Merlyn_LeRoy

I was referring to the end of Clinton's term when Bush took over. The US was not attacking Iraq then.

Clinton didn't consider Iraq dangerous enough to invade. I'm not saying Iraq and Saddam Hussein weren't dangerous, I'm saying Iraq wasn't such a threat that it justified an invasion. The way the Bush administration whipped up support using word games is a good indication that the plain facts did NOT justify an invasion, so one was manufactured.

Iraq was under UN sanctions which required weapon inspections; there's a good chronology here: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron I'm certainly not saying Saddam was peachy-keen, but I think it's clear the Bush administration built up a case for invasion by deliberately deceiving the American public, as I've outlined earlier. I think invading a country requires a bit more justification than rumors and innuendo created largely by my own government.

OGE, Saddam had and used poison gas, but that has a shelf life of just a few years before it breaks down. Using a vague term like "weapons of mass destruction" is a dead giveaway in my opinion. If intelligence suspected poison gas, say "poison gas"; if they suspect a nuclear weapon program, say "nuclear weapon program", if they suspect anthrax, say "anthrax", etc. Instead, "weapons of mass destruction" was the term used, because there were no specifics, because there were no specific indications of any particular weapons or programs. So we get Rice making allusions to nuclear weapons ("we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), we get Powell with a vial fake anthrax at the UN, we get the president and other government officials always mentioning Iraq whenever they talk about 9/11 or terrorism so much that a majority of the American public believe Iraq was behind 9/11, yet Rice never stated Iraq had nukes, Powell never said Iraq could make anthrax, and the president never said Iraq was behind 9/11. But it's obvious they wanted people to think so, to justify invading Iraq. Another giveaway was how the reasons for invading Iraq kept changing after the WMD excuse couldn't be justified. Whenever people keep changing the reason for doing something, it's because they haven't told you the real reason and you haven't bought into any of their fake reasons yet.

BadenP writes: Haven't you heard the Mazzuca plan, its all about MONEY and NUMBERS all the rest of the program will have to take a back seat To that effect: http://sev.prnewswire.com/education/20090304/DA7540104032009-1.html Boy Scouts of America Creates National Development Office Organization expands fundraising strategy with an eye toward its next 100 years IRVING, Texas, March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The Boy Scouts of America announces the formation of its first development office at its Irving headquarters. The National Development Office will expand fundraising efforts by identifying, cultivating, soliciting, and stewarding relationships with corporate, foundation, alumni, and individual prospects and donors. Prior to the launch of the National Development Office, the BSA's primary source of national funding was local council service fees. ...

TheScout writes: Merlyn you know that the Constitution requires the Congress to consent with the raising of troops. Who cares what the SCOTUS says? Lincoln seems to have disagreed. So it's constitutional, right? His opinion counts, doesn't it? You are also sounding like a warmongering! A warmongering what? So Germany was researching a bomber. They were researching lots of things, including a bomber that could reach the US. Other countries might be researching WMDs? Should we invade them. If they declare war on the US, sure. Germany declared war on the US, remember? Who cares about Sanger's rocket program? Germany did not have a beef with the US. So why were they working on a bomber specifically to bomb the US?

TheScout writes: "Southerners often blame Lincoln for calling up 90,000 volunteers." The first great unconstitutional act. I thought, in your view, the president gets to decide what's constitutional. Lincoln considered his acts constitutional, so (using your reasoning, where the supreme court's opinion can be ignored at will) Lincoln's acts WERE constitutional. By the President of the United States: A PROCLAMATION. Whereas, The laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law : Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the Militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department. The Amerika bomber never existed. Uh, so? It was a project Germany was working on before the US entered WWII, and shows hostile intent. Even if it did, few could fly across the Atlantic at that time. So if a country only manages to bomb the US a few times, that's OK? America could have used its massive manpower and resources to build fighters and anti-aircraft batteries to make us virtually inpenetrable. And do nothing about a country actively attacking the US? That's ridiculous. Anyway, Germany was quite busy fighting the UK and the USSR. IF we weren't fighting them or aiding their enemies it is doubtful they would expense such resources to hurt us. Eugen Snger agreed to head up his rocket development team back in 1936, years before the UK and the USSR were at war with Germany, and years before Lend-Lease.

TheScout writes: If some country that does not threaten our national security today declares war on us and has no way to hurt us declares war on us, she we invade them? That doesn't describe Germany in 1941. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

So why can't Gern get his grenade launcher? And I still don't think the 1934 firearms act helps your case; since that time, the government has decided who can and who can't own particular weapons, so the murder rate by those weapons has gone down tremendously. So why not do the same for rifles, handguns, shotguns, etc?

