How would the average American respond to another major terrorist attack?

[ProfJohn]

I think this thread is a good indication of how America would react.

The vast majority would rally around the flag first.
Then we would all get pissed at Washington for not doing enough to keep us safe.

And at the same time a large group would do the blame America first thing and looks for reasons to excuse the terrorists of their crimes.

Now if the attackers came across the Mexican boarder I think the Democratic Party would be in big trouble. I still think most Americans don?t see them as the party that is going to protect them from our enemies.

 

[OrByte]

I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

 

[Braznor]

The next attack will be disastrous for the Democratic party!

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: daveshel
I would be out for blood against the neocons who poured fuel on the fire in the middle east instead of using our resources to protect our homeland.

Awesome; we can have civil war here too.

 

[Moonbeam]

Assuming I'm not among the dead I'm going out in the streets to shout, "Bring it on!"

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

I only wish Bill Clinton could run again! I felt much safer...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

I only wish Bill Clinton could run again! I felt much safer...

I sincerely hope my sarcasm meter is broken...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I only wish Bill Clinton could run again! I felt much safer...

Was it because you truly were safer or because you were ignorant of the risks?

Answer honestly?

I don?t think any of us could have imagined the events of 9-11.
Just as I am sure a lot of sailors at Pearl Harbor woke up feeling nice and safe on December 7, 1941.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I only wish Bill Clinton could run again! I felt much safer...

Was it because you truly were safer or because you were ignorant of the risks?

Answer honestly?

I don?t think any of us could have imagined the events of 9-11.
Just as I am sure a lot of sailors at Pearl Harbor woke up feeling nice and safe on December 7, 1941.

answer honestly?

OK

the world is the same...both before and after 9.11

sorry if that hurts PJ and PH. But it's true.

I just don't buy into the propaganda that you two have....sorry.

I felt much safer with Bill around...at least I didn't have a Executive and Judicial Branch usurping rights and powers into the white house.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte
the world is the same...both before and after 9.11

It doesn't "hurt"... rather, I'm simply embarrassed for you.

That statement shows ignorance in its purest form.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: OrByte
the world is the same...both before and after 9.11

It doesn't "hurt"... rather, I'm simply embarrassed for you.

That statement shows ignorance in its purest form.

seeing as how warped your sense of reason/reality/and intelligence is..

I will take that as a compliment.

 

[ProfJohn]

So OrByte?.. the world is the same

But you felt safer with Clinton in office

Does that mean you feel more at risk from the policies of Bush than from the terrorists who are still trying to attack and kill Americans?

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I only wish Bill Clinton could run again! I felt much safer...

Was it because you truly were safer or because you were ignorant of the risks?

Answer honestly?

I don?t think any of us could have imagined the events of 9-11.
Just as I am sure a lot of sailors at Pearl Harbor woke up feeling nice and safe on December 7, 1941.

ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So OrByte?.. the world is the same

But you felt safer with Clinton in office

Does that mean you feel more at risk from the policies of Bush than from the terrorists who are still trying to attack and kill Americans?

yup

as the poster directly below your post (and above this post) illustrates;

We've got other things to worry about than terrorism.

But feel free to crawl under a rock in fear anyway.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So OrByte?.. the world is the same

But you felt safer with Clinton in office

Does that mean you feel more at risk from the policies of Bush than from the terrorists who are still trying to attack and kill Americans?

I found OrByte's comment crystal clear. The actual risk from terrorism is, at best, the same*, while the risk posed to America from within is much greater under the Bush admin.

(* I actually disagree with this given the consensus of our intel groups that America is less safe from terrorism thanks to the failures of the Bush administration. It's not just that we are now more aware of the risk. The risk is actually greater.)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So OrByte?.. the world is the same

But you felt safer with Clinton in office

Does that mean you feel more at risk from the policies of Bush than from the terrorists who are still trying to attack and kill Americans?

yup

as the poster directly below your post (and above this post) illustrates;

We've got other things to worry about than terrorism.

But feel free to crawl under a rock in fear anyway.

I'd bet good money that at 8 am on 9/11/2001 there wasn't a single person in the Twin Towers hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism.

btw, it seems to me the bigger problem today is not people hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism. It's those hiding under a rock in fear of facing it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'd bet good money that at 8 am on 9/11/2001 there wasn't a single person in the Twin Towers hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism.

btw, it seems to me the bigger problem today is not people hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism. It's those hiding under a rock in fear of facing it.

