Nasty conservative tells NAACP to kiss his butt.

[DiveCon]

Rape
Photos Show Rape of Iraqi Women by US Occupation Forces

May 10-17 issue of Newsweek said that yet-unreleased Abu Ghraib abuse photos "include an American soldier having
sex with a female Iraqi detainee and American soldiers watching Iraqis have sex with juveniles."

On May 12, 2004 an Iraqi female professor revealed that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have raped, sexually humiliated and abused several Iraqi female detainees in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. Professor Huda Shaker, a political scientist at Baghdad University, said an Iraqi young girl was raped by a U.S. military policeman and became pregnant.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1861


Rape
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3dvoBhevOQ&has_verified=1


One of the four US soldiers accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and of then murdering her family pleaded guilty yesterday and agreed to testify against the other defendants.

Specialist James Barker of the 101st Airborne Division agreed to the plea deal at a military tribunal in Kentucky to avoid the death penalty, his lawyer David Sheldon, said.

Prosecutors assert that the four men raped the teenage girl then killed her, her parents and her seven-year-old sister in the family's home in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad.
US soldier admits to rape and murder of 14-year-old Iraqi girl - Americas, World - The Independent


In March 2005, the US Armed Forces said that it suspected that 26 deaths were due to criminal homicides. However, it did not clarify whether these deaths occurred on the battlefield or in its prisons.[3] The enumeration US Department of Defense enumeration of "Substantiated" criminal homicides of detainees is certainly too low. Two main categories of homicidal detainee deaths likely went unsubstantiated (see below). There are cases in which a homicidal cause of death was not medically recognized and other cases in which the investigation of the death was insufficient to establish whether trauma was inflicted or accidental. Prisoners died of torture at Asadadad, Bagram, and Gardez in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib, Camp Whitehorse, Basra, Mosul, Tikrit, Bucca, and an unidentified facility in Iraq (see Table ). These cases do not include deaths due to medical neglect, mortar attacks on prisons, or the shootings of rioting prisoners. Such cases will be considered after reviewing US Department of Defense forensic medical procedures.

Substantiated and Unsubstantiated Homicides of Detainees
"Substantiated" criminal homicide by Armed Forces Criminal Investigation
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/507284_5

now show they were not acting on their own

i think they were listening to Rush earlier that day.....that has to be the reason....

yeah, must have

 

[Ernie S.]

If they have a grievance and the governor refuses to address it, the group would have the case to go to court. He has to represent all people in his state, not just the chosen ones. And there are all kinds of groups, so if he addresses just one group, he is showing prejudice. Say the group was veterans. An easy court case to bring, but lets see what happens. Defamation of character comes to mind as well.

by doing what you want him to do, he is addressing one group.....which shows a little bit of biasness.....so what the hell are you trying to convey here?.....

It's only bias when shitnao says it is, stupid boy.

 

[shintao]

I said credible.

Hmmm yes, you did. How is that working out for you?

 

[Harry Dresden]

There goes 2012, huh? I mean you guess spend millions carefully cleaning up your racist circumstances and smoothing things over, and trying to explain to groups why the should vote, and then along comes some bastard and fucks it all up again. And it isn't like the RNC has a ton of money either, so I see some of this sticking.

yea there goes 2012....geezus christ Shin.....the world wont fall apart because of this incident.....most people dont like the NAACP......so dont sweat it....

 

[DiveCon]

There goes 2012, huh? I mean you guess spend millions carefully cleaning up your racist circumstances and smoothing things over, and trying to explain to groups why the should vote, and then along comes some bastard and fucks it all up again. And it isn't like the RNC has a ton of money either, so I see some of this sticking.

yea there goes 2012....geezus christ Shin.....the world wont fall apart because of this incident.....most people dont like the NAACP......so dont sweat it....

yeah, i guess our "racist Governor" just screwed over the whole GOP nationwide

 

[elvis]

Fuck the NAACP.

 

[RadiomanATL]

fuck the police.

