patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. It is not perjury to answer the question asked without volunteering more information

Just because you are found not guilty of something doesnt mean you didnt commit the crime.

FortWayne says

Prejudices are survival traits we learned through evolution of mankind.

LOL - I'm surprised FortWayne even acknowledges evolution.

Alas his other beliefs (e.g. ranting that his television has been taken over by black people, and now against marriage equality) reflect paranoia, irrational fear and loathing.

FortWayne, have you tried adjusting the brightness on your TV, or turning the thing off and reading a book? For you, I would suggest reading Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, written by John Boswell, who chaired the history department at Yale. Among other things, he notes that the rising Roman republic and early empire had same-sex marriage. History shows that Rome fell after becoming Christian, which resulted in same-sex marriage being prohibited.

FortWayne's paranoia and ignorance and proud prejudice reflect the people who have taken over the Republican party, and why they lost in 2012. Contrary to O'Reilly and Romnesia's remarks about 47% of people wanting stuff, Obama won by 40 points among Asians, Latinos, and people who don't go to church at least once a week. (Obama won by 50 points among gay voters, and more than 80 points among African American voters.) While Republicans campaigned on declaring America a Christian nation, the Senate got its first Buddhist and the House got its first Hindu, both Democrats. As long as FortWayne's ignorance and paranoia remain the voice of the Republican party, most American voters have no real choice, and there is no chance of repealing Obamacare for example.

FortWayne says

these people made their choice to be homosexual, it is the choice they made. No one else made that choice for them

So, by extension, you could choose to find the same sex attractive--just turn it on or off like a switch? Riiiiiight.

Philistine says

FortWayne says

these people made their choice to be homosexual, it is the choice they made. No one else made that choice for them

So, by extension, you could choose to find the same sex attractive--just turn it on or off like a switch?

The only logical explanation for FortWayne's comment is he finds both sexes equally (un)attractive, so he demands government must instruct him which one(s) to choose. That differs from Bop69, whose comments show a very strong preference that he cannot accept but has no choice about:

curious2 says

While Republicans campaigned on declaring America a Christian nation, the Senate got its first Buddhist and the House got its first Hindu, both Democrats. As long as FortWayne's ignorance and paranoia remain the voice of the Republican party,

Had Buddhist or Hindus been any better than Christians, surely we would have seen Democracy and Freedom rise in the Asia generations ago... well it didnt since they are Alien concepts in their Asian culture. Asians never could create what a small group of new settlers from Northern Europe actually did in North American. Be proud of it.

Today we are just watering down Democracy and Freedom...

thomaswong.1986 says

a small group of new settlers from Northern Europe actually did in North America....

create a republic with "no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor restricting the free exercise thereof...." Unfortunately in recent years the Republican party has attempted to hijack that republic in the name of one particular religion, which is the opposite of what the founders wrote. BTW, the founders wrote a government structure with three co-equal branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The role of the courts, since Marbury v Madison, is to enforce the constitutional guarantees that, since the 1860s, have included the equal protection of the laws even at the state level. Republicans have been crusading on a platform to return - not to the 19th century as some claim, nor even to the 18th, but to some time prior to the Enlightenment, either the Crusades or possibly the Bronze Age.

If you feel that "liberal" policy, or Obamacare (which isn't even liberal), has eroded freedom, blame FortWayne and Bop69. Here is why: imagine an area with only two gas stations, right next to each other, both charging approximately the same prices. Now imagine one of them doubles its prices. What do you expect the other station to do, increase or decrease prices? Almost certainly it will increase prices, perhaps slightly less than its neighbor. The result is that all customers of both stations become worse off. FortWayne and Bop69 have demanded the Republican party impose theocracy upon us all, and for most voters that price is too high. Democrats have responded by raising prices too, in the form of Obamacare, even though most voters never wanted that policy. To the extent that Obamacare reduces democracy and freedom, you can blame Bop69 and FortWayne.

curious2 says

" Unfortunately in recent years the Republican party has attempted to hijack that republic in the name of one particular religion, which is the opposite of what the founders wrote.

Our founders were well versed in the Western tradition, and Christianity is part of that which creates the backbone of our Democracy and Freedoms... not Eastern mysticism. And most certainly per many of our founders writings it was not to limit influence upon government policy. No Govt cannot influence Religion, but Religion can influence Govt. And plenty of our founders have written so.

As for your gas station example. The answer lays with one being the substitute for the other, so neither have pricing power to increase revenues. If A raises prices, than demand will shift to B. Revenues for A will drop while Revenues for B will increase. To say otherwise ignores all economic theories.

thomaswong.1986 says

To say otherwise ignores all economic theories.

You seem to have missed the point of the gas station example. The Republicans essentially raised their prices to an unacceptable level, which is why they lost. Imagining themselves to be 'the party of God' (a literal translation of Hezballah), they fooled themselves into believing they could crusade for whatever Bop69 and FortWayne wanted regardless of what most voters might want. In raising their prices that way, Republicans allowed Democrats to raise prices also, i.e. to impose an unpopular policy (Obamacare). Most voters chose the lesser of two evils, in order to reject the worse of two evils, and hence Republicans were rejected.

Incredibly, even after losing, Republicans seem unable to grasp that they did anything wrong. It isn't my job to save them, so if they want to keep losing with the same policies, so be it. Or, as they would say, Amen.

curious2 says

The Republicans essentially raised their prices to an unacceptable level, which is why they lost. Imagining themselves to be 'the party of God' (a literal translation of Hezballah), they believed they could crusade for whatever Bop69 and FortWayne wanted regardless of what most voters might want. I

Our philosophy has not changed for the past 200-300 years.. so the idea of the GOP is "the party of God" is wrong. They are the party of our western tradition... the fabric of what makes democracy and freedom work.

thomaswong.1986 says

Our philosophy has not changed for the past 200-300 years.. so the idea of the GOP is "the party of God" is wrong. They are the party of our western tradition..

Abortion was legal for most of American history, but Republicans in 2012 campaigned on amending the Constitution to ban it, claiming that rape and incest pregnancies are "part of God's plan." Of course, if Republican candidates actually had an omnipotent god on their side, they wouldn't have needed more than $1 billion in campaign spending - which turned out not even to be enough. Thomas, I'm not going to waste time trying to talk sense to Republicans, if you're so deluded just stay loyal to what you're doing: losing.

curious2 says

Abortion was legal for most of American history, but Republicans in 2012 campaigned on amending the Constitution to ban it, claiming that rape and incest pregnancies are "part of God's plan."

Republicans in general campaigned on this? It is in the GOP platform? A couple of Republicans said stupid things as you allude to above, but many Republicans condemned them for those comments and rejected them. Do you deny this? However, the Democrats did a great job selling it as if it were the entire party's platform, which you seem to continue to sell. Is the entire platform of the Democratic party such that it would be more desirable and effective for women to urinate on potential rapists because they are too emotional (unstable) to carry guns? Can't talk sense to those Democrats, when they all believe that, right? Meanwhile, President Obama, Secretary Clinton, etc., invoke "God" fairly frequently relative to today's times.

FortWayne says

Well Dan, my judgement or prejudging as you call comes from me knowing that we all make our choices in life. If these people made their choice to be homosexual, it is the choice they made. No one else made that choice for them.

I'll believe that homosexuality is a choice when you prove it by making that choice. Show me that you can choose to enjoy being fucked in the ass by another guy while blowing a third, and I will gladly agree with you that homosexuality is a choice.

Since I cannot imagine choosing to enjoy gay sex, unless I see you do it, I don't believe it's a choice.

FortWayne says

And 52% of voters agreed on prop 8. So I'm not in the minority.

If 52% of the voters agreed that blacks should be slaved, would that be a good case for slavery? Rights trump majority rule.

FortWayne says

However, knowing how we humans tend to be I feel this is a slippery slope to anarchy. Today we allow homosexuality, tomorrow it will be polygamy or something worse. It's why I don't want that line moving, because that line will move more toward lawlessness and victimization. It's how Rome fell.

1. Homosexuality is not a slippery slope -- must r-e-s-i-s-t m-a-k-i-n-g j-o-k-e soooo hard-not-to...

2. Polygamy should be legal. Just because the one particular Bronze Age religion you like promoted monogamy, doesn't mean that our secular state should follow that particular religion's culture. There are plenty of religions including Islam, the fast growing religion in the world and in the U.S., that promote polygamous marriages. If you don't want Islamic cultures determining U.S. laws, then don't promote having Christian cultures determining U.S. laws.

3. Polygamy outside of marriage is already legal and damn common. Less than 1% of women are virgins when they get married. In fact, few people over 22 are virgins. You're already at the bottom of that slippery slope. Hell, 33% of Newt Gingrich's marriages are "open".

4. Polygamy has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. In fact, recognizing same-sex marriage encourages monogamy. If you are really against polygamy, you should want gay men, the most promiscuous group, to settle down into monogamous relationships.

5. The argument that legally recognized same-sex marriages will be a slippery-slope to polygamy and bestiality is the same dumb argument that interracial marriages will be a slippery-slope to polygamy and bestiality. That argument was wrong in the 1960s and its wrong today for the exact same reasons.

6. There is nothing lawless about polygamous societies. If anything, societies with polygamous marriages are more laden down with laws and restrictions. Just look at the countries and societies where polygamous marriages existed throughout history. They are the least free and most lawful, i.e. full of laws, societies in the world. In such societies the laws regulates far more behaviors than the law does in our society.

7. Rome did not fall because of polygamous marriages or its decadence. Rome fell because of its warfare industry. Every Roman empire, except Hadrian, expanded the Roman empire using military force. Rome fell because it expanded too far, was too militaristic, and outsourced its military to mercenaries. Hmmmm, what does that remind you of? Oh yes, the U.S. today. Yes, the U.S. is much like Rome before the fall, but it's because of Blackwater, not Neil Patrick Harrison.

If the U.S. falls, it won't be because of gay men getting married and adopting children. It will be because our dickless mercenaries and chicken-hawk presidents pissed off the entire rest of the world, drained our treasury, and created the breading ground for insurrection and terrorism. Don't blame the gays for that.

I hope now that I've gone through every concern of yours, you'll realize how silly it is to be afraid of gay marriage like it's going to incur the wrath of the gods and frogs will rain down from the sky. That simply isn't reality.

Philistine says

FortWayne says

these people made their choice to be homosexual, it is the choice they made. No one else made that choice for them

So, by extension, you could choose to find the same sex attractive--just turn it on or off like a switch? Riiiiiight.

That's how life works yes, we make choices. Just because you want to do something it doesn't mean you were born that way, you still have to make a choice to do it. And like everything in life some bears consequences, some does not.

Just because someone finds it attractive to have sex with something or someone inappropriate doesn't make it right for marriage. 52% of CA voters agree with that.

Dan8267 says

2. Polygamy should be legal. Just because the one particular Bronze Age religion you like promoted monogamy, doesn't mean that our secular state should follow that particular religion's culture. There are plenty of religions including Islam, the fast growing religion in the world and in the U.S., that promote polygamous marriages. If you don't want Islamic cultures determining U.S. laws, then don't promote having Christian cultures determining U.S. laws.

I don't think polygamy is right, I see it as victimization. But the way we are going we might get it eventually and completely erode our moral values.

Dan8267 says

1. Homosexuality is not a slippery slope -- must r-e-s-i-s-t m-a-k-i-n-g j-o-k-e soooo hard-not-to...

Thank you for resisting that Dan.

