Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 817 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
damn militants..... (Original Post)
kpete
Jun 2015
OP
Zamen
(116 posts)1. I prefer the term Atheist Fundamentalist
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)2. I'm trying to decide which one, if any, puts me most at risk.
Too many choices.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)3. Great meme
MisterP
(23,730 posts)4. yes--had it not been for Panel C Iraq would've seemed like an adventure by Panel A
but with the "liberal interventionists'" endorsement it wasn't just something started by the voices in Dubya's head--maybe there was something to the case for war given how broad its support base was getting! likewise with the IWR the case that "this is just President Monkey's ReTHUGLICAN warmongering" (and that started the rot in the Dems that let both parties roll right for their masters)
it has a multiplier effect far beyond just adding a new sector behind the war
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)5. Complete BS. There is absolutely no equilivance
between them.