Despite an international outcry over its medieval legal system, Iran has announced a real crowd pleaser: eight women and one man will be stoned to death for adultery. Iran applies Sharia law and will execute them in the name of Islamic justice.
There remain a few unstoned women who are fighting against such outrages. One is Shadi Sadr. Her colleague, Mohammad Mostafai represents one woman, Malak Qorbani, whom he insisted plead guilty to adultery even though she did not know the meaning of the charge. That would seem likely since the penalty is stoning.
Stoning remains the rage among Islamic countries who continue to mete out religious codes through their court systems, click here and here .
Hey dude, I’ve been stoned,like, literally every time I committed adultery.
Didn’t I see this story in the Kite Runner? When will the world, including the U.S., realize the danger that comes from a theocracy? This type of horrific death penalty should never be allowed. Especially for the alleged crime of adultery. This is an extreme example of what can happen to the United States if we succumb to the radical religious right and their extremely narrow and un-Christian view of Christian morality.
I often learned from what you wrote because of not having the person’s other method that could be better than our method your self. thank you for information,when we met again.
Its stoning season already?
Where has the year gone?
The really sad part of this, is even in ancient Judea, around the time of Christ, where stoning was considered just punishment for being caught in the act of adultery, it was often sentenced, but seldom employed. Even before Roman occupation with its moritorium on the death penalty, the Jews seldom turned to stoning as a method of punishment. Its a brutal, extremely painful and violent form of punishment, primitive and cruel.
Somethings up with these stories coming out like now. I strongly question the source of these stories, as well as their veracity.
Theres a reason we’re hearing stories like this right now.
Bartlebee,
I wouldn’t put it past the Republicans to push false stories about Iran to drum up support for harsh actions against them in the near future.
rafflaw
1, July 21, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Bartlebee,
I wouldn’t put it past the Republicans to push false stories about Iran to drum up support for harsh actions against them in the near future
Precisely.
And we know they’ve done it before.
It may be faint, and a little offbeat, and even coming from speakers we never knew we had, but I hear can clearly hear the percussion session for the war cry, warming up.
First job?
Rally the peoples hate.
Sorry for the typos.
“percussion section” and scratch one “hear” lol.
In Iran they’re getting ready to stone some people to death. Most probably innocent of any real crimes.
In the US, the police gun down an unarmed man in cold blood after rescuing him at sea, and in the same day beat and taser a blind woman.
One persons hero is anothers terrorist.
Bartlebee’s last comment strikes at the core of the problem in my opinion: both Iran and the United States governments are using fear to gain compliance and silence from their citizens.
While Iran’s tactics may apparently insult our sensibilities more than the tasering of a blind cancer victim, both are barbaric, blunt instruments of government designed to suppress dissent and threaten those who would stand in the way of authority.
puzzling,
I agree. These stories may be true and useful to both disgusting govts. but for different reasons. The use of the poor, despised and powerless for political purpose is always repulsive. Neither country is removed from the circus maximus.
Those drum beats to war definitely picked up today. We must keep alert and speak out.
puzzling/Jill:
Really love the references to ancient Rome. Here’s a little pithy saying from Caligula (quoting another ancient Roman, Lucius Accius) expressing the culture of fear that rules tyrannical nations:
“Oderunt dum Metuant (“Let them hate, so long as they fear”)
Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them.
And thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
Mark Twain
Chronicle of Young Satan
Rafflaw wrote:
This is an extreme example of what can happen to the United States if we succumb to the radical religious right and their extremely narrow and un-Christian view of Christian morality.
*************************
Rafflaw, I couldn’t agree more with this. Of course,this will be considered “christian bashing” by those who favor this sort of extreme punishment for either adultery or homosexuality. Non-Christians or religious unbelievers would be another target in a “christian” theocracy.
Bartlebee:
Before you consign every cop to hell for a shooting (As you impatiently state: “In the US, the police gun down an unarmed man in cold blood after rescuing him at sea,….”), you may want to read my updating comment from the other posting:
“A little update from the San Diego Union Tribune. It appears the late Mr. Hirschfield was an exotic dancer employed to entertain the passengers. Acting pensively and after ordering an alcoholic drink, he climbed over the rail and plunged into the sea. Curious are these words from the article:
“Harbor Police said the ship called to report of a man overboard at 11:10 p.m. A small rescue boat from the ship was sent to help Hirschfield, but he wouldn’t climb aboard.”
