? Is that what this is all about, you goofy SOB? Do you realize how crazy you sound here?
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#552 Mar 14, 2013
and because both sides of the aisle believed the liars Bush and Cheney and the others in his administration about Iraqi WMD that what they were putting forth as justification for war was CREDIBLE?

you are really f'n nuts guy.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#553 Mar 14, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
I wonder how they would react given the scenario of a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, on American soil that had been avoiding capture while sporadically bombing killing large numbers of people along with property and the only way to get them before once again avoiding capture was using drones.
Let it keep happening because drones are the wrong way to end the destruction?
I'm not worried about the use of drones against American citizens the way they are. But I can't help but believe they would be calling for drones if that were the only way, or even quickest way to end the widespread terrorist devastation on American soil.
I'm pretty sure that Oaf JimBob and his step kids really and vox realize very well they just had their superficial dumb asses spanked on this one.

both the oaf JimBob and really say they can just make statements and claims ridiculous on their face and downright lies and when confronted and asked they provide sources and citations, they can just laugh it off and tell the other person to post facts to prove they're wrong.

And this other clown Vox can post that because Congress bought into Bush and Cheney's lies that their lies must have had some credibility.

No wonder this country is in the shape its in with dip shits around like Vox.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#554 Mar 14, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
Let it keep happening because drones are the wrong way to end the destruction?
I'm not worried about the use of drones against American citizens the way they are. But I can't help but believe they would be calling for drones if that were the only way, or even quickest way to end the widespread terrorist devastation on American soil.
What they are saying, I guess, is in cases where a threat is imminent or in progress, before doing anything to prevent the attack, just try to catch them in the act and read them their rights. Like I said, no wonder this country is in the shape its in with lunatics like these people with a keyboard and no common sense.

And that they're hyping and twisting Holders responses to hypothetical scenarios like they are is also really very funny and superficial.
Sam

United States

#555 Mar 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>What they are saying, I guess, is in cases where a threat is imminent or in progress, before doing anything to prevent the attack, just try to catch them in the act and read them their rights. Like I said, no wonder this country is in the shape its in with lunatics like these people with a keyboard and no common sense.

And that they're hyping and twisting Holders responses to hypothetical scenarios like they are is also really very funny and superficial.
You sure do talk a lot but say nothing at all.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#556 Mar 15, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Stalking? Why don't you just provide sources and citations to support you claims.
I'm sick of your bull shit. How does that sound?
Yes, stalking as in following me from thread to thread to thread, responding to my posts to others and then constantly attempting to bully and demean me. Why don't you stop being a lazy progressive and do the research to dispute what I say? If you can't, not my problem. Perhaps your Mommy can show you how to do the research?
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#557 Mar 15, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Just read my rather straight forward Hypothetical scenario. Get a grasp of it. And then go look at yourself in the mirror, and ask if you could really be as stupid as you make yourself out to be.
The only thing straightforward about you is your deliberate misrepesentations of anything anyone else says that you don't like or agree with. Elephant dung loved to do that as well, I used to think it was a lack of comprehension, now, with you doing it as well, I suspect it is total idiocy trying to sound intelligent. You are nothing but an ignorant, arrogant little troll. Come back when you grow up.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#558 Mar 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
I wonder how they would react given the scenario of a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, on American soil that had been avoiding capture while sporadically bombing killing large numbers of people along with property and the only way to get them before once again avoiding capture was using drones.
Let it keep happening because drones are the wrong way to end the destruction?
I'm not worried about the use of drones against American citizens the way they are. But I can't help but believe they would be calling for drones if that were the only way, or even quickest way to end the widespread terrorist devastation on American soil.
And you know very well that using a drone on an American citizen without the right of due process is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you progressives had your undies in a bunch because we didn't want the terrorists tried in NY City in civil courts. After all, the terrorists (foreign nationals) have U.S. citizen rights, but apparently, because Obama wants to do this, all is happy happy joy joy. Nothing hypocritical about you at all is there?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#559 Mar 15, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, stalking as in following me from thread to thread to thread, responding to my posts to others and then constantly attempting to bully and demean me. Why don't you stop being a lazy progressive and do the research to dispute what I say? If you can't, not my problem. Perhaps your Mommy can show you how to do the research?
Then that would make you stalking me right? But then you'll "explain" that away.

How is it that you can expect others to do the "research" to dispute you when that is what normally happens anyway while you offer up no "research" to back your assertions to begin with? How DOES that work?

What you are expecting is to put your opinion out there and have it believed while expecting others to research to prove you wrong when that is what happens the far greater number of times and you still don't believe them? I have done the research many many times citing it and you STILL call it/them my opinions.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#560 Mar 15, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And you know very well that using a drone on an American citizen without the right of due process is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you progressives had your undies in a bunch because we didn't want the terrorists tried in NY City in civil courts. After all, the terrorists (foreign nationals) have U.S. citizen rights, but apparently, because Obama wants to do this, all is happy happy joy joy. Nothing hypocritical about you at all is there?
Cite how it's a violation of the Constitution.

