? I tend to have some people in my life who I care deeply about who fit into these catagories.

Not all cashiers at Wal-Mart are saints
Not all bald people are saints
Not all People who dress up as santa clause for christmas are saints
Not all Liberals are saints
Not all Hindu’s are saints
Not all white people are saints
Not all cops are saints

But you are correct, Not all Libertarians are saints either.

Tundra

It seems you only posted as “Not all … are saints” those you have a disagreement with, or those you consider neutral.

Why? Seems almost pathological that you overlook some obvious ones.

Not all libertarians are saints, either.

I was disappointed by the performance of Project Procrastination®. I really thought that one was going to do a lot more work for us than it did. I guess Baker isn’t what he used to be.

Wow, 2883 soldiers. Hey, ‘more rubble, less trouble’ is what ain’t quite ‘Shock and Awe,’ but I still think AEI has gotten your job done. It wasn’t pretty, but it got us over, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I

Comment by TerrytheTurtle — November 28, 2006 @ 11:05 pm

Yes it does

I’m a vet and proud of it. I’m not proud of select members who happen to be vets too, because they ruin the name of alot of people who are doing and have done a damn good job with what they had, and what they are/were against.

One shit cancels out 100 attaboys…

Comment by TerrytheTurtle — November 28, 2006 @ 10:36 pm

Not all Liberals are saints
Not all Priests are saints
Not all Bloggers are saints
Not all People who dress up as santa clause for christmas are saints
Not all Hindu’s are saints
Not all white people are saints
Not all cops are saints
Not all bald people are saints
Not all CEO’s are saints
Not all cashiers at Wal-Mart are saints
Not all Mother Theresa’s are saints (I may be wrong on that one)
Not all politicians are saints

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 — A classified memorandum by President Bush’s national security adviser expressed serious doubts about whether Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had the capacity to control the sectarian violence in Iraq and recommended that the United States take new steps to strengthen the Iraqi leader’s position.

The Nov. 8 memo was prepared for Mr. Bush and his top deputies by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and senior aides on the staff of the National Security Council after a trip by Mr. Hadley to Baghdad.

The memo suggests that if Mr. Maliki fails to carry out a series of specified steps, it may ultimately be necessary to press him to reconfigure his parliamentary bloc, a step the United States could support by providing “monetary support to moderate groups,” and by sending thousands of additional American troops to Baghdad to make up for what the document suggests is a current shortage of Iraqi forces.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/world/middleeast/29military.html?hp&ex=1164776400&en=e26b5b9841cd9c54&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Comment by JPark — November 28, 2006 @ 10:21 pm

Yes!

I was always against going, that will never change. The part that did change was I felt since we broke it, we had to remain and help get it under control. Now I no longer care what happens over there and risking one more American soldiers life for the lot of them is too many.

Comment by JPark — November 28, 2006 @ 10:20 pm

I was of the mindset, until very recently that we broke it we have to fix it. I have came to the realization that we can’t, they don’t want it fixed. It was broke before we got there (this time). The little groups there all want to be fully in charge. They have lived under a dictator so long, that they don’t know how to act without one ruling with an iron fist.