By Mande Wilkes || Apparently more concerned with gesture than with justice, a handful of officials are seeking a change of venue for the 9/11 terrorist trials.
September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists – all of them Guantanamo detainees – are set to stand trial in lower Manhattan.
Since Attorney General Eric Holder announced the venue, there has been vague opposition to it. Now that opposition is gaining steam, as several elected officials – including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and South Carolina’s own Lindsey Graham – are petitioning Holder to try the five terrorists elsewhere.
Elsewhere?
How about Iraq? Yes, try the 9/11 terrorists in Iraq. Sure none of the defendants is Iraqi, nor is Iraq at all material to the case, but that didn’t stop the government from making Iraq singularly answerable for 9/11 anyway.
Frankly, the trial venue itself seems insignificant. That there is finally a trial, nearly a decade after the commission of the crimes, is what’s important. Is a military commission more proper a venue than federal court? Perhaps. But that’s neither here nor there. To bicker about venue is to stomp on the spirit of the trial itself.
That notwithstanding, the administration of Barack Obama is quietly caving to the pressure. Said to be looking into “contingencies,” Obama appears likely to change the location of the trial.
So why not move it to Iraq? I hear they like us there. And if nothing else, it’d be a good way to demonstrate to Iraqis that commitment of ours to a little thing called the “rule of law,” you know?
EDITOR’S NOTE: For the record, the foreign policy of our founding editor is to strap terrorists who are convicted by military tribunal to cruise missiles – and then to indiscriminately launch those cruise missiles into the country of their origin.
By Liberty For Me January 29, 2010 at 9:22 am
Obama …”YOU LIE”
You make promises to end the military invasion of other countries and then you send in more troops.You show a small amount of balls by pledging to try accused criminals in a criminal court…But then cave on that..?
You want to think you are some kind of new Mao…or the next great socialist.As bad as it is to be a socialist,you dont even have the balls to be one.The socialists in history we all know by a first name basis all had the balls to do what they said they would do regardless of who spoke against them….Man up to your beliefs or resign.
By PasserBy January 29, 2010 at 9:34 am
Mande:
Heck, try them at Gitmo; I hear its got a lot of space available. Seriously, though, “try them” at all? In regular civilian court? With a jury? What person in their right mind is going to want to serve on that jury?
By Darth January 29, 2010 at 9:39 am
KSM still looks like Ron Jeremy… reckon he could bottm for Ron in a twins genre film?
By countryboy January 29, 2010 at 9:42 am
No terrorist should be tried in a civilian court, in my opinion. The reason is whore defense lawyers. You could put Osama himself on trail and the whore attorneys would line up to defend him…..and I am not saying they would necessarily be muslim lawyers either. Try them in military courts on military bases under military rules. Instead of the cruise missile idea of the founding editor, I would prefer letting them walk out the back of a C-130 with the ramp down, from about 12,000 ft. falling right into a large hog farm. I would strap a chute and a reserve chute on them, telling them you are dropping them into the country of their choice. Of course neither chute would deploy….
By Liberty For Me January 29, 2010 at 10:01 am
“countryboy” This is a very simple discussion.We either are a country of laws or we are not…Period.
The first party to follow our laws should be the government…People who commit crimes should all be tried the same.Because that is our laws read
We cant have war trials because we are not at war.There is no law to where these people can be tried as war criminals.
If they are tried as war criminals it would be illegal and that would be a great way for them to be set free.Now is the time to start abiding by our own laws and remembering we have a constitution…otherwise we soon wont have a republic or a constitution
By hans January 29, 2010 at 10:04 am
I’m sure KSM will be tried in a very red state like Oklahoma or Utah…heck…maybe even in South Carolina…payback for being red…
By countryboy January 29, 2010 at 10:28 am
Liberty, there are constitutional experts who would disagree with you that terrorists must be tried in civilian courts. And while Congress has not formally declared war, the terrorists certainly have declared war (Jihad) on us, over and over.
I am referring to foreign terrorists. As much as I hate to say it, US citizens that become terrorists should be tried in US civilian courts, if captured in the USA. Not sure if captured on foreign soil. But non-citizens should not have the constitutional rights of a citizen. Finally, we can take positions like your ACLU type thinking, “a nation of laws” and “being politically correct” to such lengths that it ultimately harms this country, in my opinion.
By sid January 29, 2010 at 10:30 am
“…but that didn’t stop the government from making Iraq singularly answerable for 9/11 anyway.”
I thought I remembered some action in a little country called Afghanistan, which was the actual response to 9/11. I think, and feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken, we are still involved in some small way over there.
The notion that Iraq was a response to 9/11 is somewhat of a myth, generated to make it appear as if Bush lied about the connection in order to retaliate for plots against his daddy. Now, he may have wanted revenge for plots against his daddy, and he may have made some comments linking Iraq to the 9/11 plotters, but most of the Iraq push was geared around WMDs, “regime change,” and the potential threat Iraq (under Saddam)posed to the region.
One may certainly disagree with those reasons for going into Iraq, but Bush did not sell the action based on “making Iraq singularly answerable for 9/11.”
By Groundball January 29, 2010 at 11:04 am
What a picture. When did the Governor grow a mustache? I guess when he stopped shaving his shoulders.
Oh sorry. I didn’t read the article. I’m in between countryboy and Liberty on this one (leaning toward Liberty).
By Ducky January 29, 2010 at 11:36 am
Why should “healthcare reform” be held behind closed and locked doors,
but terrorists are given a public stage???
What about the promise to put it all on C-SPAZ???
HE LIES!!!!!
By Rufus Pinochle January 29, 2010 at 11:44 am
I’m not sure why we’re trying him at all. Captured combatants who operate in the manner of Al Qaeda are not protected by the Geneva Convention and so may be considered francs-tireurs — essentially illegal combatants. As such, they may be executed summarily. In a perfect world, we never would have been aware he’d been captured. He would have been taken, interrogated, executed. In a like manner we’d systematically eliminate the rest of his comrades. But alas we live in a world where the capture of terrorists is political capital.
By Liberty For Me January 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm
countryboy…Those “constitutional experts” are not experts,but in fact people like our so called leader that try to bastardize the meaning and words within the constitution.The constitution and most of our laws are pretty straight forward.
Now how many of the laws we have should we not have is a totally different subject…
By Liberty For Me January 29, 2010 at 12:06 pm
….or we can go the way of “Rufus” here and start acting like Che Quavera shooting people in the streets without a trial.I think Obama might go fo that one.Especially if he could stop the info on the internet.
By Liberty For Me January 29, 2010 at 12:12 pm
“countryboy”…”Finally, we can take positions like your ACLU type thinking, “a nation of laws” and “being politically correct” to such lengths that it ultimately harms this country, in my opinion.”
Are you saying we are not a nation of laws???…This is “my” thinking??
I hope you are not that dumb.
And your point to this is?? We should only prosecute laws randomly and to certain people??..That is if we are a nation of laws which you seem to question somehow
By Ynotfirst January 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Why are Fox News and NBC showing Osama Bin Laden’s picture when they talk about this shiek?
The above picture is the only one I’ve seen connected to the Shiek but Osama’s picture keeps being used.
Are the networks trying to “scare” us????
By madcock January 29, 2010 at 12:33 pm
For twenty years, we have been trying Muslin terror suspects in civilian courts in the US. From the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing to the trials of the Shoe Bomber and the so-called 22 hijacker from 9-11. GOP adminstrations’ justice depts took these steps repeatedly with the full support of polticians on both side of the aisle.
Now with a Democratic President in office, the GOP does a full 180 and the mainstream media does nothing to point out this hypocrisy, acting as if the Obama justice dept. is pursuing a new course instead of what it is actully doing, following the same course as the post 9-11 Bush justice dept.
Dems had better wake up. The GOP prays for further economic distress and another deadly terrorist attack on the US in order to further damage Obama, and will do anything to win the next election in service of their corporate masters, and the mainstream media is their “usefull idiot” to use Lenin’s phrase.
Tough time to be an American. But the nation’s worth it.
By Liberty For Me January 29, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“madcock”…Your right about the trials and I think it is a point of contention just for neocons to get out their pocket flags and start waving them…..
The rest of your post is ridiculous…Nobody needs to help or root for Obama to destroy the country. He is doing a fine job of it all by himself.
It is a tough time…but a enlightening time for millions.Liberty not socialism will rise from the ashes to destroy big government and the corporatism that goes along with it…
By Rufus Pinochle January 29, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Liberty, you make an interesting and provocative point. I don’t see the comparison as valid, however. What I’m proposing is not a revolutionary doctrine, such as the sadist Guevara might have used to justify his actions, but has rather has been a basic, widely accepted rule of war for centuries. Ask Nathan Hale about the trial he got from the British. Oh wait, he didn’t. Why? Because he violated the rules of war, and by doing so, forfeited his right to a trial. And you know what? He knew it and accepted it. More recently, this idea is codified in article 4 of the Geneva Convention. Which, last time I checked, is a far cry Che’s m.o. or even from the actions of W.T. Sherman.
By sid January 29, 2010 at 1:21 pm
It won’t matter if Barry causes further economic distress or fails to stop another deadly terrorist attack. He’ll just blame Bush, and the lunatic left will continue to swallow such tripe. Fortunately, the more his extremist agenda falters, the more the lunatic left loses faith in The One. So, he never had the hard right, lost whatever small percentage of the right he had at inauguration, then lost the center-right and center, and is losing the hard left. So, he’s got the tepid support of the center-left and left, but probably losing that, as well. Quite an accomplishment in a year, but that epic failure is all Bush’s fault, too. Tough time to be The One.
By Commonman January 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I’m with Groundball. Must have been a long week-end hiking the Trail.
By Another comment January 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Interesting logic sid. So you are saying Obama was handed a thriving economy, regardless of the two wars, a collapsing financial market etc, the Bush administration bail out of the auto industry and the banking industry and all of this is Obamas fault.? So in your opinion the past administration bares no blame for the collapse of the financial market, the poorly planned after invasion plans involving Iran and Afghan? And anyone who believes this “tripe” must be a lunatic according to you? Every president makes mistakes first year, Bush’s was ignoring the intelligence on 9/11 and Obamas was (among many mistakes) to target health care with out fully understanding the forces lined up against health care reform, when he should have tackled the job situation. But to blame the entire financial crisis entirely on a president who has been in office one year seems like a stretch. Its like when people say Obama has been soft on terrorists.Gee that seems to go against history, in his first year he has taken out more hi value AL queda terrorists than Bush did in his last THREE years in office, but maybe its just that pesky “main stream” history and not reality at least in your world.
Am i to assume by your logic you blame 9/11 on Bush correct? If you prefer, i can link you to the vids of Cheney saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11, so saying it was just for regime change is well, a lie. if that was the case how Bush gave all that oil to Kim Jun in Korea instead of invading..hmm..I know you dont want to be hypocritical so im glad we got that out of the way.
By Elmer January 29, 2010 at 3:00 pm
What this terrorist did was no different than what Timothy McVeigh did when he blew up the Oklahoma City building. Both acts of terrorism on American soil. Why treat this terrorist any different than a home grown terrorist?
Unless of course your true motive is to scare people and try to provoke hatred against Muslims.
Why didn’t George Bush catch Osama anyway? I thought he was supposed to be a real man and a hero on the war on terror. All he and Cheney did was invade wrong countries spending billions failing to get the mastermind behind the plot. i see the Brits are having hearings to find out exactly how they were duped into the Iraq War.
I suggest we do the same thing.
By sid January 29, 2010 at 4:21 pm
No, Ac, what I’m saying is that, no matter what Barry does wrong, he will inevitably blame Bush. That’s been his MO so far.
Barry supported one of the two wars, but now he must take responsibility for both. He’s President, not Bush. If he wasn’t prepared to handle the job (as it appears), he shouldn’t have volunteered. But stop whining about being handed a mess. It’s undignified.
As for the economy, if you are going to blame Bush for what Barry was dealt, then you must blame Barry for what he’s made of the hand. That, of course, is the simplistic explanation. In reality, the collapse was a problem coming for some time, some of which you might be able to blame on George, but most of which was caused by others. What happens now, though, is all on Barry.
If you’re for the bailouts, you can thank both Barry and George for the first round, and just Barry for the rest. They both promoted the first round, you see. If you’re opposed, then you blame both Barry and George for the first round, but just Barry for the rest. See how that works?
But really, you need to MoveOn regarding Bush, and let’s stick with Barry. Or do you support the Barry mantra of “Just Blame Bush”? That’s the point, really.
Your “soft on terrorist” canard has already been exposed as either a lie, or simply unprovable. Or do you only read the DNC talking points? Then again, I never raised that point. What I said was, Barry will just keep blaming Bush. And that’s exactly what you are doing. You follow orders very well.
You can assume whatever you want. Realistically, if you want to blame anyone for 9/11, blame Clinton for not having Osama killed when he had the chance. He was too gutless, unfortunately.
Go ahead and offer the link, though, “proving” the 9/11-Iraq sales pitch. If all you have is one link, then you prove my point. One statement implying a connection is exactly what I alluded to. You do realize that the buildup to invading Iraq did take a little while? I know in your mind you imagine Cheney snapping his fingers, and the missiles started to fly, but that’s just not what happened.
But again, you prove the point. All you have, with Barry failing miserably, is a consistent message of blaming, or bringing up, Bush. Again, MoveOn. Americans are tired of it. It’s time Barry stood on his own two feet and started accepting responsibility for what he has done, and what he has failed to do. Barry needs to put on his big-boy pants and take charge, and responsibility. Bush is gone, and that’s the point. You either missed it because you wanted to, or because you were incapable of understanding it.
By Another comment January 29, 2010 at 5:10 pm
sid,
First off i have not defended all of obamas decisions nor do i blame Bush everytime i stub my toe, unlike your desire to blame Clinton, Obama or anyone but a repub when it comes to the worlds trouble spots/issues. I think one of the most frustrating issues that comes up, and true on both sides of the political debate is the inability of the most extreme to admit any wrong doing. Cheney on tape repeatedly saying Saddam had something to so with 9/11 even after being completely dis proven. The same with the right that screamed you should never knock a sitting war time president and then the same right does nothing but knock a sitting war time president. The left does it too its not a party specific issue, it seems to be an asshole specific issue.
You blame Clinton for being gutless regarding Bi Laden, have you read a book by Dalton Fury titled: Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander’s Account of the Hunt for the World’s Most Wanted Man? Go read that and then come back with some actual knowledge on the subject and lets see if you can admit mistakes have been made on both sides. people are human and they make mistakes, But Bush had him in his gun sights and didnt pull the trigger. Doubt me, read it from the guy who was actually on the ground, leading the Delta Team to capture/kill Bin Laden. Before you scream hes a liberal you would again be best served to do some research as he is most def not a liberal.
Dalton was the actual team lead for the Delta Team that was assigned to hunt down and kill Bin Laden. The actual team leader. The guy in the sand with a rifle in his hand. Read his account then come back and tell me Bush did everything right and actually tried to get Bin laden. While so harsh to judge an administration that has been in office for one year are you able for even a brief moment to turn that judgmental light on the administration that blundered through two wars and a huge amount of our national resources. For the record i completely support the war effort in Afghanistan. Iraq was a clusterfuck from the moment hostilities ceased until about a year ago, all because of ass poor planning.
I am afraid the facts dont back you up and we will see what kind of character you have, can you admit being wrong? Lets face it, America has been screwed by the last few presidents and now that Exxon or Iran can put $100 million into a political campaign against anyone who doesn’t share there views, we are doubly screwed in the long term.
By Liberty For Me January 29, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Rufus Pinochle …We are not at war and we were not at war on 9/11.
If we were ,then Bush should have been tried by a military tribunal for not having a very good defense set up.
By Liberty For Me January 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Those of you that blame Bush are right!!.Those of you that blame Obama are right!!..
