freethefly

Neoconservatism: is the political movement with these goals and beliefs and actions: protection of wealth reducing restraints on corporations, and reducing their liabilities reduction of taxes unrestricted trade reduction of social programs, such as welfare, medicare, and social security shifting the burden of social programs more towards the states to involve the US in incredibly expensive, non-ending, wars which will force the reduction or elimination of social programs to aid in the increase of legal and illegal immigration into the US, to provide businesses with low-wage, non-union workers, and to increase burdens on local and state governments. the allow the enormous increases in costs of health care to continue, in order to decrease the money available for social programs denial of scientific data that runs counter to their stated beliefs increasing secrecy in government unilateral use of force internationally, against perceived (real or manufactured) enemies maintains the right to make pre-emptive attacks against perceived (real or manufactured) threats the aggressive use of "information control" - otherwise known as propaganda, both internationally and domestically willingness to make false statements when needed to tilt the balance, followed by obfuscation and misdirection to avoid making any retractions willingness to carry out personal attacks against political enemies, usually through 3rd parties promotion of public disdain for dissent promotion of public disdain for international organizations, such as the UN and the Hague Court promotion of distrust and disdain for other democratic countries that do not support US goals the increased surveillance of Americans a strong and intimate alliance with Israel a willingness to resort to the use of nuclear weapons the loss of Vietnam was due to liberal weakness in the US, not because of military failure to have the United States become the supreme, unrivaled, military power in the world the supremacy of the Executive branch over the Legislative and Judicial the continual invocation of 911 as a "word of power", used to emotionally justify their changes to the American system the subversion of elections in the United States by various tactics to shift as much wealth as possible, from the people, to the corporations and wealthy so as to permanently establish a neo-fascist government to rapidly develop highly effective anti-crowd weapons, which will mean the end of public protest the enthusiastic use of 'false-flag' operations the continuous message to Americans that terrorists hate Americans themselves, rather than American policy They claim to be representatives of the religious right, but are not religious themselves. They claim to be interested in spreading Democracy and Freedom - yet their actions seem to be more connected to protecting and increasing the power of US-based corporations in foreign lands. Despite Bush's claims that "it is not about the oil" - the only ministry that was protected in Iraq after the invasion was the oil ministry. All the other ministries were looted and destroyed. US-based oil companies now control the oil in Iraq. They claim to be "Republicans", but do not adhere to major Republican principles. Interestingly, neocons vehemently deny they are anything other than Republicans, despite the glaring differences between their views and those of the Republican party. Many Republicans have broken with the Bush admin. The Bush admin seems to be controlled by a secret inner circle of neocons and business interests. Bush himself is not a major decision maker in the government, he is merely the figurehead. However, Bush seems to be an enthusiastic 'team-player', except for on 911 when he got upset with his handlers. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Interesting piece on the history of the Bush family. Some parts I was a little skeptical on untill I did further research. This may explain why G.W. is so bent on war. http://www.communitycurrency.org/BushCrimeFamily.html "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The Dog-awful truth "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

fortunately for my keyboard, wasn't drinking at the time. Were you? At the very least take off the rosy glasses. He might be the closest thing to a viable candidate either party has for 2008, but he's not remotely what you describe, and the GOP will have to swallow hard before they'll give him the ticket. I do have some issues with McCain on a few things but, I do stand by what I said about him being the most honest. (My opinion) Oh, and I don't drink. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Not surprising, coming from someone who played junior nazi in his youth. Perhaps you should do a little reading on this subject before you spout out such ignorance. I read everything, thank you. Maybe you should do the same before accusing someone of being ignorant. Facts are facts, he was a nazi youth. Nazi Youth Age 13 Ratzinger joined the Nazi Youth in 1941 at the age of 14. Although it's been widely reported that he was forced to join, in his book, Memoires, he doesn't mention being forced or of any resistance at all. In his autobiography, Salt of the Earth (1997), he wrote that his older brother Georg was obliged to join, but that he later registered himself in it. By 1939, the Nazi Youth was mandatory for boys 10 and up, so in all probability his father registered him knowing it would otherwise be expected. His brother Georg told The Times of London recently, that their "father was a bitter enemy of the Nazis". However, with the exception of listening to foreign news radio, his family made no passive resistance, as many other German families had in his area, by hiding their children or other fugitives from the Nazis. • Family Anti-Nazi Benedict XVI (standing right) with family At least one of his family, a grand-uncle Georg Ratzinger, who was a Catholic priest and also a member of the Reichstag (parliament), wrote many anti-Semetic pamphlets. Some critics have also pointed out that there were many Catholic families in his town that resisted, and that his father, who was a policeman, would have been very much aware. In his second autobiography Milestones: Memoirs, 1927-77 (1998), he writes that his father was very vocal in public against the Nazis. In his earlier book though Salt of the Earth, he seems to contradict this, stating that his father "made no public opposition" to the Nazis, and further that it "wouldn't have been possible". White Rose Members There were many Germans who resisted, even in his home town. The well-known resistance group called the White Rose operated in his area, handing out anti-Nazi pamphlets. Some of the leaflets were critical of those Germans who did nothing. Their leaders were eventually executed for their bravery, and considered heros today. In 1937, only a short distance from his home, one family hid the resistance fighter, Hans Braxenthaler, from the SS who searched door to door looking for him in the area. Eventually he was betrayed and chose to shoot himself. Elizabeth Lohner, who also lived in Traunstein at the time, and who's brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, was quoted in The Times of London, "It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others," she said. "The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice." • Nazi Army Dachau Slave Labour In 1943, at the age of 16, Ratzinger's seminary class were conscripted as anti-aircraft soldiers, responsible for defending a BMW plant outside Munich that made aircraft engines. This was the same factory where the prisoners of the Dachau concentration camp were forced to labour at that time. In September, 1944, he was moved to a post by the Hungarian border where he was tasked with digging anti-tank ditches. Here he saw many Jews being herded off to death camps. In Dec 1944, he was drafted into the Army and stationed near Traunstein. • Desertion In May, 1945 Ratzinger wrapped his arm in a fake sling and deserted the army. Many News publications have claimed this was evidence that he was strongly anti-Nazi. However, Benedict wrote that he deserted "after" hearing of Hitler's suicide, which was actually when most of the soldiers deserted their posts, especially with the fear of being captured by the advancing Russian troops. He returned to his home in Traunstein, and a month later was captured by the Americans on June 19, 1945, who brought him to a prison camp where he was forced to attend de-Nazification classes. A few weeks later he was released, and he then entered the Catholic semimary. • Critical of the Allies In his Milestones, Benedict XVI actually criticises the American liberation as slow, "unhurried". He also comments how the soldiers forced him to stand with his family to take pictures so they could "take home with them souvenirs of a defeated army". A far less consequence compared to what Nazi soldiers did to their prisoners. There is no critique of the German army. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Ditto. Remove religous rhetoric from politics and vise versa and just maybe something good can be done. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

We learn something new everyday. Sadly, this will only embolden his followers. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Not surprising, coming from someone who played junior nazi in his youth. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

There is no doubt to McCain's integrity. He is, without doubt, the most honest man in D.C.. If he runs, he has my vote. A McCain/Powell ticket? http://www.mccainforpresident.org/ http://www.straighttalkamerica.com/ http://www.mccainmovement.com/ "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html And, the debt to the penny http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

How soon till the Bush Administration adds the IAEA to the list of "Axis of Evil"? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

There is no such thing as "accidental collateral damage" when oneside or the other targets a building, a car, a compound or whatever that is adjacent to civilians. To target structures such as a resturuant to kill one person and "accidently" killing every innocent person inside is bullshit. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

They are in fact a corporate mecenary organization. Do a little research. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=10353 And then there is Zapata Engineering http://judicial-inc.biz/Mercs_ambush_marines_supplement.htm "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Had they'd stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of diverting resources to invade a country that poised no threat... As it is now (and has been since the start) there is an overwhelming force in Iraq compared to the number of insurgents (does anyone really know the number of insurgents?). Recent reports are showing that a good number of American trained Iraqi forces are also responsible for the greatly increasing violence. Face it, this is a lost cause (if it ever were a cause at all). The M.E. is even more unstable than ever before. Not because of the insurgents but, because of a poorly planned(?) invasion. Because of an arrogant administration that has failed 100% at home and abroad. This administration is responsible for each and every death. They are sending people into a meat grinder and urging that we stay the course. When staying the course comprise of only feeding the grinder it is foolish to not pull back to find a new path. Merely sending more to die for the arrogance of an ineffective president will not bring this to an end. Merely sending more at the beginning would not had been anymore effective and we would had still been where we are now - stuck fighting an ideology that is growing in numbers. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Under which law jurisdiction should the U.S Contractors be tried? They're not afghan citizens, and they were captured as "illegal combatants", i.e., guys who were shooting at afghan troops in Afghanistan. Shoot at afghan troops, and suffer the consequences. I was wondering the samething in concern of merc operations such as Blackwater. Is the execution of mercenaries justified, considering that they fight only for the pay? If a mercenary kills an civilian during a firefight should that person be tried under the laws of the country the killing took place? Should the legal combatants be placed in harms way to rescue mercs? Should mercs be placed on trial in the US or any other country considering that they are, more than less, killers for hire? If those in Gitmo are in fact mercs and not legal combatants, then they got what they were paid for. If they are not mercs then they should be treated as defined by the Geneva Convention. Art. 47. Mercenaries 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Actually it is no surprise that you voted yes. As an ex-police officer, you have seen where the true problem lies. It is not in the drugs themselves but, a minority of the people who use them. When a person is arrested for, say, DUI, they are not arrested because they dranked but, arrested because they drove after drinking. They were arrested for driving while intoxicated. DUI is an law enforcement issue. The reason they drove intoxicated is refered to healthcare professionals and it is treated as an health issue while being prosecuted for the crime commited - driving while intoxicated. Drinking itself is treated as a public health issue not a law enforcement issue. As it applies to alcohol it should apply to all drugs. People sitting in their homes using drugs (namely marijuana) are no more (even less) dangerous than a person drinking alcohol. If a person then leaves and drives and it is proven (as it is with alcohol) that the person was intoxicated while driving then charge accordingly. If law enforcement were to treat alcohol itself as a law enforcement issue, more than 90% of the doors in America would have to be kicked in and the occupants arrested and jailed and or fined. Treating drug use as an law enforcement issue, namely marijuana, is expensive and has yeild zero results and has only wasted tax dollars and police resources. It has overloaded the court systems and filled the prisons with non violent offenders. It has caused riffs within communities between the people and the police (which hinders the police from investigating serious offences). It is time that a sensible policy be enacted that will pinpoint the problem users of all substances and see it for what it really is - a health issue, not an law enforcement issue. http://www.leap.cc/ "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

