bye bye habeas corpus =,(

[nhojsmith]

I really have no idea what the fuck troll is talking about, reading what the MCA 2006 actually says, you need look no further than the purpose.

‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally ‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

Do you see it troll? where is says alien? I underlined it for you. Remember this is after the capitalized letters PURPOSE. For people saying, where does it say THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO US CITIZENS, well I think it clearly says that by using the word alien, and having defined alien as a person not from the United states.

It seems like you found a lot of stories from the opinion sections of newspapers or news sources. Please dont confuse these opinions from news sources as news. I mean I could find one legal scholar saying it applies only to aliens as you can saying it could pertain to all of us. Did the patriot act take away a lot of our rights? Yes. Does MCA 2006 take away rights of US citizens? No.

Obviously this is a contentious issue. This is just a general observation, i dont care what anyone in this threads political affiliation is because i think anyone affiliated is an idiot. But the dems say that the gop is using fear to win votes. This is a case where the dems are using fear to win votes by making baseless claims that this applies to US citizens. But remember folks "the US government is controlled by the illuminati which runs the world and controls everything and is taking away our rights and controls us like sheep oh how terrible" so this doesnt really matter much does it.

 

[TROLL]

I really have no idea what the fuck troll is talking about,

sounds like its a personal problem..

reading what the MCA 2006 actually says, you need look no further than the purpose.

‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally ‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

u must have not actually read what ive been posting so far...

Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act is specifically aimed at US citizens and announces any crime as "domestic terrorism". Citizens can be held without a trial as "Enemy Combatants". The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

Do you see it troll? where is says alien? I underlined it for you. Remember this is after the capitalized letters PURPOSE. For people saying, where does it say THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO US CITIZENS, well I think it clearly says that by using the word alien, and having defined alien as a person not from the United states.

did u read it NHOjsmith?? where i italicized, bolded and underlined? you citzenship can be stripped if your labeld an enemy combatant, thus, stripping u of your right to habeas corpus... please pay better attention

It seems like you found a lot of stories from the opinion sections of newspapers or news sources.

i use articles that contain facts... can u discredit any that ive posted as having false information??

Please dont confuse these opinions from news sources as news. I mean I could find one legal scholar saying it applies only to aliens as you can saying it could pertain to all of us. Did the patriot act take away a lot of our rights? Yes. Does MCA 2006 take away rights of US citizens? No.

can u even find an article that says it doesnt pertain to U.S citizens also?? and re-read sec.802 of the patriot act that i just posted and tell me that these two dont go hand-in-hand..

Obviously this is a contentious issue. This is just a general observation, i dont care what anyone in this threads political affiliation is because i think anyone affiliated is an idiot. But the dems say that the gop is using fear to win votes. This is a case where the dems are using fear to win votes by making baseless claims that this applies to US citizens.

dems arent the only ones making this claim..

But remember folks "the US government is controlled by the illuminati which runs the world and controls everything and is taking away our rights and controls us like sheep oh how terrible" so this doesnt really matter much does it.

wrong, knowing this info is half the battle..

 

[Rob S4]

DAMN HOMEBOI DATS TREAL SPIT NOW DA ILLUMINATYZ GUNNA LOCK UP DA HOMEBOIS AND DA SKRAPZ GUNNA TAKE OVA. SPREAD DA WORD HOMEBOI TRUST NOBODY

hahaha this cat is fucking hilarious. He said Da Skrapz Gunna Take Ova hahaha. Classic.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

Your new favorite thing to put in bold and italics:

Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act is specifically aimed at US citizens and announces any crime as "domestic terrorism". Citizens can be held without a trial as "Enemy Combatants". The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

Your first post in this thread:

October 17, 2006, 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up for any period of time; without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law; thus bypassing the writ of Habeas Corpus.

So which is it? Did the Patriot Act kill Habeas Corpus, or did the MCA kill it?



I repeat:

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Translation: Military commissions do not apply to non-aliens, i.e., American Citizens. No law degree necessary.

And from WikiPedia, which is about as unbiased a site as you can find these days ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus ):

On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for any alien (noncitizen) determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[2][3] by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.[4]) President Bush signed the Military Commissons Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.

