BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Saddam starts Weight Watcher program

--story--

Okay, not really, but he's going on a hunger strike.

"Saddam Hussein told the court during the latest session of his trial Tuesday that he was on hunger strike to protest
tough stances by the chief judge."
-Fox news

Oh, poor little Saddam is getting treated badly. We're being way too tough on one of the few humans responsible
for over a million deaths, because of course his life is way more important. But the court is apparantly big
enough for more than one baby,

"Saddam's half-brother and co-defendant Barzan Ibrahim entered the court Tuesday shouting "Long live the Baath," referring to Saddam's former ruling party. For the second straight day, the former head of Saddam's intelligence
service wore a long-sleeved undershirt and long underwear to show his rejection of the court. When
Abdel-Rahman told him to "Shut up,"
Ibrahim replied, "Don't tell me to shut up. I am a person like you — even better than you." "
-Fox news

See what happens when judges are mean? They bring out peoples baby side. Could you imagine a conversation
like this,

Prosecutor: Saddam is it true you killed over a million people?
Saddam: No it is not true, if you say it again I will not come back to this court!
Ibrahim: Yeah! This court is the nefew of a dirty
person!
Saddam: Yeah! dirty, like a Kurd!
Prosecutor: Are you aware we have evidence to believe you DID kill over a million people?
Saddam: It's not true, I say! I only killed nine-hundred-thousand! Not one million! It is a big difference!
Ibrahim: Tell 'em Saddam! He's just crying over spilled milk, he's the son of a mother...wait, that one won't
work...
Judge Abdel-Rahman: Mr. Ibrahim, you are speaking out of turn, once more and I will ask you to leave.
Ibrahim: You can't say that to me! I'm better than you! You are just the daughter of a fisherman!
Judge Abdel-Rahman: Why don't you shut up and let this continue!
Saddam: No! I do not want this to continue, I want to leave so I can get a foot-massage.

Anyways, back to the whole hunger strike thing. Does Saddam really think
this is going to work? He's basically saying "You will not try me for the death penalty, or I'll kill myself," Isn't
that intelligent? I think I speak for the majority of Americans and Iraqi's when I say, let him die. The only reason
to keep him alive would be to interrogate him, but thank's to John McCain, that probably wouldn't be possible. So what can we do, other than let him die? Send him to Gitmo to get force-fed? Oh such terrible torture, the ACLU
would break him out in a minute. How dare you force someone to eat food and keep themselves
alive! But that's another story for another time. We need to leave
him to die, simple as that. Forget the trial, it takes
too long. Forget the death penalty, it'll cause the ACLU to sue people for
in-humane treatment (forget how Saddam treated his people). And forget torture (which apparantly includes
force-feeding) because stupid McCain has taken that one off the table for us. Let the idiot die! It's our best, and
easiest option.

75 Comments:

  • At 15/2/06 3:23 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    Saddam starved a lot of his people. How ironic.

     
  • At 15/2/06 5:12 PM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    It's very ironic, PlaidBaron. I say just let him starve. I don't think he'll actually do it, but heck, it's a lot cheaper than a trial.

     
  • At 15/2/06 5:31 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    What a controversial article there Cody. Hating Saddam Hussein's so radical and innovative.

    Oh, and this is kind of nit picky, but you might want to fix this line in your pathetic attempt at humor, I mean, imagined conversation:
    "Yeah! This court is the neice of a dirty person!"

    Neice? Unless you want Ibrahim to be talking about the "North of England Institute for Christian Education" I'd recommend changing that.

    You really should stop trying to be funny Cody. It's not your thing, but that's okay, all your audience wants is the party line, and you sure can deliver that.

     
  • At 15/2/06 5:52 PM, Blogger Gayle said…

    Good show, Cody. I think you're funny! :) But then I'm a conservative so what do I know?

    Liberals don't have a party line, do they? Neither do they have an agenda. Hmmmmmm. Maybe we conservative Republicans should try to figure out how they do that, ya think?

     
  • At 16/2/06 6:18 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    the recliner said...
    Oh, and this is kind of nit picky, but you might want to fix this line in your pathetic attempt at humor, I mean, imagined conversation:
    "Yeah! This court is the neice of a dirty person!"

    Neice? Unless you want Ibrahim to be talking about the "North of England Institute for Christian Education" I'd recommend changing that.


    Oh. My. God. A spelling error. It just ruins the humor. It's terrible...Yeah right... If you don't think this is mildly funny you either A, don't pay much attention to Saddam's trail or B, have no sense of humor. No matter what it is, I'm not doing a "party line" blog. I know my site has elephants at the top and all, but the Republicans aren't perfect either.

     
  • At 16/2/06 11:47 AM, Blogger Sofocleto said…

  • At 16/2/06 2:42 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    You really shouldn't listen to the recliner. He's just looking for an argument.

     
  • At 16/2/06 2:42 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 16/2/06 2:43 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    oops! Must have posted that comment twice by accident.

     
  • At 16/2/06 3:06 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Here's another conversation for you:

    Judge: You the accused are herby charged with murder, tourture and numerous UN infractions.
    Saddam: Did not!
    Judge: Did too!
    Saddam: Did not!
    Judge: Did too!
    Saddam: Oh screw it! I'm starving myself!

    I mean does anyone really care if Saddam starves? Caring about that is almost as petty as say, critizicing someone you disagree with for not using spell check instead of offering an arguement. It's just pathetic. If Saddam thinks he can threaten people with starving himself he really is nuts.

     
  • At 16/2/06 3:46 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Come to think of it he reminds me of a spoiled brat who has been told he can't have dessert. I mean is it just me or are dictators getting more cowardly? At least Hitler offed himself when we came for him. Saddam can't even do that. He just wet his pants and surrendered.

     
  • At 18/2/06 4:29 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Everyone agrees Saddam was a horrible murderous dictator... so there was nothing really offensive about the majority of your post. But then you end by endorsing torture and insulting John McCain?! Your hateful bigoted comments really sicken me.

    From "Torture's Terrible Toll" by John McCain: I do, respectfully, take issue with the position that the demands of this war require us to accord a lower station to the moral imperatives that should govern our conduct in war and peace when they come in conflict with the unyielding inhumanity of our vicious enemy.

    Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear -- whether it is true or false -- if he believes it will relieve his suffering.

    I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse.

    ...I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. Nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength—that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. (MSNBC/Newsweek National News, November 21 2005)

    Shame on you for insulting a man, who, as a former POW, knows a lot more about this issue than you!

     
  • At 19/2/06 9:47 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    To be honest I'd love to see Saddam tortured, he's been doing it to his people, and it's time he found out what it is like. Heck, I don't even care if we get information out of him, I just want to see the guy tortured to be honest. He deserves the worst. Now, I doubt anything like that will happen to him, but he will most likely me hanged. I just hope I can get the video clip of it.

    About McCain though, his bill is a joke. Like we didn't already have torture laws? We did. But now he wants to make things that aren't torture into torture, that's what I have against it. Torture is cutting off someones finger, not putting goggles, headphones, and handcuffs on them. Is it really that bigoted to think that isn't torture?

    "Your hateful bigoted comments really sicken me."

    I don't like John McCain, but that doesn't mean I don't care he was a POW, I just don't like his politics. That's not hateful and bigoted. Bigoted is standing up for the rights of terrorists like Saddam and prisoners at Gitmo. Speaking of Gitmo, by the looks of things, what happens to the prisoners in Gitmo is very similar to a regular prison in the US. In fact they are in some ways treated better.

     
  • At 19/2/06 12:12 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    you end by endorsing torture and insulting John McCain?! Your hateful bigoted comments really sicken me.

    Bigoted? Er, I didn't really see anything bigoted in there at all. You do know what bigoted means right?

    To be honest I'd love to see Saddam tortured, he's been doing it to his people, and it's time he found out what it is like.

    Come on Cody, we can't start tourturing people, we're the United States, we don't do that kind of thing to people.

    However it is true also that we don't need the McCain bill because we already have laws against tourture. Getting hit because you try to resist capture is not tourture. Have any of you liberals in fact seen pictures of Guantanamo? The cells there are very nice, reletivally. I think we should actually be harsher on these terrorists.

     
  • At 19/2/06 3:14 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    About McCain though, his bill is a joke. Like we didn't already have torture laws? We did.

    Right, and the bush administration continues to ignore them.

    I don't like John McCain...

    I don't care for Mr. McCain's politics either. He's a Republican. But I agree with him 100 percent on this issue. I applaud him for taking a stand -- although it may have been in vain, since bush's "signing statement" says he can do what he wants regardless. This is one arrogant and EVIL SOB.

    I don't care about Saddam's rights. This isn't about them (the terrorists), it's about us. Your strong desire to see him tortured... I find that very disturbing.

    DarkSaturos said... Bigoted? Er, I didn't really see anything bigoted in there at all. You do know what bigoted means right?

    Yes I do. Do you?

    From Dictionary.com:

    Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    I think the description fits.

    DarkSaturos said... I think we should actually be harsher on these terrorists.

    Torture and murder isn't harsh enough for you?! You're OK with the very real possibility that we're holding innocent people?

    From the New York Times: Pentagon Will Not Try 17 G.I.'s Implicated in Prisoners' Deaths (3/26/2005)

    From The Scotsman: Outrage at murder of Iraqi prisoners by US personnel (5/5/2004)

    From USA Today: At least 3 prisoners killed by U.S. personnel (5/4/2004)

    Innocent people still being held in Guantanamo Bay. An unknown number of people being held in the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, facility are not actually terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, or even remotely hostile to the U.S. Instead, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But even after being cleared of wrongdoing, the U.S. continues to hold some of them indefinitely. (11/15/2005)

     
  • At 19/2/06 8:38 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Torture and murder isn't harsh enough for you?! You're OK with the very real possibility that we're holding innocent people?"

