who said: 'I'm a fellow lib, and wanted to tell you that there was a bloodbath after Vietnam, and in some respects the "dominoe" theory came true. Read about Cambodia, Laos, and the Sino-Vietnamese war.'

Mr. fellow lib, we didn't get into Vietnam to stop Cambodia & Laos from going communist. The Domino Theory postulated that communism in Vietnam would spread to Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, etc. (i.e. countries we gave a shit about).

Although I agree with you there was a terrible bloodbath in Cambodia (which we never occupied or had operational control over) once the Vietnam War was over, and there were violent retributions against ARVN types & their supporters once Hanoi stated running the former S. Vietnam, I disagree that the Domino Theory came true in any way, shape, or form.

Both of you dumbfucks have come to the wrong place to spout your shit. No matter how many idiotic posts you post, it won't change the fact that your assertions are full of shit.

As far as Muslim nations go, Iraq under Saddam was about as secular as they (Arab nations) get in this day & age (maybe the last, since we busted it up). All the crap you mentioned was instituted by Saddam once Bush II started going after him & he felt he had to start looking more like a devout muslim (which he never really was).

In Iraq, women wore western clothes, voted, supervised men, etc. etc. Liquor stores were a legit business. They had a parliment (a rubber stamp parliment, but miles ahead of their Gulf State neighbors). Your BS will say that this is not 'Western Secularism' and golly shit Iraq is not the West and fucking never has been.

So go crawl back under your freeper rock & resume jacking off to Karl Rove.

said: 'My registered name is clearly feminine. '

I thought you might be Elvish.

Anyway, I don't like Anonymous, due to the trouble picking out Anonymous 'A' from Anonymous 'B' and so on in a lengthy thread (say one of Glenn's). If there was a way to differentiate them within a thread, I'd say keep it. Else, I would prefer it be removed as an option.

As Garry Owen has repeatedly said (I know as I have read all 30 odd pages of commentary), you can chose a handle like 'uQgf%$w0k' or something & it should be just as 'anonymous' as...anonymous.

That was a damn fine rant.

Summy Miller responded to a B. Timberman aside about those who love to up various 3rd Parties: 'Besides, what price are we paying, exactly, when we abandon the Democratic Party? Getting called "purists" by *serious* pundits and pragmatic-to-the-point-of-immorality finger waggers is akin to having your name on Nixons enemies list back in the day-a badge of honor.'

Sunny, when you abandon the Democratic party you get a Republican (how about Pres. Brownback). At the Presidential level, we have this thing called the 'Electoral College'. To win the presidency, a candidate must get 270 electoral votes. If no candidate gets that, then the race goes to the House of Representatives.

Now stay with me here, your 3rd party candidate (running for President) has to either win enough states to get to 270 (can be hard, ask Mr. Gore), or the race goes into the House. Now, how many members of your 3rd party (pick any 3rd party) are in the House? Not many, huh? OK, how many members of the other 2 parties are in the House? Quite a few, right?

So, given the honesty, patriotism, & general all-around spirit of fair play our normal member of the House has in this day & age, how many do you think (Repubs & Demo members) would vote for your 3rd party guy over the nominee from their own party? Not many, right?

So you see, Sunny, 3rd Party candidates are great when your dude/dudette can win with 35% of the popular vote (as Gov. Ventura did), but this pesky Electoral College sorta puts the kibosh on them at the national level.

So, if you are disgusted with the current situation, & want to ensure that a Republican does not win the presidency, you can only vote for the Democratic nominee (whoever he/she is). Voting for any other candidate (for President) is like a big thank you to Karl Rove.

Matty D. speaking about his/her cat: 'In his old age, he's pretty delicate, and by holding him the wrong way, as 99% of people do, even veteran and obsessive cat ladies, he actually can't breathe. I generally have to step in quickly and say, "That noise? It means 'I can't breathe' and you should put him down."

Cats have a different body plan from humans (duh). Their back limbs & pelvis are a larger proportion of their total weight than a human. Therefore, when you pick up a cat it is very important that you support their 'back half'. It hurts a cat when you suspend them in a way that all their lower extremity mass is unsupported.

This is more important for an adult cat than for a kitten (who due to the head usually being 'outsized' at that point has a lower proportion of the total mass in the rear haunches than an adult cat does).