Delays in trials suck, but shit happens. Any American being held under terror charges will get his day in court--this MCA legislation does not change that. But Non-Americans terrorists do not deserve a day in court, and should they get one, they should thank their goddamn lucky stars that we don't just shoot them in the face and say "oops".

 

[TROLL]

Your new favorite thing to put in bold and italics:

i use watever is at my disposal

Your first post in this thread:

yes, Ulysees S grant supended habeas corpus...135 years ago!!, u figure we woulda learned from our past but eventually it was re-instated, correct??

So which is it? Did the Patriot Act kill Habeas Corpus, or did the MCA kill it?

its a 1-2 punch..

I repeat:

Nothing's stopped u so far.. u seem to be getting good at it..

Translation: Military commissions do not apply to non-aliens, i.e., American Citizens. No law degree necessary.

true or False?
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

And
from WikiPedia, which is about as unbiased a site as you can find these days ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus ):

uhhh... harry...PLEASE FUCKIN READ WHAT YOU POST!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
VVV

Delays in trials suck, but shit happens. Any American being held under terror charges will get his day in court--this MCA legislation does not change that. But Non-Americans terrorists do not deserve a day in court, and should they get one, they should thank their goddamn lucky stars that we don't just shoot them in the face and say "oops".

read this last paragraph and realize how fuckin STUPID you look now...

 

[TROLL]

^^^
/thread

 

[nhojsmith]

sounds like its a personal problem..

u must have not actually read what ive been posting so far...

Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act is specifically aimed at US citizens and announces any crime as "domestic terrorism". Citizens can be held without a trial as "Enemy Combatants". The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.


did u read it NHOjsmith?? where i italicized, bolded and underlined? you citzenship can be stripped if your labeld an enemy combatant, thus, stripping u of your right to habeas corpus... please pay better attention

i use articles that contain facts... can u discredit any that ive posted as having false information??

can u even find an article that says it doesnt pertain to U.S citizens also?? and re-read sec.802 of the patriot act that i just posted and tell me that these two dont go hand-in-hand..


dems arent the only ones making this claim..

wrong, knowing this info is half the battle..

Oh ok, my mistake I thought we were talking about the MCA 2006, you know, the thing that is being discussed in the first article you posted. But I guess you use MCA 2006 and the patriot act interchangably. The patriot act certainly does take away our rights, MCA DOES NOT, get this out of your head and stop acting like a scared little bitch jumping on here crying foul and making false claims. You came on here saying MCA took away habeas corpus from US citizens, it absolutely doesnt, so then once you realized this you retreat and fall back on the patriot act which i already acknowledged took away the rights of US citizens.

Here, its right here from wikipedia, which you are using as your own source:

"The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention. [9] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [10] CBS Legal expert Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted". [11]"

 

[Dirty Shoez]

read this last paragraph and realize how fuckin STUPID you look now...

No...not really. Either you can name cases, or you cannot. And as of right now, you cannot. Every case you have named has fallen apart.

The point is that scholars, law professors, and all of these other people are full of shit. The law says one thing, and they say another. I will believe the law, and you can believe whatever the hell you want to.

 

[THIZZ.I.IZ.]

oh god look whos logged on lol

 

[TROLL]

The point is that scholars, law professors, and all of these other people are full of shit.

LMFAOO yeah ok, id take my chances with the SCHOLARS and LAW PROFESSORS... over the slanted short-sightedness viewpoint of harry.. HA

this question seems to have eluded you twice...

true or False?
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

 

[TROLL]

Oh ok, my mistake I thought we were talking about the MCA 2006, you know, the thing that is being discussed in the first article you posted. But I guess you use MCA 2006 and the patriot act interchangably. The patriot act certainly does take away our rights, MCA DOES NOT,

yes, interchangably, inconjunction, whatever you wish to call it.. one (patriot act) sets up the american citizen to lose his habeas corpus rights (MCA)..

get this out of your head and stop acting like a scared little bitch jumping on here crying foul and making false claims. You came on here saying MCA took away habeas corpus from US citizens, it absolutely doesnt, so then once you realized this you retreat and fall back on the patriot act which i already acknowledged took away the rights of US citizens.

ive stated numerous times that the vagueness of the MCA DOES set up american citizen to lose his rights.. it doesnt SAY nor DENY that the rights of a U.S citizen can be taken away and susceptible to MCA, and that is a tactic many lawyers use... (dont confirm nor deny) now that ive called attention to the faulty STRAWMAN arguement that you just created i would like to reiterate my earlier statement.. can bring up some sort of link, video, ANYTHING to help support your claim?

Here, its right here from wikipedia, which you are using as your own source:

"The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention. [9] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [10] CBS Legal expert Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted". [11]"

wait LMAOOOO ok.. so i get discredit for using a news source so what do you do?? add a news source into wikipedia to make it seem like its 'ok' LMFAOO and i read robert A. Levy's conclusion paper on the habeas corpus/U.S. citizen debate and NOT ONCE did he refer to sec.802 of the patriot act..

 

[Doberman]

habeas corpus
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

Yall startin to lose me. My argument was and is a U.S citizen can be held as an enemy combatant! Plain and simple. and as a refresher the definition of the habeas corpus is above. See the line "After someone has been sentenced and serving time in prison" Now, step aside from all this debating! If you were to be under suspicion or arreseted for anything related to terrorism, it will be a long , long time before you see the light of day or even think about filing a habeas corpus from any one of the "secret prisons" being run by the U.S government all around the world...where they are not restrained by ANY law.

 

[Doberman]

"....You think I'm bullshitin? Test that theory!"
- Brotha Lynch Hung

 

[Dirty Shoez]

LMFAOO yeah ok, id take my chances with the SCHOLARS and LAW PROFESSORS... over the slanted short-sightedness viewpoint of harry.. HA

this question seems to have eluded you twice...

true or False?
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

I don't answer loaded questions with True/False, or Yes/No. Shame on you for not tracking down the original decision, and THEN asking a broader question...but then again, thats what I've come to expect from you: propaganda, red herrings, strawman arguments and all the rest.

http://blogs.citypages.com/ecassel/2003/07/4th_circuit_cou.asp (very slanted, but still an OK source)

"The government appealed Judge Doumar's ruling to the 4th Circuit. In January 2003, the original panel of three judges affirmed the government's designation of Hamdi as an "enemy combatant," saying he was entitled only to a limited judicial inquiry into that decision.

Limited means that the original panel of three judges looked at the scant affidavit of a mid-level Pentagon bureaucrat who claimed that Hamdi was an "enemy combatant" connected with Al Qaeda. The panel accepted the Pentagon's affidavit without question, saying that they would not interfere with the President in a time of "war." If the President chooses to name someone as an enemy combatant and lock them up forever without attorney or any process against him, well that was just fine with them."


"Scant" affidavit, they say.....so I guess you could say they pulled a Troll--they did us all a favor by not allowing us to see the original primary source, but rather THEY will be the ones who decide how to characterize it and you shouldn't worry about being able to judge for yourself.

But otherwise.....no. That was not their ruling.

Read their ruling below:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338R1.P.pdf



From page 16:

"Hamdi is being held according to the time-honored laws and customs
of war. There is nothing illegal about that. The option to detain
those captured in a zone of armed combat for the duration of hostilities
belongs indisputably to the Commander in Chief. Art. II, Sec. II.
And the question is essentially whether the United States can capture
and detain prisoners of war without subjecting the factual circumstances
surrounding foreign battlefield seizures to extensive in-court
review.1 The answer to this is now — and always has been — yes.
In giving prisoners of war the right to litigate their detentions in
American courts, the dissent would install a more restrictive regime
on the executive branch after September 11 than existed before. I
regret that my colleague does not even quote the provisions of Article
I and Article II which delegate the conduct of war to the coordinate branches of our government. For the course on which my dissenting
colleague is embarked will trespass, increment by increment, upon
those powers, to the detriment of the judiciary’s own obligation to
respect the proper limits and boundaries of its role.

