May 3, 2009

The law enforcement officer responsible for the county jail condones torture

It’s a little scary when the second ranking law enforcement officer in Livingston County - who also runs the county jail - defends and makes excuses for torture, but that is exactly what Livingston County Undersheriff Mike Murphy is trying to do in a disgusting letter to the editor in the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus on Sunday.

Not surprisingly, Murphy is the chair of the Livingston County Republican Party. In his disgusting letter he never points that fact out, and the editor had to do that for him. The letter is filled with misinformation, lies and exaggerations from the very first sentence.

He claims, “It has been a little over 100 days since President Barack Obama has taken office, and if it's any indication of what lies ahead for the next four years, America could be in dire straits.” Apparently, Sheriff Murphy has been asleep for the last eight years, and he is not aware of the recession former President Bush plunged the country into and the budget surplus he turned into a deficit. President Obama’s first 100 days have been spent cleaning up the mess left him.

He then launched into his standard rightwing talking points: “I could care less what a person's issue is, whether it's moving the economy toward socialism, placing limits on First Amendment rights by regulating free speech on the airwaves and on the Internet, or if it's trampling states' rights by trumping all their laws on abortion restrictions.” The socialism crack is the hottest GOP talking point, the First Amendment talking point must - I guess - be about the rightwing paranoia about the Fairness Doctrine, but I have no idea what he is talking about on abortion rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has been pretty clear on abortion.

But his real misguided wrath is reserved for national security and defending torture.

“According to The Weekly Standard, Obama has released classified intelligence to our enemies regarding the amount of coercive interrogation tactics the United States is willing to use. Such information in the hands of terrorists allows them to train for the watered-down tactics should any of their operatives be apprehended by American forces, thus making intelligence-gathering much less effective.”

There’s a great unbiased source. Coercive interrogation tactics is a nice, clean name for torture, and it has never made us safe and puts our troops in danger. The President has the right to classify and declassify information. Bush used the process to hide information. Nothing in the documents was new information that wasn’t already public knowledge.

Right-wingers claim that if you don’t condone torture you are a traitor and you are smearing the military. Nothing could be farther from the truth. After 20 years in the military, I learned hat crap rolls down hill, and the results of Abu Ghraib proved that.

Nine soldiers were convicted of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Former Cpl. Charles Graner Jr. received the longest sentence — 10 years in prison. Lynndie England, a 23-year-old reservist photographed giving a thumbs-up in front of naked prisoners, is served three years behind bars. You don’t do 10 years in prison for making prisoners uncomfortable. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is not much different from a civilian court. The people who really should be behind bars are the ones who ordered the torture. Torture not only went on at Abu Ghraib, but in Guantanamo Bay as well. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded 183 times at Gitmo. That’s just what we know about. If it worked so well, they why did we do it 183 times?

Guys like Sheriff Murphy will claim that water boarding is not torture. Not true. We prosecuted Japanese soldiers for war crimes for doing it after World War II, as well as U.S. soldiers who did it in Vietnam.

“He just doesn't understand that our enemies laugh and support such actions as banning enhanced interrogation techniques. Of course, why wouldn't they? Terrorists see this as weakness, not as a means to be liked by the world. Besides, this is not a popularity contest; it is about keeping people safe. Obama is dangerous, and he's wagering your safety and the safety of your family in an effort to make America nicer toward our enemies. My question is simple: Traitor, treason or just plain stupid?”

I would ask the same of Sheriff Murphy, “Traitor, treason or just plain stupid?” I would say the latter.

The U.S. once had - before Bush - a worldwide reputation for promoting human rights. It’s kind of hard to take the high road when you torture the most vulnerable. It’s even worse when you consider most people in Gitmo are not guilty of anything.

George Washington set the tone for our stance on how we treat prisoners, and people like Bush and Sheriff Murphy should not trash that. Despite atrocities committed by the British, General Washington refused to stoop to their level.

“Not only your Officers, and Soldiers have been treated with a Tenderness due to Fellow Citizens, & Brethren; but even those execrable Parricides [traitors] whose Counsels & Aid have deluged their Country with Blood, have been protected from the Fury of a justly enraged People,” he said.

