res- a)"faced disagreements". No, you still complaining about "hate", "liberals", etc.
Wrong. When there is a substantial issue brought forth to discuss which is not simply the venting of "hate" I will respond. As I have on numerous other occasions. Unfortunately, the ones on the left who bring forth unsubstantiated rumors are so filled with hate, they've largely lost the ability to debate without resorting to name calling. My experience last week here was a perfect example. As soon as I started to logically, and clearly describe where Ray's thinking went awry, he attacked me with silly name calling. Further, (and hypocritically) you then supported the tactic.
As I've said numerous times, if any liberal on this thread is willing to debate any subject without name calling, or rude condescension, I'll do so if I have the time. Thus far, none have taken me up on the offer.
res- b) "insinuation". No, there isn't any insinuation. That's your attempt to claim something I didn't say, nor did I imply. The implication is only in your mind.
I only stated a fact, that it increases the risk of nuclear terrorism to have warheads warehoused, rather than destroyed. You can make any conclusions or speculations you wish, but that doesn't change the situation, nor does it suggest a solution..
Wrong. the insinuation was clearly evident to anyone but the most partisan liberal. Otherwise, why not simply celebrate the nuclear warhead number reductions? Agreements of this magnitude rarely happen in one complete fell swoop. Gradualism typically rules the day. And Bush has stepped up the pace of gradually removing nuclear warheads we have pointed at one another to a record pace. His achievement stands in sharp contrast to the "do practically nothing" 8 year Clinton administration.
res- c) Bush supports Saudi Arabia - that's "hate filled"? Bush supports the Saudi kingdom. Get used to it.
It's wrong.
The United States government has supported Saudi Arabia for decades. Every administration before Bush has supported them, so has Bush. The simple fact is Saudi Arabia controls a vital resource the U.S. needs. And although their system of government is abhorrent to freedom loving Americans. We can influence their future direction if we're engaged both militarily, diplomatically and economically with them. Using your model of thinking, we also support China and other dictators around the world who supress liberty.
If you're so concerned with the influence Saudia Arabia has on U.S. policy, they you should be criticizing the Dashle/Gephard/Clinton crowd who refuses to allow us to drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness.
res- d) National public service doesn't take anyone away from education, it's two weeks a year.
It educates the public, and will keep better watch on the military.
Not to mention the primary task in front of us - homeland security. Which is currently a joke.
Sounds like one of those LBJ great society programs. What exactly do you mean by "will keep better watch on the military"? Do you think our military needs keeping watch of by a bunch of students in two week programs a year?
As to your statement "homeland security is currently a joke". You're partially correct. In a free society security is difficult to maintain. Unless you want gun toting agents walking the beat in every community in America, our security will always be a work in progress. The main issue we face is borders which are not protected from illegal aliens.
I see you addressing the problems, blaming Bush for every one, but not suggesting any solutions. That's an easy thing to do... |