 

[Harry Dresden]

1.Lying
2.Cheating
3.Torture
4.Murder
5.Rape
6.Bashing Americans
7.Killing soldiers for profit
8.Slaying thousands of innocents in the ME

Hoo Hummm. I do hate it when a disallusioned con has to ask known answers to questions, but what can I say.....................

so what are you implying here?....that Democrats do not do these things?....

I haven't implied that, yet. But then no one has presented evidence that they do.

...your starting to sound like Dean.....ALL crimminals are now Republican/Conservative......no Democrat/Liberal has ever Lied,Cheated,Murdered someone,Bashed America,sent guys to war for profit.....geezus....you know Deans Bullshit is getting old.....here we have some nice fresh Bullshit....... to the Board Shin.....i think your going to be liked....

 

[shintao]

If they have a grievance and the governor refuses to address it, the group would have the case to go to court. He has to represent all people in his state, not just the chosen ones. And there are all kinds of groups, so if he addresses just one group, he is showing prejudice. Say the group was veterans. An easy court case to bring, but lets see what happens. Defamation of character comes to mind as well.

by doing what you want him to do, he is addressing one group.....which shows a little bit of biasness.....so what the hell are you trying to convey here?.....

It's only bias when shitnao says it is, stupid boy.

Ahhh, I won that debate as well, because you keep losing with personal attacks.

 

[shintao]

All you cons got to realize that the NAACP can not be considered racist if they seek to exclude based on race, but a white, conservative Governor who seeks to include all races in racist by definition.

The Messiah has proclaimed it!

So if the The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pedarasty advocacy organization in the United States, just wants to talk with NAMBLA members & the governor for a redress of grievances, you would say they should be denied? Correct?

How about if church wanted to meet with all the prison held prostitutes and the governor for redress of issues, you would say he has to meet with the whole prison of males and females. Correct??

Lets see how silly your logic is..........

The Baptists want the governor to meet with all the baptists in the prison, the governor would tell the Baptists to kiss his ass because they should meet with the entire prison.

so I guess if the Aryan Nation wanted to see the governor and he wanted to see a few blacks on his visit, but AN refused to include them, You'd expect the Governor to give in to their demands?

You are the one agreeing with the governor, what would he do?

 

[daveman]

No Ollie, not at all. We have a representative government, and I think the governor is aware of that. But I want to see it before the Supreme Court, because the governor won't get away with his choice of actions or words. He might think he is racking points up with someone, but it will back fire on him, just like his slanderous words to Obama. I hate to see a grown man grovel at every turn.

Can you point out what exactly is unconstitutional about your whiny leftist butthurt?

 

[shintao]

So in plain English; why would this Governor go before the Supreme court for telling special interest groups to kiss his ass?

If they have a grievance and the governor refuses to address it, the group would have the case to go to court. He has to represent all people in his state, not just the chosen ones. And there are all kinds of groups, so if he addresses just one group, he is showing prejudice. Say the group was veterans. An easy court case to bring, but lets see what happens. Defamation of character comes to mind as well.

What kind of grievance would a governor have to legally address?

You're stretching. Hard. Not posing with special interest groups is not a legal grievance. Try again.

Ohh, here is example.

Minority grievances at T to be reviewed - The Boston Globe

 

[RadiomanATL]

If they have a grievance and the governor refuses to address it, the group would have the case to go to court. He has to represent all people in his state, not just the chosen ones. And there are all kinds of groups, so if he addresses just one group, he is showing prejudice. Say the group was veterans. An easy court case to bring, but lets see what happens. Defamation of character comes to mind as well.

What kind of grievance would a governor have to legally address?

You're stretching. Hard. Not posing with special interest groups is not a legal grievance. Try again.

Ohh, here is example.

Minority grievances at T to be reviewed - The Boston Globe

Man, that was a swing and a miss.

The governor wasn't personally addressing any grievances. A department is. And the feds maybe. And at no point was the governor "not appearing" alluded to as a grievance.

 

[DiveCon]

What kind of grievance would a governor have to legally address?

You're stretching. Hard. Not posing with special interest groups is not a legal grievance. Try again.

Ohh, here is example.

Minority grievances at T to be reviewed - The Boston Globe

Man, that was a swing and a miss.

The governor wasn't personally addressing any grievances. A department is. And the feds maybe. And at no point was the governor "not appearing" alluded to as a grievance.

um, and given that the "T" is in Mass not Maine, its an even bigger fail

 

[shintao]

No Ollie, not at all. We have a representative government, and I think the governor is aware of that. But I want to see it before the Supreme Court, because the governor won't get away with his choice of actions or words. He might think he is racking points up with someone, but it will back fire on him, just like his slanderous words to Obama. I hate to see a grown man grovel at every turn.

Can you point out what exactly is unconstitutional about your whiny leftist butthurt?

Well, looks like I don't have to Dave, because you already lost the debate by making a personal attack. That according to one of your own buddies rules.

asterism
Congress != Progress
Member #24388

"It seems you have conceded your point since you went with the personal attack."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...lls-naacp-to-kiss-his-butt-3.html#post3213247

Now I point out earlier that this is contingent on further Governor actions, that of entertaining another group with privilege, but knowing the NAACP, it would be a discrimination suit based on color.

 

[shintao]

Ohh, here is example.

Minority grievances at T to be reviewed - The Boston Globe

Man, that was a swing and a miss.

The governor wasn't personally addressing any grievances. A department is. And the feds maybe. And at no point was the governor "not appearing" alluded to as a grievance.

um, and given that the "T" is in Mass not Maine, its an even bigger fail

The state doesn't matter, the US Constitution matters that applies to all states, from which the Supreme Court would act. So no fail, just a little ignorance on your part. I am just demonstrating any minority can bring a Supreme Court case to bear, if they chose to. RM asked for an example, and I gave him an example.

 

[shintao]

What kind of grievance would a governor have to legally address?

You're stretching. Hard. Not posing with special interest groups is not a legal grievance. Try again.

Ohh, here is example.

Minority grievances at T to be reviewed - The Boston Globe

Man, that was a swing and a miss.

The governor wasn't personally addressing any grievances. A department is. And the feds maybe. And at no point was the governor "not appearing" alluded to as a grievance.

Do you even pay attention to the questions you ask? No swing, no miss, just your hate fueled illogical posting catching up with you. "a governor" implies "any governor," so back peddle and get all your ducks and beer cans lined up, and play again.

 

[DiveCon]

Man, that was a swing and a miss.

The governor wasn't personally addressing any grievances. A department is. And the feds maybe. And at no point was the governor "not appearing" alluded to as a grievance.

um, and given that the "T" is in Mass not Maine, its an even bigger fail

The state doesn't matter, the US Constitution matters that applies to all states, from which the Supreme Court would act. So no fail, just a little ignorance on your part. I am just demonstrating any minority can bring a Supreme Court case to bear, if they chose to. RM asked for an example, and I gave him an example.

so, what governor was that dealing with?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Ohh, here is example.

Minority grievances at T to be reviewed - The Boston Globe

Man, that was a swing and a miss.

The governor wasn't personally addressing any grievances. A department is. And the feds maybe. And at no point was the governor "not appearing" alluded to as a grievance.

Do you even pay attention to the questions you ask? No swing, no miss, just your hate fueled illogical posting catching up with you. "a governor" implies "any governor," so back peddle and get all your ducks and beer cans lined up, and play again.

What part of "the grievance wasn't the governor not addressing a group" are you failing to grasp here?

 

[casper4020322]

The NAACP can kiss my white ass.

What is so special about American soil? What is so special about the field in Kansas, the trees in Michigan, the dirt roads of Southern Illinois that these men can not be near them? I do not believe in the sacredness of ground. I do not believe that America is God's special country that God loves more than all the other countries, and that He loves the Chesapeake Bay more than Guantanamo Bay or the Mississippi more than the Nile. Other people believe that, and they are being allowed to run our government, they are being allowed to hijack not just the public discourse but the lives and civil liberties and freedom of one hundred and ninety-six men because they think our dirt is fucking special and suddenly, anyone who does not like America or might be a criminal can not be near it. As if their subversion, their antipathy, their righteous grievances against us will travel like pixie dust through the rocks and pebbles and get in our groundwater.


Just wanted to share an excerpt from a White person who does not give a damn about the NAACP either!! Enjoy!