On Jan 17, 2005, at 8:44 AM, JDG wrote:
And BTW, please explain for me the difference between Bill Clinton's views
on WMD's and the Bush Administration's views of WMD's in Iraq..... Did
Bill Clinton fool you once, shame on you??????
Bill didn't get us into an interminable morass of a war. Duh-bya did.
Is that a significant enough difference for you?
It couldn't actually be that a majority of this country agrees with Republican Ideas and disagrees with Democratic Ideas, could it?
Would you care to cite some of these idea you think are differing? Is it that liberals tend to not want to ram their faiths down others' throats that troubles conservatives? Or is it how the liberals think the Fed has no business interfering with a womb or a bedroom? Or do conservatives object to how liberals oppose racism and the utilization of racist symbols in government? Or do conservatives object to how liberals insist that science education should be more empirical than faith based?
Or are they more offended by the small-[change insistence liberals have on fiddling details, such as making sure that minorities really are allowed to vote, and are given factual information about when elections actually take place, or wanting to be sure every vote is counted, etc.? Yeah, I guess I can see how that would get pretty obnoxious after a while. Rigid adherence to the constitution. How dreadful. As conservatives know, the only amendment that's meant to be stuck to forever is the second one. All those other laws are for whiny, do-gooder pussies.
Which values, again, contribute to progressive, open societies? Which values, again, really belong to Americans, as opposed to thuggish, heavy-handed theocratic police states?
And it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that in the first
election after the largest attack on this country in over 50 years, and
while this country is embroiled in war for the future of the Middle East,
that the Democrats some nominated a former peacenik antiwar activist, one
who had previously opposed perhaps the most successful war in American
history, with an ironclad UN authorization and perhaps the largest
coalition the world had ever seen?
As opposed to a draft-dodging drunken coward, you mean? The one who's led us into, so far, the second LEAST successful war in American history and who's managed to squander every iota of good will we got after the attacks? Are you referring to that "president"?
Bear in mind that Bush went into combat with Clinton's military. The Iraq attack was his to lose, and he is. The entire reason we were able to wrest Afghanistan into a semblance of control was eight count 'em eight years of LIBERAL spending on Pentagon budgets under LIBERAL president Clinton.
No.... I get it.... you lost the election because of Fox News.
No, though loudmouths, bullies and outright liars do seem abundant in the conservative loony camp.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
