fort hood

[Johnson]

Originally Posted by frenchie3

Hey, now, there's no call for that.

Why, can't the obvious be spoken?

[frenchie5]

Careful, Steve. Keep being so humorless, people might think you're a liberal...

[MarkMc]

Yeah but if he starts being humorful we may mistake him for a socialist.

[frenchie5]

Socialist? I thought those were extinct.

[Dick Seibert]

Frenchie:

Naw, want to see Socialists? Come to the JLC, they are know to congregate here, strange since contractors were once known as independent types, the last of the entrepreneurs, short of that take a look at Obama's Czars, Carol Browner for one:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Until summer 2008 she was a member of Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, although the commission's web site still had her listed as a member in January 2009.

On December 15, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama named Browner to the position of Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Officially known as the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, she acts as a coordinator for environmental, energy, climate, transport and related matters for the federal government. Her position is sometimes informally described as the "Energy Czar" or the "Climate Czar"

You also see them in the world's most populous nation, China, they try to tell the world that they are Communists and they are just going through a socialist stage, but they are just socialists too.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The PRC government maintains that it has not abandoned Marxism, but has simply developed many of the terms and concepts of Marxist theory to accommodate its new economic system. The ruling Communist Party of China argues that socialism is compatible with these economic policies. In current Chinese Communist thinking, the PRC is in the primary stage of socialism, and this redefinition allows the PRC to undertake whatever economic policies are needed to develop into an industrialized nation.

In Marxist theory, societies progress through a number of stages based on different social relations and modes of production, of special prominence being the revolution from capitalist society to socialist society and the subsequent transition to communist society. According to the interpretation of this by the Communist Party of China, the revolution of 1949 was an irreversible change from capitalism to socialism and that therefore China is still socialist. However, Maoist organizations, such as the Maoist Internationalist Movement and the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, claim that China reverted back to capitalism with the arrest of the Gang of Four, in 1976.¹

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_socialism

[Lavrans]

Who are these socialists here on JLC, Dick?

[dkenterprise2]

Dicks right. The whole place is a socialist rats nest. There was a banner at the top of the page from .gov outlining the Obama economic plan, more like his plan to enslave us and drain our vital bodily fluids, and a banner at the bottom about an athiest movie claiming that Jesus is a myth. Bunch of godless pinkos. Now that fascist socialite Osama Obama and his KGB have been keeping me from signing onto this site all weekend. They'll have to pry this mouse from my cold dead hands before they shut me up

[Dick Seibert]

Socialism always ends in tyranny, we have the Cal students rioting, now another BART cop has cone his thing, and they haven't' even tried the one who shot the black guy in the back on New Years' Eve.

[dave_k]

Originally Posted by Dick Seibert

Frenchie:

Naw, want to see Socialists? Come to the JLC, they are know to congregate here, strange since contractors were once known as independent types, the last of the entrepreneurs, short of that take a look at Obama's Czars, Carol Browner for one:

You also see them in the world's most populous nation, China, they try to tell the world that they are Communists and they are just going through a socialist stage, but they are just socialists too.



¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_socialism

Where does it say that socialists aren't good businessmen? Where does it say that socialists can't be better at competing on the free market than capitalists? The 2 aren't mutually exclusive. Human societies are constantly evolving and changing. That's the nature of competition. The way the world was carved up in 1946 isn't the same world we see today. If you're a football team that wins a string of championships based on a certain style of play your competitors will change their tactics to deal with your style of play while you keep doing the same thing because if it ain't broke don't fix it.

My favorite statistician and baseball writer, Bill James calls this the "law of competitive balance".

The "Law of Competitive Balance". Baseball teams tend to return towards a .500 record. Teams with a winning record tend to decline, teams with a losing record tend to improve. In these less straightforward times, we usually call this "regression to the mean".

If you figure you're going to remain the top dog based on the fact that you've always been the top dog good luck to ya because it's never been done before. Ask the British or IBM for that matter.

The truth of the matter is capitalism is stronger than ever. Capital is doing what it's supposed to do, it's getting goods produced where it's cheapest and selling them where they can get the best return. Capital doesn't give a sh!t about politics unless politics gets in the way of making a buck. Chinese communists have learned to use capital. Americans aren't broke and in debt to the Chinese, America is. Americans are the Chinese communists business partners. Ask any Brit about who was left holding the bag at the end of WW2 and the sunset of the British Empire

[Kent Brobeck]

Originally Posted by davenorthup

Kent - I am still looking for the 1993 trial connection to 9/11 and to the whole KSM federal trial thing.

