>>u still havent addressed the article. but thats ok. i
>>understand your tactic.
>>
>>'liberals' - 1
>>
>>libertarians - 0
>
>Who has addressed what I posted?

u didnt post anything more than a mindless rant based on assumptions which applied probably to the smallest percentage of people here. definately didnt apply to me. u also went on to rant about a post of yours taht was locked, when thats not an issue you need to take up with me. perhaps if you werent so arrogant you would realize that your post wasnt the only one locked. Maybe if you read guerilla's post, you will see that she is trying to keep the war postts to a minimum.

oh and your post was based entirely on one man's opinion..and as expected, all your cronies hopped on it the minute you posted it as fact..without questioning any sources..but now you question the legitimate sources from the above post. right.

>Furthermore, do you actually expect me to go research, and
>refute every last charge on that 10 paragraph page?
>

or you can go research, and come back and confirm what was written. and how can you formulate an opinion on the war if you havent done the research. i think you've just proved that you support out of blind allegiance, not out of any knowledge of the facts. i also find it interesting how none of your other buddies have tried to engage in this discussion. Maybe they know a little more than you, and have no way to try and refute this. either way, you're no smarter than Saddam who took the bait in kuwait in 91.

>No thank you.
>
>And I'm not a libertarian.