Random Politics & Religion #00

King, if Jeb is the candidate will you vote for him?

And back on the Iraq track....

Carter: Iraqis showed 'no will to fight' in Ramadi

And Lots more

Ramadi fell to 400 ISIS fighters....

400....

If we send them weapons they will, and have, abandoned them letting them fall into the hands of ISIS.

King, if Jeb is the candidate will you vote for him?

Also, calling them a cult when they're doing more to actually do what god told them to do than most Christians ("Be fruitful and multiply" is one of the earliest commandments) is kind of amusing. It's always a "cult" when we don't like it.

Let me guess, you considered their training to be complete too, huh?

Chanti, if a monkey is the candidate for the liberals, would you vote for it?

I can say monkey without it be considered racist, right?

EU plans to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals found in pesticides have been dropped because of threats from the US that this would adversely affect negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), according to a report in The Guardian. Draft EU regulations would have banned 31 pesticides containing endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that have been linked to testicular cancer and male infertility.

It took Jeb almost 2 weeks to slowly transition from "Yeah, I'd go into Iraq again" to "If we knew then what we know now".

That one question is going to cost him his primary bid, and rightly so.

Oh please. I don't like Jeb that much, but if that's the kind of metric we're using for judging candidates then Hillary should have been out of the running before she even started.

Answer this please King, when was the last time you actually voted for a presidential candidate rather than against his opponent?

"lessor of two evils"

Not being a grammar Nazi, but this made me laugh really hard.

Spelling Nazi, but whatever.

2012, when given the two choices we had, I picked the one who I thought would have done the best job with what we had. He lost.

2008, when given the two choices we had, I picked the one who I thought wouldn't screw up the country even more. He lost.

Both times, the country picked the one who I thought would absolutely fail at his position, and both times, I was proven right.

But it's obvious by your question and tone that you picked the "lesser of two evils" while I picked the "better of two ideals." At least we all know what Hillary's strategy is going to be. "I'm not the other guy" is all she is going to run with, because it worked so well for Obama. Never "I can do the job better than my opponent and here's why" but "I'm better than this guy who will do this to the country."

And liberals will lap it up like nothing. Because they don't want to create a better country, they want to be the one who said "I told you so"

No, The Republicans have tended to put forth potential candidates which alienate people who possibly would otherwise vote in accordance with many of the principles.

No, The Republicans have tended to put forth potential candidates which alienate people who possibly would otherwise vote in accordance with many of the principles. Or seem to be batshit insane. Sometimes both.

Why on earth did they select Palin as a VP candidate for McCain?
And the travelling circus that was the Republican primaries in 2012?

Sure, if you listen to Chris Mathews, George Stephanopoulos, and Brian Williams all the time.

Hell, they still consider Republicans as this country's enemy #1.

But hey, anything to defend the illogical politics coming from the left, right?

It took Jeb almost 2 weeks to slowly transition from "Yeah, I'd go into Iraq again" to "If we knew then what we know now".

That one question is going to cost him his primary bid, and rightly so.

No, The Republicans have tended to put forth potential candidates which alienate people who possibly would otherwise vote in accordance with many of the principles. Or seem to be batshit insane. Sometimes both.

Why on earth did they select Palin as a VP candidate for McCain?
....

Mmm. I'm well known for defending illogical politics/policies, blindly watching/listening to US talking heads, and not doing research.

For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President *** Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday night, Morell made it clear: The Bush-Cheney administration publicly misrepresented the intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda.

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

MATTHEWS: Was that true?

MORELL: We were saying—

MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?

MORELL: That's not true.

MATTHEWS: Well, why'd you let them get away with it?

MORELL: Look, my job Chris—

MATTHEWS: You're the briefer for the president on intelligence, you're the top person to go in and tell him what's going on. You see Cheney make this charge he's got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, "No that's not what we told him."

MORELL: Chris, Chris Chris, what's my job, right? My job—

MATTHEWS: To tell the truth.

MORELL: My job—no, as the briefer? As the briefer?

MATTHEWS: Okay, go ahead.

MORELL: As the briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV.

The discussion went on:

MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

There's the indictment, issued by the intelligence officer who briefed Bush and Cheney: The Bush White House made a "false presentation" on "some aspects" of the case for war. "That's a big deal," Matthews exclaimed. Morell replied, "It's a big deal."

And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow.

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.

I'm not a liberal either but I play one on a video game forum !

But of course this didn't come from FOX, our right wing friends can ignore it,

Yeah, you know us. Can't stop talking about Fox News and constantly defending Bush. Then again, your memory could be poor. You've made sure to tell us that Mother Jones is a proud member of the disappearing liberal media about 432 times.

I have no doubt, though, if the left fringe weren't busy collecting rain water and making hemp shirts, the Democrats would face the same problems.

Yeah, you know us. Can't stop talking about Fox News and constantly defending Bush. Then again, your memory could be poor. You've made sure to tell us that Mother Jones is a proud member of the disappearing liberal media about 432 times.

I label my sources by their slant.

I am perhaps the only one here who does so.

Do you object?

It's not the labeling that's the problem. You just have to sneak in that "disappearing" or "smaller than you think" before the phrase "liberal media". You're labeling with an agenda in mind.

Sure....

Next thing we are going to hear is that all of the media hold conservative values, and only really report things that conservatives want to hear.

Just like how Obama is a neo-con to most of the liberal/democrats' minds.