That doesn't answer my question. And I'm afraid I really have no idea what you're talking about. Because we have a (somewhat) interventionist foreign policy and don't fight socialism at home enough, this means we're "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do"?
No, it doesn't mean that.
I mean, you have people voting for guilani simply because he seems ‘tough on terror’.
And? So? There are zillions of dumber reasons people base their voting decisions on. "I think he'll be tough on terror", all things considered, is actually a pretty good basis on which to vote for the President, a huge part of whose job it is to defend the nation. At least you gotta admit it's better than "he's cute and I have a crush on him" or "he wears boxers not briefs" or "he feels my pain" or "she's a woman and it's time for a woman President" or "he's black and it's time for a black President" or.... etc.
Hell, "I think he'll be tough on terror" looks like a pretty damn good rationale to me.
Now, maybe you're saying you disagree with the assessment held by many (me, for example) that Giuliani would be tough on terror and that he'd therefore be a relatively good choice for President (compared to other options on the table). That's your right. That's called a difference of opinion. You don't get to bandy about charges like "that's letting 9/11 completely dictate everything you do and throwing caution to the wind" just because someone disagrees with your assessment of Giuliani. I can't speak for every single supporter of Giuliani obviously but I'll have you know that
1. I do indeed believe Giuliani would be tough on terror
2. and that he'd be a better President than most other contenders
3. it's not because I'm "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything I do", I actually have perfectly rational reasons for this assessment of mine, thank you very much.
The Federal governments meddling with the healthcare system along is enough for it to be more of a threat than islamic terrorism,
I disagree with this statement, which is so wacky it doesn't really merit further discussion.
Paul’s letter of marque is a brilliant idea IMO, it lets private organizations go after and track down those responsible for 9/11 without the bureaucratic stifflings and diplomatic and rules of engagement problems in the military. At least it would have been interesting to see it tried.
I agree with this part, sure, let's try letters of marque.
Not clear why it needs to be an either/or proposition as opposed to both/and, however. Letters of marque and military force are not mutually exclusive.
thanks for your reasoned comments.
Perhaps my comment in post 248 will provide a better answer to your question, and my initial statment was based also on future, not just present misfocusings.
And, yes, I was speaking about people who saw Giulani on TV after 9/11 and so will vote for him based on that. If someone, like yourself, understands Giulani’s past and present statements, plans, and has rationally thought out and compared his stance against the other candidates and believes Giuliani would be be tough on terror and ranks terror as a top priority, then I would commend that person for making an informed decision and voting for that candidate. After all, all we can ultimately do is do what we feel is right, right? :)
Sorry you feel my statment about current socialized american medicine is wacky, doesn’t leave much area for discussion does it? :)
Glad to see your thoughts on Letter of Marq, yea i think half and half would be a good first step, give the military some competition.