Poll shows 22-point swing in Americans' perception of safety...
No of course the administration is not fear mongering, he does say we are safer with him at the helm after all.
Take a look at that **** eating grin Bush has got on his mug. I bet he's thinking "Yea, got them f'ukers right were I want them"
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Security will decide election, candidates say
Security will decide election, candidates sayFollow
Quote:
"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," Bush said.
Yep.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
That's an awesome quote, actually.
Of course, this just begs the question: If the people are going to vote based on how secure they feel they are, then why does anyone think that fearmongering *helps* the Bush administration? I'd think making people feel like they aren't safe would make them less confident in the current administration?
But that's just me. Go figure.
But that's just me. Go figure.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Of course, this just begs the question: If the people are going to vote based on how secure they feel they are, then why does anyone think that fearmongering *helps* the Bush administration?
Because, Bush is the guy running around saying that he is the one that "protects" us from terrorists, he is the one making the tough choices and going out and kicking ***.
Make the people afraid so they go to the guy that they think "protects" them, not that hippy Kerry. So Bush administration leaks some shady intelligence of a "supposed" threat so people need his protection since he is the man for the job.
Why would we need a "protector" of the people like Bush if there was no threat?
EDIT***
Also possibly to scare some people off from voting, "You might get bombed if you vote". And if the off chance that something does happen before the elections is because Al-Qaeda wants you to vote Kerry.
Edited, Tue Jul 13 03:30:07 2004 by bhodisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Not to mention that Republicans are known for their large defense spending.
Over here we regularly hear jokes about the level of intellegence of the american public, every week there is a new "did you know 57% of americans thought that washington DC was a type of cow?" or something equally absurd, which are usually quite funny even though there is no question that they are made up, i was quite dissapointed to find that this was a serious post 
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
Quote:
Of course, this just begs the question: If the people are going to vote based on how secure they feel they are, then why does anyone think that fearmongering *helps* the Bush administration?
Because, Bush is the guy running around saying that he is the one that "protects" us from terrorists, he is the one making the tough choices and going out and kicking ***.
Make the people afraid so they go to the guy that they think "protects" them, not that hippy Kerry. So Bush administration leaks some shady intelligence of a "supposed" threat so people need his protection since he is the man for the job.
Why would we need a "protector" of the people like Bush if there was no threat?
Which is nice rhetoric, except the very article linked in the OP shows that 55% of the people believe that they are less safe today as a result of the war on terror, then they would have been without it. In otherwords, a majority of people don't believe that Bush's "plan" to protect them from terrorism is the right one. Based on that, one would assume that working hard to convince the public that they aren't safe would just re-inforce that idea in the heads of that 55%, and make them decide to vote the other guy...
Again. The concept that scaring the public with warnings about terrorist attacks helps Bush works *only* if you assume that the majority of the people believe that Bush really is better at protecting them then Kerry. Now, it could well be that only 45% of the people believe that Kerry would do a better job on security then Bush. We're not given that figure. However, in the absense of such data, we can't make any assuptions about it.
But an absense of data never sopped people from making assumptions before has it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
But an
Never stops you.
Quote:
But an absense of data never sopped people from making assumptions before has it?
Never stops you.
even though there is no question that they are made up
No, probably not.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
GitSlayer wrote:
But an
Never stops you.
Quote:
But an absense of data never sopped people from making assumptions before has it?
Never stops you.
*cough*I'm not the one who keeps claiming that telling people they're in danger of terrorist attacks will help a particular candidate*cough*
Let's play a game. There's a poster on this forum. He's started at least 2 threads in the last couple days that both proceed from that very assumption. Name starts with an S, and rhymes with "ash".
Can you guess who this mystery poster is? C'mon. You know you can do it...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I keep hearing that Bush is trying to scare voters with this terrorism alert. Also I have seen the pulls that say most people feel less safe with Bush’s plan for fighting terrorism. Please explain to me a better plan. The only one I can think of that will work is to seek them out and destroy them. Also every one keeps mentioning the poor soldiers who died over there, news flash that’s their job. I have sworn the same oath that they have and have no problem giving my life for what ever cause my nation may be fighting for.
On the Iraqi war in general it was the rite thing to do. I will concede that we were ill prepared for the mass looting that occurred. It was rather comical to watch some guy carry off a computer but his buddy had stolen the monitor lol. I will, ever forget the day after my friend Cpl. Medilien died and we freed Baghdad. The people and most of all the children smiled probably for the first time in decades. That was more than worth it.
On the Iraqi war in general it was the rite thing to do. I will concede that we were ill prepared for the mass looting that occurred. It was rather comical to watch some guy carry off a computer but his buddy had stolen the monitor lol. I will, ever forget the day after my friend Cpl. Medilien died and we freed Baghdad. The people and most of all the children smiled probably for the first time in decades. That was more than worth it.
ounumen wrote
Please explain to me a better plan
I'd like to know how Kerry expects to attack this war, and it is a war. In case you've forgotten we were attacked. If you're answer is to put the welfare of the american people in the hands of some european or french ******* then let it be known.
