NewYorkjoe Wrote:"Not all liberals are Democrats," but I submit that all Democrats are liberals, since anyone else has been driven out of the party, except, perhaps for Joe Lieberman (I can respect him, and I might even vote for him).
Once again, you have missed the point entirely. You do everything possible to turn any argument into a pro-war/pro-Bush agenda that is propped up by the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.
Quote:I show respect every day for the victims of 9/11 by devoting my efforts to ensuring it does not happen again (WHAT DO YOU DO?).
What exactly do you do besides rant and rave about people that are probably much more effective in their jobs than you? Or is your job so "hush-hush" that we can't talk about it lest you become a pawn in a political game of outing a covert operative? My guess is that you likely are a security guard at some Wal-Mart protecting the condoms from being used by Catholics.
Quote:Keeping the facts of 9/11 in mind is not using the victims as pawns, it merely drives us to greater efforts. That is how you can honor them best. Remember the Alamo and Remember Pearl Harbor were not just slogans. They were patriotic calls to action.
Once you start calling liberals cowards and assuming that they are unable to defend themselves against a violent attack, you start using them as pawns in your game of "my side is right and you are wrong." Alamo, Pearl Harbor, WTC. Yes, they are patriotic calls to action, but once the slogans are used inappropriately, they become calls for revolution... "Mission Accomplished"
Quote:If your faith is eroded, I suggest you blame Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Murtha, Byrd, and their ilk. They are the disciples of disunity, and the ones who are putting their political agendas before the interests of the country. It is so easy to say "Bush lied." But, the fact is the intelligence was the best available and would have been more accurate and comprehensive had Bill Clinton not cut intelligence agencies' budgets 7 years out of 8! What makes you think Kerry or Gore would have done different?
I would rather have pillars of disunity as those you mentioned than the goose-stepping, blind followers of "faith" that do nothing but tow the party line and do not question the motives of their "great" leader.
Having the best intelligence available does not justify its use when it was wrong from the start.
The budget was cut, not by Clinton, but by Congress... a Republican led Congress....
And, we'll never know if Kerry or Gore would've done anything differently, but that argument is weak. Once Bush sued to be President, all bets were off. You can only assume that Gore would've been weak, but who's to say that 9-11 would have happened while Gore was President. We don't know. All that can be said is that under Bush's watch this country was attacked and we went to war in a country that had no direct involvement in said attack.
Quote:Save the 4-letter words for those who are impressed by them down at the schoolyard. They don't buttress weak points or limp reasoning.
4-Letter words are used for emphasis to show additional emotion behind written commentary. If they don't buttress weak points or limp reasoning, that explains why you abhor them so much. You should find something to strengthen your points aside from namecalling and blind assumption.