[octex]

The very people that despise all efforts to protect them are the ones at risk.

We should not impose Conservative anti terrorist values on them.
*******************************
Huh? ...Non-sensical. Who are the “very people” and “them” that you are referring to in your posting?

[skully]

I think the “very people” Pasadena is referring to are the North Eastern liberals that inhabit the “blue states” between Maine and DC(The Commie Corridor). The same ones that would have been in the streets protesting the Iraq War. The same people that would be in the streets whining if we take any action against Iran.

I think the noob was trying to be satirical.

[BobL]

“The very people that despise all efforts to protect them are the ones at risk.

We should not impose Conservative anti terrorist values on them.”
*******************************
“Huh? ...Non-sensical. Who are the “very people” and “them” that you are referring to in your posting?”

When I read it, it seemed to make sense to me (and I’m far from a noob). I take the first sentence to mean that if New York City is going to vote 80% in every election for the people that would leave this country defenseless (i.e., Democrats), and they are left at risk of attack from Iran, there is some degree of justice to it. The second sense says, to me, that kids from Kansas should not have have to put their lives at stake fighting to defend these 80%, essentially the OWS types.

While I’m not saying that I agree with the post, I do understand the frustration of having to carry the water for millions and millions of malcontents. Not much different than the Cold War, when Europe knew we would spend whatever it took to keep them safe, so they spent as little as they could get away with - and then they acted morally superior to us for being so militant, while they were so ‘peaceful’.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

I believe that comment was intended as a bitch-slap at the liberals in New York City who openly hate America and our values.

I could be wrong though.