Crap Throwing Monkey

12,000 Iraqi civilians were killed, including more than 10,000 Shiites, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said, citing figures from a research center Rhetorical questions, obviously. Poor and inaccurate statistical research happens all the time. My question is: why should I take it at face value just because Fox (or Reuters, which is where I first read the story) says so? Am I really supposed to expect that the media verified the report's credibility and methodology? I'm just bitching...because I HATE this kind of reporting: throw some unverified sh-- against the wall, and see what sticks. Aside from the fact that it infringes on my crap-throwing franchise, it doesn't mean anything, and is reported by people who doubtlessly don't know anything about it other than the number "12000". It is, once again, piss-poor reporting...

TD, on or about the afternoon of April 30th, disabled Superhero's internet connection and stole his computer, the evil, soulless bastard.

Based on everything I've seen and heard, the prosecution failed - egregiously - to make their case (which was NOT "Michael Jackson is a serial pedophile", but "Michael Jackson molested this particular boy in this particular instance"). It would be a grave miscarriage of justice if he were convicted. However...given that he's a freak with a long history of this crap, it would be a grave miscarriage of justice if he weren't convicted, as well. Bottom line: it's a sh------- case brought to trial in front of a sh------- judge by a sh------- prosecution team against a sh------- defending team that can only deliver the wrong conclusion no matter WHAT that conclusion is.

A tiny little canopy for them so they don't get to warm, some nice comfortable lounge chairs...maybe a miniature hibachi pool-side...live band for the entertainment...

Good one...

This sounds suspiciously like the ravings of a sore loser...

Am I the only one that's asking what the definition of "killed" is that led to the number "12,000"? It is possible, after all, that the definition used to reach that number is so wildly inaccurate that the actual numbers are closer to 6,000...or 24,000... Nah, it doesn't matter. The press says "12,000 killed", so it must be right. They wouldn't publish anything inaccurate, after all...

Don't you mean "He's still having a meltdown"?

Tell them you're from UBC Local #24 and demand to see their union cards...

Shaklee? Last I heard (last August, from a distributor), they were against animal testing and supported animal rights. Some people are just too stupid...

Pretty much just that. And the validity of RICO has been questioned more than once. But SHAC...they're a bunch of certifiable loons. We're not talking "normal" PETA-type protests, where someone dresses up in a bloody chicken suit and pickets a KFC. SHAC (and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and a host of other underground organizations that are roughly the same, having lots of cross-pollenation between their leadership and membership rosters) advocate actions and methods in pursuit of a political goal that's not dissimilar to what you'd see from Islamic Jihad or Hamas or the like. Hell, some of their leadership have long criminal records related to environmental extremism (one in particular, whose name I can't remember, did at least 10 years for felony arson...and when released from prison, immediately advocated arson and homocide against research scientists doing animal experiments). That these extreme organizations like SHAC are terrorist groups is, to me, an entirely appropriate way of considering them. And charging them under these "anti-terrorism" statutes...well, I have little problem with that, and what problems I do have relate not to SHAC's seriously warped idea of free speech (arson is free speech? ), but to the questionable and what I consider overly-broad structure of the law itself. But then, I feel the same about RICO, too. And if they tried lobbing either of those laws at PETA, I'd be aghast, even as much as I completely loathe those PETA morons. But SHAC doesn't deserve much better treatment in the criminal justice system than Red Army Faction or Hisballah deserves, frankly.

Did he do it? Probably. Will he be found guilty? Hardly even matters; the prosecution of his case was SO !@#$ed up, even if the jury returns a guilty verdict, there's PLENTY of room for reversal on appeal (for example: the judge's permitting the prosecution to introduce improper testimony intended not to prove the charges but impeach the defendant's character and unfairly bias the jury). If I had to give odds...I wouldn't on the verdict; either the jury's smart and realizes the prosecution never proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and tried to hide that failure behind a smokescreen of improper "Well...he's a freak!" testimony, or they're stupid and say "Well, he's guilty...because he's a freak!" I will say that he's unlikely to server even a day of jail time, as the only think he's likely to be found guilty of is serving alcohol to a minor, a misdemeanor, and anything else is liable to be reversed on appeal.

So what, exactly, is proper armor? Yeah...they should have used sandbags, like they traditionally have.

Shaq has always surprised me in that, considering he's pretty much been spoiled rotten for half his life because he's big and can rebound, he's still got his head screwed on pretty well. I'm sure he's not perfect and has made more than his share of bad judgements, but most guys in his position wouldn't even come close to being as decent a human being as he is.

Not even close. We've had threads go well over a thousand. No thanks to that evil bastard TD, though...

AI is doing that? You sure you're not confusing them with the ACLU?

I knew that without having to look it up... I really need to get a life.

In the South Pacific theater (Papua New Guinea and such) in '42-'43, penicillin was in such short supply that medics who administered it to patients would then collect their urine and recover the unmetabolized penicillin they excreted in order to administer it to someone else...

Depending on which Muslim you talk to, such prohibitions against women represent either 1) the degree to which Islam treasures women, protecting them from men to the degree that it does, or 2) the degree to which a devout Muslim must avoid temptation and carnal sins to stay in Allah's good graces, leaving women as covered and inaccessible as Islam does. I've heard both justifications...and frankly, either one is not only entirely consistent with Saudi interpretation of Islam but sensible within that interpretation*. *(Note to mouth-breathing pinheads: I said within that interpretation. That means my statement was not meant to be an absolute, but only relative to that particular interpretation of Islam. Thus, the qualification "within that interpretation". What this means is that when you come at me and say, as you usually do, "So you support the Saudi oppression of women?", I will call you an unabashed fool for being unable to read and discern the meaning of the phrase "within that interpretation".

Actually, JSP says so. Unless you're saying JSP = Allah...

Why what? Why should it be investigated, or why should he be pardoned if he's found to have acted criminally?

Actually, he's a very fair Duck-Duck-Goose player. Rumor has it, though, that he does cheat at Red Light-Green Light and has been known bend the rules in Red Rover.

I knew that. And I'm not worried so much that I knew that, but more so that I can't remember why or how I know that...

TD made Warren Sapp's soul stink...

Watergate's enough before my time that I don't know the details...but I wouldn't be surprised if he WAS a criminal for his actions. I was just thinking about that this morning: for the sake of completely putting the Watergate issue to bed, DOJ ought to do an investigation (basically, interview him) to see if any laws were broken...and if so, he should be given an immediate Presidential pardon.