>>13
bs. fox still cuts off liberals and generally rigs their debates in their favor.
if anything, 9/11 increased the amount of airtime that conservatives got, because conservatives could say essentially "the president is conservative, and if you don't like conservatives, then you don't like america, and if you don't like america, then you are a terrorist." (see P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act for more details on being a terrorist.)
>>3
generally, yes.
you could be a bit less abbrasive, but yes.
>>1
americans were more easily scared into believing whatever the president said post 9/11, and could be led into attacking two countries (afganistan's the first country... in case you suckers forgot.)
also, if your teacher's a liberal, i HIGHLY suggest you wikipedia "state terrorism" and include the jank you learn there in your paper. we liberals tend to love that stuff.
if you're too lazy, essentially, it's the idea that the government is willing to put its citizens into harms way (or make them think that they are in harms way) in order to scare them into following any plans the government wants to put into effect. if they don't follow along, call them un-patriotic.
look up orson wells' "1984" on wikipedia for more details.