[Rondel]: Pat Robertson (of all people) in an interview published in Playboy (of all places) back in about 1990, they too could very likely use their small but organized numbers to swing the country their way, from the grass-roots level on up. It worked for the Christian Coalition, and not because of numbers, but because they analyzed the political system, the voter apathy (*especially* at low-lovel government elections, like the school board and/or city council), & what could be done simply by taking their small groups en masse to the polls, to get their own people in. Also, FWIW, the voter turnout may be 52% for presidential elections now, but it was 48% last time I had checked (a few years back).

[Rondel]: Mind you, it took 14 years for the Christian Coalition to make that plan work, and get a president of their choice actually *elected* to that office (and no, I do not count the 2000 election as qualifying in that respect -- getting in office by having your brother stop people from counting the votes that would have seen the other guy in office is a trick that's too low for gradeschoolers, who are required to uphold some basic moral standards that seem to be lacking in their elders), and it would take both serious educational efforts and serious organizational efforts -- but most of all, it would take giving up the defeatist attitude that I see among far too many of my own friends. *sigh*

[Rondel]: And I admit that it would be made all the harder by the fact that in hard times (such as those which have been created throughout the US by present policy), people tend to turn to the fundamentalist religions which are being used as a power base by the Christian Coalition, which is now the power behind the throne in the Republican party. But whether the job is done by pulling the Democrats back to their roots, or whether it's done by a group of dedicated people voting their consciences and working their way from the bottom up, the important thing is that it gets done. And yes, that's going to take some folks being serious about politics -- because if we don't, we have no right to complain.

[Rondel]: But there are some amusing things along the way, if you don't mind that most of it is bitter humour. On that lighter side, [sind], you might want to know that at one point the IRS itself wound up operating a whorehouse in Nevada -- they held a lien on it for back taxes, and kept it in operation (as is standard practise for siezed businesses) in order to pay those back taxes off. However, as I recall, the press they received was not getting them happy thoughts from on high, so they got out of the business (I don't recall how). I think it may even have been the famous (or infamous) Mustang Ranch, if you're curious enough to go hunting up the original news stories for the humour value.

[Roc]: In defense of my vote, I would like to respond. I'm not sure what system of government there is in Australia, but understand that America is a Winner-Take-All system based on a plurality vote. And according to Duverge's Law (a statistical/political theory), there can be only two strong parties in that type of election.

[Rondel]: [Roc], it might help if you understand that I'm a US citizen and a registered voter, having grown up and lived my entire life in the US until about 6 years ago. I *do* understand the US system -- but I also know that the Christian Coalition's "way around that" worked, specifically because (like it or not) the US *is* *functionally* a coalition government. If the Senate is Republican-dominated, the House Democrat dominated, the President Green, and the local governments range from centrist GOP to Libertarian, right-wing Green (they do exist, odd though they may be) to any other extreme you care to name, *they all have to work out their differences to some extent, or the result is deadlock*.

[Rondel]: The system WOULD BE a true "winner take all" system if the Congress and the Executive branch and every other level of government always went to the same party... ...but they don't, and I've been alive long enough to see just what happens when there is a strong polarization of differences between the various houses of government, even sticking to just the Federal level (for simplicity). At the lower levels, you might note, such as City Councils, there is an increasingly wide range of views represented, as compared to the upper levels, & this phenomenon may be more easily observed. Out of curiosity, I've been wondering -- was that 52% voter figure of *eligible* voters, or *registered* ones?

[Roc]: Eligible.

[Rondel]: It's progress, and it's good to hear. I'd like to see more such progress, but I'll take any I can get. Thanks for the info! :)

[Deus_Casus]: ok so this is bush's last term in office, so he cant run in the next election, who do you think the democratic and republican candidates will be?

[Deus_Casus]: or have they already announced? (i wouldnt think so)

[Peregrinus]: no, they haven't. A lot of people say Hillary will run though.

[Roc]: Several names have come up. Hillary, Senator Fiengold, Dean, a few others...

[Peregrinus]: Heh, Dean again? I didn't think he would...

[Roc]: It's only a name going around, these aren't set in stone, though.

[Bumsoft]: wow bush looks like he's rapping in that pic. I bet spelling 'rap' would be a challenge for dubya.

[desi07]: how do i get on this

[Dil*]: lmao.

[Maurer's conclusions]: Spitzer is going to run for president, but not the next term.

[kduncan]: This is posted primarily for those of us in the US since it seems to be old news in much of the rest of the world:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html 

[Peregrinus]: Oh yeah, I had heard about that...

[Deus_Casus]: more bush bashing pics here http://elftown.lysator.liu.se/wiki.html?y=12&x=21&name=Bush%20Haters%20Association%20-Members%20201-300&version=5&n=1129960703

[Rondel]: [kduncan], thank you for exposing the US readers to some of the news that hasn't been reaching them (as the degree of news censorship in the US has reached levels which truly surprised & appalled even my cynical side). It is my hope that others will take note of this & follow your example, seeking access to the international news, not just the politicized pablum they've been fed by the US media for the past 4 years. As regards Bush Bashing pictures, my personal favourite picture of this nature would have to be the unedited picture of Bush at the Pope's funeral, captioned "What happened to Santa Clause?" It fit his expression (& knowledge of the global political scene) so perfectly. *sigh*

[Roc]: Though I don't like editted propoganda, I would admit some of it is rather amusing. I would say my favorite is the picture of Bush sitting at his desk, his ring exposed. "Zooming in," one discovers it is the Ring of Power.

[Peregrinus]: has anyone seen www.impeachbush.org ?

[Deus_Casus]: Finally someone doing something about the overgrown Bush in the American Garden.

[Peregrinus]: Amen. It seems to be a pretty strong movement, too.

[kduncan]: .. and it's growing. That's the important part.. it's growing.

[Rondel]: *has just realized that Bush Jr. is almost exactly what you'd have gotten if Bush Sr. and *his* VP, Quayle, had bred and produced an heir...* *shakes head to try to clear it of that thought* No, I hadn't seen the Bush impeachment site, I'll have to check it out. It's nice to learn that there is a (*growing*) movement to remove the man from office -- I don't know how well the country would survive having him in office until 2008/9. FWIW, the thing I liked about the aforementioned image of Bush and the late (and lamented, especially in light of his successor) Pope, is the fact that it points up Bush Jr.'s utter lack of knowledge -- and lack of *interest* in *gaining* that knowledge -- of

[Rondel]: anything outside of the US. It is his view that "he has people for that", and he lets THEM read the news (he doesn't follow it himself, according to interviews I've seen), and tell him what they think he needs/wants to know. The fact that a world leader with the power that man has would attempt to weild it in ignorance utterly horrifies me -- hence, my appreciation of the (fully genuine) picture's caption. Speaking of world events, has anyone here heard about the US losing another spy plane over "an undisclosed SE Asian country"? Does anyone remember the incident which pulled the US into the Viet Nam conflict? If that country was N. Korea, I am honestly chilled with fear at the idea of

[Roc]: I don't know the specific incident. In that time, LBJ was in charge. And it was the true heat of the Cold War. America thought Communism was some sort of drug that took a person over.

