wskin44 Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 There's plenty of people complaining. Just check out the pinned thread about reporting posts. Looks like there are plenty of people that can dish it out, but can't take it. We don't know if there are many complaints in the Tailgate. I've never reported a post since I've been a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 We don't know if there are many complaints in the Tailgate. I've never reported a post since I've been a member. Well, the ES Staff pinned a thread in the Tailgate forum only (not the Stadium forum). In there, they stated that there have been several abuses by members using the Report Post button. I took that as meaning more than just a couple. According to a mod that PM'ed me a few weeks ago, I was reported on (by more than one member) for circumventing the profanity filter. Obviously, an attempt to ban me from folks that lost a heated debate with me. Some people have very thin skins. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Ok, as one of the resident attorneys, I'll bite. Of course it is not treason. Everyone deserves a legal defense, and defense attorneys are necessary to that defense. A defense attorney does NOTHING wrong by taking up the defense of a defendant just because YOU hate the defandant. Go watch "To Kill A Mockingbird" again, my friends. Let me ask you this, Nelms. Wouldn't the US be better served if Saddam is convicted in a open and fair trial rather than a kangaroo court? The other question is more interesting. I have no idea WHY Clark is doing this, but I guess some people like to tilt at windmills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 According to a mod that PM'ed me a few weeks ago, I was reported on (by more than one member) for circumventing the profanity filter. Obviously, an attempt to ban me from folks that lost a heated debate with me. Some people have very thin skins. :doh: Wow! You won a debate on here? I must have missed that thread! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Ramsey Clark was the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL for crying out loud. This guy has said some messed up things in the past, but this latest escapade takes the cake. Yes he was the US attorney general, you should be proud that our attorney general served and has such a noble desire for justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 Ok, as one of the resident attorneys, I'll bite.Of course it is not treason. Everyone deserves a legal defense, and defense attorneys are necessary to that defense. A defense attorney does NOTHING wrong by taking up the defense of a defendant just because YOU hate the defandant. Go watch "To Kill A Mockingbird" again, my friends. Let me ask you this, Nelms. Wouldn't the US be better served if Saddam is convicted in a open and fair trial rather than a kangaroo court? The other question is more interesting. I have no idea WHY Clark is doing this, but I guess some people like to tilt at windmills. He already has Iraqi defense attorneys. Why is a U.S. citizen (and a former U.S. Attorney General) providing legal defense for an enemy of the United States? What if this was Adolf Hitler? Would you still approve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Wow! You won a debate on here? I must have missed that thread! :laugh: :laugh: by "win" he means he ran out of ways to worm his way out of a corner and resorted to name calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 Yes he was the US attorney general, you should be proud that our attorney general served and has such a noble desire for justice. Yeah, it sure is noble defending a butcher of thousands of people. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 It was on Paula Zahn's show last night. The discussion was whether or not Clark was committing treason. The ACLU lawyer basically said that it wasn't treason because Clark was defending a foreigner on foreign soil. To tell you the truth, this guy was so over the top, I couldn't follow his reasoning.This is about the only grounds upon which you could defend Ramsey Clark, so I'm sure the ACLU lawyer was only too happy to participate in this straw man of a discussion. Ramsey Clark is essentially a nihilist who does whatever he can to hurt America's reputation in the world. He believes that America is the greatest source of evil and wrongdoing in the world today. It's hard to take him and his plays for publicity seriously as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Yeah, it sure is noble defending a butcher of thousands of people. :doh: It is noble to defend the weakest, and Saddam as a defendant has everything going against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 It is noble to defend the weakest, and Saddam as a defendant has everything going against him. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Why am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 It is noble to defend the weakest, and Saddam as a defendant has everything going against him. Wow, that is just completely absurd. Congratulations on the dumbest post of the year. Hook. Line. And sinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Why am I wrong?First of all, don't ask me to disprove a stupid statement by you. You're obligated to support what you put out there. Please do. I'm curious. How do you feel about Adolph Eichman's trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 So who is going to follow the I'm Chom and I'm a stick in the political hornet's nest?? Ok I will. Yes, I am for one. I like to have discussions with a lot of posters here, but the 2-bit mud slinging gets tiresome. . . and yes, I do acknowledge that I am responsible for some of it, but I try never to start it, only to finish it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Wow, that is just completely absurd. Congratulations on the dumbest post of the year. Why is it absurd? You said before that you would want Saddam to have a fair trial did you not? Therefore you realized he needs legal help. So you can't condemn the idea of him getting legal help. So you can't condemn the people giving him legal help. So you can't condemn this guy that wants to give him legal help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 Why is it absurd?You said before that you would want Saddam to have a fair trial did you not? Therefore you realized he needs legal help. So you can't condemn the idea of him getting legal help. So you can't condemn the people giving him legal help. So you can't condemn this guy that wants to give him legal help. Defending this POS is bad enough. But a U.S. citizen and former U.S. Attorney General? If you can't see the problem with that, then there is absolutely no hope for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 First of all, don't ask me to disprove a stupid statement by you. You're obligated to support what you put out there. Please do. I'm curious. How do you feel about Adolph Eichman's trial? :laugh: [curly] Eichman was a victim of circumstance [/curly] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 What you guys are missing is that if Saddam is convicted even with the best, most prestigous and most respected (in some circles) legal staff, then the conviction will have far more legitimacy not only in the US, but in Arab countries as well. In some ways, one could argue that by defending Saddam in this instance, Ramsey (his personal motivations aside) is augmenting American stature around the world by proving that the US has a strong interest of justice in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 First of all, don't ask me to disprove a stupid statement by you. You're obligated to support what you put out there. Please do. I'm curious. How do you feel about Adolph Eichman's trial? Like bees to honey, I knew they would come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 What you guys are missing is that if Saddam is convicted even with the best, most prestigous and most respected (in some circles) legal staff, then the conviction will have far more legitimacy not only in the US, but in Arab countries as well. In some ways, one could argue that by defending Saddam in this instance, Ramsey (his personal motivations aside) is augmenting American stature around the world by proving that the US has a strong interest of justice in mind. That is a valid point worth considering.... if you believe that Ramsey Clarke is the best and most prestigous. Preliminary reports from the Arab world are saying he's not even close. ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Redman, nelms, read iheartskins post and get a goddamned clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Redman, nelms, read iheartskins post and get a goddamned clue. you could learn a lot from Iheart's post as well.... more specifically his tone. ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Wow! You won a debate on here? I must have missed that thread! :laugh: Noboby "wins" on the Tailgate, unless you count personal victories, maybe that's what Nelms is refering to :laugh: As distastful as it appears, I don't see anything wrong with Clark representing Saddam, but when he loses, will it appear that the US supplied Clark to gauranty his conviction and degrade the trail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 I won't say he commited treason and Saddam isn't the first mass murderer he has defended. He also defended Serbian President Slo Milosevic so he has a track record of questionable involvement with dictators. I like him because he is the face of defense lawyers now which can only help aid us in passing tort reform and taking power out of defense lawyers and liberal judges hands with passage of the 25 year minimum law for sexual assault on children under 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.