John H. wrote:
It seems that the basic liberal approach is to spend much more money trying to
protect anything which can be attacked in the US. They constantly complain that
we are not spending enough on train, subway, port, city, building, etc,
security.

Actually, the US Coast Guard says we're not spending enough on port
security. Guess they're just a bunch of homo-loving liberal traitors, eh?

... They would be happy if we turned every subway entrance into the
equivalent of an airport security installation, checking each passenger's shoes,
bags, etc. A roadblock every couple miles to check every truck on the road would
be good, as would a complete unloading and repacking of every container entering
the country.

Which liberals are suggesting any such thing? Aren't you just making up
stupid stuff to attribute to them? I guess you're better at thinking up
dumb ideas than most liberals, so it's a good thing for you to occupy
your time with...



John H. wrote:
The other approach, taking the battle to them, seems to be the only
*feasible* method of fighting terrorism.

Great idea. When are we going to start taking the battle to them outside
Afghanistan?

... Of course, this won't greatly
increase the size of the government.


thunder wrote:
Did Rush tell you that or have you been asleep for the past five years?
Big government and Bush go hand in hand. Don't believe me, read for
yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG= Search


JohnH believes all that right-wing blather about how it's the liberal
Democrats who have increased the deficit, and it's all Clinton's fault.
Somehow it hasn't occured to him yet (along with a large number of
others) that the deficit has ballooned under President Bush and a
Republican controlled Congress... and that's not including the Iraq war
expenditures, which are largely off-budget.

DSK