Huckabee and Obama Triumph in Iowa

[Undertoad]

Live in constant fear every day and vote for every guy that promises knee-jerk, under-planned military responses to an organization that exists, thrives, and perpetuates entirely on the idea the the US is waging a holy war against their religion?

Jumpin Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Who is this asshole, and why are they having arguments with you in your head?

Is this coming from life with the retirees in FL (which may explain why you see the ad and I don't)?

Or is it a cartoon character of an ideological enemy you feel good ranting against?

So let me followup here, because I find contradictions. You believe that further terrorism is going to happen, no doubt, but people should not vote in fear, nor even in expectation of that fact?

It's going to happen no doubt, but Rudy's commercial is bad because it doesn't talk about prevention?

You want more spent on cops, airport security and air marshals, but not to feel more terrorized at home and in travel?

You don't like the things that got Bush a 90% approval rating because they were not oriented towards protection, but although you feel attacks are inevitable, there hasn't been another one yet?

To answer your question

Do you really want to elect a candidate that is basing his platform on fear?

Well there's only one who isn't, and I like him a lot, although I'll hold off any final decision until necessary.

But I think, in the long run, the only candidate who'll be effective at making people more relaxed, will be one more effective. If an empty suit (or, if you prefer, empty pant-suit) is in office, and there's an attack, followed by ham-handed moves that seem ineffective, the people will continue in fear.

[Kitsune]

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.