AMosely

This GOP ad is already causing a lot of controversy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1m8AUjqTGU

SmokingTarpan

Silly ad. Too bad there will be people who believe it, probably far too many.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

Apophis

Believe what, exactly?

The ad is nothing more than quotes from statements/recordings. I'm not sure what there is to believe.

Maybe you need to believe that Bin Laden exists? Or that he released videos making statements regarding attacking America?

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Steeler

It's an attempt to rally those who think that Republicans are "serious" about terrorism. Anyone who recognizes that as bull won't be affected by it. If the Republicans win, they can all go back to forgetting about Osama until the next election cycle.

__________________

Switchcraft

Steeler, do you think anyone is serious about terrorrism? You often say how you haven't spoken of your feelings about Democrats in here, but that you'd talk about them if directly asked.

So I'm asking: do you think Democrats are serious about the war? Do you have reason to believe, based on their actions or stated plans, that they will do any better?

AMosely

I thought it was a pretty clear cut case of fear mongering propaganda. The ad is clearly designed to shake people up by vaguely citing stereotypical threats.

Al Qaeda is no longer the largest terrorism threat to the U.S. today. The most recent thwarted attacks came from Brittish nationals. The answer to the question 'what has Al Qaeda done to us lately' now appears to be 'star in GOP campaign ads.'

Apophis

I agree with you on your assessment of the ad. The ad is fear mongering propaganda, and I'm a Republican.

I do not agree with your assessment about Al Qaeda not being the largest terrorism threat though. Al Qaeda isn't a nationality, so saying that the last attempt came from British nationals doesn't seem like a fair statement.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Steeler

Switch - I don't have a lot of time to post (driving to the Catskills for a weekend of trap shooting. ) But I'll answer quick here and save a longer discussion for next week.

I think the Democrats are in fact in a position to do a better job in combatting terrorism. Not because they have some uber secret playbook or magic wand, but because they have a different set of priorities and capabilities. They have more experience and credibility in building international alliances. There are going to be a lot more vets in congress as Democrats in November, many with real experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. More professionals.

In a more general sense, they are also not tied down to a lot of Republican luggage, namely an Ann Rand free market ideology, Grover Norquist's haranguing anti-tax crusade, or the Dobson nutjob rightwing. These are all distractions from the daily business of running the government that put things like Terry Shaivo, flag-burning, and other crap on our national docket. That's time that could be better spent elsewhere (for example, disaster preparedness).

__________________

Private Book

Thanks for posting that. I had heard about it and wanted to see it. The most frightening thing to me most of the time is that an attack by 20 guys who got monstrously lucky, is considered a lethal threat to 300 million people. Even after that insane disaster (Most of which can be blamed on bad design at the world trade center!) the actual threat of being killed by terrorists is STILL as unlikely as death by lightning, or the flu, or random street crime. How in the hell did they ever manage to elevate something so totally unlikely to an every day real threat? How long does it take for the vast majority of people to notice that not one single "threat warning" that they elevated to some sort of color code (suspiciously around election times) has actually been real?

__________________

leejo

A lightening strike doesn't cause $1 trillion in damage to the economy.

But it's good to see people posting their convictions that terror isn't really a threat. Run on that and let's vote.

icky

Well if that's the case, then I am truly impressed by how quickly and easily the US government took care of the terrorists. Other terrorist threats will surely be as easily neutralized.

Yes, it is a stupid ad, typical of most political campaign ads, and one of many that you will need to endure.

I don't think anything will ever top this one from the last Canadian election. I still can't watch it without laughing out loud, and I've seen it at least 20 times. I think the Conservative leader, Stephen Harper (now Prime Minister) had said something about boosting the ranks of the reserves in cities across the country.

Lots of info here for the curious. Make sure to read the parodies section.

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

Private Book

Leejo wrote:
A lightening strike doesn't cause $1 trillion in damage to the economy.

But it's good to see people posting their convictions that terror isn't really a threat. Run on that and let's vote.
=====

Yes that's a good point and actually reinforces what I am saying. An almost ridiculous impact over what is actually a somewhat minor physical attack. Compared to Katrina 9/11 was roughly half as espensive and damaging. I think you might be wrong on those numbers though because as I recall the number is more like 28 billion immediate damage cleanup and rescue etc, half a trillion estimated through 2003 gdp costs that never really made it to that number and then about 48 billion in increased military spending before Iraq. Since Iraq we've of course spent nearly a half a trillion so if you include Iraq as a product of 9/11 which would be incorrect then your trillion dollar figure is close. Of course we know iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so thats problematic.

I'm interested in why you immediately decide that I might be portraying some sort of election campaign policy? I don't speak for any party. I wish I had that kind of sway! I agree, it is amazing that people think terrorism is so frightening I just dont immediatly turn it into a partisan issue concerning elections. I am speaking of public perception. )I am very interested in how politicians use the issue however.) Recently a study found that in the midwest close to 60 percent of people surveyed thought terrorists lived in their neighborhood. How crazy is that! lol. Might I ask why you think terrorism it is such a great threat? Compared to what exactly? Do you think that 20 guys with box cutters crashing into buildings is as great a threat as .. fill in the blank? And why? Understanding of course that I am just curious.

__________________

leejo

Uh huh. It's just refreshing to see someone speak honestly and clearly about their views, especially to see someone clearly and carefully attempt to illustrate how the threat of terror is not really a big deal.

I'm not interested in debating you about it. Just keep preaching brother.

Private Book

Not a debate just a question. I'm sorry if you are offended by it. I'm surprised and curious why you immediatly seem to take it to a partisan thing but didnt mean to push. I understand if you don't want to have to articulate your thoughts on the matter too because these days many people have emotional responses to the entire thing which is why this ad is remarkable. Its essentially and ad about a group of guys talking smack about the USA presented as if they are as much of a threat as Russia used to be! That to me is amazing. We used to be under the threat of actual nuclear attack by a powerful nuclear armed nation and the USA never even blinked. But now, being hysterically terrified is actually being sold to us as the cool and popular thing to be! Youre right of course, I think a lot of people would vote against being brave in the face of terrorism, and WOULD vote to remain terrifed.

__________________

leejo

I think that comparing a terrorist attack to a hurricane or lightening is precisely as stupid as comparing a sniper's bullet in a soldier's head to a traffic accident. There's not a whole lot you can do to stop nature or chance. But when challenged and threatened by people who wish to kill you, you'd better act. Maybe you can tell the guy with the gun pointed at your head that he's less likely to kill you than a heart attack or cancer. Maybe he won't care.

And maybe, while we're discussing national policy, I don't want to wait until terror is more likely to kill me than lightening before I get positively proactive about the issue. This is why I'm glad to see you express yourself so clearly, and why I say preach on, and let's have a vote. You seem to want national policy to regard terrorism as a smaller priority than lightening. Go for it. Be brave.