PDA

View Full Version : Left-winged Court aids terrorists


Skinzaholic
12-05-2003, 07:40 AM
Shocking (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/4/102419.shtml)


Just another example of judges acting like god in our nation.

RedskinsDave
12-05-2003, 08:14 AM
Anyone who wants a law to be overturned takes it to that court. They want to overturn a law because the judge thinks a person who buys items at bakesale outside a grocery store can be charged? That is such a huge stretch in order to support terrorism by this court.

Someone ask Musa Smith how he feels about it.

Spence
12-05-2003, 09:35 AM
Get another news source for this. Newsmax has about as much credibility as Pravda or Die Volkisch Beobachter.

dukeuch
12-05-2003, 10:32 AM
The article is curiously general about what exactly is being overturned when it sepaks in language like "part" of the law "which involves" aid to terrorists. If there was a danger in someone going to jail as a result of truely unknowingly providing support to terrorists, I'm all for the repeal. Nowhere, I noticed, did it say that this avenue was no longer available to prosecuters at all.

Next, not realizing what Newsmax was, I scrolled down to the bottom for "related articles", here's what was found:

Al-Qaeda - Ok, I can see how this is related
Bush Administration - ditto
Homeland/Civil Defense - ok, I can see how it's related
War on terrorism - understandable
CLINTON SCANDALS (upper case mine) - WTF!? Don't you guys ever quit?

Then I noticed the talking Ann Coulter doll, and realized what a piece of garbage this site was regarding truthful reporting.

Skinzaholic
12-05-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by dukeuch

CLINTON SCANDALS (upper case mine) - WTF!? Don't you guys ever quit?

Then I noticed the talking Ann Coulter doll, and realized what a piece of garbage this site was regarding truthful reporting.


That is the easy way out... totally overused as well.

dukeuch
12-05-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Skinzaholic
That is the easy way out... totally overused as well.

Well, I guess my point is, what should I make of the publisher of this article, who invites me peruse "related articles" and one of them is called "Clinton's Scandals". Please tell me, does that have any relationship to the article above, or is it just another chance to bash Clinton?

dukeuch
12-05-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Skinzaholic
That is the easy way out... totally overused as well.

Totally overused? Besides the Ann Coulter talking doll, the site also was hawking USS Reagan hats (didn't see any USS Truman hats available), flight deck pictures of Bush (wonder if they are editing out the "Mission Accomplished" banner which was a prominent part of the photo op originally?) and various other Bush I, Bush II and Reagan info. How can this possibly be considered a credible source? What a joke.

I'll reserve judgement on the court's action until I read a real news report.