LowerCaseRepublican

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 01:15 AM) What is gained? How about what is lost by killing this filth? We lose one more scumbag piece of s*** who is nothing but a drain of our tax dollars and a waste of oxygen. And I love how this is somehow the state's choice to make. As a person who thinks the government is inefficient with poverty payments etc, Nuke...how can you give them the authority to take lives and believe that they will do it judiciously?

Lucky for me the school I'm student teaching at had off. w00t for 3 day weekends! /working on Project Discrimination for next week's class to really have the whole racism and discrimination thing hit home with students -- we're talking about Indian Removal with Jackson...so I'm having students talk to relatives about what happened to their families when they came over to the US -- and then looking at historical books about what happened to the Irish, Germans, Chinese, etc. etc. when they came to the United States. They'll get to write a little piece up on it and discuss it in class if they want. I've got a ton of photos to show and some audio as well.

/surprised nobody used this yet Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

http://www.heralddemocrat.com/articles/200...ews/state01.txt Houston’s police chief proposed Wednesday placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls, and even private homes as a way of combatting crime with a shortage of police officers. “I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?” -- Um...I worry about it because of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, you soft-headed moron. If you want to intrude into peoples' privacy, get a f***ing warrant.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 01:31 PM) Whats hilarious is that you defend his INaction and act like he was some sort of crusader against the Islamo-fascist movement. His gutting of the CIA and the military, combined with his unwillingness to respond to several terrorist attacks opened the door nice and wide for Bin Laden to hit WTC. Gee -- first it is "Clinton did nothing!" That gets proved wrong. Then it's "Clinton do as much!" That gets proved wrong. Then it's this new one. This is hilarious how much blame you want to put on Clinton without having the factual basis to back up your irrational hatred. Does he have some blame? Of course. But not nearly the amount you're wanting to heap upon him merely because of the D after his name.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) wow...another complaint without any kind of solution offered. you say the US should not be the one screaming for the rooting out of corruption in the UN? why not, considering we pay for over half of the s***e resolutions they pass through their worthless assembly? if not us, then who? just because we "knew" about some corrupt s*** or part of some corrupt s*** doesnt mean that kofi annon should stay in power at the UN. do you have anything even remotely constructive to say about the issue at all? or you just hate the president, and the president appointed bolton, so you have to hate bolton. i got it. It is difficult to condemn Kofi for his crimes when we knew about it and did nothing the whole f***ing time. If it was so bad then why let it happen? Oh yeah because it wasn't politically expedient at the time to condemn Kofi. In fact, according to the US Senate Subcommittee report -- the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales. So if Kofi is a corrupt sonofab**** (which he is) then what's the US for facilitating the illegal sales? Let non-committed countries without involvement in the situation focus on all the corruption going on (since you wanted a constructive way) If the US just goes after Kofi, it ignores the glaring beam in their own eye -- that they were just as f***ing corrupt.

The State Department has described the threat to withhold dues as "objectionable." "It's wrong on principle. We are a founding member of the United Nations and it hurts our credibility," said a senior State Department official. "While we agree on ends, the disagreement is on means."

