You cannot afford my rate for billable hours.

__________________
Delivering tasty bite-sized Clues to liberals since 1965.

lol... bonehead, its public service. Hopefully fun too... I'm mostly waiting for the sentencing phase

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

But why don't we let Omegaman respond to the thrust of my comment first, before we bring the liberals up on charges?

(that suggestion is something along the lines of "plea bargaining", before Omegaman decides that he really wants to press charges).

Let's see, having said that, here's a couple of thoughts (having been designated as a counsel, I get to review the jury, right?):

a) we should probably have some reasonable (and reasonably) neutral viewpoints reflected, I'd suggest Stekim and JavaBlack as two possible candidates in that regard

b) on the liberal-leaning side, we could probably have Noetsi participate, and perhaps apotropoxy, or newbut, or Hard-Driver, or justabubba

c) on the conservative-leaning side, perhaps Rebellion in addition to the two you have listed (you weren't trying to stack the jury, right?)

I'd probably exercise peremptory challenges on JP5 and DUH2 (my team get three of them, right?)

No offense anyone - and I apologize if I've mischaracterized anyone's political leanings. My job as counsel is only to argue in my client's best interests.

ok Nonsqtr, sounds reasonable. Will wait on word from other side then we'll have the complete list of 7 judges.

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

This is great!

You can count on me to judge. After all, it's for 'merca.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

nonsqtr: "All right - so far, I don't really have any major beef with your argument(s) - except for that initial list of what "all Democrats must believe", which is pretty off-the-wall."
----------------------------
OK, thanks for the straight forward and well thought out responses. They are appreciated. As to the "what democrats must believe" this was mostly a joke. I found that somewhere on the web and thought it amusing. I will say there is at least a smidgen of truth in many of them.

" ....never infringed on the sanctity of property rights, except in that one case."
-------------
This I am afraid is NOT just one case. This decision, which for all intent and purposes removes private property ownership from ANY American citizen, except of course one of these Justices, and is being used all over the country to STEAL peoples property. This is EXACTLY what I have been talking about. The democrat party, as a group, does believe that you "fix society and the individual will fall in line", republicans, as a group, believe "fix the individual and society will fall in line". This decision does just what the democrat party supports, take property if it is deemed a benefit to society as a whole regardless of the individual who may have lived in this home for 50 years, be a World War II veteran, and payed all his taxes for his entire life. It does "matter what these people think" because all too often these people wind up in positions of power and able to make drastic devastating changes to our country

What I am trying to get across here is the basic differences in the core beliefs of the 2 parties. I don't support ALL republicans nor have a problem with ALL democrats. My problem is rooted in what these parties stand for.

Lets try it this way. I will list just a few core beliefs of the two parties with a short comment after each. These are publicly stated beliefs of these parties so hopefully we can agree on them. Also I make no claim that each faithfully follows through with these beliefs but that they are indeed what they purport to believe.

Democrats;
1) Believe in abortion: There is no question that the democrat party, as a whole, believes in this. It is better and more accurately characterized as "premeditated tortuous murder". Fortunately neither of us was unlucky enough to be one of these victim.
2) Democrats believe in high taxes: Democrats believe in high, very high, taxes for the so called "rich", something they never define. They do believe that people should be limited in the max amount of money they can make and the rest should be given to the government, to them to be distributed to others. I have no problem with helping people who really need help because they are disabled but have a BIG problem with handing out money to those who simply won't work.
3) Democrats believe in big government: They do believe that the answer to most every problem is contained within the federal government. This explains the federal government being involved in every aspect of our life's, from how much water is flushed with each flush in your bathroom, to how long you are allowed to stay in your own home before THEY determine your home would be more beneficial to society if someone else owned it.

Republicans:
1) Republicans do NOT support abortion: They do NOT support the murder of helpless innocent little babies.
2) Republicans believe in LOW taxes for ALL: They believe, and as can be seen by history are correct, that lower taxes help the economy. Also they believe that people should have the right to KEEP the money they make and decide how it should be spent themselves, not by the government.
3) Republicans believe in SMALL government: They believe that the federal government is too big, too intrusive, and should be reduced in size as well as cost. They don't however always do what the believe.

"I mean, it's a bit of a jump from a "progressive tax system" and "funding social programs" to socialism, isn't it?"
------------------------
No, I don't believe it is a "bit of a jump" at all. Already with the latest US Supreme Court Ruling we already have lost property rights. You do not agree? Since this decision ANY government, city, country, state, or federal can take ANYONE property and sell it to ANYBODY else for ANY purpose if THEY decide it will be more beneficial to their community (i.e. more MONEY). There is NOTHING an individual can do about it. It is now what is called "settled law". Now how much father must one go to have socialism?
If taking more money from those who are more successful, usually because of very hard work, and giving it to those (disabled people and the like excluded) who are not simply because they refuse to make any effort is not soundly within the definition of socialism then I don't know what is. Let me suggest that you go to one of the socialist sites and read what they say their beliefs and goals are and then try and find any real significant difference between those and the ones publicly stated by the democrat party, let alone the ones they do not go public with.

As to the connection between the democrat party and the socialist, what this points out is the connection between the democrats and the socialist, which was my point. The tie between the two DOES exist. Now you may claim it doesn't mean much but I believe that it does.

