Your ignorance, Ron, is so transparent that only zealous idealism can be pointed to as the culprit. You certainly cannot claim youth as an excuse for your ignorance. You're an oldster like me. Yet, like a small child, you view the world in the harsh contrasts of black and white.
My ignorance of what? I've been accused of many things but never "zealous idealism." It's fair to say that people who know me would vote me the person least likely to be zealously idealistic about anything.
It is your exceedingly narrow viewpoint that is responsible for you making such pathetically ignorant statements such as Democrats being "dangerously weak on national security".
Why do people like Bob Beckel talk about the necessity for shedding the party's image as weak on national security? Why do you suppose that pundits on both sides acknowledge that the perception that Dems are anti-military is more than an image problem?
And don't be shy. You DO love the Republican Party.
Don't act dumb. I can't imagine loving a cowardly bunch of mediocrities. I don't how you manage it.
Or rather, what it has become - what it has been hijacked into.
Hijacked? Words have meanings, you know. Nobody hijacked the party.
Time and time again, your posts illustrate undying adoration for the criminals that are the Bush Administration.
I guess you could say that I adore Bush, I just don't approve of the way he handles his job. Makes a lot of sense, huh?
You, Ron, are one of the 29 percenters still propping up the criminals. Too bad for you that us 71 percenters have unmasked these thugs.
Are you becoming a twoofer? "Unmasked these thugs"? You unmasked them as... people with whom you have policy disagreements. Such absurd overheated rhetoric exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the left.
And you, Ron, cannot accept the fact that Bill Clinton, despite being impeached by the House, had an approval rating that never dipped below 50 percent. Hurts, doesn't it?
Uh, why should it hurt? I was opposed to his impeachment. The people had the opportunity to vote him out and they opted not to.
Bill Clinton can wade into any crowd of people, anywhere in the world, and be overwhelmed by the affection and admiration of the folks in such a crowd. Your boy Bush? When he leaves office, he'll need an armed escort just to pick up the newspaper on his front lawn each morning.
Clinton never won fifty percent of the popular vote. He wasted eight years of the nation's time amassing enormous wealth for himself and Hillary (they are worth an estimated fifty million dollars today). He left absolutely no footprints in the hourglass. He has no legacy whatever, foreign or domestic. He accomplished nothing. Bush will be viewed as a Wilsonian visionary, although it is likely that his ambitious goal to remake the Middle East will end in failure.
What you so completely fail to realize, in your rabid zeal, is that Bush, with his insane "mission" to smash and overtake Iraq, has created an untold number of jihadists, and future jihadists, that never would have gone that route had the path to such madness not been blazed by Stupid-Boy himself.
You sound very silly today. What's wrong? The mission, obviously, was to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. The jihadists perceive that goal as a deadly threat to their long-term aims. They understand the stakes very well and realize that Iraq is a life-and-struggle for their ideology. I must continue to remind you that Bush is smarter than Gore and Kerry, which isn't saying much. I see rabid zeal from you--very little from me.
When 9/11 happened - instead of us Americans being able to count on steady, intelligent and reasoned response from our president;
Does that include fighting back? Are you certain Gore would have responded with force? What makes you think so?
instead of our president exploiting the capital that our country had earned (before him) in the world to combat terrorism; instead of our president appointing the shrewdest experts available to deal with the complexities and ramifications of confronting our actual enemies: he did what he did. And he now has the distinction of having directly caused - through his war fever aimed specifically at the country that was NOT involved in 9/11 - the deaths of more Americans than Osama bin Laden. With tens of thousands grieviously wounded.
Please. This tired song-and-dance plays well in Democratic primaries. The moment America struck back, we lost the good will of the rest of the world. Our "allies" showed us their true colors. Let's agree that America will be reviled whenever it asserts itself. Our job is to dole out cash and take crap from the fanatics and barbarians of the world. If we want to be liked, we'd better be prepared to absorb plenty of punishment.
So, would you like to explain to me once again why my opposition to such a leader is akin to "passionate love for a bunch of unprincipled hacks"?
Your hero - Bush - does NOT fight the jihadists. He invents them, instigates them, provokes them. Give me some reasons as to why he would do this.
Would have already happened.