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 01:13 PM) Did he do anything meaningful to attack Bin Laden? No. He lobbed a few cruise missiles into empty terrorist camps then bragged how he was getting tough on terrorism. PLEASE! He could have had the CIA kill Bin Laden when they knew where he was. He could have gotten him friom Sudan and failed. He could have done a million things but like was the norm for Clinton, he did just enough to take the focus off his impeachment. Yet it was Gingrich and the rest of the people thirsting for him to drop trow on the floor of Congress so they could see the distinguishing characteristics of his wang saying that his efforts were "wagging the dog". And actually the CIA admitted (if you read my previous posts with Bojinka and my citations) that the CIA had doubts about the intel and therefore didn't want to go through with the hit. Clinton authorized it but the CIA wasn't sure it was him. The Sudan thing -- it was up to Bush's favorites, the House of Saud, to take him into custody and then be given to the US. But the US/Sudan couldn't convince the Saudis to do it. Hence, the US couldn't get him. Your anti-Clinton hackery is quite hilarious and really devoid of anything called "Facts". Hell, I don't even like Clinton but I won't admit that he did nothing because he actually did combat terrorism.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) Can't you just accept the fact that Kofi is a bastard and should be gone? It doesn't f***ing mater who knew what, HE IS A CORRUPT BASTARD! Kofi should be booted out now. I don't care if the whole damn world knew about it and just now decided to do something about it. So because America knew about some of it, that makes Kofi not-so-bad? Does that mean he should maybe be censured only? Your arguements usually make logical sense, but everytime some corrupt bastard shows up that conservative rail against, it's always "well, we knew about it", or "Republicans did it too", or something else to try and mitigate it to seem less serious than it is. Kofi is a s*** and kofi should be gone. I'm saying that Kofi is indeed a bastard. However, I'm not so sure the US should be the one leading that charge because they knew of the scandal and did nothing when it was going on. Rooting out the corruption takes an entity who didn't have their thumb in the pie to be successful.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) that corrupt SOB needs to be tried for his involvement in oil-for-food with saddam, as well as his son. the UN isnt going to do anything with that bastard at the helm. hes just an obstructionist at this point. is anyone still going to say that bolton's not the man for the job as UN ambassador to the UN? i love that hes shaking things up and telling it like it is. Except that the US knew a lot about it (especially the links to Turkey etc.) and did nothing about it...of course, until it became politically expedient to do something. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554507.stm I'm not saying that Kofi isn't a bastard -- but it is difficult for the US to play the "justifiably outraged" person on the international stage when it knew about the damn thing the whole time.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 09:47 PM) A library doesnt require its people to sign an acceptable use policy. So these guys cannot enforce that. Libraries are open ground. As law enforcement they should know that also. At work however people are f***ing morons. You wouldnt believe how many morons surf for porn at work even though they f***ing know you are watching them. We make our employees sign waivers and its well known we are looking, and sure enough you can catch someone at any point in the day surfing for porn. So let me sacrifice my good paying job and my benefits because I cant wait until I get to this porn site. LOL Even though its the library I dont know if I would be surfing porn at the library. Thats why you have broadband at home people. That's why when I read it, I thought two things. 1) What a bunch of government idiots trying to do this. 2) Holy Hell! What balls to surf porn in the middle of the afternoon at a public library!

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 10:06 AM) what is it i'm missing? please enlighten me then. what work was it that clinton did? perhaps you should change the description of what he did from "not complete" (not complete in the sense s*** was done) and "enough" (but not apparently enough to stop any terrorist acts, ramifications climaxing on 9/11) to "completely deficient". clinton did not do even close to enough to quell terrorism- at least with the current prez you can complain that he is doing too much (at least thats the trendy liberal complaint nowdays, isnt it?). dont forget to insult me again in your response, since im as wrong and stupid as you say and imply. after all, since i dont agree with you, i must be wrong. Actually, to Clinton's credit, his administration did break up Project Bojinka (a plot to use a dozen airliners to blow up the White House, Pentagon, WTC, kill Clinton, kill the Pope, etc.) in 1995. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Bojinka And you may want to give http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/Cl...ndTerrorism.htm a read. While Clinton's efforts, in hindsight, could have been better -- it is factually inaccurate to say that he did nothing. (And this is coming from a guy who didn't really like a whole lot of what Clinton did as Prez)

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) I've studied countless documents pertaining to corporal punishment, and explanantions of those opposing and supporting it. I understand executing criminals isn't a deterrent. I understand victims of families often don't recover from their losses whether or not an execution is granted. I understand the cost differential between life-in-prison and an execution. However, I believe you can't completely remove the death penalty. Call it primitive justice, but if someone commits a hanneous crime AND it's proven beyond reasonable doubt they perpetrated the act, they shouldn't be allowed to continue life. I hate to drag abortion into this, but I still can't comprehend how liberals are so adament about the right to choose abortion, yet oppose the death penalty? Personally, I support pro-choice--but not because of religious issues or debate relating to the life status of a fetus. Often the individuals who seek abortions are economically disadvantaged women who couldn't possibly raise their children in a nuturing environment. LCR, I'm interested in how you feel about Zacarias Moussai? Or Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacey, or Timothy McVeigh? If we could guarantee what happened to Dahmer occured to everyone guilty of murder, or another vile act, I'd be completely in favor of abolishing the dealth penalty. Both sides of the issue could rejoice. Flash, that's the thing about the heinous crime and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Human beings are fallible. You can let a guy out of prison if the system f***ed up. You can't bring a dead guy back to life to say "Oops!" The system is biased against the poor and minorities (the Supreme Court has admitted as much with Marshall and McClesky v Kemp where the now famous Baldus study came into play) So much evidence shows that the system of capital punishment is incredibly faulty and needs to be obliterated. With Moussaoui, Dahmer, Gacy, McVeigh et al. -- they're severely disturbed individuals and sociopaths. Keeping them in prison and away from the regular populus is the important thing. Killing them doesn't bring any of the victims back and in the cases of McVeigh and Moussaoui especially, it can turn them into a martyr of sorts for the right-wing extremist militants and Al Qaeda supporters respectively. If you have kept them separated from the normal population of functional citizens, then the justice system has done its job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle Hahaha -- I'm sorry, sir, your viewing of pornography as an adult is a threat to national security. What a bunch of maroons.