It is always better to have people helped by others who do so willingly and voluntarily rather than through the threat of confiscation or confinement. As to Katrina I hear so much about the failure of the federal government, as I have said they are the solution to most all problems in the democrat view, but hear little about the failure of the Mayor and Governor, who DOES have the responsibility of dealing with these kinds of disasters. The federal government is NOT responsible to be the first responders. That is the responsibility of the local governments, who left dozens and dozens of empty buses sitting in the streets which people could not get out and died. But according to the democrats (note both Governor and Mayor are democrats, but I guess that had nothing to do with the criticism of the federal government and not the local one) it was ENTIRELY the federal governments, and of course President Bush's fault, or if there was any sharing of responsibility the local government was responsible for very little.
This goes very will with my previous point of how the democrat party believes the federal government is the answer to everything, and when something goes wrong then we must strengthen (enlarge) that government to "fix it".

This is getting rather long so I need to try and rap up.

"ARTICLE 3:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. "
--------------

"..selling secrets, spying, selling weapons..." Well I don't see that in the Constitution. It says "or in adhering to their enemies", "giving them aid and comfort". Doesn't say anything about spying or weapons.

"adhering" -- To remain devoted to or be in support of something: adhered to her beliefs.
"aid" -- To help or furnish with help, support, or relief.
"comfort" -- To soothe in time of affliction or distress. Solace in time of grief or fear. Help; assistance

Nowhere do I see anything you mention. That is not to say they do not rise to the level of treason, they certainly do, but the level at which treason CAN be applied, under the Constitution, does NOT require that high level. Some liberals have publicly stated their "support" of our enemy. They have said they are in agreement with some of the positions of the terrorist, i.e ..."they are just fighting to remove the US from their lands." Some "have helped" by supporting enemy's that has been captured, while at the same time accusing America of wrong doing. I believe many statements of some liberals indeed do "soothe" the terrorist. It gives great "Solace" to terrorist to know that ALL Americans don't consider them enemies. That all Americans don't consider them terrorist at all but rather SOME consider them "freedom fighters", which some democrats have publicly stated. The terrorist are "helped" by the constant efforts of many liberals who try and prevent our President from protecting the rest of us from these terrorist, in their effort to bring him down. Although I will agree that it can be a fine line between "free speech" and "treason, I still contend there are a few who cross that line. Just look at our young men now in the stockade for nothing more than trying to stay alive. Look at what SOME democrats have said about them. Look at how SOME have already declared them murderers. Just like John Kerry claimed our young men in Viet Nam were -- "Baby Killers", "Rapist", and "Murderers". Does not these kinds of statements, this kind of support for our enemy, and condemnation of our country, in conjunction with their actions, give rise to consider that SOME of these people might just indeed be committing treason? Come on, the constant never ending condemnation of our country, the support for the enemy prisoners, the constant claims of America committing torture and not much more than a peep about the enemies gruesome treatment of our young men, and none of this even makes you wonder just who's side these people are on?
I will let you think about it.

The courts don't get to make a decision until someone has brought the question up before them. Maybe it is time someone did. Once the courts do make a decision a person should at least, even if they don't agree, accept it as a fact, such as the rather long posting I made showing President Bush's "terrorist wiretap program" is perfectly legal and constitutional. I have not however heard from anyone an admission of being wrong and agreeing that what he did is completely Constitutional. I wonder why that is?

When President Bush took office he did NOT fire all the democrat left overs from the Clinton administration. There are many still in positions of power, especially in the CIA. There has been, ever since he took office, a huge struggle between the CIA and the President. Everyone under his command is NOT in support of him.

If liberals/Democrats are responsible for destroying the country, then what are Republicans/Conservatives responsible for saving it? Just a thought. Peace.

__________________
E.Pluribus Unum

People of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

If you think Education is Expensive try Ignorance.

Its weak too speak and blame somebody else when you destroy yourself.

"If liberals/Democrats are responsible for destroying the country, then what are Republicans/Conservatives responsible for saving it?"
----------------------
They are responsible for the fact that the democrats have so far failed in their attempt to destroy the country.

nonsqtr;
But why don't we let Omegaman respond to the thrust of my comment first, before we bring the liberals up on charges?
---------------
Thank you. I will respond to the rest soon.

(that suggestion is something along the lines of "plea bargaining", before Omegaman decides that he really wants to press charges).
-----------------
My post can be used to bring an indictment in this case. Remember in a Grand Jury, where this indictment must be brought, only the prosecutor (me) can be present. No other information is given to the jurors. We must make this as close to the real thing as possible.

Let's see, having said that, here's a couple of thoughts (having been designated as a counsel, I get to review the jury, right?):
--------------
Not in a Grand Jury indictment proceeding. Only the prosecutor (that would be me) is allowed. You come in later at the trial after the indictment. I DON"T agree with this but it is the way our judicial system works so we should follow it.

a) we should probably have some reasonable (and reasonably) neutral viewpoints reflected, I'd suggest Stekim and JavaBlack as two possible candidates in that regard

b) on the liberal-leaning side, we could probably have Noetsi participate, and perhaps apotropoxy, or newbut, or Hard-Driver, or justabubba

c) on the conservative-leaning side, perhaps Rebellion in addition to the two you have listed (you weren't trying to stack the jury, right?)

I'd probably exercise peremptory challenges on JP5 and DUH2 (my team get three of them, right?)

No offense anyone - and I apologize if I've mischaracterized anyone's political leanings. My job as counsel is only to argue in my client's best interests.