General Dunlavey: Bush personally ordered torture

[sammi jo]

Link here. (http://www.aclu.org/about/staff/administrationoftorture.html)
or here (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/65925/)

According to President Bush and others in his Administration, repeated ad nauseam, the U.S. "does not torture prisoners". However, according to General Dunlavey, Bush personally approved torture tactics at Guantanamo Bay. In a new book by two ACLU attoney, the US uses "methods of the most tyrannical regimes."

More than 100,000 pages of newly released government documents to demonstrate how US military interrogators "abused, tortured or killed" scores of prisoners rounded up since Sept. 11, 2001, including some who were not even expected of having terrorist ties, according to a just-published book.

Was this just at Guantanamo Bay? How about the secret CIA detention facilities overseas? This administration is so closed and secretive about everything, that such material may not come out for decades. We know about Abu Ghraib, but only by chance, when a few horrified lower ranking troops blew the whistle.

It looks as if the executive branch has been hijacked by a group of psychopaths; some truly sick individuals. When those who "have it all" want yet more, there is no bottom to the depths that are plumbed. Only sick kids torture animals; it looks as if the president is still a sick individual and instead of inserting firecrackers inside living frogs and blowing them up, he's now taking whatever dysfunction that afflicts him out on a section of humanity he has been taught to hate.

How much longer is the de-civilization of America going to continue, from the top down, while the powers that be on both sides of the aisle sit back in appeasement? And how many times does Bush have to lie before it is recognized that he is a liar?

[@_@ Artman]

Don't waste your breath or your keyboard. SDW (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1162195&postcount=86) already has shown that if the ACLU is involved it's all lies.

Even though anyone can search and view the 100,000 pages of government documents (http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/search/search.html) online themselves and draw their own picture.

This picture will probably look like this:

http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/images/rainbow.jpg

So be warned. This will not be a thread on the ongoing crimes and corruptions of this administration, it will be on the basis of whether the ACLU are a pack of liberal/pinko/liars.

[SDW2001]

Don't waste your breath or your keyboard. SDW (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1162195&postcount=86) already has shown that if the ACLU is involved it's all lies.

Even though anyone can search and view the 100,000 pages of government documents (http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/search/search.html) online themselves and draw their own picture.

This picture will probably look like this:

http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/images/rainbow.jpg

So be warned. This will not be a thread on the ongoing crimes and corruptions of this administration, it will be on the basis of whether the ACLU are a pack of liberal/pinko/liars.

The credibility of the source is at the heart of the issue. The ACLU has nothing to do with "civil liberties" and everything to do with being an instrument of liberal social and legal change. The ACLU's history is well documented.

Wiki:

n independent outgrowth of the American Union Against Militarism, the Bureau opposed American intervention in World War I. The NCLB provided legal advice and aid for conscientious objectors and those being prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 or the Sedition Act of 1918.

In the year of its birth the ACLU was formed to protect aliens threatened with deportation, along with U.S. nationals threatened with criminal charges by U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer for their communist or socialist activities and agendas[9] (see Palmer Raids). It also opposed attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and other labor unions to meet and organize.

Of course, they supposedly "banned" communist from their leadership in 1940. But the history is still there.

Now, the causes they support:


Separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:
Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;

Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, and some kinds of "moments of silence"[41] in public schools or schools funded with public money;

Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including government benefits for same-sex couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones;

The decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana;

Immigrants' rights by "challenging unconstitutional laws and practices, countering the myths upon which many of these laws are based."

Concerning gun control, the ACLU embraces the States' Right Model interpretation of the Second Amendment, which only recognizes a state's right to possess firearms, the organization officially declares itself "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of firearms by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

Some if its clients and most outrageous positions:



North American Man/Boy Love Assocation (NAMBLA)

Full opposition to Megan's Law

Full opposition to any prayer or religious symbol on public property

Historically anti-military point of view




In other words, the American "Civil Liberties Union" was not founded to be such, hasn't acted as such, and isn't such, with some RARE exception. Yet you're going to take their word as gold. Of course Bush "personally issued" torture. Of course he did, just as Bush Violates Civil Rights™ , is a Warmonger™ and a Fascist™ What else would on expect from the ACLU?

Look, there are a lot of organizations out there where one can question their credentials and points of view. But the ACLU? They're beyond the pale. Their opinion is not even worth considering. It's like accepting a "study" from Iran's science community on the existence of the holocaust. The only question one needs to ask is, "are you kidding me?"

[Northgate]

Like Artman said...

[SDW2001]

Like Artman said...

Yeah, so clever.

[Northgate]

Now, back on topic, I'm personally torn between the need to gather information at all costs and a need to maintain our status as being a morally superior nation of laws and ethics.

On one hand I think we should do what is needed to prevent another catastrophic attack on our nation.

On the other hand I don't think torture produces the kind of results we need.

So I don't want to be completely reactionary when I find out Bush has authorized some questionable interrogation techniques. But I'm really really uncomfortable with the notion of torture simply because it can produce terrible results. Almost all of which is unusable.

And my other fear is that television shows like "24" are so utterly irresponsible in their depiction of how torture works that the uneducated masses just go along with it.

[@_@ Artman]

Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html)

For six decades, they held their silence.

The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.

Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University.

When Peter Weiss, 82, went up to receive his award, he commandeered the microphone and gave his piece.

"I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war," said Weiss, chairman of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and a human rights and trademark lawyer in New York City.

The veterans of P.O. Box 1142, a top-secret installation in Fairfax County that went only by its postal code name, were brought back to Fort Hunt by park rangers who are piecing together a portrait of what happened there during the war.

Nearly 4,000 prisoners of war, most of them German scientists and submariners, were brought in for questioning for days, even weeks, before their presence was reported to the Red Cross, a process that did not comply with the Geneva Conventions. Many of the interrogators were refugees from the Third Reich.

"We did it with a certain amount of respect and justice," said John Gunther Dean, 81, who became a career Foreign Service officer and ambassador to Denmark.

The interrogators had standards that remain a source of pride and honor.

"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."

I'm proud of those men. I'm sick of this administration. :mad:

[jimmac]

The credibility of the source is at the heart of the issue. The ACLU has nothing to do with "civil liberties" and everything to do with being an instrument of liberal social and legal change. The ACLU's history is well documented.

Wiki:





Of course, they supposedly "banned" communist from their leadership in 1940. But the history is still there.

Now, the causes they support:


Separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:
Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;

Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, and some kinds of "moments of silence"[41] in public schools or schools funded with public money;

Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including government benefits for same-sex couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones;

The decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana;

Immigrants' rights by "challenging unconstitutional laws and practices, countering the myths upon which many of these laws are based."

Concerning gun control, the ACLU embraces the States' Right Model interpretation of the Second Amendment, which only recognizes a state's right to possess firearms, the organization officially declares itself "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of firearms by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

Some if its clients and most outrageous positions:



North American Man/Boy Love Assocation (NAMBLA)

Full opposition to Megan's Law

Full opposition to any prayer or religious symbol on public property

Historically anti-military point of view




In other words, the American "Civil Liberties Union" was not founded to be such, hasn't acted as such, and isn't such, with some RARE exception. Yet you're going to take their word as gold. Of course Bush "personally issued" torture. Of course he did, just as Bush Violates Civil Rights™ , is a Warmonger™ and a Fascist™ What else would on expect from the ACLU?

Look, there are a lot of organizations out there where one can question their credentials and points of view. But the ACLU? They're beyond the pale. Their opinion is not even worth considering. It's like accepting a "study" from Iran's science community on the existence of the holocaust. The only question one needs to ask is, "are you kidding me?"

Jesus SDW this is at the heart of everything that's wrong with your arguments.

When comes to the Bush administration you'll turn a blind eye to what they do and any bad reports or negativity are filtered out with lame excuses.:no:

Ps. It's " well documented ".

[SDW2001]

Jesus SDW this is at the heart of everything that's wrong with your arguments.

When comes to the Bush administration you'll turn a blind eye to what they do and any bad reports or negativity are filtered out with lame excuses.:no:

Ps. It's " well documented ".

Care to actually address my post? I listed many details about the ACLU's history from reputable sources, and offered some of my own take as well. The credibility of the source MUST be considered at all times. The ACLU has a clear anti-Bush agenda and anti-conservative agenda, so literally everything they come up with must be looked at with extreme caution.

[jimmac]

Care to actually address my post? I listed many details about the ACLU's history from reputable sources, and offered some of my own take as well. The credibility of the source MUST be considered at all times. The ACLU has a clear anti-Bush agenda and anti-conservative agenda, so literally everything they come up with must be looked at with extreme caution.


I think I have already when I used the word " Lame ".

It's very easy for you to dismiss anything with an " It's anti Bush " reference.

Also the causes you listed I support also. I'm not anti religious but I think the church should stay out of school. Simply because there isn't one belief. School should be a neutral place where people are free to learn.

And since you're in the minority in your attitude towards the ACLU I would suggest you look at it objectively.

Unfortunately ( and this is just an observation not an personal attack ) you don't seem to be able to think objectively on these matters.

[SDW2001]

Now, back on topic, I'm personally torn between the need to gather information at all costs and a need to maintain our status as being a morally superior nation of laws and ethics.

On one hand I think we should do what is needed to prevent another catastrophic attack on our nation.

On the other hand I don't think torture produces the kind of results we need.

So I don't want to be completely reactionary when I find out Bush has authorized some questionable interrogation techniques. But I'm really really uncomfortable with the notion of torture simply because it can produce terrible results. Almost all of which is unusable.

And my other fear is that television shows like "24" are so utterly irresponsible in their depiction of how torture works that the uneducated masses just go along with it.

Torture should not be used. I define torture as the infliction of extreme physical anguish and/or lasting physical/mental damage. Some of the techniques I've heard about, while uncomfortable and perhaps a bit extreme, are not torture in my opinion.

I don't think it should used for several reasons. First, it's morally wrong. Secondly, it is often ineffective as you've pointed out. Thirdly, it makes it more likely our people will be tortured if they are taken prisoner.

Also, I'm watching 24 right now. Agreed. Totally agreed.

[@_@ Artman]

Care to actually address my post? I listed many details about the ACLU's history from reputable sources, and offered some of my own take as well. The credibility of the source MUST be considered at all times. The ACLU has a clear anti-Bush agenda and anti-conservative agenda, so literally everything they come up with must be looked at with extreme caution.

Dear me! How can you say that they are anti-conservative? They defended Senator Craig's "foot - tapping" as protected under the first amendment (http://wcco.com/local/Sen.Larry.2.370310.html)!

Sen. Larry Craig's foot-tapping and hand movements in an airport bathroom amounted to speech protected by the First Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union argued in court papers on Monday.

The Idaho senator pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct after an undercover officer at the Minneapolis airport alleged that Craig solicited him for sex. Craig has denied that, and his attorneys have asked a judge to let him withdraw the guilty plea.

Craig was accused of moving his foot next to a police officer's foot and tapping it in a way that indicated he wanted sex. He was also accused of sending a signal by swiping his hand under the divider between the stalls, and of peering into the officer's stall before Craig took his own stall.

Even if he did those things, they're not a crime, the ACLU argued. And even if Craig solicited sex, it would only be a crime if police could prove he was seeking illegal bathroom sex and not a legal liaison somewhere else.

The ACLU also argued that the disorderly conduct statute is too vague to be enforceable in Craig's case.

The ACLU asked the judge to accept its arguments as a friend-of-the-court brief in Craig's case.

Chuck Samuelson, the executive director of the ACLU's Minnesota branch, said other police departments have prevented bathroom sex by posting signs and patrolling with uniformed officers.

Samuelson said the airport undercover work "is the kind of sting operation that at the very best borders on entrapment."

A Hennepin County District Court judge is scheduled to hear arguments on Craig's motion to withdraw his guilty plea on Sept. 26.

Well? Or...

Conservatives joined the ACLU in agreement (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/16767prs20030825.html) that CAPPS II: Passenger Screening and Privacy Concerns raised serious privacy and security concerns.

Murphy was joined this morning by former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA); James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology; David Keene of the American Conservative Union; Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, and Hilary Shelton of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP. The discussion this morning reflected the growing concern in America about the lack of privacy safeguards and potential ineffectiveness of CAPPS II.

Stop the bullshit SDW. 100,000 government documents and testimony + UCLU = Genuine report exposing torture. Deal with it, don't be ignorant.

[Mystic]

"Documents from Guantanamo describe prisoners shackled in excruciating 'stress positions,' held in freezing-cold cells, forcibly stripped, hooded, terrorized with military dogs, and deprived of human contact for months."

This is NOT torture


The ACLU also found that an Army investigator reported Rumsfeld was "personally involved" in overseeing the interrogation of a Guantanamo prisoner Mohammed al Qahtani. The prisoner was forced to parade naked in front of female interrogators wearing women's underwear on his head and was led around on a leash while being forced to perform dog tricks.


This is NOT torture


THIS is torture

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-11-iraq-beheading_x.htm

[@_@ Artman]

"Documents from Guantanamo describe prisoners shackled in excruciating 'stress positions,' held in freezing-cold cells, forcibly stripped, hooded, terrorized with military dogs, and deprived of human contact for months."

This is NOT torture

What is the definition of torture and ill treatment? (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/69MJXC)

International humanitarian law prohibits torture and other forms of ill treatment at all times and demands that detainees be treated according to the rules and principles of IHL and other international standards.

The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture (Article 1) (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm#part1) provides a definition of torture that is considered customary.

International humanitarian law (IHL) differs somewhat from this definition in not requiring the involvement of a person acting in an official capacity as a condition for an act intended to inflict severe pain or suffering to be defined as torture.

The ICRC uses the broad term "ill-treatment" to cover both torture and other methods of abuse prohibited by international law, including inhuman, cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and physical or moral coercion.

The legal difference between torture and other forms of ill treatment lies in the level of severity of pain or suffering imposed. In addition, torture requires the existence of a specific purpose behind the act – to obtain information, for example.

The various terms used to refer to different forms of ill treatment or infliction of pain can be explained as follows:

* Torture: existence of a specific purpose plus intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain;

* Cruel or inhuman treatment: no specific purpose, significant level of suffering or pain inflicted;

* Outrages upon personal dignity: no specific purpose, significant level of humiliation or degradation.

Methods of ill treatment may be both physical and/or psychological in nature and both methods may have physical and psychological effects.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-11-iraq-beheading_x.htm

That's not torture. That's senseless, cold blooded murder.

[SDW2001]

I think I have already when I used the word " Lame ".

Yes, and a stunning rebuke it was.



It's very easy for you to dismiss anything with an " It's anti Bush " reference.

No, it's easy when it's true. There are plenty of neutral POV sources. Like the one I quoted from.



Also the causes you listed I support also. I'm not anti religious but I think the church should stay out of school. Simply because there isn't one belief. School should be a neutral place where people are free to learn.

Of course the church should stay out of school. No one has suggested otherwise. But do you know that I cannot pray in front of my children at school? Do you know that a coach cannot participate in a player-led prayer? Do you know the ACLU opposes moments of silence and non-denominational prayer at ceremonies?



And since you're in the minority in your attitude towards the ACLU I would suggest you look at it objectively.

In the minority where? Here? And really...me being objective (as if you should even be allowed to say that word) has nothing to do with what the majority believes. Unlike you, I don't need to beat the People on AI Agree With Me Drum™ to make myself feel better. I am capable of making of my own judgments and I stand on them no matter what the members of the looney bin here say.



Unfortunately ( and this is just an observation not an personal attack ) you don't seem to be able to think objectively on these matters.

There's that word again. Honestly, I don't think you understand it's meaning sometimes. Or ever. I just listed several bullet points from an OBJECTIVE and NEUTRAL POV website. I listed specifically what I object to and specifically what makes them who they are. I posted specific historical data on the organization. I didn't just make a broad generalization and walk away like you do.

Keep in mind, this is all in the context of the credibility of the source. Funny, it seems to me that you'll embrace any source that supports your POV, and you'll instantly dismiss any other. In fact, I don't even mind that you use these sites with points of view, it's just that you claim they are neutral and purely factual, when in fact they are nothing of the kind. It's cheap. It would be like me linking to Rush Limbaugh and claiming that I found an "objective critique of Hillary Clinton." That's exactly what you're doing.

[groverat]

How is the credibility of the author the issue when the documents are available for public review?

SDW's argument is the textbook example of ad-hominem.

The credibility of the source MUST be considered at all times.

The ACLU is merely providing the documents. They are not the source of information.

[segovius]

I really think now that Bush may well be a psychopath - in the sense a serial killer would be.

Googling the long list of evidence of his delight in causing pain and torment it is beyond doubt that he is a sadist of the highest order. Some people seem to believe he is the antichrist which is perhaps a little too far - certain he is AN antichrist but I think his brand of evil is rather more human.

Many violent sociopaths are marked by a love for torture and almost all have a history of torturing and killing animals in childhood. Notorious serial killers Ted Bundy and Ed Gein had this proclivity and it is marked also in Bush.

As a child, one of Bush's favourite pastimes was to stuff frogs with firecrackers and laugh hysterically as they exploded:

We were terrible to animals,' recalled [Bush pal Terry] Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush borne turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. `Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Throckmorton said. `Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'»

Kristof made plain that «we» explicitly included George W. Bush, and that George W., the Safari Club International «Governor of the Year» in 1999 for his support of trophy hunting, was the leader among the boys who did it.

Link (http://www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-3nov2000-frogs.html)

Of course it is never enough and the psychopathic personality invariably moves on to human prey. If they are a 'strong' personality they may literally kill - if they are 'inhibited' or suffer from other debilitating mental conditions then they will act out the killing vicariously by proxy - such a type is the sadistic general ordering his men to certain death while he sits safe in the barracks or the judge pronouncing death sentences he could in now way carry out himself but from which he gains a large degree of sexual excitement.

This last type would clearly most closely fit with Bush's personality defects - and it is this type that delights most in the torture and humiliation of other human beings.

Chilling evidence of this diabolically evil side to Bush's character is to be found in the case of Karla Faye Tucker's execution.

Faced with questions about a woman whose appeal for clemency eh had summarily rejected he could hardly conceal his delight and excitement as he mocked her as she went to her chilling death at his hands.

In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "

"What was her answer?" I wonder.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."

Link (http://www.attytood.com/2007/01/please_dont_kill_me_george_w_b.html)

The 'inhibited' personality, having no other means to order people to the killing they cannot, will often rise to the top of professions where power is exercised; the legal, military or political arenas.

Here they can order death with impunity and are - to a degree - above the law.

Of course there is a law of diminishing returns and - no matter how many executions ordered and gleefully witnessed - it is never enough.

It is then that the truly sick psychopathic personality will turn to war.

A Knight Ridder reporter was treated to such a rare glimpse and apparently couldn't resist including it in his story, though it was tangential to the narrative. And no editor cut it out, so we are left with a gem, a glimpse into the strange personality of George W.

The article was a description of Bush's speech announcing that he had ordered strikes to begin on Iraq.

Here's the quote: "Minutes before the speech, an internal television monitor showed the president pumping his fist. 'Feels good,' he said."

Link (http://www.davidcogswell.com/MediaRoulette/HighKilling.html)

"Feels good" - it could well be the pychopathic personality's motto; thousands about to die and "I FEEL GOOD".

In times to come - if we are lucky, if we make it though the nightmare, if we survive - future historians will look back and frown in bewilderment at all the torture, all the death, all the racism and bigotry; all of it to give one man (and other's like him) their warped and perverse pleasure.

They will ask how it was that we incarcerated criminals and murderers, paedophiles and serial-killers but we supported and legitimized actions committed by them just because they were done by an innefectual and insane politician that no-one believed in except for other crazy people.

And they will have no answer.

[@_@ Artman]

Don't forget Cheney's pastime of killing caged birds and "peppering" lawyer friends...:smokey:

[SDW2001]

How is the credibility of the author the issue when the documents are available for public review?

SDW's argument is the textbook example of ad-hominem.



The ACLU is merely providing the documents. They are not the source of information.

They're drawing conclusions from that information and presenting the facts so that they fit their agenda. Surely you don't disagree with this?

[SDW2001]

I really think now that Bush may well be a psychopath - in the sense a serial killer would be.

Googling the long list of evidence of his delight in causing pain and torment it is beyond doubt that he is a sadist of the highest order. Some people seem to believe he is the antichrist which is perhaps a little too far - certain he is AN antichrist but I think his brand of evil is rather more human.

Many violent sociopaths are marked by a love for torture and almost all have a history of torturing and killing animals in childhood. Notorious serial killers Ted Bundy and Ed Gein had this proclivity and it is marked also in Bush.

As a child, one of Bush's favourite pastimes was to stuff frogs with firecrackers and laugh hysterically as they exploded:



Link (http://www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-3nov2000-frogs.html)

Of course it is never enough and the psychopathic personality invariably moves on to human prey. If they are a 'strong' personality they may literally kill - if they are 'inhibited' or suffer from other debilitating mental conditions then they will act out the killing vicariously by proxy - such a type is the sadistic general ordering his men to certain death while he sits safe in the barracks or the judge pronouncing death sentences he could in now way carry out himself but from which he gains a large degree of sexual excitement.

This last type would clearly most closely fit with Bush's personality defects - and it is this type that delights most in the torture and humiliation of other human beings.

Chilling evidence of this diabolically evil side to Bush's character is to be found in the case of Karla Faye Tucker's execution.

Faced with questions about a woman whose appeal for clemency eh had summarily rejected he could hardly conceal his delight and excitement as he mocked her as she went to her chilling death at his hands.



Link (http://www.attytood.com/2007/01/please_dont_kill_me_george_w_b.html)

The 'inhibited' personality, having no other means to order people to the killing they cannot, will often rise to the top of professions where power is exercised; the legal, military or political arenas.

Here they can order death with impunity and are - to a degree - above the law.

Of course there is a law of diminishing returns and - no matter how many executions ordered and gleefully witnessed - it is never enough.

It is then that the truly sick psychopathic personality will turn to war.



Link (http://www.davidcogswell.com/MediaRoulette/HighKilling.html)

"Feels good" - it could well be the pychopathic personality's motto; thousands about to die and "I FEEL GOOD".

In times to come - if we are lucky, if we make it though the nightmare, if we survive - future historians will look back and frown in bewilderment at all the torture, all the death, all the racism and bigotry; all of it to give one man (and other's like him) their warped and perverse pleasure.

They will ask how it was that we incarcerated criminals and murderers, paedophiles and serial-killers but we supported and legitimized actions committed by them just because they were done by an innefectual and insane politician that no-one believed in except for other crazy people.

And they will have no answer.

Seg:

Let me get this straight. You are actually arguing that George W. Bush enjoys killing people, just as a psychopath does. I mean, of all the things I've heard from you over the years, this one takes first prize. Why don't you sit down, take a coffee break and get some perspective. No rational person would believe your premise, no matter what his feelings on the President and his policies.

[@_@ Artman]

They're drawing conclusions from that information and presenting the facts so that they fit their agenda. Surely you don't disagree with this?

http://www.flaregun.org/wp-content/powell.jpg

:rolleyes:

[Jubelum]

Seg:

Let me get this straight. You are actually arguing that George W. Bush enjoys killing people, just as a psychopath does. I mean, of all the things I've heard from you over the years, this one takes first prize. Why don't you sit down, take a coffee break and get some perspective. No rational person would believe your premise, no matter what his feelings on the President and his policies.

Echoes of the "All Apologies" Fortney Pete Stark... but he's not rational either, just playing to his wacko San Fran constituents. :err:

[SDW2001]

http://www.flaregun.org/wp-content/powell.jpg

:rolleyes:

Exactly Artman. EXACTLY. Criticize one and you must criticize the other.

[@_@ Artman]

Exactly Artman. EXACTLY. Criticize one and you must criticize the other.

So you agree that this administration trumped up their evidence and illegally intervened (invaded) Iraq.

Hurray! I win! Meh...

[Northgate]

Echoes of the "All Apologies" Fortney Pete Stark... but he's not rational either, just playing to his wacko San Fran constituents.

Unlike all those loons running for president pandering to the "Bubba's" of the South.

I'd rather tolerate one hothead congressman than a future president who talks a good game but doesn't believe a word of it. At least Stark spoke honestly about his feelings.

[tonton]

Now, the causes they support:


Separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:
Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;

Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, and some kinds of "moments of silence"[41] in public schools or schools funded with public money;

Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including government benefits for same-sex couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones;

The decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana;

Immigrants' rights by "challenging unconstitutional laws and practices, countering the myths upon which many of these laws are based."

Concerning gun control, the ACLU embraces the States' Right Model interpretation of the Second Amendment, which only recognizes a state's right to possess firearms, the organization officially declares itself "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of firearms by individuals is not constitutionally protected."
Sounds great. Which of the above do you not support?

Some if its clients and most outrageous positions:



North American Man/Boy Love Assocation (NAMBLA)

Full opposition to Megan's Law

Full opposition to any prayer or religious symbol on public property

Historically anti-military point of view


1) What's the context?
2) What's the argument?
3) If it's infringing on others' religious rights... sure.
4) Who cares about "historically"? George W. Bush was "historically" a coke head, wasn't he?

And what does this have to do with the documents provided anyway? Do you disagree with the conclusions of Dunlavey on this matter?

[segovius]

Hey, this ACLU sound great.... I never paid them much attention and thought they were just into wishy-washy nonsense but those platforms are cool....

[@_@ Artman]

Donald Rumsfeld charged with torture during trip to France (http://wor.ldne.ws/node/8288)

Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld got an unpleasant surprise during his visit to France today when human rights groups filed a complaint with the Paris Prosecutor before the “Court of First Instance” (Tribunal de Grande Instance) charging the chief architect of President George W. Bush's "war on terror" with ordering and authorizing torture.

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights (LDH) filed the complaint while Rumsfeld was in Paris for a talk sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine, and under French law, an investigation must be opened if an alleged torturer is inside France.

“France is under the obligation to investigate and prosecute Rumsfeld’s accountability for crimes of torture in Guantanamo and Iraq," said FIDH President Souhayr Belhassen. "France has no choice but to open an investigation if an alleged torturer is on its territory. I hope that the fight against impunity will not be sacrificed in the name of politics. We call on France to refuse to be a safe haven for criminals.”

“The filing of this French case against Rumsfeld demonstrates that we will not rest until those U.S. officials involved in the torture program are brought to justice," said CCR President Michael Ratner. "Rumsfeld must understand that he has no place to hide. A torturer is an enemy of all humankind.”

http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/images/rumsfeld.jpg

"Hey guys, haven't I've seen you before?"

[trumptman]

Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html)



I'm proud of those men. I'm sick of this administration. :mad:

Someday you will do us proud and explain how the two, besides one group being outraged about the claims made by another are the same.

In the meantime, perhaps they will recall that we weren't exactly perfect in WW2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II)

How is the credibility of the author the issue when the documents are available for public review?

SDW's argument is the textbook example of ad-hominem.

The ACLU is merely providing the documents. They are not the source of information.

I'll both agree and disagree. You are right that impeaching the source does not refute the information. However you are wrong in that the articles/book represent the claims as being quotes from the the primary people involved. In reality, they are citing the claim and the source is the author who has "interpreted" the information. We can attack that interpretation and charge the person making it is indeed biased. The articles make it sound as if the first hand source for the quotes has verified the claims him/herself. In reality the ACLU authors have taken the documents and said that the select words of the parties involed "support" some claims that they have made.

Are the claims wrong because they come from the ACLU? No.

Are the claims right because the ACLU claims the documents say X? No.

Could we read the documents and come to a different conclusion? Yes.

Are the claims direct quotes from the first hand source? No.

So you agree that this administration trumped up their evidence and illegally intervened (invaded) Iraq.

Hurray! I win! Meh...

If they acted on the same evidence that Clinton did when he undertook all his actions, does that mean he trumped it up as well?

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

Someday you will do us proud and explain how the two, besides one group being outraged about the claims made by another are the same.

In the meantime, perhaps they will recall that we weren't exactly perfect in WW2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II)

I'll both agree and disagree. You are right that impeaching the source does not refute the information. However you are wrong in that the articles/book represent the claims as being quotes from the the primary people involved. In reality, they are citing the claim and the source is the author who has "interpreted" the information. We can attack that interpretation and charge the person making it is indeed biased. The articles make it sound as if the first hand source for the quotes has verified the claims him/herself. In reality the ACLU authors have taken the documents and said that the select words of the parties involed "support" some claims that they have made.

Are the claims wrong because they come from the ACLU? No.

Are the claims right because the ACLU claims the documents say X? No.

Could we read the documents and come to a different conclusion? Yes.

Are the claims direct quotes from the first hand source? No.



If they acted on the same evidence that Clinton did when he undertook all his actions, does that mean he trumped it up as well?

Nick

No reply, I've run out of straw for my little men. There's none left.

[SDW2001]

So you agree that this administration trumped up their evidence and illegally intervened (invaded) Iraq.

Hurray! I win! Meh...

Uh, no.

[SDW2001]

Sounds great. Which of the above do you not support?

