Being as how they both have the same views on Bush, America, our military, Israel and other allies, the war in Iraq, Christianity, etc???
They both agree that either 9/11 was an inside job, or that America's foreign policy is what caused 9/11. They both feel the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay who were captured fighting our troops on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated badly and should be released. They both think the US military are invaders and the "real terrorists" and that foreign insurgents trying to kill them and disturb the peace over there are "freedom fighters" trying to honorably defend their nation. They both feel the CIA shouldn't be monitoring the conversations of terrorist sympathizers and those who give financial support to them. Both are for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops in the Middle East and the subsequent havoc that would follow. I could list more, but not enough room. What do you think????
2007-08-13
14:57:04
·
20 answers
·
asked by
SW1
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
Gary, it's not Bush's fault that terrorism has been on the rise. It's just the times. 9/11 was being planned long before he took office. He just happened to be President when it started hitting the fan.
2007-08-13
15:39:06 ·
update #1
I can't debate you on this - you've simply made too much sense.
Of course, the liberals won't agree with you - their denial and rationalization won't allow it.
2007-08-13 15:06:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by LeAnne 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
it is not
We think we need to fight the real war against terrorism, instead of the distarction in iraq, because everyday we are in iraq, it is spreading terrorism, and is strengthening terrorists. We don't want to strengthen them, do you, we want to finish in afghanistan and bring the terrorists who atacked us to their knees. Because now, al qaida is back as strong as ever.
And i am not against christisnity, i have nothing against religion, i just think it should not be forced on people, like bush is trying to do
And i am aginst wire tapping, it is invading peoples privacy, and that is not right at all.
"Those that give up freedom for security deserve neither, and will lose both"-Ben Franklin
2007-08-14 04:00:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It seems obvious that since Bush has been in power that Islamic terrorists have been expanding, growing stronger, and spreading. So a vote for Repubs seems to be the absolute worse way to fight terrorism. GW has been the poster child for terrorist recruitment, the terrorist leaders love Bush, he has made their recruitment job so very easy.
2007-08-13 17:26:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by ndmagicman 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Have have had conversations with many folk from everywhere the political spectrum and have taken positions just to be a 'devils advise' and that i'll declare purely one component, it is genuine superb how some distance many will attempt to contort and contradict themselves in protection of the present administration. regardless of the undeniable fact that it somewhat is oftentimes what happens you likely have an indefensible place. In present day recent political climate, Dudeman612 pronounced it first-value. "--FACE PALM-- enable's tryh to change the identify to George W. Bush as quickly as. chatting with a conservative: "So how approximately Bush?" "he's okay. slightly too liberal on economic subject concerns, regardless of the undeniable fact that bigger than Obama." "Yeah, he did no longer stick to his conservative claims." "it somewhat is considering that the he decrease than no circumstances was a conservative. aside from, the applicable 2 years the Congress became as quickly as controlled via ability of a protracted way leftists." conversing to a liberal: "So, how approximately Bush?" "OMG!!! he's Hitler incarnate!!! he's a fascist shill for the firms and substantial oil!!" "What does fascist advise? "It techniques-set some distance suitable lunatic that hates the human beings regardless of the undeniable fact that loves grasping manipulative employer CEOs!" "Fascism purely isn't applicable wing. it is a methods extra related to left wing ideologies and socialism than something." "close up you racist, lady hating, bible thumping, tea bagging, @sshole! you like this united states presented to the applicable bidder on an analogous time killing off the poor and starving little little ones! You neocons desire dirtier air and water, and love pollutants!"
2016-10-02 06:52:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
wow that really connects the dots in an easy to understand way!
I don't think it does though because most politicians aren't capable of actually doing anything rather they just encourage others to do things. So I think there is a small difference unfortunately just a small difference though.
2007-08-13 15:04:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by eldude 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
When the Jihadis publicly and officially announced that they preferred DEMOCRATS to win last Fall's elections, that pretty well locks in the iron-clad proof of your assertion.
2007-08-14 01:21:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yep. Gotta go with GARY F on this one. He's connected the dots for us pretty well.
2007-08-13 16:00:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by KERMIT M 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Pretty much, but I doubt the terrorists are pro civil union.
2007-08-13 16:36:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by soulclutch4u 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Let's see,
Terrorists want to torture us, deny us fair trials, spy on us without limits...just like Republicans.
Terrorists think our sex lives should be strictly controlled by the state, and gays and other deviants killed, and believes God will punish any nation that tolerates them...just like Republicans (just ask Pat Robertson).
Nope.
(Oh, by the way, not a single thing you listed as your reason is actually true either.)
2007-08-13 16:03:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Gary F said it all, he did all the work all I had to do was read it and agree.
2007-08-13 15:20:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Follow the money 7
·
2⤊
1⤋