Recent Comments

1. about 11 years ago on [Deleted]

   Quoting from your previous post: “They also cause permanent damage for the survivors, and this goes against the modern rules of war. It is these CWs that are banned.”.Using your own words, common sense should define “banned weapons” – not treaties alone.

2. about 11 years ago on [Deleted]

   “Lumping temporary disablers (tear gas) and chemicals which may (or may not) have an unintended residual effect (such as depleted uranium) is absurd.”.Read this article and see if your perspective might change (I hope)..http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html

3. about 11 years ago on Ted Rall

   “Chemical weapons are defined by treaty. None of the weapons mentioned here fit the definition.”.So if someone is killed with a hammer, which is defined as a workman’s tool, that person wasn’t killed with a weapon? I’ll have to think about that for a while.

4. about 11 years ago on Chip Bok

   " Would that justify the action?".That depends on perspective. Certainly, Lee Harvey Oswald thought he was justified. (“Legal” is not the same.)

5. about 11 years ago on Chip Bok

   “Invading and occupying a country that had not attacked you (starting a war of choice). That is punishable under the U.N. convention, my friend…”.Waterboarding was considered torture when the Japanese, etal, did it. When the Bush Administration gave the OK, it wasn’t torture any more, but “enhanced interrogation.” .Imprisonment without due process became “legal”!.That whole bunch should be thrown in prison.

6. about 11 years ago on Nick Anderson

   “If Obama chose today to use one of his Signing Statements to make it Federal Law that we all had to how a Legal State issued Photo ID in order to Vote as it will prevent Voter Fraud and Identity Theft, then ever Liberal would be for it 1000% as would I.”.Pussycat, how old are you? Did you study civics when (if) you went to high school? “Signing Statements” do not make “Federal Law”! Only the U.S. Congress can make federal laws. That’s why they are the “legislative” branch. The President is in the “executive” branch. Signing statements are used by a sitting President to express his disagreement with a particular bill, without using his veto. Get a clue, will you?

7. over 11 years ago on Strange Brew

   On the other hand, jokers are wild.

8. over 11 years ago on Pat Oliphant

   “Wait and see when late this year or early 2015 she will tell all how smart I am and how she admires me for actually listening to what she said and knowing she meant what she said and she said what she meant”[](It seems my previous post from yesterday has disappeared – the one that DW responded to – so I will restate it, to the best of my remembrance.).Are you capable of writing a coherent or intelligible post? This is complete gibberish and makes no sense!.Are you a troll?

9. over 11 years ago on Working It Out

   Unemployment, only if it’s not for cause.

10. over 11 years ago on Pat Oliphant

    “It is crystal clear to me Hillary Clinton will not run for President in 2016. I trust Hillary will keep her word.”[]Bill Clinton promised the citizens of Arkansas that if they elected him governor again, he would not seek the Presidency..On the first occasion I had to shake his hand, I told him: “Bill, run for President. The people of Arkansas won’t hold you to that promise.”.I don’t know if it made a difference. He thanked me; he ran; and he won..Hillary is more of a “go-getter” than Bill.