Big Ol' Smitty

Somebody close this thread. In the name of all things holy, I beg.

You say tomato. I say el-sucko.

Oh, I will be. And, no, you REALLY weren't. -=Mike Watch your ass on the way out and all. Jeez, quit saying you're gonna leave and leave for damn's sake. You tease, you.

I froze when I saw what Slapnuts! posted. I will continue to pray for the safety of this thread. And may God continue to bless pointless unfunny picture posts.

Sorry, this isn't really a current event. But this seemed like the best folder to post it in. This is some weird shite. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1 The bastards thought about killing John Glen!

Actually there are 7 of them, cap'n. And they all agreed on these things. And the Joint Chiefs consists of the representatives of every branch of the military. They're not exactly chopped liver. And I assumed it was similar to the status of having a Joint Chiefs (Powell and that Polish guy under Clinton). I was mistaken. Their decision was still idiotic. -=Mike Powell and Shakiljkjivahsi were chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--a body which consists of the chairman, the vice chairman, the chief of staff of the army, the chief of naval operations, the chief of staff of the air force, and the commandant of the Marine Corps. That means that all of these individuals agreed to kill American civilians and such to spark a war with Cuba. And, yes, I agree that it was a dumb decision. Insightful.

Actually there are 7 of them, cap'n. And they all agreed on these things. And the Joint Chiefs consists of the representatives of every branch of the military. They're not exactly chopped liver.

Glad to see this thread is humming along nicely. Carry on with the substantive discussion of who's dumb. Doesn't make it a story. A plan that was shot down by the civilian leadership before it was considered is only news to people who hate America. -=Mike That's me!

Glad to see this thread is humming along nicely. Carry on with the substantive discussion of who's dumb.

sensationalist (n)-someone who uses exaggerated or lurid material in order to gain public attention [syn: ballyhoo artist]

It's your lucky day! Here's your chance! Go crazy, there, bucko. And there's communists and neo-nazis in the US. You can go kill some of them too, while you're at it, tough guy.

At least both sides are agreeing on one thing... "At least 12,000 American troops and probably more should leave at once, to send a stronger signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation." (Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), January 27, 2005). "America's willful defeatists — led by Senator Ted Kennedy, who chose to declare our cause all but lost just days before this historic vote — look particularly puny in light of the millions who turned out to vote because they believe in the new Iraq." (National Review Online, January 31, 2005.) "WASHINGTON (AP) -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says that with the election in Iraq over he believes 15,000 U.S. troops can be withdrawn, reducing the American military force to 135,000." (Associated Press, February 4, 2005).

Okay, okay. It was widely reported.

I'm pretty sure he did say it. It was reported in the NY Daily News.

cv x

Speaking of gay-hating nutcases... I work at a bookstore. The other day I was working in the children's department and these two older ladies came in to find a book. They didn't know the title or the author so I spent like 20 minutes searching around and looking up stuff on the internet. Finally, I found the one they were looking for, King & King. This children's book is about a prince who marries another prince. So, after I spent all that time searching (while a long line of customers was building up) I finally found the book for them. It turns out the only reason they wanted to find it was so they could tell me how disgusting it was and berate me because our store carries it. Fuck bigoted old bitches.

See 3rd item down.

Happy birthday. Hope nobody dismembers and pisses on your corpse.

Man the mods have a right-wing conspiracy to keep him from fulfilling the terms of the bet.

We bet on whether US or Canada had a higher rate of violent crime. I won and I was supposed to be able to change his stuff.

This is kind of off topic, but if one supports prosecution for genocide, then, technically, shoudn't one support prosecution for hate crimes? [from UN Convention on Genocide] Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. This wording seems pretty similar to hate crimes legislation to me; that is, puninishing for "intent", which many people on this board railed against in a prior discussion of hate crimes.

Okay. I didn't know that.

I think you're wrong. U.N. Clears Sudan of Genocide in Darfur NICK WADHAMS Associated Press UNITED NATIONS - A U.N. panel concluded that the Sudanese government and militias carried out mass killing and probably war crimes in the Darfur region, but stopped short of agreeing with a U.S. charge of genocide. The commission urged that that suspects be tried before the International Criminal Court, accusing the government and militias - as well as rebels - of widespread abuses including torture, rape, killings of civilians and pillaging. "The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the government authorities ... should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in the region," the report said. The United States has accused Sudan's government of directing militia who attack civilians in what Washington has called a genocidal campaign in the western region. The United Nations has called Darfur the world's worst humanitarian crisis, saying the conflict between the government, rebels, and the government-backed Janjaweed militia has claimed 70,000 lives since March - mostly from disease and hunger. It now affects 2 million people, up from 1.8 million in September. Sudan received an early copy of the report and said it refuted the U.S. contention of genocide. "We have a copy of that report and they didn't say that there is a genocide," Sudan Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said on the sidelines of an African Union summit in the Nigerian capital, Abuja. Also Monday, Sudan's government and Darfur rebels said they will reopen long-stalled peace talks in Nigeria in February. Three previous peace conferences and a cease-fire agreement have failed to calm the violence. The report on Darfur detailed a host of violations, including the government's failure to protect civilians from rebel attack, use of disproportionate force and attacks meant to force people to flee their homes. It blamed the government for joining in the attacks and for complicity with the Janjaweed militia, and also accused rebels of massive violence. "There was no military necessity for the destruction and devastation caused. The targets of destruction during the attacks under discussion were exclusively civilian objects," the panel said. The panel said the government had not pursued a policy of genocide because there appeared to be no "genocidal intent" among government leaders - a push to exterminate an entire group for ethnic, religious or other reasons. However, the panel did not rule out that a court could eventually find there may have been genocidal acts in Darfur and some individuals may be found guilty of genocidal intent. "Some of these violations are very likely to amount to war crimes, and given the systematic and widespread pattern of many of the violations, they would also amount to crimes against humanity," the report said. It recommended that the U.N. Security Council immediately refer the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal. Stressing the need for quick action, it said "serious violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law by all parties are continuing." The recommendation to put the case before the International Criminal Court could lead to a showdown within the Security Council because President Bush's administration strongly opposes the court and could use its veto to block a referral. While Washington has demanded quick action, it has lobbied council members for a new tribunal to prosecute alleged crimes from Darfur which would operate in conjunction with the African Union. "The important issue for us is accountability for the perpetrators of these acts," said U.S. deputy ambassador Anne W. Patterson. "And there are various options on the table, probably some in addition to those contained in the ... report and we'll be looking at that closely." The Darfur conflict began when the rebels took up arms against what they saw as years of state neglect and discrimination against Sudanese of African origin. The government is accused of responding with a counterinsurgency campaign in which an Arab militia, known as the Janjaweed, committed wide-scale abuses against the African population. Salacious Crumb, this article leads me to believe that it's just a matter of semantics.

MVP. Bitches.