As much as I hope you're right, the polls I've heard about suggest that Americans would indeed go back to Bush if there were a terrorist attack. Of course this was more than a month ago and things change.
As much as I hope you're right, the polls I've heard about suggest that Americans would indeed go back to Bush if there were a terrorist attack. Of course this was more than a month ago and things change.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Please provide me with these so-called poll results. Oh, I see you've only "heard" about these polls.....now why am I not suprised with that admission?
[edit] I'm sure I'm right. Alas, I cannot speak for everyone who may be a "Bush supporter", but if America were to be attacked on our soil I would definately not be voting for Bush in this coming election. Of course, I won't be voting for Kerry either.
Go Nader!!!!!
[edit] I'm sure I'm right. Alas, I cannot speak for everyone who may be a "Bush supporter", but if America were to be attacked on our soil I would definately not be voting for Bush in this coming election. Of course, I won't be voting for Kerry either.
Go Nader!!!!!
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Good God if you think Kerry is to "soft on terror" then what do you think Nader's opinions are?
Zephyr
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Evidently you must be functionally illiterate: Not a single one of those polls suggests "that Americans would indeed go back to Bush if there were a terrorist attack." Thanks for showing me that the next time you provide me with some "proof" not to bother wasting my time reading anything you puport to be "proof" since you obviously don't.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Good God, I never did say Kerry is "soft on terror" did I? Good God please refrain from putting words in my mouth that I never said, nor implied. Good God please don't be a moron. Good God, I know, you can't help but to be what your are. Good God forgives you for your apparent limitations.
:roll:
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Do I need to spoon feed you? Man are you thickheaded...
Corn, here's one special
link just for you.
Good luck!
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Perhaps that last link would better benefit you. Once again you'll have pardon me for the obvious question that arises after reading that "proof", as someone who has the ability to reason and form cogent thoughts, how any of those quotes above resolves Infohawk's statement that he saw a poll that suggests "that Americans would indeed go back to Bush if there were a terrorist attack."
Alas, to the reasoned individual, Infohawk's statement is contradictory to the results of those quotes above. Those quotes show that people believe Bush would protect us from terrorist attacks.......quite the opposite of Infohawk's assertion.
Reading is fund-a-mental.
Quit while you are behind, unless you enjoy playing the part of the fool. Then by all means carry on.
This would be a disaster for our country. 9/11 pissed me off on a great many levels - not the least of which it allowed the neocons greater control of this country than they would have otherwise (see 'The Patriot Act'). Another attack before the election would play right into the Bush teams hands - they would use the fear to really crack down on freedoms. If I was Islamic, I would book the first flight out of here before the internment camps were set up. And no, I am not joking.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Corn, I don't know if you haven't noticed, but your little dhingy just sprung a major leak while scrapping up against the coral reef and is sinking fast- better get out while you can!
Here, let me make it more obvious for you: If I asked you, who would better handle a transmission repair for your vehicle: Midas or AAMCO? If you said AAMCO, would it be fair for me to assume you will take your car to AAMCO to fix your transmission, should it break down in the future?
Same thing as assuming who people would turn to after a terrorist attack, based on who they said better handles terrorism.
It's really not difficult to comprehend, Corn. You just need to think about it.
Please Corn, you need so stop humiliating yourself here. It does not bring me pleasure, honestly.
Good God you called me out on an ASSumption, but I think my gist still stands.... If Bush wasn't effective enough on terror to prevent a hypothetical attack, why would Nader be better?
Zephyr
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
See, to the simpleminded, your Aamco analogy makes sense, but while my dhingy may have a leak, yours is already at the bottom. You see, Aamco fixes broken transmissions, they do not protect them against breakage.
The polls you linked assumes that Bush will protect us from terrorists. Is it kindergarden logic that assumes that if Bush fails to protect us against terrorism, that he is the superior choice in who would "better handle terrorism?" This is what you are saying right? Just so that we are clear.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Ah, but see that is why I picked out the polls which had questions of who would do a better job handling terrorism. Handling terrorism, by definition, implies reacting to terrorist acts! What good would a police officer be who "handles crime", if he or she could not... react to crimes???