    If there is torture and murder going on in these facilities they are definetly isolated events. Our military or intelligence agencies isn't telling the military to torture, the people who are doing the "torture" (probably not worth that word) are just single soldiers who are going against what their superiors are telling them to do.

    Oh, and when "news" stories say things like this: "Don’t mistake my position" you know it's just opinions backed up by other people with the same opinion but have no real evidence.

    "Your strong desire to see him tortured... I find that very disturbing."

    I bet the Iraqi people who have been tortured by Saddam (personally even) would have to disagree with you.

     
  • At 19/2/06 8:48 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I said...
    "The people who are doing the torture are just single soldiers who are going against what their superiors are telling them to do."

    "In one case, an Army soldier was convicted of using excessive force for fatally shooting a prisoner who was throwing rocks at him. The killing took place at an unidentified detention center last September. The soldier was reduced in rank to private and given a less than honorable discharge from the service."
    -USA today

    I just love it when Liberals give me stories that I can use against them. The military doesn't condone these isolated acts of violence and it does it's best to stop them. And just to get it on the record here, I don't support torture either, real torture though, not McCain's version of torture.

     
  • At 19/2/06 9:19 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... If there is torture and murder going on in these facilities they are definetly isolated events. Our military or intelligence agencies isn't telling the military to torture, the people... are just single soldiers who are going against their superiors.

    Cody Said... I just love it when Liberals give me stories that I can use against them. The military doesn't condone these isolated acts of violence and it does it's best to stop them.

    You believe every single lie bushco tells, don't you? What you said -- ALL Bullcrap! The torture was authorized by Rumsfeld. Bush knew. The fact that they are scapegoating low ranking soldiers who were only doing what they were told is SHAMEFUL.

    The Grey Zone. How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib
    May 15, 2004. By Seymour M Hersh, The New Yorker

    The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld's decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America's prospects in the war on terror.

    According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld's long-standing desire to wrest control of America's clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

    The operation had across-the-board approval from Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser. President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, a former intelligence official said.

    ...Human intelligence is poor or lacking... due to the dearth of competence and expertise... The success of the war was at risk...
    The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents. A key player was Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo... The internal Army report on the abuse charges revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that "detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation".

    Miller's concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to "Gitmoize" the prison system in Iraq; to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba-methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in "stress positions" for agonizing lengths of time. (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.)

    Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the sap, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation.

    "So here are fundamentally good soldiers -- military-intelligence guys -- being told that no rules apply", the former official, who has extensive knowledge of the special-access programs, added. "And, as far as they're concerned, this is a covert operation, and it's to be kept within Defense Department channels".

    "This shit has been brewing for months", the Pentagon consultant who has dealt with saps told me. "You don't keep prisoners naked in their cell and then let them get bitten by dogs. This is sick". The consultant explained that he and his colleagues, all of whom had served for years on active duty in the military, had been appalled by the misuse of Army guard dogs inside Abu Ghraib. "We don't raise kids to do things like that. When you go after Mullah Omar, that's one thing. But when you give the authority to kids who don't know the rules, that's another".

    "In an odd way", Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "the sexual abuses at Abu Ghraib have become a diversion for the prisoner abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions that is authorized". Since September 11th, Roth added, the military has systematically used third-degree techniques around the world on detainees. "Some jags hate this and are horrified that the tolerance of mistreatment will come back and haunt us in the next war", Roth told me. "We're giving the world a ready-made excuse to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld has lowered the bar".

     
  • At 19/2/06 9:53 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Right, and the bush administration continues to ignore them.


    Supporting details would've been nice, but oh well.


    Torture and murder isn't harsh enough for you?! You're OK with the very real possibility that we're holding innocent people?


    We haven't murdered or tourtured anyone. Putting someone in cuffs is not tourture okay? I'm getting sick of repeating this. My arguements are here if you care to read.

     
  • At 19/2/06 10:35 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Supporting details would've been nice, but oh well.

    What about the recent revelations of secret prisons in Europe? After the release of the torture photos the bush administration decided to continue "business as usual" elsewhere.

    CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons. The Washington Post, 11/2/2005.

    EU to query US secret prisons. BBC News, 11/22/2005.

    DarkSaturos said... We haven't murdered or tourtured anyone.

    Wrong. See the "supporting details" in my 3:14pm post.

     
  • At 20/2/06 10:47 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 20/2/06 10:57 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Okay, so basically what the first article is saying is that we don't actually know what's going on in those camps, but we're just going to assume that it's tourture. Yep, that's the Post alright, they don't know what they're talking about, but they'll report it anyway. Okay so no proof of tourture from article 1. Let's move on to the next one shall we?

    Ok, same thing. Everything in this article is also allegation and rumor. There's no facts, no pictures, nothing. Just some rumor and speculation. When you come out with some FACTS dervish, then maybe I'll listen.

     
  • At 20/2/06 11:11 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Okay time to look at your 3:14 comment for the truths you say are there.

    Okay number 1, not really sure what you're trying to say here. Okay so a terrorist died, and the soldiers were not found guilty. What's your point? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here other then saying a terrorist died, which to most people dervish is a good thing.

    Okay number 2. Okay again dervish, these soldiers have not been proven guilty. So all you're saying is that it's bad when a terrorist dies. That's a little seditious but okay. The other thing I have a problem with is this article stating that it is murder before the investigation begins. Maybe I should just call you a murderer just because I can, even though it hasn't been proven. Would you like that? Okay so nothing but more allegations and no proof in number 2. On to 3.

    Okay number 3. Ah ha, have we read this part? including one who was trying to escape Uh DUH YOU SHOOT DANGEROUS CRIMINALS WHO ARE TRYING TO ESCAPE NUMBSKULL! What is wrong with these people? In one case, an Army soldier was convicted of using excessive force for fatally shooting a prisoner who was throwing rocks at him. Okay so now our troops can't even defend themselves eh dervish? Hell let's just take their M-16s too eh? That what you want dervish? The article goes on to say that most of them were deemed justified and that the others are under investigations. Yet again, nothing but allegations. All I see here is allegation after allegation. No proof in number 3. Let's move on to number 4.

    Number 4. Okay so what you're proving here is that we can't hold prisoners. You'd just like for everyone who's waiting for trial to go free eh? Okay let's just let all the rapists go! How about the murderers? Let's free them too! Saddam? Hell, he's not been convicted! Free Saddam! Free Saddam! Is that what you would like? Again, nothing proving tourture in Gitmo. Thanks for the links dervish, interesting reading, but they didn't prove jack.

     
  • At 20/2/06 4:29 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Okay, so basically what the first article is saying is that we don't actually know what's going on in those camps, but we're just going to assume that it's tourture.

    That's my assumption (prisoners are being tortured). As far as I can see, there is NO OTHER REASON they need "secret" prisons. I guess -- as far as you're concerned -- so long as the bush administration can keep the illegal things they're doing under wraps -- then it's all good!

    DarkSaturos said... not really sure what you're trying to say here. Okay so a terrorist died, and the soldiers were not found guilty. What's your point?

    My point is that prisoners in our custody are being killed! It's Murder and/or carelessness. Neither is acceptable. You'd think it would be pretty easy to NOT KILL SOMEONE... A prisoner, in our custody, under our complete control.

    DarkSaturos said... Thanks for the links dervish, interesting reading, but they didn't prove jack.

    They PROVE that prisoners in our care are being murdered!!!!!!! We DON'T KNOW that all the people being held are terrorists. NO I DO NOT think we should let them go. I think we should work faster to determine if they're innocent or not. It's been YEARS!! Do you really think I was saying we should let them go?? If yes, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

    DarkSaturos said... Okay so now our troops can't even defend themselves eh dervish?

    Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. That is why it is soooooo frustrating conversing with you -- you're always putting words in other people's mouths. numbskull.

    Marine goes on trial in Iraqi prisoner's death, Excerpt: At preliminary hearings, Col. William Gallo found that Hatab and another inmate received "arbitrary beatings" from Pittman and Lance Cpl. William Roy.

    Roy, who testified under immunity, said Pittman karate-kicked (the prisoner) Hatab in the chest.

    Maj. Clarke Paulus, who commanded the detention center at Camp Whitehorse and whose general court-martial is scheduled to begin next month, allegedly authorized a Marine to grab Hatab by the neck to drag him to a holding pen. He faces a court-martial next month on charges of charges of dereliction of duty, assault and maltreatment. A third man, Whitehorse base commander Maj. Michael Froeder, faces charges of negligence and abuse of prisoners. (8/23/2004)

    I don't think it matters what this guy was suspected of, TORTURE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!

    You said it yourself:

    DarkSaturos said... Come on Cody, we can't start tourturing people, we're the United States, we don't do that kind of thing to people.

    Apparently you were joking??!!

    What I find so offensive is that you are suggesting that it is perfectly OK to torture these prisoners just because they're Muslim. We DON'T KNOW which prisoners are terrorists and which are innocent. Because bush is holding them indefinately without hearings or trials! Yet torture and murder is all a-ok with you. sickening.

    From The Observer. How I entered the hellish world of Guantanamo Bay: Martin Mubanga went on holiday to Zambia, but ended up spending 33 months in Guantanamo Bay, some of the time in the feared Camp Echo. Free at last and still protesting his innocence, he tells the full story.

    For many months after Mubanga was seized in Zambia with the help of British intelligence and sent to Guantánamo, the American authorities maintained that he was a dangerous "enemy combatant", an undercover al-Qaeda operative who had travelled from Afghanistan on a false passport and appeared to be on a mission to reconnoitre Jewish organisations in New York. But documents obtained by The Observer now reveal that by the end of last October the Pentagon's own legal staff had grave doubts about his status, and had overturned a ruling that he was a terrorist by Guantánamo's Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

    ...he was taken from the cellblock for what had become his almost daily interrogation. As usual, his hands were shackled in rigid, metal cuffs attached to a body belt; another set of chains ran to his ankles, severely restricting his ability to move his legs. Trussed in this fashion, he was lying on the interrogation booth floor.

