The Brig
Where all are free and welcome to debate, worship the very carbon-dioxide I exhale or assail me as the peonistic liberal slime they are. Note that no outright spam will be tolerated, you will be banned if you post something grossly offensive or just unfunny.
And remember, all those who defy me WILL be rhetorically spanked. Have fun.
hello again loyal disciple,
well. I just read your article about global warming and must i say good work. I love how you talk about ruling with the iron hand of communism. With the talk of genocide and getting rid of everything is the talk of a true intellectual liberal and communist. You not only remind me of myself of a young michael moore, some one is trying to exstingush those conservative scum. So I will leave you with this, may you lead the united states to a period of great communist values that you hold so dearly.
I bid you good day,
Your loving Leader,
KARL MARX
Dear Lover,
Im glad we finally consumated our relationship and Im glad to hear that KarlMarx has chosen you to lead his glorius revolution of the united states. Thankyou once again for the trinket of hair you gave me, and I still havent washed myself after layed my hands upon your garrish, hairy , and manly chest. Ohh, Im titilated just thinking about it. I have to go do something….uh i mean I have to go make another lying documentary.
See you tonight LOVER!
Azandi. Your last post on my site was unbearable. I can no longer bear to suffer through another suck up comment from you. What I find so doubly wretched is how you masquerade as a fellow liberal on my blog, yet on your own, you plagerize a vast majority of your words from a respectable man like Medved and bastardize them with your sloppy signature of infantile pouting. So make up your adolescent mind, the internet is no place for a flipflopping Benedict Arnold, especially one as meager-minded and simple as yourself.
It just occured to me that apparently only retarded people comment my site. I’m not sure if this is attributed to juvenile writing on my part, or a testament to the imminent collapse of the political discourse.
Considering how my site is is the last bastion of intellectual right-wing authority on the planet, these imbecile liberal sycophants must be posting here cause they have nothing better to do after a bong hit.
Whateva, they’re funny the same way that a freak show is funny, gotta love liberals.
Pssst, Azandi, if you are sick of those weirdos bothering you, I have an easy semi-legal solution to your problem. Are you interested?
Semi-legal eh?
I’m listening…
Hello loyal groupie,
I have been titilated to find out about your recent success of bringing the red flag of communism back to the states. What you did in chicago with the smoking ban was brilliant, dont let those conservative scum be able to smoke their lucky strikes inside. GENIUS!!! I still cant believe how much you remind me of myself in my earlier and more Garrish years. Now if you really want to stick it to those right wing assholes you need to write the sequel to my communist manifesto and call it “Its as easy as 1-2-3, Communism”.
good bye loyal apostle
Watching these hapless infantile primates return again and again for spewing their bullshit just to be verbally thrashed is beyond funny…but in that kind of cosmic, sardonic fashion. Like observing horrible abominations at a….politically themed circus expo.
Someone please, keep Rosie off my T.V. I am getting Ill watching this fat warthog. She is a stench in the nastral of God. How can we let this go on and on. She is Finished . She is not funny, she looks like a hog. She must smell like cuter. She is a nasty person. her rateings have dropped to the botom. Did I mention she sinks.
She was on the beach here in jax fl. and two old laides from Green Peace tryed to pull her in the water they thaught she was a geached whale. She is the most discusting person I think I haver known. Deport her to the mid east. or to fagg Island. No wonder she goes with women no man could bare the thaught of doing that beast. My god what a uglely , fat, dumb ass, thing. Donlad Trump should have her beat with in a inh of her life. GET HER OFF T.V. OR ANY BROADCAST FORM. TAKE THOSE CHILDREN AWAY FROM THAT FUR BUMPER, SOMEONE PLEASE UNDERSTAND I AM NOT ALONE EVERYONE I TALK TO SAYS WHY DON’T THEY MAKE HER GO AWAY
NO CLASS WHITE TRACH , FAGG. THAT SHOULD BURN. EVEN ALIVE IS OK WITH ME GET ER DONE GET RID OF HER. PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Yo, keep the bootford1 out of my daily readings of the brig.
You will be silenced impostor, Rosie disparaging is always welcome and will be protected in this place.
so, i’m sensing that you hate homosexuals. is this correct? I thought you weren’t a christian?
I kind of lost a little respect for you just then (not that you care). I just don’t understand the hatred of homosexuals that is so prevalent amongst the right. in my view there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. I would welcome your insight into why I am incorrect.
