There was an online poll on CNN.com just now. It's purpose was to determine where the reader stood in the political spectrum, what with the elections tomorrow and all. And it was the most outrageous load of crap imaginable; obvious, polarized, black & white... if you answered a certain way on the first question, you would have to answer the same way on all the questions. Not unexpected for CNN. And I filled out the poll like you'd expect; I'm your typcial outraged liberal. Turns out, though, I couldn't submit my answers because there was one question I couldn't answer. They gave me 2 choices but I didn't like either. The question was:
Do you think it is more effective to try to prevent terrorist attacks on the U.S. by military action or by economic and diplomatic actions?
[ ] Diplomatic actions
[ ] Military actions
I couldn't answer this because the very question itself ignored a very important point, that terrorism, by its nature, is only ever carried out by the victims of an aggressor. An aggressor has no need to terrorize because they have all the guns. Terror is the weapon of choice for people who have nothing left to fight with.
So how many arm-chair liberals answered "A" to the above question without thinking that maybe not constantly taking over other people's land and resources and lives might be a much better way to combat terrorism.
And I find it increaingly hilarious that the average American, that big, bad, muthafucking bastard, who owns the block he walks... that guy is most scared of a plane falling on his head.
- g-spot -
