Quote: the G-man said: As noted, back in November:
If both unelected AND elected liberals are basing their views on imporant issues on nothing more than "blind rage," how should we evaluate their views?
Should we evaluate liberal viewpoints the way we would reasoned, well-meaning, arguments? Or should we treat them as biased ravings of the enraged?
Something to ponder...
Why shouldn't people be enraged?
A President with no mandate 1. takes your country to war 2. on the back of a non-existent threat 3. by which his friends get rich. 4.
I'd be mad if I was an American.
Blind Republican partisan loyalty is one approach, but being healthily skeptical and right wing is another. You can question your President and be a good citizen.... and a good Republican.
Footnotes: 1. Setting aside the election outcome, any president who wins with no real majority does not have a mandate for any major policy initiatives, including war. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate
2. At the US taxpayer's considerable expense, and with 702 Americans killed thus far.
3. Day 391 since invasion, and day 349 of the occupation, and still no WMDs.