Dan8267 says

3. Polygamy outside of marriage is already legal and damn common. Less than 1% of women are virgins when they get married. In fact, few people over 22 are virgins. You're already at the bottom of that slippery slope. Hell, 33% of Newt Gingrich's marriages are "open".

That was the result of the sexual revolution, and it has hurt the society. We have less marriages, more children growing up without both parents. And it's just how that slippery slope started, a lot of social ills came about from it.

Men used to have to marry women if they wanted regular access to them, today it's not the same.

Today supreme court is deciding weather homosexual marriages are right. And I just feel like we as a nation slipping into anarchy, losing our moral core. Next one will be polygamy, which I hear is legal in Utah already.

Paralithodes says

Republicans in general campaigned on this? It is in the GOP platform?

Yes, they did, and yes it is in the platform. Akin & Mourdock merely added their own colorful sophistry to explain the official Republican position, the same position that Romnesia & Ryan campaigned on.

Romnesia & Ryan avoided saying the things Akin & Mourdock said, in the same way that a family might avoid mentioning the demented aunt who lives upstairs, but everybody (except possibly you) knew it was there. The evening news, brought to you primarily by PhRMA, made sure everybody heard Akin & Mourdock explaining it. That was the community organizing genius of bribing PhRMA with hundreds of billions of Obamacare dollars: if you buy PhRMA, you buy the evening news, and you get the voters to pay for it. As Ross Perot said decades ago, that's how politicians use your money to buy your votes. Using your money to buy your vote isn't unique to either side, but the odious Republican platform is specific to the Republicans.

And this is why I tried to explain the gas station analogy above, i.e. in a two station town, if one doubles its prices, the other can get away with increasing prices too. The Republican Party has gone completely bonkers, and that has allowed the Democratic Party to get away with undemocratic policies that they would never have done otherwise. The only solution I can see - and it's a faint hope - is for Republicans to return to their senses and offer a platform that most voters might possibly accept. That would require the Democrats to compete. Otherwise we have the Republican 'party of God' (Hezzballah, or Jonestown) vs Democrats selling the country to the highest bidders. Unfortunately FortWayne and Bop69 can't admit they're wrong, and they can't stop demanding their perverse form of government dependence, i.e. they are dependent upon government to tell them whom they should have sex with and get married to. Romnesia complained about his 47% dependent on government, but the worst wards of the state are Bop69 and FortWayne. And the Republican party has become so infested with Larry Craig Brokeback Mountain closet cases and their scared wives, that the party can't change course either, let alone apologize for its manifestly wrong platform.

FortWayne says

Yes I think it is about equality under law, but not equality in every single way. You know the sign in Disneyland "You have to be this tall to go on this ride." I think that idea applies to every aspect in life.

That's a contradiction. Equality under law means equal under law in every way. If there are ways in which two persons are not equal, then the two persons aren't equal by definition.

Equality under law doesn't mean equally like or accepted socially or equally intelligent or good looking. Equality under law means that we all have the same rights under law, none of us have privileges, and that we are all subject to the same laws and the same consequences for breaking those laws, and that the laws themselves do no discriminate.

curious2 says

Yes, they did, and yes it is in the platform.

Fair enough... While I'll I don't support that particular platform piece, I do support the technical approach in general, because the bar to their success is so extraordinarily high on such a contentious issue. Better one side seek some type of major social change through a process that essentially requires a super-majority of the population (via the states) to succeed, then to rely on a small number of judges to re-define things...

I have not looked back at old Republican platforms, but this might not have even been an issue anyone felt necessary to put into a national platform if RvW did not re-define what was previously a state issue into a new national right.

zzyzzx says

Umm, it's liberals that support affirmative action. I wouldn't call that "equality".

1. Liberals don't support affirmative action. That's leftists. I'm the biggest liberal on this site and I don't support AA.

2. Yes, AA is a violation of the 14th Amendment as I have mentioned before -- and was accused of racism by a racist leftist for saying that.

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

We should never, ever tolerate letting anyone use the law to force religion and culture onto the entire nation.

I think of the socialism being forced onto us by liberals to be a form of culture.

1. Socializing the cost of services is not a culture but an economic policy.

2. The largest socialistic program in our country by far is the military.

3. Liberalism is a social philosophy, not an economic one.

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. It is not perjury to answer the question asked without volunteering more information

Just because you are found not guilty of something doesnt mean you didnt commit the crime.

And just because a person is found guilty doesn't mean that person did commit the crime, either. There are plenty of people wrongfully convicted, even given the death penalty, who are innocent.

Nonetheless, Bill Clinton did not commit the crime of perjury as I have clearly explained many times already. The Republicans trying to entrap the president and obstruct justice didn't have the balls to ask the question they should have. Clinton correctly and honestly answered the question asked. He was under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to volunteer information that was completely irrelevant to the case just to give Republicans a political fodder in the form of a sex scandal.

If anything, those Republicans should have been held in contempt of court for trying to use the court system to obstruct justice and undermine essential day-to-day affairs of the government including national defense.

The real reason for rampant anti gay homophobia, is like many other societal problems, sexual repression. These closet fags that hate queers just aren't having enough gay sex

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/homophobia-is-apparently-associated-with-homosexual-arousal/

Dan8267 says

1. Liberals don't support affirmative action. That's leftists. I'm the biggest liberal on this site and I don't support AA.

2. Yes, AA is a violation of the 14th Amendment as I have mentioned before -- and was accused of racism by a racist leftist for saying that.

There is a big misunderstanding among many about what AA is supposed to be, and what it often turns out to be. At it roots, AA is something that few would object to: taking action such as outreach, recruiting in lesser served areas, etc., in order to expand (and in some cases help develop) the pool of QUALIFIED applicants to include those who might not have been included before. Quotas and the like, except in very specifically targeted cases designed to correct a specific wrong or injustice, was not supposed to be at its core. But with many of the various formulas (e.g., 4/5ths rule), statistical analyses, etc., it has essentially turned into a quota-type system that infringes on others rights.

Dan, in a previous thread K-R-I-S jumped on you for referring to "minorities," and claimed that you were wrong because it was targeted only for blacks due to slavery. You were right, he was wrong, as evidenced by the words in the original Executive Orders creating AA to begin with. I backed you up in general in that thread, but K-R-I-S, the intellectual coward, deleted the posts.

FortWayne says

I don't think polygamy is right, I see it as victimization.

Whether or not you see polygamy as victimization doesn't mean jack diddly shit unless you are husband number 3 of a woman. What matters is whether or not wife 2 and 3 of a man see it as victimization, which clearly isn't so. If a woman did not prefer to be wife 2 or 3 of a rich man instead of wife 1 of 1 of a middle class man, she would not make that choice.

Polygamy is simply the adoption of capitalism in the marriage market. Monogamy is the elimination of the free market.

Now I'm not personally for polygamous marriages as it certainly is not in my own personal interest, but that doesn't mean there is any legal justification for making such marriages illegal when monogamous marriages are legal.

FortWayne says

That was the result of the sexual revolution, and it has hurt the society. We have less marriages, more children growing up without both parents. And it's just how that slippery slope started, a lot of social ills came about from it.

I would say it's more a result of the pill, but that's another matter.

Regardless of whether or not society is better because of the changes in the mating market, the fact remains that government should not have any say whatsoever in the matting market. It's not illegal for people to have premarital sex and the government should not have the power to make it illegal. Are you for letting the government outlaw premarital sex?

It is clearly observable that countries in which the government regulates the sex lives of their populations are not countries in which you or I would want to live. Think Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Social problems only have social solutions. They do not have governmental solutions. Just take a look at the drug war: utter failure. Isn't it the GOP that always complains about the nanny state trying to fix problems that should be left to the individual to solve for himself? How isn't sexual relations a perfect example of a problem set that only a nanny state would tackle?

FortWayne says

And I just feel like we as a nation slipping into anarchy, losing our moral core. Next one will be polygamy, which I hear is legal in Utah already.

Our nation lost its moral core the day we said torturing people is OK. I'd much rather live in an America with rampant polygamy than one in which torture is considered acceptable.

I simply cannot understand why consensual sex flares up your morality alert system, but torture, false imprisonment, and drone assassination does not.

OMG! We're all heading to Sodom and Gomorrah!

Not even registering on my moral compass

Nope, still not.

I think your moral imperatives need sorting.

FortWayne says

Next one will be polygamy, which I hear is legal in Utah already.

Polygamy was the norm in Mormon societies until the American Mormons gave it up to get protection from the U.S. military.

Utah was a state created for Mormons. The Mormons wanted a much larger land mass for a state called Deseret, but the Mormons were hated by Congress and so Congress chipped away the land area until they establish Utah as the Mormon state.

There is an excellent series from 2010 on the History Channel called "How the States Got Their Shapes" that goes into the cultural and economic reasons why the states are shaped the way they are.

And by torture, you mean the war being waged against people that smoke pot. I couldn't imagine a worse, anti-freedom, vision of a nation state then this current open air prison police state.

errc says

And by torture, you mean the war being waged against people that smoke pot.

No, I mean torture.

Dan8267 says

And just because a person is found guilty doesn't mean that person did commit the crime, either.

So do you honestly think that he didnt engage in any sexual activity????

Dan8267 says

No not a USA drone attack...your posting lies... that was from Sabra and Shatila some 30 years ago.
once again your anti- USA rant are useless. Perhaps the Patriot Act was a good idea after all. You sure are making a good case for it.

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was the slaughter of between 762 and 3,500 civilians, mostly Palestinian and Lebanese Shia, by a Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon from approximately 6:00 pm 16 September to 8:00 am 18 September 1982.[3]

The massacre was presented as retaliation for the assassination of newly elected Lebanese president Bachir Gemayel, the leader of the Lebanese Kataeb Party. It was wrongly assumed that Palestinian militants had carried out the assassination, which is now generally attributed to native, pro-Syrian militants.

chanakya4773 says

than people fighting against torture/death ?

because we dont have torture to speak of.. you want torture..

go talk to the KGB / Stazzi / North Koreans.. they will talk to you about torture.

Of course the terrorists who have sent videos to the world showing how they decapitate their victims, from ear to ear, is certainly torture many on the left dont talk about.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/torture-al-qaeda-style

MAY 24--In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal."

Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here.

The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an "al-Qaeda torture chamber." It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, the victim had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors.

In a raid earlier this week, Coalition Forces freed five Iraqis who were found in a padlocked room in Karmah. The group, which included a boy, were reportedly beaten with chains, cables, and hoses. Photos showing injuries sustained by those captives can be found here. (12 pages)
Torture, Al-Qaeda Style

Meccos says

So do you honestly think that he didnt engage in any sexual activity????

As I've said many times, Bill Clinton had plenty of sex with plenty of women. That's not illegal and that's quite frankly none of your business. What Clinton did not do was commit perjury. The entire impeachment was a political move by Republicans and had nothing to do with justice. The Republicans were abusing our court systems for political gain, plain and simple.

chanakya4773 says

The Question should be : Why are there more people fighting for equal marriage rights to gay couples than people fighting against torture/death ?

Every citizen should be fighting for both. Yes, the human rights violations are far, far worse, but the civil rights violations are hardly tolerable as well.

thomaswong.1986 says

No not a USA drone attack...your posting lies... that was from Sabra and Shatila some 30 years ago.

A lie is an intentional deception. You are full of shit when you claim that I am lying. I simply don't believe in that strategy as things are clearly verifiable in the Internet age. So, like always, you are talking bullshit.

As for your claim that the particular photograph is not the result of a drone strike, I cannot confirm or deny that claim based on the reverse image search I just did.

However, I got the image from doing a Google Image search on children killed in drone strikes. It was the very first image and the title of the image is "children-killed-drone-strike.jpg". Perhaps the photo name and Google search turned up misinformation, but to claim that I lie is utter bullshit and speaks more of the accuser than it does of me. Clearly, I've had reasonable reason to believe the photo to be of drone strike victims. The page on which the photo appears is titled Children killed by drone strike.

But even if that photo was mislabeled by the site above, and even if that site is completely wrong, for you to argue that children have not been killed by U.S. drone strikes is a bold face lie.

A List Of Children Killed By Drone Strikes In Pakistan and Yemen

Some Afghan kids aren’t bystanders

A recent Marine Times article ran the alarming headline “Some Afghan kids aren’t bystanders” on December 3, reporting on the death of three children in Afghanistan. They were apparently targeted by a U.S. military drone because they appeared to be digging a hole in a road. Three individuals hit were 12, 10 and 8.

U.S. Drone Strikes Have Killed 176 Children in Pakistan Alone

U.S. drones are killing children and terrorizing families abroad. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that 176 children have been murdered in Pakistan alone. And along with drone attacks, an average of 4.8 children are killed per day in Afghanistan where earlier this year, a U.S. sergeant is reported to have killed 9 children.

You want to challenge me on whether or not shitloads of children as young as one-year-old have been killed by U.S. drones? Go ahead. I've got mounds of evidence.

thomaswong.1986 says

go talk to the KGB / Stazzi / North Koreans.. they will talk to you about torture.

Of course the terrorists who have sent videos to the world showing how they decapitate their victims, from ear to ear, is certainly torture many on the left dont talk about.

Ah, the old excuse, "other people do bad things, therefore we should be allowed to do bad things too without being criticized or held accountable".

Yes, I know scumbags in other countries torture. As an American citizen, there's nothing I can do to hold those politicians accountable. However, I sure as hell can hold the politicians in my country accountable for the torture they support by voting their asses out of office. And that is a moral imperative.

By the way, it's pretty hard to fix problems in other countries when those same problems are running rampant in your own. Who was it that said

How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I'm sure I read that in a book somewhere. Can anyone recall the name of that book? I think it had a black cover.

Dan8267 says

I've got mounds of evidence.

Typical mound of shit more like it.

Dan8267 says

As for your claim that the particular photograph is not the result of a drone strike, I cannot confirm or deny that claim based on the reverse image search I just did.

another bullshit lie. You should check your sources before posting... there is plenty of staged photos coming from Arabs of so called atrocities.. They will shot their own and say we did it.

Dan8267 says

You want to challenge me on whether or not shitloads of children as young as one-year-old have been killed by U.S. drones? Go ahead. I've got mounds of evidence.

How many children died in 9/11 ? Any concern over them... any concern how many
more IN THIS COUNTRY will get killed while douch bags like you look the other way...

I guess DEAD AMERICANS is OK in your Book...

Dan8267 says

As I've said many times, Bill Clinton had plenty of sex with plenty of women. That's not illegal and that's quite frankly none of your business. What Clinton did not do was commit perjury. The entire impeachment was a political move by Republicans and had nothing to do with justice.

in the company's offices
during company hours
with the companys staff

did I miss something or had this been in private industry, Billy Bob would had been packing his stuff and walked out of the building with a security guard...

"HP CEO Mark Hurd Resigns After Sexual-Harassment Probe"

yes ...if it applies to every worker... sure applies to Billy Bob.

http://www.UEmjwR0Rs20

since when is he above the law ?

and yes, it is my business ! I am fucking paying for it! I am the tax payer !

Public trust ... not his strong side.

... yes ... he lied when he actually came out and admitted he did have sex with her.