Welcoming the party switchers

[jillian]

Alright I'll help you. To rephrase:

Face it, the threat of you or I or anyone on this board ever dying in a terrorist attack is so minute, so small, so remote, as to be nonexistent. The government would save far more lives my improving auto safety, putting life guards at every pool in the country, or building lightning rods across the country.

Now does this mean, as you have tried to imply, that we do nothing? No. I've already posted a few of the measures that need to be taken. However, with those actions implimented, it's time for you, me, and everyone else in the country to get off the terrorist bandwagon. We don't need to live in a state of fear. We don't need to constantly worry about flying, or whether to visit New York. The politicians are using the War of Terrorism to terrify us into voting them more power, but with the measures we already have in place and the ones the Republicans will hopefully someday get around to funding, the threat of a major terrorist attack becomes so minor that we as a nation don't have to constantly worry about it like we have been for the past 5 years. The electorate has far more important issues to contemplate. You can fuss all you want about terrorist, but it's not going to do a damn thing. It's would be far more productive for us to simply let the government do it's job and move on with our lives.

Now do you understand?

I will agree that Hezballah has no history of plotting against the U.S., nor does Hamas. The answer to protecting this country isn't going off on some war of adventure in a country that didn't attack us. The answer is in shoring up our own defenses, securing borders, nuclear and chemical facilities, ports, food and water sources. The only issue I would take with your statement is that one's risk of being a victim of terrorism correlates to one's residence. For someone living in, say, the Outer Banks of North Carolina, that risk may be so low as to be negligible. For someone living or working in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco or one of the other major targets, that risk increases. And, statistically, if something actually occurs, probability becomes 100%, so the initial risk assessment becomes moot.

I'd also add that given that everyone I know either lost someone on 9/11 or knows someone who did, the risk probably is a bit more tangible.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Whatever makes you think that death is my main concern ?
Saying that terrorism is nothing to be concerned about is a bit naive of you IMHO. Are you claiming there is no intent on the part of the the Hizbullys to harm America or do you think it will only take a nip here and a tick there to make us all cozy? Politicians will use anything for votes. It doesn't mean that none of the issues they speak of are true.

Then what is your main concern? Whichever kind of death is currently featured on the news?

Terrorism is not something we as a nation need to be as concerned about as we have been for the past five years. Now that doesn't mean no concern. It isn't all or nothing. We just need to implement the measure I've listed and a few others, keep Homeland Security and the other intelligence agencies looking out for terrorists, and then we as a country need to realize that we've done all we can to reduce the already minor risk or a terrorist attack even further and move on. There is no need for the families or this country to exist in a constant state of fear from a terrorist attack. The world is not going to go to Hell in a handbasket.

I'm not saying that terrorist organizations don't want to attack us. I'm saying that historically and even now they have proven themselves to be so incompetent and unable to attack America even before all the measures we implemented post 9/11 that now the threat is so small that it does not warrent the concern the issue is given.

 

[dilloduck]

Then what is your main concern? Whichever kind of death is currently featured on the news?

Terrorism is not something we as a nation need to be as concerned about as we have been for the past five years. Now that doesn't mean no concern. It isn't all or nothing. We just need to implement the measure I've listed and a few others, keep Homeland Security and the other intelligence agencies looking out for terrorists, and then we as a country need to realize that we've done all we can to reduce the already minor risk or a terrorist attack even further and move on. There is no need for the families or this country to exist in a constant state of fear from a terrorist attack. The world is not going to go to Hell in a handbasket.

I'm not saying that terrorist organizations don't want to attack us. I'm saying that historically and even now they have proven themselves to be so incompetent and unable to attack America even before all the measures we implemented post 9/11 that now the threat is so small that it does not warrent the concern the issue is given.

I'm more concerned about the end of a way of living and an ideology but thanks to your reassurances I feel much better.

 

[dilloduck]

I will agree that Hezballah has no history of plotting against the U.S., nor does Hamas. The answer to protecting this country isn't going off on some war of adventure in a country that didn't attack us. The answer is in shoring up our own defenses, securing borders, nuclear and chemical facilities, ports, food and water sources. The only issue I would take with your statement is that one's risk of being a victim of terrorism correlates to one's residence. For someone living in, say, the Outer Banks of North Carolina, that risk may be so low as to be negligible. For someone living or working in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco or one of the other major targets, that risk increases. And, statistically, if something actually occurs, probability becomes 100%, so the initial risk assessment becomes moot.