The Geneva Convention is not quaint or outdated, it keeps our troops safe. I don’t care what terrorists or the enemy does to our prisoners, it does not justify torture on our part. Two wrongs do not make a right. Our greatest source of information in the Cold War that was fought for almost 50 years - primarily with intelligence - was from defectors, not torture. We want people coming to our side, and I don’t see how we can do that if they are afraid of being tortured.

The simple fact is you do not get reliable information from torture, and you will get what you want to hear to make it stop.


Not Anonymous said...

You said: "The simple fact is you do not get reliable information from torture, and you will get what you want to hear to make it stop."

My response: You just blew your entire argument with that statement. We already know for a fact that they did get valuable information from those interrogations. An attack was prevented in Los Angeles from that information.

Secondly, you don't get the enemy to "come to our side" when you're talking about terrorists. They are not an army. They don't have a country. They are terrorists. They don't care how screwed up your politcs are and they don't care if your politics aren't screwed up. They want you dead because you're an American.

Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident. 17 soldiers were convicted or had dishonorable discharges due to their independent actions. Those orders did not come from the White House, nor the Pentagon.

The difference between us and them is that when our people do the things done at Abu Ghraib we prosecute the guilty. They don't. The pay $25,000 to families of the terrorists that died attacking Americans.

It's interesting that you cite George Washington as against torture. He had his own men hung for insubordination as well as desertion. Yes, Washington did treat POW's better than the British did, but he did have his own men hung for lesser charges.

Finally, the Geneva Conventions don't cover terrorists. They don't wear uniforms, they don't have a country, although now it seems that the al queda backed Taliban is about to have a country (Pakistan) and the nukes that go with it. What's Obama doing? He's too busy shaking hands with Chavez as he's handed a book on the evils of Americans and he's bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia and he's handing out DVD's to the British Prime Minister of The Wizard of Oz, and he's giving lego toys to Russia with the wrong words inscribed on it.

When the architect of the 9/11 attacks was waterboarded, there was a doctor in the room. There were rules so that his life was never put in danger. Because of those enhanced techniques, Americans were not slaughtered in Los Angeles. Because of those techniques, airplanes were not blown up over major cities in America.

Nobody's lost fingernails or grown bamboo chutes under their nails. All of their body parts are still intact, and they have ocmfy beds, comfy furniture, all in all they have better accomodations than they are used to even at home.

kevins said...

I'm not sure you are correct on the LA information. From what I've read, the information from those interrogations came after the LA incident was learned about. If you have better info, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Not Anonymous said...

Communications guru said...

Gee, why am I not surprised brett would support torture and turn his back on the values this country was founded on. Yes, I did say, "The simple fact is you do not get reliable information from torture, and you will get what you want to hear to make it stop” because it’s true. No, we don’t already know for a fact that they got valuable information from those interrogations, nor was an attack prevented in Los Angeles from that information.”

That is certainly in doubt. A.B. Krongard, who was the CIA’s executive director when the torture began, told author Ron Suskind that Qaeda captives "went through hell and gave up very, very little." Former FBI agents have claimed that their conventional, non-coercive interrogation got better information than the CIA did with its torture.

Here’s the thing with torture, it harms our image and makes it tougher to get information in the future, and its harm is not worth any information we can gain. We gain the same information legally while still following the law and keeping our values intact. You get more false information from suspects just saying anything to get it to stop, and it wastes valuable resources to track down and verify the false information.

Secondly, yes we do get the enemy to "come to our side" when you're talking about terrorists. Terrorists have to recruit, and there is nothing better for recruiting terrorists than the U.S. torturing innocent people. We created more terrorists than we ever captured with that torture BS.

No, Abu Ghraib was not an “isolated incident.” We have the CIA tapes of torture that were destroyed. That many servicemen do not act on their own without orders.

Torture is torture, and we have not prosecuted the guilty, just a few people at the bottom of the totem pole carrying out the orders. Yes, I bring up George Washington as a great example. The men Washington punished violated the rules, and I’m sure there was some kind of court martial.

I disagree with your interpretation of the Geneva Convention. It, basically, bars brutality or deliberate abuse of civilians, prisoners, and others who, being caught up in war. Are you saying the war on terror is not a war and just a police operation? Then why are the people being detained being denied their basic human rights? Regardless, torture is against internationally law.

