Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would be nice if I were wrong. Please go tell them I'd welcome it if it would mean the absence of page upon page of lunacy. They'll enjoy the opportunity to mock me.
Yeah, sure. You don't have a daughter about to leave for study abroad. I like to think that Australia is not on any terror group's radar, but that's what the parents of everyone killed abroad ever said, too.
Think about the probability of any one person being involved in an attack. You can stop crying now. To me the greater risk would be your daughter wanting to stay there.
I hope that's all it is. But if not ... you know the cons here will blame Obama for not doing something to prevent it. Even after all those pages of mouth-frothing we had over him being "weak" and "covering up scandals" by issuing those terror alerts.
Honestly.
I was never a fan of Bush's continual feeding into the fear, practically every day, but I really do believe we know something right now. And it scares the crap out of me.
A lot of the people rolling their eyes at the terror threats were the same anti-gov types that were doing it when Bush was in office.
The only thing that has changed is the extreme reps and dems have reversed sides on the argument out of sheer partisanship.
A lot of the people rolling their eyes at the terror threats were the same anti-gov types that were doing it when Bush was in office.
The only thing that has changed is the extreme reps and dems have reversed sides on the argument out of sheer partisanship.
Obama can't win in that situation. If he closes the embassies and nothing happens, he looks paranoid. If he doesn't close them, and something DOES happen, look the f**k out. The resulting s**tstorm would never end. Third scenario: he closes them and something happens, then he gets lambasted for allowing something to happen.
Obama can't win in that situation. If he closes the embassies and nothing happens, he looks paranoid. If he doesn't close them, and something DOES happen, look the f**k out. The resulting s**tstorm would never end. Third scenario: he closes them and something happens, then he gets lambasted for allowing something to happen.
He can't win.
No different than Bush, or Clinton before him etc.
The key is that unless it's a collossal fudge up it won't have any real impact because it's just the rival party with thier panties in a bunch and not the moderates etc.
Obama can't win in that situation. If he closes the embassies and nothing happens, he looks paranoid. If he doesn't close them, and something DOES happen, look the f**k out. The resulting s**tstorm would never end. Third scenario: he closes them and something happens, then he gets lambasted for allowing something to happen.
He can't win.
For the same reason Bush couldn't win.
And the next guy in office will have it harder than either Bush or Obama as terrorism spreads and threats become more frequent and longer lasting.
The terrorists are winning here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me the greater risk would be your daughter wanting to stay there.