There appear to be witnesses to the scuffle over the officer’s gun and eventual shooting of the dancer. This looks to me like a case of “suicide by cop,” and I think the officers, both veterans, will likely be exonerated given the bizarre nature of the circumstances and the decedent’s apparent death wish.
Here’s the article:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080721-1907-bn21steven.ht”
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Finding the road to Hell is easy. You’ll know you’re on it when you see a mosque.
First that was not the isn’t the only incident. We hear these stories now almost every other day and I mentioned others as well. You didn’t seem to be able to defend those. Or any of the ones plastering this blog for the past year. I remember recently the police ganging up on a 70 or 80 year old man at an airport, Boston I think, but somewhere in the NE, and tasering him right into a heart attack. The guy was like moses, and here these big, strong police sat there and tasered him essentially to death.
And do the other officers condemn it? Oh no. All I hear is what I’m hearing from you. Excuses. Oh…they were “just doing their job”.
“Being safe”.
God I never saw a country so hell bent on being safe that it wages war against its own citizens. Spying on them. Infiltrating their churches, christian or otherwise, labeling peace activists security threats, searching laptops without warrant at every airport in America, and copying their contents for storage by the federal govt (for anyone leaving the country), HR 6034, the Patriot Act, and since 911, an ever growing case history of unspeakable police abuses, like tasering a BLIND WOMAN, which happened this very day.
A F$##$ING BLIND WOMAN.
And thats just ONE incident. Just ONE.
This is literally, as far as I can tell, the end of our democracy.
The end of democracy as “I” knew it, any way, or at least its death throes.
I don’t know, maybe you grew in a different America than I did.
Eric
1, July 22, 2008 at 1:08 am
Finding the road to Hell is easy. You’ll know you’re on it when you see a mosque.
And there you go.
There’s your new master race, as Eric makes my case.
Do you realize we lock up more of our population, than any civilized nation on earth, including Russia and China?
We call ourselves free, yet in America you have a much better chance of going to prison, than you do in the Peoples Republic of China.
And its just growing, as police now lock people up for the most minor of infractions, and political targeting seems to be the thing.
Last week a little old lady was arrested for trespassing on public property, simply because the police, who side with the right most of the time in these matters, followed the orders of one of McCains goons and cited her. He couldn’t just confiscate her sign (which would have been bad enough) or walk her off the lot. He had to cite her, and drag her into the criminal justice system.
And this was someones grandma.
And she wasn’t doing a thing.
Not a goddamned thing.
You want to defend that? Go ahead.
But don’t give me that “case by case” bullshit anymore. This is a “mindset”, of putting police on a pedastal above the average citzen and making them into some sort of unified national security force, that controls the masses with an iron fist.
Moms, Dads, kids, cripples, the blind.
Doesn’t matter.
Because if half a dozen 6 foot 245 musclebound pound kevlar clad men feel granny’s going a little off, down she goes.
Knee to chest.
Taser in the gut.
And down she goes.
Like a piece of garbage.
Like a Waffen on a Jew.
Bartlebee:
“And thats just ONE incident. Just ONE.”
******************
But it’s the one you cited and you were reckless in your conclusion because you couldn’t wait for the entire story to to come out. If you want to opine that because there are excesses in police conduct that the whole system is corrupt, you’d best account for the majority of cases where the arrests are proper and by the book. They don’t make the paper. Yours is a classic hasty generalization, and you simply cited it because it fits into your rigid mindset. That is the mark of an ideologue and not a person determined to follow the truth wherever it might lead. No one defends excesses, but your error was extrapolating to the whole in some wild hyperbole. While there might be some disturbing trends (and I haven’t seen any data besides anecdotal evidence of that), that does not call for such blanket condemnation of those who patrol your streets while you blissfully sleep at night.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 7:57 am
Bartlebee:
“And thats just ONE incident. Just ONE.”
