Why do you think republicans are flat-out bad?
As controversial as it may sound, I think that we should have a psychiatric litmus test for our elected officials. If a politician shows that they are incapable of critical thinking, have no common sense, or exhibit thought disorders such as megalomania, paranoia, psychopathy, malignant narcissism or magical thinking, they should be ineligible to hold office. This proposition should be given more consideration, when you consider that now just two people alone (the President and the Secretary of Defense) possess the authority to start a nuclear war. We don't allow psychotic people to own firearms, so why would we ever let one have control over our nuclear arsenal?
Again, every example you use here can be applied to the democrats. Forcing people to have to buy health insurance is a bigger loss of freedom by far than anything Bush did to/for us. You want to talk abou megalomania, Obama's war on Libiya is much more so than either Afghanistan or Iraq.
As controversial as it may sound, I think that we should have a psychiatric litmus test for our elected officials. If a politician shows that they are incapable of critical thinking, have no common sense, or exhibit thought disorders such as megalomania, paranoia, psychopathy, malignant narcissism or magical thinking, they should be ineligible to hold office. This proposition should be given more consideration, when you consider that now just two people alone (the President and the Secretary of Defense) possess the authority to start a nuclear war. We don't allow psychotic people to own firearms, so why would we ever let one have control over our nuclear arsenal?
Again, every example you use here can be applied to the democrats. Forcing people to have to buy health insurance is a bigger loss of freedom by far than anything Bush did to/for us. You want to talk abou megalomania, Obama's war on Libiya is much more so than either Afghanistan or Iraq.
buy a mirror. What was Iraq about again?
please attack Barry all you want ( I will agree with most of it)
but don't think the republicans are not the filthiest whore ever to walk the face of this Globe.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
As controversial as it may sound, I think that we should have a psychiatric litmus test for our elected officials. If a politician shows that they are incapable of critical thinking, have no common sense, or exhibit thought disorders such as megalomania, paranoia, psychopathy, malignant narcissism or magical thinking, they should be ineligible to hold office. This proposition should be given more consideration, when you consider that now just two people alone (the President and the Secretary of Defense) possess the authority to start a nuclear war. We don't allow psychotic people to own firearms, so why would we ever let one have control over our nuclear arsenal?
Again, every example you use here can be applied to the democrats. Forcing people to have to buy health insurance is a bigger loss of freedom by far than anything Bush did to/for us. You want to talk abou megalomania, Obama's war on Libiya is much more so than either Afghanistan or Iraq.
buy a mirror. What was Iraq about again?
please attack Barry all you want ( I will agree with most of it)
but don't think the republicans are not the filthiest whore ever to walk the face of this Globe.
Well, at least the second filthiest after the democrats.
Iraq was about a couple of things.
1. WMDs. The entire world believed Sadam had them. The "Bush lied" argument holds no water.
2. Violation of cease fire. By shooting at our planes, the cease fire that was signed after the first Gulf War was broken and technically, the original war was still ongoing.
3. Supporting terrorists. While Sadam was not involved with 9/11, he was still supporting terrorism by paying the families of suicide bombers $15,000 (I believe that is the correct amount). That made him a legitimate target of the war on terror.
What's Libiya about? Not even the president knows.
As controversial as it may sound, I think that we should have a psychiatric litmus test for our elected officials. If a politician shows that they are incapable of critical thinking, have no common sense, or exhibit thought disorders such as megalomania, paranoia, psychopathy, malignant narcissism or magical thinking, they should be ineligible to hold office. This proposition should be given more consideration, when you consider that now just two people alone (the President and the Secretary of Defense) possess the authority to start a nuclear war. We don't allow psychotic people to own firearms, so why would we ever let one have control over our nuclear arsenal?
Again, every example you use here can be applied to the democrats. Forcing people to have to buy health insurance is a bigger loss of freedom by far than anything Bush did to/for us. You want to talk abou megalomania, Obama's war on Libiya is much more so than either Afghanistan or Iraq.
buy a mirror. What was Iraq about again?
please attack Barry all you want ( I will agree with most of it)
but don't think the republicans are not the filthiest whore ever to walk the face of this Globe.
Well, at least the second filthiest after the democrats.
Iraq was about a couple of things.
1. WMDs. The entire world believed Sadam had them. The "Bush lied" argument holds no water.
2. Violation of cease fire. By shooting at our planes, the cease fire that was signed after the first Gulf War was broken and technically, the original war was still ongoing.
3. Supporting terrorists. While Sadam was not involved with 9/11, he was still supporting terrorism by paying the families of suicide bombers $15,000 (I believe that is the correct amount). That made him a legitimate target of the war on terror.
What's Libiya about? Not even the president knows.
1. only morons thought Sadam had them.
I know I lived threw it I held a god damn sign before the illegal invasion
that read there are no WMD's. (Repeating lies does not make them true.)
2.closer to a reason but still BS. there was no reason for us to increase hostilities at that time
he had been firing on our planes for 11 years.
3. so it was about 15 grand !?! !? really!? well it that case.
but the biggest and most important critique of the Iraq war is.
.
.
.
