 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to oliphant5
Re: Thanks for the support said by oliphant5:
Yeah you're right. We should have taken the Clintonista approach...do nothing, let terrorism flourish and watch Americans die by the thousands around the world in WTC bombings, embassy bombings, barracks bombings, and U.S.S. Cole style bombings.
Um. That's not exactly what was happening, but it does sound good from those on the Right who have an axe to grind. Let's not forget Bush did squat either UNTIL 9/11, despite the same kind of warnings and intel Clinton had. It's easy POST 9/11 to say "Damn, we didn't do anything" but you have to take things in context at the time. Would the President Clinton or Bush been able to convince anyone, (Other countries, or even we Americans), to go to war with Afganistan prior to 9/11? I seriously doubt it.
quote:
It would be just great to permit the spread of biological and radiological weapons...that would just thrill the liberals.
See, this is just ranting. You're allowing your lack of objectivity to show again. Liberals want everyone to have WMD's. Um... sure. quote:
Liberals were all for going into Somalia, Bosnia (without UN approval I might add)...
These are blanket assumptions you project as the "Liberals" positions... in fact there were plenty of people, both Liberal and Conservative, that weren't fans of Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, etc. However that didn't stop Bush Snr or Clinton... and it won't stop Bush Jnr now. quote:
but no way, no freeing of millions of Arabs oppressed by a madman like Saddam. Women and girls being able to attend schools for the first time in years in Afganistan doesn't matter to you bleeding hearts.
It's just amazing to watch liberal hypocrisy in action.
Uh, who's showing hypocrisy here? I haven't seen anyone of either camp proclaiming their love and support for Sadamm or the Taliban. I did see dissention on methods for dealing with Iraq, and on the need for a WAR, especially given the weak rationale and evidence being offered showing Iraq was an immediate threat. I don't remember hardly anyone (even nutjobs!) who were opposed to taking down the Taliban, other then hardcore islamics. quote:
And no, I don't agree with GW...I don't wear blinders like you Bush haters do.
quote:
I take one issue at a time, look at all the facts and form an opinion about the situation. You on the other hand take everything from the Bush sucks perspective...
This is too funny. "I am fair and balanced, while you are completely biased. I base everything off of facts, you base it off emotions". SUURE. You're doing the opposite, allowing a belief system of strong support for Republicans (or maybe just your anger at Democrats in California?) to cloud your opinion of his actions, you post these posts defending and supporting him, while bashing detractors and claiming they are biased.
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I look at Bush's performance, on domestic policy, on international policy, on what he says, does, pushes for, demands, gets, etc and I don't like a lot of them... just for examples, Patriot Act and expansions, economic policy, who gets his tax cuts, running the deficeit far into the red, International diplomacy (or lack thereof!), Energy policy, Trade, immigration, War on Terror, Dept. of Homeland security sweeping expanses in Federal power, Tarrifs, Farm Bill, bankruptcy "reform", this new issue to "Reform Overtime Pay" etc etc so, pardon me if I am not in support of the man for pushing things I don't agree with! That's my opinion, I base it on his performance, and you shouldn't just assume "He's a Bush hater!".
Before you go attacking other people's opinions as invalid or biased or whatever, remember it reflects back on you too.
Ok, now, that was a nice political sidetrack, maybe we can go back to the fiber issue now 
[text was edited by author 2003-09-12 22:48:38] |