I don’t hate homosexuals. This whole page is like an inside-joke between myself and friends I know personally. Nothing to do with homophobia, I’d be teh first to attack a constitutional ban on gay marriage and my writing reflects that.
oh. sorry. my bad.
No problem.
Hey, umm, btw whats your email? The “max_stee” one you’re registered under doesn’t seem to work.
incidentally, have you seen these Facebook communities which compare Barack Obama with Osama Bin Laden because he is pro-choice? jeses bug-fuck mcChrist….
Wow, IBarack is Osama because he supports the right ot an abortion, don’t think a more absurd formulation is even conceivable. I’d love to have a chat with the proprietor of such a page, tear them to pieces in like 5 seconds…hot-fucking-damn…
thanks for the adress btw, i deleted teh post so no one else can invade your privacy.
thank you muchly, even if we australians don’t have a constitutionally mandated right to privacy, it is nice that you are extending your bill of rights to me.
the problem is that religious extremism (or at the very least intolerant conservatism) has infested the political right like termites. Ain’t it a damn shame that an atheist has bugger all chance to become president? thank you, the south.
I’d have to agree. Virtually the only sect of the right that isn’t populated by evengelical lunatics is the neoconservative enclave, but unfortunately even that has some Zionist propagandists filtering in and out.
I have no forum for my views and therefore must post on yours! no….must…fight….urge….ah, screw it.
Source:
Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005
Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team”
Author: Jason Leopold
Faculty Evaluator: Catherine Nelson
Student Researchers: Kristine Medeiros and Pla Herr
According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.
Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.
Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton first became public knowledge in January 2005 when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars gas-drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered to the Cayman Islands. Following the announcement, Halliburton claimed that the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. According to a BBC report, Halliburton, which took thirty to forty million dollars from its Iranian operations in 2003, “was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.”
However, Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. Leopold quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.” But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.” Moreover mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.
In an attempt to curtail Halliburton and other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations such as Libya, Iran, and Syria, an amendment was approved in the Senate on July 26, 2005. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Susan Collins R-Maine, would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct and avoid U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
A letter, drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives, vehemently objected to the amendment, saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S. and “greatly strain relations with the United States primary trading partners.” The letter warned that, “Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”
Collins supports the legislation, stating, “It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism—most often aimed against America.
UPDATE BY JASON LEOPOLD
During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”
Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.
If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future, Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame.
But this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Halliburton’s business activities over the past decade. The company has a long, documented history of violating U.S. sanctions and conducting business with so-called rogue nations.
No, what’s disturbing about these facts is how little attention it has received from the mainstream media. But the public record speaks for itself, as do the thousands of pages of documents obtained by various federal agencies that show how Halliburton’s business dealings in Iran helped fund terrorist activities there—including the country’s nuclear enrichment program.
When I asked Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, a couple of years ago if Halliburton would stop doing business with Iran because of concerns that the company helped fund terrorism she said, “No.” “We believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies,” Hall said. “Putting politics aside, we and our affiliates operate in countries to the extent it is legally permissible, where our customers are active as they expect us to provide oilfield services support to their international operations. “We do not always agree with policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business and make no excuses for their behaviors. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for our company to establish our own country-by-country foreign policy.”
Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.
An executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton in March 1995 prohibits “new investments (in Iran) by U.S. persons, including commitment of funds or other assets.” It also bars U.S. companies from performing services “that would benefit the Iranian oil industry” and provide Iran with the financial means to engage in terrorist activity.
When Bush and Cheney came into office in 2001, their administration decided it would not punish foreign oil and gas companies that invest in those countries. The sanctions imposed on countries like Iran and Libya before Bush became president were blasted by Cheney, who gave frequent speeches on the need for U.S. companies to compete with their foreign competitors, despite claims that those countries may have ties to terrorism.
“I think we’d be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions (on Iran), didn’t try to impose secondary boycotts on companies . . . trying to do business over there . . . and instead started to rebuild those relationships,” Cheney said during a 1998 business trip to Sydney, Australia, according to Australia’s Illawarra Mercury newspaper.
Ahh yes, Jason Leopold, a proven discredited fraud and liar who has been exiled from both the Los Angeles Times and Salon.com, the infamous editor of ultra-leftist conspiracy theorist half-rate political tabloid Truthout.org, a merchant of lies of the worst dye.
I have a natural tendency to automatically distrust any journalist who claims to be a provacateur of the “truth”, especially a well-known charlatan like Leopold. Thats really all I have to say on the matter.
eh, well I wasn’t aware of the source’s credibility. more fool me for not fact-checking.
Yes indeed, nice try though.
so, on a different topic;
what are your ideas for the resolution of:
The Sudan Genocide?
The Burmese Situation?
The Ethiopia-Somalia conflict?
Global warming?
For the first three stipulated scenarios, my solution is simple: UN circumvention, military intervention. That actually validates as a viable solution for most world problems.
For global warming I can’t offer a solution because there isn’t a problem to be had, plain and simple.
agree with you on the first three, but global warming is a definite problem. it’s just not as bad as al gore thinks. real sea level projections done by independent scientists hypothesise a rise of 2-3 feet, rather than the 30 foot tidal wave scenario.
it is not something we have to deal with right now, but it is a definite future problem for us. to deny that global warming is a problem AT ALL, to say that it does not exist or that human beings play absolutely no role in it, is just ludicrous.
I like to think of the massive global warming fearmongering as being a useful lie to draw our attention to the very real problems of pollution. surely no reasonable person thinks that we are not over-polluting and over using massively. the western lifestyle is far too wasteful and extravagant; if the entire world lived as we did, there would clearly not be enough resources to go around. surely you WANT to clean up the air, clean up the oceans, reforest our depleted environments, figure out a better way to get rid of landfill. these are all very real situations, which do affect us (since the entire earth is a symbiotic biosphere environment where ecological disruptions in one area can have unpredictable and devastating effects in another).
what I am sick of is people thinking caring about the environment is the purview of hippies or people who are not realists. in reality, if you are at all concerned with self-preservation, you would agree to strict restrictions on air pollution, dumping and sewer runoff, landfill and recycling, and would focus on desalination plants (fresh water is definitely going to be a concern his century).
Eh, instead of giving a lengthy rebuttal lemme just give you some names for you to look up.
MIchael Crichton
Bjorn Lomborg
Phillip Stott
Christopher Horner
Check them out and get back to me.
Bjorn Lomborg was the source for my quote about sea levels rising 2-3 feet.
but what the hey, it’s not like I have any assignments due, i guess I can read those – OH WAIT I DO.
i’ll get around to it…
From Mike Crichton:
Third, this kind of stonewalling is not unique or uncommon. The Canadians are now attempting to replicate other climate studies and are getting the same runaround from other researchers. One leading light in the field told them: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
that bit made me go ‘whuuuuuuu!?’
Carl popper states that the key element of the scientific method is negative-verifiability and repetition – you are SUPPOSED to conduct experiments to find fault with a hypothesis! that’s how science progresses!
thanks for showing me this…
However I maintain that POLLUTION, if not global warming, is a key challenge today’s generation has to face.
I’d agree with your pollution contention, really way too much garbage concentration.
But I wouldn’t worry too much about it, technological advancement always far outpaces such primordial arcanum as waste-management, the problem will solve itself naturally.
I wish I could be so confident. the progress of science tends to create two problems everytime it solves one. Remember that lead petrol and CFC causing refrigerators were once technological breakthroughs.
Chaos theory states that even with the simplest of two-variable situations, there will be unpredicted and mathematically complex outcomes. this is why I am so nervous of genetic engineering. the top scientists have themselves admitted that altering a single gene can create wildly divergent and unpredictable changes in the phenotypic structure of organisms.
Well, based upon your rather fatalistic assessment why even bother trying to stop pollution? We’re just going to create more in the process right?
I believe in natural processes, I think even artificial constructs of man have a greater meticulous infrastructure to them, that the natural order of human progression and ingenuity will ameliorate problems, least of which will be one of simple waste management protocols.
i liked your commentary on De’Souza – but am a little confused as to what you mean by ‘the family’ as the center of good morality. do you refer to the traditional ‘nuclear family’, or do you just mean the general family framework i.e. some kind of parental figure or figures who educate their children morally during their formative years?
for example, homosexual families or single parent families, etc.
The latter, the traditional family framework. I have no particular animus towards the prospects of a homosexually-spearheaded family structure, I daresay there are probably more suitable gay parents than there are some straight ones. There isn’t really any substantive evidence corroborating the allegations posed by the religious right than gay parents are incapable of raising children effectively. While I’m not perfectly comfortable with the idea, I’d accept it, its no one’s business to determine how people cultivate their families, thats bureaucratic intervention, which always fails, and thats the folly the “moral right” consistently fails to recognize.
Hey man,
Send me a quick email if you can. I can’t find your address on here… if it is then just point it out.
I just want to send you a quick article and briefly explain what I thought D’souza should have said. The article is not about Christopher Hitchens. I swear.