Search results

I'm sure you're right, was referring to the principal chickenhawks - bush, cheney, perle, wolfowitz, rove, ashcroft, abrams, etc.

but that every one of the people in power (with the exception of powell of course) evaded military service does argue against their ability to fairly decide whether to impose a war on others. actually having experienced the horrors they were cheerleading might have had an impact on their...

as Gordon said, everyone makes mistakes, and who cares what victimless activities someone pursues in the privacy of his home? but Rush cares - he's used his position of influence, his media access to act as spokesman for the policy of conviction of drug users. he has actively furthered...

you mean the way the articles frame the issue is bullshit, or do you mean you disagree with those that are questioning the amounts? replacing the electrical system and infrastructure the US destroyed is one thing, but improving their postal system and building million-dollar prisons? telling...

the makeup helps.....

it's unreal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2213-2003Sep25.html

the logic is overpowering, it must be conceded. but before you jump to any conclusions, let us get an "authoritative" judgement on the words that were ACTUALLY used: there you have it. "imminent" is not in the list. therefore, "urgent" does not mean "imminent." if commies try to say...

lol - playing word games... somewhat "clinton-esque" isn't it? so endlessly stating that a homicidal psychopath "possesses" weapons, the lead story in every US newspaper and news-tv show for a year is "WMD," neocon zealot-spokesmen expounding nightly on mushroom clouds over US cities, colin...

there is no president more associated with lying than clinton, and deservedly so. clinton's lying is irrelevant to the justification for a preemptive war. even stipulating, hypothetically, that saddam had lots and lots and lots of weapons, would that lead to the conclusion that iraq was an...

you may be on to something here.....

WAR IS PEACE

you forgot the "rape rooms" (tm). no discussion of saddam is complete without mentioning the "rape rooms" (tm).

which leads to the question of what happens if, in a year, the situation is not significantly better? the soldiers there now can't stay there indefinitely, and some are already there over a year. there aren't enough existing soldiers to swap in.

there is a higher rate of gun violence in New York City and D.C., where guns are prohibited, than in Vermont, where concealed-carry permits aren't needed, or in the vicinity of the bank where they were giving out free guns in the documentary. but whatever side of the argument you're on, it...

as I understood it, the point of the video is that liberty only exists through self-determination and free choice, that no one should have the right to impose rules on others by force, and that use of government force to impose one's views on others or take their property, without their consent...

no jesting... how would watching that video help someone understand the USA?

what does that have to do with the USA?