To claim, as my colleague does here, that there was no meaningful
judicial review of Hamdi’s detention is incorrect. There was extensive
review of every legal challenge to Hamdi’s detention. The dissent
wishes to proceed further and litigate precisely why petitioner was
seized and whether the military capture can be justified. The conduct
of war, however, involves innumerable discretionary decisions made
by our armed forces in the field every day. Many of them have life
or death consequences. To subject these discretionary decisions made
in the course of foreign combat operations to the prospect of domestic
litigation would be an unprecedented step. Doing so would ignore the
fundamentals of Article I and II — namely that they entrust to our
armed forces the capacity to make the necessary and traditional judgments
attendant to armed warfare, and that among these judgments is
the capture and detention of prisoners of war. See The Prize Cases,
67 U.S. 635, 670 (1862)."



Once again, I read things and make my own grown-up arguments.....and you copy/paste and piggyback other peoples' arguments.

To add more salt to the wound:

"Hamdi’s own filings make clear that he was seized in a zone of
active combat operations. Hamdi’s petition notes that "[w]hen seized
by the United States Government, Mr. Hamdi resided in Afghanistan."


"Citizen", yes. But he was also a resident of Afghanistan, living in Afghanistan at the time, and engaged in hostilities with the United States.

If you want to argue that Joe Thomas, White American Marxist-or-whatever, living in rural Chicago, is going to be locked up for spewing anti-American hate and held without trial for years at a time.....then hey, go you!

 

[Dirty Shoez]

Oh yeah.....Even CBS news gets it about right:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/09/news/opinion/courtwatch/main535951.shtml

"A federal appeals court now has determined that President Bush has the nearly unquestionable authority to designate as an "enemy combatant" any American citizen captured "in a zone of active combat in a foreign theatre of conflict."


And this was around 2 years before they faked the Bush/Army Reserve story, so who knows what kind of other shit they were up to around this time.

 

[TROLL]

And
from WikiPedia, which is about as unbiased a site as you can find these days

The point is that scholars, law professors, and all of these other people are full of shit.

oh but i thought wikipedia was as "unbiased" as u can get LOLLL
.........................

so these reports mean nothing. They're just personal opinions and interpretations that happen to have made their way into print.

http//blogs.citypages.com/ecassel/2...ircuit_cou.asp (very slanted, but still an OK source)

very slanted=opinionated... your orwellian slippage is showing..



and after reading all that crap about one judge disagreeing with his "collegue"

"Citizen", yes. But he was also a resident of Afghanistan, living in Afghanistan at the time, and engaged in hostilities with the United States.

So he was a citizen.. why was that so hard to answer?? were u attempting to throw up whatever sounded like it confirmed your viewpoint in the hopes it would clutter the answer to the true or false question is YES??

harry.. i hope anybody reading this much realizes that if i am wrong about all this then why havent u created your own threads in support of your slantings? why can i quote scholars and experts and you would use the blatant vagueness of whats written and slanted blogs?? you only act as a parasite when theres factual articles in a thread that criticizes your own... why is that? why dont you make your own threads in rebuttle?? why is it your always on the defensive? well anyway.. heres some more concerning habeas corpus..

“...if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been
suspended for American citizens but only for everybody
else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street
tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented
immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" — exactly how
are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing
to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General
is going to help you?”

WASHINGTON -- A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being ``enemy combatants."....
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...gal_residents_rights_curbed_in_detainee_bill/

Padilla Update: Bush has been Torturing American Citizens since 2002::
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15303.htm



and a fun fact about jose padilla... the ONLY evidence against him was the evidence gained after torturing him...

Q. What is worse than having the U.S. Government imprison one of its citizens indefinitely -- without any charges being brought, without any due process of any kind, and solely on the unchecked decree of the President -- while the Government has its top officials simultaneously accuse that citizen in press conferences of trying to detonate a radiological bomb inside the country?

