Campy

I hear you. Not that we're superstitious or anything!

I agree 100% with all but one part. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the educational system for parents caving in and taking the easy way with meds. I mean, school nurses don't supply them with meds, do they? Egads, I hope not, but those of you with kids would have a better handle on that than me. I imagine that, like adults, there are some kids that really need them, but I don't know anyone who thinks that kids as a whole are not being over-medicated.

I don't argue that at all. During my business interactions with their fearless leader, I had to go to their HQ in Norfolk more times than I can count, and the place is like a freakshow. Animals, all kinds, cats, dogs, lizards, birds, running all over the place. And they all (generalization alert ) look like rejects from the off Broadway touring company of Hair. There are so many hemp belts, hemp shirts, and hemp sneakers running around in that place that I swear I walked out with a buzz. So I knew the members, or at least knew that the people at their HQ, appeared to be loons, but other than pushing vegetarianism, I guess I never thought of them as a political group. But as I type this, I'm realizing that they, the organization, is to the left in that they want to abolish hunting and that little thingy... What's it called? Oh yeah, the ability of people to choose their lifestyle, because if it involves meat, it's wrong. Hmmph. I never considered them to be a political organization at all, but I guess they really are. That makes them not only nuts, but dangerous too.

I should have posted it in a seperate post, it wasn't necessarily directed at you. Actually, it wasn't necessarily directed at anyone in particular, it was just a sarcastic rant. You saw the [rant]/[/rant] thingys? I should have used [sarcasm]/[/sarcasm] in their stead.

You are. As I am for doing the same. Hopefully everyone can now see that doing so really doesn't advance their position. Unlike mocking idiotic regurgitation, statements like that really do go a long way toward advancing your position. Nice show chap.

Cincy, I'm sorry for being harsh earlier - you're one of the good guys and didn't deserve that. That said, I just don't think that major media outlets failing to cover a birthday party are really indicitive of a liberal bias.

The UN Charter is a treaty. In that treaty the members agreed to be bound by the UN's resolutions and decisions. It is what it is.. Snippy answer? What was it the "*sighs*" part? I posted three words to address your question on the legality of treaties being federal law. Those three words were, "read the Constitution." And you failed to do so, putting the impetus on me to do your legwork. You thought my sigh was "snippy," did you? Do yourself (and me) a favor: If you'd like to debate the contents of the Constitution with me, read the damn thing first.

Hey man, I didn't write it. Your beef isn't with me, it's with the authors. To address your question, I'd hope we'd ammend Article VI about 5 minutes after being told that.

Remember the part where I suggested you read the Constitution? *sighs* From Article VI: You don't have to like it. Hell, you don't even to believe it, but it's true.

And this is coming from the guy who's never missed out on a chance to post "Halliburton!, Bush bad!, and Mission accomplished"? That's rich.

That's just wrong. (Not you, I mean them doing that.)

That's true. Everyone is always so respectful of each other's opinions on PPP, aren't they?

I thought you referring back to the legality of the war. I misunderstood you. [rant]Ah, screw 'em. Let's kill all of them stinkin' Arabs. Let's start dropping bombs. "Nucke-ler" ones. Who cares? It's not about me, I'm not over there. I was blessed by God to born here, in America. Those Iraqi's all deserved to be punished, damn heretical wastes of oxygen. I used to think the Constitution was important, but screw it. We obviously don't need it because we never use it. Hell, most Americans have probably never even read the tripe. I know it is no longer relevant. Screw human rights too. And while we're at it, screw our rights, we don't need 'em anyway. Screw the right of freedom of speech (http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=48862). Screw the right to keep and bear arms, and privacy. We need a national ID card so that the government knows what we're doing, where we're going. I could be a "terrist" afterall. As long as we can wake up in the morning with Katie Couric on the tube, all is right with the world. [/rant] Whew... Thinking like fan of "Bush War" is scary...

There are several people, people who I'd call friends (as much as message-board acquaintances can be friends, I suppose), and people whose opinion I generally respect and frequently agree with, that seem to be content, or in some instances pleased, with "Bush War." I likened them to crack addicts in that all the addicts cares about is just one more fix. Everything else, job, family, friends, home, all of the important things, just don't matter anymore. It's all about the next fix. In the case of the war, soveriegnty of nations - once so important to us we went to fight to get Iraq out of Kuwait - doesn't matter. Human rights, civil liberties, the millions of dollars being wasted, and most importantly the dead, injured, and maimed US soldiers, doesn't matter. The things that we once held dear are now expendable. But what the hell, all is great in "Bush War." We just need that next fix.

VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY! CLINTON BAD! "BUSH WAR" GOOD!

WTF does that have to do with your assertion that Hillary going to a birthday party is "news?" Nice spin attempt, though, I'll give you points for that. EDIT: I just re-read your post. Actually, it was a pretty weak spin attempt. Pulling out that Dems were strong in the South and therefore in favor of slave-labor? Holy shiite. That's pitiful. You can do better than that, can't you?

As I said in another post, the wisdom of the US' participation can be debated. But in the meantime, I'm not in favor of abondoning the Constitution.

I should have worded it differently, thanks for allowing me to clarify. The US invasion of Iraq is as illegal as the Iraqi's illegal invasion of Kuwait. It is illegal to invade a sovereign nation without tacit permission from the UN, Read the UN Charter and then the Constitution. They're binding agreements. For Americans, they become federal law (again, read the Constitution). Uh, not to my knowledge. Nor do I recall saying as much. This has been covered ad nauseum - use the board's search feature. Some people think they should be covered by the Geneva Conventions, others think they shouldn't be. If you'd like to start a different thread about that topic, feel free. To me it's pretty straightforward, an enemy combatant is an enemy combatant. If you disagree, it's no big deal. Just pretend it wasn't mentioned - it wasn't the primary gist of the post.

Riiiight... Keep looking for that missing resolution. You know, the one authorizing the United States and her allies to invade a sovereign nation. You do remember that one, don't you? I'm sure it's around there somewhere, because without it, the invasion is illegal. Hmm... Iraq.... Illegal invasion... Hmm... Sounds a little like the reasons Bush I gave to knock Iraq out of Kuwait, doesn't it? Sounds a little like the UN resolution that was passed after Iraq invaded Kuwait too, doesn't it? Keep looking.

That's what I get for rushing while getting dressed in the dark. We didn't know you were coming home from work early last night.

I hear that makes people go blind. But at least that explains why otherwise rational people have wrapped their lips around the crack pipe that is "Bush War." Just one more fix, eh?

And according John McCain, who knows a little more about the mindset of a tortured person than you do, said that you'd fail miserably. You'd be told whatever it was that the tortuted person thought you wanted to hear. But again, that's just McCain's take. I'm sure you knopw more about it than he does... Let me clue in on on something there Skip. It's not about idealism learned in a classroom. It's aout idealism learned in reading the United States Constitution.

And I agree. I couldn't believe how the Bushies actually bought in to that line of thinking. Maybe it was a lack of thinking that caused that. But yours was a beautiful post, I wouldn't expect anything less out of you.

It's called an allegory. Given the track record of people's inability to pick up on the nuances of the written word, I probably shouldn't have used it.

It was a pretty snotty reply on my part - and while I know we can get that way sometimes, you didn't deserve it based on the post you wrote. Mea culpa. I read the article, but even if it was bin Laden himself who made the claim, the fact is that it was confirmed by a Pentagon spokesman. In my world, that makes it a little harder to blow off as "BS," despite some people's claim to the contrary.