You don’t know any liberals who support withdrawal from Iraq, abandoning Israel, appeasing Islamists, opening the borders, or changing the Second Amendment? 
Well, let’s look at the tape. You posted:
Let’s do them as bulleted lists. You went from
[ul]Let’s immediately surrender[/ul][ul]sell out Israel[/ul][ul]appease the Islamists in any other way you can think of[/ul][ul]and while we’re at it let’s raise taxes[/ul][ul]open the borders to everyone[/ul][ul]and suspend the Second Amendment.[/ul]
to
[ul]withdrawal from Iraq[/ul][ul]abandoning Israel[/ul][ul]appeasing Islamists[/ul][ul]opening the borders[/ul][ul][and] changing the Second Amendment[/ul]Quite apart from the fact that withdrawal from Iraq ≠ immediate surrender, not only is there no one-to-one correspondence on the other line items (you left out raising taxes, btw :rolleyes: ), your caricatures of “liberal” positions on the policy issues they relate to are so over the top that they [del]rise[/del] sink to the level of strawmen.
ETA: I quite agree, you are confused.
That’s the problem with you idiots, you did not say that. You said:
But as to your question, withdrawal is not the same as surrender once you idiots get that straight we may make some progress in Iraq. I don’t know what you mean by “sell out Israel” as for appeasing Islamists, first you are going to have to tell me what you mean then I will tell you if we should appease them or not. As for opening the border I think that is a stupid idea as do most liberals I know, if by opening the border you mean establishing a rational immigration program that severely punishes businesses that hire illegal immigrants while making it relatively easy for people who want to work in this country to do so, then sure. And to my knowledge most liberals don’t want to change the 2nd amendment we just disagree as to what it means. Apparently idiots like you think it is perfectly fine for your neighbor to have a nuclear tipped rocket launcher that shoots death rays, while I and most other liberals I know think the amendment in question means something else. We don’t want to change it, we just disagree about what it means. As to raising taxes, how can you fucking morons think liberals support raising taxes for its own sake, we fucking have to pay them too you know? I would rather pay taxes for universal healthcare than a trumped up war any day. You know, if we were not bogged down in a land war in Asia (one of the classic blunders) we could probably have universal health care without raising taxes. Did I mention you are an idiot? One of the reasons the “liberals” may have said some of the things you claim they did is because they recognize that you are an idiot and just wanted to pull your leg because you are such an idiot.
Well said, askeptic. 
I’m not following. Who would we appease by surrendering to Israel?
Borderline Islamic tax collectors. Try to keep up.
Yeah, in the sense that sitting on the pot and shitting are two different things.
But what’s the point of making this distinction when the first part is irrelevant without the second?
Agreed. Biden has been in the Senate since 1973, and according to Wiki there have been four impeachments resulting in Senate trials since then:
Judge Harry Claiborne (1986)
Judge Alcee Hastings (1988)
Chief Judge Walter Nixon (1989)
That Clinton guy (1998-99)
Since Biden seems to love slinging around legalisms and being pompous, I think he actually meant “move” in the parliamentary sense, but momentarily forgot that as a senator he doesn’t have that power.
Maybe Biden’s riffing off of Edwards, whose telling Iowa voters, "If you (Congress) don’t pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."
No, he means stop supporting the Republicans because they used 9/11 to smear the living shit out of their opponents, even though they are responsible for a worse distaster because they didn’t focus on Afghanistan.
You might be right, but remember, this is a guy who makes well over $1,000,000 a year arguing for his clients. My point was that there seems to be an amazing dropoff in ability once GWB is mentioned. I can’t imagine that judges would look kindly on this level of logic. So, my guess is BDS, but who knows?
And your example doesn’t support your point.
The fact that we have not caught Bin Laden is a rather important and significant piece of evidence in evaluating the administration’s policy and execution of that policy.