******************
But it’s the one you cited and you were reckless in your conclusion
No slick, I cited THREE incidents…in my “reckless conclusion”.
Not “one”.
THREE.
Learn to count…or read….before coming at me again.
And here. Here’s another one you can also forget to count if you like.
Ex-cop may be charged in case of man Tasered to death
From Drew Griffin and David Fitzpatrick
CNN
WINNFIELD, Louisiana (CNN) — A police officer shocked a handcuffed Baron “Scooter” Pikes nine times with a Taser after arresting him on a cocaine charge.
He stopped twitching after seven, according to a coroner’s report. Soon afterward, Pikes was dead.
Now the officer, since fired, could end up facing criminal charges in Pikes’ January death after medical examiners ruled it a homicide.
Dr. Randolph Williams, the Winn Parish coroner, told CNN the 21-year-old sawmill worker was jolted so many times by the 50,000-volt Taser that he might have been dead before the last two shocks were delivered.
Williams ruled Pikes’ death a homicide in June after extensive study
But hey, don’t take my word for it. God forbid.
Just ask Americans who they’re really more afraid of.
Criminals?
Or cops.
And while you’re asking them, take a brief poll of how many people in the country have been actually “helped” by police, as opposed to being harrassed or harmed by them in some way.
And as for “anecdotal” trends, the US now puts more of its citizens into prison than any other industrialized nation in the world. Red China puts less of its people into prison than us.
—-
Summary findings
On June 30, 2007 —
– 2,299,116 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails – an increase of 1.8% from yearend 2006, less than the average annual growth of 2.6% from 2000-2006.
– 1,528,041 sentenced prisoners were under state or federal jurisdiction.
– there were an estimated 509 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents – up from 501 at yearend 2006.
– the number of women under the jurisdiction of state or federal prison authorities increased 2.5% from yearend 2006, reaching 115,308, and the number of men rose 1.5%, totaling 1,479,726
US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Bureau of Justice Statistics
—
So much for anecdotes, ay?
Now you can tell me how they all probably deserve to be there.
Bartlebee:
Ok you have me you clever boy. You’re only one part crazed chicken little, and two parts foolish ideologue. By the way, I never said it was the only example you cited, it’s just the one I researched and if one leg of your argument is utter BS, why should we accept or care about the rest. My error. I actually thought you could understand argument on a higher level. Should have known better–the smiley faces gave it away.
Maybe I should play your game and cite all the stories of officers saving kids from burning buildings or rescuing hostages or even rescuing cats from trees, and ignore the counter-examples. That would prove about as much as your extreme examples of abuse, and would make me as guilty as you of confirmation bias, which as any student of logic knows is a classic fallacy. I am amazed at your utter inability to think rationally. You really should be a neo-con; they check their brains at the door of emotional argument too.
Tolstoy had “thinkers” like you pegged long ago:
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Careful, you’re proving russ more prescient every day.
We have more of our people in our prisons, and our criminal justice system, than any industrialized nation on the planet.
Thats no anecdote. Thats a travesty of a nation calling itself the land of the free.
Its in fact, a sick joke when considering the boast.
I agree we need better pay for police, and better training. But we also need OVERSIGHT.
And until we get CITIZEN OVERSIGHT of the enforcement agencies that rule our communities, nothing is going to change.
And oversight is not “reckless”.
Its our right, as supposed “free” Americans.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I never said it was the only example you cited
Do we really have to do this?
Ok…. yes..you did as you IMPLIED it.
But it’s the one you cited and you were reckless in your conclusion because you couldn’t wait for the entire story to to come out
By saying “IT’S” the “ONE” you cited, while never bothering to include the OTHER TWO I also cited, but instead saying “ITS” the “ONE” you were “IMPLYING” that I only cited the one.
If you didn’t mean to leave readers of your retort with that impression, you would have said “its ONE of the ONES that you cited”.
But you didn’t.
You said “ITS THE ONE YOU CITED”.
Which makes it clear you wanted to imply I cited only the one.
Nice try Billo.
The bold type is for the reading impaired.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Bartlebee:
it’s just the one I researched and if one leg of your argument is utter BS, why should we accept or care about the rest.