Those of you that blame one while protecting the other are blind neocon(fascists) or progressive socialists….Both are big government ideals that make little difference,because both will end on the exact same page…which detour we take to get there makes little difference.
Those of you that make excuses for one while defending the other really are very transparent to those of us that have enough knowledge to see through it.And you look really silly…and not very bright
By tdrag January 29, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Liberty For Me, why don’t you tell all those military folks in Iraq and Afghanistan we are not at war. The minute those planes hit the Trade Center we were at war. Nothing has changed. We ARE at war with an enemy who believes they are at war with us and they haven’t given up. KSM and his boys should be tried at GITMO and then put in a cell until they die so they can’t be martyrs.
By BIN News Editorial Staff January 29, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Geezers people. No one reads such long rants. Make them short. And someone needs to ask Manatee when she was last in Iraq. How many friends does she have there? Or is she just blowwwviating again? Get a job, poor girl.
By No Way! January 29, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Guys, we have to remember how these guys treat us. We have to get down on a middle ages type of level so that they can understand we mean business. Several options come to mind:
1. Public beheading
2. Stoning
3. Gallows
No trial necessary. We know they are enemies!
By sid January 29, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Here are the facts, Ac. I posted a funny jab at Barry about always blaming Bush. You ran to Barry’s defense because you saw a chance to try to get even with me for making you look like a fool previously. In Barry’s defense, you did exactly what Barry does, and decided to make it all about Bush. Thus, you are what you are perceived to be, which is a Barry defender/Bush basher. You can say you are not one, but you sure do act like one.
Again, post you links to Cheney. You said you had one, so post it. Or are you not just a fool, but a liar. Anyone who doesn’t have a deep hatred of Bush/Cheney knows that the major arguments made for Iraq were WMDs and regime change for regional stability. Only a fool believes the myth that the WH was trying to force a 9/11 link on Congress and America. You’re one of those fools, apparently. Unless you can prove it with actual fact, not just what you believe. You are a fool, and, possibly, a liar.
As for killing Osama, again, Clinton dropped the ball because he was a coward. Bush brought us into two major conflicts, but you really believe he was afraid to have Osama killed. Now you’re just an idiot.
For the record, I have not defended Bush. I have laughed at Barry being a failure, and using Bush as a repeated scapegoat. Ac is simply acting like Barry, is all I’m saying. And being an idiot.
By Liberty For Me January 29, 2010 at 9:30 pm
tdrag….You are clueless to what you speak.If we are at war,what country are we at war with??? Who declared the war???..what goal do we achieve to stop this so called war and claim victory??
Twenty bucks says you cant answer these questions in a relevant statement.
By herecomethejudge January 30, 2010 at 12:14 am
Why not move the trial to South Carolina? It would be great for business. Imagine all the media people and the money they would bring in locally. By the time it’s over everyone will be begging for more. Was UBL ever officially charged with the attacks? If he was on kidney dialysis, wouldn’t he be dead by now? It’s not easy to run a dialysis machine in a cave.
By Old Bike Dude January 30, 2010 at 8:28 am
I’m somewhat amused by those who “love” America but hate Americans. They love to quote their beloved constitution, well at least the parts they like. In their minds the remainder of the constitutional scribble is just wrong.
By Another comment January 30, 2010 at 9:39 am
sid..there go just calling people names instead of discussing the facts brought up. You have never made me look foolish. Your arrogance, inclination to lie and ignore any arguments that diminish your weak arguments. Your kinda crazy it seems. You seem to have this belief you can tell what people are thinking.I ask everyone to go reread your older posts and what they will find is you constantly assume to know what others are thinking, the height of egomania i guess. Instead of just being an asshole i believe you are truly delusional. You say Cheney didn’t associate 9/11 or al quedia with Iraq..here let me prove you hopelessly clueless once again..its almost too easy to make you look like a fool sid..but heres the proof..go ahead and call me childish names junior..anything to make you happy in moms basement. Lonely much?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLrITIFacA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&feature=related
i could go on and on but you have already proven you are my bitch.
By Another comment January 30, 2010 at 9:53 am
The funny part my bitch sid is that you are doing exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing. You call everyone a bush basher/barry defender and all you are is a barry basher/bush defender..and the truly funny part is you dont even see the hypocrisy. You truly are delusional arent ya sid? if you would read my comments i mention i dont agree with everything Obama has done and actually am more a third party kinda guy as i see fault on both sides, you are so delusional you see fault on only one side of the argument. Pretty much the definition of a tool. For those foolish enough to say, like you do, that everything was great before he took office is just plain not true, and boarders on complete delusion. sid my little bitch, im done toying with you. Have a good weekend in moms basement and keep hoping you will go out with a girl someday, and not the kind that needs an air pump.
By Pat Hendrix January 30, 2010 at 10:35 am
Sid, impressive and persuasive argument. I’d like for you to keep “schooling” us, but your mother wants you off the computer. No doubt she thinks you’re masterbating to the latest George Will article.
As for the original post, do you folks find it odd that you fancy yourselves such badasses but wet the bed everytime you think of terrorists?
Grow a pair.
By Warren January 30, 2010 at 10:49 am
Say what you want annoying bitch Sid, but I no longer cringe when the President speaks.
Stop the psycho analysis. It just makes you look immature.
By Liberty For Me January 30, 2010 at 11:49 am
Old Bike Dude …Do you have some facts in your last statement or are you just making things up???…
I myself stand for all of the Constitution as should everyone…although I would like to repeal the 17th amendment.
Clue us in on who the hypocrite is that picks and chooses what he stands for.
By Old Bike Dude January 30, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Gee LFM it was just a thought. I don’t think I noted any specific numbers…but I was calling you out. No jus kiddin’.
By sid January 31, 2010 at 12:16 am
Once again, Ac, you prove my point. You are an idiot. Oh, and that the buildup to Iraq was predominantly about WMDs, and regime change for stability. I watched your anti-Bush/Cheney videos, and there was never a single mention of an Iraq connection to 9/11. You said, “i can link you to the vids of Cheney saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11.” That was a lie. Or is that quote in another link you forgot to include. Sure, there were claimed Iraq links to terrorism. But you said 9/11. You do know that 9/11 is not the only act of terrorism that has ever been committed, right? Again, your claim is a lie, based on what you supplied. The vast majority of the footage you linked to referred to WMDs, as well as links to terrorism (that’s regional stability, moron).
Now, if by “bitch” you mean “superior,” then you are correct. I am clearly your superior. You are a weak-minded fool, who believes whatever tripe liberals feed you. The really sad part, though, is you don’t even have the capability to regurgitate the simplest talking points, and screw those up.
Again, the facts are you ran to Barry’s aid when I posted a funny comment about his continually blaming Bush. That makes you kinda Barry’s bitch, I guess. But nowhere did I even remotely imply that I thought things were fine before Barry. That’s just you being, again, a moron. Unless you can point me to a posting of mine where I claimed things were “great” before Barry took office. Go ahead, liar. Show us you are not a complete idiot, and prove me wrong.
Finally, your sad fixation with my dead mother’s basement, along with your apparent belief that dating a girl is some sort of grand accomplishment, leaves me wondering if you are just some stupid kid, or a mildly retarded adult with a seriously arrested state of development. I think I’m gonna go with the former, as the latter would just be too sad to think about.
By sid January 31, 2010 at 12:27 am
Geeze, Pat, I thought you were a little better than that. I’m becoming so disillusioned with all the liberal posters I used to think gave me a little challenge. This Ac stain seemed weak from the start, and didn’t prove me wrong. But I always thought you had a little to offer. Guess I was wrong. Now you want to seem so tough, but I guess that’s what happens when you get saddled with a girl’s name. You have to present this great facade that you can take all comers, when really you probably just take all cummers.
As for you, Warren, if you really don’t cringe every time Barry speaks, then I guess (here it comes) I’ve got you pretty well figured out. The simple minds are generally the easiest to analyze.
By warren January 31, 2010 at 8:47 am
Write all the drivel you want bitch Sid, you’ve got it all figured out. Meanwhile, you’re getting killed here.