You’re letting your hatred of the president take you off track. What does the president shaking hands with the democratically elected president of an American country have to do with anything? Why is it OK for former President Nixon to shake hands with a brutal Communist Chinese dictator who was not elected, but not for Obama to shake hands with a democratically elected neighboring president? He never bowed to anyone, and who cares about gifts? Really brett, is that all you got?

Wrong, there was no doctor in the room for many of the torture sessions, and even if that were true, so what? Torture is torture. There were 98 detainee deaths in U.S. custody, as of 2006. Where were the doctors in those cases, brett?

So you are defending sacrificing this country’s principals and what we stand for over the method of torture? That is just sad. The method of torture is irrelevant, and it’s still illegal and immoral.

Not Anonymous said...

You said: "Secondly, yes we do get the enemy to "come to our side" when you're talking about terrorists. Terrorists have to recruit, and there is nothing better for recruiting terrorists than the U.S. torturing innocent people. We created more terrorists than we ever captured with that torture BS. "

My response: You just described how terrorists are recruiting, but you have given no proof of us being nice to them bringing them to our side.

You said: "You’re letting your hatred of the president take you off track."

My response: I don't hate anyone. You'll have to give your proof of mind reading ability or at least a degree in psychology to prove that, which by the way, you didn't do in the past when telling me what I think. I don't even hate you. I just feel sorry for fools like you.

You said: "Wrong, there was no doctor in the room for many of the torture sessions, and even if that were true, "

My response: First you say there was no doctor in the room as though you have some proof, but then you say "even if that were true". In other words, you're making things up as you go along.

There is no torture. I know you like to think there is, but there isn't. Your hatred of this country is very apparent and your denial of the danger that your President is putting this country shows your myopic view of this country.

You said: "Gee, why am I not surprised brett "

My response: You still can't get my name correct. You're really nothing more than a fool.

Communications guru said...

No one ever said “being nice to them bringing them to our side.” Standing for the rule of law, respecting the rights of people and standing for freedom will bring people to our side. The bottom line is torture is illegal, immoral and the U.S. has prosecuted those who engage in it.

Sorry brett, it’s pretty clear you hate the president.

Actually, you are the one making things up. What proof do you have there was a doctor present at torture sessions? I doubt there was a doctor in the room because you as usual provided no proof. But we know for a fact there were not any medical people present when the torture session that were taped. If on the rare occasion a doctor may have been present, so what? Torture is still illegal. Hell, why would you even need a doctor? How do you account for the 98 detainee deaths in U.S. custody, as of 2006?

There is torture, and you know it. Are you trying to say water boarding is not torture? It was President Bush who put people in danger by ordering torture. What is really sad, brett, is people like you who condone turning your back on the ideals this country was founded on for a false sense of security.

I got your name right, brett. You are the one who used deceit to comment as someone else, brett.

Not Anonymous said...

It is the height of arrogance for someone that believes in killing the unborn because it's inconvenient or unwanted by the poor parent carrying the child to whine about terrorists being interrogated.

Unborn babies did nothing. All they did was get produced by a man that couldn't keep it in his pants and woman that couldn't keep her legs together who both didn't think about the possible results of their actions.

All terrorists did was fly 3 airplanes into buildings and one into a field killing nearly 3,000 innocent Americans.

If you want proof of a doctor being present, look it up. It's all over the news. You won't find it at the socialist democrat websites, you have to look at other sources than just those. is not going to tell you the truth. They are like you. They say things that fit their agenda. The dailly kos isn't going to tell you the truth. Need proof? Look up where they said that Sarah Palins daughter was actually the mother of Sarah's son. They looked silly a couple of days later when it was announced that her daughter was pregnant.

It's going to be fun to hear you explain why gitmo isn't closed. Eric Holder has been traveling the world trying to get other countries to take some of these terrorists that we have in custody. They are all telling him the same thing. 'stick it where the sun isn't shining'.

So these social democrats will have one of two choices. Keep Gitmo open or turn the terrorists loose on our streets.

As for your namecalling, I think it's funny. You call Kevns, Brett, you call me Brett and you called a couple of others Brett. You only prove your idiocy each time you call someone by a name other than what they have posted.

You continue to be the fool.

Communications guru said...

Unbelievable, brett. Abortion is legal, torture is not. I’m not “whining about terrorists being interrogated.”