A. Having that indefinite, lawless imprisonment and those public accusations be based upon information which was highly suspect all along, because it was obtained by the U.S. Government through the torture of the "witnesses" who provided it.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/padilla-torture-just-when-you-thought.html

its sad how, after all this back and forth, the bottom line is you would condone the torture and suspension of someone, resident or not. But you opt to spar with vague refrences that you can stretch for miles... when the day comes that we are all old and gray, and this point in history is looked back upon with disgust, ill be proud knowing that i kept sight of what made us american.. while people of your ilk will be looked at as undercover nazi's..

 

[nhojsmith]

yes, interchangably, inconjunction, whatever you wish to call it.. one (patriot act) sets up the american citizen to lose his habeas corpus rights (MCA)..



ive stated numerous times that the vagueness of the MCA DOES set up american citizen to lose his rights.. it doesnt SAY nor DENY that the rights of a U.S citizen can be taken away and susceptible to MCA, and that is a tactic many lawyers use... (dont confirm nor deny) now that ive called attention to the faulty STRAWMAN arguement that you just created i would like to reiterate my earlier statement.. can bring up some sort of link, video, ANYTHING to help support your claim?

[/color]
wait LMAOOOO ok.. so i get discredit for using a news source so what do you do?? add a news source into wikipedia to make it seem like its 'ok' LMFAOO and i read robert A. Levy's conclusion paper on the habeas corpus/U.S. citizen debate and NOT ONCE did he refer to sec.802 of the patriot act..

what do you think i added something to this, jesus christ dude shut the fuck up, you lost this debate. You first point was that MCA could suspend habeas corpus fro US citizens. then when you actually read it you started claiming "oh i really meant MCA and the patriot act". maybe levy doesnt talk about the patriot act when talking about MCA because you are the only one who draws a connection between these two. i mean there is no talking sense into you, you get fucking crushed from all sides, and start making up new stories. "ass a news source" what the fuck are you talking about. just because you are the last one to post in this thread doesnt mean you are right, it means that youve already mader up your mind and you will stick by it whether you are right or wrong. dirty shoez killed you and all you could do is try to change your original argument. you are done son, im not going to spank you, im just going to ignore you you mommas boy baby bitch.

 

[what it thizz]

we really fucked up big time putting these kind of people in power. Now I know that it's to protect terrorism and blah blah blah but you can only do so much, and like it or not we're never going to be safe or completely protected from terrorist attacks

 

[Cmoke]

i wouldnt be surprised if "mobshit" was "dirtyshoez" so he could post in the GOM again..

I got a 100$ on that one homie...

 

[TROLL]

what do you think i added something to this, jesus christ dude shut the fuck up, you lost this debate.

Your the one posting in my thread u pussy, why dont u actually answer the questions and statements i pose instead of crying in my thread like a fat kid who got jacked by the hamburglar..

You first point was that MCA could suspend habeas corpus fro US citizens. then when you actually read it you started claiming "oh i really meant MCA and the patriot act".

as i said at the top of this page inconjunction, etc..

maybe levy doesnt talk about the patriot act when talking about MCA because you are the only one who draws a connection between these two. i mean there is no talking sense into you,

im trying to make sense on how you cant comprehend the fact that MCA takes habeas coropous rights from, as it states, ALIENS.. yet, it has no mention of the now ALIEN whom had his US citizenship stripped by the PATRIOT act for being labeld "enemy combatant"..

you get fucking crushed from all sides, and start making up new stories. "ass a news source" what the fuck are you talking about. just because you are the last one to post in this thread doesnt mean you are right, it means that youve already mader up your mind and you will stick by it whether you are right or wrong.

i 'mader' up my mind from what i see in front of me hocake... stay bumpin my thread like the bitch you are because all you are doin is help me prove my points with the 'ignant' ass replies you try to pass off as relevant banter..

dirty shoez killed you and all you could do is try to change your original argument.

see, thats what a debate is for, u give and take information on a topic, but u still fail to make a solid arguement against my statements with no sources to back up your jaw jackin jibberish..

you are done son, im not going to spank you,

hella gay aranoid:

im just going to ignore you you mommas boy baby bitch.

sounds like u the one that just got done throwing a temper tantrum.. dont cry lil guy, im sure your pro-right wing influence will embrace your sniviling ass and change your diapers for you...