ClutchFans - If there is a major terrorist attack

wouldabeen23

11-03-2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by SamFisher
who does it help?

not trying to be grim, just curious.

If the 911 formula holds true, the NeoCons will make sure it is there moment of trimumph as evident in the 04 race. However, they will make sure to place the blame in some form or fashion on Bill and Hillary Clinton...where would the NeoCons be with out the Bill and Hill show?

I look for the media to tighten-up, expect NO passes for the NeoCon legislature and White House in the next 4 years.

RocketMan Tex

11-03-2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by wouldabeen23

I look for the media to tighten-up, expect NO passes for the NeoCon legislature and White House in the next 4 years.

It would be about time.

ima_drummer2k

11-03-2004, 01:42 PM

I would blame the terrorists.

Manny Ramirez

11-03-2004, 01:45 PM

"What is answer D: None of the above, Alex?"

ZRB

11-03-2004, 01:45 PM

I think this is a perfectly valid question. After all this crap about keeping America safe, one would think that Bush would suffer if there were another major attack.

But no, the democrats would p*ssy out and support the president, he'd get another 95 percent approval rating, and the two-term limit would probably be abolished.

Trader_Jorge

11-03-2004, 01:50 PM

Lock this thread immediately. Total trash.

ima_drummer2k

11-03-2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by ZRB
But no, the democrats would p*ssy out and support the president, he'd get another 95 percent approval rating, and the two-term limit would probably be abolished.
Yeah, it would really suck if there were a terrorist attack because Bush's numbers would go up and everyone would support him.

Oh yeah, and people would die

RocketMan Tex

11-03-2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Lock this thread immediately. Total trash.

The Administrator has spoken.

halfbreed

11-03-2004, 02:02 PM

The poll doesn't offer another choice, so basically you're saying either Americans will hate republicans or the Republicans will prey on a naiive electorate.

There's no possibility that Americans will blame the PERSON COMMITTING the attack?...imagine that

JayZ750

11-03-2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by halfbreed
The poll doesn't offer another choice, so basically you're saying either Americans will hate republicans or the Republicans will prey on a naiive electorate.

There's no possibility that Americans will blame the PERSON COMMITTING the attack?...imagine that

It's clear this thread is about the politics behind terrorism.

Manny Ramirez

11-03-2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by halfbreed
The poll doesn't offer another choice, so basically you're saying either Americans will hate republicans or the Republicans will prey on a naiive electorate.

There's no possibility that Americans will blame the PERSON COMMITTING the attack?...imagine that

Although we disagree about the Red Sox, we can agree about this!

halfbreed

11-03-2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Manny Ramirez
Although we disagree about the Red Sox, we can agree about this!

Don't worry Manny, I'm not complaining about the Sox, just wish our owner had no limit as well :D

DonnyMost

11-03-2004, 02:17 PM

Interesting question, Sam.

A big reason a lot of moderates voted Bush is because we haven't been attacked on American soil since 911.

Should there be another, it would probably help the administration initially in terms of 'rally-round-the-flag' but that would dissolve into realization that there was, or may have been, a governmental failure that someone needs to be held accountable for.

I'm also interested in knowing, for that matter, if another war would hurt or help the Bush camp.

Oski2005

11-03-2004, 02:18 PM

I would say blame the terrorists, but there are people in here who are probably reacting all disgusted by this thread who blamed the Democrats like Gingrich did.

The Real Shady

11-03-2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by wouldabeen23
If the 911 formula holds true, the NeoCons will make sure it is there moment of trimumph as evident in the 04 race. However, they will make sure to place the blame in some form or fashion on Bill and Hillary Clinton...where would the NeoCons be with out the Bill and Hill show?

I look for the media to tighten-up, expect NO passes for the NeoCon legislature and White House in the next 4 years.

You sure do like the word NeoCon don't you.

DonnyMost

11-03-2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Oski2005
I would say blame the terrorists, but there are people in here who are probably reacting all disgusted by this thread who blamed the Democrats like Gingrich did.

Yeah, for all the tall-tales the Republican party was spinning about Kerry being bad for America's safety..

If Kerry had won, and there was a terrorist attack, you bet your sweet bippy they'd be place the blame SQUARELY on his desk.

MR. MEOWGI

11-03-2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Oh yeah, and people would die

Like the many thousands in Iraq?

SamFisher

11-03-2004, 02:31 PM

I don't know why people think this is controversial.

Bush's approval rating went from mediocre to above 90% in the days after 9-11

I'm just asking if that would happen again, or if it people would react differently.

bnb

11-03-2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by SamFisher
I don't know why people think this is controversial.

Yeah, how is this a stupid poll?

Clearly we should either see that it's the Republican's fault (and therefore hold them accountable),

Or expect them to be opportunistic about it.

Are there other possibilities???

AntiSonic

11-03-2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by SamFisher
Bush's approval rating went from mediocre to above 90% in the days after 9-11

I'm just asking if that would happen again, or if it people would react differently.

It depends on the severity of the attack.

Something on the scale of 9/11 is no longer unprecedented. I would imagine that Bush would get crucified if he failed to protect us from something he promised he would and that we now should be prepared for.

Knock on wood another catastrophe like that doesn't happen. :(

DonnyMost

11-03-2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by bnb
Yeah, how is this a stupid poll?

Clearly we should either see that it's the Republican's fault (and therefore hold them accountable),

Or expect them to be opportunistic about it.

