Hey Bill. Maybe I struck a nerve?
Don't you long term doubters ever support the government?
Yes, but not because I believe it's my duty to do so. I support the people in government when they make a logical, believable case for an enlightened, workable policy and when that policy proves out in the real world. I've tried to thoughtfully explain why I don't support certain of the neocon and Bush policies here and, if you've paid attention, I pointed out instances where I did support decisions the Bush people made.
Now, I've answered your question but you never did answer mine, i.e., Don't you long term supporters ever have doubts? I'm curious to know if you do have doubts and, if so, what they are.
I'd guess you won't answer those questions. It's too bad. I enjoy reading other points of view. I enjoy discussing other points of view. I followed Unclewest to this thread because of my respect for his integrity and my hope that someone on this unabashedly neocon thread would attempt to make an eloquent case justifying the neocon point of view. Instead the tone of your message seems to indicate that other points of view are not encouraged here.
I know you expend a huge amount of energy presenting an exhaustive overview of the pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-neocon and anti-anyone who criticizes side, but I found nothing in your header to suggest that you would use your stewardship of this thread to limit debate from the other side. It appears that I may be reading the header incorrectly, however, and that my interest in encouraging a discussion with some of the neocons here regarding policy contravenes some unwritten rule of yours about postings from "doubters" who fail to "support the government."
If you'd rather not have a "doubter" posting here then let me know. It's no big deal to me. If all the claims made here about "liberals" and people that "want America to fail" are true I'm sure I can find somewhere to post. Who knows, I might even end up on a thread where I get hammered as a "conservative." g. Ed |
