birdog1960

yeah. a green fish = a racist symbol. do you believe there are any legislators in sc that don't realize that a significant percentage of the populace find that symbol offensive? what do you imagine are the purposes of symbols? is this one meant to engender harmony? or does it say to many impressionables that it's ok to be racist? he grew up in a culture where racism is common and often not condemned. i doubt he woke up one morning and decided it was time to become a racist and go to a church symbolic for it's stand on civil rights and murder innocent people. the culture is very likely a factor in the event.

i'm think it's likely neanderthals like this fool feel enabled by the presence of a state sanctioined flag widely interpreted by blacks as an oppressive symbol

it's unlikely it was an coincidence that the murderer chose this church: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/18/charleston-ame-church-history. the racist history surrounding it is quite disturbing. as one columnist noted today, it should also not escape notice that sc still flies the confederate flag above its state house.

yup. and it's obviousy about racism in this country, too. it's impossible to logically ignore these massive societal problems but you can bet the house that many Americans will.

it's a river in appalachia. my friend did a tv cable video on smallie fishing here. we almost disowned him. some rednecks from nc were spotted a week ago. said they saw his video and wanted to check it out. anyway, the bald eagles are reportedly flourishing. this one looked plenty strong. cool loosely related story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/bald-eagles-james-river_n_3656883.html. i've fished the james (it's not far) and it's awesome but not today and have never seen eagles there. you must know that fisherman don't give up there spots!

fished in a river full of smallies and red eyes (rock bass) but also full of mercury from long mothballed chlorine cells, originally designed in niagara falls at hooker chemical. caught some nice ones. my friends grandson caught the most on hellgrammites ("grampus") that he seined for all of us. saw a majestic bald eagle soar 20 feet above us, fishing just like us. hoping he/she isn't poisoned by the mercury. threw all of ours back.

except that he's clearly not ignoring me and i quoted that misidentified passage a few posts after reddogblitz. try again….

holy shite…so reddogblitz is yet another pseudonym of yours? you planted that quote or alternatively you ignored "his" mistake until now? that's truly pathetic. you win…the award for best cheater in an argument. well done.

for the second time in this thread: For the pistachio and strawberry mousse: 8 oz (240gr) mascarpone cheese, at room temperature 1/2 cup (100gr) sugar 1/4 cup (30gr) finely ground raw pistachios 1/2 cup pureed fresh strawberries 1 1/2 cups (375ml) heavy cream, kept cold, divided In a large bowl, whisk together the mascarpone and sugar until completely smooth. Take half the mixture and place it in another large bowl. Add the pistachios to one of them and mix until incorporated. Add the pureed strawberries to the other mascarpone mixture. In a mixer, whip the heavy cream to stiff peaks. Fold half into the pistachio mascarpone mix and the other half with the strawberry one. The pistachio mousse is probably stifff enough to be used right away but you might have to refrigerate the strawberry one until the mascarpone hardens a bit otherwise it might be too soft to pipe easily. Divide the mixture into piping bags fitted with medium plain tips (or do the pistachio mousse first, wash your bag and tip and then do the strawberry one). Pipe dots of mousse onto half the puff pastry sheets, alternating the pistachio and strawberry. Top with another sheet of puff pastry and refrigerate at least 30 minutes. oops. sorry. that's actually the opposite of torture. was made for me this weekend. this is torture per the geneva convention: "Article 1 "1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

let's rehash: 1) most of the jokes here are not humorous. many are written as jabs and pokes.2) the definition of troll truly is ambiguous. there was an excellent recent npr discussion on it's history, techniques and motivations. they are relevant to this discussion. you may want to edumicate yourself. 3) "it is so because i say so"

"it is so because i say it is so"

except that olifver doesn't attempt to define it likely because there are definitions available in resources such as the geneva convention

yes words have meanings. a perfectly acceptable definition of "torture" bearing no resemblance to that inferred by you can be gleaned from a post in this very thread. it's pretty easy to make definitions ridiculous if they are self authored by a fool.

that's what i thought. next time i'll not bother to look at your weak references

so your first link is based on a lawsuit that the murderer who was allegedly tortured is filing against the german police. seems a bit removed from definitive proof. the second deals with a FILM. there's no citation to the film and i'm assuming that means it's a produced film and not actual footage of interogations but how would anyone know? seems not very convincing proof. the third link doesnt work for me the fourth uses the torture specifically refuted as producinbg usable evidence in the torture report that oliver is discussing. in fact he even shows cheney lying to fox television about this juxtaposed to thereports findings. so...i'm thinking i still haven't seen convincing proof.

wait. you introduced gitmo into the discussion even though it wasn't salient to it? and this statement: "The US is the first country in history to be accused of torture by providing sufficient, healthy food to prisoners." only applies to gitmo and no other reported acts of us torture? that wasn't at all clear. so now that you've explained we can recharacterize your argument from denial of documented facts to simple obfiscation.

i don't see any proof. nor did the authors of the report. show me the proof.

what proof do you have that this staement is true? i'm still witing foir tom to defend his position on the acts deescribed in the report not meeting the threshold of his definition of torture. it's an all too common and all to often allowed and unquestioned conservative tactic: denial of documented facts

except when it's one of the right wing posters own experience and then it becames an absolute.

Senate Intelligence Committee's report of CIA torture[edit]On December 9, 2014 the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture was published.[1] According to that report he had been subjected to total darkness, sensory overload, sleep deprivation, cold shower, "rough treatment", short shackling and finally froze to death. The report said he was the only captive known to have died in CIA custody. Steven W Hawkins, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, writing in the The Guardian, reported that he found that the CIA official responsible for Rahman's death, was not only not punished, or sanctioned, rather, he received a cash bonus for his "consistently superior work".[6] gul rahman, from wiki. i guess they didn't use over feeding on this prisoner.

yes, because dying of hypothermia while being mistakenly identified in a secret prison, shackled to a wall is a picnic compared to a daily beating... it's more properly called murder.

have any of you cons ever heard of these things called ethics and morality? didn't think so... they're the things that separate us from animals. some of us.

because some personal experience on a topic is better than none.

do you have any evidence to back up these claims?

yep. and both inhofe and sweater vest joker are making fools of themselves over it. he has a stronger science background than either of them and climate is everyones concern and business not just talking head right wing legislators.