CommentsDisplaying Wat Tyler's 10 most recent comments.

• Is Access to a Toilet a ‘Basic Human Right’?: Jury Awards Two Workers $332K for Not Having One

  May 23, 2012 at 6:18pm

  In reply to wianno94.

  Corporatism = Serfdom v. 2.0

• Is Access to a Toilet a ‘Basic Human Right’?: Jury Awards Two Workers $332K for Not Having One

  May 23, 2012 at 6:13pm

  In reply to TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12.

  Time_2_End_The_New_World_Order_Military_Industrial_Complex_Right_NOW!

  Right On, bro!

• Is Access to a Toilet a ‘Basic Human Right’?: Jury Awards Two Workers $332K for Not Having One

  May 23, 2012 at 9:26am

  In reply to TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12.

  Time_2_End_The_Jewish_Israeli_Stranglehold_On_Amerika_Today

• Is Access to a Toilet a ‘Basic Human Right’?: Jury Awards Two Workers $332K for Not Having One

  May 23, 2012 at 9:22am

  In reply to wianno94.

  So what? You’re sticking up for this cheap-@ss company who fires their workers for complaining? I guess to a right-wing wacko a business is always in the right. No matter what.

  I think this company should be made an example.

• O’Reilly: Occupy Wall Street Protesters ‘Are Terrorists’

  May 22, 2012 at 4:19pm

  In reply to Git-R-Done.

  Careful what you’re saying. I know it’s hard some with a herd mentality, but THINK!

  Your definition includes every army in the history of the world! I’m sure to the British George Washington was a “terrorist”. Even Sitting Bull meets that definition.

  It could be said that that the Chicago PD are “terrorists” by your definition.

• O’Reilly: Occupy Wall Street Protesters ‘Are Terrorists’

  May 22, 2012 at 12:14pm

  In reply to Wat Tyler.

  When Occupy begins a mass bombing campaign indiscriminately aimed at high populated areas, or a ruthless campaign of assassinating of any opponents, that’s when they become “terrorists”.

• O’Reilly: Occupy Wall Street Protesters ‘Are Terrorists’

  May 22, 2012 at 12:06pm

  In reply to Wat Tyler.

  Answer: Yes, some gangs, if they’re attempting to intimidate an entire population, and if their aims are political, are “terrorists”. Example being the Mexican drug gangs. Your average street gang, no. Their aims are not an entire population, nor are they political.

  Your analogy of Chicago Police being scared is flawed. That is more like rebellion than “terrorism”.

  So the Continental Army in rebellion against the British, the recognized government authority at the time, were “terrorists”? So when the East Germans fought their police and tore down the Berlin Wall they were “terrorists”? That is rebellion.

  That word “terrorism”gets thrown around so much these days, by propagandists like O’Reilly, to justify the Soviet-style police state (the true “terrorists”).

  And no, Because the corrupt Chicago fuzz is scared doesn’t mean I should be scared. Scared of them, maybe.

• O’Reilly: Occupy Wall Street Protesters ‘Are Terrorists’

  May 22, 2012 at 9:52am

  Pure propaganda from a propaganda artist.

  “Terrorism”, by definition, means employing extra-legal, extra-military methods to promote their agenda by “terrorizing” a population into submission by making the said population fear for their physical safety and lives.

  Occupy Wall Street does not put population in fear of their lives, rather they merely inconvenience some.

  There is a big difference between inconvenience and terrorism.

• Teen Atheist Behind Prayer Mural Ban Wants Contentious WWI & WWII Cross Removed

  May 17, 2012 at 9:35am

  In reply to 57states.

  I disagree. Most normal people do see a problem with perversion.

• Teen Atheist Behind Prayer Mural Ban Wants Contentious WWI & WWII Cross Removed

  May 17, 2012 at 9:32am

  In reply to 57states.

  Most of us do.