It hurt our national interest. So Bush will have to go down as a ret*d.
the reason we went is because the Bush white house was incompetent period.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
The Arab League did not demand a thing, Saudi Arabia and Qatar did. Most AL countries didn't even show up at the meeting in question. The rebels in Libya are working for them. The ICC has no credibility. Its chief prosecutor blamed the Hutus for Paul Kagame's Congo atrocities that killed millions. He also repeated this lie about Viagra rape squads in Libya.
The Arab League voted to support a no-fly zone and asked the UN to implement the details of one. The UNSC voted for a more muscular no fly zone with ground aggression prevention included.
And now that Gaddafi's old buddies in Turkey are extending recognition and money to the opposition as well, Gaddafi is toast. Cry all you like about it.
Does anyone here (besides myself) think that by now MAYBE the US is heterogeneous enough that we can have a direct democracy? I think it's pretty clear that our lawmakers no longer represent the public's interest. They're perfectly fine letting their prejudices and religious beliefs dictate their decisions, along with the interests of their campaign financiers. The GOP has been taken over by Right-wing fanatics who deny evolution and global warming, want to overturn abortion laws, keep fighting our futile war on drugs, let big business dictate their policies, create new laws that ensure that none of them can be held accountable for any injustices they may have committed, and pander to any extreme prejudices their constituents may have just to get elected. Any moderate, clear-thinking lawmakers do not stand a chance against them. Do you think we would have anymore oil wars if there weren't any legislators that could be bribed, or that the middle and lower class portions of the country would get stuck with the majority of the tax burden?
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
well its quite old - the left thinks the right is evil and the right thinks the left is wrong
the why doesn't need to be re-explained(just ask yourself whatever side you are on if you think it is true of the opposition) but the what needs reminding from time to time
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I don't consider Republicans to be "flat-out bad", as Democrats officially hold that achievement, unless they have convinced themselves that Wal-Mart is good economically because it provides cheap crap from China and jobs to unemployed people who otherwise might have found a job that wont drive them insane and treat them like mere robots.
Ambassador Joseph Wilson disproved the Bush claim that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake from Niger, but despite this the Bush regime continued to push this claim to support the idea that Saddam was building nuclear weapons.
Aluminum tubes supposedly for nuclear material centrifuges were the same type used for rocket engines by years in Iraq, and no verification with the energy department that they were for centrifuges was sought.
The main source for many of the claims was a defector code-named 'curveball,' who was a questionable source to begin with, who had been known to lie well before the invasion, and whom U.S. intelligence regarded as entirely uncredible, and who was later proven to have entirely fabricated pretty much everything out of a desire to induce the U.S. to invade.
The Bush administration continually claimed that various trailers were 'mobile weapons labs,' despite repeated refutations from Hans Blix on the ground. Blix and his team of inspectors were given carte blanch to inspect, showing up over and over again at supposed weapons sites, unannounced, and finding nothing. The inspection team begged to be allowed to finish their work, but Bush decided to cut them off.
The Brittish 'Downing Street Memo' demonstrated conclusively that Bush intended to invade regardless of what the inspectors discovered, and that intelligence was deliberately being cooked to suport the putative existence of WMDs.
Members of the Bush cabinet routinely leaked 'proof' of Saddam's weapons to newspapers like the NYT and then cited the following articles as 'evidence' of Saddam's weapons to the rest of the press.
In addition, various members of the Bush administration continually, deliberately gave the impression, either directly or by implication, that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.
Literally tens of millions of people protested the presaged invasion of Iraq, both in America and around the world. There were more than 3K demonstrations around the world, including the largest-ever anti-war protest in history, 3 million people in Rome. I guess your 'entire world' doesn't count those tens of millions.
there are several countries - most notably, North Korea - which actually do have WMDs and are ruled by leaders just as nasty as Saddam, but we didn't invade them because invading someone who actually has WMDs to defend itself with is f*****g stupid.
Our planes that were flying over their country, you mean? Which were never actually shot down? That's such a specious argument that even the Bush administration never bothered to use it widely.
By that count, there are about another dozen or so countries we should be invading.
Start listening to some media other than Faux. The impending massacre of civilians in Libya was all over the BBC, Al Jazeera, and the United Nations Security Council.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
Though I don't shop at either(walmart is far away but maybe once a year when I'm visiting another city) walmart is more ecofriendly then target. they both source their junk from the same place, but target gets a free pass by consumers for their democratization of design, whatever thats supposed to mean...
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
the why doesn't need to be re-explained(just ask yourself whatever side you are on if you think it is true of the opposition) but the what needs reminding from time to time
Typical MarqueeAndCrutch dishonesty always stating "both" sides "opinions"
but making the other side a little worse.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Or perhaps not found a job at all.
ruveyn
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Jupiter May Have Been Flat At One Point, Not Spherical |
20 Feb 2024, 3:37 am |
Republicans Aim to Stop Noncitizen Voting in Federal Electio |
14 Apr 2024, 8:35 pm |
Republicans Lash Out At Marjorie Taylor-Greene Over Threat |
22 Mar 2024, 3:21 pm |