It also always made me wonder how people who thought that government led bureaucracies had too much authority with poverty payments, health care, etc. could be fine with the State having the authority to take a life. For people that believe the government is incompetent with money and the way it is spent, why allow it to have the authority to take lives then? And Minors -- between the lying in wait discussions in legal circles that can't pinpoint how it should be applied & the jailhouse snitch lie, there is pretty questionable evidence to kick it to a Murder 1 conviction. Your bloodlust is clouding your vision. I'm not saying let him out of jail. I'm just saying don't stick the needle in his arm because the evidence putting him over the top from life to death is pretty questionable. It was not the DNA evidence that kicked him up there from life to death penalty. It was the "lying in wait" premeditation statute. When judges can't figure out when and how it should be applied, then it is damn questionable to be using that as a justification to kill a person. The other thing was the jailhouse "confession" which the snitch lied about. So both aspects of what they wanted to use to get the needle in his arm fall under dubious distinction. Yeah, what the guy did was bad but what's gained out of executing him? Nothing. Don't you think people will learn that violence is bad by example much moreso than by strongarming them with threats?

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) One thing I agree with you on is the punishment. The Punishment Morales will get is far less than what he deserves, The state should strangle him with a belt, take a hammer to his skull 23 times, drag him face down for 20 feet and stab him in the chest 4 times. Then he will know how it felt. Serving life in prison is nothing to this thug we need to start making these thugs pay for their actions, not slap them on the wrists like some group of people want to do then wonder why it doens't work. What do you have to say about the fact that the jailhouse snitch lied in this case (whose testimony, according to prosecutors, was the "cornerstone" of their capital case? This isn't innocent or guilty thing. It was the jailhouse snitch testimony that took it from a life without parole to a death sentence case. So, let's get that out there before everybody mistakes what I said.

Yes because spending more money than it would take to house him with life without parole would be such a great idea. Killers must really get the right idea that killing is wrong -- because if you do it, the state gets to kill you back. And nice of you to leave out the fact that the "cornerstone" of the State's case came from a jailhouse snitch who lied. The use of jailhouse informants -- contemporaneous inmates who claim to have extracted the confessions of killers while awaiting their trials -- is a regular feature of death penalty trials. Samuelson told the jury that Morales had confessed to him in jail, and gave chilling details about how he planned the murder and how he boasted about it many months later. His testimony was particularly relevant in the jury's verdict for death because he provided the evidence of a "special circumstance" -- a requirement to elevate 1st-degree murder to capital murder. Calling it "the cornerstone" of the government's case, presiding judge McGrath stated: "Mr. Samuelson's testimony describing the confession was the only evidence to support the single special circumstance...that made Mr. Morales eligible for the death penalty." At the time of the Morales' trial, Bruce Samuelson was facing six felony charges, which led Parole Officer Vickie Wetherell to recommend "immediate commitment to state prison." Instead, after writing to Morales' prosecutor promising that he could provide the evidence that would guarantee a conviction with special circumstances (death penalty), the prosecutor dropped 4 of the 6 charges against him, and managed to get court approval of a very light county jail sentence for the remaining 2 charges in exchange for his damning testimony. "I had no doubt that without the plea bargain, such a repeated offender would have been sentenced to prison," Wetherell has declared. "The fact that Samuelson escaped full adjudication and punishment was disconcerting." But how do we know that what Samuelson told the jury was a lie? Because when asked years later by the attorney general how he managed to elicit so much damning information from the accused in a crowded jail cell without any other inmate hearing their alleged conversations, Samuelson boasted of his Spanish language skills ("I was very fluent in it, reading, writing and speaking, both formal and informal, or 'Spang/lish,' 'ghetto Spanish' and in educated Spanish") and asserted that he and Morales had conducted their confessional sessions in Spanish. There is only one problem with this explanation: Michael Morales, a 4th-generation American, does not speak Spanish! This raises the question: How did Samuelson get the specific details about those involved in this crime if not from the defendant himself? Good jailhouse informants have become quite adept at gleaning details from the public record by passing themselves off as parties to the legal process or as law enforcement officials entitled to confidential information. Unfortunately, this is all too common. When 13 of those condemned to death in Illinois were later exonerated, the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment found that nearly half were convicted as the result of false testimony of jailhouse informants. In California, more than 200 inmates have been released from prison since 1989 because of unreliable trials, and, according to a recent report conducted by San Francisco Magazine, 1 in 5 was convicted on the basis of false testimony of such informants. -- Now the bastard may very well be guilty and deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life -- but the use of the jailhouse testimony lie to up it to a capital case is total and complete BS. I'm not saying let the guy out -- but commute the sentence to life without parole, especially in light of the evidence about this "cornerstone" of the State's capital case. But who needs logic and reason when there's an execution afoot cuz killing is wrong! (that is unless the state is doing the killing)

