sort by best latest
Factually incorrect and an often repeated lie from the left is that we went to war in Iraq because of WMDs. WMDs was never sited as a reason in Presidential Use of Force Resolution that passed Congress.
Here is a recap of how the war came to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74aStyP-dL0 WMDs were the leading cause get congress to approve the resolution of war. Later the goal was to "liberate Iraq". Colin Powell presented the case of hidden WMDs
An there were hidden banned weapons in Iraq, including nerve gas.How about the text of the Resolution.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Violation of the terms of ceasefire(meaning a state of war already existed) is #1
retief2000, My point was to illustrate BOTH parties have been known to lie to the American people. In this era it seems people are so blinded by party loyalty. "Our team is better than yours" mentality. There are no saints in politics period!
Scorpio - I agree with your comment 100%. Until the blind party loyalty is gone we will stay exactly where we are now. Both parties are equally bad in my opinion.
I do not look for saints in politics but when was the last time the Democrats elected an actual patriot? JFK?
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments
Poolman, you have half the country who wouldn't indict any dummycrap because they are all in for the liberal crap. Lies are justifiable to them. Heck, they don't even think it's a lie.
The Frog Prince says
Name the names, Frog, add their photographs too. It would be a great reference come election time.
Obungler definitely beat Bush when it comes to dishonesty and non-integrity and in the mishandling of the economy. No we don't need a third party, it would be more of the same crap.
I am tired of the whole Bush's fault, Bush lied, Bush crashed the economy non-sense. The economy is too complex for the unalloyed actions of one individual to be the sole cause of it stumbling.
We don't need a third party or we would only be compounding our problems. What we need is a really thorough house cleaning to eliminate those who have strayed so far from the Constitution. As it is now the "good ole boy" club controls Washington.
So, no third party because they'd suck too? In Canada, we have four parties who aren't polar enemies. The all lie on slightly one side of the spectrum or the other, and usually agree on several things. A party like that could accomplish something.
No doubt in my mind that 4 parties would work better than 2 or 3. I didn't know that about Canada, thanks for the new knowledge.
No problem, Poolman. The 4th party only represents one province (Quebec), so really that leaves three for us to choose from. The Progressive Conservative Party (right wing), the New Democratic Party (left wing) and the Liberal Party (center).
If we had three parties, two of them would team up and make life miserable for the odd party. I believe it would be more brutal and unproductive than it is now. Thanks for the info.
Actually, no, the third party's life isn't miserable, because if united with another party, they can have more collective seats than the government. This prevented a lot of really bad acts and laws from passing, and keeps the leader in check.
That actually makes a great deal of sense to me.
Canada has a completely different system, political history and culture. Just as Canadians do not wish to be Americans(and I absolutely respect that) Americans cannot be Canadians.2 parties has been sufficient throw out US history.
I don't know about that. I think offering a third choice would help tremendously. Look at voter turnout and the constant polarization between both sides. The U.S. has gone through all kinds of changes and generally come out better for it.
Increased voter turn out is no guarantee of a quality government. Elections in Hussein's Iraq had nearly perfect turnout. A perfect turn out just means that everyone is afraid not to vote, a sad state of affairs.
- See all 12 commentsHide extra comments