BrentAllen writes: How about the really evil weapons, the full-auto machine guns? How many people have been killed by someone with a legally owned full-auto maching gun? Since 1934, there have been 2 homicides. Kind of undercuts your argument, doesn't it? 1934 is when the National Firearms Act was passed, which regulated sale of machine guns. Before 1934, lots of people were killed by legally purchased Thompson submachine guns, including all seven gangsters killed in the St. Valentine's Day massacre. The NFA made them harder to purchase, so the decline in 1934 would seem to be in favor of government regulation of firearms, at least from a "results" point of view. Rocket launchers are explosives. I don't read the Second Amendment to include explosives, but I do read it to include firearms. Well, if you read the 2nd amendment, which talks about "arms" to exclude explosives, what propels your bullets? You using a railgun?

Don't tell my boss that weekends are vacation - he might try to deduct them from my real vacation time and I'll end up owing him money for taking too many days. Bud Abbott: How can I help you? Im a pauper. Lou Costello: A pauper? Congratulations! Is it a boy or a girl? Bud Abbott: Never mind that Id still like to know where youre going to get the money. Lou Costello: Now, Abbott, you know I got the money coming. Now this is the end of the yearno more after this. Bud Abbott: What do you mean? Lou Costello: You know, 365 days in a year. Bud Abbott: Well, I know that. Lou Costello: Im working for you, and you owe me a whole years salary! Bud Abbott: Wait a minute Lou Costello: 365 days, 365 dollars, you owe me a dollar a day. Bud Abbott: Wait a minute, lets straighten this out. Lou Costello: Pay me up! Bud Abbott: You say you worked 365 days for me, and you want to be reimbursed. Lou Costello: Look, I dont want to burst anything! Just give me my money, 365 bucks, Ill get out. Bud Abbott: Okay, look, now dont get excited, take it easy. Now, listen. How many hours a day did you work? Lou Costello: Eight hours a day. Bud Abbott: And how many hours are there in a day? Lou Costello: Look, now Abbott, dont try to put anything over on me. Theres 24 hours in a day, all but February, which has 28. Bud Abbott: Youre absolutely right, there are 24 hours in a day. But by working 8 hours you only really worked one-third of each day, isnt that right? Lou Costello: Thats according to the way you figure it. Bud Abbott: Well, one-third of 365 is about 121 dollars. So you only actually have 121 dollars coming to you. Thats the way I reckon it Lou Costello: You sure are wreckin it! Come on, give it up, give me the dough. Bud Abbott: Well, you did have 121 dollars coming, but Lou Costello: I knew there was a but in it. Bud Abbott: But you didnt work Sundays, did you? Lou Costello: No, I had to take a day off to wash my lingerie! Bud Abbott: All right, there are 52 Sundays in a year, deduct 52 from 121 dollars which leaves 69 dollars coming to you. Lou Costello: Youre sure of that? Bud Abbott: Positive! Lou Costello: You see, I dont want you to cheat yourself. Bud Abbott: Now, thats mighty nice of you, to look out for my interests. Lou Costello: I may as well look out for yours, you already wrecked mine! Come on, Abbott, give me the money. Give up something, will you? Bud Abbott: All right, Ill be glad to give you the 69 dollars, but Lou Costello: Hold on to your hats, here we go again! Look, Abbott, give me a couple of dollars. Hows that? Bud Abbott: Well, you must admit you only worked a half a day on Saturday, isnt that right, partner? Lou Costello: Partner! Now that Im losing money, Im a partner! Look, will you give me a dollar? Ill settle give me a half a buck. Bud Abbott: Now wait a minute! Wait a minute, just a second. Just a minute, now where was I? Lou Costello: You just had a toehold on my 69 dollars. Bud Abbott: Oh yes, yes. a half a day on Saturdays, 52 Saturdays in a year, one half of 52 is 26, so you will deduct 26 from 69, leaving you the sum of 43 dollars. Lou Costello: Sum of? Bud Abbott: Yes, sum of. If I get some of it, Ill be lucky! Look, Abbott, give me a quarter, will you let me have a quarter? Give me 20 cents. Bud Abbott: Well, now wait a minute. Lou Costello: Im going out of here with something! Bud Abbott: Now wait a minute, just a minute. Theres still a balance of 43 dollars. But! Lou Costello: Stop butting! Youre getting my goat! Bud Abbott: But you took a two weeks vacation, didnt you? Lou Costello: Oh, yeah, yeah. Bud Abbott: Thats 14 days. Take 14 from 43 dollars, leaving you the exact sum of 29 dollars. Lou Costello: Look, Abbott, will you give me a dime? Is that asking too much? Will you give me anything? Bud Abbott: Well, Id give you the 29 dollars, (in unison) but Lou Costello: I know it as good as you do! Bud Abbott: How much time did you take off for lunch? Lou Costello: Oh, this is going to run into money! I took off one hour a day. Bud Abbott: Very well, 365 hours is equal to 15 days, I take it. Lou Costello: You might as well take it, youve taken everything else! Go ahead! (in unison) 15 from 29 leaves 14, but Lou Costello: Now I know it better than you do! Look, Abbott, will you give me something? Will you give me a nickel? Bud Abbott: What do you mean? Lou Costello: Give me four pennies! Bud Abbott: What do you mean give you four pennies? Lou Costello: Look, can you spare a rat biscuit? Maybe you got a spare mothball? Bud Abbott: A mothball? Lou Costello: Look, is it asking give me a sardine, go ahead, Mrs. Niles is going to have me in the can anyway! Bud Abbott: Just a minute, lets straighten this thing out. There are 13 holidays in a year which you didnt work, and as you only have 14 dollars coming to you, we deduct the 13 from the fourteen, leaving you the exact sum of 1 dollar. Here you are, my dear friend, and good luck to you. Lou Costello: Nice work, Abbott. I need money for a lawyer because Mrs. Niles is going to throw me in jail, and youre giving me only a dollar. Bud Abbott: Lets have no more words about it! Lou Costello: One measly dollar! After I worked and slaved for you for a whole year! Bud Abbott: I always pay my obligations - heres your dollar. Lou Costello: I wouldnt mind, Abbott, I wouldnt care if it was just for me alone, I need more than a dollar. I got another mouth to feed. Bud Abbott: Now listen, your troubles are not my wait a minute. You what? Lou Costello: I have another mouth to feed. Bud Abbott: Another mouth to feed? You never told me that. Lou Costello: I know it. Bud Abbott: Why, youve been with me all this time, Costello, and now you tell me you have another mouth to feed? Why didnt you tell me that before? Lou Costello: I was ashamed. Bud Abbott: Oh, you fortunate fellow, thats nothing to be ashamed of. I was only kidding about the other money. Here, heres your 365 dollars. And to show you that my hearts in the right place, heres 50 dollars of my own. You should be so happy! What is it, a boy or a girl? Lou Costello: A goldfish! Bud Abbott: Get out of here!

