Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
You want more spent on cops, airport security and air marshals, but not to feel more terrorized at home and in travel?
|
I, think we should, uh-- wait, what?
Yes to spending more on domestic terror prevention.
No to, uh, spending money to feel more terrorized. (?)
I feel that, like achieving a zero crime rate in a city, that terrorism is impossible to completely stomp out, but that spending funds domestically has a higher chance of reducing it rather than, say, blowing half a trillion on invading a country and trying to force in a democracy. A lot of people say I don't see the larger plan in that, but that's a different discussion.
So with all the contradictions you see, I guess I'm not communicating my ideas effectively, be it the retirees that live in my state or the, um, asshole voice in my head.
I just find it unusual that some candidates would seem to prefer to use the issue of fear of terrorism in their platform and only seem to talk reactive measures in response to it and do not offer many suggestions on their plans for preventative efforts. Ads that show images of death, destruction, the smoking ruins of the world trade center, and war seem to counter what we should/want to be looking for right now, but I suppose that's the nature of appeal to raw emotion and, really, I guess it works. Plenty of people banded behind Rudy and donated a symbolic $9.11 to his campaign. Maybe his approach works.