You have made two claims thus far:

1 - 1993 Federal trial gave info / intell. to "future" terrorists. Where are the details that you proclaim?
2 - Where is the link between the 1993 trial and 9/11? You made that inference.....

Seriously - besides a OP'ed regarding what might happen, where is the case? When pressed for specifics that you claim, you have shown nothing this far...

What info from the 1993 trial made it to bin ladin... Simple question....

Well Dave you know, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it. The US attorney in charge of the case in 1993 is the person who said it went right to Osama Bin Laden. But you know what, the next time I run into Osama at the grocery store I'll ask him for you.

How about the attorney that represented some of the defendants in the WTC bombing trial, Lynn Stewart who has been convicted to passing sensitive information over to terrorist? Oh Right, this wouldn't lead anyone to believe this whole trial is a bad idea?

Since neither of these examples mean anything to you I must conclude you have no ability to be intuitive. Is there a cause and effect at work here? Guess not from your stand point or is it you just don't want to admit Obama is a jack a$$.

Frankly you question wasn't "Simple" it was stupid and disingenuous.

Oh did you hear the defendants, KSM and his buddies, are going to plead not guilty so they can use the trial as a stage to spew their venom. I'm sure the victims families can hardly wait for this circus.

[frenchie]

So, Kent...

I can put you down as choosing the system system with a 3 / 800 convictions, 5 set free, that's completely untested and a magnet for constitutional challenges?

And not for, the system that's got 101 / 120 convictions, zero set free, where every aspect of litigation has a body of jurisprudence you can refer to, and everybody knows what the rules are?

?

[davenorthup]

Originally Posted by Kent Brobeck

Well Dave you know, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it.

Sure you can, I just do not see any water near by.

Originally Posted by Kent Brobeck

The US attorney in charge of the case in 1993 is the person who said it went right to Osama Bin Laden.

WHY? HOW? WHAT INFORMATION? People can say a lot of things - how about some specifics. What info, how did it leak out. How could it be learned from? That is the simple question. If bin Ladin could figure it out, how come you can not and specifically spell it out here for us?

Originally Posted by Kent Brobeck

How about the attorney that represented some of the defendants in the WTC bombing trial, Lynn Stewart who has been convicted to passing sensitive information over to terrorist? Oh Right, this wouldn't lead anyone to believe this whole trial is a bad idea?

This is not an indictment on the Federal judicial system. This is an indictment on the individual. Look at the history of spies in the military - this could also happen in a tribunal system as well. Your argument holds no water, unless you could insure that it would never happen in a tribunal system.

Originally Posted by Kent Brobeck

Since neither of these examples mean anything to you I must conclude you have no ability to be intuitive. Is there a cause and effect at work here?

You simple have made claims that (so far) have been unsubstantiated. B/C I said so does not cut it.

Originally Posted by Kent Brobeck

Guess not from your stand point or is it you just don't want to admit Obama is a jack a$$.

For using Federal Court? Well we could add a whole list of fellow jack asses to that list - Bush and Giuliani could top that very long list.

Originally Posted by Kent Brobeck

Frankly you question wasn't "Simple" it was stupid and disingenuous.

You mean your answer.... Asking you to back up your specific claim with specific examples is only prudent. Letting one have a pass on something would be stupid. Just give some specifics Kent - you said that info was given to bun ladin and partially resulted in 9/11.

What info was leaked? Simple question.

Originally Posted by Kent Brobeck

Oh did you hear the defendants, KSM and his buddies, are going to plead not guilty so they can use the trial as a stage to spew their venom. I'm sure the victims families can hardly wait for this circus.

I am sure the judge can control his courtroom.

[Dick Seibert]

Kent:

Good point, let's see how Dave justifies Lynn Stewart, one of my points of the foolishness of the U.S. trying the terrorists instead of turning them over to the World Court, is the time and expense involved, Lynn Stewart was indicted indicted in 2002, she just surrendered to serve her sentence just 4 days ago, 7 years of expensive litigation, and we had indisputable jurisdiction over Lynn Stewart.

As I said before, the biggest issues I see here are jurisdiction and venue, this government has gotten by far too long with unconstitutional prosecutions. I almost hope that other countries start picking up and prosecuting Americans for violating their laws, Israel is pretty good at that, getting some real dangerous 90 year olds and dragging them to Israel for trial, an Israel that didn't even exist to have it's laws violated at the times that the crimes were purportedly perpetrated. It's all about politics and vengeance, I'd love to see Spain grab Bill Clinton, they did it with Pinochet. .