Take a guess. :) But really, that's not the point. It's the existence of that point of view that must be taken into consideration, the same was it would be with an organization on the other side.




1) What's the context?
2) What's the argument?
3) If it's infringing on others' religious rights... sure.
4) Who cares about "historically"? George W. Bush was "historically" a coke head, wasn't he?

And what does this have to do with the documents provided anyway? Do you disagree with the conclusions of Dunlavey on this matter?

1. Are you kidding?

2. This will get you started. Pretty "apologist" of them, if you ask me.

Laws like banishment zone ordinances actually make us less safe, as they impede offender rehabilitation and thereby increase the likelihood of reoffense. People who transition from prison into society face countless challenges, and most have very limited resources, financial or otherwise. People who want to lead law-abiding lives after serving a prison sentence need to establish stability in their homes, jobs and families. Those are difficult things to achieve, but add to this the consequences of Megan's Law and limits to where offenders can live, and few have hope of succeeding. Indeed, the fear of the stigma of Megan's Law can force offenders underground, out of the watchful eye of police and parole officers.

Banishment zone laws may very likely force sexual offenders to move from environments in which they have support networks into other communities in which they have no support, putting residents in their new communities at risk. Further, people who are labeled as sex offenders lose jobs, get evicted, are threatened with death, and harassed by neighbors. Some have had their homes burned down or been beaten in acts of vigilantism. Coping with this kind of stress is almost impossible, and without exceptionally strong support systems, most are doomed to fail.

3) How could it be doing so? GASP...I have to see a Christmas Tree! The horror! Nevermind the rights of the other 98% of the community.

4) That sounds clever, but my point goes directly to their anti-military views. These must be taken into consideration when they express an opinion on a military subject. Good libs like yourself do this all the time with conservatives, don't you realize that? "Of course Bush wants to invade, he's a warmonger." "Neocons want to invade Iran. color me shocked." But, we're not supposed to do it for pacifist organizations?

Last: I don't trust the ACLU to provide any reasonable accounting of these documents. They will twist these facts in support of their views, just as the Bush Administration is accused of doing. But it's OK for them. That was my point to Artman earlier.

[@_@ Artman]

Last: I don't trust the ACLU to provide any reasonable accounting of these documents. They will twist these facts in support of their views, just as the Bush Administration is accused of doing. But it's OK for them. That was my point to Artman earlier.

You trust nobody I guess. :no:

[sammi jo]

Last: I don't trust the ACLU to provide any reasonable accounting of these documents. They will twist these facts in support of their views, just as the Bush Administration is accused of doing. But it's OK for them. That was my point to Artman earlier.

A close friend of my family is an ACLU lawyer. She once told me that one of the commonest types of case she deals with involve private property rights, an issue very close to the hearts of the conservative mindset. The ACLU are not quite as "evil" (!) as you make out, SDW and others,.... really.

[Jubelum]

As an aside, I can tell you that I was there when Bush personally ordered a Reuben sandwich and chips with an extra pickle. I saw and heard it myself, at the Texas Chili Parlor.

Evil bastard.

[SDW2001]

You trust nobody I guess. :no:

That's better than trusting one side over the other, now isn't it?

A close friend of my family is an ACLU lawyer. She once told me that one of the commonest types of case she deals with involve private property rights, an issue very close to the hearts of the conservative mindset. The ACLU are not quite as "evil" (!) as you make out, SDW and others,.... really.

The ACLU does some of that. They do some good, but their overall agenda is the problem. I'm sure some of the individual attorneys think they are doing the right thing. But it's the top level that's the issue.

[sammi jo]

That's better than trusting one side over the other, now isn't it?
The ACLU does some of that. They do some good, but their overall agenda is the problem. I'm sure some of the individual attorneys think they are doing the right thing. But it's the top level that's the issue.

What is the big problem with civil liberties? I do realize the current administration regards such things as the Bill Of Rights (or more recently acquired civil rights legislation) as quaint, outmoded annoyances that obstruct their aim of a fast-track toward a maximum-security surveillance oriented society.

The ACLU does often lend a hand to groups whose members' civil rights have historically been more violated than folk within mainstream society, and the ACLU could be seen as "exhibiting bias towards such groups"; undoubtedly there have been some cases where they have overstepped the mark somewhat. But in general, the ACLU is a big plus for civility: they have often helped those who would otherwise have gotten trampled by a system, which, especially in certain parts of the country, remains incredibly intolerant. Maybe there's one of the reasons why hardline (political/religious/social) conservatives are prone to fuming about the ACLU?

[talksense101]

I'm personally torn between the need to gather information at all costs and a need to maintain our status as being a morally superior nation of laws and ethics.

Morally superior nation of laws and ethics?!! :wow: Did you serve in the army or something?

[SDW2001]

What is the big problem with civil liberties? I do realize the current administration regards such things as the Bill Of Rights (or more recently acquired civil rights legislation) as quaint, outmoded annoyances that obstruct their aim of a fast-track toward a maximum-security surveillance oriented society.

The ACLU does often lend a hand to groups whose members' civil rights have historically been more violated than folk within mainstream society, and the ACLU could be seen as "exhibiting bias towards such groups"; undoubtedly there have been some cases where they have overstepped the mark somewhat. But in general, the ACLU is a big plus for civility: they have often helped those who would otherwise have gotten trampled by a system, which, especially in certain parts of the country, remains incredibly intolerant. Maybe there's one of the reasons why hardline (political/religious/social) conservatives are prone to fuming about the ACLU?

No, that is what the ACLU claims it does. And that is what you claim the Bush Administration does. I've lost few if any of my "civil liberties" as a result of this administration. Which ones have you lost? I can still protest the government's actions. I can assemble freely. I can travel freely, granted with some more security and annoyances than there were before. I can still post Screw George Bush if I want to. Oh, but the NSA is listening to any phone calls I happen to make to Afghanistan! I mean, IMAGINE!

Overall, the ACLU is a force for radical left causes and the outright disgusting, such as NAMBLA. It was founded by communist sympathizers and pacifists. They oppose traditional American values at nearly every turn.
And you're worried about George Bush. Nice job.

[Bergermeister]

If you are going to make such a grand statement against the ACLU, care to back it up with a list of specific points (with links) that brought you to this conclusion?

Attacking people for being members of the ACLU is an old Bush tactic... I do remember a quip against Dukakis..

I honestly don't know much about the group, so will read up on them tomorrow.

[@_@ Artman]

Rumsfeld flees France fearing arrest (http://wor.ldne.ws/node/8596)

Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of "ordering and authorizing" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.

US embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years.

Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

:lol: Even I question the source, but still hilarious to know Rummy's better off not showing his face anywhere.

[SDW2001]

If you are going to make such a grand statement against the ACLU, care to back it up with a list of specific points (with links) that brought you to this conclusion?

Attacking people for being members of the ACLU is an old Bush tactic... I do remember a quip against Dukakis..

I honestly don't know much about the group, so will read up on them tomorrow.

I did that. Read, please.

[SDW2001]

Rumsfeld flees France fearing arrest (http://wor.ldne.ws/node/8596)



:lol: Even I question the source, but still hilarious to know Rummy's better off not showing his face anywhere.

So you're sub-title is pretty much a lie then. Thanks.

[Bergermeister]

I did that. Read, please.


Fine. You tried. You attacked the ACLU, but have you checked their sources for this story? I wonder if anyone here has... it would be very interesting to see what sources they cite and if they are in the public domain. They were obtained through the Freedom of Info Act, so it would be an interesting read.

[@_@ Artman]

So you're sub-title is pretty much a lie then. Thanks.

Look, the only way I could get you to even read the ACLU's report is to probably waterboard you. But I'm above that. I consider that torture. But if even reading the report would cause some form of pain and discomfort, I won't suggest it again. Cruel and unusual for you and all that.

Ah, the rain's stopped, have a good weekend. :smokey:

[SDW2001]

Fine. You tried. You attacked the ACLU, but have you checked their sources for this story? I wonder if anyone here has... it would be very interesting to see what sources they cite and if they are in the public domain. They were obtained through the Freedom of Info Act, so it would be an interesting read.

Look, the only way I could get you to even read the ACLU's report is to probably waterboard you. But I'm above that. I consider that torture. But if even reading the report would cause some form of pain and discomfort, I won't suggest it again. Cruel and unusual for you and all that.

Ah, the rain's stopped, have a good weekend. :smokey:

It's the ACLU. I am well aware of their agenda. Would you read and consider something written by The Heritage Foundation? Or a position paper called "Are We Over Taxed?" from the National Taxpayers Union? Of course not because you know their agendas and points of view. I mean, imagine my shock to learn the ACLU thinks that their is torture happening in Gitmo, and that Bush "personally ordered" it. Why in the world would I waste my time with that?

[jimmac]

Yes, and a stunning rebuke it was.



No, it's easy when it's true. There are plenty of neutral POV sources. Like the one I quoted from.



Of course the church should stay out of school. No one has suggested otherwise. But do you know that I cannot pray in front of my children at school? Do you know that a coach cannot participate in a player-led prayer? Do you know the ACLU opposes moments of silence and non-denominational prayer at ceremonies?



In the minority where? Here? And really...me being objective (as if you should even be allowed to say that word) has nothing to do with what the majority believes. Unlike you, I don't need to beat the People on AI Agree With Me Drum™ to make myself feel better. I am capable of making of my own judgments and I stand on them no matter what the members of the looney bin here say.



There's that word again. Honestly, I don't think you understand it's meaning sometimes. Or ever. I just listed several bullet points from an OBJECTIVE and NEUTRAL POV website. I listed specifically what I object to and specifically what makes them who they are. I posted specific historical data on the organization. I didn't just make a broad generalization and walk away like you do.