And if it's a violation of the Constitution, it wouldn't be to have a law enforcement sniper take out a criminal when capture isn't an option? Are you suggesting that only capture of a criminal is the only Constitutionally accepted means?

Ah no. You have that bassackwards. It was the conservatives that wanted them tried in military court while the liberals were calling for criminal civil courts because laws had been broken, not an attack by a foreign government.

Had it been a government attack Bush and Congress could have declared war on the offending country. Who attacked us were a group of radical "civilians". Thus breaking laws.
Rob

United States

#561 Mar 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>Then that would make you stalking me right? But then you'll "explain" that away.

How is it that you can expect others to do the "research" to dispute you when that is what normally happens anyway while you offer up no "research" to back your assertions to begin with? How DOES that work?

What you are expecting is to put your opinion out there and have it believed while expecting others to research to prove you wrong when that is what happens the far greater number of times and you still don't believe them? I have done the research many many times citing it and you STILL call it/them my opinions.
Jason your are on all threads. Topix pays you to post conversations with yourself. You must get paid by the post because you're one here day and night. The only time you take a brake is when you're dancing at the Rainbow club. Why don't you tell us what you are doing with all that money as you are still living in your mothers basement and using a illegal internet connection? That is the question that needs to be answered.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#562 Mar 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite how it's a violation of the Constitution.
And if it's a violation of the Constitution, it wouldn't be to have a law enforcement sniper take out a criminal when capture isn't an option? Are you suggesting that only capture of a criminal is the only Constitutionally accepted means?
Ah no. You have that bassackwards. It was the conservatives that wanted them tried in military court while the liberals were calling for criminal civil courts because laws had been broken, not an attack by a foreign government.
Had it been a government attack Bush and Congress could have declared war on the offending country. Who attacked us were a group of radical "civilians". Thus breaking laws.
Whatever. You spin and spin and spin. For a supposed constitutional "expert" you and Obama could be twins. The only part you have down pat is blaming everyone else.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#563 Mar 15, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever. You spin and spin and spin. For a supposed constitutional "expert" you and Obama could be twins. The only part you have down pat is blaming everyone else.
And you're not blaming Obama. Did I get that wrong?
Rob

United States

#564 Mar 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>And you're not blaming Obama. Did I get that wrong?
He has leading role in changing things. He promised to change things. He had the presidency, the House and the Senate for 2 years. Yes I think when when we are in his second term and most of what he has promised was has not came true in his leadership role he deserves blame.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#565 Mar 15, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever. You spin and spin and spin. For a supposed constitutional "expert" you and Obama could be twins. The only part you have down pat is blaming everyone else.
Still waiting for sources that support you comments about Hitler being Jewish, his father Jewish, etc. Its only fair that you should back up your statements.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#566 Mar 15, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for sources that support you comments about Hitler being Jewish, his father Jewish, etc. Its only fair that you should back up your statements.
Or, you could provide some proof of your own that backs up your statements that said poster is wrong.
It's only fair that you should back up YOUR statements....Right?
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#567 Mar 15, 2013
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>Or, you could provide some proof of your own that backs up your statements that said poster is wrong.
It's only fair that you should back up YOUR statements....Right?
No, I don't believe I said poster was wrong, however I do question the veracity and accuracy and reliability of the statement.

Do I think the original statement is accurate. No. But I'm offering an opportunity for the Topix Poster to present sources and/or citations to back up the claim.

And I do believe you are now "stalkin" me. What issue do you have with my attempts to discern the accuracy and veracity of the poster's claims. My issue is with the original poster. Not with you JimBob. However if you keep pressing, I will make this an issue I have with you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 2 hr Buffalo Bull 1,491
Lets Chat (Mar '08) 16 hr Trouser Cough 40,169
Al Sharpton's Marchers in New York City Chant "... Tue Gville Jim 5
facts of life Tue Sneaky Pete 6
Experience a historical Christmas in downtown G... Tue Mr Wiggley 69
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Tue a commenter 976
50 Most Influential Women in West Michigan (Mar '08) Tue knowwhatitslike 47
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:54 am PST

NBC Sports 9:54AM
Packers, Steelers, Panthers choices to win their divisions - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report12:11 PM
NFL Odds: Opening Spreads for Week 17 Betting
NBC Sports 1:40 PM
Cutler realizes Bears could be in for changes - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 3:09 PM
Lions head to house of horrors in Green Bay - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 4:16 PM
Breaking Down Lions Game Plan vs. Packers