I'd also add that given that everyone I know either lost someone on 9/11 or knows someone who did, the risk probably is a bit more tangible.

Isolationism? How about a low nuclear explosion above the atmosphere of the US. Probably cause just a scratch I bet. You illusions of invulnerablity are just that.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I'm more concerned about the end of a way of living and an ideology but thanks to your reassurances I feel much better.

I guess you could do that, and I would support it, but is it the greatest cost to benefit?

Regardless of what we do though, we don't need the level of public fear we currently have in this country. It doesn't help the situation. It makes everyone anxious, more easily manipulated, and it doesn't improve the situation. I know that everyone here would love to stop a terrorist attack, but worrying about it all day isn't going to stop it. It's better for us as a nation to realize that we've done what we could, hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and move on. We can live our lives in fear, but that isn't going to save us, and it isn't going to make what time we have enjoyable.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I will agree that Hezballah has no history of plotting against the U.S., nor does Hamas. The answer to protecting this country isn't going off on some war of adventure in a country that didn't attack us. The answer is in shoring up our own defenses, securing borders, nuclear and chemical facilities, ports, food and water sources. The only issue I would take with your statement is that one's risk of being a victim of terrorism correlates to one's residence. For someone living in, say, the Outer Banks of North Carolina, that risk may be so low as to be negligible. For someone living or working in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco or one of the other major targets, that risk increases. And, statistically, if something actually occurs, probability becomes 100%, so the initial risk assessment becomes moot.

I'd also add that given that everyone I know either lost someone on 9/11 or knows someone who did, the risk probably is a bit more tangible.

Consider, over 10 million people live in the Greater New York area. 5 years ago, three thousand of them died a painful a horrific death. Even so, that's still only 0.0003% of the entire Greater New York area population. Rural areas face an even smaller threat. This shows that terrorism, though far more visual a death, is incredibly unlikely to kill you.

But this isn't the issue want to address. I'm talking about the "post-9/11, OMG, we're all gonna die" mindset that has swept the nation. We as a country have been fixated to the issue of terrorism like a bug to a lamp. We constantly talk about it. We're constantly planning and worrying. What I'm saying is that, given the history of terrorism in the United States along with our current protective measures, the threat of terrorism is so small as to not warrent it's primary position in the nation's collective conscience. Far too much of our energy and our resources are directed to fighting what was already a marginal threat, and that, regardless of whether or not we devote all our resources to fighting said marginal threat, we are allowing the terrorist to control our minds and our actions, and it is hurting us as people and a nation. We've lost our optimism, we're afraid of the world. That's what made America great, and we're giving it up because of these aholes and in the end its going to hurt us more than anyone. What do you think draws people to this country? Hope, optimism, and belief that everyone has an opportunity in America and they just have to take it, but the post 9/11 mindset is destroying this hope, this optimism, that America used to emanate. We can't let the terrorist do that to us. In our zeal to destroy them, we are destroying ourselves. That's not right.

 

[Avatar4321]

The thing is that the 'issues' you listed are nothing more than pointless wedge issues that waste everyones time. The switchers probably realized this, and saw that at this point the GOP is either betraying the conservative principles it adopted 25 years ago or doing nothing. If I were them, I would change because if the Democrats win, they are far more likely to address the important issues. Plus the whole Abramoff scandal doesn't help either. Ralph Reed should have been a shoe in, but then again he was much more involved then practically anyone else.

Wedge Issue - An issue I cant win through the Constitutional processes so I pretend they arent important while i force them upon society through judicial activism.

If there are more important issues that security, family, and protecting human life then I dont know what they are.

 

[Avatar4321]

The idea is to win elections so you can make a difference.

You have a better chance now as a Democrat, than as a Republican, of winning.

And how do you figure that? Because a couple people merely seeking power have chanced parties?

 

[Avatar4321]

But we're talking about Georgia here. He should have won. I'm still in shock.

The key with Abramoff is that when the public thinks about Abramoff they 'associate' Republican. The damage is already done in the public eye.

They don't offer you anything. You get to chose between the failure of the Republican party to stand for anything it was elected on, or a party that, while you probably don't agree with a lot of what they say, is more marginally more likely to actually do something about the issues that are important.

The key to Abramoff is that most people have never even heard of him.

 

[Mr.Conley]

The key to Abramoff is that most people have never even heard of him.

