Arkansas Blog

Never a dull moment.

If we survive to see 2020, I'll be very surprised.

So, God has told W. Iran is not to have an A-bomb but Israel, Pakistan, Communist China, Russia, and about 6 more nations have the blessings of YHWH to provide themselves with a nuclear arsenal.

Makes since, when you listen to voices.

It also gives the administration time to start another war to help the reelection efforts. It's sad when our proud military men and women are sacrificed so that the Republicans will have a campaign foundation.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_468478.html

"...oddsmakers are betting that sometime before the end of his second term, President Bush will order a massive air attack on a wide range of carefully selected targets in Iran, in partnership with Israel, and against the advice of many of his advisers.

Bush is convinced a nuclear Iran would pose an intolerable threat to U.S. national security and, as one former intelligence topsider put it, "he is firm in his faith that God agrees with him on that point, and certain that history will eventually recognize and properly appreciate his courageous and visionary leadership."

This raises the question of congressional approval. As George Will said to CBS' George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago, when was the last time this president ever worried about getting approval in advance from the Congress or the public? ..."

I thought Bush's headlong rush to an unnecessary war was scary last time, but this time it is just insane to attack a country to maintain his political assertions of being right.

Wag the dog, hell, he's waging the world. As Rasputin said, given the cast of characters who now have the bomb why should we consider the Iranians any "less deserving." If we survived the Soviet's with the bomb, we can survive the Ayatollahs with one too. There is something sobering about MAD [mutual assured destruction.] In our case we don't have to worry about that only Iran would have to. So we lose Indianapolis or part of New York. The Bushies haven't cared that we've lost New Orleans.
Crazy is as crazy does - and we are looking like the biggest crazies around since 2001.

Bush keeps spouting off about "Democracies don't go to war against each other." He says they want peace. Well, here's just a reminder: Nobody in the Middle East trusts Americans. Nobody thinks Bush believes that swill. He's just after more oil.

Iran had a democracy with an enthusiastic US ally in Prime Minister Mossadegh.

But the US government destroyed Iran's Democracy in 1952-3.

Why? The US AND BRITAIN wanted TO GET IRANIAN OIL.

Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit, a CIA chief, went to Iran and lied, cheated, stole, and murdered to topple the democratic government of Iran. He committed horrible, unethical acts for the US.

Of course the Iranians hate us.

Of course nobody believes us.

Of course our president is lying again.

--Veritas Odium Parit.

Eye god, We can show them diaper heads whose boss.tic.tic.tic.tic... With two oil men in the Wht House ALL oil is ours. tic..tic..tic..and it always better to bomb them before them can bomb us..tic ...tic..tic And if we don't do it now they will be a gunnin for us. So it just goes to show you liberal, liberty-hating people, god repulsed people what cowards you are. tic..tic...tic....while he is there, carry out strikes against Syria too...just get them all so we can have peace again.
_

Could y'all help me out here? What exactly is the democrat way to deal with Iran? So far, all I'm hearing is complaints on this and just about everything else.

"Could y'all help me out here? What exactly is the democrat way to deal with Iran? So far, all I'm hearing is complaints on this and just about everything else."

Well, Annony Mouse by now you should know what Demo's position is on this.
What's with you boy, don't you listen to the Leading, kool-aid Nutcake in the Wht House...Karl Rove? If not then you're a disgrace to fellow nutcakes. Rove said we want to 'offer them therapy."
Which I'm sure is what Rove and The DICK had in mind when both were draft dodgers.

Well, anony wood, it's funny that you couldn't answer my question since, supposedly, it should be so obvious.

Still waiting. What is the democrat plan for dealing with Iran? It seems like a pretty important question since you're so eager to criticise the president. Any of you anonymous libs feel free to answer.

P.S. "annony mouse"? What is this kindergarten? Or are toddler insults what pass for democrat ideas these days?

Actually anon, Iran really isn't an issue...not right now. But, why not a little humor?

Democrats don't have to have a plan for Iran. They aren't in charge.

Now, as far as the Republican plan for Iran? Please, enlighten me. A chickenhawk wouldn't impose economic sanctions...

Does it resemble the plan in Iraq? Even...remotely?

Or are you just Clint Reed's intern...