The terrorists who flew three airplanes into three building are dead and have been brought to justice, except for one. Plus, all the intelligence we needed to stop 9/11 was there and was obtained without torture. But that’s really beside the point; two wrongs do not make a right.

No, brett, if you want to prove a point, you have to prove it. Man, you are really reaching for straws because you can’t find a real argument for turning your back on the ideals this country was founded on.

Once again, brett, there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, and that’s just a fascist Republican talking point; but you know that.

Once again, you are the one who used deceit to comment under different names, brett; not me.

Thank you. You continue to have no point.

kevins said...

Guru...honestly, it your attention for honest exchange of opinions/information...or do you just like playing with yourself with silly, illogical remarks?

You say abortion is legal and torture is not, as if that proves a point. If you truly believe in that logic, then you are saying that you would have approved of slavery in the United States as long as it was legal. In fact, you would have been fine with treating blacks as less than human because that was included in the constitution. You must also be okay with smoking in restaurants, because that is legal. In fact, you are old enough that you must have been fine with the days when well as birth control...were banned because, after all, they were illegal.

You also say there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat but then use the term fascist Republican. Maybe you are just trying to be clever (but I just doubt that). But using your definition, if there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat then there is no such thing as a fascist Republican. Neither party exists in the United States...But if we are talking philosophical opinions, then it is much easier to support the notion of socialism within the Democratic party than it is to support fascism within the Republican Party. (In fact, to the degree fascist tendencies exist, both parties are capable of fascist tendencies.)

Finally, you continue to distort the "deceit" of commenting under different names. Not Anon did that once that I know of and he was clear about doing it and did so only to disprove your inaccurate claim that it couldn't be done. You, however, have commented under different names and you admitted doing it...but you said it was okay in your case.

So I ask you in all honesty: Are you interested in a fair exchange? Or are you merely a puppet for Democratic dogma? Or are you a lonely soul who longs for some social interaction, even if only with those who ridicule him?

Communications guru said...

Give me a break. Torture and abortion are two completely different issues that have nothing to do with one another. I never brought up abortion, you did, brett. Are you joking, slavery? That is ridiculous. Now, who is it that doesn’t want an “honest exchange of opinions?”

Yes, there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, and that is a fascist Republican talking point. Why is OK for an entire political party to push that socialist BS? When you stop, I’ll stop. The Republican Party is much closer to fascism than Democrats are to socialism. The torture issue certainly demonstrates that.

He/you have used deceit to comment under another name. I have never commented under another name. I used my first name and last initial on a rightwing blog until he changed his policy and kicked me off. I then started my own blog using a registered screen name.

Now, I made a clear case why the U.S. should not torture. The problem is you can’t refute the argument, so you stoop to this shit.

kevins said...

You have made it clear. I asked if you were interested in sincere debate based on facts and differening opinions, and you answered that, No, you are not. You just want to push your version of twisted rhetoric, unburdened by facts or logic.

I have never, ever come close to endorsing torture. But you invent that position to avoid reasonable debate.

All I did was show you the weakness of one of your favorite are the one who couldn't refute my point, so you stooped to -- as you so eloquently put it -- shit. (It's not true that you get vulgar every time you lose an argument, because often you are too dense to recognize you are losing...but when you do realize you are losing, you tend to get profane. Very predictable.)

You like to say that "A" is legal and "B" is illegal, as though that proves a point. All I did was call you on it. Smoking in bars in Michigan is legal. Slavery used to be legal. Abortion is legal. Drinking at 21 is legal; at one time drinking at 18 was legal. Cocaine and marijuana use were once legal. Medical use of marijuana use is legal today but wasn't legal a year ago.

So your argument that torture is illegal and abortion is legal is true but meaningless in the context of the debate.

Your other arguments are similarly weak but consistent for you. The Democrats are far closer to socialism than you like to admit. I'm not criticizing them for it, but it's a fact. Their policies are redistributing wealth. All tax policies do that. The question is how far should you go. It's a legitimate debate. The fact that you get so upset about it makes me think that either you don't understand socialism or you for some reason are ashamed of the socialist tendencies by your party. Social Security is a socialist program...I don't have a problem with it; why do you?

You either purpose lie or, more likely, just like to get crazy with your fascism charges. You say the "torture" issue proves Repubs are closer to fascism. Just ridiculous. Torture has nothing to do with fascism. Yes, people in fascist governments committed torture; so have governments in socialist regimes (Cuba), and communist regines (ever hear of Stalin?) and even democratic nations.

And you continue to lie about your deceitful posting under a different name. There was a long thread in which you repeatedly denied who you were ("I'm not Kevin," you said. "Kevin was kicked off this site.") You continue to lie about this, which shows your insecurity, your instability and, ultimately, your inanity.

kevins said...

sorry about the typos...that should have been communist regimes, for instance.

Communications guru said...

Do you honesty think what you are doing is engaging in “sincere debate based on facts?” You are not. I presented my case, and you simply cannot knock it down.

I’m sorry, but in my opinion if you don’t condemn torture, you’re condoning it. If you want to talk about torture, please do so. These side issues like abortion are different and separate debates. If you consider the word shit vulgar, then you need to find a blog that is G rated. This one is not. If the word offends you, that is just tough shit. Plus, I have never lost an argument to you.

So, you are saying that one day torture will be legal? That simply will not happen. Sorry, the Republicans are far closer to fascism that the Democrats are to socialism. You saw what happened with unfettered capitalism. The President is trying to save capitalism with what you mistakenly call socialism. But I really don’t see what that has to do with torture.

If I’m lying about fascism, then you are lying about socialism. Like I said, I’ll stop when you stop. But the fact remains the defense of torture certainly sounds like fascism to me. It’s illegal for everyone else, but not where the U.S. does it?

Sorry, I have never lied or used deceit about who I was. I was kicked off of “Republican Michigander” when he required people to use registered screen names. I was using Kevin S to comment while most people were posting anonymously. Now, dan may dispute that, and that is his right. I was forced to choose a screen name, and I chose this one. I have never, ever used deceit to post as someone else like you have. I believed I was kicked off and the rules were changed because he got tired of me punching holes in his lame arguments.

I challenge you to prove I used deceit, and that will be just one more argument you lose, brett. I have debunked that crap before, but you keep bringing it back with not one ounce of proof.

Now, who was it again that wants to engage in “sincere debate based on facts?” Obviously not you, brett.

kevins said...

Sigh...I can't believe i've spent the time to show what a liar that guru is...particularly since I think he, not anonymous and I are about the only people who come to this site.

But for the benefit of anyone who wants proof of how deranged he, here goes. But first a word about something that will be confusing. I chose the screen name kevins a short time ago, unaware that guru used that same name about 3 years ago. So, when you read this, realize that the kevins I refer to is the kevin's will make sense then.

Kevins/guru repeatedly says he never has never used deceit to hide who he was, and that he was kicked off a Republican site. He has also said he has never posted under another name, even while admitting he has posted under two names. Maybe it's all too much for him to remember. Or more likely, to use one of his favorite terms, his arguments are a bunch of crap.

First, he was never kicked off a site. He used to post as kevins on Republican Michigander. Around June 2006 he switched to communications guru, and started the illogical claim that he was "kicked off" even though he was still posting regularly, just under a different name. He's never even tried to explain why someone would kick him off but still allow him to post.

Kevin's claim is that he was "kicked off" when Dan (the creator of the site) changed the rules and that it was probably because kevin was punching holes in his argument. A foolish claim on its face, since he continued posting as guru.

Fact is, Dan stated quite clearly at the time that the change he was making was to not allow people to post under "anonymous" but to post under a screen name. Since Kevin was posting under kevins, this rule change didn't apply to him. He could continue to post as kevins. For some reason, he changed to communications guru. But everyone knew it was the same person and he was allowed to continue posting. When "bluzie" asked if "kevins" was kicked off, Dan clearly said No, and that he was welcome to post under that name.

Those facts are clear but unimportant to Kevin.

Why did Dan change the rules? Because someone used the anonymous cover to smear the family of a politician. Dan thought that was going too far. Since kevin didn't support the politician, he disagreed. He even said it didn't matter whether the smear was true or not, as long as no one had proven it was NOT true, he said, it should stay up.

What's odd is that this rule change is the same one implemented by Kevin on this blog...also, kevin killed my statements when I said there was no proof that he had even been guilty of child molesting. So I'm wondering about Kevin's ability to cope with reality here.