Keep in mind, this is all in the context of the credibility of the source. Funny, it seems to me that you'll embrace any source that supports your POV, and you'll instantly dismiss any other. In fact, I don't even mind that you use these sites with points of view, it's just that you claim they are neutral and purely factual, when in fact they are nothing of the kind. It's cheap. It would be like me linking to Rush Limbaugh and claiming that I found an "objective critique of Hillary Clinton." That's exactly what you're doing.


Facts are facts regardless of the source so......


Lame, it's a lame, it's a lame, it's a lameo! Lame insight come and I wanna go home!:lol:;)

[midwinter]

3) How could it be doing so? GASP...I have to see a Christmas Tree! The horror! Nevermind the rights of the other 98% of the community.

So putting up religious decorations on public buildings is fine so long as those decorations reflect the beliefs of the majority population? Ahhh, the tyranny of the majority.

I would invite you to live in Utah for a few years and maintain that position.

[SDW2001]

double post.

[SDW2001]

Facts are facts regardless of the source so......


Lame, it's a lame, it's a lame, it's a lameo! Lame insight come and I wanna go home!:lol:;)

Your first statement is 100% false. Facts can be twisted to mean many things. Facts can be presented out of context. Facts can be used to serve an agenda.
To demonstrate this, I took some..cough...*facts* from your own website and made my own timeline, which supported exact opposite of your POV. You ignored this, of course.

As for your second statement: You are neither creative nor amusing. Just thought I'd point that out.

[SDW2001]

So putting up religious decorations on public buildings is fine so long as those decorations reflect the beliefs of the majority population? Ahhh, the tyranny of the majority.

I would invite you to live in Utah for a few years and maintain that position.

I don't think I would put it quite that way. I would say that it's permissible to place "religious decorations" (even though an x-mas tree isn't religious) on public property, as long as those who wish to place their religion's decorations are not denied. In other words, a town can't allow only Christmas decorations if someone wants Hanukkah decorations as well.

But if you've noticed, the debate is rarely about that. It's about someone saying he's offended by ANY display of "religious" decoration because he doesn't believe. That's where I draw the line, because while he is certainly free to not believe and should not be forced to practice any religion, removing said decorations infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of expression of the majority. At least, that's my opinion.

[midwinter]

I don't think I would put it quite that way. I would say that it's permissible to place "religious decorations" (even though an x-mas tree isn't religious) on public property, as long as those who wish to place their religion's decorations are not denied. In other words, a town can't allow only Christmas decorations if someone wants Hanukkah decorations as well.

Did you just say that a Christmas tree wasn't a religious decoration? So, what you're saying is that anyone can put religious stuff on public property so long as specific religions aren't denied the right to put their stuff on the public property? Is that what I'm hearing? So the Baptists can stick a 200 foot cross on I-15 if they want to, and the Mormons can respond with a 200 foot Joseph Smith? And the Catholics? The local Hindu population gets a giant Ganesh? And what about the Buddhist monastery down the road? Do they get to put an enormous Buddha up? And the Quakers? The Bakers? The Candle-Stick Makers?

I've lived in 3 states now, two of which were overwhelmingly dominated by Baptists and now Utah, which is, you know, pretty much Mormon through and through, an I have to say "No thanks" to your idea of equal representation. I'll take my public space free of religion, thankyouverymuch.

But if you've noticed, the debate is rarely about that. It's about someone saying he's offended by ANY display of "religious" decoration because he doesn't believe.

I have never heard that. Ever. I have never, in my entire life, heard someone complain about a religious expression because he's offended. I've heard people complain that it makes the 20 Jewish kids in Mississippi feel like outcasts when their principal makes them pray to the baby jesus every morning. I've heard that people don't think that state property should be used to display religious symbols. I've heard people say that they didn't think their tax money should go to fund religious expressions.

But I've never, in my entire life, heard someone say that they were simply offended by some random religious expression. This is America, dude. You can't go 10 feet without getting witnessed to by someone. The question is not whether religion is ok. It's whether it's ok to take tax dollars/public property and use it for religious expression.

Let's take your example, for instance. Can the city of Boston use tax dollars to erect a Catholic cathedral?

That's where I draw the line, because while he is certainly free to not believe and should not be forced to practice any religion, removing said decorations infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of expression of the majority. At least, that's my opinion.

Of course that's where you draw the line. You draw the line at a position that, so far as I know, now one actually holds.

Back to it, though. Can the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints build a 200 foot Joseph Smith statue in the middle of I-15—with arms spread wide, welcoming all visitors? Can they use my taxpayer money to do it?

[Northgate]

Did you just say that a Christmas tree wasn't a religious decoration?

Yes. Yes he did.

[Jubelum]

The malfunction is not the "establishment"- the malfunction is in the "free exercise" clause.

[midwinter]

I'm sorry? Is someone telling people they can't free exercise them some religion?

[SDW2001]

Did you just say that a Christmas tree wasn't a religious decoration?

Yes. Yes he did.

The origins of the Christmas tree are essentially of Germanic pagan origin. I suppose for all intents and purposes they are a religious symbol today. But their origin is not exactly purely Christian.



So, what you're saying is that anyone can put religious stuff on public property so long as specific religions aren't denied the right to put their stuff on the public property?

Pretty much, particularly for holiday celebrations.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes.

So the Baptists can stick a 200 foot cross on I-15 if they want to, and the Mormons can respond with a 200 foot Joseph Smith? And the Catholics? The local Hindu population gets a giant Ganesh? And what about the Buddhist monastery down the road? Do they get to put an enormous Buddha up? And the Quakers? The Bakers? The Candle-Stick Makers?

One could easily argue those would be eyesores and against various zoning and signage ordinances. Also, I was more speaking of holiday celebrations.



I've lived in 3 states now, two of which were overwhelmingly dominated by Baptists and now Utah, which is, you know, pretty much Mormon through and through, an I have to say "No thanks" to your idea of equal representation. I'll take my public space free of religion, thankyouverymuch.


I have never heard that. Ever. I have never, in my entire life, heard someone complain about a religious expression because he's offended.

I have heard of it frequently.

I've heard people complain that it makes the 20 Jewish kids in Mississippi feel like outcasts when their principal makes them pray to the baby jesus every morning.

Never heard of that happening, nor is that the same thing we're talking about. Obviously that would be inappropriate.

I've heard that people don't think that state property should be used to display religious symbols. I've heard people say that they didn't think their tax money should go to fund religious expressions.

The second one is a little different. That I might agree with.



But I've never, in my entire life, heard someone say that they were simply offended by some random religious expression. This is America, dude. You can't go 10 feet without getting witnessed to by someone. The question is not whether religion is ok. It's whether it's ok to take tax dollars/public property and use it for religious expression.

I'm really surprised. There are lawsuits over this kind of thing all the time. I've seen it happen around here. There's always a nativity scene debate around here, seemingly every year.



Let's take your example, for instance. Can the city of Boston use tax dollars to erect a Catholic cathedral?

I would say no.



Of course that's where you draw the line. You draw the line at a position that, so far as I know, now one actually holds.

Well, then you must have been living under a rock. I honestly have seen it happen a lot. There are those that believe that no display on public land is appropriate and they have sued as a result.



Back to it, though. Can the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints build a 200 foot Joseph Smith statue in the middle of I-15—with arms spread wide, welcoming all visitors? Can they use my taxpayer money to do it?

1. As I said above, there are a host of issues with doing that.

2. No, I don't think they should or could. That's not what we're talking about anyway. I don't advocate using tax dollars for that kind of thing.

I was talking about allowing a nativity scene in the town square, or having an Easter Egg hunt on public land (to be fair I'm not aware of actual problems with the latter), or even a Christmas tree at City Hall.

[midwinter]

The origins of the Christmas tree are essentially of Germanic pagan origin. I suppose for all intents and purposes they are a religious symbol today. But their origin is not exactly purely Christian.

Yeah. You do realize we're not talking about whatever druidic origins of things are, but instead we're talking about what they are?

One could easily argue those would be eyesores and against various zoning and signage ordinances. Also, I was more speaking of holiday celebrations.

Sure. But if you love the baby Jesus, every day is a celebration. Why should I limit my expression of my love for the baby Jesus to just one day of the year? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?!!? ;)

I have heard of it frequently.

Maybe you should move?

Never heard of that happening, nor is that the same thing we're talking about. Obviously that would be inappropriate.

Obviously. Except if you're in MS, you find it offensive that someone would tell you how you can express your love for the baby Jesus.

The second one is a little different. That I might agree with.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

I live about a minute walk from a large city park. If my city park places a giant Joseph Smith stature in the middle of it for Xmas, and uses my tax dollars to do so, what is the difference between that and just making a big Xmas tree, using the land my tax dollars pay for to put it on and my tax dollars to buy the tree??

I'm really surprised. There are lawsuits over this kind of thing all the time. I've seen it happen around here. There's always a nativity scene debate around here, seemingly every year.

Find me a lawsuit based on "I don't like it." Seriously.

I would say no.

Good. Welcome to the ACLU.

Well, then you must have been living under a rock. I honestly have seen it happen a lot. There are those that believe that no display on public land is appropriate and they have sued as a result.

Nope, dude. I've been living in Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Utah. Three of the most conservative states in the union.

And I believe that no display on public land is appropriate.

Let me put this another way:

You cannot tell me that I cannot use your tax dollars to pay for an abortion and then turn around and tell me that it's OK to use my tax dollars to pay for a religious display.

That's not what we're talking about anyway. I don't advocate using tax dollars for that kind of thing.

I'm not sure what, precisely, you're talking about, then. If you don't think that tax dollars can be used to religious displays, and you don't believe that public lands should be used for religious displays, what, precisely, are you disagreeing with?

I was talking about allowing a nativity scene in the town square, or having an Easter Egg hunt on public land (to be fair I'm not aware of actual problems with the latter), or even a Christmas tree at City Hall.

I am opposed to the alpha and omega of those. There is nothing religious about looking for hidden eggs. But no public lands should maintain religious displays. Period. End of story.

Unless, of course, it's a black Jesus. I'd be totally cool with it if the baby Jesus in the nativity were black and everyone in the scene were not white. Why? Because it would piss a lot of people off.

[SDW2001]

Yeah. You do realize we're not talking about whatever druidic origins of things are, but instead we're talking about what they are?


That's why I qualified the statement. It's debatable though whether or not a Christmas tree is actually religious today, as it's often called a holiday tree now. It's become a secular symbol of the holiday, much like Santa.



Sure. But if you love the baby Jesus, every day is a celebration. Why should I limit my expression of my love for the baby Jesus to just one day of the year? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?!!? ;)

:lol: I'm the Salt Lake City zoning board.




Maybe you should move?

Maybe!



Obviously. Except if you're in MS, you find it offensive that someone would tell you how you can express your love for the baby Jesus.

Well I find lots of things offensive. For example, why can I not post a big sign on Route 3 that runs by my apartment, saying "Hillary is a Cunt!?" Someone is always going to be offended it seems. But let's stick to the topic at hand....holiday celebrations, hmmm?


Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

I live about a minute walk from a large city park. If my city park places a giant Joseph Smith stature in the middle of it for Xmas, and uses my tax dollars to do so, what is the difference between that and just making a big Xmas tree, using the land my tax dollars pay for to put it on and my tax dollars to buy the tree??

I think the question is whether it's "allowed" vs. whether it's erected and paid for by the city itself. Granted, the city owns the land, but as long as they don't deny other religious symbols (provided they are not eyesores or creating public danger), I don't see the problem. It's not much different than a school allowing it's auditorium to be used for temporary church home.



Find me a lawsuit based on "I don't like it." Seriously.

Not sure I can, but I do know that complaints have been filed saying that ALL religious displays on public property are not permissible (which is your position, exactly). Are you actually disagreeing with this?



Good. Welcome to the ACLU.

Not so fast. I oppose using tax dollars to fund specific religious symbols and religions. I do not oppose government employees practicing/expressing their religion, voluntary school prayer, etc. The ACLU opposes my right to pray in front of my school children if I want to. The ACLU opposes voluntary school prayer...I think even student led prayer. The ACLU opposes a coach's right to pray with his team as students lead it. Not the same thing, in short.



Nope, dude. I've been living in Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Utah. Three of the most conservative states in the union.

And I believe that no display on public land is appropriate.

Let me put this another way:

You cannot tell me that I cannot use your tax dollars to pay for an abortion and then turn around and tell me that it's OK to use my tax dollars to pay for a religious display.

Fair enough. But consider this: It is reasonable to tell me you're going to fund abortion and birth control for middle schoolers, then turn around and tell me you won't fund abstinence education and the town's Christmas display?



I'm not sure what, precisely, you're talking about, then. If you don't think that tax dollars can be used to religious displays, and you don't believe that public lands should be used for religious displays, what, precisely, are you disagreeing with?

I think public lands can be used for religious displays, provided the owners of the land do not discriminate based on religion alone. All local ordinances still have to be followed, of course. It might also be a good idea to limit such use to commonly recognized holiday celebrations, such as Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan and 'Eid-ul-Fitr, Easter, etc. The point of the display is allow the population of the town, not the town's government, to express their religious and cultural beliefs.



I am opposed to the alpha and omega of those. There is nothing religious about looking for hidden eggs. But no public lands should maintain religious displays. Period. End of story.

But looking for hidden eggs is done for Easter. Without easter, no eggs. Do you feel the same about Santa? I wonder.



Unless, of course, it's a black Jesus. I'd be totally cool with it if the baby Jesus in the nativity were black and everyone in the scene were not white. Why? Because it would piss a lot of people off.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[jimmac]

Your first statement is 100% false. Facts can be twisted to mean many things. Facts can be presented out of context. Facts can be used to serve an agenda.
To demonstrate this, I took some..cough...*facts* from your own website and made my own timeline, which supported exact opposite of your POV. You ignored this, of course.

As for your second statement: You are neither creative nor amusing. Just thought I'd point that out.


That's why they left references to the facts so you could draw your own conclusion.

No one was asking anyone to accept anything at face value SDW.

These events really did happen. And it's the events not their viewpoint that's so damning.

Besides how can you make any timeline that would be different without omitting any of the facts. Each event had a date attached to it also. Which yes you could reference yourself.

[midwinter]

I think public lands can be used for religious displays, provided the owners of the land do not discriminate based on religion alone.

Maybe it's the percoet on your end, but I suspect that this sentence right here is at the heart of why we're still talking about this.

[@_@ Artman]

Maybe it's the percoet on your end, but I suspect that this sentence right here is at the heart of why we're still talking about this.

What do you expect. He lives in fucking West Chester. Suburban enclaves are notorious for this. :smokey:

Meanwhile... (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/europe/27rumsfeld.html?_r=2&ref=europe&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

Several human rights organizations based in the United States and Europe have filed a complaint in a Paris court accusing former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of responsibility for torture.

The group, which includes the International Federation for Human Rights, the French League for Human Rights, and the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, made the complaint late Thursday and unsuccessfully sought to confront Mr. Rumsfeld as he left a breakfast meeting in central Paris on Friday.

Jeanne Sulzer, one of the lawyers working on the issue for the human rights groups, said the complaint had been filed with a state prosecutor, Jean-Claude Marin, saying he would have the power to pursue the case because of Mr. Rumsfeld’s presence in France.

Similar legal complaints against Mr. Rumsfeld have been filed in other countries, including Sweden and Argentina. German prosecutors dismissed a case in April, saying it was up to the United States to investigate the accusations.

The French complaint accuses Mr. Rumsfeld of authorizing torture at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and says it violated the Convention Against Torture, which came into force in 1987.

As part of their complaint, the groups submitted 11 pages of written testimony from Janis Karpinski, the highest-ranking officer to be punished in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. She was demoted to colonel from brigadier general and lost command of her military police unit. She contended that the abuses at the prison had started after the appearance of Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was sent by Mr. Rumsfeld to assist military intelligence interrogators.

Anyone listening? Any other MSM reporting this? Thought not.

[tonton]

No, that is what the ACLU claims it does. And that is what you claim the Bush Administration does. I've lost few if any of my "civil liberties" as a result of this administration. Which ones have you lost?

So...

This is about how it affects YOU and ME (personally)?

Why can't you look at how it affects others? Do you care how it affects others? Can't you see that if my friend Jamal is hassled for four hours at the airport and put on a later flight, and even my freaking lily white 70 year-old 250lb titanium-hipped dad has to remove and turn over his Dr. Scholl's inserts (despite the pain that it's going to cause him) that we're affected?

You don't think it's a problem that if I call my Muslim friend in London about his sister's suicide that we have to worry about if someone is listening?

You don't think it's a problem that people disappear and are sent to Guantanamo or elsewhere, without a valid charge even being made, then the US releases them and makes their usual excuses?

You don't think it's a problem that it's even possible that someone like Blackwater can "accidentally" kill people?

And you don't care because "we" haven't lost any of our liberties... :rolleyes:

Compassionate conservatism my ass.

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

[SDW2001]

That's why they left references to the facts so you could draw your own conclusion.

No one was asking anyone to accept anything at face value SDW.

These events really did happen. And it's the events not their viewpoint that's so damning.

Besides how can you make any timeline that would be different without omitting any of the facts. Each event had a date attached to it also. Which yes you could reference yourself.

Bullshit. You didn't post it and ask people to draw their own conclusions. You presented it as a neutral source that proved your anti-Bush, anti-war point of view. And now that you are forced to acknowledge that your source has a clear POV, you're trying to rewrite your intent and what actually happened.


Maybe it's the percoet on your end, but I suspect that this sentence right here is at the heart of why we're still talking about this.

Yup. And really, I'm off the perc now. I think.

So...

This is about how it affects YOU and ME (personally)?

Not exclusively, no. I'm just asking.



Why can't you look at how it affects others? Do you care how it affects others? Can't you see that if my friend Jamal is hassled for four hours at the airport and put on a later flight, and even my freaking dad has to remove and turn over his Dr. Scholl's inserts that we're affected?

Well imagine that. Young, male, Muslim terrorists attacked us and at airports we're paying more attention to young, male muslims. Now if you ask us, we'll deny we do that, but we do, because young, male muslims attacked us. And yeah, we've all gotta take our shoes off too. I agree it's a pain in the ass, but it's hardly a violation of anyone's civil rights.

Of course, that's not acceptable. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33298)




You don't think it's a problem that if I call my Muslim friend in London about his sister's suicide that we have to worry about if someone is listening?

No, I don't. Not with what is going on the world today. And personally I think all electronic communications have been monitored by the US government for about 30 years anyway. But that's just me.



You don't think it's a problem that people disappear and are sent to Guantanamo or elsewhere, without a valid charge even being made, then the US releases them and makes their usual excuses?

I think Us citizens should not be held without charges or tried under military tribunals. I've been on record stating my opposition to this. Can people captured overseas, especially in battle, be tried in this way? Yes, I think they can, becaus ethey are not part of a nation state's uniformed army.



You don't think it's a problem that it's even possible that someone like Blackwater can "accidentally" kill people?

I don't know what that means. It happened, and it needs to be deal with. I don't think it has anything to do with our civil liberties. It's just something bad and unfortunate that happened, and it needs to be prevented in the future.



And you don't care because "we" haven't lost any of our liberties... :rolleyes:

Compassionate conservatism my ass.

Well you haven't listed anything other than inconveniences and annoyances for the most part, with the exception of a handful (if that) of US citizens being held without charges, which I've already said I opposed. Yes, if you call Iran or Afghanistan, your call is likely going to be listened to. Well gee, I wonder why? And yeah, you've got to take your shoes off at the airport and show your ID more than you used to. Imagine that.

But let me ask you:

Can you still protest the government's actions?

Have your second amendment rights been taken away? And if they were, which party would take them?

Can you no longer disagree with George Bush? Can you no longer make fun of him?

Are we no longer allowed to choose our professions, our paths in life?

Do we have widespread government censorship of our newspapers and media?

Are you still allowed to vote?

Has abortion become illegal?

Have we outlawed Islam?

Can you no longer burn the flag?



It's funny really, because the standard rallying cry of the left has been three-fold with respect to civil liberties.

1. George Bush and Dick Cheney have expanded the powers of the executive branch more than at any time in history.

2. The Bush Administration has curtailed civil liberties.

3. The PATRIOT Act is bad, bad, bad, bad.


But when asked, most people cannot be specific. How has the power of the executive branch expanded (and it has in some areas). What civil liberties have disappeared? What provisions of the PATRIOT Act do you disagree with. Usually the response to these questions is something like.....<crickets>

[tonton]

Can you still protest the government's actions?
Not if it's anti-war and it's within a mile of a Republican rally.Have your second amendment rights been taken away? And if they were, which party would take them?The second amendment doesn't give me personally the right to carry a concealed handgun or a semiautomatic or sniper weapon. If you think it does, then we have a difference of opinion.
Can you no longer disagree with George Bush? Can you no longer make fun of him?See above. Not where you want to to make an impact, even on public property, no you can't.Are we no longer allowed to choose our professions, our paths in life?If we're Muslim, maybe it's not as easy as it should be.Do we have widespread government censorship of our newspapers and media?They definitely censor themselves, if that counts...Are you still allowed to vote?Sure but you're discouraged, hindered and even tricked from doing so in certain places, if you're a certain type of person, and no one does anything about it.Has abortion become illegal?Not yet. Thank God.Have we outlawed Islam?No, but we've allowed and encouraged Islamophobia to spread.Can you no longer burn the flag?Can't say they haven't tried. But yeah, I think if I went to Corpus Christi and burned a flag on my own front lawn, I might expect to get the shit beat out of me and that justice wouldn't be done after it happens, even if I filmed the whole thing.It's funny really, because the standard rallying cry of the left has been three-fold with respect to civil liberties.

1. George Bush and Dick Cheney have expanded the powers of the executive branch more than at any time in history.

2. The Bush Administration has curtailed civil liberties.

3. The PATRIOT Act is bad, bad, bad, bad.
And...?
But when asked, most people cannot be specific.
When asked, most people don't know there are 50 states or where Iraq is on a globe.
How has the power of the executive branch expanded (and it has in some areas). What civil liberties have disappeared? What provisions of the PATRIOT Act do you disagree with. Usually the response to these questions is something like.....<crickets>
It's crickets to you because you never listen. Because anyone who takes the time to show you the facts gets discredited by you even before you read those facts. In fact, you've got an iPod with a recording of a million crickets blasting in your ear while people are telling you the truth.

[Bergermeister]

It's so convenient that the "bad guys" look different and have different sounding names than we do.

It makes it easier to group them and treat anyone like them in the same distrustful way.

It makes it easier to ignore the rampant racism that is actually fueling the fire.

Qurans confiscated. Anybody ever been to a hotel that doesn't have a Bible tucked into the drawer next to the bed?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_quran;_ylt=At_G7Wv_3VOMItKtq2u3wp.s0NUE

[Bergermeister]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

The 2002 National Geographic Survey that is very depressing.

[tonton]

It's so convenient that the "bad guys" look different and have different sounding names than we do.

It makes it easier to group them and treat anyone like them in the same distrustful way.

It makes it easier to ignore the rampant racism that is actually fueling the fire.

Well imagine that. Young, male, Muslim terrorists attacked us and at airports we're paying more attention to young, male muslims. Now if you ask us, we'll deny we do that, but we do, because young, male muslims attacked us.When the Oklahoma Federal building blew up, do you think they started strip searching every white trash gun nut who wanted to rent a van?

Imagine that. Young, male, white trash terrorists attacked us and at U-Haul we're paying more attention to young, male white trash. Now if you ask us, we'll deny we do that, but we do, because young, male white trash attacked us.

Except that's not what happened. Because we're not racist against young white males.

[Bergermeister]

Born and bred in the US of A.


It is amazing, isn't it.

[segovius]

Born and bred in the US of A.


It is amazing, isn't it.

Check this out.

Britain's first Muslim Government minister - Shahid Malik, Minister for International Development - goes to the US for a conference on tackling terrorism.

What do you reckon happened at the airport?

Yep, Bingo..... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7066944.stm)

The international development minister was stopped and searched at Washington DC's Dulles airport after a series of meetings on tackling terrorism.

Mr Malik, MP for Dewsbury, West Yorks, had his hand luggage checked for explosives when returning to Heathrow.

He said the same thing happened to him at JFK airport in New York last year.

On that occasion he had been a keynote speaker at an event organised by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), alongside the FBI and Muslim organisations, to talk about tackling extremism and defeating terrorism.

Mr Malik said he had received numerous apologies and assurances from the US authorities after that incident.......But he was again searched and detained by DHS officials on Sunday.

[Bergermeister]

Check this out.

Britain's first Muslim Government minister - Shahid Malik, Minister for International Development - goes to the US for a conference on tackling terrorism.

What do you reckon happened at the airport?

Yep, Bingo..... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7066944.stm)



Their own guest!

At least they didn't put him on a no-fly list after they invited him.

[jimmac]

Bullshit. You didn't post it and ask people to draw their own conclusions. You presented it as a neutral source that proved your anti-Bush, anti-war point of view. And now that you are forced to acknowledge that your source has a clear POV, you're trying to rewrite your intent and what actually happened.




Yup. And really, I'm off the perc now. I think.



Not exclusively, no. I'm just asking.



Well imagine that. Young, male, Muslim terrorists attacked us and at airports we're paying more attention to young, male muslims. Now if you ask us, we'll deny we do that, but we do, because young, male muslims attacked us. And yeah, we've all gotta take our shoes off too. I agree it's a pain in the ass, but it's hardly a violation of anyone's civil rights.

Of course, that's not acceptable. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33298)




No, I don't. Not with what is going on the world today. And personally I think all electronic communications have been monitored by the US government for about 30 years anyway. But that's just me.



I think Us citizens should not be held without charges or tried under military tribunals. I've been on record stating my opposition to this. Can people captured overseas, especially in battle, be tried in this way? Yes, I think they can, becaus ethey are not part of a nation state's uniformed army.



I don't know what that means. It happened, and it needs to be deal with. I don't think it has anything to do with our civil liberties. It's just something bad and unfortunate that happened, and it needs to be prevented in the future.



Well you haven't listed anything other than inconveniences and annoyances for the most part, with the exception of a handful (if that) of US citizens being held without charges, which I've already said I opposed. Yes, if you call Iran or Afghanistan, your call is likely going to be listened to. Well gee, I wonder why? And yeah, you've got to take your shoes off at the airport and show your ID more than you used to. Imagine that.

But let me ask you:

Can you still protest the government's actions?

Have your second amendment rights been taken away? And if they were, which party would take them?

Can you no longer disagree with George Bush? Can you no longer make fun of him?

Are we no longer allowed to choose our professions, our paths in life?

Do we have widespread government censorship of our newspapers and media?

Are you still allowed to vote?

Has abortion become illegal?

Have we outlawed Islam?

Can you no longer burn the flag?



It's funny really, because the standard rallying cry of the left has been three-fold with respect to civil liberties.

1. George Bush and Dick Cheney have expanded the powers of the executive branch more than at any time in history.

2. The Bush Administration has curtailed civil liberties.

3. The PATRIOT Act is bad, bad, bad, bad.


But when asked, most people cannot be specific. How has the power of the executive branch expanded (and it has in some areas). What civil liberties have disappeared? What provisions of the PATRIOT Act do you disagree with. Usually the response to these questions is something like.....<crickets>


SDW have you totally lost it????

The site I'm talking about had the dates with the reference to the timeline. So in order to alter it ( to " make your own timeline " as you've said you've done and have it come out different ) you'd have to alter the dates which of course were also referenced on the site so you could look them up.

I'm not forced to do anything and you're starting to not make sense!:wow:

[@_@ Artman]

Their own guest!

At least they didn't put him on a no-fly list after they invited him.

The ironic thing about this gentleman is that he voted for this stuff. The UK website theyworkforyou.com (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/shahid_malik/dewsbury) keeps records of MPs voting habits in the House of Commons. Shahid Malik:


Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
Voted very strongly for Labor's anti-terrorism laws.
Hardly ever rebels against (the government) in this parliament.


This means this guy has voted in favor of detention without trial, in favor of ID cards which make stop-and-search so much easier, and (in a very real sense) in favor of this sort of loss of liberty to support the "war on terror". He has supported a government which has collaborated with the US policy of "extraordinary rendition" and the subsequent torture that entails. Suddenly it's been brought home to him what this means in a real, every-day sense: innocent people get harassed for apparently arbitrary reasons. What a fucking whiner.

[SDW2001]

Not if it's anti-war and it's within a mile of a Republican rally.

Whatever. Links. Please.



The second amendment doesn't give me personally the right to carry a concealed handgun or a semiautomatic or sniper weapon. If you think it does, then we have a difference of opinion.

I certainly didn't say it did that. I'm just asking...have you lost this right, and if it was taken away, which party would be more likely to take it? Think hard, tonton.


See above. Not where you want to to make an impact, even on public property, no you can't.

False. There were anti-war protests just this weekend, for example.



If we're Muslim, maybe it's not as easy as it should be.They definitely censor themselves, if that counts...

I don't really know what that's supposed to mean.

Sure but you're discouraged, hindered and even tricked from doing so in certain places, if you're a certain type of person, and no one does anything about it

Oh bullshit. Bullshit! Let me guess, the Evil Racist Republicans® are discriminating again! Of course, you'll ignore the tends of thousands of white voters that were disenfranchised in the Florida panhandle in 2000.



Not yet Thank God.

Let me ask you...what is the constitutional argument for having it be a federal civil right to have an abortion? Because I have to tell you, I haven't heard anything other than "privacy." Don't get me wrong, if it was on the ballot, I'd vote to keep it legal. But the USSC has ensured it will never be on the ballot.



No, but we've allowed and encouraged Islamophobia to spread.

Examples? Other than some isolated incidents, I'd like some examples. It's not our imagination the muslims have caused most of the terrorism against us and our allies in the last 20 years. And it was muslims that killed 3,000 Americans 6 years ago. If anything, we're become a nation of pussies. We don't even admit that we profile.



Can't say they haven't tried. But yeah, I think if I went to Corpus Christi and burned a flag on my own front lawn, I might expect to get the shit beat out of me and that justice wouldn't be done after it happens, even if I filmed the whole thing.

And why would you not expect that? I'd like to beat the shit out of you too. You know what, come to think of it, if you dressed up like the police officer from YMCA and went into a biker bar in Harrisburg, PA you'd get the shit kicked out you too. I guess that means that everyone in the Northeast is a homophobe. And, clear it makes it illegal to be gay.



And...?

When asked, most people don't know there are 50 states or where Iraq is on a globe.

It's crickets to you because you never listen. Because anyone who takes the time to show you the facts gets discredited by you even before you read those facts. In fact, you've got an iPod with a recording of a million crickets blasting in your ear while people are telling you the truth.

Then please tell which provisions you specifically disagree with. Over the years I've encountered a FEW people that can. Seriously...I'm listening. Saying "you never listen" is not a response.

It's so convenient that the "bad guys" look different and have different sounding names than we do.

Kinda like when a black guy (who's 6 feet tall, 180 lbs, beard and glasses and a red cap) robs a bank, we look for that kind of guy instead of a white 80 y/o grandmother named McLucky?



It makes it easier to group them and treat anyone like them in the same distrustful way.

It makes it easier to ignore the rampant racism that is actually fueling the fire.

It makes it easier to look for the kind of people that actually attacked us, visually speaking. And really...who the hell are you to pronounce that such efforts are motivated by racism? You don't know that. That's what you think.



Qurans confiscated. Anybody ever been to a hotel that doesn't have a Bible tucked into the drawer next to the bed?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_quran;_ylt=At_G7Wv_3VOMItKtq2u3wp.s0NUE

Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali, a convicted murderer, says the books and rug are among the personal items that have been missing since 2003, when he was moved from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to a facility at Inez, Ky.

---So here we have the word of a convicted murderer, as opposed to the Quran Patrol running around a burning Quran's for sport. Nice.

When the Oklahoma Federal building blew up, do you think they started strip searching every white trash gun nut who wanted to rent a van?

Imagine that. Young, male, white trash terrorists attacked us and at U-Haul we're paying more attention to young, male white trash. Now if you ask us, we'll deny we do that, but we do, because young, male white trash attacked us.

Except that's not what happened. Because we're not racist against young white males.

They looked for people that fit his description though, didn't they? And the last time I checked, most terrorism against us and our allies has not been caused by young, male white trash. Hmmm?


SDW have you totally lost it????

The site I'm talking about had the dates with the reference to the timeline. So in order to alter it ( to " make your own timeline " as you've said you've done and have it come out different ) you'd have to alter the dates which of course were also referenced on the site so you could look them up.

I'm not forced to do anything and you're starting to not make sense!:wow:

:no: No jimmac, no dates were altered. If you read what I posted when I changed your timeline, you'd see that. All I did was exactly what the website did. I used their events and timeline and made my own, and guess what happened? The entire POV changed. That's because it's not hard, jimmac. It's my entire point here...facts can be presented in such a way to express a POV. This something you refuse to see, apparently.

[segovius]

Examples? Other than some isolated incidents, I'd like some examples. It's not our imagination the muslims have caused most of the terrorism against us and our allies in the last 20 years.

Wrong. Again.

I think you'll find that if you scope it to 20 years then Christians (I say this so as you can comprehend as you think Muslims are doing the killing currently - to me they were no more Christians than al Qaeda are Muslims) - the Republican IRA and the Lord's Army for example - are way, way ahead.

Sure the LA are not white but if you leave them out I reckon the IRA stats are pretty unassailable.

I lived through decades of IRA terror - was a few doors down from the Grand Hotel in Brighton when they (quite understandably) tried to blow up Thatcher and had a friend blown up in the Victoria Station blast so I know of what I speak.

There is simply no comparison.

[Jubelum]

sniper weapon.

Definition, please?

[jimmac]

Whatever. Links. Please.



I certainly didn't say it did that. I'm just asking...have you lost this right, and if it was taken away, which party would be more likely to take it? Think hard, tonton.



False. There were anti-war protests just this weekend, for example.



I don't really know what that's supposed to mean.



Oh bullshit. Bullshit! Let me guess, the Evil Racist Republicans® are discriminating again! Of course, you'll ignore the tends of thousands of white voters that were disenfranchised in the Florida panhandle in 2000.



Let me ask you...what is the constitutional argument for having it be a federal civil right to have an abortion? Because I have to tell you, I haven't heard anything other than "privacy." Don't get me wrong, if it was on the ballot, I'd vote to keep it legal. But the USSC has ensured it will never be on the ballot.



Examples? Other than some isolated incidents, I'd like some examples. It's not our imagination the muslims have caused most of the terrorism against us and our allies in the last 20 years. And it was muslims that killed 3,000 Americans 6 years ago. If anything, we're become a nation of pussies. We don't even admit that we profile.



And why would you not expect that? I'd like to beat the shit out of you too. You know what, come to think of it, if you dressed up like the police officer from YMCA and went into a biker bar in Harrisburg, PA you'd get the shit kicked out you too. I guess that means that everyone in the Northeast is a homophobe. And, clear it makes it illegal to be gay.



Then please tell which provisions you specifically disagree with. Over the years I've encountered a FEW people that can. Seriously...I'm listening. Saying "you never listen" is not a response.



Kinda like when a black guy (who's 6 feet tall, 180 lbs, beard and glasses and a red cap) robs a bank, we look for that kind of guy instead of a white 80 y/o grandmother named McLucky?



It makes it easier to look for the kind of people that actually attacked us, visually speaking. And really...who the hell are you to pronounce that such efforts are motivated by racism? You don't know that. That's what you think.



Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali, a convicted murderer, says the books and rug are among the personal items that have been missing since 2003, when he was moved from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to a facility at Inez, Ky.

---So here we have the word of a convicted murderer, as opposed to the Quran Patrol running around a burning Quran's for sport. Nice.



They looked for people that fit his description though, didn't they? And the last time I checked, most terrorism against us and our allies has not been caused by young, male white trash. Hmmm?




:no: No jimmac, no dates were altered. If you read what I posted when I changed your timeline, you'd see that. All I did was exactly what the website did. I used their events and timeline and made my own, and guess what happened? The entire POV changed. That's because it's not hard, jimmac. It's my entire point here...facts can be presented in such a way to express a POV. This something you refuse to see, apparently.

How pray tell can the POV change without changing the events or the dates they took place themselves?:rolleyes:

Give me an example.

[tonton]

Whatever. Links. Please.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/23/AR2005112302185.html
1. Protesters protest on public land near Bush Ranch.
2. It's not illegal.
3. The county passes a special law to take away that right.
4. The protesters challenge the law.
5. They are arrested.

Um... it would certainly appear that their right to protest near Bush was taken away.

I could cite many dozens of links where protesters near Bush rallies were forced to "special areas" where no one could see them or hear them. I could even post a few citing where protesters were illegally harrassed.

I certainly didn't say it did that. I'm just asking...have you lost this right, and if it was taken away, which party would be more likely to take it? Think hard, tonton.
Nope. Haven't lost any rights. If stricter gun laws are passed we still haven't lost any rights, no matter who passes those laws.

False. There were anti-war protests just this weekend, for example.

Oh. So I guess that proves that no one's right to protest was taken away or interfered with... because some people retained the right. I see.

I don't really know what that's supposed to mean.

Ok... a Muslim wants to be a pilot. Think it's easy for them now? What about a Chinese Nuclear Physicist (yeah I know the Lee thing went down during Clinton)?

And self-censorship? See any newspaper with a spine lately, on either side? When the Swift Boaters were proven to be lying, or at least stretching the facts, was it a major news piece? How about when a programmer came out and alleged that he was asked to rig voting machines?

Oh bullshit. Bullshit! Let me guess, the Evil Racist Republicans® are discriminating again! Of course, you'll ignore the tends of thousands of white voters that were disenfranchised in the Florida panhandle in 2000.

Yeah it was the WHITE voters that were disenfranchised in Florida. I remember. Must have got that wrong. Either that or the claim was a RED HERRING to distract from what (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0048,fridgeway,20205,1.html) actually (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_25_98/ai_68147556) happened (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1112505.stm) in Florida.

Let me ask you...what is the constitutional argument for having it be a federal civil right to have an abortion? Because I have to tell you, I haven't heard anything other than "privacy." Don't get me wrong, if it was on the ballot, I'd vote to keep it legal. But the USSC has ensured it will never be on the ballot.
Were we specifying Constitutional rights? Nice bait-and-switch technique, as you were the one who brought up abortion.

Examples? Other than some isolated incidents, I'd like some examples. It's not our imagination the muslims have caused most of the terrorism against us and our allies in the last 20 years. And it was muslims that killed 3,000 Americans 6 years ago. If anything, we're become a nation of pussies. We don't even admit that we profile.

Sego already answered to your uninformed assertion. And your statement above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Even if we stick to the US... there have been two major terrorist attacks on US soil in the last 20 years.