Liberals, Do really think Hillary or Obama are willing to stand up to PROTECT YOU from terrorism?

Question

I would really like to know.

My prediction: You will circumvent and find ways not to directly answer the question.

I can see that Liberals are just lining up to answer this one.

Boan,

You just validated my point...
Clinton bowed down to pressure. If he was firm in his principles he would have fought the Republicans. But we seem to miss that point now we?

In case you missed my point Boan,
Clinton was WEAK.

Ari,
What are you saying? That I'm dead on. That you know that this question bothers liberals? Because in the back in their minds, they know the Democratic party is weak.

It's not a bait Ari. I'm just reminding them when they go to the polls to really think about the next President of the United States.
Think about it.

Mark,
I don't think you need a Ph.D to define protection.
You almost sound like Bill Clinton.

TomJohn
It was just question man....
If Liberals are confident in their beliefs then they would have no problem answering it. Yes or no. That's it.
Not hard is it?

And you know very well...that this question does bother Liberals. Let's not fool each other now. It digs very deep doesn't it?

BTW, why the anger? We were just beginning to become good friends.

and Merry Christmas. Trust me...somewhere in my heart I really mean that.

Answer 1

You mean the same Hillary & Obama that bash the troops? whos's followers claim an "illegal" war, "war for oil" and " war for money" all the while failing to show where the oil is, and where the money is? Could this be the same Hillary that said we need to "embrace" Islam? or the same madrassa taught Obama who already has?? i think not.....

Answer 2

well first, we need to define "protect"... do you mean institute policies designed to limit domestic (and for those of us who travel, international) terror?

We could easily look at this as two separate, competing objectives, as some of the most secure (regarding terror) societies are also the most closed. Since most of us don't want to be North Korea, that means we need to find alternative methods to reduce the possibility of terror.
This brings us to the international front; how do we work within an international system to reduce the risks of terror.

1.We can spend our political capital on aggressive (some would say draconian) measures to try and marginalize the supporters of terror with our preeminent hard power.
2.We can use soft power (diplomacy) to adjust our policies to limit the resentment our hegemony creates and to reduce the poverty which supports terror groups and harbors the more affluent elite troops who carry out the more extravagant attacks. Remember, Qaeda stated 3 objectives:
A. get the US military out of the land of the 2 holy mosques (Saudi Arabia)---check
B. the destruction of Israel
C. the formation of a pan-islamic (not pan-arabic and the distinction is important, see Sayid Qutb for why) centered in Turkey, ala the Ottoman Empire

3.A combination of soft and hard power to adjust policies where appropriate and to use military force as needed to supplement the previous.

Since no matter who wins, the policy of the US will be #3, with each candidate creating their own calculus of how to create the best mixture of hard and soft power to leverage the American position, I feel quite comfortable in being "protected" by democrats as well as republicans.

There is no magic formula over how we should use our resources, any foreign policy vision will carry its strengths and weaknesses.

response: You're correct one does not need a phd to define protection, but an extreme reactionary might say that "protection" means withdrawal from the international community to lessen domestic exposure, or a different reactionary (understand I view the mob as reactionary and it consistently proves me right) might want to focus on profiling or suspending certain liberties or extraordinary rendition and thus "protect" the US in an entirely different manner.
Geo-politics is a complex animal, with a huge number of moving parts, when someone asks a question and wants a genuine answer, it's important that they be as precise as possible so that the answer can be better tailored to the question.
Now if you have the political maturity of a 5 year old and simply want to hear ad hominem, superficial one-liners, then my time and answer have been misplaced... if the preceeding is true, please never vote, you're simply diluting the value of the engaged electorate and helping to lower the political discourse to obsecene levels that allow recreational affectations like the "Joe six-pack" hunting photo-op.

Answer 3

Yes, I do. But they would do it with intelligence, not just start shooting at anyone who looks similar. If you didn't know, those that bombed the WTC the first time back under Clinton were caught and are still in prison. I'm sure if Gore had been elected in 2000 and 9/11 still happened, you'd be still ranting that it was all his fault that we were hit. Merry Christmas.

Answer 4

Absolutely. I think any potential candidate, republican or democrat would stand up to protect our country against terrorism.

But I get the feeling you don't really care one way or another what liberals think. Your name "Venom" indicates you are essentially a troll, using your question as bait.

Answer 5

venom, yes, you are addressing me. i identify myself as a liberal.

you really mean, "would hillary or obama meet my adversaries personally to protect me from a bomber, robber, rapist, terrorist?" would they do more to protect me than mccain, romney, guliani, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.

none of the candidates for president would do more than they would when they order breakfast, or lunch, or an intern to polish up the kneehole in their desk, or wash the dishes at their ranch. get it?

they would order your children, or mine more accurately, since he is in the army presently, just back from iraq, to go on a mission somewhere hot to protect you and me, and most importantly, himself from terrorists.

the correct answer is, for liberals and neo cons, or any pseudo human, that they personally will do squat to protect anyone other than themselves.

my prediction is that you will feel all smarmy and warm, thinking that you have insulted someone, when the small reality of your world is that you have shown yourself to be less than nothing. i feels for ya, honey...

edit:it's only just a question, man, when you don't like the answer? man.

Answer 6

Of course not. Neither of these liberal Democrats cares one bit about about the safety of this country!
Not like George Bush who has shielded us from the horrors of terrorism! If a Republican like him would have been in office on September 11th then nothing like that...oops! That's right! Maybe we do need a change!

Answer 7

The far left want a 3rd world order and an islamic nation for America, its been in the works for many, many years now and has been allowed . Better wake up people!!!!!! Look around your environment, our children will pay, as they already are to save America, freedom is not free, when its gone, you dont get it back, look at other countries so lienient in appeasing the enemie's of America, aren't we doing the same??????

Answer 8

Before it all happened.They had a plan the kill bin laden.But all the conservatives said was wag the dog.Republicans wouldn't fund it. It was on t.v.Or do you forget complaining about that?
Well it beats being told it was going to happen.Ignoring it to rationalizing invading a country for oil.
How does one forget complaing about Clinton?When a new fable comes up.

Answer 9

Yes. They'd have slightly different policies than the Republicans. Do you think they'd disband the military? The answer is a very simple yes.

Answer 10

Hillary already voted for one war and she seems to be more of a conservative democrat. Obama Im not so sure about him he might be slow to the punch when it comes to the offensive.