There's only one thing to say: Mmmhmm, mmmhmmm, mmhmmm, mmhmmm. Mmmmhmmm.

Wanted to add this before anybody else got the chance.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) Doesn't attacking the sitting president in that manner have that effect? Surely he knows this. The way I see it, unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free. -Maj. Burns, MASH

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 03:55 PM) I figured youd show up here eventually. I love how you're trying to equate Muslim thugs who are burning down everything in sight with the US military. I expected no less from the likes of you but you're forgetting one thing. While the Islamo-fascist governments of Iran and Syria are stirring up the pot trying to make as much out of this nothing as they can, the US government has punished those responsible for Abu Ghraib and they now sit in jail. Apples and Oranges. I'm just taking your logic to its extension. You said that the behavior of a group of asshats determines the reputation for the whole group. If you don't like the way that I applied your logic then perhaps it is your logic that is faulty and not my example.

But but but but I thought the House of Saud was our ally? Followers of the Bush Cult of Personality (I don't dare say conservative anymore because there is a difference between the Bush platform and actual conservatism -- conservatism, I at least have respect for) can't have it both ways. You can't be an apologist for the Bush relationship with the House of Saud and then blast Gore for making a speech there in Saudi Arabia. As for actual conservatives who believe that the American relationship with the primary creator of these dangerous fundamentalist madrassas is dangerous, continue with your well-reasoned discussion. What Gore said is cited by facts. Most of the people at Gitmo get released with no charges (much like those detained in Iraq) It is antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution (due process, etc.) Sure we can say "We don't have to play by the rules anymore!" but does that really make us better than those we say we oppose? If we're ready, willing and able to give up liberties in the name of security, haven't the terrorists already won? There's no excuse for not charging these people. There's no excuse for Bush to go around FISA. There's no reason that the PATRIOT Act allows the federal authorities to go through any "tangible records" (that's the library book provision -- it actually says tangible records meaning any...tangible records) but does not allow the government to look at gun purchases made. They can find out that you read the whole Nancy Drew series as an adult but not if a person on the (dubiously created because it is pretty damn inaccurate) terrorist watch list has purchased a firearm. Get your outrage in the right places, people.

The Muslim cartoons were published in September, making those old hat. The new Abu Ghraib photos getting published -- I just love the outrage over publishing them. As if publishing them is the evil act here. Sorry if I have a little logic and reason but it seems f***ING ABUSING PRISONERS IN CUSTODY is the crime here. And allow me to grab a stick and stir the pot a little bit, but many of the people expressing their "outrage" about these photos being published have made lump generalizations in the past (i.e. the Danish drawings) saying that the actions of those rioting really spoke about the major beliefs of Islam and the way people think with Nuke even saying "So much for a religion of peace". Well, if we apply that logic to the Abu Ghraib/Taguba Report/photos scandal, then can we make the same lump sum generalization about the US military? I mean if you're going to put Islam in one boat using that generalization based on the actions of a few, then you should be more than ready to do the same for the US military. Note: That was just to the people who said that the riots etc. for the Danish papers spoke about all of Islam, not the sane rational people who said that the rioters were asshats and didn't represent all of Islam.

When all else fails about attacking the message, attack the messenger. Yeah the NYT isn't the best newspaper but then Fox News isn't exactly the most "Fair and Balanced" source either. The whole idea of news objectivity is a f***ing joke in the first place. But please, kevin57 and Kap, -- refute the arguments made rather than doing the chic/brainless thing of whining about the "liberal" media.