English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

When its people like them who are granting rights to those who hate us for our freedoms, the terrorsts.

2007-01-11 10:00:03 · 24 answers · asked by altoonapostingclub 1 in Politics & Government Politics

24 answers

You fell for the old terrorist trick didn't you. Terrorism is a hoax. You are more likely to be shot by a cop than die from a terrorist attack. Just a little reality for you. Now wake up and ask a better question.

2007-01-11 10:05:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 10 2

It all depends on your definition of terrorist. But, honestly it's the same reason many American's think that the current administration can... "It makes it easier to sleep at night."

Freedom from all terror is not possible. It comes in too many forms to ameliorate them all. Becoming a terrorist yourself, which many people believe the US is becoming, doesn't keep you safe. It only worsens the situation. Maybe many people believe that they can improve the U.S. reputation, which could bring others to support our causes.

2007-01-12 08:35:52 · answer #2 · answered by Sensible_5 2 · 0 0

I don't think we can be safe from terrorists in a free society. I don't want a president that is going to build a jail around me to keep me safe.

Maybe we should just build a huge jail that covers half the country. The Republicans can live in the jail where they are safe and the Democrats can live free and take their chances.

Anyone that thinks my jail analogy is outrageous hasn't been to an airport lately.

2007-01-11 10:14:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Its really anoying how people think that John Edwards and Hillary, etc. think they can keep the United States safe, when they don't even HAVE A PLAN...it seems like you need a plan in order to do something, and thats one thing they DON'T have. I don't think we should get out of Iraq....if we pull back now, then it will just show the United States as "sissies"....A war is a war, Americans who died fighting for their Contry died for a reason, and they knew that was a RISK when getting into the War. I respect them a lot. I'm sorry but there is always blood-shed in a war, because its a WAR.

But the press keeps a lot out of the news papers, mags, and news reports, because they want Bush out. The Press never did or said anything when Cliton did an "under-the-table" agreement with Korea, for a little extra $$......He told Korea how to make missiles because Korea coulden't figure it out for themselves. Cliton got some campain money, and boosing money, and put America at FATIAL RISK...what type of an American would do that?

Terrorists said publicly that they wanted Kerry into office...Why you may ask? Because they know if a Libral gets into office, they won't do anything about threats. Because we all know, doing nothing to a Terrorist is the best thing! If you don't dissiplen a child when he does something wrong, he will turn out to be a fine human being...NOT...

I think Politics are silly. I'm just poing things out that I have noticed. What REALLY pissis me off is when people hate Bush...BUT THEY DON'T HAVE 1 REASON.


I think Librals should focus on making the United States better, and not trying to change their minds so its ALWAYS against Republicans....

There have been NO major terrorist attacks since 9/11, each terrorist has been STOPED dead in his tracks, why? Because Bush has made America stronger, safter, and better. If we did nothing about 9/11 we would have had British Airlines go down, LA Anthrax threats, and lots more. But Bush's plan stoped them. I don't see one thing the Librals are doing for suggestions for the United States. ALL THEY DO IS SAY THAT THEY ARE BETTER THEN BUSH. When they have a solid plan, I'll change my mind.


Bush = FOR THE UNITED STATES
Terrorists = NOT FOR THE UNITED STATES..
_You connect the dots._

2007-01-11 10:17:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 6

Because they've already passed a bill to address the Sept. 11 Commission's recommendations for protecting America from terrorists. They were able to do so now that the republicans can't obstruct such needed legislation.

After all, we all know that Republicans NEED terror to keep their 30% ers like you terrorized and docile.

2007-01-11 10:10:27 · answer #5 · answered by The answer guy 3 · 5 0

John Edwards will actually be a decent candidate. If he runs he has my vote and I typically vote republican.
He is more conservative than a lot of republicans.


Hillary on the other hand is the worst thing the democrats could ever produce.

2007-01-11 10:08:25 · answer #6 · answered by BORED AT WORK 5 · 3 0

Do you really believe that the conservatives can keep us safe?
In reality, there is no way to truly stop a terrorist, especially with the way that we keep hyping them up every five seconds, we are terrorizing our selves more than they are terrorizing us. The biggest terror that they are doing is scaring us into being paranoid about everything that happens.
By giving the people who want to kill america more rights, maybe they will lighten up and stop wanting to kill america and then we could have some good terms diplomatic relations with the people that we are calling terrorists.

2007-01-11 10:09:08 · answer #7 · answered by crossndunk 3 · 7 1

The terrorists exist, in the first place, because of conservative Republicans. Bush has given them motivation for their mere existence. Had Clinton, or Kerry been in office, for example, Islamic Jihadi's would be sitting around moping, for lack of something to do. Bottom line: Bush equals----mere existence for terrorists. Clinton, or Kerry equals---Islamic terrorist Jihadi's just sitting around, all over the world, doing nothing, without any motivation at all.

2007-01-11 11:02:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

If you're going to be brazen enough to make an accusation like that, instead of running you're mouth, have the balls to back up what you say with proof. Shall we have a conversation about how pathetic Bush hs been on border security?

2007-01-11 10:06:41 · answer #9 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 10 1

Because a lot of people think peace can be achieved just though talk and not action.

They never studies the years 1920-1939 in their history books apparently.

I don't think most people understand there is a point in which talk ends and Action must begin.

2007-01-11 10:15:44 · answer #10 · answered by Stone K 6 · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers