Ratboy

It first made its appearance right after the Civil War and was used consistently until the 1880s I believe. It did disappear for a while around the turn of the century, but has been used consistently since the 1930s.

I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see If I get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see Then whitey he won't bother me I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see Garrett Morris, SNL

"You know what dog food tastes like? It tastes just like it smells!" Chappelle's Show

Don't confuse the Libertarian party with a libertarian philosophy. I consider myself a libertarian because I believe an individual's freedoms and rights are one of the basic parts of the foundation of this country, and that as long as I am not infringing on someone else's rights in exercising my freedoms, the government should keep its nose out of it. That puts me at odds with both political parties for the most part. I also put myself as pretty moderate, considering I am more conservative than most liberals I know, and more liberal than most conservatives I know, but your mileage may vary. I don't know much about the Libertarian Party because I'm not a big fan of political parties in general, and third parties are pretty ineffectual in today's political climate, other than as spoliers.

The could do all kinds of things, but that doesn't make it right. Commercial property is still private property, and the rights of property owners should still apply. Yes, there are increased responsibilities when dealing with the public, but if the government is going to restrict something, they better have a damn good reason. I don't see protecting adults from themselves as a good reason. If someone doesn't like a place that allows smoking, then they are perfectly able and perfectly within their right to go somewhere else, and vice verse.

These two sum up my opinion. The government has no business telling a private enterprise whether it can allow a perfectly legal activity on its premises. If someone doesn't like it or feels harmed by the smoke, go to a place that has decided to not allow smoking.

FAQ for The Tard Blog

Maybe it was one of Bush's "faith-based initiatives", where religious organizations can get federal money to push their beliefs on others. As long as they are Christian.

Did you sign it "Lime Cat"?

HE'S RICK JAMES, BITCH!

My favorite church sign: "Trust in God, Not What You Think"

Case in point.

An interesting point was brought up earlier. Does anyone know if the ICRC has attempted to gain access to the captives taken by the insurgents? I can't imagine that they would be given access, or that their safety could be guaranteed enough to be able to check on them, but does anyone know if they've tried?

Actually, you are correct. I wouldn't know if you post inaccurate facts or not, because I quit listening to you when you started using insults instead of logic in your "arguments". Which was day one.

One would hope. I've seen no assertions by the accused abusers that they had already filtered out the innocent. I'd think that would be the first line of defense. But guilty or not, torture isn't allowed by the Geneva Convention, and isn't a particuarly reliable means of getting information from what I've read, not to mention being rather beneath the values we supposedly preach.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Martlet.

That is indeed the percentage I was referring to, and while it was tangential to my initial point, it has conveniently become a way to avoid it addressing it by some. I agree, the soldiers in the field are doing the best they can. It's the folks in the detainment centers assuming guilt and violating the Geneva Convention on that assmption -- and the folks that agree with that behavior -- that I have a problem with. It goes against one of the founding values of this country.

I said no such thing about the Red Cross not needing to provide support for their numbers. I said *I* do not need to supply support for their numbers. I'm not the Red Cross. But I decided to do the research anyway because I'm curious (just as you are) how they arrived at them. Here's what I found after a very brief search: Military intelligence officers told Red Cross monitors that 70 to 90 percent of captives in Iraq last year had been arrested by mistake, the report stated. Red Cross Report Describes Systemic Abuse in Iraq. So where's your supporting data that they are making this stuff up? Are you going to say Military Intelligence is full of shit now too?

It seems "dipshit" has now been changed to "not nice guy". I don't like the Martlet-style insult tactics any more than you do, but I thought countering tit for tat was making a point in this intance.

So then it should be no problem supplying your data to support your assertion. Unless you're pulling it out of your ass but you'd never do that. No-one knows! That is the point! If you want to go off on this 'supply your data" crap, tell me how the Red Cross used empirical analysis to comeup with their 90% figure. I didn't make the 90% assertion, I just referenced it. It's up to the Red Cross to back up their data, not me. You, however, are the one that said they are full of shit -- your assertion. I wonder how they came up with that number as well, but I don't have the data to say it's incorrect. If you do, let's see it. But that was just tangential to my point, which is that we are treating everyone we grab off the street as guilty and torturing at least some of them. Basically, the assumption of guilt because they live in Iraq. Some of you seem to be ok with that fact, by your responses. I'd hoped we were better than that, considering the values we supposedly preach, one of the foremost being innocent until proven guilty.

I see, "dipshit" is ok, but "asswipe" in return is not.

So then it should be no problem supplying your data to support your assertion. Unless you're pulling it out of your ass but you'd never do that.

So we can torture them until they are proven innocent? Nice logic, asswipe.

My question still hasn't been answered. Whether you like the Red Cross or not is irrelevent. I have seen no one refute their claims with actual data. So how exactly does torturing what are more than likely inncoent people not go against the Geneva Convention? Surely someone can do better than whining that they didn't wear uniforms to make it easy for us to tell them apart.