Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
3 bytes added ,  14:17, July 24, 2007
Line 150: Line 150:  
::: I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&oldid=93410]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 15:15
 
::: I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&oldid=93410]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 15:15
   −
::::I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war.  A war, as all war do, requires leadership.  President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader.  Through a series of events, President Bush popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded.  Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language.  The net result has only served to further [[al Qaeda]]'s stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.
+
::::I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war.  A war, as all wars do, requires leadership.  President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader.  Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded.  Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language.  The net result has only served to further [[al Qaeda]]'s stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.
    
::::For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappresciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.
 
::::For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappresciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.
Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,813

edits

Navigation menu