Page 1 of 62
Posted on December 13 at 7:51 a.m.
The President said this on signing the the UN Convention on Torture:
“The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."
That was wimp-ass Jimmy Carter, who … no wait, it was terrorist-loving Bill Clinton, and he also … no, not him, it was that Islamic pretender Barack Obama ... I knew it was one of those America-hating Democrats ... what, actually, the President who praised and signed this was that good old appeaser of evil empires, Ronald Reagan? Never mind.
On Reaction to CIA torture report?
Posted on October 24 at 1:27 p.m.
Wait! What?! William Wilberforce was denied a place on the Board?
On Bellosguardo Foundation Named
Posted on October 24 at 8:10 a.m.
Usually you like to have wealthy folks and so-called "community philanthropists" (and how much money do you have to give to whom to get that job description on your resume?) on your Board so you can raise money for your nonprofit.
On the other hand, if the purpose of the nonprofit is to do more than raise money for itself but to engage in fostering and promotion of the arts, then, as whosecity noted, it would help to have people on the Board who actually have some direct involvement in the arts community. It's odd that a mayor who over the years has professed her support for that community couldn't find anyone in it worthy to sit beside the money folks.
Posted on September 12 at 5:11 p.m.
bill ... best comment of the day.
Actually, Tam's on Facebook talking about politics and energy policy. We mostly agree, and where's the fun in that?
On Knitting Psychedelic Day Dreams
Posted on September 12 at 11:50 a.m.
Sorry loon, you're trying to justify your over-the-top reaction by rewriting what I said. On the other hand, your "all that I've said" conveniently leaves out the absurdly hysterical and wildly inappropriate nature of your responses. If your last paragraph had really had been all that you said, we could have stopped a dozen posts ago, perhaps leaving it with a subjective disagreement over whether this guy in particular qualifies as someone with the sort of vision that really should be encouraged.
ken. yes, and other people have been saying since then -- not that junk, and not in my cave.
Posted on September 12 at 7:31 a.m.
loon. Try reacting to what I said rather than to something you concocted from your fevered need to find things to argue about. I didn't say "NOTHING man can do." I commented on an article about what one particular person did.
What you in particular did on the basis of my preference for nature unadorned over macrame on rocks was accuse me of trying to "inflict [my] fascist anti-artistic tyranny on every square inch of the planet." It would be easier to take your musings seriously If you stopped treating every disagreement like a life-and-death battle requiring whatever ridiculously overwrought insult you can come up with.
Posted on September 11 at 7:13 p.m.
dolphin doesn't care, except that he takes the trouble to tell us that he doesn't care. so everybody go home.
Posted on September 11 at 6:02 p.m.
You say creative whimsy, I say the kind of dim junk that gives thrift stores a bad name. If it works to relax you, fine. I don't like it, I am relaxed, and I choose not to look at it. Cheers.
Posted on September 11 at 2:49 p.m.
You believe that "inflict your fascist anti-artistic tyranny on every square inch of the planet" is a reasoned response to someone who simply doesn't find macrame on rocks a worthwhile embellishment of nature, and you claim that "nobody in their right mind" could possibly disagree with you.
You're clearly just interested in insulting people and picking fights on whatever issue you happen to light on. I don't know why you expect anyone to take you seriously, especially when you pronounce on nature and art.
Posted on September 11 at 12:44 p.m.
and of course when you look up "unreasonable" in the dictionary it says, "to disagree with the objectively correct judgments of loonpt about art, nature, and whatever else he feels qualified to issue pronouncements on."