…uhhh…”researched”?
As in saw the update in Yahoo News?
As for the “BS” portion, I took that story, along with one of the other two, off of THIS website.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I actually thought you could understand argument on a higher level
If by higher, you mean inaccurate, incomplete arguments, then yea,..sure.
You’re “higher” than me.
..course thats a given.
Bartlebee:
“We have more of our people in our prisons, and our criminal justice system, than any industrialized nation on the planet.”
*****************
And based on that purported fact you presume what? There are myriad explanations for this, not all of which are nefarious or racial, and most have little to do with police abuse. Demographics, poverty, decaying family structure, expansion of criminal statutes, sentencing guidelines, and lack of parole are just a few of the possible causes, and none address police actions. Staying on topic or relevant appears a challenge for you. Try looking up these words, they may help:
non sequitur
composition fallacy
observational selection
excluded middle fallacy
Halo Effect
By the way, no one disagrees with civilian oversight. That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials, most of whom are not cops.
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm
There are myriad explanations for this, not all of which are nefarious or racial, and most have little to do with police abuse. Demographics, poverty, decaying family structure, expansion of blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah…
I gave you the shortened version a half hour ago.
Here, I’ll repost it for you since you forgot.
—
BARTLEBEE
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Now you can tell me how they all probably deserve to be there
—
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm
By the way, no one disagrees with civilian oversight
Then what the hell are you ballin about?
Bartlebee:
“Now you can tell me how they all probably deserve to be there”
****************
As the advancer of the proposition that the police abuse somehow put them there, the burden is on you to prove how that follows. I merely question your premise. Here’s another Latin phrase for your study”
“argumentum ad ignorantium”
That’s the logical fallacy of attempting to improperly shift the burden of proof. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
Talking to me must really be educational for you. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear you never heard of this stuff before!
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm
By the way, no one disagrees with civilian oversight.
That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials, most of whom are not cops.
Are we having an issue understanding the meaning of the word, “civilian” in the term, “civilian oversight?
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Talking to me must really be educational for you
Well, I suppose one might call it an “education”…. of sorts.
Like your interpretation of the concept of “civilian oversight” to mean state and local government, elected officials, judges, and other enforcement officials of the criminal justice system.
That was like learning a whole new language.
Mespo,
You and I have been speaking quite rationally to an irrational person who is convinced that everyone else is irrational, as opposed to himself.
As much as I regret saying it, sometimes the BEST treatment is NO treatment. Until HE makes a change, there isn’t much else to do but stand your ground!
Some things are not negotiable.
Patty C:
Agreed.
Wow.
That sure was nice of patty, to come in and run interference for her friend like that.
Not one comment, refutation, fact, or anything else mind you, of anything I said.
Just a general “bartlebee’s evil” proclamation, that mesp can now mutter a barely audible “agreed”, to appear as if something had been said of substance to salvage his foundering position.
Well, maybe someday when he takes his foot out of his mouth, he can enlighten us all as to how with regards to the public and law enforcement, the government and our criminal justice system constitutes a “civilian” body.
He’s really smart and all, so I know he’ll want to “educate” me on that one.
I’d really like to hear how an “ELECTED OFFICAL”, constitutes a civilian.
That ones gonna be a keeper.
ci·vil·ian (n)\sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008.)
Well gee mespo. We’re glad you know how to cut and paste from a dictionary. Thats great.
Next time, try “reading” the definition before you post it.
Since we were not talking about the relationship the public has to the military, but the relationship between the public and the justice system, the military definition is not applicable.
So answer “A” is thus moot.
Now, lets look at answer “B”, you so studiously published.
In answer “B”, we see the definition is “OUTSIDER”.
OUTSIDER.
Now, lets put THAT defintion, in the context of our discussion, and my statement on “civilian oversight”.
I said, that there needs to be CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT of the police in our communities.
Mespo, responded with this little gem.
By the way, no one disagrees with civilian oversight.
That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials
Now, since our police, are part of our state and local government, then “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT” would indicate someone OUTSIDE of our state and local governments.
Yet mespo, the self annointed “legal expert”, thinks that CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT of our State and Local government, would be our State and Local Governments providing oversight on “themselves”.
You know messpo, I used to think your were just a little pigheaded, albeit, somewhat erudite.
Now I think you’re just none too bright.
One more time, since that may be too many words for our friend the messpot.
POLICE ARE PART OF OUR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
Therefore “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT”, of our police, would by definition, need to encompass someone OUTSIDE of our state and local governments.
Whats sad is you need that explained.
So apparently, I was right the first time, when I asked if you were having a problem understanding the meaning of the word “CIVILIAN” in our discussion.
You just didn’t know what the word meant.
Now you do.
Because you looked it up.
Now, please tell me again about the wonderful “education” you’re providing me with.
I really liked that one.
Better send in patty again.
To run some more interference.
Allegans contraria non est audiendus
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
And you know what the really funny part is, schmoozie?
I never actually said “civilian oversight”.
I said “citizen oversight”.
Not “civilian”.
CITIZEN.
C.I.T.I.Z.E.N
(Syt-eh-Syn)
CITIZEN.
YOU snuck the “civilian” in apparently thinking you could change the meaning of what I said to more closely fit your faltering rebuke, just like the right wing trolls do.
And you couldn’t even do THAT right.
So not only are you illiterate, but you’re dishonest, too.
Either that or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Or all of the above.
Since you’re so fond of maxims, here’s one for you that you could do well to take to heart.
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
“I said “citizen oversight”.”
*************************
Perhaps in your “through the looking glass world,” cops aren’t citizens for if they are, we already have “citizen oversight.” Sorry for attempting to correct your meandering foolishness. I should have known better, because obviously no one can follow your stream of (semi)consciousness prose. Russ was right after all.
mespo727272
1, July 23, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Perhaps in your “through the looking glass world,” cops aren’t citizens for if they are, we already have “citizen oversight.”
Or, you can keep digging, if you like.
So…lemme see if I got this straight.
You say “CITIZEN OVERSIGHT” of the police, is the “Police”, performing oversight of themselves.
Because the term “citizen” in that context, to you, means the “Police”.
And you’re really smart…..so…
That means the “Citizen Patrols” in your neighborhood, are actually performed by the Police?
Do you get a lot of requests from your clients, for refunds?
Just curious.
Futhering your latest premise intended to spin your way out of the pit you’ve dug for yourself, does that also mean that a “CITIZENS ARREST” in your community, is actually when a duly sworn officer of the law places the cuffs on someone, acting on and behalf of the jurisdiction in which he is empowered?
So in your understanding, when speaking about the “Police and the Citizens”, they are the same thing? From a legal standpoint?
A “citizen” is defined as an officer of the courts?
A “citizen” is defined as a Government offical?
Thats what the term “Citizen” means in your legal definitions ?
I find your belief system uniquely rich and fascinating.
bartles:
“That means the “Citizen Patrols” in your neighborhood, are actually performed by the Police?”
******************
Of course those two categories are not congruent. One is a subcategory of the other. That all policeman are citizens does not imply that all citizens are policemen. I know this is tough stuff for you so I will go very slowly.
My point was that you actually meant “civilian oversight” when you said “citizen oversight” Not wanting to further embarrass you I let it go and just corrected it since everyone knows that if you really want “citizen oversight” you already have it because the cops who oversee other cops are already “citizens.” What I suspect you meant to say was that you wanted “civilian” as in non-cop oversight as per the definition of “civilian” above. If so, I pointed out that our elected officials meet the definition of civilians because the vast majority are neither police nor members of the active armed forces.
mespo727272
1, July 23, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I know this is tough stuff for you so I will go very slowly.
My point was that you actually meant “civilian oversight” when you said “citizen oversight
So now, your position is, that you admit what I accused you of earlier, that is, trying to mold MY position so you could more easily argue against it by creating a straw argument?
You are now telling us, that you PURPOSELY took my word “CITIZENS OVERSIGHT”, turned it into “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT”?
Thats where you want to go?
Man, you’ve tossed the shovel and moved on to the jack hammer, ay slick?
Heck I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept you may have “accidently” changed my term, instead of trying to just change them and act as if it was I said.
But since you admit you took my words, twisted them, simply so you could launch a grammatical straw argument, I guess that birds pretty much flown the coop.
So you admit changing my words, because by in your own mind, you think you know what I really think, better than me.
—
mespo727272
1, July 23, 2008 at 11:50 pm
My point was that you actually meant “civilian oversight” when you said “citizen oversight
—-
Sorry, I’m just musing on the level of pompous assness required to make such a declaration.
You knew, what I “meant”, better than I did?
And that was that I meant to use the word “civilian”, when I said “citizen”.
And the word “civilian”, ….actually means State and Local Government.
Wow.
So I didn’t mean Citizens Oversight?
Even though I said….. “Citizens Oversight”?
And even if I did mean “Citizens Oversight”, it would still refer to the the State and Local Government?
But I didn’t mean that…. so “Civilian Oversight” is what I “really meant”, and that STILL means, “State and Local Government Oversight”?
:\
My heads starting to hurt..
uhh…mr Lawyer sir…?
… do I have to pay you for this …er… “advice”?
If so, I hope you bill on the quarter hour.
Like russ, I think that I shall never see one as dumb as Bartlebee.
So “Citizen Oversight” = “Civilian Oversight” = “Government Oversight”.
In your “legal dictionary”, you’re telling me, that the legal definition of the term “Citizen” or even “Civilian”, when used in context of the criminal justice system is defined as the “State and Local Government”?
THATS your answer?
wow.
You Lawyers must go to school a long time to learn stuff like that, huh?
mespo727272
1, July 24, 2008 at 12:16 am
Like russ, I think that I shall never see one as dumb as Bartlebee.
That you are “like russ”, is not in doubt here. That fact I believe I have well established.
As for being dumb, if you mean thinking that the term “CITIZEN”, or “CIVILIAN” for that matter, when speaking in regards to the State and Local government, must by definition indicate someone “other than” the State and Local Government…. then… er….yea. I’m really dumb.
And you’re really smart.
Excellent presentation, Counselor!
Alas, I suspect the remedy sought is even more pathetic.
By ‘citizen’, I suspect what is really meant is ‘lay person’
ie nonprofessional, nongovernmental, and/or generally unqualified
in law enforcement – possibly even self-appointed…
Ahh, and there it is.
Patty C comes to run interference.
The lawyers case founders, and here comes Patty.
Not one refutation or point made, just “mespo wins! Bartlebee loses!” declarations.
You two should consider getting a room.
And whats really funny, is she shoots down your crumbling, untenable spin with her defintion, of civilian.
By ‘citizen’, I suspect what is really meant is ‘lay person’
ie nonprofessional, nongovernmental, and/or generally unqualified
in law enforcement – possibly even self-appointed…
Uhhh….no Patty. By “citizen”, messpo means State and Local Government.
Try reading what he actually wrote, before you come in to wave your pom poms over it.
Here, let me help since you’ve successfully buried his folly.
I’ll repost it.
Bartlebee first said;
BARTLEBEE
1, July 22, 2008 at 10:57 pm
And until we get CITIZEN OVERSIGHT of the enforcement agencies that rule our communities, nothing is going to change.
Then, several minutes later, messpo responded saying;
mespo727272
1, July 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm
no one disagrees with civilian oversight.
That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials
There now. Isn’t that a little clearer?
Patty C:
You are right again. I cannot teach this pig to sing, and worse yet it’s annoying even me.
Bartlebee recommenends “CITIZEN OVERSIGHT”.
Messpo, CHANGES Bartlebee’s words from “CITIZEN OVERSIGHT”, to “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT”.
Why you ask?
Why because mespo proclaims he knows better than Bartlebee what Bartlebee is thinking.
Now whats really funny, is that even being busted in creating a straw argument, he still proclaims that a CITIZENS OVERSIGHT means “GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT”.
And THATS funny stuff.
Oh messpo, reduced to calling me a “pig” now?
I’m not the one who told you to show us all your own stupidity, in proclaiming either “CITIZEN OVERSIGHT” or “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT” = “GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.
That was your call, skippy.
The Messpot said…
no one disagrees with civilian oversight.
That’s why we have local and state governments composed of elected officials
Wrong pinhead.
Thats why we’ve got organizations like “NACOLE”.
Or have you never heard of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement?
Formed by PRIVATE CITIZENS, and they don’t constitute a STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, dipsh$t.
See, I however, you pompous pinheaded prick, wasn’t talking about “NACOLE”.
Because unlike you, I already knew about NACOLE, and maybe even am a member.
I said, jackass, “CITIZENS OVERSIGHT”, because I MEANT “CITIZENS OVERSIGHT”.
If I had MEANT “Civilian Oversight”, I would have said it.
Dumbass.
Porky says, ‘That’s All Folks!’
Next time, when you don’t know what someone means by a term, even such difficult and elusive ones like “CITIZENS OVERSIGHT”, try “asking them.
Instead of CHANGING their words because your fat pompous ass thinks it knows what they meant better than they did themselves.
Then I could have explained to you, that CITIZENS OVERSIGHT would be the oversight of the COMMUNITY over the law enforcement agencies who police them.
Since you couldn’t put that rubik’s cube together on your own.
Or you can keep sending in your pet mascot, patty, to run interference with her mindless taunts, because she’s too stupid to actually refute anything on the board.
Come on spooogie.
You know this happens to you every time.
You come in, you start sh$t with me, completely unprovoked as always, then get your legal briefs handed back to you cleaned and pressed.
You must be a glutton for punishment.
And you know you’re not getting off the hook on your attempts at deception.
Dude, you CHANGED someones words, to try and make YOUR point!
lol
I mean, do you get it?
Do you see the problem with that?
Do you understand how that removes any credibility you may have had, when you stoop to changing your opponents words to try and create a straw argument, using words you KNEW they didn’t say?
Do you see the problem with that?
And whats worse, even AFTER changing their words, you failed to prove your point.
After all, I am 100 percent confident Professor Turely, or any attorney or legal professional for that matter, will want to concur with your absurd assertation, that a “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT” body would comprise STATE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT, lol.
But feel free to solicit their opinions in support of that floater.
In fact I encourage it.
At least when you got busted pretending I said Civilian, instead of proclaiming that you “knew what I meant”, you should have at least claimed you were just paraphrasing me.
Not that that would have flown much farther, given the context of your reply, but at least it would have kept that turd afloat a few minutes longer before I flushed it.
But you folded like a cab driver in Atlantic City, and that tells me you must not be a trial lawyer.
Least I hope not.
For your clients sakes.
But like I said, feel free to send in another attorney, or legal professional, who wants to likewise publicly flush their credibility down the drain by insisting that “CITZENS OVERSIGHT”, or “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT”, equals oversight by “STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT”, as you have here this evening.
In writing.
On the World Wide Web, lol.
I mean ones fun….but if there were say….two of you….
Of course a lot of these stories are false to drum up support for an attack on Iran. Remember the story of the Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators before Bush Sr. attacked Iraq?
I woder why when about 75% of the US media is composed of Jews and the 24% Christian, Jews and Christians feel the need to voice their negative opinions on other religions especially Islam on sites like this too?
Isn’t CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The New York Times, everything from Murdoch, everything from Bloomberg (all owned, run or edited by Jews) enough?
BTW, wasn’t it Bush Jr. that executed a retarded man with the mind of a child (both the prisoner and the Governor) in Texas?
zakimar
1, July 24, 2008 at 2:25 am
I woder why when about 75% of the US media is composed of Jews and the 24% Christian, Jews
I’m afraid that’s a statistic there yassar, that you’re going to have to provide some supporting reference too.
Otherwise admit you just made that up.
Either just watch any of the above and look for the Jews – from Abrams and Blitzer to Wallace and Walters, or do a little research, and find out that not only does Murdoch own more than 175 media outlets, but everyone of them has managers and editors that have the same point of view – his. And BTW, 75% Jew owned/operated is a conservative figure.
I don’t blame you for preferring ignorance though, doin’ reserch and lernin is hard.