One of the first things I did was establish that the Indiana court's ruling was not at all consistent with the facts of the case. The second thing I did was establish that the method used by the judge to examine the case IS consistent with current and traditional standards used in Shariah Law.
That last point regarding Shariah is very relevant to this case. The judge was lead counsel for the defense side for the prisoners at GITMO for 8 years. He had more than enough close contact with Moslem radicals to think he may have gone over!
So, punk, I'm after the judge for being an AlQaida adjunct and you think this has something to do with me being a jack booted thug lover?
Let me suggest this one time ~ you attack me on the points I've made on this case with knowledge of what has been posted before by me and others or I will ask that you be removed from FR PERMANANTLY.
Frankly, I don't think you're smart enough to discuss the big letters on my jockstrap ~ even close up eh!
We have dozens of threads on this case. If you bothered reading them you’d learn something.
One of the first things I did was establish that the Indiana court’s ruling was not at all consistent with the facts of the case. The second thing I did was establish that the method used by the judge to examine the case IS consistent with current and traditional standards used in Shariah Law.
That last point regarding Shariah is very relevant to this case. The judge was lead counsel for the defense side for the prisoners at GITMO for 8 years. He had more than enough close contact with Moslem radicals to think he may have gone over!
So, punk, I’m after the judge for being an AlQaida adjunct and you think this has something to do with me being a jack booted thug lover?
Let me suggest this one time ~ you attack me on the points I’ve made on this case with knowledge of what has been posted before by me and others or I will ask that you be removed from FR PERMANANTLY.
Frankly, I don’t think you’re smart enough to discuss the big letters on my jockstrap ~ even close up eh!
*********
Remove “this” permanently. FR isn’t someplace that removes people who love the Constitution, just because some police-state lover got butthurt. Your reaction is typical of the statist police-state enthusiast though. Can’t handle someone with a differnt thought so banish it! Whatever. The world nor my time revolves around your previous posts. I couldn’t give a crap what points you’ve made nor do I care to investigate what some loud-mouthed yahoo on the internet typed at some point. Nothing you’ve said, think, or typed had any relevance to the outcome of this decision. The only-ONLY- thing that matters is the awful, liberty-killing expansion of the Police State that these rulings made legal.
Cops breaking into houses without warrants is 100% bull$@!#$@t. No conservative should support such unConstitutional madness.