Which would you rather have?

[Le Jacquelope]

Terrorist attacks on US soil, or a police state?

 

[fifty5]

But then I'm in the UK...

More seriously, "the greatest good of the greatest number." A police state does everyone harm, while terrorists only do harm to some.

Certainly, I hope I won't be one of the "some" but even if I were, fewer folk suffer.

 

[3113]

I don't take polls that present a false dilemma. A false dilemma, in case you never took a class in argumentation (which, from the evidence here, seems like a valid assumption), is where you present your audience with only two options, ignoring the fact that there might be others available. In this way, you try to push your audience into picking a side when, if the other options were presented, they might not pick either of those sides. Example: "Your either for me or against me." Fact is, we might be for you in some instances but against you in others and uncertain on still others.

To add insult to injury, not only do the choices present a false dilemma, but you fail to define either what you mean by terrorist (does that include home-grown ones?) and you fail to define what you mean by police state.

When you're ready to present well defined options rather than trying to push people's buttons with stupid generalizations, let me know. I might be willing to participate in that poll.

 

[jomar]

I don't take polls that present a false dilemma. A false dilemma, in case you never took a class in argumentation (which, from the evidence here, seems like a valid assumption), is where you present your audience with only two options, ignoring the fact that there might be others available. In this way, you try to push your audience into picking a side when, if the other options were presented, they might not pick either of those sides. Example: "Your either for me or against me." Fact is, we might be for you in some instances but against you in others and uncertain on still others.

To add insult to injury, not only do the choices present a false dilemma, but you fail to define either what you mean by terrorist (does that include home-grown ones?) and you fail to define what you mean by police state.

When you're ready to present well defined options rather than trying to push people's buttons with stupid generalizations, let me know. I might be willing to participate in that poll.

Ahh, 3, he'll have no fun on you! LJ didn't frame the premise properly here. I think he got his signals mixed and used a GB opener on the AH and nobody bit. But he did get a smattering of responses on the GB. though they did respond in stereotypical GB style.

 

[Jack_Samuel]

i couldnt believe the poll was split 50 50 but then i realised only two of us had voted lol.

 

[sr71plt]

Neither, and the choices don't come down to that--so why bother to ask? Sort of an idiotic thread.

 

[3113]

Ahh, 3, he'll have no fun on you!

Too true. I get all stick-in-the-mud about such things. But I am having fun in the other thread on the "women who will you blame." As if a loss of the male gender would keep me from blaming them

 

[Boxlicker101]

If you had included "None of the above" as an option, that one probably would have won. Certainly, I would have voted for it. Since you didn't, I did not vote, for the same reason cited so well by 3.

 

[Pornguin]

With Obama, we might very well get both.

 

[jomar]

Too true. I get all stick-in-the-mud about such things. But I am having fun in the other thread on the "women who will you blame." As if a loss of the male gender would keep me from blaming them

I've always known we can't win.

 

[DeeZire]

With Obama, we might very well get both.

That's an odd assumption, considering that we got both with Bush (if you count illegal wiretaps and torture as indicative of a police state,) and Obama is planning on not making the same mistakes. Of course Obama can't prevent a terrorist attack - no one can - but he can prevent a police state.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your belief that Obama will be continuing with illegal wiretaps and torture? Is this the latest buzz on rightwing talk radio? If so, nevermind - you're beyond hope, my friend.

 

[Liar]

Y'all are taking this too seriously. It's like one of them "Who would you rather do, Janet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg?" questions.

False dilemma? Well, duh, that's the POINT.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Y'all are taking this too seriously. It's like one of them "Who would you rather do, Janet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg?" questions.

False dilemma? Well, duh, that's the POINT.

Yes but 3113 has a bug the size of the Cloverfield monster up her ass about anything I have to say so it's entertaining to watch her jump even when the organ isn't grinding.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Ahh, 3, he'll have no fun on you! LJ didn't frame the premise properly here. I think he got his signals mixed and used a GB opener on the AH and nobody bit. But he did get a smattering of responses on the GB. though they did respond in stereotypical GB style.

Odd, it appears some of them gave more in depth responses than you did. And more votes. Perhaps they're smarter? I'm not exactly liking that conclusion but hey, performance speaks.

Of course you idiots think that if you lose your deposit money when a bank closes down, it's all your fault. Maybe the AH isn't really all that smart? I mean, considering that whole countries have pissed on that line of reasoning as of late, and I've actually tried to pitch propellerboy's own words in the matter to other websites and nobody even wants to see that garbage and it gets deleted in no time flat...

Hmmm, maybe you guys aren't even capable of an intelligent response? And it ain't like the rank idiots on the GB are the ones responding...