Most people? Maybe. But most people who vote in a midterm election? I don't think so.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Wedge Issue - An issue I cant win through the Constitutional processes so I pretend they arent important while i force them upon society through judicial activism.

If there are more important issues that security, family, and protecting human life then I dont know what they are.

No wedge issue as in issue in limbo that will go forever unresolved by either party and is only used to get the base moving.

 

[Annie]

Most people? Maybe. But most people who vote in a midterm election? I don't think so.

I just don't think it's going to be an issue. The dems just want to gain a majority, in either house. The Repub. want illegal immigration closed; homeland security addressed; WOT explained better; tax relief-especially on gasoline...

 

[Avatar4321]

DUring the Clinton years, America was not faced with the threat of international terrorism that we now face. Prior to 9/11, the worst terrorist action on US soil was home-grow a la Timothy McVey. So, your first sentence is a straw-man and irrelevant to the conversation.

As to your second assertion, it would be more appropriate to review the number of bills killed in the GOP controlled Congress that would have tightened security at petro/chem/nuke facilities around the country. In the years since 9/11, the GOP has killed numerous amendments, sponsored by Democrats, to the Homeland Security spending bill that would fund tighter sea and air port security, train and equip fire-fighters and other first responders, help to secure our borders and rail system. And don't forget, it was originally the Democrats in Congress who called for the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. The idea was co-opted by Chimpy and the GOP when they saw the political consequences of not establishing such a department. Since then, they have starved it financially and appointed incompetent political cronies to run it. You remember Michael Brown, don't you?

In short, the so called "war on terror" has been little more than a rhetorical tool cynically used by this president and the GOP to secure their strangle-hold on power. Their actions on the matter have been notably lacking. So, I turn it back on you. What has Chimpy and the GOP actually done to bolster homeland security beyond paying lip-service to the notion?

You are joking right? You forgeting that mere months after Clinton was in office the World Trade Centers were hit by terrorists the first time?

Or what about the Attacks on US embassies? Embassies are American soil.

Or what about the USS Cole?

You have to be joking if you want to honestly believe that America wasnt threatened with the threat of international terrorism during the Clinton administration yet suddenly George Bush is elected President and we are now under threat.

No the problem is people were in denial, and Clinton didndt want to address any of the tough issues facing us because it would ruin his "legacy"

911 woke most Americans up to the real threat we face. The problem is there are still people like who you want to live in a fantasy world where we can play nice with the guys who want to enslave and murder us and hope they will realize we arent a threat to them.

The problem is they are trying to kill us specifically because you guys have been telling them for decades we arent a threat to them. We arent at war because we want to be. We are at war because people want us dead or enslaved. They dont want peace. And if we stop fighting we wont have peace. We will just have more bloodshed. We are at war whether we fight it back or not. Personally Id rather fight so we have a chance to survive then roll over and die. because if we roll over and let them attack us without fighting back we dont deserve to live.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's simply a matter of political survival. Except for Lieberman and a few others, the Democratic party is the best bet.

Thats what they said in 2002 and 2004. Nothing has changed except maybe the Democrats have been more exposed as what they are and who they stand for.

To think Howard Dean and John Kerry could have become President. What a scary world this would be.

We would survive somehow, but it would be much better if we had sane politicians.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I just don't think it's going to be an issue. The dems just want to gain a majority, in either house. The Repub. want illegal immigration closed; homeland security addressed; WOT explained better; tax relief-especially on gasoline...

All I know is that Ralph Reed just lost what should have been a shoe-in of an election. I don't know whether what happened to him will be representative of all Abramoff affliates because he looked to be the deepest in it, but who knows.

AS for your Republican issues, the Dems sound identical that far back. What I see when I look at the Republicans is that they've had 6 years to address these issues and until recently they've been more concerned about flag burning and dividing up the party on illegal immigration.
To be more specific:
Illegal Immigration- the GOP is at war with itself on this issue, and it's certainly hasn't improved its stature with the Hispanics in the past year.
Homeland Security/WOT- definite Republican advantage
Gasoline- too many people associate the GOP with Big Oil for this to positively affect the party. Too many Democratic candidates are going to use this against them.
Tax relief is a base motivator, and anyone sensible wil not support more tax cuts with two wars, a massive debt, and a pretty strong economy. They aren't justified. That's my opinion though, it'll get traditional Republicans out regardless. Then there are a lot of people like you who will probably vote Republican regardless of what happens.

As for myself, I'll vote for the challenger, regardless of what party, and I don't have a Senator up for reelection this year.

My prediction is that the Democrats will gain seats in the house and either get a very slim majority or a close minority. In the Senate the Dems might gain 2-3 seats, but the Republicans will stay in control.

 

[Avatar4321]

No wedge issue as in issue in limbo that will go forever unresolved by either party and is only used to get the base moving.

These issues wont be forever unresolved. At some point the States will all have laws preventing gay marriage and Roe v. wade will be overturned.

You want an issue that will go on forever unresolved: Global warming.

Mainly because its junk science to begin with.

 

[Avatar4321]

All I know is that Ralph Reed just lost what should have been a shoe-in of an election. I don't know whether what happened to him will be representative of all Abramoff affliates because he looked to be the deepest in it, but who knows.

AS for your Republican issues, the Dems sound identical that far back. What I see when I look at the Republicans is that they've had 6 years to address these issues and until recently they've been more concerned about flag burning and dividing up the party on illegal immigration.
To be more specific:
Illegal Immigration- the GOP is at war with itself on this issue, and it's certainly hasn't improved its stature with the Hispanics in the past year.
Homeland Security/WOT- definite Republican advantage
Gasoline- too many people associate the GOP with Big Oil for this to positively affect the party. Too many Democratic candidates are going to use this against them.
Tax relief is a base motivator, and anyone sensible wil not support more tax cuts with two wars, a massive debt, and a pretty strong economy. They aren't justified. That's my opinion though, it'll get traditional Republicans out regardless. Then there are a lot of people like you who will probably vote Republican regardless of what happens.

As for myself, I'll vote for the challenger, regardless of what party, and I don't have a Senator up for reelection this year.

My prediction is that the Democrats will gain seats in the house and either get a very slim majority or a close minority. In the Senate the Dems might gain 2-3 seats, but the Republicans will stay in control.

My prediction? Republicans will pick up seats in both houses.

 

[Mr.Conley]

These issues wont be forever unresolved. At some point the States will all have laws preventing gay marriage and Roe v. wade will be overturned.

You want an issue that will go on forever unresolved: Global warming.

Mainly because its junk science to begin with.

No, Roe v Wade will probably be someday overturned, and the states will rush in and change their laws, but then someday after that the decision will change, and things will revert to the way they are now, but someday that decision will be overturned, and the cycle will continue.

As for global warming, it's actually a massive April Fools joke the MIT, Stanford, Caltech, NASA, and Harvard faculties are pulling on the world.

 

[Mr.Conley]

My prediction? Republicans will pick up seats in both houses.

Really? A diehard Republican thinks they'll win both houses? Stop the presses.

 

[Annie]

All I know is that Ralph Reed just lost what should have been a shoe-in of an election. I don't know whether what happened to him will be representative of all Abramoff affliates because he looked to be the deepest in it, but who knows.

AS for your Republican issues, the Dems sound identical that far back. What I see when I look at the Republicans is that they've had 6 years to address these issues and until recently they've been more concerned about flag burning and dividing up the party on illegal immigration.
To be more specific:
Illegal Immigration- the GOP is at war with itself on this issue, and it's certainly hasn't improved its stature with the Hispanics in the past year.
Homeland Security/WOT- definite Republican advantage
Gasoline- too many people associate the GOP with Big Oil for this to positively affect the party. Too many Democratic candidates are going to use this against them.
Tax relief is a base motivator, and anyone sensible wil not support more tax cuts with two wars, a massive debt, and a pretty strong economy. They aren't justified. That's my opinion though, it'll get traditional Republicans out regardless. Then there are a lot of people like you who will probably vote Republican regardless of what happens.

As for myself, I'll vote for the challenger, regardless of what party, and I don't have a Senator up for reelection this year.

My prediction is that the Democrats will gain seats in the house and either get a very slim majority or a close minority. In the Senate the Dems might gain 2-3 seats, but the Republicans will stay in control.

You might be right about the outcome, but I think you are overstating the effects of the nonsense that the GOP has pulled, with flag burning, etc. I have criticised those, I think it's a travesty that they did so. However, most people of both parties don't even read the newspaper and really could care less about those types of issues. Truth to tell, even NCLB gets more than a glance.

Global warming is another nonstarter, as a few are either terrified of it, than the WOT-they will always vote dem or far left alternative; or they don't believe it all and will always vote rep. or far right alternative.