I have a question for neoconservatives and those who listen to rush limbaugh?

Question

I do hear a lot of democrats who are saying they think we should continue fighting in afganistan and look for osama bin laden,

my question is, are there any elected democrats this decade who said on the record we should stop fighting terrorism?

Anyone who said we should stop being the United States of America and let osama bin laden run this land?

Or are you just playing the we're good the other political party is bad game?

Answer 1

From what I hear the Dem party leaders; they don't say it in so many words but we, at least I know the deal. If a Dem takes the White House, I doubt they would pull us out of Iraq. After all, we still have troops in Afghanistan.... the only time you hear about anything in Afghanistan is when a soldier dies. Osama could be dead but I want to see his corpse if he is. There isn't a big difference between Reps and Dems, both parties have been taken over by radical idealists outside of the "respective" offices. We all agree that we should be USA that made us great and none of us feel Osama should run free (if he could do such a thing) and out of our hands.


outcrop - Gordon's a trip ain't he? I think you're right.... Gordon, take Fox (and any other cable news) to court man!


***I listened to Franken several times since 2002 and his Air head America. Man, talk about wanting to commit suicide! Lots of misery, lots of ranting, lots of rhetoric, lots of despair......but NO solutions but: "BUSH SUCKS", "IMPEACH BUSH", "ILLEGAL WAR". Is that the solution for Al Bankin and his ilk?

Answer 2

Democrats will say whatever they think will get them elected. Don't kid yourself that what you're hearing has anything to do with what any of them actually plans to do. That's naivete, pure and simple. Take a poll, find out what the majority of voters think, that's what the Democrats will say they're going to do.

None of our politicians are facing the real issue, which has little to do with Iraq or Afghanistan specifically, and a lot more to do with the kind of people who are causing the problems that have us dealing with those situations.

The liberal response is always, "we should just talk to them and they won't hate us so much". It doesn't work with bullies, it doesn't work with criminals, why would we think it would work with anyone else who is bent on destroying us, especially those who are developing the power to do it while we continue to talk at them?

If you want to know what will eventually happen if liberalism is allowed to proceed to its natural end, take France as an example. Liberalism's love-children Socialism and Political Correctness appear to have left them in a situation where control by those who would follow Bin Laden doesn't seem as far-fetched as it used to. But don't be too concerned if the political right regains power here in the US; they appear to be equally corrupted in the area of catering to the enemy by calling it peaceful and acting like dialogue can have a valid purpose with those who speak out of both sides of their mouths; peace in English and war in their native language.

For what it's worth, Al Qaeda should simply wait us out. The North American Union will remove the United States from the global scene long before Al Qaeda ever could.

Answer 3

Rush Limbaugh's favorite gambit is to create a straw man of supposed liberal beliefs, all constructed of things liberals don't believe anyway and never have, and then to mock it.
Limbaugh's show does nothing to constructively improve this country or its polical system, offers no solutions ever, and does nothing but increase distrust, misunderstanding and misinformation about issues critical to this country.
He's kind of the Richard Simmons of political radio - a very strange guy people seem to support for some reason, even though anybody with a mind can see immediately there's something deeply wrong and sad about him (sorry Richard).
He also reminds me of Mussolini - a rabble rousing, self-aggrandising journalist tellings half-truths and outright lies to get where he wants to.
PS: Before you say it, I have often and still do listen to Rush, so I know exactly what I'm talking about. When's the last time any of you neo-cons listened to Al Franken who criticize him?

Answer 4

Why does he make vile statements? by using fact they have made him the main prevalent communicate radio host EVER, which interprets to hundreds of thousands of greenbacks. you could desire to in basic terms as actual ask why Howard Stern is so over the appropriate. by using fact that's made him the 2d maximum prevalent communicate radio host ever, which interprets to hundreds of thousands. Make no mistake. Rush isn't a flesh presser. on the top of the day he's an ENTERTAINER. And entertainers in basic terms gets a commission in the event that they entertain. contained in the political realm entertainment equates to 2 issues: agreeing with you, and demonizing people who do no longer. The extra somebody concurs with then you the extra interesting they are. Rush basically takes a complicated undertaking, provides it as a black or white, and then assaults regardless of point of view isn't the superb suited color. everyone can do it, the trick is basically to do it properly. He does it properly, and that's made him wealthy. Why do human beings look after him and attempt to rewrite his comments? by using fact the international isn't black and white, and maximum folk understand that. Rush would have the superb suited theory, however the appliance is lacking. for this reason human beings would desire to "make sparkling" an extremely simplistic application of the ideology to make it extra effective. "I instructed you so" is probably no longer a query, Cassandra, yet i think of what it comes right down to is which you have fallacious Limbaugh, a radio character, with an exact flesh presser. he's contained in the enterprise to make funds. end of tale.

Answer 5

LOOK MAN Conservatives are destroying this country
no matter what political animal you follow.

they have spent us into oblivion all in the name of Security whilst our borders still remain practically wide open

Al Queda is stronger than it was when Bush & Co started this war and AMERICA IS Slightly safer at best.

Where in the hell did the 9 trillion dollars go?

Where is Bin Laden?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 ...

isn't it time some of the folks on that side woke up and got rid of this bafoon?

Answer 6

Considering the fact that we have a one party system on our hands I don’t know how much it really matters.

I believe Democratic candidates “claim” to oppose the war on terror to appease their fever-swamp, nut-job far leftist base but, in reality they are not that stupid. They will protect their interests from 7th century barbarians all the same.

I think we are on a very slippery slope and it’s going to get real ugly before it gets any better.

Am I an alarmist? I sure hope so…

Answer 7

Harry Reid is on record saying that we lost the war in both Afganistan and in Iraq. John Murtha has called our soldiers murderers. John Kerry has called our troops terrorists in Iraq.

The list of democratic defeatists goes on and on. I cannot believe that people in power would actually say this. What would you think if one of your upper managers in your company said that what you do on a daily basis is a failure?

In my eyes, these individual have rolled over and are playing dead. So why are they in a leadership position? What ever happened to the "can do" spirit of this country?

Answer 8

Precisely

Answer 9

Gecko - you are OK!

If you were any more Fair and Balanced youcould sue Fox for copyright infringement.

Answer 10

You still listening to polititions and the media?