    The seemingly interminable questioning had already lasted for hours. I needed the toilet, Mubanga said, and I asked the interrogator to let me go. But he just said, "you'll go when I say so". I told him he had five minutes to get me to the toilet or I was going to go on the floor. He left the room. Finally, I squirmed across the floor and did it in the corner, trying to minimise the mess. I suppose he was watching through a one-way mirror or the CCTV camera. He comes back with a mop and dips it in the pool of urine. Then he starts covering me with my own waste, like he's using a big paintbrush, working methodically, beginning with my feet and ankles and working his way up my legs. All the while he's racially abusing me, cussing me: "Oh, the poor little negro, the poor little nigger". He seemed to think it was funny. (2/6/2005)

    Hilarious! Right, DarkSaturos?

     
  • At 21/2/06 8:30 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Marine goes on trial in Iraqi prisoner's death...

    ...Maj. Clarke Paulus, who commanded the detention center at Camp Whitehorse and whose general court-martial is scheduled to begin next month, allegedly authorized a Marine to grab Hatab by the neck to drag him to a holding pen. He faces a court-martial next month on charges of charges of dereliction of duty, assault and maltreatment. A third man, Whitehorse base commander Maj. Michael Froeder, faces charges of negligence and abuse of prisoners. (8/23/2004)"


    Again you prove my point. These incidents are isolated and not condoned by the military. The military TRIES people who torture and murder! I'm not supporting torture, and neither does the U.S. military, in fact they are trying to stop these incedents! What more do you want!?

     
  • At 21/2/06 8:39 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "We DON'T KNOW that all the people being held are terrorists. NO I DO NOT think we should let them go. I think we should work faster to determine if they're innocent or not. It's been YEARS!!"

    How do you know that to be true? Are you really ready to trust people like Democratic Senators who have never been to Gitmo, but base their opinion on what places like movon.org say? Me, I'll trust what people say who have actually been to Gitmo and seen what happens. From what those people have said it seems like the prisoners are getting better treatment than the soldiers stationed there, and also, they ALL get a chance to be tried for their crimes MULTIPLE times if they want!

     
  • At 21/2/06 12:51 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Again you prove my point. These incidents are isolated and not condoned by the military. The military TRIES people who torture and murder!

    These incidents are NOT isolated! They ARE condoned by the military!! Didn't you even skim the article I posted titled "The Grey Zone"?? Rumsfeld AUTHORIZED torture!

    What is the military going to say??! Yes, prisoners were tortured and murdered, but we OK'd it?! I don't think so! Where did the soldiers get the idea that this type of behavior was acceptable? FROM THEIR SUPERIORS! Sure, if anyone gets gets caught, then the soldiers actions are disavowed.

    Your precious Rusty saw staged propaganda! Do you think the military would show him something they're trying to cover up?!

    From USA Today: Military scapegoats walk a well-worn path. By Jonathan Turley (6/6/2005). Excerpt -- In Fort Hood, Texas, the latest grunt will soon face charges of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. As with six other GIs, Pfc. Lynndie England will carry more than her individual responsibility for torture into her trial. She will carry the hopes of one of the world's smallest and most exclusive clubs: the 870 star-studded admirals and generals who command the military services.

    It may be the U.S. military's longest unbroken tradition. When scandals occur, scapegoats are gathered from the lower ranks and offered for the sins of their superiors.

    True to tradition, promotion rather than punishment has been the fate of most torture-tainted officers in the Abu Ghraib scandal:

    • Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller has been implicated in the abuses at both Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. He actually ordered Abu Ghraib personnel to "soften up" the prisoners. He was made an assistant chief of staff.

    • Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast had knowledge of the abuses in 2003 as the head of military intelligence in Iraq and was accused of pressuring the interrogators. She was given a new position as the commander at the Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., where U.S. and foreign troops are taught interrogation techniques.

    • Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was the ranking officer in Iraq and approved many of the interrogation techniques now deemed abusive. He was returned to his command in Germany of the prestigious Army V Corps.

    • The officer who oversaw interrogation at Abu Ghraib, Col. Thomas Pappas, was given a light administrative punishment.

    Cody Said... How do you know that to be true? (That there are innocent people being held by the US because they are suspected of terrorism)

    Innocent people still being held in Guantanamo Bay. By Michael Hampton (11/15/2005). Excerpt -- An unknown number of people being held in the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, facility are not actually terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, or even remotely hostile to the U.S. Instead, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But even after being cleared of wrongdoing, the U.S. continues to hold some of them indefinitely.

    Consider the story of Adel, made public a few days ago.

    As the Senate prepared to vote Thursday to abolish the writ of habeas corpus, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl were railing about lawyers like me. Filing lawsuits on behalf of the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Terrorists! Kyl must have said the word 30 times.

    As I listened, I wished the senators could meet my client Adel.

    Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.

    The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later. And these facts would still be a secret but for one thing: habeas corpus.

    Only habeas corpus got Adel a chance to tell a federal judge what had happened. Only habeas corpus revealed that it wasn’t just Adel who was innocent — it was Abu Bakker and Ahmet and Ayoub and Zakerjain and Sadiq — all Guantanamo "terrorists" whom the military has found innocent.

    Before you support something like this, you need to remember that we live in a country where all people are presumed to have certain natural, inalienable rights, whether they were born here or not. If those rights can be removed from one class of people, then they can be removed from you, too. That's the beauty and the danger of living in the United States of America.

     
  • At 21/2/06 5:01 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Again dervish, you are assuming everything. You said it yourself. As for your terrorist sob story guess what? I don't give a shit. Not being able to go to the bathroom when you want is not tourture unless you're a complete pansy. Personally I don't care if some terrorist wets himself. That's not tourture, what Saddam did was, but you don't mention that do you? All your other arguements are self-admitted assumtions. What if we all went around doing that? What if I just went around accusing you of murder when I had no proof? Would you like that? I want proof dervish, not assumtions.

     
  • At 21/2/06 5:47 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    A terrorist sob story??!! THE GUY WAS INNOCENT! THE MILITARY SAID HE WAS INNOCENT! Is it because of your reading comprehension problem that you missed that fact, or do you derive sick pleasure from the torture of innocent MUSLIMS??! This is NOT a difference of opinion. It is about knowing RIGHT from WRONG. Clearly you don't.

    That's not tourture, what Saddam did was, but you don't mention that do you?

    YES IT IS. YES I DID.

    DarkSaturos said... All your other arguements are self-admitted assumtions. What if we all went around doing that? What if I just went around accusing you of murder when I had no proof? Would you like that? I want proof dervish, not assumtions.

    The assumptions are based on past actions. They tortured people in the past -- most likely they still are. We should at least look into it!! But we can't do that can we? This president is ABOVE THE LAW, Right?!

    In my prior post I asked you if you thought it was OK for the bush administration to engage in these illegal activities (torture and murder), so long as they didn't get caught. I have my answer. Although you probably think the US should be able to torture and murder out in the open.

    FYI, all my other arguements are NOT self-admitted assumtions!!!!! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!! I'm f**king sick of it!!

    I'm praying that the EVIL SOB who stole the presidency ends up paying for his crimes. Yes, he's going to end up in hell, but I'd like to see him answer for his crimes in this life.

     
  • At 23/2/06 6:12 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Your precious Rusty saw staged propaganda! Do you think the military would show him something they're trying to cover up?!"

    I never brought up Rusty's trip to you, are you sure you aren't dkfz? Anyways, why do you want to make such a crazy conpiracy theory on this just to make America look like the bad guys?

     
  • At 23/2/06 10:33 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Dear dear dervish, not getting angry are we? I advise you to respond in a less neurotic tone if you wish to debate like civilized human beings. I am neither cowed nor convinced by anger. If you have something to say to me then say it, and say it in a coherent and reasonable tone.

     
  • At 23/2/06 10:37 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    In fact let's do it like this. List your grievences against me in a clear manner one by one. No caps, no swears. I will then respond to each. Agreed?

     
  • At 23/2/06 10:39 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Oh and Cody, you asked if this might be dkfz? I actually think its recliner, look:

    Is it because of your reading comprehension problem that you missed that fact

    Hmm, sounds familier doesn't it?

     
  • At 24/2/06 10:21 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody... I never brought up Rusty's trip to you, are you sure you aren't dkfz?

    From my profile:

    I previously posted under the ID "dkfz", but changed it to something a little more exciting when I started my own blog.

    I NEVER said I wasn't dkfz. It didn't occur to me that there was going to be any confusion. As soon as I changed my ID I told you to look at my blog. You refused. Then when you accused me of being dkfz (The first time), I told you I wasn't trying to hide anything, and that you should look at my profile.

    Cody Said... Anyways, why do you want to make such a crazy conpiracy theory on this just to make America look like the bad guys?

    Not America, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. I truly believe George W. Bush is an arrogant greedy selfish egomanical criminal bastard. Case in point: The dubai ports deal. It's all about money for the cronies (John Snow and David Sanborn). That's why he's pushing for this deal. He DOESN'T CARE about protecting America -- the only thing he cares about is enriching his friends.

    DarkSaturos said... Dear dear dervish, not getting angry are we? I advise you to respond in a less neurotic tone if you wish to debate like civilized human beings. I am neither cowed nor convinced by anger. If you have something to say to me then say it, and say it in a coherent and reasonable tone.

    You'd get angry if someone kept misrepresenting what you said. I asked you multiple time to STOP misrepresenting what I say. Seeing as how you keep doing it, how am I the unreasonable one?

    I said I was making an assumption in regards to what is going on in the secret prisons. You then said ALL my arguements were assumptions. They are NOT. I provided supporting articles as evidence for all my other claims.

    The only reason I'm assuming anything about the "secret" prisons is because they're SECRET. Do you think that as long as we don't know what's going on in these prisons we should be unconcerned?? You may blindly trust the bush administration -- I don't. They DON'T NEED secret prisons. If you believe otherwise, please explain why.

    Also, I found your "terrorist sob story" remark particularly offensive. Did you, or did you not, read the portion of the article which explained that the guy was INNOCENT, and that the military said he was INNOCENT?

    Either you think the story was a lie (the military did not say he was innocent), or you should AGREE WITH ME and say what happened to this person was HORRIBLE. The article I posted was NOT A SOB STORY!!

    What if it were you in his place? After years of imprisonment, humilation, and torture (YES torture), would you say "No hard feelings -- it was an honest mistake. And I'm also not mad that I wasn't released immediately after that mistake was discovered".

    Don't you have any empathy for your fellow humans, or is that just a liberal thing?

     
  • At 25/2/06 7:57 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    They DON'T NEED secret prisons. If you believe otherwise, please explain why.

    If they need to get classified information about something the info needs to be secret, it's pretty basic.

    Also, I found your "terrorist sob story" remark particularly offensive. Did you, or did you not, read the portion of the article which explained that the guy was INNOCENT, and that the military said he was INNOCENT?


    Innocence has nothing to do with it. What happened to him was NOT tourture, end of story.

    Don't you have any empathy for your fellow humans, or is that just a liberal thing?

    Of course I have empathy for my fellow human beings. I have empathy for those who have to pay higher taxes because scumbags who don't work get welfare. I feel empathy for those Southerners who have to pay higher taxes because the Mexicans are sneaking into this country illegaly. I feel empathy for the thousands of babies you liberals murder each year in what you call an "abortion." I feel empathy for the Iraqis being terrorized and you liberals wanting us to pull out and not protect them. I feel empathy for the businesses and employees you liberals rape and plunder by suing them for stupid reasons and screwing over everyone but the lawyer. I feel empathy for those in the states of New Jersey and California who have been depraved of their 2nd amendment rights in blatent disregard of our Constitution. I feel empathy for our soldiers who make sure you live out your unthankful life in freedom whom you think are awful because they want to get information out of terrorist scumbags, and I feel empathy for those who die because of a terror attack that could of been prevented if the ACLU hadn't prevented us from getting the information.
    Yeah I have empathy, but the difference is that I have it for all the right people, as opposed to every single person in the world. I have it for people who deserve it rather than those who whine and complain. It makes you liberals feel good to whine on behalf of the world, but it doesn't really get you anywhere does it?

     
  • At 26/2/06 12:16 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... If they need to get classified information about something the info needs to be secret, it's pretty basic.

    huh?? What? The prison doesn't has to be secret for the info to remain secret. You do realize that, right?

    The article I posted was NOT a sob story. What happened (as described in the article) WAS torture -- end of story.

    From Dictionary.com (notice the bolded sections/words)

    Torture: Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
    An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
    Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
    Something causing severe pain or anguish.

    Seeing as how well this guy was treated, he probably didn't suffer any anguish at all. He probably was worried not one bit that his tormenters might kill him.

    What a Pansy! But you could take it, right DarkSaturos? Personally, I think you'd be crying for your mommy and threatening that your daddy would sue.

    DarkSaturos said... I have empathy for those who have to pay higher taxes because scumbags who don't work get welfare.

    Yes, I worry a lot about that too. The unfortunate wealthy people who can't live it up as much as they could because their taxes are to damn high! Some nights my screams keep me awake for hours!

    DarkSaturos said... I feel empathy for those Southerners who have to pay higher taxes because the Mexicans are sneaking into this country illegaly.

    I thought the "Guest Worker" program was something the Republicans supported (your president does). You know -- CHEAP labor. Republicans LOVE cheap labor. It's all about the profit. The profit achieved by raping the worker, the environment, and the customer. It doesn't matter who gets screwed over, so long as the CEOs receive their plunder.

    DarkSaturos said... I feel empathy for the Iraqis being terrorized and you liberals wanting us to pull out and not protect them.

    Top US general: Iraqis want us out. The United States' top military commander has admitted that Iraqis want US and other foreign troops to leave the country "as soon as possible".

    DarkSaturos said... I feel empathy for the businesses and employees you liberals rape and plunder by suing them for stupid reasons and screwing over everyone but the lawyer.

    Let me guess at what you mean by suing for stupid reasons: People get sick after a company's pollutants contaminate their drinking water. A company sells a faulty product or contaminated food item which causes some customers to get sick and/or die. People get hurt or killed when a company, trying to save a few bucks, refuses to pay to implement saftey measures. A woman is fired because she got pregnant. A doctor botches an opperation and the patient is scarred for life (had the wrong limb amputated, for instance).

    Yes, those types of lawsuits should definately be outlawed!

    DarkSaturos said... I feel empathy for our soldiers who make sure you live out your unthankful life in freedom whom you think are awful because they want to get information out of terrorist scumbags.

    There you go misinterpreting me again. I think most of these soldiers were ordered to torture, or given the impression that torture was acceptable. Then, when they're caught, they're thrown to the wolves to protect the higher-ups.

    From Psycho Americans, by John Maxwell: the shooting up of cars loaded with children and similar actions begin to be explicable if one understands that much of the US army consists of frightened young men who joined the army to get a job or an education, not to go abroad to kill people. Their training, particularly in the Marines, conditions them to believe that every civilian is a terrorist determined to kill. If they are suffering from antecedent states of pathological anxiety and depression their behavior becomes easier to understand, if not to forgive.

    It also helps to explain why the Army finds it so easy to make scapegoats out of such as Lyndie England and the other poor, underprivileged young people involved in the tortures at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. They are like Henry II's knights, needing the merest hint to go off and commit mayhem. And their superiors, knowing this, are generous with their hints. (This article originally appeared in the Jamaica Observer)

    Yes, I think there are a few bad apples, like the soldier who tortured the guy in the story we've been discussing, but I also think that a lot of this is the result of soldiers following orders. As I've been saying all along -- the torture was approved by Rumsfeld!

    DarkSaturos said... and I feel empathy for those who die because of a terror attack that could of been prevented if the ACLU hadn't prevented us from getting the information.

    When did this happen?? I believe you're mistaken.

    DarkSaturos said... Yeah I have empathy, but the difference is that I have it for all the right people, as opposed to every single person in the world. I have it for people who deserve it.

    Who are the "right" people? Rich white Americans?

     
  • At 26/2/06 9:38 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 26/2/06 9:55 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    huh?? What? The prison doesn't has to be secret for the info to remain secret. You do realize that, right?


    It kind of does. It's hard to talk about secrets when you've got people wandering around and enemy spies who know where the base is.

    The article I posted was NOT a sob story. What happened (as described in the article) WAS torture -- end of story.

    From Dictionary.com (notice the bolded sections/words)

    Torture: Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
    An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.


    Okay see your comment is already contridicting itself. According to the provided definition tourture is: Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
    Something causing severe pain or anguish.

    Okay see I don't get mental pain from not going to the bathroom every few minutes. Hell if I did I'd be "tourtured" every long drive I take. Only someone who is a pansy or really spoiled would consider that tourture.

    Yes, I worry a lot about that too. The unfortunate wealthy people who can't live it up as much as they could because their taxes are to damn high! Some nights my screams keep me awake for hours!


    I said nothing about the rich. I just don't think it's right for people who DON'T WORK to get PAID. Why is that fair? Why do we (the hard workers) have to pay for the lazy bums? You don't have to be rich to have higher taxes on account of these lazy losers.

    thought the "Guest Worker" program was something the Republicans supported (your president does).

    Doesn't mean I do.

    so long as the CEOs receive their plunder.


    Hmmm, didn't it say in your profile you were a CEO? Of course you're lying but still, you should check these inconsistensies before commenting eh?

    Top US general: Iraqis want us out. The United States' top military commander has admitted that Iraqis want US and other foreign troops to leave the country "as soon as possible".


    Alright already this is a biased story, being from Aljazeera. Secondally did you read this part: They don't want us to leave tomorrow. War takes time, we will leave when we are done which will be as soon as possible. You and Algezeera have completely misrepresented this story.

    Let me guess at what you mean by suing for stupid reasons: People get sick after a company's pollutants contaminate their drinking water. A company sells a faulty product or contaminated food item which causes some customers to get sick and/or die. People get hurt or killed when a company, trying to save a few bucks, refuses to pay to implement saftey measures. A woman is fired because she got pregnant. A doctor botches an opperation and the patient is scarred for life (had the wrong limb amputated, for instance)

    What I'm talking about is this: Some guy smokes for 20 years when the label clearly says he is at risk for lung cancer. He gets lung cancer and sues the company. Jobs are lost and earned profits suffer. Why? Someone couldn't take responsibility and say "I chose to smoke; it's my fault."

    the torture was approved by Rumsfeld!

    Conspericy again. Do you ever quit the conspericy?

    When did this happen?? I believe you're mistaken.

    Uh how about IRAQ? There's car bombings each day. If we could kick some ass over there instead of being sued by the ACLU we'd have prevented a lot of those.

    Who are the "right" people? Rich white Americans?

    Okay first of all we see your racism. You are racist against whites. What I can't feel empathy for white people?

    Next we see your class prejudice. You think all rich people are scum, even if they worked hard for their money. This shows how narrow minded you are.

    Next we see your hatred of America. You think Americans are scum. This is racist too. What a nice person you must be.

     
  • At 26/2/06 3:18 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Okay first of all we see your racism. You are racist against whites. What I can't feel empathy for white people?

    Next we see your class prejudice. You think all rich people are scum, even if they worked hard for their money. This shows how narrow minded you are.

    Next we see your hatred of America. You think Americans are scum. This is racist too. What a nice person you must be.


    Wow. Three paragraphs of your telling everyone what I meant! I'm not racist against whites, I'm not prejudiced against rich people, and I do not think all Americans are scum (not even sure which comments of mine lead you to this conclusion). But I suppose you know better than me what I meant.

    DarkSaturos said... I said nothing about the rich. I just don't think it's right for people who DON'T WORK to get PAID. Why is that fair? Why do we (the hard workers) have to pay for the lazy bums?

    The only reason someone could possibley be on welfare is because they're LAZY?! EVERY SINGLE ONE?? WOW, I didn't know you could be lazy FOR A LIVING! I should look into this! Actually, I don't think you know a damn thing about how welfare really works. I believe that JOB COUNSELING is part of the deal. Welfare is NOT a no strings attached handout. It's designed to HELP people. Something you probably know very little about.

    DarkSaturos said... Conspericy again. Do you ever quit the conspericy?

    The word is spelled "conspiracy". I've pointed that out to you several times. I've provided a link if you don't believe me.

    Also, in regards to this "conspiracy" theory you completely dismiss -- I did provide a link to back up my claim. Here it is again in case you missed it the first time:

    The Grey Zone. How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib. By Seymour M Hersh. The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. (The New Yorker, May 15, 2004.)

    DarkSaturos said... If we could kick some ass over there instead of being sued by the ACLU we'd have prevented a lot of those.

    So you're FOR TORTURE. Aside from the fact that your assumptions are total baloney, TORTURE IS EVIL. It doesn't matter who is doing it or for what reason. (What was described in the article I provided earlier in which the prisoner didn't receive a "potty break" WAS torture, I don't care what you say. I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.) Your comments about this article, and your attitude about torture, say a lot about the kind of person YOU are. My guess is that "arrogant narrow-minded racist" might describe you. But that is just my opinion as a liberal.

     
  • At 26/2/06 3:40 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Hmmm, didn't it say in your profile you were a CEO? Of course you're lying but still, you should check these inconsistensies before commenting eh?

    I was referring to CEO's of multi-million dollar corporations, which I never claimed to be. CEOs who award themselves huge bonuses even when their corporations lose money, and receive generous severance packages when "fired".

    But of course knew that, since we've been over this ground before. Still I imagine you'll bring it up again.

     
  • At 26/2/06 6:46 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Wow. Three paragraphs of your telling everyone what I meant! I'm not racist against whites, I'm not prejudiced against rich people, and I do not think all Americans are scum (not even sure which comments of mine lead you to this conclusion). But I suppose you know better than me what I meant.

    What exactly did I misinterpret? You clearly insinuated that it was not okay to feel sorry for the rich the white and Americans. That's racism.

    The only reason someone could possibley be on welfare is because they're LAZY?! EVERY SINGLE ONE?? WOW, I didn't know you could be lazy FOR A LIVING! I should look into this! Actually, I don't think you know a damn thing about how welfare really works. I believe that JOB COUNSELING is part of the deal. Welfare is NOT a no strings attached handout. It's designed to HELP people. Something you probably know very little about.


    I'm for welfare only if you are working. If you don't work you don't deserve to be paid. It's a simple as that.

    The word is spelled "conspiracy". I've pointed that out to you several times. I've provided a link if you don't believe me.

    Why is it that whenever you're losing an argument you attack my spelling?

    So you're FOR TORTURE.

    No I'm for interrigation. There's a difference. What Saddam did was tourture, if you're worried about stopping tourture then why are you anti-war?

    I don't care what you say.

    Then why do you keep responding?

    I was referring to CEO's of multi-million dollar corporations, which I never claimed to be. CEOs who award themselves huge bonuses even when their corporations lose money, and receive generous severance packages when "fired".


    It's called capitilism. What are you some kinda commie?

     
  • At 26/2/06 11:52 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Why is it that whenever you're losing an argument you attack my spelling?

    I'm not losing -- You are. Anyway, there were other spelling errors in your post that I didn't point out (There are spelling errors in ALL your posts). I just think that if you're going to use the word so often you should learn to spell it correctly!

    It's called capitilism.

    What I described... You think THAT'S capitalism??!! Greedy arrogant a$$holes who take advantage of their positions to rip off their shareholders and customers??!! Man, you're even more screwed up than I thought! I suppose you admire and respect people like Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling?

    Capitalism, according to DarkSaturos...

    Enron, the largest corporate bankruptcy in American history: Enron executives, propelled by greed, were not satisfied with immense salaries: they set up all sorts of spin-off partnerships to enrich themselves at the expense of stockholders and the corporation's bottom line. In a little more than a decade Enron soared from obscurity to become the nation's seventh largest company, with over 20,000 employees in forty countries. But its dishonesty about profits, and its off-the-books energy deals, abetted by fiscal accounting that was erroneous, misleading, and downright dishonest, eventually caused an implosion of gigantic proportions.

    On December 28, 2000, Enron stock sold at over $84 a share. Eleven months later, to the day, Enron shares plummeted to less than a dollar in the heaviest trading volume in a corporation ever recorded by a major stock exchange. The investors in the company -- many of them Enron employees -- rushed to get out of the stock before it became totally worthless. Two months later Enron stock was delisted by the New York Stock Exchange, and today it's stock is just that, worthless. (published on Sunday, July 14, 2002 in the Statesman (Kolkata) East India's most important newspaper)

    These guys shouldn't be prosecuted, they should be admired and congratulated!

    I'm for welfare only if you are working. If you don't work you don't deserve to be paid. It's a simple as that.

    Where is the free money being handed out??! WHERE. Like I said, I don't think you know a damn thing about how welfare works.

    What exactly did I misinterpret? You clearly insinuated that it was not okay to feel sorry for the rich the white and Americans. That's racism.

    My entire post.
    I don't know why anyone would.
    No it isn't.

     
  • At 27/2/06 6:34 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "I thought the "Guest Worker" program was something the Republicans supported (your president does). You know -- CHEAP labor. Republicans LOVE cheap labor."

    I won't speak for Robby but I'm more of a free-thinking Conservative than a party-line Republican. There are plenty of areas where I disagree with the president, this is one of those places. Look at my stance on the port issue, if you hadn't noticed I'm pretty mad at Bush at the moment because he's:

    a) going against the mainstream Conservative position, and standing by a position that could get us killed physically and/or economically (because just about everything goes through the ports, and if we're hit we can't import or export anything)

    b) giving the Democrats an issue for '06 and '08 elections.

     
  • At 27/2/06 6:45 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Where is the free money being handed out??! WHERE. Like I said, I don't think you know a damn thing about how welfare works"

    Do YOU know how welfare works dervish? I hate to bring up this example because he just got in a car accident, but my uncle is on welfare. He gets money from the government and he doesn't work, he could work, he's fully able to, but he chooses not to. Up until he got in the accident he should have been off welfare and in the job world but he wasn't, he was getting paid to do nothing. After the accident I can see the logic in getting welfare since he's not in a condition to work, but not when he's fully-abled.

     
  • At 27/2/06 2:37 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I'm not losing -- You are. Anyway, there were other spelling errors in your post that I didn't point out (There are spelling errors in ALL your posts). I just think that if you're going to use the word so often you should learn to spell it correctly!

    Content is genereally more important than spelling. I don't know why you care so much that I spell some things wrong, it's actually kind of creepy.

    What I described... You think THAT'S capitalism??!!

    No I think what you described was your twisted view of capitilism. Real capitilism works well and communism does not. Look at the former USSR. It's a proven fact. Why you hate capitilism I don't know.

    Where is the free money being handed out??! WHERE. Like I said, I don't think you know a damn thing about how welfare works.

    Welfare IS free money. Do you know how welfare works?

    My entire post.
    I don't know why anyone would.
    No it isn't.


    Okay, no details, no substance, we can safely disregard that reply.

    I won't speak for Robby but I'm more of a free-thinking Conservative than a party-line Republican. There are plenty of areas where I disagree with the president, this is one of those places.

    No you're right. The guest worker thing is stupid. I actually said that earlier somewhere...

     
  • At 27/2/06 3:59 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... In Canada and Austrailia they took the guns away. Gun deaths went down, but violence deaths went WAY up. What do you say to that dervish?

    Supporting details would've been nice, but oh well.

    DarkSaturos said... Welfare IS free money. Do you know how welfare works?

    Okay, no details, no substance, we can safely disregard that reply.

    Welfare: NOT "free" money:

    Welfare is financial assistance paid by the government to certain groups of people who are unable to support themselves, perhaps due to unemployment, disability or some other reason. Assistance may also take form of other relief, such as tax credits for working mothers. Welfare is known by a variety of names in different countries, all with the fundamental purpose of providing an economic "safey net" for disadvantaged members of society (see social safety net). Almost all developed countries provide some kind of safety net of this kind (see welfare state).

    The amounts paid are typically very low, and may fall below the poverty line. Recipients must usually demonstrate a low level of income (eg. by way of "means testing") or financial hardship, or that they satisfy some other requirement (eg. childcare responsibilities or disability), or regularly demonstrate that they are periodically searching for employment. Some countries assign specific jobs to recipients who must work in these roles in order for welfare payments to continue. In the U.S. and Canada, such programs are known as workfare.

    In the United States, personal welfare is normally given to households with children (often headed by single mothers) and even these households have only been able to access benefits for a maximum of five years per lifetime of the adult recipient since 1996. Before 1996, U.S. personal welfare for households with children was first named Aid to Dependent Children, later called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In 1996 as part of "welfare reform", AFDC was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which included more limits on the amount of time an individual or family can receive welfare. Since 1996, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is arguably not welfare at all in the common American sense of the term, has largely replaced AFDC as the primary anti-poverty program in the United States.