Anonymous, how about patience and diplomacy? Of course, it won't deflect the public's opinion of Bush and his administration's repeated failures except manipulation at the ballot box.

You won't see Bush indulge in it, since his whole goal is never having to say he's sorry and fix his debacles. He's already told you his plan, hold-on, do nothing new, and wait for his term to end so someone else will clean-up his messes.

And since some one else will be along, why not another "little" war to keep the Republican voters deluded, the administration and troops occupied while waiting for a sucessor.

Remember Bush's brain's (Rove) historical guidance, ". . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Herman Goering

The only new twist is calling the attackers "neo-facists" instead of Jews, but it is still trading on hatred and fear to get the people to support George.

Anonymous:

I am a critic of the president, his administration, and this war.

You seem to be up on things regarding bush and the war, and you seem to want people like me to snap out of it and support the war on terror.

I have a sincere question for you, because I want to understand where you're coming from.

What does/will it mean to win the war on terror? How will we know when it's done?

You said before (something like) the terrorists don't care if I'm liberal or conservative. They want to kill all of us. Because I feel the way I do, why should I cross over to your point of view if we're all going to die anyway?

If everyone supported the war, would we have a better chance of winning it? Again, what does winning it mean?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.kthv.com/life/people/Arkansas_Fallen_Heroes/default.asp

How about this question....Why do we have to "handle" Iran? Last I checked they were a sovereign country. Have they signed any treaties saying they WON'T develop nuclear weapons? If not, it's none of our business. This whole "we allow nukes for people we like and not for those we don't" is utter BS.
ALL nukes are bad. They don't deter someone from ANYTHING. All they do is add to the chest-beating rhetoric we have way too much of already.

At the Pryor Yawn at UAFS yesterday, a bright fellow asked Mark if anyone in DC had ever stopped and examined the legitimate complaints that have been lodged thru the years by the Middle Eastern countries we think of as our enemies. The question took me by surprise and it took a couple of minutes to realized it was a damn fine question.

Of course yada, yada, yada was all Senator Pryor answered back. But if you look past the headlines and the news-light fodder fed to us, the history we're told of our relationship with Iran, and Iraq isn't what really happened.

George H.W. Bush in effect tricked Sadam into invading Kuwait in 1990. Pierre Salinger documents the trickery in his 1998 memoir. Our people in so many words said to Sadam, who Rummy had just shook hands with...that we would mind our own business should Iraq invade Kuwait.

Most people don't know that Kuwait was ruled over for a couple of centuries by the Ottoman Empire (Iraq) and both countries have been fighting over the border ever since. In the 80s Sadam and Kuwait wrestled over Kuwait not following OPEC guidelines and for pouching oil from the Iraqi side of the line.

Honestly, I don't like any of them, but George H.W. Bush told Sadam the US would not get involved in regional fights between Iraq and Kuwait and then started a war when Sadam crossed the Kuwait border. Dirty pool....period.

After the Gulf War it was just dandy for Cheney and Halliburton to make nice with Sadam and make Cheney rich, but then suddenly Saudis fly jets into the World Trade Center and Bush, Jr., blames it on Sadam and invades Iraq. That is fuzzy math. That is bullshit.

The Democrats....who knows with people like Pryor and Lincoln and Lieberman in the party. Those 3 apparently support Bush's stay the course plan that is failing so badly. But forget Iran for the present time would be my advice. When you're head and your ass is in flames, don't worry about corns on your toes.

We don't have enough troops to win in Iraq. We don't have enough troops to keep Afghanistan from reverting to its old ways. We don't have enough troops to answer the Katrina call and we don't have enough troops to put 6000 of them on our southern border. So biting off a piece of Iran is suicide.

I fear the Bush administration far more than I fear Iran. Disarming Bush-Cheney would be a true blessing to the world.

All of you have responded well on Iran. I particularly agree with points that they are a sovereign country and what business do we have telling people half-way around the world what they can and cannot do inside their borders (wish we had followed that thinking on Iraq).

So I'll just add this one, as it's at least as important as Iran...

Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit...
Posted by: Ecce! Spiro et Spero.

...he hated being called "Teddy". Call him Theodore.