So yes, my dhingy may be on the bottom, but I don't use that dhingy anymore, I am currently on my yacht, and you're still sinking fast!
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Why would people turn to someone who they thought would protect them against a terrorist attack (in the wake of 9/11) after he failed to protect them (hypothetically) twice now?
I understand why people supported Bush after the 9/11 attacks. Its generally understood that while he didn't protect us from those attacks, the scale of the looming threat wasn't fully understood. That, of course, changed after 9/11. If another large scale attack were successful on our soil people would be blaming Bush, not seeking shelter under his wing.
Once again, those polls state that people believe that Bush is better suited to protect us from terrorist attacks. Another successful terrorist attack throws that belief right out the window.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Yes, and the single most important "reaction" would be to protect us against future attakcs. Most people aren't interested in the "global war on terrorism", they are worried about what happens to themselves and their families.
I understand that you carefully picked those poll questions to quote, but not a single one of them implies that people would support Bush if another successful terrorist attack were to occur on our soil, not a single one.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Corn,
I see what you're saying and I understand where you are coming from.
I generally do not believe that most people support Bush on terrorism expecting him to prevent all possible terrorist attacks, because being realistic I do not believe it's possible to prevent every terrorist act from being executed, also I do not recall the administration ever claiming they will prevent all terrorist attacks (instead they give us warnings that an attack is expected over the summer, for example). Rather, I see their support coming from Bush's reactions to terrorism- as he is quick to react with little hesitatation and does not really bow to international pressure (qualities to some, flaws to others- I'll leave it at that).
Then I look at a country like Israel. They voted for a man like Ariel Sharon, not necessarily to prevent terrorist attacks, but his hard-line reaction to any attacks that may occur. Sharon's record as a military officer in Lebanon showed the people he would not be soft on terrorism. That's why when terrorist attacks did occur in Israel, there was not much criticism of the government's inability to prevent it, but an outpouring of support to 'get back at the terrorists'. Indeed, many terrorist acts occurred while Sharon was prime minister, but the most criticism he got so far was for his recent plan to take down some settlements and withdraw from Gaza.
So I see in some Americans in general, the same kind of support for Bush. Not looking for a guy who will prevent attacks, but a guy who will be sure to dish out some revenge if they do occur.
I see what you're saying and I understand where you are coming from.
I generally do not believe that most people support Bush on terrorism expecting him to prevent all possible terrorist attacks, because being realistic I do not believe it's possible to prevent every terrorist act from being executed, also I do not recall the administration ever claiming they will prevent all terrorist attacks (instead they give us warnings that an attack is expected over the summer, for example). Rather, I see their support coming from Bush's reactions to terrorism- as he is quick to react with little hesitatation and does not really bow to international pressure (qualities to some, flaws to others- I'll leave it at that).
Then I look at a country like Israel. They voted for a man like Ariel Sharon, not necessarily to prevent terrorist attacks, but his hard-line reaction to any attacks that may occur. Sharon's record as a military officer in Lebanon showed the people he would not be soft on terrorism. That's why when terrorist attacks did occur in Israel, there was not much criticism of the government's inability to prevent it, but an outpouring of support to 'get back at the terrorists'. Indeed, many terrorist acts occurred while Sharon was prime minister, but the most criticism he got so far was for his recent plan to take down some settlements and withdraw from Gaza.
So I see in some Americans in general, the same kind of support for Bush. Not looking for a guy who will prevent attacks, but a guy who will be sure to dish out some revenge if they do occur.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
You are an idiot and a bigot all in one.
My opinion is
Old Testament = eye for an eye and revenge and more violence
New Testament = attempts at peace and understanding and forgiveness and friendship
Call me anyting you want... why do I care what YOU think of me? My opinion of you is probably worse than yours is of me.
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I think both of you are right AND wrong.
Americans have generally rallied around their Presidents in time of crisis, but then stand back and look at the situation and can judge them harshly.
If an attack happens right before the election, then Bush would benefit for the above reasons, but if it happens soon, then people will begin to wonder why this happened, when being in Iraq was to make us safer. It would go in Kerry's favor then.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter