My question for John Kerry

[MEBuckner]

@GomiBoy

Thank goodness for preview or I would have looked almost as silly as Razordull…

Hey RazorDull…

Moderator’s Note: GomiBoy, don’t play games with other poster’s usernames in order to insult them in Great Debates.

[GomiBoy]

@MEBuckner

Moderator’s Note: GomiBoy, don’t play games with other poster’s usernames in order to insult them in Great Debates.

Sorry, won’t happen again.

Razorsharp - I do apologize for making fun of your name.

[GomiBoy]

Once more into the fray…

@Razorsharp

So, are you going to back this statement up or just admit that it was a lie? Do one or the other, don’t just ignore it. Step up, be a man.

In response to a post from jshore, post #10

@Razorsharp

And an equally stupid answer. Because a President doesn’t like a country’s regime, then it’s okay to invade, then arrest and incarcerate that country’s leader?

Wow, that sure sounds like you’re calling someone’s answer stupid… I guess we’re just one step away from the real deal…

In response to a post from Avenger, post #31

@Razorsharp

Absolutely brilliant!!!

Unless you were actually complimenting him/her?

In response to Princhester, post #35

@Razorsharp

Because, Einstein, the war on Iraq is supposedly related to the war on terror. Now, do you get it?

I’m pretty sure Princhester’s real name isn’t Einstein, so I am pretty confident this was intended as a disparaging remark insulting his/her intelligence.

In response to Jshore, post #45

@Razorsharp

Hell, you can’t even read.

I am pretty sure you weren’t offering to help him/her learn, here…

Want some sauce with your crow?

@Razorsharp

And furthermore, the “options built in within the document itself to change it” (the amending process), is not what Gore meant when he referred to the Constitution as a “living document”.

I don’t care what he said, as this has nothing to do with your original post or what I was saying. And since you seem to have such tremendous insight into what Gore meant anyways, maybe you care, but I do not.

[Mtgman]

@Razorsharp

Charles Gibson would never select this question to be put to candidate Kerry, so I will put it in play here for the Kerry supporters.

“Senator Kerry, you have said, in so many words, that the war with Iraq was unjustified, being that Saddam Hussein did not have the purported weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States and there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, would you release Saddam Hussein from custody?”

This question is a softball. A slow one right over the plate.

"Would it interest you to know, Charlie, that Saddam Hussein, who had a peliminary court date on July 1, 2004, is not being charged with posessing weapons of mass destruction? He is not being charged as being an iminent threat to the US or his neighbors in the region. He is not being charged with complicity in any terrorist act or for having ties to any terrorist organization. Would it be interesting to know that the case against Mr. Hussein on these points is not even being made?

What Mr. Hussein is being charged with, and I support prosecution of him for these offenses, is [ul][li]Anfal ‘ethnic cleansing’ campaign against Kurds, 1988 []Gassing Kurds in Halabja in 1988 []Invasion of Kuwait, 1990 []Crushing the Kurdish and Shia rebellions after the 1991 Gulf War []Killing political activists over 30 years []Massacre of members of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983 []Killing of religious leaders in 1974 [/ul]So the short answer is no, I would not release him, even if it were within my power to do so, which it is not as he is under the jurisdiction of the Iraqi Interim Government. I would keep him imprisoned until after his day in court has come. He has done things he should face justice for. What I would not do is wage preemptive war on evidence of weapons of mass destruction which is so weak it can not even support charges against the man when he gets his day in court."[/li]
Cite.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Razorsharp]

@pravnik

When a warrant is issued, the police have a right to be someplace and search for an item or items that they wouldn’t ordinarily search for, like somebody’s home. The warrant gives them the right to search not only by walking through the house and making a cursory inspection, but by looking places that the item or items might reasonably be expected to be, which may or may not include shelves, drawers, or the like (as was said, you can’t look for a stinger missle in a breadbox). If in the course of properly conducting that search other contraband comes into plain view, the police may seize it the same as if they saw you walking down the street with it, since they had a legal right to be where there where and to look where they were looking.

As I have conceded back in post #77, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5355315&postcount=77 there are extenuating circumstances with regards to a strict construction of the search and seizure rules of the 4th Amendment, but, concerning the arrest of Saddam, it would seem that the “police” did go in search of a “stinger missle in a breadbox”.

Many of the alleged crimes that Saddam is now being held for occurred twenty years ago, and the world has known of them for that time as well, so it’s not like the police prosecuting a search warrant and stumbling on something illegal coming into “plain view” while conducting the search. It’s more closely akin to, “Hey, so we didn’t find what was listed in the warrant, but, what the hell, we know he’s guilty of previous illegalities, we’ll just arrest him for those.”

That is why I referred to the mentioning of the “plain view doctrine” as semantics.

[Razorsharp]

@GomiBoy

Once more into the fray…

In response to a post from jshore, post #10

Wow, that sure sounds like you’re calling someone’s answer stupid… I guess we’re just one step away from the real deal…

In response to a post from Avenger, post #31

Unless you were actually complimenting him/her?

In response to Princhester, post #35

I’m pretty sure Princhester’s real name isn’t Einstein, so I am pretty confident this was intended as a disparaging remark insulting his/her intelligence.

In response to Jshore, post #45

I am pretty sure you weren’t offering to help him/her learn, here…

Still dancing around the truth, I see.

You said:

whenever anyone presents a possible answer you call them stupid

Every example that you listed of me calling someone “stupid” is a response to a snide remark made by the author of the post I was addressing. Not just a possible answer. That is, with the possible exception of Princhester, whose post seemed to be a question that was designed as an irratation rather than a genuine request for information.

So, your accusation is a lie.

Now, as for you, when you entered the fray, I actually complimented your post and only took exception to one line.(Other than your accuasation.) But, that one line belied your whole point.

And then you want to go to the Pit, as though you’re really going to tell me off. Good God, how adolescent can one get?

That’s almost as childish as making a smart-ass remark to someone, then whinning when you get one in return.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=Razorsharp]
And then you want to go to the Pit, as though you’re really going to tell me off. Good God, how adolescent can one get?

[qUOTE]

And out come the insults again…

I really can’t be bothered anymore with you. It’s useless to try to logically argue any point with you, as you refuse to debate your own original posts and you refuse to use logic in formulating your responses or original posts.

Read the pit thread if you want, it’s got some honest feedback (as well as some insults, as I won’t deny you got under my skin and keep attempting to do so again by calling me a liar).

But I can’t be bothered.

See you around,

[Razorsharp]

@GomiBoy

It’s useless to try to logically argue any point with you, as you refuse to debate your own original posts and you refuse to use logic in formulating your responses or original posts.

That’s odd, I didn’t have any problem debating a point with Pravnik, but then Pravnik brought both intelligence and civility to the board.

[Razorsharp]

@Who_me?

Contrary to what you may think, the police arrest a lot of people without an arrest warrant.

For example, a police officer pulls over a speeder, he asks to search the vehicle. Many times the speeder agrees to the search (for some reason) and drugs are found. The car’s occupants are arrested. The police do not call and ask for a warrant to be issued, they just arrest them.

Right, as I noted earlier. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5355246&postcount=74

[Zakalwe]

@Razorsharp

Right, as I noted earlier. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5355246&postcount=74

But before that you said:

@Razorsharp

See, in the American system, you first get the warrant then make the arrest. Making the arrest first and then getting the warrant to fit the arrest is what one would expect from one of the former Communist bloc countries.

Would you please do me a favor and restate in clear terms what exactly it is you are arguing here?

[BrainGlutton]

BTW, Razorsharp, right now there’s a Pit thread going on with your name on it! Check it out! http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=280317 If you dare. (As of 10/15/04, you have yet to post in it.)

[Princhester]

@Razorsharp

That is, with the possible exception of Princhester, whose post seemed to be a question that was designed as an irratation rather than a genuine request for information.

I don’t doubt you found my post irritating, it being a question to which you are yet to provide any real answer to. I suppose pointing out gaping holes in someone’s argument is often going to irritate them. I’m not sure that is sufficient of a reason not to point out those holes.