Don't forget the waves of Shia faithful who will sweep over Iran's border with Iraq to exact revenge on the Western devils occupying their fine old enemy's lands.

And what about the (ironically) swift-boat cadres poised to wreak havoc in the PERSIAN Gulf on tankers, wankers and Arab collaborateurs, Arabs who cringe at the idea of a U.S./Israeli air campaign on the ayatollah's heavenly radiators, mad as it even sounds.

The Dubyans stirred up most of this mess by conflating 9/11 into their neoCON Vision of World Domination. Boy, that's worked out really well. So now there's no easy answer, not for Repubs, Democrats, Eurocats nor Muslim muq-tators.

But a start would be to clean house of Rummy, Cheney, Eliott Abrams (a rising star in the war pig realm) and their toadies. Bouche is still an empty suit. Get him some new advisers and maybe he'll sound sane.

But in general, as stated above, we're pretty well screwed. Bombing another country will be like sloppy seconds on the way to Armageddon.

"Most people don't know that Kuwait was ruled over for a couple of centuries by the Ottoman Empire (Iraq) and both countries have been fighting over the border ever since."

Iraq was not the Ottoman Empire. That is such basic history. Have you ever heard of Turkey? And it only takes one second to google the words "Ottoman Empire" to find that out. Here's some help:

http://www.theottomans.org/english/history/index.asp

"What does/will it mean to win the war on terror? How will we know when it's done?"

It probably won't be won completely, any more than the war on murder will ever be won. I guess we should stop fighting murder since there's no real hope that we can end murder forever. We can, however, win theaters of the War on Terror, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. We can also teach the terrorists, who have stated that we were impotent after continually running after being attacked, that we will not run. When you allow bullies to go unpunished, they are emboldened. When you deal with them firmly, they take you seriously.

In Iraq, you will know it, like we knew in Haiti and Nicaragua, when the indigenous forces are able to stand on their own. Once again, the Marines have been fighting and winning wars like this for decades.

You don't think we can win because you don't want to think we can win. I continually give you examples of how we are winning and how we have won conflicts like this before and why the casualties and fatalities are remarkably low compared to most other wars. You continually dismiss what I say, without a thought, and, either, a) change the subject or b) respond with a soundbyte.

I honestly do want to communicate with all of you. I hold no animus for any of you. I care enough about you that I am willing to give my life for you and most of what I have gotten from you is insults and talking points.

I do appreciate some kind words from some of you. Many others would rather insult me than think about what I say. But, fortunately, it doesn't bother me. I enjoy the opportunity to communicate with people with different points of view. I do hope to persuade some of you. To any of you to whom I have been rude, I apologize. I'll probably say something rude again, but I would much rather be civil.

"How about this question....Why do we have to "handle" Iran? Last I checked they were a sovereign country. Have they signed any treaties saying they WON'T develop nuclear weapons? If not, it's none of our business. This whole "we allow nukes for people we like and not for those we don't" is utter BS."

How do you think treaties are made? Someone has to be persuaded. Either they have been made to submit or they have been cajoled to submit. The fact that they are a sovereign nation is moot. They are also a chief sponsor of international terrorism. If you want the world held hostage by thugs with a nuclear bomb, then you're right we shouldn't try to do something about it.

Saying that all nukes are bad is like saying all hammers are bad or all firearms are bad. All of them are tools and all of them can be used as weapons. Firearms and nukes are obviously tools that are made to be weapons. But saying that is like saying a firearm in the hands of a police officer or an honest citizen is the same as one in the hand of a murderer. In either case, the weapon is not bad. It is the person who possesses it and what they do with it that is or is not bad.

There are certain people who very publicly talk about desiring to destroy entire countries. When they seek weapons that are capable of doing this and when other nations seeking such weapons have friendly relationships with terrorists, we would be foolish not to pay attention and try to stop them.

nony, could you ask Fox News to take a poll of the rest of the world and ask which is the largest terrorist sponsoring country in the world? And if the answer comes back the USA, would that be proof to you that we should destroy our nuclear weapons and ask almighty god for forgiveness?

After all, we are the only country on earth that has used a nuclear weapon, twice.

Well that's mighty civil of you, Anonymous.

I think it's safe to say that flames were hurled your way because often your tone was condescending and dismissive, as if people who don't cotton to your stance on the war are idiots.

"You don't think we can win because you don't want to think we can win." See, there you go with the tone. I think it's safer for you to assume I know more about my thoughts than you do.

I could just as easily say that you don't believe George W. Bush is causing the collapse of this country because you don't want to believe it.

You believe that Bush is a terrific hero. I think he is a terrific failure.

So we disagree. If you keep your tone in the respectable register, maybe others will, too.

Nonetheless, I doubt you sway many readers of this blog to your side. You did not win me over.

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Calling us terrorists because we ended a war in the most effective way we could, a war started by Japan, in case you've forgotten, is the same as calling a police officer a criminal because he has to use his weapon in the line of duty.

So, you're actually saying that the U.S. is a terrorist nation? If the world thinks we're terrorists because of what we did 61 years ago, then that's their problem. 60 years ago they praised us for it. The attitude of "the world" is a reflection of leftist propaganda, promoting peace and tolerance with an enemy that is seeking new ways to kill them every day. Terrorists aren't interested in tolerance, just the opposite. It's not my fault that the world would rather bury their head in the sand, like you, apparently.

What other reason could you have for continually dismissing and ignoring repeated statements of fact I have made than the one I suggested, hugh?

One man's fact is another man's fiction.

Yes, but some things are true.

For instance, I have repeatedly referenced various conflicts, Haiti, Nicaragua... No one addresses that. When they do address things like that, they dismiss it in a cursory manner. No one ever asks a probitive question about it.

The Small Wars Doctine of the Marine Corps and its practice has been explored and demonstrated. I offer something new and people change the subject or make a snide comment.

I'm not going to stop challenging ideas here, but it's interesting how people tend to change the subject and/or insult me in response.

I'll be watching to see how open you are to other ideas.

If you will go back and reread what I have written, you will see that I try to answer everything that someone says to me. I have insulted people, a minority of the time, but I still try to answer them. I often only get insults or the subject changed. I have reviewed many of my interactions to see if my impression is correct.

I appreciate the civil discussion.

No no no....the behavior of the current administration mirrors the worst of the terrorists abroad, except as far as we know Bush has not ordered beheadings, just regular kidnapping, torture and death.

Speaking of dropping the 2 nuclear bombs is like a 2nd thought, a sub-plot if you will in my posting. Since America is the only country in the universe to have used nuclear weapons to kill, it's a tad hypocritical of us to become judge and jury on who else may or may not have nuclear weapons.

You go stand next to the Pakistan border and tell me how safe you'd feel with them having the bomb and you having spitula. If half the bad guys in the region have the bomb, why not all? America and Russia did the mutual destruction dance with each other for decades and no one got hurt.

It is your opinion that Iraq and Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Palestinians are terrorists and so it's OK for Bush to blow them away. But what if it is the rest of the world holds the opinion that America is the great devil? Does that mean we get to walk the plank?

I think we should split Mrs. Barbara Bush in half and let Moses decide.....1st Imaginations, chapter 4, verse 3 thru 14.

"Speaking of dropping the 2 nuclear bombs is like a 2nd thought, a sub-plot if you will in my posting. Since America is the only country in the universe to have used nuclear weapons to kill, it's a tad hypocritical of us to become judge and jury on who else may or may not have nuclear weapons."

Is it a tad hypocritical for a policeman with a gun to arrest a criminal with one?

"...what if it is the rest of the world holds the opinion that America is the great devil?"

We are not responsible for what the world thinks. We are responsible to do what we can to keep ourselves and our allies safe. I have already answered that question, already, which you apparently didn't see or are ignoring.

"the behavior of the current administration mirrors the worst of the terrorists abroad, except as far as we know Bush has not ordered beheadings, just regular kidnapping, torture and death."

???

Were we morally equivalent to Germany in WWII because we fought back? This is ridiculous.

I think you are a skilled writer, but this train of thought doesn't do you justice.

...It probably won't be won completely, any more than the war on murder will ever be won. I guess we should stop fighting murder since there's no real hope that we can end murder forever.

That's a bogus analogy because 'fighting murder' doesn't come with the same bells and whistles that fighting Bush's eternal War on Terror comes with. The 'We're at War' mantra comes with a whole list of special perks and exceptions that were never intended to become a routine part of our legal system and life. Historically the country's been quite generous and forgiving with presidents during 'War Times'...but those 'suspension' of rights and 'disregard' for individual rights were only intended to be temporary...during the War. Well now we've got the eternal War against bad people and Bush et al can do whatever the hell they want for as long as they want. Or perhaps I'm missing something and there really is an 'official' marker that will put an end to our government holding people without charges (Gitmo)...or spying on Americans without a warrants (NSA)...or engaging in torture (just like the bad guys/gals)...or failing to be accountable for tax monies spent (we're at war, Now is not the time to be nitpicking those accounting books)...

We can, however, win theaters of the War on Terror, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. We can also teach the terrorists, who have stated that we were impotent after continually running after being attacked, that we will not run.

Well anything is possible (we could rule the world, too); but controlling Iraq/Afghanistan for the long term is unlikely given a casual glance at their histories and our's. And, especially given the way Bush handled the invasion of Iraq...'Screw you world, I, dubya, am going to invade Iraq no matter that it had nothing to do with 9/11; and no matter that most of our allies said diplomacy is the better route, for now. King George has decided and it's going to be a cake walk...that Iraqi oil will pay for Halliburton and all those expensive bells and whistles...that compared to the World Wars we'll just lose a handful of our military men/women (though tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed that reality is voided once you bring up the 'Saddam killed just as many' ruse). And, if it doesn't quite turn out that way I'll just make it a War against Bad people and re-write the GIVEN reasons for going into Iraq.

...When you allow bullies to go unpunished, they are emboldened. When you deal with them firmly, they take you seriously.

Bush et al BULLIED us into this War in Iraq. You may have forgotten, but I remember Bush/Cheney/Rummy telling most of the world that we didn't need them nor their support. The big, bad USA could kick butt all on its own. And former allies who disagreed with our decision to attack Iraq were dismissed as being irrelevant ('old Europe'). And, Americans who disagreed with the decision were, in one way or another, dismissed as being un-patriotic, anti-American, un-apple pie blah blah. Bush et al bullied their way into Iraq through selective use of intelligence, money and intimidation. So you're correct...Bush has been emboldened because he bullied his way into Iraq and thus far has gotten away with that bullying. Time to stop the Bush bully.

And since you brought up Nicaragua...

United States intervenes - again - in Nicaragua.

Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Campaign season has begun in Nicaragua, and it feels like old times.

Sandinista Daniel Ortega, ex-president and three-time failed presidential candidate, again is running for office. And, just as in the Reagan years - or, come to think of it, the Roosevelt years - the United States flouts democratic values to intervene.

U.S. ambassador Paul Trivelli is working overtime pushing Ortega's rival. In May, Trivelli even tried ginning up a primary, hoping to unite the competition. (He failed.)

But the White House isn't daunted. Ortega has only grown more odious to the administration, thanks to his alliance with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

The United States should worry about Chavez. He's gnawing away at his nation's institutions, nuzzling rogue states Syria and Iran, and lathering anti-American resentment.

What the administration doesn't get is that this resentment predates Chavez. In Nicaragua, 19th-century mercenary William Walker and the U.S.-coddled Somoza dictatorship planted it long ago. Why feed it by again disdaining Nicaragua's sovereignty?

The United States needs to defend its interests. But there's a difference between wanting democracy, or even a candidate, and actively distorting another country's electoral process.

In the short term, this involvement actually could backfire. A tirade from the U.S. ambassador nudged Bolivian leftist Evo Morales closer to being president. And in Nicaragua, after Trivelli's failed primary foray, Ortega gained six percentage points in polls. Regardless of who wins the presidency, Sandinistas likely will be the National Assembly's largest bloc. They'll surely be in payback mode...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4147290.html

Sometimes our arrogance and short-attention span (no history books in this White House) amazes me.

"Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Calling us terrorists because we ended a war in the most effective way we could, a war started by Japan, in case you've forgotten, is the same as calling a police officer a criminal because he has to use his weapon in the line of duty."
--Anon

Yep, that war was started by Japan and we didn't take off after China for Dec. 7. Would you say the Iraqi war was caused by the US and now they are "using his weapon in the line of duty" to deal with the attackers and invaders?

This Dog Wags itself, Max.

Highly enriched uranium found in Iran

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 1 (UPI) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council its inspectors have found new traces of enriched uranium in Iran.

The discovery marked the third instance that highly enriched uranium was found at an Iranian facility, but the IAEA said the nuclear fingerprint on the new discovery does not match that found on earlier samples, which the agency had concluded came from contaminated equipment from Pakistan, The New York Times reported Friday.

The 6-page IAEA report did not identify where the uranium might have originated or whether it was connected to a secret nuclear program in Iran. The country has insisted that its nuclear program is aimed only at producing energy, a task that would use uranium enriched at much lower levels than that found by the IAEA inspectors.

The report said that Iran was continuing to produce enriched uranium at low levels and on a small scale at its Natanz facility.

The Security Council had set Thursday as a deadline for Iran to discontinue enrichment, and a failure to comply by the country could result in economic and political penalties.

What will we do with Iran some ask. Not much. Its seems that some fool in his rush to war has America bogged down in Iraq in the next country over. Our Military has it;s hands full with all the Bush neocons saber rattling . I guess the EU will have to step up if any thing is to be done on Iran. That is if there still pissed off by the neocons rush to war. But you never know how far the Neocon far right that have hijacked the Republican will go to stay in power. With America importing more than 60% of our oil, I would say our rear ends are hanging out the window. With China and India using more oil that America needs and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who has said that they should cut off American oil. Bombing Iran makes no sense unless America is willing to go all the way.

"Yep, that war was started by Japan and we didn't take off after China for Dec. 7. Would you say the Iraqi war was caused by the US and now they are "using his weapon in the line of duty" to deal with the attackers and invaders?"

China?

China was not an enemy or threatening us. They were an ally.

We did, however, go to war with Germany who did not attack us on December 7. We attacked them first. Kind of like Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13588.htm

"I guess the EU will have to step up if any thing is to be done on Iran."

The EU???? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard!!! Thanks for the laugh...

OOOOOoooohhhhh, my sides....

Seriously, though, have you noticed anything about the map, now? Particularly the location of Afghanistan and Iraq in relation to Iran?

The U.S. military is not bogged down. How could we have 500,000 troops there, which is what Colin Powell has suggested and did in the first Gulf War and somehow we're bogged down with 140,000 there now? By my math that leaves at least 360,000 extra troops and two sides of Iran and the Persian Gulf from which to invade them. Now, I know you're going to change the subject to how I'm advocating invading Iran, which I'm not. What I have pretty thoroughly demonstrated is how utterly false your contention that we're bogged down or stretched too thin is.

"The U.S. military is not bogged down. How could we have 500,000 troops there, which is what Colin Powell has suggested and did in the first Gulf War and somehow we're bogged down with 140,000 there now? By my math that leaves at least 360,000 extra troops and two sides of Iran and the Persian Gulf from which to invade them."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
would that be the coalition of the forgiven or maybe the coalition of the forgotten?
No wait we don't no stinking help we can kick butt just fine all on our on.

Way to change the subject, dufus.

"If you will go back and reread what I have written, you will see that I try to answer everything that someone says to me. I have insulted people, a minority of the time, but I still try to answer them. I often only get insults or the subject changed. I have reviewed many of my interactions to see if my impression is correct.

I appreciate the civil discussion." Posted by Anonymous September 1, 2006 01:35 AM

Scroll down about a dozen posts:

"Way to change the subject, dufus." Posted by Anonymous September 1, 2006 04:45 PM

Right. Once again. You ignore the substance. You libs cannot deal with me or any other conservative based on the facts. You just change the subject.

My apology was sincere. I have since then received a number of insults and multiple attempts to change the subject, including yours.

If you're so proud to be a liberal, why can't you defend your worldview? And why do your politicians sell you out all the time? Why aren't they brave enough to stand by their lib beliefs?

Nony doesn't answer anything/anyone except when it's convenient. And, that'd just be a matter of personal choice if it wasn't for the fact that he/she continually brags about their great ability to 'stump' all of us mere liberals and that he/she always answers everything...HA...just another hypocrite.