Daily Archives: April 24, 2009

Should President Obama be prosecuted for “war crimes”?

Ted Olsen raises a good point: “If it’s prosecutable because black_bananaswe waterboarded somebody or deprived him of sleep, what about sending a drone to blow him up without a trial or a hearing?” Olson asked. “What if the person we blew up was carrying a three-year old child? We know things like that have happened. We know innocent people have been killed. We know this administration has done it. Are they going to be prosecuted for that?”

Oh, no! We selectively enforce the laws here in the U.S.A., depending upon who is currently in power. See “Definition of Banana Republic.”

A prominent Republican politician salutes a famous racist and eugenicist (a/k/a “Kill the Darky Babies”)

“I admire Adolf Hitler enormously. I admire his courage and

Darky must die

Darky must die

 tenacity.”  OMG! What firestorm would be lit amongst the Main Stream Media?!! No, wait, this was Hitlery Clinton, and she was talking about Margaret Sanger, known racist and eugenicist. Could it be that liberals do not like darkies? Could it be that “and other minorities” must be kept from propogating their races, no matter what? Call it “freedom of choice”, but get those Planned Parenthood Clinics close to the ghettos. He he. White people don’t need abortions. Get the clinics in where the minorities live, baby. It’s the liberal way.

Continue reading

Liberals: why we should not use torture

First, the very use of the word “torture” begs the question. We put a water2l1104_468x343creepy crawly in with a captive who doesn’t like bugs (I don’t blame him). Liberals call that “torture.”  But I have tried to categorize the liberal arguments against “waterboarding” and other “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

1. Torture does not work. (Except when it does work)

  1. And even if it appears to “work”, there is no way of knowing whether the individual may have given up the information any way if not “tortured”…
  2. And even if it appears to “work” and terrorist plots are broken up before they are accomplished, there is no way of knowing if the plots would have been actually attempted, or whether they would have been detected by some other means and prevented. Gee, isn’t this fun–you can never prove it unless it happens…

2. They refuse to admit the possibility of distinguishing between enhanced interrogation and real torture: Putting captives who hate bugs in a confined space with a caterpillar is “torture”; Waterboarding” is torture; Waterboarding is the same as tearing fingernails off and putting somebody on the rack.  I thought liberals were the ones that were nuanced and did not look at things in black and white but shades of gray?


3. It is possible to torture innocent person. Yes, just as it is possible that innocent persons are killed in combat. The terrorists created that problem by dressing as civilians.


4. Torture is “immoral”—like liberals have morals? 

    1. Except torture might “possibly be moral” in a ticking time bomb scenario
    2. But a ticking time bomb scenario will never happen. See how easy it is to be a liberal. Just define the problem away. “It will never happen.” Don’t prove it, just say so and that ends it.

                                                               i.      OK, maybe enhanced interrogation did uncover the Los Angeles plot but it was not a real ticking time bomb scenario. The plot was discovered too far in advance, so the bomb wasn’t ticking yet.

                                                             ii.      The terrorist might never have carried out the plot, or it might have been stopped by other means, the terrorists might have tried and failed, etc.—so in other words, we never know for sure if  a plot would have been carried out unless it is carried out and it is too late to stop it,  just as with 1a and 1b above, liberals refuse to accept that it is justifiable, period, because if it was justifiable, then we are arguing about whether it was justifiable in the aftermath of 9/11 and liberals do not want to muddy the water–they want Bush and Cheney’s hides. 

5. Enhanced interrogation “leads America down a fatal slippery slope” Like liberals ever cared about a slippery slope argument in other issues, such as immorality and progressive taxes and socialism. 


6.  America “forfeits any claim to the moral high ground”—we become no better than our enemy I love this one. Liberals cannot see the difference between America’s waterboarding a terrorist to stop future terrorism and the terrorists beheading captives, well, just for the fun of it, because they are fucking animals.


7. Enhanced interrogation builds hatred in our enemies. Oh, that is another good one! As if they do not hate us already. I say it is the liberals calling everything we do “torture” that “builds hatred.” If you say we torture the same as the Iraqis under Saddam did, and masses of people never learn the details, it does make us the same as them. Waterboarding would be a walk in the park compared to what his sadists did to his captives.


8. And it turns our allies against usBare unsubstantiated allegation without any proof. And see 7–perhaps the problem is they are only hearing torture and not knowing liberals call “torture” putting a caterpiller in with an inmate.


9. Appeal to authority

    1. John McCain opposes torture
    2. Shepherd Smith “America doesn’t fucking torture”
    3.  Torture is condemned by every “civilized society” So is the death penalty, and the right to keep and bear arms, and free speech.


10.  Torture is illegal (under international law and American law). But this begs the question–is “waterboarding”, as practiced by the USA, “torture?”  Is putting a caterpillar in a cell with a scaredy cat “torture”? And is it a good thing to have such strict laws during times of war? Keep in mind, ONLY THREE PEOPLE were “waterboarded” following 9/11.  And if it was so obviously “torture”, when Democrat leaders were briefed on the methods used why did they not complain?  


And do not give me this sanctimonious attitude of the Europeans about “torture” violating the Geneva Convention. Following WWII the French, in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, used German POWs to clear minefields. The Brits firebombed Dresden. The Democrat President Roosevelt rounded up American Japs in internment camps, and the Democrat Truman dropped the atomic bomb. Twice. I agree with all of those decisions. But liberals, after the fact, are now questioning what The Bush Administration did during a war.  The Democrats did not have the balls to question it while it was happening. They are only doing it now for political posturing. And many mindless sheeple are buying into it.

Hannity offers Olbermann $1,000,000

If Olby can survive the next terrorist attack that we don’t stop

Why, OH WHY, couldnt this have been Olby?

Why, OH WHY, couldn't this have been Olby?

because liberals do not want us to use enhanced interrogations on suspected terrorists.

Treating perverts is so gay

pervertBritish doctors criticize an American who has helped many homosexuals become heterosexual. I’ve just crossed out some words and added others in italics, to show the absurdity of what the critics said.  From the BBC 

“Plans to promote medical treatment for homosexuality rapists and pedophiles at a religious conference have been criticised by doctors.”

“The event will hear from prominent American psychologist Dr Joseph Nicolosi who said he had helped many people to become heterosexual give up raping and pedophilia.”

“Dr Nicolosi said he had been helping people to “increase their heterosexual potential” for 25 years, and put his success rate among men at about two out of three.  He said he was offering a choice for people who were unhappy being gay.”

“But the Royal College of Psychiatrists said there was no supporting evidence and such treatment could be damaging. What they meant is it disturbs the hell out of perverts to hear that some perverts are unhappy and want to change their life–hell, if some can do it, that means others can, too, and that means they can’t use the “I can’t help it, I was born this way” excuse. 

“Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality rapists and pedophiles create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.” 

Said one quack, er, Doctor: “They can’t help it, they were born that way!  What evil creep would discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation? These people do not need our help, they need our compassion, our understanding, our tolerance. How would you like it if the majority were perverts and they tried to persuade you that you had to give up monogamy and heterosexuality, huh? Sorta like San Francisco does. You wouldn’t feel so good about yourself then, would you? We know what this really is–this is just mean ole Christians trying to jam their morals down the rest of our throats! So stop calling us, er, I mean them, perverts.  If there are morals, and we break them, it makes us feel bad. We don’t like it.” Continue reading

As if we needed more motivation to be a billionaire

Some guys have all the luck. I mean, kite surfing off a beautiful island…

Continue reading

Now this is something we can all agree on

A little unusual Rule 5 action…