AquaMan2342 wrote:To this day....I've never heard a devout liberal come up with a logical argument as to what they would to do handle the terrorism issue.
I honestly don't think there's a way to answer that question. That's like saying, "I've never heard a devout conservative come up with a logical argument as to what they would do to handle the pollution problem." The statement is so broad you really can't address it.
In short, though, there's tons of people in sophisticated networks linked to killing other people. They're called drug dealers. Frankly, they're better funded than most terrorists; they have better organization than most terrorist organizations; and they're linked to nearly as much, if not moreso, violence in the United States and elsewhere. Yet nowhere do you see the argument that we need to take a blowtorch to the U.S. Constitution in order to be able to deal with drug dealers and drug smugglers. Our government plays within a set of rules and still manages to make busts and arrest crooks. Why is that model so incapably bad?
Also, I haven't ever heard any conservative say, "We need to declare war against traffic accidents." In 2007 there was an average of 3,000 fatal traffic crashes a month
in the United States. That means that every 30 days, with no comment and no outrage, the same number of people who died in the WTC Towers die in the US. But do we throw trillions of dollars on highway safety? Do we lower the speed limits? Do we raise the driving age? No, no, and no. Terrorism is one problem that the government needs to be addressed; that doesn't mean it is the only one. And you don't have to shred the United States Constitution to do it. Because if you do, then what are you fighting to protect any more?
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.