Are there other possibilities???

Some people are in denial about the sad realities of American politics.

wouldabeen23

11-03-2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by The Real Shady
You sure do like the word NeoCon don't you.

You NOTICED!! Gold Star for the day!...it is a VERY conscious effort on my part to separate NeoCon extremists, which I feel have hijacked the Rep. party, from traditional, moderate, pragmatical Reps--who are screaming bloody murder over this president's spending and invasive foreign diplomacy. Unfortunately, they are stuck on their course as we Dems were with Kerry an cannot or are afraid to voice their concerns. Some have, most are pulling the party line.

11-03-2004, 02:40 PM

Sam, here's why I don't like your poll. Look at the language you use in your options:

A.) "the voters will blame the Republicans and hold them accountable"

In other words, another attack is the fault of the Repubs.

B.) "the Republicans will parlay an advantage out of fear and uncertainty"

In other words, the Repubs will prey on weakness at a time of emotional instability to steal power.

You leave no room for other possibilities like:

1.) Another terrorist attack is inevitable and won't be anyone's fault

2.) Your option A will happen due to manipulation by Dems

Yeah, a terrorist attack will impact public opinion. Most likely favorable or unfavorable, but the reaction may not be due to wither the stupidity or evil of Repubs. Your poll doesn't allow for that option.

DonnyMost

11-03-2004, 02:47 PM

Sam, here's why I don't like your poll. Look at the language you use in your options:

Considering the fact that all of our Government has been in complete GOP control almost since 9/11.. The blame, by default, goes to them.

The party with the power is the party with the responsibility.

If another attack were to happen, the only way I see it benefitting the Republicans, as they are in power, is to say things like "Vote for us, or you'll get attacked more!" much like they did in this election.

But I agree with you that there are a certain number of people who feel that terrorist attacks are almost uncontrolable, and you can only hope to be ready and try and minimize their effect.

bnb

11-03-2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by DonnyMost

But I agree with you that there are a certain number of people who feel that terrorist attacks are almost uncontrolable, and you can only hope to be ready and try and minimize their effect.

Unless you're proposing a Patriot Act to the tenth degree, I think you should be open to this possibility.

DonnyMost

11-03-2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by bnb
Unless you're proposing a Patriot Act to the tenth degree, I think you should be open to this possibility.

As with most things in life, there are some things we can control, and some things we cannot.

11-03-2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by DonnyMost
The party with the power is the party with the responsibility.

But I agree with you that there are a certain number of people who feel that terrorist attacks are almost uncontrolable, and you can only hope to be ready and try and minimize their effect.

Just looking for clarification on your statement. Do you believe that if we get hit in the next 4 years, that is the fault of the Republicans? Similarly, if [insert Dem name here] wins in 2008 and we get hit in 2011 it would be the Dems fault?

Or, are you part of that "certain number of people" who feel terrorists will succeed once and it is inevitable (not uncontrollable)?

For the record, if it happens once, I wouldn't blame the Repubs. If it happened multiple times, it would seem like the Repubs are slacking and would definitely deserve blame.

DonnyMost

11-03-2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by TL
Just looking for clarification on your statement. Do you believe that if we get hit in the next 4 years, that is the fault of the Republicans? Similarly, if [insert Dem name here] wins in 2008 and we get hit in 2011 it would be the Dems fault?

Or, are you part of that "certain number of people" who feel terrorists will succeed once and it is inevitable (not uncontrollable)?

For the record, if it happens once, I wouldn't blame the Repubs. If it happened multiple times, it would seem like the Repubs are slacking and would definitely deserve blame.

Over the next four years, our ENTIRE Government will be passing Republican legilsation and security measures. If we're attacked again, guess who is going to get the heat. It's hard to see how they can avoid responsibility for the safety of the American people.

Fair or not, like it or not, that's what comes with being in power. This is why I don't completely blame anyone specifically for the actions and inactions of the past 2 decades that created Al Qaeda and OBL, and allowed 9/11 to happen.

I do believe that to some extent, minor terrorism is inevitable. Major catastrophies and breakdowns in national security, however, are not.

FranchiseBlade

11-03-2004, 04:49 PM

If terrorists attack us it is no doubt the fault of terrorists. But that doesn't mean that it is solely their fault.

If a policy of an administration ignores the problem, or does things that make us more of a target they are partially to blame. It's like auto accidents in states where blame can be divided between the two drivers rather than one driver being in the clear and the other to blame. They will assign a percentage of the blame. An accident may be 70% the fault of one driver and 30% the fault of the other driver, for example. The insurance of one is responsible for 70% of the repairs, and the other company responsible for 30% of the repairs.

Any terrorists attack may also be partially the fault of administration, security forces, etc.

thumbs

11-03-2004, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
If terrorists attack us it is no doubt the fault of terrorists. But that doesn't mean that it is solely their fault.

If a policy of an administration ignores the problem, or does things that make us more of a target they are partially to blame. It's like auto accidents in states where blame can be divided between the two drivers rather than one driver being in the clear and the other to blame. They will assign a percentage of the blame. An accident may be 70% the fault of one driver and 30% the fault of the other driver, for example. The insurance of one is responsible for 70% of the repairs, and the other company responsible for 30% of the repairs.

Any terrorists attack may also be partially the fault of administration, security forces, etc.
Hmmmm, how much does the claims adjuster position pay? Benefits? Kofi Annan can really cash in on this one!;)