[Rondel]: just what may come of this. Bush has been stirring up trouble with N. Korea for a while now (little things like naming it as part of "the Axis of Evil"), and the N. Koreans are paranoid when it comes to the US (with good reason, IMHO) -- and armed with nuclear weapons, *UNLIKE* Saddam Hussein and Iraq. If anyone knows more about this incident, I'd be glad to see any further news about it, particularly if it's at all reassuring. I don't believe that the N. Koreans will incite trouble with the US, given that they are left alone, but if Bush sets out to start a war with them, I honestly believe that they will give him one, and do their best to make it one which costs the US a lot of deaths.

[Rondel]: After all, they already *KNOW*, from painful experience, what it will cost them if such a war is confined to their own soil. The number of US soldiers who have attested to the US' use of chemical weapons in Korea makes that clear beyond question; their only hope, as I see it (and I am sure that they see it this way too) is to make it quite clear that -- IF attacked -- they will carry the war to the US' own turf, so that their own children will not be the only ones living in a poisoned landscape bearing a heavy crop of land mines. What have they got to lose, if they're being targeted for Bush's next round of Armageddon?

[Rondel]: [Roc], try checking out the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, for more information. You can learn more about it here (among other places): http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/tonkin.htm (Please note that I found this site while searching for a good summary of these events, and am not affiliated with it, nor do I wish to appear to support, implicitly or explicitly, any other portion of this site. Likewise, the rest of the site may contain perfectly valid information (scanning the links menu suggests that it may) -- I simply do not know.)

[\..katie../]: I HATE BUSH!!! lol wanted 2 get that out of my system for a while ... wot do u all thjink about the war?

[Roc]: lol. We figured that, [\..katie../]. As far as the Iraq War goes, supposedly it ended about 2 years ago. We went in for the wrong reasons, which happened to be blatant lies (this war was pre-meditated by 8 months). However, immediate evacuation of Iraq would be just as harmful to the Iraqi people as permanent stationing. America must begin its exiting very soon, but the entire evacuation may, indeed, take 6-12 months.

[Meridotahma]: For a solid, factual view of President Bush's large-scale agenda, visit www.prisonplanet.com. Even if you do not agree completely with the allegations made on the site, it does not hurt to at least take a look. I urge everyone to study deeper into the psyche of all our World leaders in these days.

[kduncan]: The US supreme court has decided that the government may call upon eminant domain to take the property of individuals on the behalf of private enterprises if the taking of the property will benefit the general public in terms of increased tax revenue, more jobs, etc. What prompted this decision was events in New London, Connecticut. It seems that we in the US don't even own our own property now.. we own it only until some pivate developer needs it for a strip mall, condominium, etc.. then it can be taken from us outright.

[kduncan]: I have to look at this recent developement from a local (Florida) perspective. The northwest coast of Florida has been largely undeveloped until the past five or six years, and then coastal properties started getting gobbled up by developers for 20-30 story condominium complexes. We used to be able to drive along the caost here and see snow white sand bordered by beautiful turquoise blue water. No more, now much of the coast cannot be seen unless you're renting a room in a condominium. A few locals have held onto their beachfront cottages despite being offered millions of dollars by developers. and one small patch of beachfront is still completely undeveloped as it is held by a homeowners

[kduncan]: association across the street from the Gulf. I'm concerned that these people now have no legal right to fend of the siezure and developement of their properties. What will happen out west if some large cattle company wants to put mom and pop operations out of business? Can they claim that, as a national operation, they can employ more and pay better benefits, etc.. so the taking of the mom and pop will be justified? The same is true of any small, locally owned business. Individual property/business ownership has just been bashed in the face by the US supreme court as it stands along side the corporate bully. If there's anyone in the US who isn't afraid of the latest supreme court decision..

[kduncan]: you should be.

[Roc]: Except according to the Fifth Amendment, the government CAN do that. All they have to do is give just compesation.

[\..katie../]: glad that others think the same as me

[kduncan]: What the supreme court decided is that private property can be taken for private use by a private developer. The decision has nothing to do with taking private land for public use, ie: roads, parks, schools, military bases, etc.. but for the use of a private developer. Apparently the thinking is that a commercial operation on what was formerly someone's home can generate more tax revenue, employ more people, etc. But, that said.. that makes everyone's privately held property subject to the whims of any developer or corporation that wants that piece of property. If you live within a city block of water, you should be worried. If you have a quiet mountain retreat, you should be worried. 

[Roc]: The Court decided that, through the 14th Amendment and the 5th Amendment, the government may take your property as long as there is just and reasonable compensation. They can do ANYTHING with the land.

[Lord Kügenheim]: That so totaly sucks. I dont think i'd appreciate getting my house taken from me and getting "Compensation"

[Roc]: Say they take your house, they have to provide you with temporary housing plus the amount of money your house was worth.

[Lord Kügenheim]: Its still hardly fair though is it? what if you had $200,000 worth of Farmland that your Great Granfather set up and died over? (Or something equally personal and sentimental such as the house you got married in or born in). Money can't replace that can it?

[Roc]: Laws aren't always meant to be nice or fair. Laws are merely to maintain order. If, however, the law is just and fair, as well as keeps order, that's great.

[Meridotahma]: The point is that when the government works for its own devices and not for the propulsion of the good of the people, that is what is known as a tyrannical operation. Once you have lost your private property, you have thusly lost your rights. As inferred in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, each owner of United States property should be viewed as the sovereign of that property. In other words, by invading into the rights of that property ownership, the government is abusing the civil rights of its American peoples. And as for the suggestion that they would perhaps allocate compensation-- that is simply foolish. Name one instance in which this occurred.

[Roc]: Barron v. Baltimore

[Meridotahma]: I know of the case, yet have not any idea how this is an example of compensation.

[Meridotahma]: And as a note, a law is meant to maintain justice, not simply "order." The entire concept of law is based round the principle of impartiality, which is a system of alleged fairness. Even though the law is being abused, it does not mean that its baser of practices are no longer intact.

[Roc]: It is the example of the opposite of compensation. This case was prior to the 14th Amendment. Baltimore took Barron's worf, and did not have to compensate him because the Bill of Rights did not apply to states. Eventually it was overturned in a case which I don't remember.

[Meridotahma]: In any case, the man in question was never compensated for the crime committed against him during the time of his own land's occupation. My entire point is that the government knows how to issue loopholes in their benefit, as proven in this very case, and as such will always have a means by which to overturn charges that they should compensate for their criminal occupation of privately owned land.

[Roc]: If they didn't give just compensation, then you go to court.

[Rondel]: Assuming that you have the money to go to court. Which many people do not, & if not 'justly compensated', are not likely to. Finding a lawyer who will take such a case on a "pro bono" basis, given the existing precedents, is not particularly likely, IMHO. & yes, there used to be a differentiation between the government taking private property for strictly governmental purposes, & governmental intervention in a business transaction between private parties. Now, with this "bench law", there isn't. That is a change. IMHO, it is not a positive change. In my further opinion, it is only to be expected in America under "the Enron president". Of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations.

[Roc]: Most plaintiff lawyers take a percentage of winnings; they charge nothing upfront. The difficult thing would be finding a lawyer who thinks you have a case. And in this case, the probability of winning would be pretty good.

[kduncan]: "Of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations." That's actually pretty good, did you make that up? And, yes, you're correct, Rondel, in saying that there used to be a differentiation in taking private property for strictly government purposes, and governemntal intervention in a business transaction between private parties. With this supreme court decision, that line of differentiation has dissolved.

[Meridotahma]: The actual ability of the government to take private property in the first case was something the American forefathers had opposed. As earlier stated, each land owner in America should be viewed as a soveriegn over their property, as a result of the Fifth Amendment. Once you lose your right to own private property you lose all other rights in procession.

[Lord Kügenheim]: [\..katie../] just made a pointless comment and it got DELETED. You don't have to come here no-one forces you too.

[Rondel]: Actually, that's not as true as it used to be, [Roc]. I've had to have dealings with lawyers in my time, and not that many of them will work without at least coverage of their expenses up front. If you don't have *some* cash to throw into the situation, it's hard to find any but an "ambulance chaser" who will take your case, and in such a situation, you're not likely to see much (if any) of your winnings, in the event that you *do* win. And if you don't, in many cases, you may wind up owing not only *your* legal fees, but those of the opposition as well. Going to court is not a highly viable option for the poor (including the "inadequately compensated").

[Rondel]: [kduncan], the answer to your question is both yes and no; I didn't "make that up", unfortunately, as well you know... *sigh* ...but the phrase in which I expressed the reality is indeed my own, coined for the occasion. Feel free to quote it, if you find it useful; credit and attribution would be nice if you do so in written form, but I'd be just as happy to see the concept more widely understood, so if it's picked up by those who don't know its origins, oh well. :) Better that the idea reach people than stagnate over a desire for credit for how it's expressed.

[Roc]: I'm studying to be a lawyer.

[Meridotahma]: I am not trying to be picky, but in my opinion the phrase would more likely sit realistically with "of the people, by the corporations, for the politicians." In reality, the corporations are no more than fronts for far larger and more powerful families of politicians, for instance: the Windsors, Rothchilds, Hapsburgs, and yes, the Bush family.

[kduncan]: Under the supreme court decision no privately held property is safe from being taken for "the good of the public". Consider this scenario: A developer wants to take a line of waterfront cottages that have been owned by the families in question for, say, sixty years. The developer wants to take the waterfont property and put up a thirty story condominium that will have approximately 300 rental units. Each of these units will (likely) be bought by out of state owners who will rent out their units for roughly 1200 - 1700 dollars/week. Now, the unusually ethical local county or city commissioners (take your pick) say, "Hell no! These people are our constituents and we will not force them from

[kduncan]: their property." The developer, naturally, doesn't like this, sues the county or city commission, and takes the case to court.. where he wins. After all, higher taxes will be generated by the property if it is developed, more people coming in to vacation means more businesses such as restaurants, etc are needed, which means more minimum wage jobs are created. This is what the US supreme court has done to the people of America: it has put individual property ownership at the whim of developers and corporations, and has guartanteed that individual property owners will own only second-rate property that no commercial enterprise will touch.

[Roc]: Legally, yes, they can do that, but if the state or national government takes it, they must give just compensation. If they refuse to give just compensation, it would be rather easy to find a plaintiff lawyer who takes a percentage (rather than an upfront amount) to take on your case.

[Stray Kitty]: Actually taking people's private property for the good of the public has been legal for awhile now. As in since before the Bush administration. It's just not many people knew about it until recently.

[Roc]: If you're talking about the Patriot Act, that's only seizures.

[Doormat]: I was in the canada day parade...woot

[kduncan]: Stray Kitty, this last Supreme Court decision is a little different. This decision concerns taking priavte property for the benefit of another private individual, not for direct public use such as a road, school, library, par, etc.. but for a mall, condominium, hotel, etc. Roq, just compensation is pretty vague, especially in an area like the one I live in. Gulf front property is expensive, no doubt, and home owners along the Gulf (of Mexico) are being offered 2 - 3 million dollars for very modest waterfront cottages. The thing is, a developer buys four or five of those alongside one another, puts up a 30 story condominium with roughly 200 units (each worth anywhere from half a million to 2

[kduncan]: million apiece) and the numbers change very dramatically. Now, regards whether the condominiums are for the good of the public, that's rather questionable as well. When I moved here, around fifteen years ago, we could drive along the road that runs along the beach and see the water. We could pull up anywhere, step out of our car, and literally be on the beach. Now there is virtually no public access to the beaches, one must go either to the State Park or rent a condominium to go enjoy the beach here. The sun along the beachfront road is blocking the sun most of the day, and that road has gone from 2 lanes to five.. and from 35 miles an hour to 45.. which is, in practice, actually 50 - 55

[kduncan]: miles an hour. There are no sidewalks where there used to be sandy paths along the road, the beaches are a mess, the sea oats which used to protect our beaches during hurricane season are gone, and erosion is constant with beach "renourishment" having to be conducted every couple years to replace sand that now washes away. So, who benefits? Surely out of state condominium developers and owners do. Property taxes collected are not keeping pace with the development here though. and much of the taxes generated here don't actually stay here. Does the tourist population generate jobs? Of course it does. It has generated hundreds of low-paying jobs like waitressing, convenience store clerks,

[kduncan]: hotel (and condominium) maids and grounds workers, beach clean-up personnel (because, god knows tourists certainly don't clean up after themselves), and lounge chair rental people.. all pretty much minimum and below minimum wage jobs. Housing prices here have sky-rocketed, but wages aren't keeping up with housing prices, the result being that home ownership is becoming merely a dream for more and more people. 

[omgOMEGA]: OMG I finally found people like me! I hate George Bush he is an idiot. The Americans are idiots for appointing someone as cold-hearted, idiotic, and just downright stupid. I think he is so stupid to send people into Iraq when there is NO ACTUAL PROOF that weapons of mass destruction exist. In fact they probably never did.

[Roc]: [kduncan], I admire your zeal and stuff, but it doesn't really matter what you think about the system because that's the way it is. 'Just compensation' is all you will get. It will cover your living quarters (house, townhouse, condo, etc...). The only way to change it is by changing the Consitution, the 5th Amendment.

[Meridotahma]: Actually [Roc], the only thing keeping you Americans safe is the Consitution and its Fifth Amendment; what is unfortunate is that come the power of The PATRIOT Act II, that last line of defense will have been shattered.

[Roc]: That's the Fourth Amendment.

[Meridotahma]: No, that is the entire Constitution being raped by the PATRIOT Act II, and that includes the Fifth Amendment.

[kduncan]: With regard to the taking of private property, this is what the Constitution says: "..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Note, it says "for public use". It does not say for private use, which is really what we're talking about here, ie: a private corporation or individual taking private property to benefit the corporaation or individual taking the property.

[kduncan]: Let's take, as an example, those condominiums on the beach. For public use would imply that I can go onto that property, park my car in their parking lot, and use the beach behind their building. Five to one odds that if I do that my car is going to be towed and I'm going to be threatened with arrest for trespassing on private property. Not public property.. but private property. I understand if the US government needs a to take my land to build a library, school, road, military base, etc. But to take my land to give it to XYZ Corporation so that they can build a condomininium, mall, office complex, or hotel on it.?? Sorry, but I do not believe that the US Constitution would have been

[kduncan]: interpreted thus by the gentlemen who wrote it. And remember, what the Supreme Court did was to give their "interpretation" of the Fifth, a decision that won by a scant vote of one (and one that could well be reversed in the future).. that means that many of the Justices (it was a 4 to five vote) thought exactly as I, and many other Americans, do. So, technically, you're wrong, Roq. The way to change it is not by changing the Constitution, but by the Surpeme Court reversing their own interpretation of what the Constitution says.

[Roc]: In a manner of speaking, the Supreme Court changes the Constitution every time they overturn a case.

[Dil*]: They never change the constitution, they just change the interpretation of it.

[Roc]: I said "In a manner of speaking." I am well aware the wording of the Constitution cannot be altered by the Court.

[Dil*]: Could of worded it better then.

[Rondel]: Have you ever thought about what that means? That document, which we are discussing, is "the constitution of the US". In other words, it is what makes up the US, what makes the US what it is -- a sovereign nation, with certain legal principles that define its citizens rights and responsibilities. So, while I agree with _Dilandau_ in a way, in another way, I have to say that [Roc] said something perhaps truer than he intended, with that comment -- because every time the Supreme Court overturns a case (making "bench law"), they change the very fabric of the US, the nature of its fundamental elements. It's like a set of doctors who, by their interpretation, have the power to change the

[Rondel]: nature of your body, and how it works. For example, there was a philosopher named Rudolph Steiner (who founded the belief system known as anthroposophy, including the field of "anthroposophical medicine"). His stated belief was that the heart did not pump blood. Were he posessed of the powers of the US Supreme Court, his belief would have the power to change the way your body works, and stop your heart from pumping blood, simply by making that declaration. There was supposed (in the stated intent of the US' "Founding Fathers") to be a system of "checks and balances" which made it so that no person, no branch of government, no 5 people, were supposed to have the power to change the very

[Rondel]: nature of the nation... ...yet it is clear that this is not the case, in the modern era. The president now has that power (through tools such as the "line item veto", the Marines (which allow the president to start his own wars, when the rest of the government refuses to go along and declare one), etc.); to a lesser extent, the legislative branch now has that power, as demonstrated when the "Republican" House and Senate deadlocked the workings of the entire nation's government, by refusing to pass a budget until the then-"Democrat" president went along with their demands; but it is in the Judiciary branch, the Supreme Court, that we can now see this power demonstrated most clearly.

[Rondel]: So much for "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" (unless, of course, they fit the "profile" of a terrorist, at which point they can be held naked in outdoor chain link pens, topped with razor wire, for a period of time with no fixed or finite termination point, even if they are the citizens of another country, with which the US is not at war...). Somehow, I do not think that the Founding Fathers meant for the US to be built on the creation of concentration camps which are technically not on US soil, allowing the US to get away with things which even its current arrogation of power unto itself will not permit it to do within its own borders.

[Roc]: [Rondel], in my own defense, I knew exactly what I said about the Supreme Court; I'm a Legal Studies student with a Political Science minor. But thank you for agreeing me.

[Roc]: You kinda lost me with the whole story thing, but I would like to correct a few things: the "line item veto" was declared unconstitutional in Clinton v. United States. Also, the Court is the body who declared the Court to have such power in Marbury v. Madison. Before that, the Court had virtually NO power. Though this power has become something out of control, without it, the Court would have been abolished in the Jefferson administration.

[Rondel]: But it (the line item veto) was used, before being declared unconstitutional, and according to the data I found on the subject just a few days ago, all but *7* of the state Governors have that power, so it still exists in the executive branch, just not on the national scale. As for what you said, my "story" was about the point I saw in your words -- the fact that the Constitution is not just the name of a document, it also describes the function of that document, which was the entire point of the subsequent posts -- that changes to the document change what constitutes the United States as a nation, just as surgical removal of an organ changes what bits constitute your body. But,

[Rondel]: reinterpreting the document allows "reconstituting" the nation in a different way from that which the doctors are capable of doing -- they can only add and remove parts from the body human, not change the very purpose, nature, and function of those parts, which power the Supreme Court has with regard to the body politic, each time it "interprets" the aforementioned document in a new and different way. Hence my analogy.

[Vampires do exist]: okay im going to babble on and you peoples can aggree or not ok wel i think that it is all the damn presdants fault that we are in fing war because if you think about it he went destroying peoples houses and then to get baCK they attacked back so then we told london and all then they were like help us then we were like bomb bomb so then iraq was like defend defend then bush was like kil kill then we are now in ww3

[Stray Kitty]: Not WWIII that would be giving him too much credit. More like Quagmire2.

[Vampires do exist]: true

[Bumsoft]: I bet you didn't know that george bush fell off a segway becasue he forgot to turno it on, and that he hopitalised a scottish police officer after bush fell off his back and hit the copper.

[Stray Kitty]: And that was how America's president killed the last of his brain cells off.

[Roc]: Personally, as a self-righteous and self-respecting Bush-Hater, I would like to make mention of something. No matter how much I hate Bush, I would rather people not have an opinion than just hate the man for doing dumb things. Please, I beg you, have opinions based on his policies. Second, for newer members: often, here, there is a string of posts relating to the same subject; to suddenly change the subject is almost rude.

[Dil*]: I think bush is unfit for presidency because hes such a religious loony and a dumbass. But there are many other reasons too...

[Blue Fish]: damn he looks like monkey!!

[Meridotahma]: I suggest reading The Family by Kitty Kelley if you wish to dig up all the dirt on the entire Bush family's past as well as to discover their plans for the future. It is a truly good read.

[~*Cassie*~]: All of you guys suck Keep your opnion to yourself. He was voted president so there is nothing you northern Kerry lovers can do about it. So get over it.

[Rondel]: Thank you for demonstrating the high level of research that goes into countering the points put forth here. Just for informational purposes, allow me to point out that many of us are not "guys", we are female. Whether any of us creates a vacuum or not is really none of your business, but it's unlikely that your assumption that all of us do is accurate. Bush became president by way of a decision by fiat on his brother's part, as Governor of Florida, that a recount on a Gore-favouring county could not continue past a certain date (despite the near certainty that such a recount would have reversed the election results); that is not being "voted president", that is a political fiasco, which

[Rondel]: created a scandal and made the US political system into an international joke. His subsequent re-election simply fulfilled the historical tendency of the US public to re-elect incumbent presidents during war-time. It is true that there is nothing we can do about either of these facts, as they are in the past, and the election which put him in office proved that even voting against him would do no good in terms of preventing his acquisition of the political office he now holds. However, you are far from accurate in assuming that a majority of those posting here are "northern Kerry-lovers"; many of us do not support Kerry, either, but would prefer a third-party or independent as president,

[Rondel]: regardless of our place of residence. Mine, for instance, is about as far South as any US citizen on this wiki is likely to live, as I'm currently residing in Australia -- and I have never voted for either Bush or Kerry, though I *have* voted in every election for which I was eligible to do so (which is more than many US citizens can say). However, in the present, there *are* things we can do about our distaste for Bush Jr's behaviour as the US president, up to and including calling for his impeachment, educating ourselves and others about his behaviour & views, & those of other potential office-holders, & laying the groundwork for the replacement who MUST (under US law) take office as of

[Rondel]: the next election. I would far rather see a president elected by an informed majority of the US voting public, than one who was put into office by fiat, due to an unjustifiable decision made by his brother in the face of an unpalatable political reality (namely, the fact that the majority of those voting would rather have someone else in office). Acting responsibly as a citizen of the US is incompatible with simply accepting political injustice & "getting over it", & it is not your job to tell us - or any of the other citizens of a world thrown into international warfare by Bush's decisions - to do so. Until Bush finishes gutting the Bill of Rights, we have the right to speak our views.

[Roc]: [Rondel], I think I truly am in love you (j/k). All right, now I rant: "Getting over it" is for the apathetic, for the uncaring, for the ones who give minimal effort. A true activist shall never rest until good is finally reached, in all forms. And at that point, the fight is not over, for the activist must ensure the continuation of good. "Getting over it" is not something I, or anyone here, can do. You say, "get over it" because of your blind faith in our president. All the while, however, this administration is more corrupt, possibly, than even the Nixon administration (1968-1974). The evidence is there, but blind faith of the people is what keeps the administration safe.

[Dil*]: I hate blind faith, I also despise how some brainless morons seem to always say "He is our president, we should stand by him" like it is a valid reason for supporting him. And I ask myself Why. Why should we support this idiot nutcase of a president and all his corporate scumbags?

[kduncan]: ~*Cassie*~, the "American" way is not for people to "keep their opinions to themselves".. but rather for people to voice their opinions loud and clear, especially when government officials are in the wrong. You're wrong in saying that people who do not support Bush live in the north and supported Kerry. I do not support Bush, nor do I live in the north. In fact, I live in the southern-most state in the US. People who did not, and do not, support Bush didn't necessarily support Kerry in the last election. Bush and Kerry were not the only two options on the presidential ballot. Yes, as Roq said, "getting over it" is for the apathetic, and for those who don't care

[kduncan]: to put forth the effort necessary to correct a wrong. Consider these facts, Cassie: Bush took the US to war on fabricated evidence. He has put American citizens in harms way (a treasonous act) both directly and indirectly. He has bankrupted the US and allowed corporations to make billions at the expense of US taxpayers. If you are in high school right now, you will be paying off the folley of the current administration your entire working life.. and for what? To keep us safe from "terrorists"? Iraq had no hand in the events that occured on 9-11.. a fact that Bush supporters continue to overlook. How has invading Iraq worked to make you, or any other person in the US, any safer?

[kduncan]: There were no weapons of mass destruction found, and indeed, the aministration has admitted it was wrong on that charge. Continued support for Bush goes beyound mere "blind faith", Roq. We're talking complete and utter denial of evidence pointing to the corruption of the Bush administration that continues to accumulate on what is starting to be a daily basis. Indeed, members of the Nixon administration would not only be proud of the way the Bush administration has managed to deceive many American people.. they could take lessons.

[Rondel]: Speaking of the effective ability of Bush's current US policies in putting the US public INTO harm's way, rather than taking them out of it, has anyone here followed the recent protests by families of deceased US military personnel - kids (for the most part, not yet old enough to drink) who died in Iraq, fighting a war which was nothing like the one they had been promised, & which has been conducted based on fabricated evidence, without any justification (unless you count interviews with high-ranking military officers who point at the shadow of US military aircraft in the briefing photos, & claim that it's a "demonic figure"...). "Some people you don't have to satirize, you just quote 'em."

[kduncan]: _Dilandau_, your comment is interesting for a couple of reasons. You're completely correct when you say that some people stand behind Bush merely because he is the president. For them to do is dangerous and foolish, the Americans who pledge blind, unthinking allegience to their flag or leader place place the very principles this country was founded on in jeorpardy. Look at it this way, if you Bush were the CEO of a corporation and bankrupted that corporation to the benefit of other corporations, thereby cheating the stockholders and employees of his own company he'd not only be fired, he'd be facing criminal charges.

[Roc]: As far as those who say "He's our president, so we should follow him," I would like to ask them what they thought during the Clinton administration. Oh, and Rondel, I believe you're refering to the vigils (mainly Cindy Sheehan). There was actually a national protest in support of them; over 1600 people attended, nationwide, including me.

[Rondel]: That's an excellent analogy, [kduncan] -- not to mention what OSHA would have to say about his worker safety record. If anyone's interested, I've seen MANY quotes by the US' "Founding Fathers" about the importance of the people's taking responsibility for their own knowledge of the issues facing the US, and questioning and confronting the government at every turn, rather than giving it their blind allegiance -- and the reasons why that is important. And [Roc], that sounds right; I heard coverage of the vigils on the Australian ABC's Radio National. There's not a lot that the "blind patriots" can say to the families who have given the life of a child for their country, & are speaking out

[Rondel]: against the war and the policies which took their child's life, rather than taking the easy and comforting way out, and treating their lost loved ones as martyrs to a just cause. It's easier to believe that your child died fighting for something important and worthwhile, than to admit that they died questioning the justice of the very actions which cost them their life.

[Roc]: To die for an unjust cause, tragedy.

[Peace_Turtles]: I hear you guys loud and clear.... glad to see I am not the only one who has a brain...that sounded self-centered

[Roc]: So...what does everyone think about the whole Cindy Sheehan deal?

[Delight]: I respect her. She's getting issues noticed and in the news. Its exactly what people need right now.

[Rondel]: I have to agree. As I said, it's hard for the "blind patriotism" to drive people when the person speaking is someone they've been trained to respect -- someone who's given the life of a family member in the service of their country. *sigh*

[Roc]: Very insightful.

[Dil*]: yes, it is quite tragic.

[Vampires do exist]: um i have a question about my theroy of why bush is an ass can someone help me?

[Roc]: Where would you like me/us to start?

[Vampires do exist]: um messege me and then ill tell you sorry i have a problem when im talking to someone and other people can read it

[Roc]: ...? This entire wiki is dedicated to our hatred of our president....? I don't think you'll find too much resistance to your feelings; however, if you truly want a message, then okay.

[Vampires do exist]: um thanks so like messege me please

[Roc]: Okay, everyone: I'll take this one.

[xBrokendreamsx]: i hate him.... he's ruining our country.... someone leave me a message

[Roc]: I beg you, new members, please...when insulting our president (I'll share your sentiments), please give a reason. I ask you not to merely say, "Bush sucks." As much as I will agree, I ask you give a reason.

[Rondel]: A brief side note on these short "Bush sucks, message me please" comments: they do raise the question of intent, in the mind of the reader. Is this person really sincere, or are they acting as a "troll"? Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll for further information on the practise of "trolling" on internet forums.

[kduncan]: Here's a topic for discussion:  http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12528233.htm

[Vampires do exist]: did anyone here what the damn f***ing presdidant recently

[Peregrinus]: What this time?

[Vampires do exist]: he well said that if people need help durring the hurrican then dont help them because its thier fault that they didnt leave and that he will never bring back troops untill we win this war damn war if they like take people like other than what want to be in now my brother will have to go and i dont want to loose him because i love him

[Peregrinus]: Um... that made no gramatical sense whatsoever, so I'm finding it a little difficult to understand what you just wrote...

[Vampires do exist]: sorry. he said that if people need help durring the hurricane dont help them because its their fault they didnt leave. he also said that he would bring back troops untill we win the war. if they take more people in to the war even if they dont want to which means that my brother would go and i don't want him to go because i love him.

[Peregrinus]: Yeah, the draft has been something that's been talked about for quite some time, regarding the war effort. But when did he say not to help the hurricane victims?

[Rondel]: So he's starting to push the draft more actively? Would you mind posting about this on the Stop Military Slavery? As for the rest, it's just repugnant. I can't possibly put words to my disgust at that attitude. Can you give us an approximate date and source for that quote?

[It's Not A Perfect Day For Bananafish]: Well I dont particularly hate bush or love him but there has to be a draft thats the only way they can get people to fight for this country since noones very patriotic these days and if your anti war I'd like to ask you the question what other thing could we have done I mean the terrorists destroyed our property. The victims of the hurricane had enough time before the hurricane did strike to walk out of town so it is kinda their fault that they didnt get away but whatever.

[Roc]: Well, considering there were absolutely NO terrorists linked to 9-11 in Iraq... I would have to say that it was pretty stupid to go in there. Moreover, the Bush administration has stooped to terrorist level by bombing everywhere.

[Duredhel]: It's as if some guys from Canada bombed a building in England, and the brits go and drop bombs on your house (if you live in the states, that is) as retaliation

[Dil*]: haha, good one.

[Peregrinus]: Yes, an apt analogy.

[kduncan]: People had time to walk out of New Orleans?? Have you been to New Orleans? I have.. it's a big city. Let's do a bit of math here..If the average person can walk about two to three miles an hour touting a kid or two and a load of personal belongings.. including food and water.. they can walk about 96 miles in 4 days. Katrina was in the gulf of Mexico for 4 days.. and it was uncertain where Katrina was going to hit. For a while the town I live in was in the bullseye. So cut that down to 2 days notice.. and 48 miles. That still leaves them well inside the "strike zone".

[kduncan]: Now, I'm going to assume, MorningCalls, that you do not live in an area that has ever been hit by a hurricane, because to say that people can simply walk out of the possible strike zone is, frankly, ridiculous. Even driving out is a risky proposition unless you leave your home roughly two days ahead of time. During hurrican Opal, many people who tried to evacuate my area (yes, we saw Opal here) were stuck riding out a Cat 3 hurricane on interstate highways in their cars. I'm going to also assume that you've never lived below the poverty level, so have no idea what it is like to want to leave.. but be unable to afford to leave. Bus tickets.. cost money. Plane tickets.. cost money. Taxi's..

[kduncan]: cost money. Extra money for a ticket out of town is a pretty rare commodity for a person living below the poverty level.

[kduncan]: I've seen three hurricanes, Opal, Ivan, and Dennis.. and I have to admit that FEMA's done an incredible job here. National Guard moved in quickly and protected multi-million dollar gulf front homes (and the debris that used to be those homes), FEMA people were in the area ahead of the storm to help people get back on their feet. Insurance company's had adjusters here to help assess the damage so people could get their checks asap. Frankly, having seen the hurricane response I've seen locally in the past.. I'm shocked by the slow, inadequate response the victims of Katrina have seen.

[Peregrinus]: Besides, there were severe, unpredictable problems with the hurricane defenses. Loads of pumps that people were counting on didn't work when they were supposeed to.

[Rondel]: [It's Not A Perfect Day For Bananafish], let me see if I understand you correctly: you are saying that a draft is necessary because so many people are opposed to the war that, in order to fight a war against a country which has no link to a terrorist attack on an international center of business, people who do not wish to fight that unnecessary war (justified only by falsified & inaccurate data) must be conscripted to do so? Pardon me if I haven't managed to make that make sense, but I honestly don't see how it can be made to do so -- so perhaps it loses something in the translation. Instead, citizens of the US must be left to the mercy of a national disaster, on the premise that they "could have walked away"?

[Peregrinus]: Yeah... somehow I have a feeling that this Morning Calls person isn't even watching this anymore... it's so unsatisfying that way...

[Meridotahma]: I have been watching this page for a few weeks, and really enjoy reading all the comments, and sometimes drop my own, but when you read something like what [It's Not A Perfect Day For Bananafish] left, you feel an innate need to lash out at that kind of irresponsible stupidity. Thankfully, everyone here has already done that for me. Thanks.

[Vampires do exist]: okay like everyone has heard my speach on bush right? and if you havent well then look at the other coments

[bluefairy27]: what about it

[Beatify me Capt'n]: seriously i thought elves lived in the north pole and if so why doesn't bush go back

[kduncan]: Barbara Bush after a tour of Katrina relief centres: "And so many of the people in the arena (referring to the Astrodome) here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this is working very well for them." All I can say about her remark is.. what the hell planet is this woman from, and can we please send her back??        

[Duredhel]: y'know... they probably don't want her back... and Bush will probably just turn it into an intergalactic war anyways....

[Rondel]: Trickledown economics = "don't piss down my neck and tell me that it's raining". Or, in this case, a "benefit" of the hurricane. (My honorary Great-Aunt survived! Yay! She's okay! 90-something, and without power, but... ...okay!) I vote that we impeach Bush for focusing more on another country than on helping American citizens in distress.

[Meridotahma]: Well, it is not like his focus is on helping that other country. I am not sure if you meant to word it that way, but if so, make certain you know that Iraq was just another scheme in his big picture of World domination and stealing oil.

[Meridotahma]: Which you likely already know.

[Peregrinus]: Impeaching him for that would almost be like how they nabbed Capone on tax evasion... but whatever it takes, heh...

[Rondel]: I didn't say "HELPING another country", I said "focusing more on another country" -- it's his job, as President, to administer the US federal government, and that government's job to help its citizens. If he cares more about ANYTHING else than about that, he's not doing his job. (and yeah, I know why he's going after Iraq -- and how much Cheney is making off of the war... ...but the point is that this just might provide an opportunity to bring the man's political career to an end, so that the US can once again have a president whose focus is on America and Americans' needs. This is only the start of hurricane season, too -- what happens if ANOTHER one hits the Gulf? They can't take it!)

[Peregrinus]: I'm of the opinion that the weasel will do what he does best, and...well.. "weasel" his way out of it, yet again.

[bluefairy27]: i wish he couldn't this time. its not right that others have to pay for peoples stupid mistake of re-electing him

[thesuperman]: did you vote in the polls bluefairy?

[bluefairy27]: the one at the top?

[Meridotahma]: I do not think that he will be impeached, and to think he and his family would allow such a thing is just blind foolishness. If anything, I foresee a schysm in America, dissolving the conservative and liberal middle-ground and creating separate one party American "provinces." Not like this is going to happen over the course of a week, but this hurricane season is certainly a powerful catalyst for the beginning stages of such an American disintegration.

[Peregrinus]: I'm not sure I agree with something as extreme as that, but at this point, anything seems possible.

[thesuperman]: i am talking about the american polls to vote for the president

[bluefairy27]: no, i'm four years short of that

[Meridotahma]: As I said, it would not happen overnight, but believe you me, we are seeing the beginning stages of two very separate Americas. Those who follow Bush do so blindly-- some have gone as far as to name him the reincarnate manifestation of Jesus. And get this, ever since he was born his nickname around the Bushes and other such prestigious families was "the Chosen One". Sound a little creepy? It ought to.

[Dil*]: *vomit*

[Meridotahma]: We have got to get over this image he has made for himself of a bumbling idiot barely making it through his presidancy. If he is such a moron, how did he get re-elected; why does everyone, liberal or conservative, work for his agenda; and what morons think voting for Kerry (his House brother in the Skull and Bones Society) would make things better. The picture is a lot bigger than just George Bush. You have to look at the global network of these rich fanatics. For instance, did anyone bother to read into his grandfather's ties to the Nazis (notice the two eagles perched each on a pole at his side during many of his speaches-- Nazi symbols)? Has anyone bothered to notice his royal bloodline?

[Meridotahma]: Has anyone ever bothered to notice the way Bush behaves off camera? And I cannot stand it when people say Bush is Cheney's pawn... where in God's name did people draw this assumption from? The earliest news article I could find concerning the power Cheney has over Bush was published by one of Bush's privately owned reporters. He is purposely playing on the image of a dolt so nobody asks questions when he does something seemingly to no purpose. We need to pull our heads out of the drying asshole that is the mainstream media and start researching things for ourselves.

[Dil*]: He gets re-elected because of the bible thumping and because the neo-cons tell him what to do. And I knew about his Grandfather having ties to the Nazis, but that's his grand-dad, not him. How do we know he's an evil scheming white supremist going for world domination? We have no evidence.

[Meridotahma]: ...have no evidence... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Aside from the evidence just pointed out (Nazi posts flanking his podium during countless speaches), there is the fact that he is a prominent Skull and Bones member-- the very same Skull and Bones which in 1933 promised to take control of America and eventually the World by the hands of a "Chosen One", the very name given to George Bush as pointed out in the book The Family by Kitty Kelley (which, by the way, I recommend you read). He does not get re-elected just because of his false identity as a Christian (he was a student of many influential people, of whom he said their greatest political ally was their semblance with the Church).

[Meridotahma]: And to top it all off, call it a conspiracy if you want (they said the same of Galileo, Columbus and countless others with their protestations against the mainstream), but George Bush is the puppeteer behind the 9-11 tragedy. He did not simply "allow it", and if some people would take the time to research for themselves rather than take on the opinions of PRs and uninformed journalists, they would realize this truth as well.

[Meridotahma]: Stop absorbing and consuming; stop filling your heads with crap from the media for just long enough to allow you to think for yourselves. "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - so long as I'm the dictator." --George Bush

[Peace_Turtles]: http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte484v/wakinglife/alexjones.html I Got this from a very good movie called "Waking Life" you guys should read it....

[Dil*]: It would take alot of convincing, links, and good logic to convince me. I'm against bush, but I'm not just going to jump on any conspiracy theory. And his dictator comment is not surprising, he says alot of stupid things. You should have seen the speech he made about sovereign nations.

[Duredhel]: He asked the president of brazil if they had black people too, this while they were in a room filled with press members, other foreign dignataries, etc...

[Dil*]: And that article is too optimistic for me.

[Meridotahma]: To the first commenter, I am grateful for you posting that. I visit www.prisonplanet.com and www.infowars.com daily, (two internet sites belonging to and run by Alex Jones) and find him to be one of the single greatest sources of factual, anti-mainstream information. Next, to [Dil*]'s post: I am going to make an educated guess that you are a liberal who would prefer to see Kerry in office right now rather than Bush. Believe me, that collective is in no way different than the conservative Bushites. Of course, I say this in terms of the actual politicians, not the people in support of these politicians. Whether Kerry or Bush were elected, it would make absolutely no difference.

[Meridotahma]: And for God's sake, do not try to belittle a source by deeming it a "conspiracy theory". If you lived in Nazi Germany in 1943 and said the Nazis were killing Jews, you were called a conspiracy theorist. If you lived in post-WWII America and said the Americans were irrational in their quickness at labelling alleged communists in their witch hunt, you were called a conspiracy theorist. And if you today say anything at all diverging from the close-minded perspective given you by the media, you are thereby deemed not only a conspiracy theorist, but an enemy of the state.

[Rondel]: Yes, but how vocal do you think it is wise to be in public, on these issues? Postulating that you are correct, are you ready to make yourself a target? How many lists do you want your name on? Who do you want to be following your statements, and what do you want them to be able to document your saying? Do you really want to be kenneled in Guantanamo Bay?

[Meridotahma]: I hope I make every list America and the rest of the world has ready; I am not afraid to fight for what I believe in, no matter where the fight may lead me. I already know I am on a number of "lists" as I was informed when travelling to America last year. They had me pink-listed and deemed a "possible threat". Fearing what they "could" do or "might" do is exactly what these Masonic bastards want. That's what Bush has everyone worldwide worried over: thinking that someday, somehow a "terrorist" will kill them. It's all mind-games, and I don't feel like playing.

[Dil*]: I really don't think terrorism is a threat in America and I think the govt does control the populance with fear. But like I said, post some links or sources of information. I don't know who you are, but don't grind someone into the ground if you're trying to convince them of something. And I think Kerry is better than Bush because at leasts he's mildly intelligent. And he has gone to war, so he knows how it feels. You still haven't convinced me of bush being an evil mastermind.

[Rondel]: I can agree with portions of what you're saying, [Meridotahma], but you lose me at "Masonic bastards"; your average Mason is NOT a part of any high-level political plot. My grand-father-in-law was a Mason, his wife a member of their sister order, the Silver Star... ...even my husband has seriously thought about joining. Mostly, like any "lodge", they are groups of people who get together, indulge in some half-understood traditions, and then socialize, while using their organization to do some social work (fundraising/charity, etc.). I won't dispute that some are among the movers & shakers, but UNLIKE the "Skull & Bones Society", they don't even profess to have a political agenda.

[Rondel]: Further, I think that there is a big difference between taking seriously the threat posed by the legalized loss of personal freedoms, under the increasing "police state" laws of the US... ...and fear of "terrorists". Bush wants people to be afraid of terrorists, that's clear; he *doesn't* want people to equate his own actions with a form of legitimized terrorist threat. I don't see reasonable caution about police state tactics as playing into the manipulated fear of global terrorism. I have to agree with [Dil*] -- I think your arguing tactics are off-putting to some of those who might otherwise listen to you, & learn from the valid points you *do* raise.

[Meridotahma]: Alright, as first stated, www.prisonplanet.com and www.infowars.com. I already posted these once, but you must have not noticed them last time, so here they are again. These are certainly NOT the only good sites for information, but they are at least among the best. So go to those sites, research and find out why: A. Kerry is not a better man to have in office than Bush. I am not even going to attempt to argue with [Dil*] about this anymore, considering that I know she will not want to hear it (or read it in this case...). And B. that Bush is NOT a drooling moron, but in fact an "evil mastermind" with a lot of backing from a lot of powerful Masons. And yes C. that the Masons...

[Meridotahma]: ... are the epitomy of all that is wrong with our world. [Rondel], I am very sorry to announce that these people are, in fact, the scum of planet Earth, rubbed raw off the boot of even lesser men. As for your relations who are among them, I am certain they are either lowly 1st to 3rd degrees, either that or they are hiding a lot of themselves from you. And as for your husband, do not let him make the same mistake that they did. Say whatever you want about the Masons, but I have my own relative who had once been among their semi-higher of ranks to find the truth to their causes.

[Rondel]: Opinion noted, [Meridotahma]. I will leave you to yours, if you will either leave me to mine, or provide me with reasons to change it. However, dismissing people as not worth trying to convince on the basis that you "know that they will not want to hear it" is not a very good way to put forward a convincing case. After all, in an open forum such as this, you are never putting your case to *just* the person you are addressing -- there are always others, lurking & "listening" (or in this case, reading), & judging your position on the basis of the case you make for it. But, again, it is your choice.

[Rondel]: I would simply recommend that you consider the ramifications before you sidestep any attempt to substantiate your claims with specific information, apart from repeating the only two sources you've previously cited. I would also note that giving advice works better (in my experience, at least) when you acknowledge that it is advice, & do not present it as a flat dictum to strangers -- particularly without providing information, reason, or substantiation. That said, until you approach things that way, I prefer to continue my self-education by way of sources who *do* provide such things.

[Dil*]: Rondel states a good point, thankyou for being level headed. And to Meridotahma: How dare you, from the moment you've stepped in here with your patronizing and condescending attitude, we've put up with it. We've even entertained your ideas, and inquired about it showing some interest. But you won't win anyone over with that kind of attitude. If you can't even get along with fellow bush-haters. Can't you continue a decent conversation without accusing others of ignorance? I've been to prisonplanet.com, but you haven't posted specific articles regarding your claims, so I didn't bother. My advice: tone it down a bit, act civilly towards people that disagree with your opinions. --

[Dil*]: I mean, with that kind of attitude, even if you *have* some valid points, people will dismiss you as that 'conspiracy theorist dogmatic asshole'.

[Meridotahma]: Okay, I know that I can be condescending and come off like a jerk, so here is what I will do. I will just give everyone as much information as possible without being too much of an ass (a challenge if there ever was one) mostly through links to good sources of information. In whatever debates come after this, I will just try to keep a level head as often as possible, though I make no promises if I am just arriving home from work...