I hate people who use their freedom of speech to whine and say they don't have freedom of speech.

So Brent, do you think state governments have "rights" to ban guns, tell you what car to drive, what doctor to see? Or do you not mind infringing on states' rights now?

vol_scouter writes: since the MSM implied that the shootings in Knoxville, Tennessee were due to a fundamentalist Christian faith Got any links to these stories, vol_scouter? I don't remember any like that.

I've heard of the beheading, TheScout. Ever hear of the Unitarian church shooting in Knoxville?

vol_scouter writes: The way to stem the tide of an incoming horde is to close the borders and deny immigration to the groups that are not wanted. The only way to change the percentage of different groups in a population without immigration is to increase the mortality of the desired group or increase the birth rate of the favored group. Wrong; you can also: 1) change the criteria of who is in this week's "favored" or "disfavored" groups; or 2) have people move from the "disfavored" to the "favored" category (or vice-versa) via any of the numerous ways people change or improve; or even 3) stop playing the master race game altogether.

This explains why there's been nothing but praise on this forum for the woman who recently gave birth to octuplets.

Remember, if your parents didn't have any children, you probably won't either.

I'm confused why a DOJ report that says there ought to be more investigation by a special counsel somehow means "there's nothing to see here, move along." I think more investigation IS warranted.

I'm referring to the DOJ report that I linked to earlier.

eisely, since you refuse to even back up your accusations about ACORN, I'll ignore them. scoutingagain, this was an investigation. The investigation recommends a special counsel to investigate further. They did NOT conclude that no fraud took place, they recommend further investigation. You know, going back to the old-fashioned idea that you investigate people *prior* to locking them up. There's also this: ...there are gaps in our investigation because of the refusal of certain key witnesses to be interviewed by us, including former White House officials Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and William Kelley, former Department of Justice White House Liaison Monica Goodling, Senator Pete Domenici, and his Chief of Staff. In addition, the White House would not provide us internal documents related to the removals of the U.S. Attorneys. The investigators do not appear to even have had subpoena power, much less the power to bring charges.

What ACORN fraud? You do know that they are legally required to report every name turned in, even absurd ones that they themselves point out are dubious? And that to commit voter fraud, someone matching that name, like "Mickey Mouse" has to show up and attempt to vote? And do you agree with the DOJ report that a special counsel be appointed to further investigate the US Attorney removals?

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf Here are quotes from the wikipedia entry on the firings that cite the above: A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary," "fundamentally flawed," and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions."[24] In September 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General's investigation concluded that the dismissals were politically motivated and improper.[24] In September 2008, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice concluded that some of the dismissals were motivated by the refusal of some of the U.S. Attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases during the 2006 election cycle.[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

vol_scouter writes: We will investigate Clinton for firing ALL of the federal prosecutors then won't we? All the ones Clinton fired after he appointed them and appeared to fire because they wouldn't play politics with their office, sure. How many would that be? Please note this does not refer to changing all, or nearly all, US attorneys at the start of a new administration, which is normal. They serve at the pleasure of the president, but that doesn't mean the president can e.g. fire them to stop investigations into members of his own party.

pinkflame, that still doesn't justify NOT taking a vaccine that helps reduce the risk of cervical cancer. If there was a vaccine to reduce the chances of lung cancer, would you be opposed to it because people might think it makes smoking OK? I'd rather reduce the cancer rate, and if some people are too ignorant to understand that vaccines aren't perfect and never will be, that's really their own problem.