By Another comment January 31, 2010 at 10:09 am
My little bitch sid..Obviously you pick and choose what you respond to ignoring what the main point is most of the time, a true sign of the delusional. As you can tell by the people who commented, all seem to think you are an asshole and a tool..i guess if every one tells you the sky is blue, well the sky is blue. Everyone thinks you are a whiny little bitch..so you must be a whiney little bitch., bur your my little wihiney bitch..i own you sid and you know it. And of course once again you just resort to name calling, i bet high school etc was like this for you as well, no friends and you probably the fat chubby kid who everyone thought was weird. Guess they had been right..
By Sarah January 31, 2010 at 1:42 pm
To help raise money for the south carolina revenue shortfall, let’s auction off bitch Sid’s services. Maybe come summer, his annoying tone could be used to scare away some mosquitoes.
By sid February 1, 2010 at 12:40 am
No, Warren/warren (can’t make up your mind, even though it’s such a simple little thing?), I just have you figured out, not everything. Give me a little time, though, and I’ll have most of it solved. And if you think I’m “getting killed,” then you’ve simply confirmed everything I already thought about you. Sad, really, that one small person like yourself can write so little, and still reveal so much about what you are. Then again, when you aren’r much, I guess that should not be too surprising. You can’t even come up with anything more original than parroting your little “friend” Ac.
By sid February 1, 2010 at 1:05 am
Let’s see, Ac, the main point used to be, Barry blames Bush for all his failures, and you ran to Barry’s defense because you are an obedient little liberal. I’m not even sure why you chose to step in so “offended,” since everyone knows this is what Barry does. He gets grilled for it constantly.
Then you tried to change the point to your claim that the Iraq invasion was all sold as a response to 9/11. You yourself then provided all the evidence to show that this statement was a lie. Amazingly, you went out of your way to prove yourself a liar. And although you like to call me your “little bitch,” you have actually made yourself your own little bitch. Only the truly retarded could accomplish such a feat, so I applaud you on your achievement.
As for your claim that all are for you and against me, that’s fairly wrong, too. Patsy will always go against me, as he’s a flaming liberal. I’ve also slapped him around a few times, so he’s a little afraid to come at me directly. Same with OBD, who also seems rather homophobic, so maybe he thinks I’m gay. This Warren/warren character is singularly unimpressive, kind of like you, and just seems to spout your lines. Nobody else really cares. Oh, except the tards at BIN, who just complain that they can’t seem to follow posts longer than a sentence or two, so that’s not really a point in your favor.
Ultimately, though, even if you were scoring major points, you seem to be the only one in a competition. I couldn’t care less if some folks don’t like my posts. I post for me, not for others. And remember, this is a South Carolina blog. “Winning” whatever contest you think you are in kinda loses its luster when you have to tell people it involved South Carolina.
By Wwarren February 1, 2010 at 9:54 am
Sid Bitch,
I know everything I need to know about you: you’re Ac’s bitch.
You don’t know everything and people tire of listening to your wild assed extrapolations, however amusing they may be.
Now take your ball and go home.
By sid February 1, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Like I said, Wwarren/Warren/warren (even your sad attempts at being clever are nothing more than copying others), I don’t feel I know everything, even if you want to try to convince others I’ve said as much. But I do know you. You, like Ac, seem to have a great deal of difficulty with simple honesty. I guess you must be a Barry supporter, based on that obsevation, as they all tend to be a bit on the dishonest side of things. I encourage you to keep copying others, though, as it is the only chance you have of getting something right.
I’m glad you consider my postings amusing, though. I just wish I could say the same for yours. You are just a sad disappointment, likely to yourself, but certainly to your parents.
By Warren February 1, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Sid Bitch:
I am not politically active, so your inferences are unsupported (again). I just read this blog because they trash Clemson and USC regularly.
Whereas I don’t know you, I can realistically infer (from your comments here and on other articles) that
1) you are unliked
2) you are prone to make assumptions
3) you are Ac’s bitch
In fact, I’ll be damned if you didn’t once argue the definition of winter with the state climatologist of Georgia. Overall, maybe you should try a different approach. Then people won’t hate on you so much.
