Jenksismyhero Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 08:44 AM) We call it terror, but what does that really mean? There are street gangs in cities that have been terrorizing residents for decades. It's all crime, we've just allowed the government to erode our freedoms and liberties in the name of a foreign criminal. But we do the same thing in response to criminals within our borders. We've already placed bans and limits on the right to carry/own weapons in this country. The main reason? To restrict access of those weapons to criminals. There are tons of examples of this. I can't smoke pot because of cross-fire that might ensue on the streets (I guess that's the argument?). And i'm too lazy to think of more, but i'm confident there are many aspects of our lives that have been 'controlled' out of the response from criminal actions. Terrorism is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:25 AM) But we do the same thing in response to criminals within our borders. We've already placed bans and limits on the right to carry/own weapons in this country. The main reason? To restrict access of those weapons to criminals. There are tons of examples of this. I can't smoke pot because of cross-fire that might ensue on the streets (I guess that's the argument?). And i'm too lazy to think of more, but i'm confident there are many aspects of our lives that have been 'controlled' out of the response from criminal actions. Terrorism is no different. Maybe that's why it is banned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:30 AM) Maybe that's why it is banned Ziiiiiiiiing Nicely played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:17 AM) But your exaggeration actually helps to prove my point. 3,000 people died on 9/11. Yet many times more, over 16,000 will die from alcohol related traffic accidents. Which is going to save more lives, stopping shampoo from getting on an airplane or stopping alcohol? We accept the risk of alcohol. Why wouldn't we accept the risk of someone taking a nail clipper on a flight? I sort of agree with you. But if you're going to be a strict utilitarian about it and just look at the number of lives lost than practically nothing should be banned because only a small amount of people are affected by crime. Plus there has to be an ecomonic impact to consider. Another attack on a plane and the airline industry goes under, again. That has a huge effect on the entire country. 16k people dead won't come close to that in terms of economic impact. And we haven't factored in the lobbying aspect. The terrorism lobby has nothing on the alcohol industry lobby... QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:32 AM) Ziiiiiiiiing Nicely played. I knew I shouldn't have written that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:34 AM) And we haven't factored in the lobbying aspect. The terrorism lobby has nothing on the alcohol industry lobby... There is a terrorism lobby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) There is a terrorism lobby? Poorly worded, but yes, there's defense lobbyists all over the place begging for this war to continue forever and a day. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:40 AM) There is a terrorism lobby? Lame attempt at a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Great thought Kap. As was said in 1973, follow the money. Oil, defense, military, lots of money to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 08:37 AM) I would agree that I'd rather have a couple beers, or sit around the campfire, with W than Clinton. Clinton was a used car saleseman. Bush is pretty direct, and you get what you see. And I agree on our overreaching attempts to fully secure ourselves, which is futile and does in fact mean the terrorists have won that battle. But if you ask who I'd rather have as President, it would sure as heck be Clinton over W. Bush is just too short-sighted and small-minded to be effective at the job. Plus he comes off as a frat boy, which makes me cringe whenever I hear him speak (much like Mr. Genius said). I don't necessarily want Mr. Niceguy as President - I want Mr. Effective. And W ain't it. The speech? I don't think I've ever like one of his speeches, and this was no different. His overdramatizations belong on some reality TV show - they are just outrgeous for the sake of impact. Nothing interesting to report there. Effective= Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Dar es Salaam, Nairobi. But heh, we hired how many police officers over 8 years? It is a law enforcement problem dammit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 12:12 PM) Effective= Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Dar es Salaam, Nairobi. But heh, we hired how many police officers over 8 years? It is a law enforcement problem dammit. As a President overall, Clinton was far, far more effective at making positive changes than W has been. That is what I was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 pound for pound and inch for inch Presidents receive far too much blame, and credit, than they actually deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts