Wow, the military investigated a politically incorrect weapon. Shame on them. An aphrodisiac bomb could be highly effective in a lot of scenarios. For example, right before an offensive or a special ops mission. A very distracted adversary is pretty helpless at first.

The thing unmentioned in the article is the effect of the weapon on mixed gender units. Many modern armies have women at or near the combat areas.

Also consider the use of such a weapon on Islamic fundamentalists in towns or cities. Ten percent are gay (as in any population), but even worse would be the horned up women exposing their wrists and ankles. They would be exhausted from stoning one another.

But, I forget. Better to drop VX because genocide is preferable to political incorrectness.

OK the, he's a disconnected billionaire fascist who supports the war. Does that make him worse than most of the candidates for either party? He'd "steal" my vote from whatever GOP candidate gets the nod. He'd probably "steal" a lot of the anyone-but-a-republican vote too.

If he won, maybe congress would rediscover bipartisan politics. Maybe they'd even rediscover their role in the balance of powers.

If he lost, the losing major party would blame their failure on vote stealing and not their own weak candidates. Big deal, same old song and dance. Same train ride for the country.

Someone who is beholden to neither political party is a pretty fine choice for the big chair. It might give the parties a chance to differentiate themselves and to quit pandering to the nutjob wing of their constituency's.

Here ya go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

You confuse lust and love. A pheromone bomb has nothing to do with warrior-lovers. It has to do with horniness. It doesn't "mischaracterize gay soldiers" because it is intended to induce intense sexual desire in everyone.

Why would you think a bunch of soldiers with chemically induced lust for anything warm are going to suddenly manifest a gay stereotype? Few gay soldier even identify with the gay stereotype. As a friend told me "I like men, not men that act like girls".

Oh - and the accusation of political correctness is indeed a way to tell certain people to shut up. Some people erupt in a fountain of indignation whenever certain subjects like race, sex, or sexual preference are mentioned in any but the most approving and coddling tones. Similarly, the PC crowd yells "bigot" to make others shut up.

Just twice? What about this?

www.youtube.com/v/3uxTpyCdriY

All the talk about Snowe having blood on her hands and sharing responsibility for the various wrongs committed by our government over the past few years.

Same comments apply to hillary.

All the complicit democrats also need a dose of "the quarantine, treatment, and eradication that is necessary"

Wally pitched a few nice slow ones for hillary to swing at. I guess he's angling for a job.

It's also interesting that they're dredging up the electability kool-aid again. As was noted in these forums some time back, a sandwich is electable. kerry was electable until he (arguably) lost. bush was electable, even in 2006, having (arguably) won twice. It isn't a particularly high bar to pass.

Support her, if you must, because you believe in her but not because you think it is the clever stance.

It seems that supporting either main party is a vote against your own interests. Sometimes, one party is a little worse than the other.

Also, don't forget the fundamentalists. They are out to make the nation a better place for everyone by bringing everyone to the proper flavour of christianity. They want to save everyone. Their relentless evangelical efforts overpowered the GOP and put at least one man in the oval office.

Oh well, people get the government they deserve. The fundamentalists learned to control the primaries because too few others cared to go vote.

As to voting green in protest, why not. I do it often. Sadly, the local greens don't put people up for some offices in the belief that they thereby endorse the democrat. Stupid. They'll never be a major party until they settle on core green values (versus fringe democrat) and fight for every office they can get.

She's consistent. Both interviews resulted in a non answer. In the earlier piece, she said it was hard to say. In this piece she said she would start getting them out of the civil war right away. There's nothing about how many and how fast. I'd like her to differentiate herself from bush in more than one way too. She jabs that she'll talk to people who disagree. That's good. Like bush, however, she can't admit the gravity of her war mongering mistake in helping us get into the war.

Regardless, her answer is a bit better this time. Maybe it's because Matthews isn't the pandering simp that shapiro is.

Instead of impeachment, would you settle for a promise to not issue presidential pardons to the bush administration?

Bloomberg's best chance is as a protest to the main parties. He's to fascist to appeal to the left, yet too communist to appeal to the right.

Fiscally responsible liberal? Since when do liberals set up fenced in "free speech zones" so that the police can more conveniently bust heads?

The clinton campaign could have rigged it easily. It's their poll, their choices, their tally. Why should anyone believe it was an honest effort to involve people and not another craven attemp to gain mind share? After all, it's not the vote that matters - it's the count.