By sid February 2, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Gee, Warren, your reading comprehension skills are as unimpressive as your imagination, perception, and sense of pride in taking part in the processes that determine important policy matters that impact everyone in this country. But you are a Barry supporter, even if you don’t do anything to help guide this country.
Oh, and you are apparently headed for Hell. The ass I debated was not the Georgia State Climatologist, nor was our discussion in any way related to the definition of winter. I’d suggest you read the dialogue again, but I’m afraid you’d only become more confused.
You are even more stupid than Ac, which is really hard to accomplish. I guess in the heirarchy of intelligence, that makes you Ac’s bith. How sad for you. I, of course, remain the superior of the both of you, on so many levels.
By warren February 2, 2010 at 10:15 pm
The ass you debated on when winter begins was most certainly the state climatologist of GA. That much I do know. More misinformation from bitch sid.
By sid February 3, 2010 at 1:25 am
Then tell me his name, warren (yet another change/lapse in ability to maintain a simple train of thought). I know the name of both the ass I debated, as well as that of the GA State Climatologist. Try Google, you moron. Stop digging the hole. It’s already deep enough. I challenge you to prove you are correct. You cannot, because you are, undoubtedly, the stupidest man alive, based solely on this exchange. You could not be more wrong, unless you decide to restate your moronic claims. Then you will actually become more wrong, if anyone can believe that. Moron. Got it?
By warren February 3, 2010 at 8:42 am
Snowdog = David Stooksbury
Now to prove that I am not the stupidest man alive, I merely note that I have already established that my IQ exceeds yours.
You’re getting destroyed bitch sid. I’ve seen better heads on lettuce.
By sid February 3, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I have no idea what you are talking about, warren. I had a long back-and-forth with an egghead that he thought was about the climate. But I don’t recall any debate with Stooksbury, or anyone who goes by “Snowdog.” Please remind me of when this alleged debate took place.
As for your IQ, if it beats a warm summer night, I’d be surprised. Mine exceeds 99% of those tested, so I’ve got that going for me. Which is nice.
At least it’s nice to see I’ve got you to focus on your attention span. You actually got your name the same on consecutive posts. I guess I’m your educator, as well as your superior.
By warren February 3, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Then I do not tell you his name, asshole. But, I am enamored that sid has a warm summer slot for me.
By warren February 4, 2010 at 12:01 am
Hi Warren, more cowbell, please
By warren February 4, 2010 at 12:15 am
Warren, I mean warren….. My momma has a longer bush than you…..
By warren February 4, 2010 at 12:34 am
You argued about the Julian calendar with Stooks!
Ronche, Honche, and your mommy don’t wan’tche.
You’re fucked. Warren, she likes you and your hard hitting serve.
Nice guys.
By warren February 4, 2010 at 12:44 am
I do not have a warm summer slot for you. Keep Sid away from me, women, and children.
By warren February 4, 2010 at 12:55 am
Stooks will say expected minimum of ARMA(1,1) series is cool to have
How will you be able to hekp me?????
By Patriot February 9, 2010 at 11:16 am
To: another comment:
yes mistakes were made on both sides. Bush let the muzzle of the delta operators by left the leash on, therefore making it a near impossible mission. However, Clinton had bin laden on a silver platter more than once. Read hunting the jackal by Billy Waugh. Waugh was mentioned in KBL when he was age 70 with boots on the ground. in 92 he was jogging the same streets bin laden walked and even came up with a plan and a snipers nest to finish the s.o.b. off. The clinton administration gave him a no go. Our political correctness straps our hands behind our back and hinders our capabilities. Clinton, who I might add publicly said he loathed the military, also had chances to get him in the late 90s as well. Delta came up with a plan to get him, and Hank crumton has recently and publicly said there were some very good oppurtunities to snatch or kill him during clinton’s years in office. Dems and repubs have screwed the pooch on this one but clinton couldve save 2000 odd something lives if he had a pair of you know what’s in between his legs. Hillary was probably runnin the show back then too