<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '><b>He's a courageous leader who won't cower like the Spaniards did to the terrorists.</b>
He's fighting against terrorists entirely the wrong way. Terrorists are a very small group of people that fight with guerilla and psychological warfare. In order to defeat it, one must outsmart the enemy and see through the smoke and mirrors. One does not bring out a big dumb guy with a club and try to smash the enemy. It's like bring a chainsaw to kill a flea. All you're going to accomplish is chainsaw your house, while the flea is too fast for you to catch.
What is needed is small and covert operations to sniff out the enemy. This is basically what we were doing before the war, anyway. We actually made progress and captured some members of Al-Queda. However, with the wars, we have diverted our resources from those operations to fighting wars that have only INCREASED terrorist activity and membership. Our image with the rest of the world is worse than ever. Bin Laden is still nowhere to be found. Al-Queda's goal was to provoke the US, and in a very predictable matter, we took the bait and went with it.
In this respect, the terrorists have indeed won. I don't consider Bush "courageous" at all. Comparisons to, say, Truman are nowhere to be found. He's making unintelligent decisions to solve a complex problem.
Spain didn't "cower" to the terrorists. They were simple sick of the bullshit and 3-11 was the last straw. They pulled out, and are now licking their wounds.
<b>I know where he stands while Kerry is still deciding what the hell he wants to do.</b>
Kerry's voting record proves that he's willing to change his vote with changes in a bill. Various provisions get put into bills with severely weaken the original idea or change the idea drastically. Again, I point out the 87 billion War bill. Kerry liked the bill that said that we would use Saddam's money to pay for it. Kerry didn't like the second version, which was changed so that WE would have to pay for it all.
It goes to show that the man is not going to accept bullshit provisions, nor is he going to vote for a bill just because his party says so. It shows that the man has a mind of his own, and is not acting like a puppet being pulled by the strings of his administration and industry backers *cough* like Bush *cough* *cough*.
<b>And I don't like to be taxed too much. Democrats, if they want to pay more taxes, let THEM pay more.</b>
You may be paying (slightly) less taxes right now, but with the war and the huge defiect, you're going to be paying out the ass later. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we entered another recession and the tax rate had to be raised. Don't be fooled by this "recovering economy". The national debt looms over us like a demon, and it'll drag our economy down the toilet at the right moment.</div>
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