    With regard to personal welfare for the individuals without children, most American states had been providing welfare benefits to single adults and childless married couples since the Great Depression, but the number of states doing so declined steeply during the 1990s, and many of the states still doling out such benefits use methods other than cash payments to render the assistance. Today only two states - New Jersey and Utah - still provide cash benefits to poverty-stricken adults who do not have child dependents. These programs were often known officially by such names as Home Relief and General Assistance.

    Cody Said... I hate to bring up this example because he just got in a car accident, but my uncle is on welfare. He gets money from the government and he doesn't work, he could work, he's fully able to, but he chooses not to.

    And, you know this for a fact because you've been with him to all his doctor's appointments? Obviously he must be claiming to be disabled -- because -- as I pointed out above -- Welfare is NOT free money!

     
  • At 27/2/06 9:21 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Supporting details would've been nice, but oh well.

    Those were details. If you ment sources you can find it
    here.


    Welfare is financial assistance paid by the government to certain groups of people who are unable to support themselves, perhaps due to unemployment

    See? Free money. Money without work. By your own definition it's free money.

    And, you know this for a fact because you've been with him to all his doctor's appointments?

    So you know Cody's uncle better than he doew huh dervish? Creepy. Are you a stalker or something?

     
  • At 28/2/06 4:03 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... See? Free money. Money without work. By your own definition it's free money.

    Apparently you missed this part:

    ...regularly demonstrate that they are periodically searching for employment. Some countries assign specific jobs to recipients who must work in these roles in order for welfare payments to continue. In the U.S. and Canada, such programs are known as workfare.

    I keep pointing this out, yet you keep falsely claiming that welfare is "free money". Isn't this just an excuse for you to justify your hatred for poor people? It sounds to me like you are the one who is a classist bigot.

    DarkSaturos said... So you know Cody's uncle better than he does huh dervish? Creepy. Are you a stalker or something?

    I don't have a response to that because it doesn't make sense. I asked a question, I didn't say I knew anything about him.

    DarkSaturos said... Why you hate capitilism I don't know.

    I don't hate "capitilism", I don't even know what it is. I don't hate capitalism either -- and I didn't say a DAMN THING to lead you to that conclusion. Just like when you claimed that I want to completely outlaw private ownership of all firearms. I didn't say a DAMN THING to lead you to that conclusion either.

    Let me ask you this: Why do you think we should round up all the homeless and ship them off to forced labor camps -- and that anyone who can't work should be put to death and their organs harvested?

    Why do you think everyone should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, and kill anyone they think is threatening them?

    Why do you think that if someone is accused of a violent crime they should be executed without a trial?

    Why do you think George Bush should be installed as dictator for life and then hang all liberals for treason?

    Why do you think these things?! Don't bother to say you don't because I have already determined that you agree with the above statements 100 percent.

     
  • At 1/3/06 12:38 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 1/3/06 12:49 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Apparently you missed this part:

    ...regularly demonstrate that they are periodically searching for employment. Some countries assign specific jobs to recipients who must work in these roles in order for welfare payments to continue. In the U.S. and Canada, such programs are known as workfare.



    No I didn't "miss it." That part had nothing to do with my point and could therefore be disregarded.

    I keep pointing this out, yet you keep falsely claiming that welfare is "free money". Isn't this just an excuse for you to justify your hatred for poor people? It sounds to me like you are the one who is a classist
    bigot.



    You keep insinuating rich people are scum. What do you think that sounds like? I don't have hatred for poor people, I don't like lazy people.

    I don't have a response to that because it doesn't make sense. I asked a question, I didn't say I knew anything about him.


    You insinuated that you knew better than Cody what his uncle's bills were like.

    I don't hate "capitilism", I don't even know what it is. I don't hate capitalism either

    What is it with you and the spelling. It's satrting to creep me out. Do you have OCD? I think you should see a shrink about this.

    and I didn't say a DAMN THING to lead you to that conclusion. Just like when you claimed that I want to completely outlaw private ownership of all firearms. I didn't say a DAMN THING to lead you to that conclusion either.

    You kept saying that CEOs were scum which sounds a DAMN lot like saying you hatd companies and therefore private buisness and therefore capitalism.

    Let me ask you this: Why do you think we should round up all the homeless and ship them off to forced labor camps -- and that anyone who can't work should be put to death and their organs harvested?

    Why do you think everyone should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, and kill anyone they think is threatening them?

    Why do you think that if someone is accused of a violent crime they should be executed without a trial?

    Why do you think George Bush should be installed as dictator for life and then hang all liberals for treason?

    Why do you think these things?! Don't bother to say you don't because I have already determined that you agree with the above statements 100 percent.


    Hahahaha! That's awesome man. You should write a book! More I say! More! Thanks for that sensless rant, I had a great laugh over it.

     
  • At 1/3/06 7:24 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... No I didn't "miss it". That part had nothing to do with my point and could therefore be disregarded.

    It has EVERYTHING to do with your "point". If you're to stupid to understand why I feel quite sorry for you. I thought you read at a college level?!

    DarkSaturos said... You insinuated that you knew better than Cody what his uncle's bills were like.

    No, I didn't. I didn't say a damn thing about his bills. I didn't say anything about bills, I didn't insinuate anything about bills, I didn't THINK anything about bills!

    I was talking about his ability to work. How did Cody know positively that his uncle is "fully able". Either the doctor disagrees, or his uncle says he is in to much pain to work. There has to be a SPECIFIC reason WHY he's eligible for welfare -- because, as I already pointed out, welfare is NOT "free money"!!!

    What's "creepy" is how sure you are that you know EXACTLY what the hidden meaning behind everything I say is. You don't believe yourself to be psychic, do you?

    DarkSaturos said... You kept saying that CEOs were scum which sounds a DAMN lot like saying you hate companies and therefore private buisness and therefore capitalism.

    That's a hell of a lot of "therefores"! I think a lot of CEOs are greedy a$$holes, yes -- but that does NOT mean that I hate companies and I hate capitalism! I'm all for capitalism and companies -- but I think we need more government regulations and oversight to prevent abuse.

    Apparently you think it's OK for CEOs and presidents to abuse the system and break the law so long as they don't get caught. Didn't your parents instill you with any morals?

    DarkSaturos said... What is it with you and the spelling. It's satrting to creep me out. Do you have OCD? I think you should see a shrink about this.

    No, I just think that it's distracting, and makes it very hard to take someone seriously when they can't be bothered to spell correctly. An occasional spelling error is understandable, but EVERY SINGLE POST?? And you claim to read at a college level? Frankly I don't believe it. I find it pretty creepy that you feel the need to lie to strangers to pump up your ego.

    DarkSaturos said... Hahahaha! That's awesome man. You should write a book! More I say! More! Thanks for that sensless rant, I had a great laugh over it.

    That wasn't a senseless rant -- my point was that if you can interpret what I say and tell me what I REALLY mean -- then I can do the same to you. I guess it went completely over your head.

     
  • At 1/3/06 9:40 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 1/3/06 9:41 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    All your personal attacks will be disregarded. As for this though, That wasn't a senseless rant -- my point was that if you can interpret what I say and tell me what I REALLY mean -- then I can do the same to you. I guess it went completely over your head.

    I knew exactly what you were doing. You were insinuating by way of sarcasm and satire that if I could supposedally make assumptions so could you. I responded in the manner I did because I know EXACTLY how liberals think, and there are two things they just can't stand. 1.) Someone disagreeing with their opinion and 2.) Someone not taking them seriously. By not taking you seriously I assumed you would go into personal attack mode, thus making more of an ass out of yourself for all viewers of this site to see. As one can see by the personal attacks you made, it worked quite well. Why? Well because you liberals emote rather then think. Therefore you wrote a reply on reflex instead of sitting down and thinking out an answer as I do. Because I did not take your comment seriously you went berserk and called me stupid and yelled quite a bit. It worked beautifully. Next time stop, think, think again, revise, then respond reasonably. This will help you seem more calm and collected and make your points more valid. Keep that in mind dervish, this "stupid kid" just taught you something.

     
  • At 2/3/06 9:50 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Therefore you wrote a reply on reflex instead of sitting down and thinking out an answer as I do.

    Thanks, I needed a good laugh! That was hilarious!

    You must be proud of yourself seeing as you've "won" every argument we've had. It's pretty easy to declare yourself the winner when you completely disregard the facts.

    Because I did not take your comment seriously you went berserk and called me stupid and yelled quite a bit.

    I didn't think you weren't taking my comments seriously, I didn't think you understood them. I did not "go berserk". I did not yell.

    Well because you liberals emote rather then think.

    Wrong. Liberal draw conclusions based on the facts, unlike conservatives who look for "evidence" that supports the conclusions they have already reached.

    I did because I know EXACTLY how liberals think.

    You don't have a clue.

    this "stupid kid" just taught you something.

    You're partially right -- but mostly wrong (The part you're wrong about is that you taught me anything).

     
  • At 3/3/06 7:55 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "And, you know this for a fact because you've been with him to all his doctor's appointments? Obviously he must be claiming to be disabled -- because -- as I pointed out above -- Welfare is NOT free money!"

    Of course he "claimed" to be disabled, he did it because he's lazy and he doesn't want a job and he wants free money! Trust me, I know the guy, there's nothing wrong with him that could keep him from working other than his laziness. He won't even rake his own mothers lawn, that's how lazy he is. He also has no plan on getting a job, he just wants his free welfare. Do you know what he does with his welfare? Food? No. He bought a nice T.V. to go with his lazy chair where he spends most of his time. You can't tell me the welfare system is perfect, and you can't tell me it's not free money. Maybe in some cases welfare is necessary, but in most, I see it isn't.

     
  • At 3/3/06 10:37 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Of course he "claimed" to be disabled

    And you know he's fibbing because.. He confided in you? You have a medical degree and examined him?

    he did it because he's lazy and he doesn't want a job and he wants free money! Trust me, I know the guy, there's nothing wrong with him that could keep him from working other than his laziness.

    No, I don't trust you.