I'd like just one libby to bring about a proposition that doesn't involve kissing europes ***
Varus
Quote:
Please explain to me a better plan
I'd like to know how Kerry expects to attack this war, and it is a war. In case you've forgotten we were attacked. If you're answer is to put the welfare of the american people in the hands of some european or french ******* then let it be known.
I'd like just one libby to bring about a proposition that doesn't involve kissing europes ***
Varus
Quote:
I keep hearing that Bush is trying to scare voters with this terrorism alert. Also I have seen the pulls that say most people feel less safe with Bush’s plan for fighting terrorism. Please explain to me a better plan. The only one I can think of that will work is to seek them out and destroy them. Also every one keeps mentioning the poor soldiers who died over there, news flash that’s their job. I have sworn the same oath that they have and have no problem giving my life for what ever cause my nation may be fighting for.
On the Iraqi war in general it was the rite thing to do. I will concede that we were ill prepared for the mass looting that occurred. It was rather comical to watch some guy carry off a computer but his buddy had stolen the monitor lol. I will, ever forget the day after my friend Cpl. Medilien died and we freed Baghdad. The people and most of all the children smiled probably for the first time in decades. That was more than worth it.
On the Iraqi war in general it was the rite thing to do. I will concede that we were ill prepared for the mass looting that occurred. It was rather comical to watch some guy carry off a computer but his buddy had stolen the monitor lol. I will, ever forget the day after my friend Cpl. Medilien died and we freed Baghdad. The people and most of all the children smiled probably for the first time in decades. That was more than worth it.
Worth it? Ok, I'm not going to belittle your crusade here. I don't disrespect those who serve in our countries armed forces. But please, don't take my brother with you to get killed in that unholy mess. I know he doesn't want to die; I don't want his son to grow up without a father. I know he doesn't even want to be other there. Why can't we just poll those in the armed forces who really want to go, and those who don’t? Then just send the ones who do.
There are so many things that I believe are wrong with your mentality about this subject, but as I said I don't berate our service men because they do put their lives on the line to protect us. I will, however, hate our current president for putting them in harms way for his business interests.
Remember, my brother is over there with you, so no gun-hoe bullsh*t.
Edited, Tue Jul 13 12:50:45 2004 by Molish
Molish,
You are aware of the purpose of the U.S. military aren't you?
In a nutshell they kill people and blow up stuff. If your brother was collecting a check from the military then if he's called he should serve honourably. Since when do the soldiers get to decide which wars they fight? It's not being gun-ho to say that someones that's getting paid to do a job actually do that job if required.
When you make references to Bush gaining financially do you actually have a source or are you just regurgitating democratic talking points. In what way does Bush benefit financially from going to war in the mid-east?
Varus
You are aware of the purpose of the U.S. military aren't you?
In a nutshell they kill people and blow up stuff. If your brother was collecting a check from the military then if he's called he should serve honourably. Since when do the soldiers get to decide which wars they fight? It's not being gun-ho to say that someones that's getting paid to do a job actually do that job if required.
When you make references to Bush gaining financially do you actually have a source or are you just regurgitating democratic talking points. In what way does Bush benefit financially from going to war in the mid-east?
Varus
Quote:
Worth it? Ok, I'm not going to belittle your crusade here. I don't disrespect those who serve in our countries armed forces. But please, don't take my brother with you to get killed in that unholy mess. I know he doesn't want to die; I don't want his son to grow up without a father. I know he doesn't even want to be other there. Why can't we just poll those in the armed forces who really want to go, and those who don’t? Then just send the ones who do.
There are so many things that I believe are wrong with your mentality about this subject, but as I said I don't berate our service men because they do put their lives on the line to protect us. I will, however, hate our current president for putting them in harms way for his business interests.
Remember, my brother is over there with you, so no gun-hoe bullsh*t.
I'm sure those feelings are echoed by many of those who have loved ones in the military.
But it is the military. They serve, not to fold bedsheets perfectly or look nice in uniforms. They serve to be the strong arm behind the U.S. global agenda. We're the leading power in the world. Of course we have an agenda. We have to back it up. If we don't, events like 9/11 won't be horrible moments in history. They'll be so ******* regular that news teams will have to pick which one to cover on a given day.
I don't like the way we have to deal with the situation. I don't like paying taxes either. But I understand the need behind it.
All I've heard from Kerry is how he'd do the same things Bush has done...only somehow the same things would magically be better if HE did them. I don't like Bush. I dislike Kerry even more.
Taely wrote
Um yeah, we were attacked, I'll give you that...
By Al Qaeda, NOT Iraq.
This is the type of idiotic statement that is common among the good socialist
We were attacked my radical muslims who base there operations out of the mid-east. The countries that have to be effectively dealt with to keep this from happening again we all know, Syria, egypt, iran, iraq so on so forth. The terrorists don't care about borders all they care about is dying for allah and taking as many americans as they can.
Now if you're telling me we won the war against terrorism by crippling al quada that just shows your level of intelligence. This war is going to be fought in one of two places over there or over here that's our decision to make by the way we vote.
Varus
imagine
Quote:
Um yeah, we were attacked, I'll give you that...
By Al Qaeda, NOT Iraq.
This is the type of idiotic statement that is common among the good socialist
We were attacked my radical muslims who base there operations out of the mid-east. The countries that have to be effectively dealt with to keep this from happening again we all know, Syria, egypt, iran, iraq so on so forth. The terrorists don't care about borders all they care about is dying for allah and taking as many americans as they can.
Now if you're telling me we won the war against terrorism by crippling al quada that just shows your level of intelligence. This war is going to be fought in one of two places over there or over here that's our decision to make by the way we vote.
Varus
imagine
Varus, did you even read what she wrote? Jesus you're a f'ucknugget.
Okay im going to go off on a tangent here but get back to the issuse at hand eventually.
All intelligence pointed to the fact that the secular dictatorship of Sadaam and the religious fanatiscism of Bin Laden actually didnt get along at all.
Also the unaccounted for WMD's that Iraq was supposed to be hiding in the most part were made before 1991 and most of them only had a shelf life of no longer than 3 years.
I think another way to handle the problem of terrorism and that ilk is to re-examine American foreign policy. Obviously there is something wrong with it when the majority of the world has such a negative view of it.
Sadaam was a sociopath dicator that oppressed his people and im more than happy he is gonna get what is coming to him but his links to terrorism were nil, his WMD were non-existant and the clear and present danger of Iraq that the Bush Administration exclaimed as the moral justification of violating international law and starting a pre-emptive war was not there. It is also clear that the Bush administration went out of its way not to listen to the intelligence community when it it gave evidence that showed that Iraq was not the threat that Bush was making it out to be.
But anyways back to the issue at hand, what the Bush administration is doing is this, by saying that the bombings effecting the Spanish voters to elect a government that did not wish to support war on terror it was a victory of the terrorists. Now the Bush government is bringing this back to mind at a point when they are slipping in the polls, to elect a leader that is not all about the war on terror is to let the terrorists win.
Edited, Tue Jul 13 13:27:44 2004 by bhodisattva
All intelligence pointed to the fact that the secular dictatorship of Sadaam and the religious fanatiscism of Bin Laden actually didnt get along at all.
Also the unaccounted for WMD's that Iraq was supposed to be hiding in the most part were made before 1991 and most of them only had a shelf life of no longer than 3 years.
I think another way to handle the problem of terrorism and that ilk is to re-examine American foreign policy. Obviously there is something wrong with it when the majority of the world has such a negative view of it.
Sadaam was a sociopath dicator that oppressed his people and im more than happy he is gonna get what is coming to him but his links to terrorism were nil, his WMD were non-existant and the clear and present danger of Iraq that the Bush Administration exclaimed as the moral justification of violating international law and starting a pre-emptive war was not there. It is also clear that the Bush administration went out of its way not to listen to the intelligence community when it it gave evidence that showed that Iraq was not the threat that Bush was making it out to be.
But anyways back to the issue at hand, what the Bush administration is doing is this, by saying that the bombings effecting the Spanish voters to elect a government that did not wish to support war on terror it was a victory of the terrorists. Now the Bush government is bringing this back to mind at a point when they are slipping in the polls, to elect a leader that is not all about the war on terror is to let the terrorists win.
Edited, Tue Jul 13 13:27:44 2004 by bhodisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Ya know, I decided to say **** it.
I'll only get flamed for the supersized gbaji like post.
Though I gotta admit, I haven't seen one of those novels in a long time, gbaji.
Lets just say,
I call *********
If you really want to see it, keep telling me to present my facts about the subject.
Edited, Tue Jul 13 13:38:09 2004 by Molish
I'll only get flamed for the supersized gbaji like post.
Though I gotta admit, I haven't seen one of those novels in a long time, gbaji.
Lets just say,
I call *********
If you really want to see it, keep telling me to present my facts about the subject.
Edited, Tue Jul 13 13:38:09 2004 by Molish
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin
Bhod wrote
Obviously there is something wrong with it when the majority of the world has such a negative view of it.
Are you kidding since when has the rest of the world been in agreement with what the u.s. does militarily? Last I remember was ww2 when we were saving their asses.
his WMD were non-existant and the clear and present danger of Iraq that the Bush Administration exclaimed as the moral justification of violating international law and starting a pre-emptive war was not there.
Since when is the u.s. beholding to any kind of international law? As for the connection how about there are al quada training camps in iraq and top iraqi officials are known to have met, it's in the 911panels discovery.
Varus
Quote:
Obviously there is something wrong with it when the majority of the world has such a negative view of it.
Are you kidding since when has the rest of the world been in agreement with what the u.s. does militarily? Last I remember was ww2 when we were saving their asses.
Quote:
his WMD were non-existant and the clear and present danger of Iraq that the Bush Administration exclaimed as the moral justification of violating international law and starting a pre-emptive war was not there.
Since when is the u.s. beholding to any kind of international law? As for the connection how about there are al quada training camps in iraq and top iraqi officials are known to have met, it's in the 911panels discovery.
Varus
AriesGhost wrote:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin
Good thing we have the Patriot Act!
Recent Visitors: 217
All times are in CST
Gidono, Anonymous Guests (216)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Security will decide election, candidates say
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC