Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
20,682
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: − +
Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism? (view source)
Revision as of 16:33, May 10, 2007
, 16:33, May 10, 2007no edit summary
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism?==
==Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? YES, they are.==
Does the question "is X capable of fighting terrorism" mean anything? Probably not, but lets pretend it does.
Does the question "is X capable of fighting terrorism" mean anything? Probably not, but lets pretend it does.