    Maybe in some cases welfare is necessary, but in most, I see it isn't.

    MOST cases is ONE person??!

    You can't tell me the welfare system is perfect, and you can't tell me it's not free money.

    I never claimed it was perfect. YES, I can tell you it is NOT free money!!! Whether he's lying or not, he had to have a REASON. Ergo, welfare is NOT free money. Seems fairly easy to understand to me. Sure, there are going to be abuses of the system. There are always going to be people who try to take advantage.

    Bottom line: Who's lying and thievery am I more concerned about? Welfare recipients, or corporations who do everything they can to get out of paying their taxes?

    Corporate Tax Dodgers. The Decline in U.S. Corporate Taxes and the Rise in Offshore Tax Haven Abuses.

    The sharp decline in corporate taxes in recent years can be measured in a variety of ways. According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 2000 and 2003 overall corporate income taxes collected by the federal government dropped from $207 billion to $132 billion. Although the federal government reports that the number rose to $183.8 billion in 2004, that figure still represents just 9.6 percent of total federal revenues, down almost half-way from the 17 percent rate it stood at in 1970.

    Many large multinational corporations pay no taxes at all. According to the GAO more than 60% of U.S. controlled corporations with at least $250 million in assets (representing 93 percent of all corporate assets reported to the IRS) reported no federal tax liability each year between 1996 and 2000, while the economy boomed and corporate profits soared. 71% of foreign-based firms operating in the U.S. during that same period paid no U.S. income taxes. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, 82 of 275 top U.S. corporations paid zero taxes between 2001 and 2003, although they earned $102 billion in pre-tax profits. 46 companies with a combined profit of $42.6 billion paid no federal income taxes in 2003 alone. Instead they received rebates totaling $5.4 billion.

    Offshore Shelter Abuses

    The rise of corporate tax haven abuses has contributed significantly to the precipitous decline of corporate taxes raised by the U.S. government in recent years particularly when it comes to U.S. multinationals who are able to shift their pretax income offshore. Martin Sullivan, editor of Tax Notes, reports that U.S. Corporations shifted $75 billion of their taxable profits into tax havens in 2003, depriving the IRS of between $10 billion and $20 billion in expected tax revenues. Sullivan says "the figures provide just one more indication that the U.S. system of taxing international income is nearing a breakdown". Sullivan, a former Treasury Department economist, based his study on Commerce Department data.

    (See the article for a list and description of the scams corporations use to avoid paying taxes)

    One example:

    Income Stripping. In this scheme, money is "lent" by the offshore subsidiary to the U.S. parent company or another U.S. subsidiary and paid back to the offshore company at higher interest rates. That interest payment is then deducted from the U.S. company's federal taxes. This occurred at Tyco, which set up a Luxembourg-based subsidiary to finance most of the company's debt. The Luxembourg subsidiary made loans to Tyco units in the U.S. and elsewhere, which then deducted the interest payments from their taxable income in the U.S. (From the Center for Corporate Policy)

    Your focus is ALWAYS on the people you hate: The Poor. Rich people are to be pitied because they are forced to pay a progressive income tax. Poor people are lazy thieves.

    One of the many reasons that Republicans disgust me.

     
  • At 3/3/06 3:02 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…


    And you know he's fibbing because.. He confided in you? You have a medical degree and examined him?


    Again dervish, you don't know more about this situation than he does okay?

    No, I don't trust you.

    Okay that was just childish.

    YES, I can tell you it is NOT free money!!!

    Dervish if you're not working and you get money it's free money, how is that hard to understand?

    Instead they received rebates totaling $5.4 billion.

    Well of course they did. They pay more taxes resulting in a bigger rebate. What did you think? They paid the same as everyone else?

    The Poor. Rich people are to be pitied because they are forced to pay a progressive income tax. Poor people are lazy thieves.

    One of the many reasons that Republicans disgust me.


    I don't hate the poor, I hate the lazy. Why do you want to give money to people that don't work and tax the rest of us for them?

    One of the many reasons that Democrats disgust me.

     
  • At 3/3/06 8:27 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Again dervish, you don't know more about this situation than he does okay?

    So I take it that you were there too? When this uncle confided in Cody he confided in you as well... I guess that explains it!

    DarkSaturos said... Dervish if you're not working and you get money it's free money, how is that hard to understand?

    Poor people aren't lazy! Welfare isn't free money!

    There are strings attached. You have to prove you are disabled or prove you are looking for a job! There is a time limit. Depending on which state you live in, you may be assigned a job (workfare). Why don't you educate yourself about these things before you go ON AND ON about something you know NOTHING about!

    DarkSaturos said... Well of course they did. They pay more taxes resulting in a bigger rebate. What did you think? They paid the same as everyone else?

    That isn't what the article said. It said, "46 companies with a combined profit of $42.6 billion paid no federal income taxes in 2003" -- meaning they paid NO taxes. They paid ZERO taxes and still received rebates!

    Maybe you think that information is incorrect, but don't try to tell me it says something it doesn't -- unlike you I can comprehend what I read!

    DarkSaturos said... I don't hate the poor, I hate the lazy.

    Right. But of course they are ALL lazy. Every single person on welfare. Or at least the vast majority of them. Percentage-wise, how many would you say are lazy, and how many just need a helping hand to get back on their feet? 90-10?

    DarkSaturos said... Why do you want to give money to people that don't work and tax the rest of us for them?

    Blah, Blah, Blah. Your hate really sickens me.

    I don't want people to suffer and die because they can't work or can't find a job. Clearly you think it's OK for large profitable corporations to pay ZERO taxes -- but think it's WRONG to help poor people.

    I'd call that WORSE than simple hate. I'd call it evil.

     
  • At 4/3/06 11:42 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    So I take it that you were there too? When this uncle confided in Cody he confided in you as well... I guess that explains it!


    I don't remeber saying that I know anything about it either.

    Poor people aren't lazy!

    Not all of them no, a lot of them yes. As for disability welfare I have no problem with that. But you should actually BE EMPLOYED to be elegible for welfare.

    That isn't what the article said. It said, "46 companies with a combined profit of $42.6 billion paid no federal income taxes in 2003" -- meaning they paid NO taxes. They paid ZERO taxes and still received rebates!

    You know as well as I that that isn't true. The gov't gives no one a free ride, except those on welfare.

    Right. But of course they are ALL lazy. Every single person on welfare. Or at least the vast majority of them. Percentage-wise, how many would you say are lazy, and how many just need a helping hand to get back on their feet? 90-10?


    Don't remeber saying that either.

    Blah, Blah, Blah. Your hate really sickens me.

    I don't want people to suffer and die because they can't work or can't find a job. Clearly you think it's OK for large profitable corporations to pay ZERO taxes -- but think it's WRONG to help poor people.

    I'd call that WORSE than simple hate. I'd call it evil.


    Haha excellent! Another one of those sensless rants I like so much. Thanks for the laugh dervish. Why don't you run along and play on the liberal blogs dervish, they might accept such nonsense as fact.

     
  • At 4/3/06 1:37 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... I don't remeber saying that I know anything about it either.

    Sure you did. You keep saying that the reasons I'm suggesting (concerning why Cody's uncle qualified for welfare) can't possibly be true -- therefore you MUST have some firsthand knowledge of why I'm wrong.

    You keeping claiming things are factual when you have no way of knowing if they are -- and you have ZERO proof! Cody's uncle (if the guy exists) went to a doctor and lied about being in pain? And you know this because you were there? He told you about it later? If not, then how the hell do you "know" he isn't in pain?

    Most poor people on welfare are lazy -- how do you know this? It's got to be true because that's what the Republican politicians told you, right?

    DarkSaturos said... Not all of them no, a lot of them yes.

    You have no clue what you're talking about -- you're only repeating bigoted Republican lies.

    DarkSaturos said... As for disability welfare I have no problem with that. But you should actually BE EMPLOYED to be elegible for welfare.

    You should be employed to be eligible for welfare?? If you have a job why would you need welfare? What if there simply aren't enough jobs where you live? Your comments MAKE NO SENSE! Not only that, if we followed your plan PEOPLE WOULD DIE.

    DarkSaturos said... You know as well as I that that isn't true. The gov't gives no one a free ride, except those on welfare.

    I most certainly do not. Many large corporations avoid paying taxes entirely by moving their headquarters offshore. It's a FACT. Where's your evidence to prove me wrong? You don't have any? That's what I thought.

    From AskQuestions.org: Who Really Pays Taxes in America?
    Taxes and Politics in 2004
    . By Cheryl Woodard, Executive Director of AskQuestions.org. April 15, 2004. Fifteen years ago, socialite Leona Helmsley bragged, "only the little people pay taxes", but then she went to jail for tax fraud. Unfortunately, Helmsley's statement is even more accurate today than it was at the time.

    Tax fraud is estimated at $311 billion this year, more than the entire budget for Medicare, and more than last year's revenues at Walmart or General Electric. Most cheaters go unpunished. What's worse, the legal tax system is rigged to favor rich people and large corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens and small businesses. Even when everybody abides by the law, middle-income households pay more taxes than rich ones. And politicians keep handing out tax favors to their campaign contributors -– at our expense.

    A chorus of academics, journalists, and private citizens are warning that a tax system favoring the rich fuels the growing concentration of wealth in America -– and therefore threatens our economic growth and even our democracy.

    Middle class spending is the growth engine in a free market economy, and when taxes rob the middle class in favor of the rich, the economy shuts down. Huge fortunes also produce political power that is hard to control. That's why all modern democracies use their tax laws to prevent excessive concentration of wealth. And that's why we need a fair taxes campaign in America.

    Journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele point out that this inequity results from a political system that has been put up for auction: "Over the last three decades, America's elected officials have turned a reasonably fair tax code into one crafted for the benefit of those who give the largest campaign contributions, enjoy the greatest access, hire the most influential lobbyists, or otherwise exercise power beyond that enjoyed by average citizens".

    Corporations have been profiting in Washington, too. In 1965, individual taxpayers paid 66% of all US income taxes, and corporations paid about a third. But by 2000, the corporate share had dropped to 18%, just about half what it used to be.

    A recent Congressional study reported that 63% of US corporations paid no income taxes at all in 2000. Six in ten American corporations reported NO tax liability for the five years from 1996 through 2000, even though corporate profits were growing at record-breaking levels during that period.

    Not since 1929 have so few people controlled so much of the wealth in our country. In his new book, Perfectly Legal, New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston reports that between 1970 and 2000 average income for the top 13,400 households in America increased from $3.6 million to nearly $24 million. That's a staggering 538% increase. At the same time, the average income for 90% of US households actually fell from $27,060 to $27,035. These 13,400 households account for just .01% of the population, according to Johnston.

    Income distribution in the United States is the most unequal among all developed nations, according to OECD data.

    DarkSaturos said... Haha excellent! Another one of those sensless rants I like so much. Thanks for the laugh dervish. Why don't you run along and play on the liberal blogs dervish, they might accept such nonsense as fact.

    Yes, it's all a joke. You go ahead and laugh, but I don't think your desire to see poor people suffer and die is funny. It's evil, whether or not you realize it.

     
  • At 4/3/06 2:47 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Sure you did. You keep saying that the reasons I'm suggesting (concerning why Cody's uncle qualified for welfare) can't possibly be true -- therefore you MUST have some firsthand knowledge of why I'm wrong.

    Noooo, I'm saying Cody knows more because it's HIS uncle not yours. How is this difficult for you to understand?

    You have no clue what you're talking about -- you're only repeating bigoted Republican lies.

    No arguement w/facts, comment disregarded.

    I most certainly do not. Many large corporations avoid paying taxes entirely by moving their headquarters offshore. It's a FACT.

    And this is illegal how?

    Yes, it's all a joke. You go ahead and laugh, but I don't think your desire to see poor people suffer and die is funny. It's evil, whether or not you realize it.

    Hahaha, excellent! More pointless ranting. I should compile a list!

     
  • At 4/3/06 3:28 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Everything you write is comment without facts. I am therefore disregarding your entire post.

    BTW just because something is "legal" doesn't make it morally right. But, as a Republican you wouldn't know anything about that.

     
  • At 4/3/06 10:10 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    BTW just because something is "legal" doesn't make it morally right. But, as a Republican you wouldn't know anything about that.

    Really? How come when I made that point about abortion you said I was wrong?

     
  • At 4/3/06 11:10 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Really?

    Yes, really.

    DarkSaturos said... How come when I made that point about abortion you said I was wrong?

    Because you are wrong about abortion. Just because I say something is wrong despite what the law says doesn't mean you're right despite what the law says in regards to a completely unrelated issue. In one case the laws are wrong and in the other they are right.

     
  • At 4/3/06 11:22 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Because you are wrong about abortion.

    Oh I see, the rules don't apply to you huh?

     
  • At 5/3/06 12:51 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    What rules are you talking about?

     
  • At 5/3/06 9:21 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Your own rules. You said it was okay for you to say a law isn't right, but not me. That's inconsistent and frankly, just stupid.

     
  • At 5/3/06 2:58 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Your own rules. You said it was okay for you to say a law isn't right, but not me. That's inconsistent and frankly, just stupid.

    I did??! Funny, I don't remember doing that. I just said you were wrong, not that you were wrong because of a rule I made up. That would be stupid.

    Talking about "rules", here are a few you use when debating your opponents that I've identified:

    Call the other person's sources biased:

    This is a GREAT one, because there is no way you can possibly be proven wrong if you employ this tatic! The other person's source is the Mainstream Media? Why, the MSM is liberally biased! (Of course this claim is complete nonsense, but don't let that stop you.)

    While dismissing any and all arguments from your opponent due to his use of "biased" sources, continue to use your own biased sources such as World Net Daily and NewsMax.

    Dismiss your opponent's argument without explaining why you think they're wrong, or providing any actual evidence which refutes anything they are saying:

    Either your opponent's source is biased, their argument is a "conspiracy theory", or what they're saying is "pointless ranting". Be sure to make liberal use of the Ad hominem and Straw Man tatics. Don't pass up the opportunity to throw in a meaningless Republican platitude such as "Liberals are elitist", "The MSM has a liberal bias", "The United Nations is corrupt", "Outsourcing is good for America", "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here", "Democrats have a pre 9/11 mentality", or "If you're talking to al Qaeda, we want to know why".

    Draw illogical conclusions:

    "You have no argument because you're pointing out my spelling errors".

    "You said a law was wrong, but when I said a law was wrong earlier you didn't agree with me. You must have made a rule saying it's OK for you to call a law wrong but no one else can".

    Make ludicrous and nonsensical accusations in a transparent attempt to discredit your opponent:

    "You didn't back up your arguement with facts. I shall therefore disregard what you said".

    "What you're saying now is inconsistent with something you said earlier. You have to keep it consistent".

    "The only reason you're posting is because you want to be the center of attention". (This one is a WIDELY used Republican classic. Don't let up once you decide to use this method of attack -- EVERY time you address this person in the future you MUST make reference to their vainity.)

    "You're committing political suicide with your statements".

    Avoid answering questions, or give purposefully irrelevant answers:

    When your opponent gets frustrated with your apparent stupidity, claim it was all a plan to show that Democrats are emotional and they emote rather than think, while Republicans are logical and rational. Claim you have exposed your opponent for the childish whiney liar he is, and that his credibility is ruined with all sane people.

    Declare yourself the winner of the argument and call for your opponent's surrender:

    "My biased misinformation proves you wrong. Why don't you just admit defeat?"

    Never admit you're wrong. Always declare yourself victorious regardless of what the actual facts of the situation may be. If your opponent is besting you claim the only reason they are debating you is because they want to be the center of attention, they mean to cause "discord" on a Republican blog (and are being paid to do so), they are unpatriotic and hate our troops, their comments are treasonous, etc etc (in other words, use an Ad hominem argument.

    Only post on Republican Blogs:

    If any Liberals show up claim they are trying to sow discord -- and were paid to do so by Moveon.org.

    ==========

    I think I'll make this a post over on my blog. Thanks for the inspiration! I'm not sure what I should call it... what do you think about "When Republicans Attack"? How about "Arguing, Republican-Style"? I'll have to think about it.

     
  • At 5/3/06 4:38 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    A few more Republican tatics I came up with:

    Blame Clinton.

    Call Democrats bitter over "losing" the last two presidental elections (which were actually STOLEN).

    Threaten to delete comments and ban your opponent -- which you just did to me on your blog. I guess you were aware that your arguments had obvious holes in them and would be easily shot down -- which is why you didn't want me posting anymore. You know what? I don't give a damn. Your blog no longer exists as far as I'm concerned. Have fun posting your lies and accepting praise from other ignorant deluded Republicans.

    DarkSaturos said... Remember that here at least, you're on my space and my time and I, a lowly "kid" can shut you up any time I want. This discussion is now over, have a nice day.

    Sounds to me like you're the one who thinks he's "supierior".

     
  • At 5/3/06 8:50 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Call Democrats bitter over "losing" the last two presidental elections (which were actually STOLEN).

    I think that proves that you arebitter.

     
  • At 5/3/06 8:52 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Only post on Republican Blogs:

    What are you talking about? I post on liberal blogs all the time.

     
  • At 5/3/06 8:53 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Sounds to me like you're the one who thinks he's "supierior".

    I just like taking you down a peg. You listened to it that's for damn sure. This is all irrelevent. If you have any arguements pertaining to this post I'll listen. Other than that I refuse to respond from here on. You can say I lost the arguement all you want, but then wouldn't that be against rule #6 for you?

     
  • At 6/3/06 6:36 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... I think that proves that you are bitter.

    No, it would be called bitterness if Gore and Kerry had lost fairly. I'm OUTRAGED because the Republicans CHEATED.


    DarkSaturos said... I just like taking you down a peg. You listened to it that's for damn sure.

    I listened? So the hell what? You read my posts the same as I read yours.

    DarkSaturos said... Other than that I refuse to respond from here on.

    OK, lets put that to the test. What's clear to me is that you HAVE to have the last word. Probably due to your desperate desire to be the center of attention.

     
  • At 6/3/06 8:24 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    w-dervish said...
    "BTW just because something is "legal" doesn't make it morally right. But, as a Republican you wouldn't know anything about that."

    Robby said...
    "Really? How come when I made that point about abortion you said I was wrong?"

    I'm guessing because he has no moral objection to killing* unborn children, and he thinks laws restricting abortiong is wrong.

    *I know you'd like to think it isn't murder because the fetus apparantly has no soul, but at the end of the day, the only person with no soul is people like you who support this murder.

     
  • At 7/3/06 11:13 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    On what do you base your belief that the fetus has a soul?

    Myth: The Bible forbids abortion.

    Pro-choice Christians note that the creation of Adam was a two-step process: God first formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and only then did he give him the breath of life, turning man into a living soul. This closely resembles the scientific description of pregnancy, which notes that the first seven months are devoted to constructing the organs and body, and only by the 8th month does the fetus display a waking consciousness.

    There is also a long Christian tradition of the body/soul dichotomy. The flesh has long been condemned as temporary, imperfect, sinful and weak, whereas the soul has long been revered as eternal, pure, holy and God-like. It would be perfectly consistent for Christians to believe that personhood resides in the soul, and that there is no sin in disposing of a physical entity before it is given the soul of a new person.

    From here we turn to specific Biblical evidence for ensoulment and personhood. Pro-choice activists have a near-argument stopper in Exodus 21:22-23:
    "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..."

    The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant's life with the stillborn's life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home