You don't want to go there.

Gore and Kerry actually volunteered. They went to Nam. They were privileged sons and they went there. They were against the war itself but felt it was their duty to go.

Bush? He was for the war but avoided it. Cheney? He was for the war but got five deferments.

Righties talk the talk, but rarely walk the walk. They love rattling sabers and beating the drums of war from the safety of their living rooms. Or suburban bunkers.

To me, that's despicable. There are few things worse in this world than warmongers who avoid battle with every ounce of their privileged existence.

Chickenhawks. One of the most disgusting and vile things a person can be. Doesn't matter what party you're in, or what side of the aisle your politics come from. Being a chickenhawk is vile. Screaming for war, shouting for war and more war, calling anyone who is against war a traitor, all the while YOU run from battle like a little coward . . . . THAT'S disgusting.

And right now, the neocons hold the record for most chickenhawks. They own the term.

Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, Jonah Goldberg, Kristol, Cheney, Bush, Romney, Giuliani (to name a few) . . . all pillars of the "conservative" movement . . . cut and ran when it was their turn to fight.

Gore, Kerry, Max Cleland? They fought. They didn't have to, but they did their duty.

The right epitomizes hypocrisy.

Fast!

http://www.apakistannews.com/sarah-palin-federal-indictment-128326

Is clear.

Progressives are critical about things that actually happen. We look at policies and their repercussions. We dissect them, analyze them and criticize them.

The right? It just makes shit up. It works ENTIRELY on emotion and gut feeling and can never be specific when challenged. It can never cite ACTUAL policy initiatives, empirical data, EVIDENCE to support its whacked out views.

We were critical of Bush for his horrendously and horrifically STUPID and destructive actions/policies/executive orders.

Righties? They can't actually state what Obama has done. But they DO write a billion Op Ed pieces pretending that they see into his very soul and know his innermost thoughts. They write as if they see inside his brain. Even though NOTHING he has done is even remotely "socialist", or "marxist", they just KNOW that his intention is to "destroy the economy" and "destroy America".

You ignore empirical date. You ignore all evidence, all reality. You just make shit up. That's what you do.

Palin wasn't attacked by the Media. She kept putting her foot in her mouth, screaming for Media attention all the while. She DESERVED every bit of criticism she got. No one tried to destroy her, and her BIGGEST critics right now are the people who know her best. John McCain's campaign staff.

Anduril: "Somehow so many of you think yourself qualified to make fun of a normal person, who had a normal family and normal children, who tried to do well for her local community, her state and her country. And who, by the way, actually did something."

You are quite presumptuous here. You don't know the personal stories of every poster on Salon. More importantly, you fail to establish your premise -- that in order to criticize somebody's behavior, a person must necessarily be able to prove they have accomplished as much as the person they're criticizing.

I also question your use of the term "normal." You say "normal" as if it means something important. Why is that? How does a person being normal make her superior to anybody else, or exempt from critique?

Anduril: "How many of you have actually held public office? I suspect virtually none."

I question the relevance of your rhetorical question. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that your point makes sense. The next step is to turn it back onto you: What have YOU done that grants YOU the authority to criticize US? Have you held elected office? Accomplished something noteworthy? Please explain.

Anduril: "How many of you were brave enough to bring a child with Down Syndrome into the world? Virtually none."

This is hilarious. For how many people here did such an opportunity even come up? I would suspect that your "virtually none" answer applies equally well. However, from what I've read, there are some parents in here.

Anduril: "How many of you are brave enough to enter into a legitimate debate in which you would eventually be forced to be willing to admit that most of your world views, especially on abortion and stem cell research, in truth boil down to "I want what I want when I want it" and "I really don't care about even the vaguest notions of justice, science and logic.""

In a legitimate debate, as you put it, nobody is "forced" to admit anything. But your question does reveal your inner motivation: You want to be able to coerce others to believe only as you do.

I would turn this question back on you: Are you willing to enter a legitimate debate that consists solely of facts and logical argument? If so, I would then ask what you have against stem-cell research, if the embryos already exist? I would further ask you for your position on in-vitro fertilization and modern-day fertility policies. If a woman can't bear children and chooses to try modern methods so she and her husband can have a family, are you prepared to tell them they can't? Why or why not?

Anduril: "Instead you would rather elect a ridiculous, and not really that good, Saturday Night Live comic to the Senate, and get your news from Tina Fey."

What decade are you living in? Al Franken hasn't been on Saturday Night Live in at least 15 years. If you're against Franken entering politics, then what's your take on Ronald Reagan, whose early career consisted of acting alongside a chimpanzee?

Anduril: "You are, in truth, pathetic."

Why should anybody here respects your concept of what is "in truth"? What makes you think you have an insight to truth that others do not have? What makes your point of view better than that of others? I haven't seen you cite many facts, or make any compelling logical arguments. Everything you've written comes down to bias and anger.