Quote:
Originally posted by Mike AI@May 3 2003, 01:49 PM
PD you are just a tremendous pessimist.... With you the glass is not HALF empty, hell for YOU the glass is shattered and we are all going to step in the shards, and will all die from massive blood loss.
We can all posulate what COULD happen in the future, hell maybe terrorists will befriend space aliens, and get UFO technology and then fly around obliterating all of us with ray guns.
But as of right now, there are a lot more dead bad guys, we are rolling up a lot of top al quada operatives, and have people wanting to work with us. ( not because they like us, but they fear us, and want to keep power of their countries and not end up like the last 2 enemies of the US)
The Bush team has done an outstanding job on the war on terrorism... better then any democrate would do.
You can criticze Bush for many things.... economy, civil rights, and other domestic issues, but the handling of National Security and war on terrorism has been SPLENDID!!!
You really think we would be safe if we had Gore as President? HAHAHAHAHAHA
|
Mike ... take the implicit advice you gave the other day when you pointed out that Dig posts rather than reads. Reread what I wrote, and pretend that it was written by someone new to the board. Please note that
I SIMPLY STATED THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ONE POINT OF VIEW. You seem to be accusing me of being a pessimist in this instance simply because I do not accept your premise that Bush's handling of the war on terror cannot be criticized or questioned. I’ve always thought that realism exists someplace in between optimism and pessimism; I’ve also noticed that it’s an idea that is disputed by folks so blindly partisan or so simple minded that they can’t see the world as anything but black and white, good or bad, right or wrong. Once again – just an opinion.
If I had made the statement that the Bush Administration had "doomed the fate of the country by its foolhardy policies in Iraq" I could understand your response. If I had said that the Administration had "engaged in grossly misdirected conduct of the war on terror" I could understand your response. What I said is that it is far too early in the war on terror to begin to declare victory, or to even appropriately label policies "good" or "bad."
The strongest personal opinion I expressed in that post is "IMHO, it just ain’t that simple." I didn’t say what Bush has done hasn’t worked, or won’t work – I said it was far too early to start heaping extravagant praise. That will probably not be acceptable to those who consider GW the next best thing to the (first or second, depending upon your personal beliefs) coming of the Messiah. As long as it’s equally unacceptable to the people who believe that GW is the anti-Messiah, I’m quite comfortable with my attitude.
I'm going to leave the entire Toronesque "terrorists will befriend space aliens" statement alone - well, mostly alone.
If I had speculated that the reason Powell was in Syria was to stabilize the situation in the Middle East so we can invade Canada and prevent them from threatening our national security by decriminalizing marijuana, your comment might have made some sense.
As far as the trite and blatantly partisan "You really think we would be safe if we had Gore as President?" - I think that’s a line of discussion that only morons and ideologues would feel comfortable engaging in. However, since it’s out there I think that if Al Gore were President today, IMHO conservatives would revert back to being just as hysterically shrill – as pessimistic, if you will – as they were four years ago.
In other words, they would trade places with the left, put on their sackcloth and sit in the ashes, and wail and lament the impending doom. Just like they will in 18 months.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at May 3 2003, 03:45 PM