Quote National Geographic-Chemical Warfare, From Rome to Syria. A Time Line.:
Nerve agents are the most lethal and quickest-acting category of chemical weapons. A single drop of sarin or the deadlier VX (the "V" in its code name indicates the "V-series," or venomous agents) can kill a person in minutes. Iraq became the first country to employ nerve agents on the battlefield when it released them as airborne chemicals, along with mustard gas, during the Iran-Iraq War. (Most nerve agents can also be administered in liquid form. They're tasteless in drinking water.)

Though a party to the Geneva Protocol, Iraq began employing chemical weapons against Iran as early as 1983. By 1988, reports had surfaced of nerve agents being used against Kurdish Iraqis in the north; one detailed the Iraqi government killing up to 5,000 Kurds in a single chemical attack at Halabja, possibly including deadly sarin and VX.

Today, these two nerve agents are among the chemical weapons in Syria's suspected arsenal.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130822-syria-chemical-bi...

I am entirely aware that some people are too busy...or perhaps lazy...to read very much and will skip over my posts. That's perfectly ok...I expect that. But some may actually read my stuff....maybe not. But, you know...I am having fun and getting lots of practice in composing ideas and typing them. A great way to keep the old synapses in shape. I know I should probably go back to school to learn not to use so many commas or periods..or perhaps quotes and would probably do better to be way more concise. Naw...too late. And schools cost too much now..the tuition would kill me.

Yeah, that's right...we don't need no stinkin' phacts, right? Let's all just believe in our 'illustrious' leaders who just happen to continually lie to us and continually prove that they are not really representing those of us who voted for them.

Lil early to get that wordy Palindromedary. Don't you want people to read your stuff or is there some other reason for the whole TV guide you posted? We don't need more phacts guys. All they do is phatten us up with lead bullets made of plastic.

We need the right questions. Is there anything, outside of current events, that president Bashaar could do which Would justify a military strike?

If so, and our capitol already knows about it, would they want to tell us the whole truth about it? What if the white house truely believes that they have to decide immediately whether or not they should assassinate the next modern Stalin or Hitler?

Why would the white house not want the public to know? What happens when you deliberately take out someone who represents a mass of people, even a mass of people you don't agree with?

Is president Bashaar doing all of this on his own?

Why would our president make the 'fine line' declaration against chemical weapons in the first place?

What if you actually can't find the real answers to these questions on your petty laptop?

What if our president is in fact acting directly on his conscious even though he knows he must sacrifice his image in order to do so appropriately?

And finally, what if you were president?

This one I'll answer for myself; Who cares, it'll never happen unless your as cute as my baby cat Rockabye!!

“You are too intelligent to believe in God.”

- Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum (a/k/a Ayn Rand)

Yes, after observing both Clinton, and now Obama even worse, talking like liberals to get elected, then governing like moderate Republicans.. I am voting green from now on, unless I see a democrat who votes on the issues like a democrat..

The common retort when someone asks why there are so few liberal politicians, is that the people would never vote for a liberal. So why then do democrats talk like liberals during election campaigns?

After agonizing over 20 years on this point, finally decided if you don't vote your conscience, you have thrown your vote away.. Because supporting democrats that are only marginally better than the total nuts (right wing Republicans), entrenches the system of allowing big money to stay in control (rather than the voters) no matter who wins the ekection (since the two major parties are substantially similar today).

This is my transcription of a part of Chris Hedges' speech:
note: the spoken word is often more informal than the written word..and when one transcribes verbatim what one says in a speech, the tones or inflections may not be apparent and it may not be as pretty or understandable as if reading something written. I am not a professional transcriber and my hearing is not so good anymore so please forgive me if you have problems deciphering the following. However, if you want to listen to the entire speech then go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8H0ty327o0

Quote my transcription of a part of Chris Hedges speech:Section 1021 of the NDAA says that the government, the military, is permitted to seize US citizens who (quote-unquote) substantially support (that's not a legal term- that's not 'material' support) Al Qaida, The Taliban, or something called 'associative force'...again, a 'nebulous' term, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military facilities. That law was passed for the Occupy Movement. And When Judge Flores, Katherine Flores, last September, in the Southern District Court in New York ruled the law in our favor and declared the law unconstitutional in her 112 page opinion (which is worth reading) she said that "this law, in essence opens up the possibility for the government to indefinitely detain an entire class of people based upon what they believe. And she cited the example of the 110,000 Japanese Americans who were detained in WWII. An illustration of what this law allows. Now, you know the Obama administration, when we won...the day we won, said..not only the federal attorneys into the office, but suddenly appeared with Pentagon attorneys. And they asked Judge Flores, "In the name of national security" they asked Judge Flores to immediately pass a temporary injunction...meaning put the law back into affect until the Appellate Court hears the case. She refused. They then went to the Appellate Court and demanded (it was a Friday afternoon) demanded an emergency hearing at 9:00AM on Monday morning...at the 2nd Circuit...which they got. Again, asking the Appellate Court to put the law back into affect, lift the injunction until the Appellate Court, which is now deliberating on the case, issues it's ruling. Now, we knew that the Obama administration would appeal but we didn't know that they would act that aggressively. And that can only mean one thing. And that is that they were already using the law. Probably against dual Pakistani-US nationals in places like Bagram And the reason they had to issue the injunction was because they had to..if they are, in fact, holding US citizens (as I believe they are in some of our 'black sites')..and that injunction was allowed to stand..then they would be held in contempt of court. That's what we're up against!
----

The Occupy movement scared the hell out of the government!
-----

If we begin to build as the Occupy Movement did, effective forms of resistance, we can expect tremendous blowback. Because internally, the corporate state is utterly corrupt and rotten. And the reason they passed the NDAA is, I believe...this is speculation, is because they know that, eventually, there will be unrest and they don't trust the police to protect them. And they're right! The police, for whatever egregious acts they carried out in the streets of Oakland or New York or anywhere else during the Occupy encampments, are 'working class'. They have sister-in-laws who have lost their jobs as school teachers. They have family members who are living on unemployment..if they are lucky enough to still get unemployment. They are working in New York City for $37/hour as 'Rent-a-Cops' at Goldman Sachs watching men with $8,000 suits walk past them like they are furniture.
-----------
If the Green Party has any hope of becoming a credible player it better do a complete about face and begin to focus on the kind of logistics that make resistance possible. Long discussions about the evils of corporate capitalism, or showing another film at a college campus is, I think, is an utter and complete waste of time. We don't have time for it. And I think that it's clear from the Occupy Movement that there are millions of Americans who understand the precarious situation that all of us are living in...and are ready to respond. And you saw that with the upsurge of populist support for the Occupy Movement...which caught the Occupy Movement completely off guard. And the fact is that the Occupy Movement, when you think about it, was a 'main-stream movement'. It articulated the concern of the 'main-stream'.
-----
Of course, the force that was most frightened of the Occupy Movement was the Democratic Party..because the Occupy Movement utterly exposed the bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8H0ty327o0

One of the things that might make some people believe that atheism is a religion is if you look at Humanism. They claim they are atheists but they try to claim they are more moral than people who are religious and they, in my opinion, act more like a dogmatic religion than atheists who don't consider themselves part of the Humanist movement. Being an atheist really has nothing to do with morals. There are moral atheist just as there are immoral ones...same for religious people. Morality is subjective anyway and often varies from culture to culture. Some people like to think that there is a Universal Morality, and they all, inevitably, believe that theirs is the standard upon which all others should abide. Many moral beliefs are contrived by religious beliefs and try to dominate all others.

Another thing, if you ever listen to a FFRF broadcast or podcast program...you will get what sounds very much like religious music (although it is usually some sort of mock or pun on religion). They often play the Beatles' Imagine. So, someone might get the impression that atheism is a religion...but it's not.

bobbler: on the other hand...perhaps, one's worst enemy is the one hidden behind what you thought was a friend...an ally. Just follow the money-political trail and see how they act...not what they say.

But I gather you are aware of it already.
"Although I will say that Obama is acting more like a Republican Than a Democrat in so many ways."

bobbler: I agree! Atheism is not a religion. It merely states that there is no good reason, because there is no good evidence to believe in a supernatural being...a god or gods, ghosts or goblins, saints or demons...etc. Well, I kinda over stated it there. Atheism merely is the opposite of theism and theism means believing in God. People who believe in God are religious. They may try to denounce organized religions..but they are still religious. There are various interpretations that various dictionaries make but the predominant and historical definitions all include the belief in God. Atheists don't believe in God and therefore cannot be considered as religious or of a religion.

Lots of great points.

- I disagree that the dem party is the most afraid of the Occupy movement. More than that that Republicans? It just doesn't have the ring of truth. Although I will say that Obama is acting more like a Republican Than a Democrat in so many ways.

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION,

is exactly the same thing as freedom of religion.. there is no theory about it. The meaning of the First Amendment is clear separation of church and state, is how we get to have freedom of religion. And if we can't be free from religion (Context of govt remaining neutral in religious matters), there is no freedom of religion for anyone..

I left these blogs maybe 2 years ago, because of Tom honestly acting like a fundy Christian, saying that atheism is a religion. what text me off about thisis that claiming atheism is a religion, is it is something that fundamentalist Christians like to do. And I gave very good reasons why atheism is not a religion. but no I do not want to hijack this thread.

ST. Paul's statement conceerning criticising members of a church (in his times it was a cottage congregation)it was proper to critiquese only oly on doctrine, not the political positon. If one disagrees with a poolitical posiition on theological grounds, it would be proper but not to promote a particular candidate.