there has been numerous account by red cross, red croissant, bbc, reuters and a slew of others about prisoners having been miss-treathed in those prisons we know exists (gitmo amongst others, including that new one being built in saudi arabia).

now, did those prisoners warrant a good jab in the nuts has yet to be determined (aka, he rammed a soldier wielding a table leg). but this still has to be looked into.

forget about anyone in the white house planning 9/11. before you go into that, lets:

- have the complete passengers lists
- black box recordings
- pictures of the wreckages (flight 93) (forget about pentagon one we've been know there were none until the crew arrived on scene)
- photo and material analysis of wtc structure remains

weither white house is implicated or not, there is a lot of apparent foul play in there than what is currently acknowledged. like building 7.

don't you want to know what really happen? and if there are more to it than what's being said, even if what's being said is true?

I may be wrong, but I thought Flight 93 left nothing but a crater. What's there to examine there?

Besides, we all know that the government didn't plan 9/11, they just want us to believe it because if we believe they have that kind of power, then they have power. It was Stan who crapped in the urinal, and of course the government will assume responsibility as long as it makes people think they caused 9/11.

well, that's one thing. a large crater. like a vertical drop. but the engines were a few miles away. so was part of the aft fuselage.

the thing would have had to explode in mid-air for that to happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20061108/cm_ucru/ourlongnationalnightmarehasjustbegun

quote:

And Now, Martial Law

About a week ago some left-wing bloggers began circulating rumors that Bush had secretly signed something called the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" that "allows the president to declare a 'public emergency' and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder.'" I couldn't find the text of the law at the time, formerly H.R. 5122, or a reliable media account, so I decided not to report on it.

I can now confirm the bloggers' account. Bush signed the JWDAA hours after the MCA, in a furtive closed-door White House ceremony. There is, buried deep down in Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA, a coup. The Bush Administration has quietly stolen the National Guard away from the states.

Here's the relevant section of Public Law 109-364:

"The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense."

i just wanted to congratulate lexicon for the great country america, number one claim to fame: 'we dont torture people as much as saddam did'. good job! something to be very, very proud of.

Lexicon/Lebermac is clearly a neo-con. (However, I can agree with a few of your ideas, though only one in the post in question. The bit about Bush et al. not being able to keep shit secret.) The America you are supporting is repudiated by most of the world and (roughly) 2/3's of its own people...
Lexicon, stop. The world/nation you and your co-believers would create is known as Hell.

Morality is NOT relative.

Wake-up before it's too late.

(Also, read 1984, if you haven't already, or re-read it if you have.)

War is Peace...

EDIT: BTW, I consider myself a conservative. The last election I voted in. (2004) I voted Republican across the board. Yes, including Bush. I have come to regret voting for Bush, however... I am STILL a conservative. (Though not necessarily a Republican.)

Erm... Red Croissant... you gotta be kidding me... bloody French, they don't even know how ridiculous they sound do they?

I assume they make sure that refugees and such get proper (i.e. French) food?

chillum baba said: "I am STILL a conservative. (Though not necessarily a Republican.)"

These are the people responsible for Tuesday. I'm not criticizing you, baba, I'm criticizing the Republican leadership, because I feel exactly the same as you. I am still a Republican, but I want sweeping change in my party. We've not had real conservative leadership for quite some time, and it's time to get back to our conservative principles. Bush is not a conservative, whatever the media says. I like Bush, but he's a moderate, the only real moderate we've had in power in my lifetime. Liberals hate him because they claim to be what he really is, and it makes them look bad.

Let's get more conservative leadership!

I was never really a Republican... I voted for the best choices I could see at the time. I am and always have been... independent (conservative on some issues a bleeding left-wing nut-job on others). MORE conservative than liberal in most cases though.

I believe they call "us" swing-voters. (sometimes termed "ethics voters" or "issues voters") i.e. I support causes, not parties.

Though "ethics voters" is being sullied by becoming synonymous with the Christian Right. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with the Christian Right (though I think there ARE a few problems). But that there are other (equally (or even more) valid) ethical systems.

Oooooohhhhh - there's PLENTY wrong with Christian Fundies. Wow - I'm surprised. Me? A Neo-Con? Wow.

And, to step up to my own defense, since it's up to me on these boards to offer some kind of intelligent counter-opinion for the kind of crazy stuff like "Flight 93 was shot down" and "A cruise missile hit the Pentagon" and "Karl Rove knows what he's doing." I offer the following:

Well, yes, Morality IS relative. Just like all things. For example, 250 years ago, owning slaves was perfectly moral and acceptable. 500 Years ago, it was moral and acceptable to buy your way into heaven through gifting to the Catholic Church. 1,000 years ago it was perfectly moral and acceptable to think of daughters as property to be traded away for political advantage. The sense of what "Moral" is is constantly evolving. You may think of yourself as a moral, enlightened person at this point in time, while 500 years from now, hypermoral humanity may look back on the 21st century and be disgusted with our acceptance of pornography and our fascination with violent sporting events (the NFL).

So, if yer puttin' me in some kind of Neo-Con mold simply because I support the use of psychological duress to extract information from the little weasels who try to kill us, then I'm gonna have a good bit of company. Until some kind of report comes out describing torture practices worse than having leashed dogs bark at you, playing rap music, leaving the lights on 24/7, or playing naked twister, I'm yawning. We're the only country in the world that goes to such great lengths to protect and coddle her enemies.

I suppose The U.S. will be blamed for torturing all the detainees in Guantanamo that gained weight by eating decent meals. I can see it now: "Cheney's Secret Plan to Induce Type 2 Diabetes in Detainees... News at 11"

Hahaha Leebs. Did you really just try and justify your views on torture by pointing out that slavery was once morally acceptable?

Hehe, nice try. But wouldn't you say morality is relative to its contemporary time and space? Your argument simply points out the evolution of morality.

And to add one more little analogy to your train of logic... the Romans had no problems at all with homosexuality! Therefore, you should be doing your best to make sure your son or daughter is aware of all the fantastic sexual opportunities out there! I believe it's your moral duty as a well evolved Christian!

Hehe, ok.... enough Neo-con bashing :)

Ok, maybe labeling you (Lexicon) a neo-con was a bit much, but you DO share many of their ideas and attitudes. (or so it seems to me)

And I maintain: Morality is NOT relative... but we could argue that for 1000 years. What you list in defense of, "Morality IS relative," are all immorality masquerading as morality. Another reason I won't argue this... you need to think up some better arguments.

Also, have you read(re-read) 1984 yet? No? Then get your ass to the library NOW, young man. Do your homework or your ass is grass.

mmmmm... grass...
/me wanders off to have a smoke.

smoking causes lung cancer

I'm saying that the things I listed are not, in fact, torture. Maybe you're so enlightened, Gavan, that your views on torture are so far ahead of their time that you can qualify pissing on a religious text as torture.

I mean, when there's evidence of Americans dripping acid on detainees, cutting off fingers, brutally killing the detainee's children in front of them, electrocution, or just beating the crap out of restrained detainees with their fists, then I'll join the chorus of people who want an investigation. Third-person anecdotes and unsubstantiated rumors do not qualify as evidence.

And, sure, the Romans (and everyone else pre-Christian church!) had no problem with homosexuality. Well, at least the folks we knew about. Technically I guess I don't, either. However, to quote Sam Kinison, "I can't look at another man's hairy ass and see love." Would I be disturbed if my daughters grew up and decided to become lesbians? Probably. Will I question their morality? Of course not, I don't see sexual preference as a bellwether of how moral a person you are.

I love 1984. Read book, saw the movie, wished that the "Julie" character had been hotter. Saw "Brazil", too.

Alright, then if you get to recommend reading for me, I will recommend reading for you: Machiavelli's The Prince, which can be found pretty much in its entirety here.
It's an old book, but the principles hold true for global politics and international relations even today. The world's not pretty, and most of it still plays by the rules laid out in that text. I encourage you to read the chapter on "Concerning Liberality And Meanness" especially. :)

If anything, Rumsfeld was definitely NOT afraid of being labeled "Mean". In fact, his being labeled so enabled him to govern more effectively, just like in the book. Too bad his plan(s) sucked ass.

@ ananzi:
Actually the stuff I was referring to smoking is often used as a medication to reduce the negative repercussions of cancer and chemotherapy... i.e. people get pot scrips for cancer in medical marijuana states.

However... Yeah, smoking is linked to cancer. Your point is?

(Desperately trying too prove that you are in fact a troll? Sorry, I don't buy it.)

@Lexicon:
Movie? Hmmm.... when'd that come out? And umm if the girl ain't hot... don't wanna see it anyways. Actually I HATE the movie adaptations of almost all books. (Lord of the Rings is a PRIME example, would have been great movies if I hadn't already seen how it's supposed to be. (in my minds eye through the excellent writing of Tolkien) They BUTCHERED it.

And, do you seriously think I haven't read The Prince? I've read it multiple times even.

The best movie adaptation I've ever seen is Fight Club. A perfectly faithful, streamlined version of the book. I didn't think the LOTR adaption was bad at all, though they did take some annoying liberties (Aragorn falling off a cliff to add tension? Boring and distracting.). I've never read 1984, but it's on my list (as is The Prince) and it's short so I might read it after I catch up on William Sleator (young adult scifi, but very good). I'm just finishing rereading The Mouse that Roared, which is relevant, and I highly recommend it.

Anyway, I'll restate my point: Republicans lost because the ones in power are NOT conservative (not even W.). Support for the war was so low because Republicans like me wish we'd gone all out, not worry about building a democracy until the war is won. Wipe out completely our enemy's capability to wage war, then build them from the ground up. That's one reason Germany is strong today, we wiped them out (even bombed Dresden, targetting a cultural civilian city to destroy their desire to keep fighting) and built them up. This is the whole premise of The Mouse that Roared, the best thing any country can hope to happen is to completely lose a war with the US.

Here's the ironic thing: Rumsfeld is the one calling for moderation in the war in Iraq. Everything the liberals were criticizing Bush for, saying we need to do this and that, that's what was happening, and Rumsfeld was behind it. Shock and Awe needed to be much more shocking and awesome. We could be done with this thing (the Iraq part anyway, though we'd still be rebuilding), if we'd pulled all the stops. That being said, there is merit to the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy of going slowly: All the terrorists in the region came to fight in Iraq. After awhile, we weren't fighting Iraqis anymore, we were fighting any muslim terrorist you could think of in Iraq. They were desperate to drag it out to dishearten the American people, so they threw everything they had at Iraq, and then told us to vote Democrat, which we did. Yep, they actually told us to vote Democrat, because the terrorists know that the Democrats are their best allies.

On a sidenote: A joint is NOT how people afflicted with lung cancer should be or are being administered cannabis.

On another sidenote: Red Croissant might be the 'Red Gibbous Moon', the muslimic pendant to the red cross (yes, the cross IS a religious symbol, even if you argue that it isn't because it's much older than christianity).

About morality: It is relative, I agree with Lex there. Also, it is subject to the changes in time, so citing examples of what was allowed earlier is hardly relevant to morality today.

And the Lord of the Ring movie sucked. Donkey balls. Except for the Special FX.

And wars know no winners. Only losers. As such, wars are not won, they are ended. Germany lost, though...

i know what you mean. last week it was ok to call democrats traitors, saddam lovers, terrorist sympathizers, etc. this week, they love america, and we should try to work with them. morality does change.

i agree about torture. people keep saying john mccain was tortured by the north vietnamese communists. i say he is just whining alot. they didnt really do anything that bad. and besides, what proof do we have that anything happened? he is kind of old, it could be alzheimers. more than that, i think he is just using the 'torture card' to try to win the election in 2008. i hope the bush-wing of the party does not stoop so low as to pretend to have been tortured by enemies of America in order to win an election. its like those democrats using that vet who has no legs. come on people! lets talk about the issues, not who has fewer limbs or who got tied up the longest. torture smorture. my wife and i electrocute each other for fun. i think these detainee / POW types should just learn to sit back and enjoy it.

as far as marijuana, i agree. smoking is strictly for the birds. it is best to pour the marijuana seeds into pancake batter. then fry the pancake, then freeze it, then deep fry it again in lard. slather it in chocolate, (the kind that hardens quickly, used in candy), put whip cream on the top, and add a cherry for nutritional value. this treat is very healthy, has 3 or 4 food groups, and provides 200% of your RDA of calories.

---

oh yeah about the origianl post in this thread, and my problem with it..... even Nancy Pelosi (new Speaker of the House) doesn't seem to understand this. what the hell?

Wow, unless even your first statement there was sarcastic, you actually said something of value, ananzi! By which I mean: i know what you mean. last week it was ok to call democrats traitors, saddam lovers, terrorist sympathizers, etc. this week, they love america, and we should try to work with them. morality does change. .

This is what pisses me off about my Republican "leadership." They don't lead, they capitulate! Just a day after the election and Bush is already caving. I think he thinks that if he gives the Democrats a bunch of stuff they want, they'll let him fight the war the way he wants, and the war is the most important issue right now. Also, if he gives them Rumsfeld, who's probably tired of his job anyway (it is a stressful job), they'll be satisfied, like offering a sacrifice. He's terribly wrong on both counts. This is just an appetizer! They get a taste of Bush capitulating, and with the euphoria of what they think is an earthshaking victory (which really is statistically average for the circumstances) they will be hungry for more.

If I were Bush I would use this last two years as a "lame duck" to go all out and push for every last damn thing I can think of, because hell, there's only two years, and unless a real conservative comes forward to run, we're in trouble. I would vote for Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum; Gingrich would be a tough sell, but he's one of the few these days who can actually articulate a genuinely conservative message, which Bush rarely does. If Bush were a strong conservative leader, then this new Democrat majority would mean basically nothing; but no, he's going to give them everything they want in the hopes that they leave him alone on the war on terror, which they won't. He's a good guy who really believes he's doing what he must, but he's wrong, and it's this attitude that makes us Republicans feel betrayed and led to the Democrat victory.

Oh, and ananzi, I can't stand McCain, either, and you have a good point about let's stick to issues and not who has the fewest limbs or served in Vietnam, which, if you didn't know, John Kerry apparently did. I know, I was shocked to find that out recently, that John Kerry served in Vietnam. How come he didn't say so when he was campaigning? McCain is one of those we call a RINO: Republican In Name Only. He serves McCain and McCain only. It is his deals with Democrats (Gang of 14, anyone?) that helped Democrats to victory, by pissing off Republicans by squandering opportunities to push a conservative agenda. I hope he gets weeded out next, because he's a real hindrance.

hmmm... methinks you are all too smart for your own good.

at the point that you can introduce relativity to something that ONLY has meaning as an absolute... well, erm, see above.
what you don't seem to understand is that your are NOT arguing that morality is relative... but rather that morality is meaningless.

and y'all are wrong.

:P

EDIT: And so was Machiavelli, Lexicon. (though he made some great points, regardless)
And @ toshiro: The Red Croissant bit was a joke, I know croissant means crescent... but (in the US at least) it mostly means a breakfast pastry.
And @ ananzi: There is no point in eating marijuana seeds (except as a source of nutrition (high quality protein and fats mostly)) since they contain only miniscule quantities of the "medicine." (active ingredients in RX'ese) And, there is no %DV (RDA is gone) for calories, as %DV is based on caloric intake. (i.e. more calories = higher need for nutrients (assuming you actually burn those calories) and vice versa)
And @ Professor Chaos: LOL (just in case you aren't making a joke... remember the whole swift boat thingy? If not, google it)