destruction

It's the reich wingnuts who never learn. I'm sure you agree with murder mongers like Pat Robertson and his rethuglikkklan friends who take his bullshit and run with it. He's a good faux Christian to you for a homophobic/racist faux CHRISTIAN!! It must make you cringe whenever a criminal gets locked up. I bet it scares you that whenever a criminal gets locked up it's one less vote for the anti-american GOP. They better hurry up and commute them all so they'll have enough in their base to beat the pro-american dems. Do you have a house to break into? a car to steal? some 10 year old to rape? a gay to beat or a black person to lynch? I know "good" rethuglikkklan symphasizers love that.

Yes.

Wazdamatta? Miss all that Citgo oil there? Can't stand having a murderous US backed puppet dictatorship there? Cry me a fucking river white trash.

Lay was the example of all bush supporters. A criminal bent on fucking over americans, in his case, former enron employees and their families. I'm glad the right wing nazi loving fuck is dead. I hope he burns in hell. Gotta love how fox news glorifies criminals and the way they glorified him simply because he was a republikkkan. Then again, fox news glorifies criminals from the back alleys of urbanania to the office of the right wing politician to the corporate offices. Hell, they even praised people who rape, rob and murder. If we locked up all criminals, the gop would have no base. Could that be the reason they secretly pardon them? To save their own base? Too bad they missed the bus on Kenny Lay.

massive heart attack

Wanna call the CIA traitors Bush lovers? http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...4&t=TS_Home It goes far beyond this because the US worked a deal with al qaeda terroists that if they sell out abu zarqawi, the US will promise they will lay off on the search for Osama. And the neocons cry treason on the New York Times (for political reasons) when they revealed classified info on how the Bush administration is spying on bank transactions when the neocons themselves are aiding the enemy (al qaeda) by agreeing to shutting down a secret unit designated for searching for the world's most wanted man in exchange for zarqawi? Oh wait... It's not treason when the neocons aid the enemy... my bad... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home Interesting...

The extraordinary rise and fall of Kenneth Lay unexpectedly ended early this morning, when the founder and former chairman of Enron died at his vacation home in Aspen, Colo., according to the office of his lawyer, Michael Ramsey. Lay was 64, and his death was apparently due to a massive heart attack. He was awaiting sentencing after being found guilty in May of securities fraud linked to the downfall of Enron, the Houston-based energy company that he built into one of America’s leading businesses before presiding over its failure in 2001. Along with former Enron President Jeffrey Skilling, Lay was scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 23. Lay faced up to 45 years in prison, likely a life sentence. After a 14-week trial that included testimony from 54 witnesses, Lay was convicted May 25 on six counts of conspiracy fraud for his role in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history. Skilling, 52, was convicted on 19 of 28 counts of conspiracy, fraud, insider trading and making false statements. The U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on the implications of Lay's death for Skilling's sentencing schedule or other outstanding suits related to Enron's activities. Starting in the 1980s, Lay quickly expanded Enron from a natural-gas pipeline business into an energy and trading conglomerate that became the seventh-largest publicly traded company in the country, with $101 billion in annual revenue. Lay, who became a prominent figure in Houston, was nicknamed “Kenny Boy†by President George W. Bush, the former Texas governor, who reportedly received $550,000 in contributions from Enron, its employees and their relatives during his political career. Enron suddenly collapsed after it was revealed that Lay and Skilling had defrauded investors and employees by lying about Enron's financial health in the months before they filed for bankruptcy in December 2001. The two executives' convictions, which followed a four and a half year investigation, were considered a key test of the government's efforts in its war on corporate fraud. Along with Skilling and Lay, the convictions included 16 other guilty pleas from former Enron executives, including Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow and Chief Accounting Officer Richard Causey. The case led to a wave of corporate and regulatory reforms, including the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which tightened financial reporting standards in the United States. http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2006/07/05/lay-enron-skilling-cx_mc_0705laydeath.html

