Page 1 of 1

Aha! A clue, Watson!

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:36 am
by Hijinx
http://health.yahoo.com/news/165526

*pulls out 25 pound sack of rocks* Let the beatings begin!

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:39 am
by Nighthand
*adds another sack of rocks to the pile.*

"Research shows that people who are "apple-shaped" are more likely to develop diabetes and heart disease than "pear-shaped" individuals, who carry much of their fat below the waist."

so scientific.

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:50 am
by Dien
Oh Dear Lord!!

>-<

T3h Stupid! It Burns! (TSIB)

*adds about twenty more sacks of rocks to whatever pile is being launched/swung*

Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:11 am
by Lord Canti
Here.

*Adds a lump of Dark Matter to the pile*

That'll go through them eggheads and make a crater in the process.

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:24 am
by Hijinx
More fun for the pile!

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/vie ... 87581&src=

Would anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this?

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:12 pm
by Dien
I, uh, don't really see anything wrong with it. He's actually got a good point, despite his bias...

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:01 pm
by Hijinx
I know he has a point, I was refering to something else he said. Something about him not being allowed to bring evidence to trial supporting his claim.

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:15 am
by Dien
Hijinx wrote:I know he has a point, I was refering to something else he said. Something about him not being allowed to bring evidence to trial supporting his claim.
It's not a trial of his claim, it's a trial of his inability to follow direct orders. He's being tried, not the war: why would they let him bring in evidence to convict the war? No, if they're going to discuss the legitimacy of the war, it needs to be done in Congress and in the UN, not in a military courtroom.

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:54 pm
by Hijinx
His refusal to follow orders stems from a belief that the war is unconstitutional though, a trial of the war would be required to determine whether he has a valid point or not. Setencing the guy for following his duty isn't very fair, is it?

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:08 am
by Dien
That's the argument the defense attorneys are going to try to play, I'm sure. Permit me to play the devil's advocate, but the fact that he joined the military means he signed an oath to serve his country by following the orders of his superiors (or something to that effect). The fact is that as a low-ranking military officer it's not his job to think, it's his job to do what he's told because he's being paid to and told the government that was what he was going to do. He's being tried now for stealing governmental money and for lying to the government. His crime is insubordination, for which he will not deny his guilt.

However, if the war is in fact unconstitutional (which it really isn't - nothing in the Constitution says anything about situations like this) then it needs to be tried before Congress. They're the ones with the power to order the president to stop it, and no military court can do so.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:35 am
by Hijinx
Technically, they sign an oath to defend the constitution. I'm kind of curious how this thing is going to turn out though. Who knows, maybe the right media attention could swing it in his favor...