In other news, nearly every person that worked on the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 is now DEAD.

Which is why advocating for the wholesale slaughter and destruction of a country A, because 19 people from countries B, C, D and E, flew an airplane into a skyscraper is an appalling, disgraceful, revolting thing.

Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Orchestrated by someone who's family has long-standing ties to the Bush family and the CIA. (lest we forget to mention Bush calling off a full-scale attack at Tora Bora).


"In 1978, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, founded Arbusto Energy, an oil company based in Texas.

Several bin Laden family members invested millions in The Carlyle Group, a private global equity firm based in Washington, DC. The company's senior advisor was Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush. After news of the bin Laden-Bush connection became public, the elder Bush stepped down from Carlyle.

Interestingly, on Sept. 11, 2001, members of the Carlyle Group - including Bush senior, and his former secretary of state, James Baker - were meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C., along with Shafiq bin Laden, another one of Osama bin Laden's brothers.

While all flights were halted following the terrorist attacks, there was one exception made: The White House authorized planes to pick up 140 Saudi nationals, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, living in various cities in the U.S. to bring them back to Saudi Arabia, where they would be safe. They were never interrogated."


>> ^xxovercastxx:

Like it or not, this is fairly true. Not that you have to intentionally target civilians, but you have to be willing to accept massive civilian casualties to hit important targets.

What about in Canada?!?!?>> ^kronosposeidon:

doublepromote
YEARDLEY – IN 16 THEATERS across the US, MAY 18 – 23, 2010. The theatrical run is for one week, playing twice a day on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday.
Locations:
Carmike 10 – Panama City, FL
Royal Palm 20 – Bradenton, FL
Amelia Island 7 – Fernandina, FL
Wynnsong 15 – Durham, NC
Carmike 12 – Greenville, NC
Carmike 14 – Hickory, NC
Carmike 16 – Wilmington, NC
Wynnsong 12 – Winston-Salem, NC
Chapel Hills 15 – Colorado Springs, CO
Broadway 16 – Myrtle Beach, SC
Carmike 9 – Minot, ND
Carmike 12 – Kennewick, WA
Oakwood Mall 12 – Eau Claire, WI
Carmike 15 – Apple Valley, MN
Wynnsong 15 – Moundsville, MN
Horizon 10 – Traverese City, MI

*doublepromote

YEARDLEY – IN 16 THEATERS across the US, MAY 18 – 23, 2010. The theatrical run is for one week, playing twice a day on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday.

Locations:

Carmike 10 – Panama City, FL
Royal Palm 20 – Bradenton, FL
Amelia Island 7 – Fernandina, FL

Wynnsong 15 – Durham, NC
Carmike 12 – Greenville, NC
Carmike 14 – Hickory, NC
Carmike 16 – Wilmington, NC
Wynnsong 12 – Winston-Salem, NC
Chapel Hills 15 – Colorado Springs, CO

Broadway 16 – Myrtle Beach, SC
Carmike 9 – Minot, ND
Carmike 12 – Kennewick, WA
Oakwood Mall 12 – Eau Claire, WI
Carmike 15 – Apple Valley, MN
Wynnsong 15 – Moundsville, MN
Horizon 10 – Traverese City, MI

>> ^jwray:

>> ^reiwan:
>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.

If some bogus tip that was extracted under duress (i.e. plea bargain) can lead to this kind of raid, then we're still doing the same shit as the Salem witch trails.


You mean the red scare, or the Red Scare 2001?

>> ^reiwan:

>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.


If some bogus tip that was extracted under duress (i.e. plea bargain) can lead to this kind of raid, then we're still doing the same shit as the Salem witch trails.

You saying Charles Xavier is too good for a Cape Cod? He set up his School for Gifted Youngsters in North Salem, New York, only a few hours out from there; minutes by Blackbird! Seems like a delicious fit!

This guy is a very good speaker. His gestures are.. He strikes me as a lie. A living lie.

I'm going to Godwin this now, there are other good speakers, and one that he reminds me of is Hitler.

US, plutocratic actions on Haiti, if true are deplorable.

Accusations of widespread human rights abuses

Human Rights Watch accused the Haitian police force under President Aristide, and his political supporters, of attacks on opposition rallies. They also said that the emergence of armed rebel groups seeking to overthrow Aristide reflected "the failure of the country’s democratic institutions and procedures."[27]

The OAS/UN International Civilian Mission in Haiti, known as MICIVIH (its French acronym) found that the human-rights situation in Haiti improved dramatically following Aristide's return to power in 1994. [28] Amnesty International reported that Haiti was "descending into a severe humanitarian and human rights crisis" after Aristide's departure in 2004.[29]
[edit] Accusations of drug trafficking

Drug trafficking was allegedly a major source of money. Canadian police arrested Oriel Jean, Aristide's security chief and one of the most trusted friends, for money laundering.[30] Beaudoin Ketant, a notorious international drug trafficker, Aristide's close partner, and his daughter's godfather, confessed that Aristide "turned the country into a narco-country. It's a one-man show. You either pay (Aristide) or you die." Aristide denied the allegation, and the U.S. has not charged him directly with involvment in the drug trade.[31]
[edit] Accusations of corruption

Haitian investigators claimed to have discovered extensive embezzlement and money laundering by Aristide's administration, in which millions of dollars of public funds were allegedly lost to sophisticated financial transactions.[32] Aristide has forcefully denied these accusations. [33] The Haitian government filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit in the U.S. in Miami, Florida, in November of 2005, alleging that Aristide and his associates took hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks from the long distance company IDT, and that IDT diverted into a secret offshore bank account controlled by Aristide payments that should have gone to the Haitian company Teleco. The lawsuit was suspended by the Haitian government on June 30, 2006. [34][35]
[edit] Accusations of embezzlement of telecom revenues

According to a report by Christopher Caldwell in the July 1994 American Spectator, Aristide stole Haiti's telecom revenues while in the United States. Caldwell claims that, between 1991 and 1994, Aristide ordered that the proceeds from Haiti's international phone traffic, handled by the Latin American division of AT&T, be moved to a numbered offshore bank account in Panama.[36]

Some officials have been indicted by an US court.[37] The companies which made deals with Aristide included IDT, Fusion Telecommunications, and Skytel; critics claim the two first companies had political links. AT&T reportedly declined to wire money to "Mont Salem".[38][39][40][41]

Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Third in a Series (Commemorative Plates On Sale Now!)
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, September 02, 2009


(9) If you like Medicare, you'll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare's benefits to everyone.

Hey -- I have an idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both Medicare and Bernie Madoff's investment portfolio are bankrupt because they operate on a similar financial model known as a "Ponzi scheme." These always seem to run fabulously well -- until the money runs out.

Not only is Medicare bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery.

Moreover, Medicare payments aren't enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight (and then some). That's why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital bill.

National health care will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that allows Medicare to exist.

Obviously, therefore, it's preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you're designing an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a penthouse?

It doesn't work: What makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An "all-penthouse" building is a blueprint that could make sense only to someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a Democrat.

(10) National health care won't cover illegal aliens -- as the president has twice claimed in recent radio appearances.

Technically, what Obama said is that the bill isn't "designed" to give health insurance to illegal aliens. (That bill, the "Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens Act of 2009," was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his death, may he rest in peace.)

But unless the various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We can't even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but liberals assure us that doctors will?

And by the way -- as with the abortion exclusion -- the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care.

Still not convinced? Day after day, The New York Times has been neurotically asserting that national health care won't cover illegal aliens (without ever explaining how precisely it will exclude illegal aliens).

So far, just this week, these Kim Jong Il-style pronouncements have appeared in the Treason Times:

-- "Illegal immigrants will be covered. (Myth)" -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Myth vs. Fact vs. Other," The New York Times, Sept. 2, 2009

-- "(Sen. Jim DeMint) fueled speculation that a health care overhaul would cover illegal immigrants, although specific language says it would not." -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Fighting Health Care Overhaul, and Proud of It," The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2009

-- "'Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.' ... The falsehoods include (that italic statement)." -- Michael Mason, "Vetting Claims in a Memo," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009

-- "But that would not help illegal immigrants. Contrary to some reports, they would not be eligible for any new health coverage under any of the health overhaul plans circulating in Congress." -- Duff Wilson, "Race, Ethnicity and Care," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009

The last time the Times engaged in such frantic perseveration about a subject was when the paper was repeatedly insisting that Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong had a solid case against the Duke lacrosse players.

By August 2006, every single person in the United States, including the stripper, knew the stripper's claim of "gang rape" was a lie. That was when Duff Wilson -- quoted above -- co-wrote the Times' infamous cover story on the Duke case, titled: "Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers." No answers!

(11) Obama has dropped his demand for the ironically titled "public option" (i.e., government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an "option" to pay for or not.

Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."

It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.

Which happens to be exactly what liberals are doing right now.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Listening to 'Salem's Lot on audiobook when I exercise, but am reading textbooks from school.

If you want a good read, track down a copy of Memoirs of an Invisible Man by H.F.Saint. Good read and not like the Chevy Chase movie.

Will be doing Jeffrey Archer's Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less next.

Man, witches sure get a bum rap. Why is it people always think KILL IT WITH FIRE when it comes to witches? I know about the drownings and whatnot as well, but it seems to always come back to fire. You'd think a good witch would have some precautions against it, like, oh, not living in Salem or Kenya.

i think some of you sound like fucking witch hunters. Go back to Salem you fucking cooks.

1. Analogies are not literal. The Salem Witches are an appropriate comparison, because violence was used in the persecution of others. The poster was not suggesting that opening a truck door and burning someone at the stake are equivalent, but they are based on the same principle - that the ends justify the means - if someone is "immoral" per your stance, you have the okay to violently persecute them. Failing to realize this is failing to understand the concept of analogy.

2. Prostitution is a victimless crime. For a crime to have a victim, you must be able to identify a victim in all possible manifestations of that crime. If there is even one counter example, it is a victimless crime. Think to yourself for a moment, can you dream up any possible circumstance wherein one person could pay another for sex, and neither would feel victimized? To help, flip it around - put yourself in the potential-victims shoes - are there any instances in which you would have sex with someone for money, and not feel like a victim? How about $1 trillion to have sex with that one girl at your work, you know who I'm talking about. Would you feel victimized? This is as solid as 2 + 2 = 4, you cannot argue it. If there is a victim in only certain circumstances, it is another, different crime that was committed. Human trafficking is one example used here - another example would be patting someone on the back - legal after a football game, illegal if you are standing on the edge of a cliff. Prostitution is a victimless crime, end of story.

3. Videotaping in a public place is not a crime. The (legal) line was crossed when the "do-gooder" opened the truck without permission of the owner. The fact that he was videotaping them naked, having sex, makes it a sex crime. Voyeurism, peeping-tom-ism, is a sex crime in America - and rightfully so. What he did was equivalent (in principle) to kicking open a bathroom stall and videotaping someone on the toilet. The do-gooder here should justly be charged, and registered as a sex offender.

4. Intolerance is not bad, in fact its very good, its the process by which we define our entire culture. Examples of things we are rightly intolerant of in increasing order of severity: not washing your hands after the bathroom, not covering your mouth when you cough, interrupting others while they are speaking, infidelity, racism, holocaust-denial. Do you go out and burn an racist at the stake? Do you slap people when they don't wash their hands? Do you throw people out windows when they interrupt you? Do you kick open a door and videotape them? Do you beat them with a stick? No...you choose not to be their friend, or associate with them, or ignore their views - just like any other jackass on the street. That is how society and culture are defined. Imagine life without intolerance - where all societal action was open-game and nothing was (nonviolently) condemned. Life would be an unending episode of Jerry Springer.

5. Intolerance as expressed through violence, however, is not okay for the very simple reason that violence is not okay. It has nothing to do with the intolerance motivating it, because as we just realized, intolerance is a good thing. An act of violence always has a victim. Opening a truck door that is not yours is an act of violence, as much as kicking in someones front door. They are different in degree, not kind. Denying the holocaust is not kosher, and you should be very intolerant of such a person, much more so that someone who doesn't wash their hands after going to the bathroom for that matter. But what they are doing is different in degree, not kind. You have every right to nonviolently protest - to videotape them publicly denying the holocaust and put it on youtube, and forward it to their boss. However, you don't have any more right to burn a holocaust denier at the stake than you do to burn someone who doesn't wash their hands. A failure to understand this is a failure to differentiate between concepts of varying degree, and concepts of varying kind.

I don't know what you're saying enoch .. prostitutes are like the witches of Salem? Are you comparing innocent women burned at the stake to a fat slut who fucked some guy for 20 bucks in the back of a truck?


no..
the comparison is the fraudulent condemnation based on little or no FACTS.
which according to your argument it is the PROSTITUTES who are victims,(thats rich btw),and it is evil penis that is to blame here.
ok BT..lets try this analogy:
a man is outside my house selling crack.
he is there everyday when my kids are coming home from school.
do i:
a.chase down the buyers with video cameras?
or..
b.start videotaping the crack-dealer?

now if i use your logic,(which boggles me btw)the crack dealer is the victim,maybe a bad childhood,maybe he himself is addicted to crack,maybe he craves the company of strangers buying illicit drugs.
no matter....why?
because it is irrelevant to the argument.
nobody is questioning WHY these women are prostitutes,not even mr camera man,its the WHERE they are prostituting.
he has every right to be protective of his family.
i would be too.
my premise is based solely on his tactics.
they do nothing to diminish the prostitution problem,but do everything to make him seem an intolerable prick who is bent on belittling another man for participating in activities he finds repuslive.
seewhatimsayin?
that is all..
talk amongst yourselves.

I keep wanting to drop this argument but it is EXTRAORDINARILY unfair to ask this guy to go after the women who are selling sex. These women are part of the the victims as far as I'm concerned. Manipulated and addicted to drugs more often than not.

Look maybe this guy is handling things wrong but I say don't fault him for trying to clean up his neighborhood. Obviously the police don't give a shit and he is trying.

I don't know what you're saying enoch .. prostitutes are like the witches of Salem? Are you comparing innocent women burned at the stake to a fat slut who fucked some guy for 20 bucks in the back of a truck?