SilverNRed Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Washington Times The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign. Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat. Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union. I, for one, am SHOCKED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Washington TimesI, for one, am SHOCKED! 349563[/snapback] So because they contributed to the presidential campaign of the person that they felt would do a better job with human rights, that automatically makes them biased? So, since I voted for John Kerry, I'm no longer registered a republican? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Biased yes, but transparent. It is clear that they are against the death penalty, torture, detaining prisoners of conscience, etc. Why should America be so thin-skinned when they skewer most nation-states in their international report? Let's stand with China and Burma to root out this bias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 So because they contributed to the presidential campaign of the person that they felt would do a better job with human rights, that automatically makes them biased? So, since I voted for John Kerry, I'm no longer registered a republican? 349570[/snapback] No, you are. But you're also an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 No, you are. But you're also an idiot. 349676[/snapback] In general, or because he voted for Kerry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 In general, or because he voted for Kerry? 349679[/snapback] Option B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 This just in: Greenpeace is biased towards environmental issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 No, you are. But you're also an idiot. 349676[/snapback] I wondered how long that would take! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Option B. 349693[/snapback] Yeah but 49% of the country is by that criterion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Yeah but 49% of the country is by that criterion... 349764[/snapback] No argument here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 2, 2005 Author Share Posted June 2, 2005 Yeah but 49% of the country is by that criterion... 349764[/snapback] ...and? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 So because they contributed to the presidential campaign of the person that they felt would do a better job with human rights, that automatically makes them biased? So, since I voted for John Kerry, I'm no longer registered a republican? 349570[/snapback] I thought we had been through this. You have some ideas bordering on sensible, why don't you follow them through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Yeah but 49% of the country is by that criterion... 349764[/snapback] i think you got your numbers flipped its closer to 94%, and thats being generous ***EDIT*** oh, and i forgot to mention 2 things Amnesty International = RJ Amnesty International needs more cowbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 2, 2005 Author Share Posted June 2, 2005 All the cowbell in the world wouldn't help them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 All the cowbell in the world wouldn't help them. 349953[/snapback] I betcha Rush Limbaugh would take issue with that. They are still trying to save his fat ass from the humiliation of having his medical records released...in spite of the fact that he's a big fat idiot. If preserving civil liberties is a bad thing, we're in a little more trouble than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I betcha Rush Limbaugh would take issue with that. They are still trying to save his fat ass from the humiliation of having his medical records released...in spite of the fact that he's a big fat idiot. If preserving civil liberties is a bad thing, we're in a little more trouble than I thought. 350069[/snapback] AI is doing that? You sure you're not confusing them with the ACLU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 AI is doing that? You sure you're not confusing them with the ACLU? 350096[/snapback] My bad, you are correct. Easy mistake to make in this crowd, they start with "A" and are reviled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 They are still trying to save his fat ass from the humiliation of having his medical records released...in spite of the fact that he's a big fat idiot. 350069[/snapback] Funny, I've heard ten year olds say the same thing in the past. Nice work You've fallin to a really new low........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 Funny, I've heard ten year olds say the same thing in the past. Nice work You've fallin to a really new low........... 350147[/snapback] Stay tuned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Come on people, this whole bru-haha is another example of what happens when the "liberal media" gets their hands on a story. What AI really said is that the Bush administration needs more cowbell!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 AI is doing that? You sure you're not confusing them with the ACLU? 350096[/snapback] Facts are not important when you have an agenda. Just make statements and hope nobody actually checks to see if they are true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Facts are not important when you have an agenda. Just make statements and hope nobody actually checks to see if they are true. 350277[/snapback] DING! Pepperoni Pizza Hotpockets ®. what were you saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Washington TimesI, for one, am SHOCKED! 349563[/snapback] You have an anti-bias bias. I don't understand this perversion of the word "bias." OF COURSE THEY ARE BAISED! They are supposed to be biased towards the issues they were formed to advocate for. Guess what? The Heritage Foundation is biased; Sierra Club is biased; Catholisism is biased; George Bush is biased; John Kerry is biased; I am biased; and you are biased. Oh yeah, that rag you quoted your article from, the Washington Times, is biased towards the extreme right wing. Bias in and of itself is not a bad thing - it a good thing in a democracy. Different biases boiling in the labatory of ideas is what democracy is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 You have an anti-bias bias. I don't understand this perversion of the word "bias." OF COURSE THEY ARE BAISED! They are supposed to be biased towards the issues they were formed to advocate for. Guess what? The Heritage Foundation is biased; Sierra Club is biased; Catholisism is biased; George Bush is biased; John Kerry is biased; I am biased; and you are biased. Oh yeah, that rag you quoted your article from, the Washington Times, is biased towards the extreme right wing. Bias in and of itself is not a bad thing - it a good thing in a democracy. Different biases boiling in the labatory of ideas is what democracy is about. 350359[/snapback] Fine, as long as we recognize that the "Gulag" statements came from a group whose members were doing everything they could to get John Kerry into office a few months back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Fine, as long as we recognize that the "Gulag" statements came from a group whose members were doing everything they could to get John Kerry into office a few months back. Fine, as long as we recognize that the people who spent money trying to get George Bush in office showed no significant differences in their willingness to spread as much shlt as your typical farmhand. Sheep to the left of me Sheep to the right..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Fine, as long as we recognize that the people who spent money trying to get George Bush in office showed no significant differences in their willingness to spread as much shlt as your typical farmhand. Sheep to the left of me Sheep to the right..... 350406[/snapback] be careful when you mention farm animals or you may bring the wrath of PETA and if you've seen the south park episode then you'll know that they love animals really really love animals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 be careful when you mention farm animals or you may bring the wrath of PETA and if you've seen the south park episode then you'll know that they love animals really really love animals I love animals too. Except for JackRussells, they're tougher than a whalebone. And bass after May, they get too grainy And cats, they're just way too stringy. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Rummy seemed okay with their reports in 2003... "Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how Saddam treats his people, heck he used chemicals on his own people as well as on his neighbors." -- Rumsfeld in 2003 but now this organization lacks credibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Rummy seemed okay with their reports in 2003... "Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how Saddam treats his people, heck he used chemicals on his own people as well as on his neighbors." -- Rumsfeld in 2003 but now this organization lacks credibility? 350442[/snapback] Its because people forgot about poland! http://forgotpol.ytmnd.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 I love animals too.Except for JackRussells, they're tougher than a whalebone. And bass after May, they get too grainy And cats, they're just way too stringy. Cya 350430[/snapback] dude, don't forget about the Crab People Crab People, Crab People, taste like crab, talk like people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 dude, don't forget about the Crab People Crab People, Crab People, taste like crab, talk like people 350960[/snapback] My advice, stay away from crabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Rummy seemed okay with their reports in 2003... "Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how Saddam treats his people, heck he used chemicals on his own people as well as on his neighbors." -- Rumsfeld in 2003 but now this organization lacks credibility? 350442[/snapback] All part of the if this group agrees with us, they're credible and if they are against us, they're biased BS that you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Facts are not important when you have an agenda. Just make statements and hope nobody actually checks to see if they are true. 350277[/snapback] I'm so glad you're perfect and never made a misstatement. Tell me this Oh Great One, if AI is so flawed why does the US cite their findings when it suits us, like when we want to ding other countries for their human rights failings? Hmmmmm? Ahhh the hypocrisy. This is the place to come for a big fat dose of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Facts are not important when you have an agenda. Just make statements and hope nobody actually checks to see if they are true. 350277[/snapback] Yup. That's what was so frustrating with the last pres election. The BS rhetoric that was being spewed and people were eating it up without bothering to get off their lazy butts to verify. My personal favorite was people I would talk with would say that Kerry voted against this defense bill and then throw out this bill# trying to back up their claim. It was fun asking them if they had actually *looked* at that vote breakdown to see that Republicans also voted against the bill. There were Kerry people who obviously did the same. It's one thing to have a position but at least try to back it up with some facts! I guess that's why H.L. Menkin once said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 if AI is so flawed why does the US cite their findings when it suits us, like when we want to ding other countries for their human rights failings? Hmmmmm? 351059[/snapback] Probably for the same reason you cite FoxSnooze when it suits you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Probably for the same reason you cite FoxSnooze when it suits you... 351088[/snapback] I cite Fox News? I guess if referring to Fox News as a big joke, I do cite it. (Which doesn't say much for the people who actually watch it.) But you WON'T see me citing Fox News as crap one minute, and then using it as a reliable source the next. It's just crap, period, always and forever. But it's not quite the same ignoring human rights violations in one place because the source is "absurd" and in others claiming the source is spot on, when it's the same source. Like saying "we would NEVER torture anyone" and then five minutes later saying "well war is hell, get over it." Stupid chickenshits, if they think that torture is the right thing to do they should have the COJONES to stand up for their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 I'm so glad you're perfect and never made a misstatement. 351059[/snapback] Funny, you are pretty quick to get all over someone when they misspeak, but can't take the criticism when it happens to you. Oh, the hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Funny, you are pretty quick to get all over someone when they misspeak, but can't take the criticism when it happens to you. Oh, the hypocrisy. 351145[/snapback] lolz I was thinking the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 I cite Fox News? I guess if referring to Fox News as a big joke, I do cite it. (Which doesn't say much for the people who actually watch it.) But you WON'T see me citing Fox News as crap one minute, and then using it as a reliable source the next. It's just crap, period, always and forever. But it's not quite the same ignoring human rights violations in one place because the source is "absurd" and in others claiming the source is spot on, when it's the same source. Like saying "we would NEVER torture anyone" and then five minutes later saying "well war is hell, get over it." Stupid chickenshits, if they think that torture is the right thing to do they should have the COJONES to stand up for their beliefs. 351132[/snapback] You'll cite whatever proves your point. Just like everyone else does. The difference between you and everyone else, though, is that you pretend you're above that. You're not. You're a chickenshit just like the rest of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 You'll cite whatever proves your point. Just like everyone else does. The difference between you and everyone else, though, is that you pretend you're above that. You're not. You're a chickenshit just like the rest of them. 351214[/snapback] I cite me. Wanna fight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts