Cheer up Swank, you're starting to scare me. If I hurt your feelings in the slightest, I apologize. I believe I did answer most of your questions and even picked up on a few other points - if I neglected to follow up on something it is most likely because you are coming from a place that wrongly assumes I am a "conservative" Republican in (as you infer) the Limbaugh mold. To be blunt: I hate that bloated hypocritical asshole.
I don't feel obligated to answer questions that assume I speak for or from any "party" line. And maybe instead of dismissing my posts as easy rhetoric you've heard a thousand times you might look a little closer at your own handy-work: You accuse Bush of orchestrating the war with some secret and mysterious "agenda" and then offer nothing of any substance whatsoever to support these claims?
I'll ask once more - please explain to me what exactly you qualify as a liberal, and perhaps illuminate why they are all evil and foolish.
Point out where I called liberals "evil" and I'll answer that. Point out where I said they are all "foolish" and I'll get to that one too (though, I have to say the 45 year old ponytails and Berkenstock sandals are pretty funny).
As for what qualifies as a contemporary Liberal - hang on while I upload a picture of that bloated hypocritical asshole Michael Moore.
Then, if you would be so kind, why conservatives in fact love America and possess the only vision worth our while.
Again, you lost me. When did I say this? From the get go I have said I will support Bush for president because he clearly understands the gravity of the situation we are in.
Give me a better option and I'll go with it, but until then Bush is the closest I'll get. Kerry - no matter what good you say about him, regardless of how well he spins himself - is not the better choice in this regard (do I need to continually qualify these statements as my opinion - or must I don the tweed, dust off the projector, and dim the lights?)
As well, I hold a deep conviction that the personal income tax is immoral, illegal, and needs to be done away with. Bush may not be the man to do it, but he at least cut taxes - just as he said he would, and in the face of great opposition. I like that! It is a start, and a far cry from what a run of the mill bureaucrat like John Kerry will do if elected.
And finally, you assert that Iraq was dangerous and the invasion necessary for our security. Please explain to me what threat Iraq posed, and how it's occupation has strengthened our position in the world. Thank You.
I answered this. It has been answered a thousand times on these boards, in the press, by the administration, and now even by Vladimir "KGB Bootin" Putin.
Would it resonate better if I employed an extended parable in the tradition of Aesop or the Brothers Grimm?
I might add that your thoughts on the matter seem somewhat constrained by the terrorist issue, but we also have a lot of other things going on around the world, many of them threatening to our safety, though non as pertinent as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thank you Swank for answering your question for me in your own statement. It's all right there.
Call me constrained Swank - accuse me of black and white thinking, relegate my posts to the status of empty rhetoric, but the fact remains that little matters at this moment in our history beyond the issue of Islamic terrorism. It is the
only issue when you consider what is at stake.
From what I have seen thus far, beginning with the first WTC bombing and Bill Clinton's ridiculously poor handling of it, on up to recent statements and actions of John Kerry and the prevailing majority of his party, whatever bad you can say about Bush, and there is plenty, it is negated by these facts. Therefor the choice for president is obvious.
I welcome you to convince me otherwise. I'm open to it.
Must keep an open mind