It gets worse. In the days/weeks around the change from kevins to communications guru, he directly contradicts himself as well as the claim he makes in this thread. "I have the courage to use my name kevins" he wrote on May 31, 2006. But 16 days later, he posted: "I use kevins as a screen name even though it is not my real name." He's either a liar, delusional, forgetful or all of the above.

The fact is that these statements show his claim of getting kicked off is a lie, since he admits he posted as kevins and Dan merely prevented the use of Anonymous. It's not clear if Kevin knows whether kevins is really his name or not.

Reading through the Republican Michigan blog and kevin's rantings -- and that's what they are --- is instructional.

He rants and raves that others call him names when they seldom do; he's the name caller. He overstates their name-calling, says name-calling proves you have a weak argument and then he becomes a name-caller himself, which I guess proves his point.

One example: One guy started his response to him by calling him Kindergarten Kevin...not a particularly creative name but not all that harmful. Kevin's response was to call him Kindergarten Asshole. Real nice.

By the way, Kevin did have one of his posts deleted on Republican Michigander because of the use of the f-bomb. Kevin had a hissy-fit about that as well. Basically, kevin's position was that Dan didn't have a right to make such rules for his blog. Kevin argued since he was quoting someone else, the f-bomb should have stayed. Dan seems to have the idea that he could make his own rules for his blog. Fancy that.

Kevin also calls people idiots, communists and more; then whines because he imagines people are calling him names. Some people hear voices; Kevin sees ghost posts.

He likes to say that no one ever proves him wrong. But he is wrong often and won't even acknowledge it...even for relatively small things when it would be easy to do so without losing points in his arguments. He is so insecure that he can't do it.

Again, one example: In an argument about whether Jay Drick or Theresa Brennan was the better candidate for judge, Kevin lost it when someone corrected him when he incorrectly said Brennan was running for re-election. At the time, Brennan was a judge because of a governor's appointment. She was a sitting judge but she was not running for re-election, because she had never been elected. When someone spelled that out for him, he went cuckoo and argued his point, which was clearly wrong. It was a small point which he should have graciously conceded or even ignored. He couldn't do it. By the way, I know Theresa and at the time she very carefully instructed her supporters NOT to use the term "re-elect" because she knew it wasn't accurate.

kevin is proven wrong all the time. This is just one example.

He'll let me have it, make a bunch of blithering responses...but remember the source. He's the one who said he wasn't kevins, but that was before he said he was. He also said he was kicked off a site even while he was posting on the site.

He is also the one who said he was posting anonymously, but claimed someone was threatening to sue him. It apparently never crossed his mind that you can't sue an anonymous person.

I think he's unbalanced.

Communications guru said...

All right, here I go again debunking this crap. You have never proved I lied about anything and you never will because I don’t lie. You are wrong, and if you think you are the only one coming here, brett, then stop. I won’t miss the insults, the smears, the lies and the spin.

I have never used the screen name Kevin S. To be a screen name it has to be registered, brett. When I first became aware of blogs, I started commenting on the “Republican Michigander” blog because he was talking about local politics, which I knew a lot about and that he was misrepresenting. I didn’t want to post anonymously because I wanted to take ownership of what I wrote. For example, if you go to
Click on the post about Jay Drick, and then click on the comment by Kevins. It does not take you to a screen name, but I wrote those comments.

Like I said before, the owner of that blog changed the rules and required a registered screen name. At the time I felt like the rules were changed to stop me because I was calling him out when he tried to spin things. I then began my own blog in June of 2006, and I chose and registered this screen name and began using it on that blog and the rightwing blog. After dealing with people like you who use ugly smears anonymously and as multiple people, I did the same thing in requiring screen names, but brett here made it a point of proving to me he was so deceitful to still post as different people. It never occured to me that people could be that deceitful.

I have no idea if it was because of me he chose to take that route, but I now have no problem with it. Now, brett claims it was because someone “used the anonymous cover to smear the family of a politician.” I don’t know if that is true because I don’t recall ever seeing something like that on the blog. Perhaps he could point it out. It didn’t make any sense that I had to have a screen name when I was taking responsibility for what I was writing and it always had my real first name, Kevin, and my real last initial, S. It made me angry, and I felt like I was kicked off. But like I said, after the attacks from jerks like this, I realized I was wrong.

