If he really were a terrorist like the misguided knuckledraggers keep asserting, then the ACLU would be going to court daily to make sure he is treated fairly and that none of his civil liberties have the impression of being infringed upon. The dems would support him for once. Kind of sad. The party of weakness and terror enablers.
2006-09-16 05:22:42 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
IMHO, sooo do you just cut and paste that cookie cutter response on every right of center post? did you just read a magazine article or something?
2006-09-16 06:02:46 · update #1
region, NO, the ACLU defends terror supporters (like sami al arian), it was originally designed to defend communists (you know the other ideology America was at war with for 60 some years). They have a consistent track record of taking up cases that hurt america, to the joy of communists and terror enablers. which side are they on?
Holly, who is "bending" what the definition of terrorism is? I had to take a double take after reading your response. Terrorists specifically target women and children. Bush targets terrorists, however, since women and children are so highly regarded in the middle east, they are elevated to the level of human shields. So that when we take out a terrorist or too, we may also inadvertantly hit several civilians. Now, is the civilian deaths the result of "bush being a terrorist" or "real inhuman terrorists using human shields" in an attempt to manipulate the media war? Wake up Dhimmi!
2006-09-16 06:13:47 · update #2
Holly, We "imposed Democracy", After a dictator 'imposed Tyrrany" for a quarter century. Not everything is the way you watch it on CNN. Saddam destroyed an entire race of people, who lived in Mesopotamia since ancient times (the Marsh Arabs). He butchered them and drained their swamps and marshes, ending the eco-system there. The Kurdish City of Halabja was gassed over a period of several days, killing scores of women and Children. I can post all his atrocities if you like, but well be here all day, and if you've ignored his atrocities to this point, me listing them again will prove nothing. But the Bottom line is this, You are equating giving a terrorized people a voice in who governs them "Terrorism"?! Are you insane? Or just a Liberal?
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder. To NOT do anything to help the Iraqis as they are brutalized for years IS terrorism. To save them from tyrrany IS NOT terrorism.
The citizens of halabja are unavailable for commen
2006-09-16 12:13:08 · update #3
HHHA! Brilliant. Yes, if he started to blow things up all the liberals would say that we need to "understand" him. However, he is white and christian so still many would not like him for that alone.
2006-09-16 05:25:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
No because he's a Republican. I'd say it's against their religion to support any Republican in any way.
They can support terrorist because they aren't Republicans and as it's been said in the past the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And we all know terrorist hate Republicans. Democrats hate Republicans ergo Democrats are really terrorists. *LOL* I do love deductive reasoning!
2006-09-16 05:35:29 · answer #2 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting way of twisting reality. Too bad it's false and you know it. How can you back the claim that Bush is not a terrorist without changing the definition of the word to fit your own subjective views? You can't.
Add. : Terrorism- The unlawful or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. (American Heritage Dict.)
Are you saying that the imposition of democracy by force is not terrorism? Is that not coercing or intimidating a society into accepting an ideology? -And yes, I am awake and actually quite intelligent.
2006-09-16 05:28:00 · answer #3 · answered by Holly 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Good Point!!
If Bush was a terrorist, the Democrats would have already surrendered to him like they are to the real terrorists.
2006-09-16 05:25:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Your question shows how backwards thinking some people are. To generalize and assume that democrats back terrorists is ridiculous.Why do you assume we support terrorists? Because you have come to that conclusion of your own free will, or because you saw a soundbite on fox news that said so. Do you think that we are terrorists, because we dont want phones illegally tapped?Do you think we are terrorists because we know that torturing people is inhuman and not the way to get accurate information?Do you think we are terrorists because we feel our army should not be stuck in Iraq one day longer?Do you think we are terrorists because we have the gall to say when the President is doing something wrong and we dont just blindly play follow the leader?
2006-09-16 05:27:56 · answer #5 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
As opposed to the GOP, the party of dictator supporters
2006-09-16 05:36:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they seem to have a sweet spot when it comes to pleasing the terrorist. Through judicial rulings (by a carter appointed judge), banning torture on the "poor defenseless terrorist", and flip flopping on terrorist issues the damnocrats are proving to be the real terrorist
2006-09-16 05:27:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, they wouldn't be. they are strongly against terrorists, and so is Bush. but the fact is, Bush sucks at destroying the terrorists.
you have to check out my question to help you change your mind about the president.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj7UM3KdndPwJP9X50fKE8Psy6IX?qid=20060916181721AAwkEB1
there ya go, you uninformed Bush supporter!
2006-09-16 19:06:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary's lip stick would be all over his A$$ , the anti-gun crowd would buy him an AK-47 and the upcoming elections would be surrendered to the Republican Party .
2006-09-16 05:38:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No that would be bending over frontwards.
Like Muslims when they face Mecca. I don't even want to think what that is all about.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-16 05:32:47 · answer #10 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