well, the Geneva Convention protections would not apply to members of Al Quaeda, regardless. Neither would apply to american mercenaries, errr contractors. I am sure you wouldn´t like for any to be captured and forced to stand in "uncomfortable positions" I was wondering the samething in concern of merc operations such as Blackwater. Is the execution of mercenaries justified, considering that they fight only for the pay? If a mercenary kills an civilian during a firefight should that person be tried under the laws of the country the killing took place? Should the legal combatants be placed in harms way to rescue mercs? Should mercs be placed on trial in the US or any other country considering that they are, more than less, killers for hire? If those in Gitmo are in fact mercs and not legal combatants, then they got what they were paid for. If they are not mercs then they should be treated as defined by the Geneva Convention. Art. 47. Mercenaries 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Researchers surprised to find no link between marijuana, lung cancer Study's findings apply even to heavy pot smokers Marc Kaufman, Washington Post Friday, May 26, 2006 The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. The new findings "were against our expectations," said Dr. Donald Tashkin, a UCLA pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought. Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous. Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood. They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lit up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied. "This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning." Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar. While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day. The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana use in their youth, when it is most frequently tried. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Would this moron be willing to stand in front of such weapons? What a freaking Nazi. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

What? You are saying that you will never learn to hook? So many had said that only to one day catch the bug. Maybe you won't, maybe you will. If you do catch it, be careful and learn the skills to perform safely. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

So many parties. I'm going to need a designated driver. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

You are trying way to hard to believe that the Federal Government is an angelic entity that had never done anything wrong and would never consider doing anything wrong. The facts are everywhere to be seen, if you would only take off the blinders. Reagan was a criminal and should had been hung up by his tiny jelly beans and fed exlax. Bush 1 should still be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity for his many roles that has brought us to where we are today. Chaney should be brought up on the same and worst, including the millions of dollars he underhandedly made with the shadey deals he orchrastrated for Halliburton to sell componets of WMD's to Iraq. Rumsfeld for all the above and for being the two face weasel that he is. And, Bush 2 for all the above and for waging a personal war. Go ahead and believe that all these people, whom you worship so dearly, are the gaurdians of democracy. Fact is, they are nothing but self serving hippocrits who, for way to many years, have served only themself and have done nothing for this country but made us the most hated people in the world. If anyone is responsible for Saddam it is these people, the very people who created him. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

There is alot to read but, it shows to what extent Iraq went to in order to obtain weapons. To think that the U.S. had no knowledge is foolish. U.S. corporations were just as deep as any foreign corporation. Blind eyes were turned at all corners. http://www.stimson.org/exportcontrol/?sn=ex20030326526 "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Holy Ebola, Wildman2231, for a second, there, I thought that I was getting my head stoved in. Here is an interesting read that will shed a bit of light on where Saddam got his weapons and by whom. Sadly the U.S. supplied him everything he needed to do whatever he wanted with them. http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

This first link is an essay written by the late, great Carl Sagan http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html Second is a testimony by one of the foremost authority on marijuana, Dr. Lester Grinspoon http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/history/grinspoon.bhtml "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young