Oh, I don't suppose it occurred to you that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is unlikely to want to bring attention to the fact that ISIS came into being on her watch. When I did a Google search of her comments about ISIS, her statements were mostly supportive of Obama's strategy, primarily suggesting a slightly more aggressive bombing program than the current one (but supportive of the current program none-the-less). As to JEB Bush, it is hard to imagine him coming out touting wmds found in Iraq, when his own brother did not do so as President. Even though these weapons were found while W. was being shellacked for failing to fin them, it was his decision to keep it quiet. Of course, it doesn't help that people like you continue to believe that WMDs were the sole, or at least primary, justification given for invading Iraq, when in fact the primary justification given at the time was Saddam's refusal to abide by the agreement he made at the end of the first Gulf War.

It is interesting that the Huffington Post does not use the "degraded over time" argument. They instead claim that the "lie" told by the Bush Administration was that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction rather than that he had them (contrary to what they argued in 2004, when they claimed that no wmds were found in Iraq). Of course, the fact that ISIS has actually used these chemical weapons in the manner for which they were created does not suggest to you that perhaps they are still potent enough to cause mass destruction?

Perhaps you failed to notice that my source was the Huffington Post. It is they who are saying that ISIS troops are using chemical weapons which they obtained from Saddam's stockpiles. While I will agree that Huffington Post is a bunch of wingnuts, they are are not noted for thinking that Bush was right about anything.

You mean the way Democrats keep mentioning the Koch brothers, while Republicans also mention people like Tom Steyer? And Herbert and Marion Sandler? The interesting thing about Soros, Steyer, and the Sandlers is that all three have been either involved with, or associated with illegal activities.

Let's see, it was not Fox News spreading the idea that vaccines cause autism. That was MSNBC. As to Saddam having WMDs, you apparently have not read the reports about ISIS using the WMDs which Saddam had stockpiled (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/isis-chemical-weapons-_n_5987106.html)

Actually, you are overlooking the most likely scenario: Someone (or more than someone) working for the Scottish Police Authority is both very incompetent AND very shady.

Actually, the term engineer as it applies to electrical, mechanical, etc engineers does not derive from the term used for those who drive trains. If the two terms are related, it is the other way around. My suspicion is that the term railroad engineer for the guy who drives a train derives from the fact that the first men who drove trains were the same men who designed trains. And even long after that stopped being true, they were men who knew how trains were designed (in detail) so that they knew how to fix them when something went wrong.

Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...

Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...

Maybe you should look at places that have already implemented such systems. Repeated studies have shown that in the Netherlands, where physician-assisted suicide has been legal for some time now, medical professionals report that they do not wait for the patient to decide that they want to die. They just use their own judgment as to whether that person's life is still worth living. As far as I have been able to find, there have been no prosecutions for such acts, even though they are technically illegal. In other words, once it becomes legal for medical professionals to assist someone in taking their own life, medical professionals begin killing people who have not asked for such "help".

Well, yes, everyone who wanted to see, or wanted to be perceived as wanting to see, Iran reduce its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons said that the negotiations had succeeded in getting them to agree to do so. Interestingly enough, the Iranians have said that they have NOT agreed to reduce their nuclear program...so, exactly how is that working out well?

The problem is that people often use the two terms interchangeably. When someone uses the term "capitalism", they usually mean free market economics. If that is not how you are using the term, you need to define what you mean by it (those who use "capitalism" as something other than "free market economics" mean a wide variety of things).

Such as?
At this point in history, free market economics has delivered more goods and better lives, by a wide margin, to a greater number of people than any other economic system tried by mankind. In the last century we have seen why it has worked this way. So, please lay out your alternative economic system in a way which does not contain the flaws so clearly demonstrated in every other attempt to organize economic activity.
Here is the flaw in a nutshell: People are greedy and almost always use any power they have to improve their position at the expense of others. Any system which relies on one group of people controlling everyone else's desire to take advantage of others is open to that group using their power to take advantage of others.

Because the Constitution explicitly states "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right ." In other words, it is unconstitutional. Various studies of the legal interpretation of the time tell us that "limited times" means 99 years or less (which is why, for example, the British lease of Hong Kong only lasted for 99 years).

Well, yes, that is a possibility. Of course, various studies have shown that in trade between countries with highly restrictive import rules and high tariffs and countries with limited import rules and tariffs, it is the latter which fair better economically. Trade restrictions appear to have greater negative impact on the country imposing them than on the country they are applied to (exceptions being in those cases where the country imposing the restrictions has a much larger economy than the one they are being imposed on).