No, the big problem today is an irrational public willing to sacrifice America's fundamental values for a minuscule risk thanks to six years of fear-mongering by the Bush administration. As someone pointed out above, the per-capita risk posed by terrorism is far less than a thousand other risks we live with every day. The risk of terrorism would be even lower had the Bush administration done a competent job of fighting it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'd bet good money that at 8 am on 9/11/2001 there wasn't a single person in the Twin Towers hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism.

btw, it seems to me the bigger problem today is not people hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism. It's those hiding under a rock in fear of facing it.

No, the big problem today is an irrational public willing to sacrifice America's fundamental values for a minuscule risk thanks to six years of fear-mongering by the Bush administration. As someone pointed out above, the per-capita risk posed by terrorism is far less than a thousand other risks we live with every day. The risk of terrorism would be even lower had the Bush administration done a competent job of fighting it.

No doubt we face other dangerous risks every day. Driving a car is hella risky. Even eating at a fine dining spot could kill you. But I've never seen a car or a foie gras fly an airplane into a building or overthrow a government. You?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'd bet good money that at 8 am on 9/11/2001 there wasn't a single person in the Twin Towers hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism.

btw, it seems to me the bigger problem today is not people hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism. It's those hiding under a rock in fear of facing it.

No, the big problem today is an irrational public willing to sacrifice America's fundamental values for a minuscule risk thanks to six years of fear-mongering by the Bush administration. As someone pointed out above, the per-capita risk posed by terrorism is far less than a thousand other risks we live with every day. The risk of terrorism would be even lower had the Bush administration done a competent job of fighting it.

No doubt we face other dangerous risks every day. Driving a car is hella risky. Even eating at a fine dining spot could kill you. But I've never seen a car or a foie gras fly an airplane into a building or overthrow a government. You?

Thanks, that's a great example of fear-mongering. Instead of taking an objective look at the actual risks, you exploit emotions to provoke an irrational response.

Do we need to find and neutralize those who want to attack America? Absolutely! We need to be smart about it, however, and not sacrifice in the process those ideals and principles that make America worth protecting. The Bush administration has been very, very stupid about it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'd bet good money that at 8 am on 9/11/2001 there wasn't a single person in the Twin Towers hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism.

btw, it seems to me the bigger problem today is not people hiding under a rock in fear of terrorism. It's those hiding under a rock in fear of facing it.

No, the big problem today is an irrational public willing to sacrifice America's fundamental values for a minuscule risk thanks to six years of fear-mongering by the Bush administration. As someone pointed out above, the per-capita risk posed by terrorism is far less than a thousand other risks we live with every day. The risk of terrorism would be even lower had the Bush administration done a competent job of fighting it.

No doubt we face other dangerous risks every day. Driving a car is hella risky. Even eating at a fine dining spot could kill you. But I've never seen a car or a foie gras fly an airplane into a building or overthrow a government. You?

Thanks, that's a great example of fear-mongering. Instead of taking an objective look at the actual risks, you exploit emotions to provoke an irrational response.

Do we need to find and neutralize those who want to attack America? Absolutely! We need to be smart about it, however, and not sacrifice in the process those ideals and principles that make America worth protecting. The Bush administration has been very, very stupid about it.

Sorry. I don't find you to be "objective" whatsoever. So any claim you make to objectivism seems like pure bullshit in my book. I'm sure you feel the same way about me too. So it looks as if we are at a stalemate.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No, the big problem today is an irrational public willing to sacrifice America's fundamental values for a minuscule risk thanks to six years of fear-mongering by the Bush administration. As someone pointed out above, the per-capita risk posed by terrorism is far less than a thousand other risks we live with every day. The risk of terrorism would be even lower had the Bush administration done a competent job of fighting it.

No doubt we face other dangerous risks every day. Driving a car is hella risky. Even eating at a fine dining spot could kill you. But I've never seen a car or a foie gras fly an airplane into a building or overthrow a government. You?

Thanks, that's a great example of fear-mongering. Instead of taking an objective look at the actual risks, you exploit emotions to provoke an irrational response.

Do we need to find and neutralize those who want to attack America? Absolutely! We need to be smart about it, however, and not sacrifice in the process those ideals and principles that make America worth protecting. The Bush administration has been very, very stupid about it.

Sorry. I don't find you to be "objective" whatsoever. So any claim you make to objectivism seems like pure bullshit in my book. I'm sure you feel the same way about me too. So it looks as if we are at a stalemate.

Yep. We're at a stalemate because I have objective facts and figures on my side while you have a mind tightly closed by partisan zeal on yours. One can simply and objectively show that the risk posed by terrorism is a small fraction of the risk posed by countless other things in our world: disease, accidents, etc.

 

[ProfJohn]

Honestly I think both sides are over reacting.

I don?t go about my life in fear of another terrorist attack, nor have I ever been in fear of a terrorist attack. As OrByte pointed out I am more likely to die in a car crash than from terrorism, but I still hop in my car every day and drive off with a smile on my face.

I also don?t go about my life worried that big brother is watching me or that the government is taking away my civil liberties. Yes they have made some mistakes, keeping Padilla without charging him etc, but over all I think they are doing their best to balance the job of protecting the country without intruding upon our rights.

Do you realize that our government?s social liberal programs have a FAR greater effect on our lives than ANY post 9-11 anti-terrorism policy? 20% of my paycheck goes to the Federal government in one form or another. Of this money over half of it goes to social entitlement programs such Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That means 10% of my working life is spent just to support our government?s social programs.

Now compare that to the amount of impact the Patriot Act, the NSA wire tap program or the swift program have on our daily lives and get back to me.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yep. We're at a stalemate because I have objective facts and figures on my side while you have a mind tightly closed by partisan zeal on yours. One can simply and objectively show that the risk posed by terrorism is a small fraction of the risk posed by countless other things in our world: disease, accidents, etc.

Woah! That's really cool that you have the objective facts and figures. Since you DO have those figures I'd like you to answer some questions. When facing religious extremists, on a global average, which are most likely to kill people? Which ones comprise the most attacks? Which radical extremists are the biggest concern in the world right now?

No doubt I'll be surprised by your answer. :roll:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Honestly I think both sides are over reacting.

I don?t go about my life in fear of another terrorist attack, nor have I ever been in fear of a terrorist attack. As OrByte pointed out I am more likely to die in a car crash than from terrorism, but I still hop in my car every day and drive off with a smile on my face.

I also don?t go about my life worried that big brother is watching me or that the government is taking away my civil liberties. Yes they have made some mistakes, keeping Padilla without charging him etc, but over all I think they are doing their best to balance the job of protecting the country without intruding upon our rights.

Do you realize that our government?s social liberal programs have a FAR greater effect on our lives than ANY post 9-11 anti-terrorism policy? 20% of my paycheck goes to the Federal government in one form or another. Of this money over half of it goes to social entitlement programs such Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That means 10% of my working life is spent just to support our government?s social programs.

Now compare that to the amount of impact the Patriot Act, the NSA wire tap program or the swift program have on our daily lives and get back to me.

Interesting point. I appreciate you addressing it in a civil manner. I think we differ in two specific areas. As far as civil liberties are concerned, I think they are too easy to erode unless we are constantly vigilant. If we silently compromise on this liberty and sacrifice a bit on that liberty, it becomes easier and easier to take more and more of them away. In short, it is the slippery slope.

With respect to "PATRIOT" specifically, I've asked several times for any supporters to explain what, specifically, it allows law enforcement to do that they couldn't already do with appropriate court oversight, in many cases retroactively? It's never been answered with facts and specifics, just a lot of true believers insisting we need it to fight terrorism or we're all going to die! (Or something like that.) I'm a strong supporter of law and order, but I also recognize we need checks and balances. The fatal problem with "PATRIOT" is it eliminates many of those checks and balances.

Re. taxes, we have a fundamental difference in beliefs that we will never reconcile. Personally, I think the problem is people look at their gross and think it's all their money, then cry because their take-home glass is only 70% full. I don't. I look at my take-home glass as 100% full (and hundreds-fold bigger than most of the world) and am happy as a clam. The taxes taken from my gross are meaningless numbers. It was never my money in the first place. It's just the overhead cost of living in a country that offers such extraordinary opportunities for success. Do I want my taxes to go down? Sure ... as long as we continue to provide the government services I believe are crucial to a first-world country. I like my money as much as the next guy, but I feel an incredibly rich civilization such as ours cannot in good conscience fail to take care of the poor and the helpless. The bottom line is we can afford it, even if it means I have to reduce my luxury indulgences by 10%. (But that discussion really belongs in another thread.)