I dare you jack booted bushoids to call the supreme court traitors. Analysis: Military tribunals By Richard Allen Greene BBC News, Washington The US Supreme Court has ruled that President George W Bush does not have the authority to order suspected terrorists to be tried by military tribunals - a blow to a key part of the administration's so-called war on terror. The White House has refused to designate as prisoners of war many of the men its forces detained in Afghanistan in the wake of its drive to oust the Taleban in 2001. It was preparing to have at least 10 men tried by military tribunals as enemy combatants. But the Supreme Court said that would be a violation both of US military law and of the Geneva Conventions designed to safeguard the rights of prisoners of war. The ruling means the administration will have to find an alternative to military tribunals - and President Bush has said he will work with Congress to try to solve the problem, suggesting that the debate over military tribunals may not be finished yet. Opponents of military tribunals have argued that they violate guarantees provided by the constitution, that they are bad for Washington's image internationally - and that the president does not have the authority to order these men tried by military tribunals, which the Supreme Court backed. Defenders of the plan say that military courts are not only necessary in time of war but that there is precedent for them under two of the country's greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. There are a number of important differences between military tribunals and civilian courts: * Convictions in civilian courts must be unanimous, while the military tribunals proposed by Mr Bush would be able to convict by a two-thirds majority * Different rules of evidence apply, with lower standards for admission in military tribunals * Defendants are not guaranteed the right to appeal against convictions in military tribunals * Civilian trials must be open to the public, while military tribunals can be held in secret. Some critics of military tribunals warn that, in general, many of the protections afforded to defendants in civilian courts do not necessarily apply in military tribunals. But US Department of Defense guidelines for "Global War on Terror" tribunals specify that defendants have the right to a lawyer, to know the charges against them, and to examine the evidence, among other safeguards guaranteed in civilian courts. There is another key difference between the two types of trials: legally, military tribunals are not courts - they are military commissions, which is why different standards apply. The case in favour Defenders of military tribunals argue that the United States is at war with terrorists, and that in times of war, enemy aliens are never afforded the protections of the US legal system. Enemies have been tried by military courts since before the founding of the US - George Washington used them during the Revolutionary War, and the practice continued throughout World War II. Advocates of military justice argue that the US is not carrying out a law-enforcement operation in Afghanistan, but a military one. President Bush's order makes clear that he wants due process and the right to counsel for terrorists John Dean For the armed forces to seize an enemy and turn him over to the court system would be unprecedented and absurd, they say. They argue that history shows that military tribunals can act fairly, as in the case of the Hunter Commission, the tribunal that convicted the conspirators behind Abraham Lincoln's assassination. And they say the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the use of tribunals in a key World War II case concerning German saboteurs caught in the US. John Dean, a Nixon-era White House counsel, points out that the Bush order to try suspected terrorists in military tribunals actually guarantees defendants more rights than would normally be the case in such trials. "President Bush's order makes clear that he wants due process and the right to counsel for terrorists," he argued in a column for online legal publication FindLaw. Like other defenders of the plan, Mr Dean says that secret trials can be justified by the need to protect the intelligence sources that may provide prosecution evidence. And he says that secret tribunals would provide protection for people involved in the case - whereas jurors in a civilian trial of terrorists, for example, might be forced to go into hiding after the trial for fear of revenge attacks. The case against Opponents of military tribunals list as many reasons to avoid them as defenders do to promote them. Even before the Supreme Court ruling in June 2006, some legal experts were arguing that Mr Bush did not have the authority to establish them. Rather than being stigmatised as terrorists, defendants... may be seen as political prisoners - victims, not perpetrators Joanne Mariner, Human rights lawyer The Lincoln and Roosevelt-era military tribunals took place in time of war, they point out, but Congress has not officially declared war in this case, so the president cannot assume wartime powers. Presidential war powers are invariably an issue for heated debate during times of US military conflict, especially as Congress has not declared war since 1942. Advocates of military tribunals say congressional authorisation for Mr Bush to use all necessary force against those he decides "committed or aided the terrorist attacks" is the equivalent of a declaration of war. Opponents of tribunals also argue that secret trials would be bad public relations for the United States. Human rights lawyer Joanne Mariner argues that the "outcome of military proceedings will enjoy none of the legitimacy of results reached in normal civilian trials. No country in Europe could extradite detainees to the United States if there were any chance they could be put before these military tribunals Spanish prosecutor "Rather than being stigmatised as terrorists, defendants... may be seen as political prisoners - victims, not perpetrators." Some European countries have made it clear that they will not extradite suspects to the US unless they have a guarantee the defendants will not face a military tribunal. One Spanish prosecutor was categorical in his opposition: "No country in Europe could extradite detainees to the United States if there were any chance they could be put before these military tribunals." The US has itself condemned military tribunals of its citizens in other countries, such as that of Lori Berenson, who was convicted of aiding terrorists in Peru. Finally, the secrecy aspect of military courts concerns not only opponents, but even defenders such as Mr Dean. In the case of the German saboteurs, the secrecy of the trial enabled the FBI and Justice Department to hide the fact that the convictions rested on the evidence of an informer among the infiltrators. Six of the eight Germans were electrocuted on the day of their conviction, while the prosecution reneged on a deal to pardon the informant - who was sentenced to 30 years in prison. He served six years before being pardoned by President Harry Truman and being deported. Those who argue for public trials point to the example of the Nuremberg trials after World War II. Those trials, they say, showed the world the evil the Nazis had done. Entering similar evidence of terrorist evil into the historical record would help convict them in the all-important court of public opinion, as well as in whatever court eventually tries them. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/1701789.stm Published: 2006/06/29 16:46:07 GMT © BBC MMVI OWNED!!

OBBY GETS OWNED AGAIN! http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect1 Sorry OBBY. The desperate neocon attempts to sell the lie to win votes won't work.

Translation:

KKK rally

What the fuck is this?? http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B23CF762F-A6D3-4A30-A2DE-65C43818B4F9%7D&keyword=&print=true&dist=printTop

Fuck Igloo

Was it Bush who exploited the deaths of the 9/11 husbands to promote his "election"?....... Yeah. Apparently he enjoys their deaths..... Like Ann Coulter enjoys their deaths by belittling the wives...... FOR ROYALTIES!!1 Nothing more. Neither Bush nor Coulter nor YOU (knowing you --- like David Horowitz --- like Sean Hannity who has his dick up her dried up cunt 24/7/365 considering they are often seen together (as Hannity willfully cheats on his own wife) would rally behind the heartless cunt which only indicates neither one of you give a shit about the 9/11 victims or their families. If Michael Moore said the exact same thing Coulter said about the 9/11 husbands you'd be all over it like flies on dogshit and you know it but to you ann coulter gets special treatment because she is a tool for the right wingnuts. Her words only serve one purpose. To aid the terrorists.

They were unarmed civilians. It was a family of innocent civilians who were killed. They had no weapons. Can you read? Apparently you either cannot tell the difference between a weaponed terrorist and an entire family of civilians who had nothing to do with the terrorist or you just dont care which translates to: (displaying your ignorance, racism as well as your defense of the criminal act of the marines who perpretrated the crime of MURDER. You are defending a war crime. They broke the geneva convention and military laws. Their crime only served the purpose of aiding the terrorists and your defense of these murders only serve the same purpose.Mahs... your attitude is no different than the terrorists who also murder. Advice.... Don't wear the uniform because you are not deserving of it. You will only disgrace it like the marines who murdered the innocent weaponless civilians disgraced it.

Going up on my wall BX!!

Can someone PPLEEEEZE give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?

Ann Coulter needs her head bashed in after what she said. It's time to petition the bookstores to pull not onlly her latest waste of paper and binding (Godless), but ALL her books off the shelves after what she said about the 9/11 wives. Personally, I hope she gets shot then we can all enjoy HER death.. BX, I wonder what the right wingnuts are thinking about her now because it's hard to believe those nutjobs actually believe everything she says and take her bile as gospol. Igloo is an example. It is also hard to believe that in lieu of all this, David Horowitz called Ann Coulter a "national treasure" on the O'Reilly Factor: http://mediamatters.org/items/200606090003 I'm sure the rest of the Bush loving wackos feel the same way. Anyone who wants to be in the know. Here is the article: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-060706coulter,0,2054770.story?coll=la-home-headlines A think a bounty for her head is in order. If anyone who is enjoying the deaths of the 9/11 victims it's Ann Coulter. She needs to die. Her words are actually aiding the terrorirsts.

That is so old. I seen that before, and done it before (folding US currency the same way described in the pics above). This is something I did 5 years ago.

Then you'll be just as bad as the murderer(s) who killed your family. It only justifies nothing and gain nothing from it for the exception of life imprisonment for murder, therefore making you no better than the terrorists. Wanna say that to that 9 year old girl who lost both her parents, her grandparents a brother and and uncle at the hands of the handful of marines who deliberately murdered them for absolutely no reason? Not that I am condemning the entire corp because of the acts of a few of them who willingly broke the geneva convention as well as military law. Those few who did the criminal act of murder should be punished and if you come out with the faux accusation that I am condoning terrorism, you are condoning the criminal act of murder and defending those who perpertrate the criminal act making YOU just as bad as the terrorists. What these few renegade marines did is equal to terrorism. Murder is wrong no matter how you look at it. Civilians sholdn't be murdered. War is not the acceptance of illegal activity. Those family members were innocent civilians w/o weapons who had nothing to do with the insurgents. The ones who were killed by these few marines did not and had nothing to do with killing any marines involved. Civillians were killed for NO reason. they were unarmed, soldiers knocked on the door and shot them. there is no excuse for that. Americans get all pissy when someone plants a bomb in a car and it happens to kill one american soldier, why cut slack on a soldier who prettymuch does the same thing? Those Marines are just as bad as the terrorists that flew planes in the world trade centers. This is what happens to people’s minds when you train them not to feel any emotions about death. I respect our soldiers but I have no respect for the few who commit criminal acts who make the rest of the corp look bad, but history shows that many will return from war with a head full of snakes. This I know for a fact. My uncle is a viet nam veteran who came home psychologically fucked in the head from that war so I seen it up front. If Vietnam is any indication, the number of random shootings will rise in the decades following their return. We must deal with our soldier's emotional needs compassionately and set up a number of support groups and post-traumatic stress centers. Maybe you (and drlogic) should consider this. Soldiers killing people without good pragamatic reasons except self-righteous anger is vile, excuseless and uncalled for. It actually aids the enemy and if you condone their murderous acts you are aiding the terrorists yourself. So how does it feel to be a terrorists' symphasizer?

Translation:

From Capitol Hill Blue The Rant Can a blowjob save America? By DOUG THOMPSON May 15, 2006, 08:00 "You're in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history!" --Robin Williams to the late J.T. Walsh in Good Morning Vietnam At lunch the other day, a relatively-refined female friend blurted out: "I wish somebody would catch George W. Bush getting a blowjob from an intern so we could impeach him." Kind of says a lot about where this country is headed. We can impeach a President for cheating on his wife and then lying about it but we can't seem to do a damn thing about one who lies, spies on Americans without legal authority, consistently abuses the power of his office and sends thousands of Americans to die in a baseless invasion founded on deceit. Polls show Bush sliding into that nether region of political hell occupied by other Presidential failures like Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover but while we know he lies, cheats, ignores the law and runs roughshod over the Constitution, those charged with removing despots from office sit frozen like deer in headlights, unable to move while a freight train of corruption barrels down on them. You don't need the latest polls to know George W. Bush is in trouble. Just look at the prime-time TV schedule. When Bush schedules another 8 p.m. EDT speech to the nation it's a sure sign he's trying to squirm his way out of another mess. Tonight's speech topic, we are told, is immigration. In other words, the Prez wants to try, once again, to sell his failed immigration reform to a nation that no longer listens to him, certainly doesn't believe him and just wishes he would go away. So the networks, in the midst of May sweeps, will shuffle their schedules so Bush can trot out the snakeoil once again to see if there is anyone left out there to buy his failures and missteps. Then Americans will do what they wanted to do in the first place: Settle into their recliners to see if Jack Bauer can save America on 24 and if Horatio Caine's new bride gets bumped off in CSI:Miami. On Tuesday, pundits will pontificate, the loyal opposition will respond and the immigration reform bill will sit stalled in a Congress paralyzed by political polarization. In Iraq, more Americans will die. In Washington, a grand jury will decide whether or not to indict Presidential guru Karl Rove for his role in the shameful outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. I'll join friends for lunch to listen to the usual mantra about how Bush has destroyed America and we need to do something to stop him. But Bush will remain President. Congress will remain mired in gridlock as any real chance of change sinks into the toxic cesspool of politics. A new poll will come out and show Bush's job approval rating falling even lower. Nothing will change, unless... Anybody got Monica Lewinsky's phone number? © Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_8633.shtml

From Capitol Hill Blue The Rant Dems need to clean their own house first By DOUG THOMPSON May 22, 2006, 05:56 If Democrats are truly sincere about cleaning up Congress, they need to prove it by purging their own collections of crooks, thieves and con-artists. Corruption's bi-partisanship reared its ugly head this weekend when FBI agents raided the Capitol Hill office of crooked Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) and revealed they caught the bribe-taking Congressman accepting 100 grand from an undercover agent. Washington insiders have known for years that Jefferson was dirty yet Democrats continued to tolerate his presence in their midst just like Republicans turned a blind-eye to crooks like Randy "Duke Cunningham" (now in jail) and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (headed there soon). Jefferson isn't the only dirty Dem. West Virginia's Allan Mollohan finally gave up his seat on, of all things, the House Ethics Committee when even his fellow party members could no longer ignore his many ethical lapses. But the Dems have yet to do anything about Corrine Brown, the fast-talking con artist who left a trail of failed businesses, bad checks and betrayed business partners in Florida. After coming to Washington, Rep. Brown continued her criminal ways, accepting homes, cars and cash from fatcat supporters. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promises to "clean up" Congress if her party regains control in the November mid-term elections but I'm more than a little skeptical given her reluctance to start cleaning house within her own party ranks. Mollohan's ethical problems were known for months before she started pressuring him to resign. An investigation of Jefferson only began last week after months of negotiations with Republicans and only after the GOP offered up one of their own (Bob Ney of Ohio) as a quid pro quo for joint investigation. Pelosi promises an immediate probe of George W. Bush's behavior if Dems win control. Others in her party want to launch immediate impeachment proceedings - an act of revenge for the GOP-engineered and botched impeachment of Bill Clinton. Extracting revenge on Republicans for their mismanagement of Congress is not true reform. Neither is replacing one set of crooks with another. Those who march to a partisan flag often defend their own party's transgressions by claiming the other side is dirtier, that their crimes are greater, and that minor corruption is acceptable when your ultimate goal is the "greater good." That's bullshit. You are either honest or you are not. You either serve the public trust or your own greed. You either apply the same standards to everyone or you are just another partisan shill who puts party politics above the best interests of the nation. George W. Bush and his gang that controls both the House and Senate have committed many crimes against this nation. They have shredded the Constitution, trampled without mercy on freedom and individual rights and plunged the country into deep, possibly uncontrollable, debt. Their first round of punishment for their crimes should come at the hands of voters in November. But if the voters hand control of Congress to the Democrats, they must prove themselves worthy of the public trust. They must insist that their own kind live by the same ethical standards they seek to impose on others. They should adopt a "zero tolerance" policy regarding fellow Democrats and impose that policy now, proving before November that they can make the hard choices needed to clean up Congress. Unless they do, promises of reform will be just empty campaign rhetoric and life in Congress under a new Democratic leadership will be just business as usual. © Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_8678.shtml

The religious phonies who rule our government By DOUG THOMPSON May 19, 2006, 09:37 Sadly, homophobia rules in the United State Senate. I suppose I should expect such intolerance in a legislative body ruled by the Republican Party - the home of racists, bigots and hate. Led by the biggest homophobe of all - President George W. Bush - the GOP continues to represent repression at the highest level. The latest assault comes at the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a session so heated that Democratic member Russ Feingold stalked out as Chairman Arlen Specter chanted "Good riddance!" The committee, in a private session, approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage - just the latest Republican assault on liberty - a measure that mandates that marriage is only legal between a man and a woman. Bush, the homophobe-in-chief, declared the constitutional amendment a major part of his "political capital" after the 2004 election. His fellow homophobes in the Senate appear determined to back his bigoted ways. I'm not surprised. I worked with enough Republicans while in Washington to realize the party is overrun by gay-bashers, racists and bigots. What they call "family values" is nothing more than a call to arms against anyone who doesn't buy into their limited, hate-filled view of life. What they call decent is nothing more than old-fashioned intolerance at its worst. These right-wing fanatics tout the Bible when they think they have found an obscure verse that supports their narrow-minded views and then ignore the overall teachings of religion that promote love and tolerance. Not surprisingly, they treat the Constitution with the same, callous disregard. Bush claims to be a Christian but curses like a sailor, often taking the Lord's name in vain. In fact, "goddamn" is one of Bush's favorite obscenities. At the very least, this is odd behavior for a so-called Christian. But I don't, for a second, believe Bush is a Christian or a religious man. He is an opportunist who uses religion as a political tool as do far too many of the so-called family-value Republicans who infect Congress like a rampaging cancer. True Christians would not promote the hate, intolerance and bigotry that come out of Congress. True Christians would not continue to back an illegal invasion of another country, one that had led to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and many thousands of Iraqi civilians. True Christians would not try to amend the U.S. Constitution to declare love the sole province of heterosexuals. True Christianity cannot exist in a Congress ruled by the Republican Party. © Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_8663.shtml

Enron bosses to die in jail Nick Papps, Los Angeles 27may06 TWO former Enron Corp executives have been sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in jail over one of the biggest corporate collapses and cover-ups in American history. Enron founder Ken Lay and former chief executive Jeffrey Skilling were found guilty yesterday of conspiracy, lying, bank fraud and insider training after overseeing the demise of America's seventh-biggest company. Lay, 64, faces 45 years after being convicted of six counts of conspiracy and fraud. Skilling, 52, faces 185 years after being found guilty of 19 counts of fraud, insider trading and making false statements. Lay slumped, sighed and shook his head as the verdict was read. Outside court he said: "Certainly this is not the outcome we expected." Skilling said: "I think we fought a good fight but some things work and some things don't. Obviously I am disappointed but that is the way the system works." Both men have been freed on $6.5 million bonds ahead of sentencing on September 11, and plan to appeal. Enron collapsed in December 2001 under crippling debts in one of the the biggest bankruptcies in US history. The collapse wiped out more than $78 billion in Enron's market value, $2.7 billion in employees' pension plans was lost and 5600 employees lost their jobs. Prosecutors alleged Lay and Skilling covered up the company's woeful financial position and propped up its share price by overseeing fictional reports of booming profits. It is estimated Lay pocketed $289 million and Skilling $197 million by selling shares at prices inflated by false financial statements. Minutes after the verdict was read, Lay, the son of a preacher, stood in the Houston courtroom with his sobbing family members gathered around him. "God's got another plan right now," the disgraced businessman told his family. Outside the court he said: "We believe that God in fact is in control and indeed he does work all things for good for those who love the Lord." Ex-employee Sherri Saunders, who lost $1.3million in retirement savings, said "to me, God has spoken to him with this verdict". The verdict was reached after six days of deliberation, with one juror saying the key was the testimony of ex-Enron treasurer Ben Glisan, serving a five-year sentence for conspiracy. http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19263307%255E664,00.html