Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Occasionally one may be pleasantly surprised by the pop-star type exhibiting heretofore unexpected intelligence.

And, when they're completely humorless it can be pretty funny, too (see: Heidi Klum).

And the Spice Girls.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess that depends on where you think the rights came from. If you think that it's self-evident that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among them Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, you may also think that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But even if the Governments' powers derive from the consent of the governed, those unalienable Rights are endowed nonetheless by the Creator.

I believe someone is mocking me. However, I know I am a naive irrational moron, but I believe in the above statement. However, most of these occupants at Gitmo have been trampling on other peoples rights (most particularly their right to life) and thus they have sacrificed their own rights. However, contrary to popular belief, I am not a big fan of torturing people (unless of course it is to promote free markets). So unless these people have one hell of a justification for treating the prisoners the way the FBI agent reported they did, they should be locked up also. Anyone that tortures people just for Kicks and Giggles, even if the victimes are terrorists, I don't want them walking the streets anywhere in the world even if they watch baseball, are apple pie and cornfed and are from America's heartland. I am also concerned about innocent people being held at Gitmo (people evening tribal scores etc) and don't think it is too much to ask for them to tell us what measures they have taken not to detain the innocent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe someone is mocking me.

No, I was responding to something Burger said.

However, I know I am a naive irrational moron, but I believe in the above statement. However, most of these occupants at Gitmo have been trampling on other peoples rights (most particularly their right to life) and thus they have sacrificed their own rights.

Think about the word "inalienable."

However, contrary to popular belief, I am not a big fan of torturing people (unless of course it is to promote free markets).

I thought you tended toward the anti-torture faction on this board.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Ex-Tyco execs Kozloski and Schwartz found guilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/17/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Here's hoping they rot in jail for a long, long time. And that they soon are joined by their Enron counterparts.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess that depends on where you think the rights came from. If you think that it's self-evident that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among them Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, you may also think that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But even if the Governments' powers derive from the consent of the governed, those unalienable Rights are endowed nonetheless by the Creator.

You're mocking spanky, right?

We've had this debate before, so let's move past that.

I said somewhat undermined for a reason, which is that it's pretty cheeky for the tortured to be complaining about rights they themselves would likely not honor. There are plenty of reasons to honor those rights, inalienable or not, such as being a model of democracy. But that doesn't seem to be the main argument being made (or maybe it is, but it's not the only one).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Ex-Tyco execs Kozloski and Schwartz found guilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/17/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Here's hoping they rot in jail for a long, long time. And that they soon are joined by their Enron counterparts.

Can we set up that statue to piss champagne on them and their bibles?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I said somewhat undermined for a reason, which is that it's pretty cheeky for the tortured to be complaining about rights they themselves would likely not honor.

Who cares what they're arguing?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Think about the word "inalienable."

I think you are implying that because they are inalienable they cannot be taken away. But however, I don't believe that is correct.

Black's law Dictionary: "the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights."

Although you cannot sell or transfer your rights the government can take them away under certain circumstances (of course under the due process of law). Or did you think that Thomas Jefferson was against the death penalty and incarcerating criminals?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought you tended toward the anti-torture faction on this board.

It was a pathetic attempt at a joke.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who cares what they're arguing?

jus tertii?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
In my humble opinion, John Stewart is the best interviewer on TV today. He even beats Letterman. He is so quick that sometimes I wonder if the entire interview is not scripted. And for the record, it is a lot easier to pick up on irony when you can see the speakers face and hear their voice patterns. In addition, on these boards, I think a lot of people make stupid comments and when they are called on it, and they realize how stupid the commnts actually are, they then try and claim irony.

Oh god. He's catching on. A few more days and he's not going to be able to touch unicorns anymore.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Gatti grew up in the South. That's what he means by mainstream.


You can take the boy out of Bumfuck, but .....

Boy, just listen to this ol' scraggly-ass talkin' to us.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think you are implying that because they are inalienable they cannot be taken away. But however, I don't believe that is correct.

Black's law Dictionary: "the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights."

Although you cannot sell or transfer your rights the government can take them away under certain circumstances (of course under the due process of law). Or did you think that Thomas Jefferson was against the death penalty and incarcerating criminals?

I think you are confusing the extent of the right with whether it can be taking away. E.g., a libel action is not an infringement on your right to free speech because that right does not let you say just anything.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you are confusing the extent of the right with whether it can be taking away. E.g., a libel action is not an infringement on your right to free speech because that right does not let you say just anything.

I don't think so. I would say putting somebody to death is definitely an infringement on their right to life. Being incarcerated is an infringement on all sorts of rights.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think so. I would say putting somebody to death is definitely an infringement on their right to life. Being incarcerated is an infringement on all sorts of rights.

Much as the right to free speech does not let you say just anything, no one has ever thought that a "right to life" is violated if, e.g., someone kills you in self-defense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Looks like the Democrats have found some creative ways to get people to tune into the hearing on the Downing Street Memos: