Nasty conservative tells NAACP to kiss his butt.

[Harry Dresden]

if a liberal had said it would have been offensive.

and yet another example of HATE SPEECH from the left

but conservatives can say whatever they want to because it is THEIR OPINIONS

and any attempt to stop them from voicing their honest opinion would be censorship.


for example;

if a conservative says "liberals are scumbags, morons and nazis"
it is protected by "freedom of speech"
and only a politically correct nazi scumbag liberal would be offended by it

but if a liberal said "conservatives are scumbags, morons and nazis"
then it is OBVIOUSLY HATE SPEECH!
and good and decent christian conservatives SHOULD be offended by these hateful comments


(I hope you are proud of me cal girl....I"ve finally figured out what IS and what is NOT hate speech....

hate speech = anything a liberal says

NOT hate speech = anything a conservative says

kinda works both ways Ricky....and most decent people could care less if he tells a fairly bigoted group to kiss his "butt"...especially this one....i say its about time someone did.....these guys have had this coming for quite a while.....

 

[DiveCon]

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.....................

Please link to credible news sources.

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
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3dvoBhevOQ&has_verified=1[/ame]


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

 

[SFC Ollie]

Do you understand "will be" ? It is contingent on a future event. And when the event occurs, and it will, he will be a hypocrite. Got it??

But to the heart of the issue here. The grievance, and why I say this is headed for the Supreme Court. You are dodging, hedging, and bobbing & weaving, back tracking and incoherent, and this isn't kick boxing. Deal with the reality RM, not your hateful rhetoric. I doubt you can do that, but what the hell,.........give it a try.



Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



“The Federal Government was created to Protect us from Injustice, Tyranny and that the Three Branches of the Federal Government are the ‘Checks and Balances’ to ensure Justice, Freedom, Liberty, Equity and against the Federal Government from internal Corruption and external Tyranny.”

Protections from Tyranny ? Individual, Local, State then*Federal Sovereignthink

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.

Does it hurt much when you stretch that far?

 

[shintao]

if a liberal had said it would have been offensive.

and yet another example of HATE SPEECH from the left

but conservatives can say whatever they want to because it is THEIR OPINIONS

and any attempt to stop them from voicing their honest opinion would be censorship.


for example;

if a conservative says "liberals are scumbags, morons and nazis"
it is protected by "freedom of speech"
and only a politically correct nazi scumbag liberal would be offended by it

but if a liberal said "conservatives are scumbags, morons and nazis"
then it is OBVIOUSLY HATE SPEECH!
and good and decent christian conservatives SHOULD be offended by these hateful comments


(I hope you are proud of me cal girl....I"ve finally figured out what IS and what is NOT hate speech....

hate speech = anything a liberal says

NOT hate speech = anything a conservative says

kinda works both ways Ricky....and most decent people could care less if he tells a fairly bigoted group to kiss his "butt"...especially this one....i say its about time someone did.....these guys have had this coming for quite a while.....

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.

 

[Harry Dresden]

liberals, on the other hand, decide for themselves what is moral, what is right, what is wrong...

many liberals may be christians but MOST liberals don't actually NEED a bible/handbook to tell them "right" from "wrong"


but cons do............

as an atheist I am very glad conservatives believe in god and have that handbook to tell them how to behave...


for.......who knows how many people they would kill if their god wasn't scaring them with fears of hell and damnation

oh give me a fucking break........for Christ Sakes Ricky take your head out of your ass before it becomes embedded.....then you are going to be like Dean....your half way there now....

 

[Harry Dresden]

No morals? How?

no morals OF THEIR OWN.

conservative republicans get ALL of their morals from the christian bible.

if they did not have the bible to tell them "right" from "wrong" then they would NOT know what is right or wrong


they would NOT know not to kill people
they would NOT know not to steal...
or lie
or cheat
or not get divorced
or not have sex before marriage
or not be gay

(let's not confuse this issue with the facts and the reality that cons DO kill, DO lie, DO steal, DO cheat, DO have sex outside of marriage and DO get divorced.....the point is that even though they do these thinsg they KNOW they are wrong because their bible TELLS them!)


liberals, on the other hand, decide for themselves what is moral, what is right, what is wrong...

many liberals may be christians but MOST liberals don't actually NEED a bible/handbook to tell them "right" from "wrong"


but cons do............

as an atheist I am very glad conservatives believe in god and have that handbook to tell them how to behave...


for.......who knows how many people they would kill if their god wasn't scaring them with fears of hell and damnation

wow


just WOW

i know what you mean.....

 

[RadiomanATL]

Do you understand "will be" ? It is contingent on a future event. And when the event occurs, and it will, he will be a hypocrite. Got it??

But to the heart of the issue here. The grievance, and why I say this is headed for the Supreme Court. You are dodging, hedging, and bobbing & weaving, back tracking and incoherent, and this isn't kick boxing. Deal with the reality RM, not your hateful rhetoric. I doubt you can do that, but what the hell,.........give it a try.



Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



“The Federal Government was created to Protect us from Injustice, Tyranny and that the Three Branches of the Federal Government are the ‘Checks and Balances’ to ensure Justice, Freedom, Liberty, Equity and against the Federal Government from internal Corruption and external Tyranny.”

Protections from Tyranny ? Individual, Local, State then*Federal Sovereignthink

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.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

 

[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.

Does it hurt much when you stretch that far?

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.

 

[DiveCon]

if a liberal had said it would have been offensive.

and yet another example of HATE SPEECH from the left

but conservatives can say whatever they want to because it is THEIR OPINIONS

and any attempt to stop them from voicing their honest opinion would be censorship.


for example;

if a conservative says "liberals are scumbags, morons and nazis"
it is protected by "freedom of speech"
and only a politically correct nazi scumbag liberal would be offended by it

but if a liberal said "conservatives are scumbags, morons and nazis"
then it is OBVIOUSLY HATE SPEECH!
and good and decent christian conservatives SHOULD be offended by these hateful comments


(I hope you are proud of me cal girl....I"ve finally figured out what IS and what is NOT hate speech....

hate speech = anything a liberal says

NOT hate speech = anything a conservative says

kinda works both ways Ricky....and most decent people could care less if he tells a fairly bigoted group to kiss his "butt"...especially this one....i say its about time someone did.....these guys have had this coming for quite a while.....

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.

ah, so your gonna stick with the narrative that Gov LaPage is a racist

 

[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?....

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh, so you are saying 99% of con posts are conceded due to the personal attack? I will keep that in mind as I rack up win after win. Thanks!!!

Next time you think you've racked up another win, I propose you start a poll and see who agrees with your assessment.

No, polls are useless at USMB, that is why I don't participate in them. If you want to pay to have a poll conducted so the questions are phrased properly to eliminate variables, and get a N=10000 or better with half of those being DU members, I might think it worthy of response. Otherwise, it would just make the pollster look like a fool.

I will just use your simple method;....

Personal Attack = a win for the target of the abuse. I like your way best, or do you intend to back peddle, dodge, and run away now?

I was not commenting on your 99% of whatever, only your assumption that you ever have or ever will win a debate. You're a legend in your own mind and a pimple on the ass of the world.

 

[shintao]

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.

 

[shintao]

kinda works both ways Ricky....and most decent people could care less if he tells a fairly bigoted group to kiss his "butt"...especially this one....i say its about time someone did.....these guys have had this coming for quite a while.....

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.

ah, so your gonna stick with the narrative that Gov LaPage is a racist

Not usre what you are talking about. Have a link?

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?.....

 

[Ernie S.]

I said credible.

 

[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.

ah, so your gonna stick with the narrative that Gov LaPage is a racist

Not usre what you are talking about. Have a link?

its right there in what i quoted

 

[whitehall]

All you see lately is incindiary hate-speech posts most likely fueled by George Soros sponsored left wing blogs. If lefties presume that violence is caused by political rhetoric why can't they moderate their speech?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Please link to credible news sources.

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
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3dvoBhevOQ&has_verified=1[/ame]


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....

 

[shintao]

Next time you think you've racked up another win, I propose you start a poll and see who agrees with your assessment.

No, polls are useless at USMB, that is why I don't participate in them. If you want to pay to have a poll conducted so the questions are phrased properly to eliminate variables, and get a N=10000 or better with half of those being DU members, I might think it worthy of response. Otherwise, it would just make the pollster look like a fool.

I will just use your simple method;....

Personal Attack = a win for the target of the abuse. I like your way best, or do you intend to back peddle, dodge, and run away now?

I was not commenting on your 99% of whatever, only your assumption that you ever have or ever will win a debate. You're a legend in your own mind and a pimple on the ass of the world.

Ahh, I see I win this debate by your own rules. How does it feel to be a loser with that personal attack??