If you want to make the false and disgusting smear that I’m a child molester, then I challenge you to report me to Google blogs, because I don’t believe I could be doing this if that were true. I also challenge you to report me to the Livingston County Sheriff’s Department. You know my real name, my address is in the phone book and they have a computer crime unit. Do it or shut up.

I warned you repeatedly to stop with the child molester bullshit; not once, not twice but at least three times. You refused to do so, doing it numerous times on multiple posts and it added nothing to the debate.

Consider this your fourth warning, brett.

I don’t consider it ranting, unless that’s what you consider debate you don’t agree with and can’t debunk.

I never, ever initiated any name-calling there. I was called some pretty nasty names, and yes I stooped to their level. So the name “Kindergarten Kevin” is OK? Why? Why is “Kindergarten asshole” any worse, if I actually said that?

First, I have never thrown a “hissy-fit.” I wouldn’t know how to throw one, and I definitely wouldn’t know how to throw one in writing. Second, when you say “f-bomb” do you mean fuck? That’s a word people in the real world use on occasion. I don’t recall the post you are talking about because, as usual, you fail to back up your claims with any references or links. But talking off the top of my head, using a complete quote is not wrong and preferred. As for the names, I give what I get.

That is correct; I have never been proven wrong. When someone points out a mistake, it is corrected.

As for his Jay Drick/Theresa Brennan example, I have never “lost it,” and I’m not sure what “it” is. Second, Judge Brennan was running for reelection. She was serving as the judge, she was the incumbent and it doesn’t matter how she got there; she was still the incumbent and still is.

“He is also the one who said he was posting anonymously, but claimed someone was threatening to sue him. It apparently never crossed his mind that you can't sue an anonymous person.” I have no idea what you are talking about, and I have never posted anonymously anywhere.

Who cares what you think.

Communications guru said...

Once more thing, brett. You claim, “I chose the screen name kevins a short time ago, unaware that guru used that same name about 3 years ago.” That’s a lie. You knew what my real name was, and that’s why you chose it. You urged the Livingston County Democratic Party to ban me and used my real name. See the link below.

kevins said...

"Who cares what you think?"

Obviously, you do. Get some professional help...for the sake of the children.

Communications guru said...

Unbelievable. You smear me with all kinds of lies, and when I debunk them, that’s your come back? You are a piece of work.

kevins said...

You, of course, have not debunked anything. You have either ignored clear proof of my points, or you have admitted their accuracy.

At least when you are typing on this blog, you are less likely to be doing something disgusting or perhaps I am doing the public a service.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, brett you are wrong once more. I debunked your lies about me using another screen name, as well as every word you wrote. The fact is, the second highest ranking law enforcement officer in Livingston County and the chair of the county GOP condones and defends torture.

“Disgusting or immoral?” You’re an idiot, and this is what you do because you are incapable of actual having a debate on an issue.

kevins said...

Boy, you sound really, really angry. Doesn't your state health plan cover anger management classes?

You need to work on self-control.

By the way, others are starting to look at that information on the MSP sex offenders registry.

Not that it means anything to you.

kevins said...

Turns out the Pelosi long ago know about the waterboarding. She either knew it was going on (according to the CIA), or she knew it was approved (her version). Either way, she did not object to the practice.

Could it be that you hold the undersheriff (who merely writes about it) to higher standards than Pelosi (who actually could have done something about it)?

Can't wait to hear your spin. Will you go off on a tangent? Will you deny it happened? Will you start name-calling? Surely, you will demand a link.

The world isn't as simple or black-and-white as you want to make it. That's why Pelosi and Dems can publicly express shock about waterboarding, but behind closed doors it's a different story.

Maybe you can explain why Murphy is disgusting but Pelosi is not. Oh, yeah, you base everything on whether there is an R or a D after their name.

Communications guru said...

Turns out you are wrong again, brett. Pelosi was told only that “enhanced interrogation techniques” - whatever that is - could be used, not that they already had been used, and that it was legal. The lesson here is never trust or believe a Bush. Pelosi never knew the bushies were using weatherboarding until the public knew.

Here’s a link, even though you never supply one:

I stand by what I wrote about Murphy’s disgusting defense of torture. Those that authorized it should be brought to justice.