or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Terror Alert Moves to High, Orange.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Terror Alert Moves to High, Orange. - Page 2

post #41 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dean's an idiot. Capturing Saddam certainly made our troops and the Iraqi people safer. Did it not?

As far as my first post, I meant it just creeps me to see that alert level go up. I don't think it's some political ploy or that there is a sinister motive. I think we're under greater threat and that concerns me.

well, as you well know, the intent and result of threads in appleoutsider are rarely the same thing when the dust clears.

i think the troops and iraqi people were safer when the war was officially declared "over," since even if saddam survived, i doubt he could have ever re-risen to power in the same capacity. but hey, what do i know? it certainly doesn't HURT to have him (and his knowledge) in custody.

i also don't think it's a political ploy or sinister move... like i said, i sincerely think the gov't and ridge think they're being effective with the alerts. i'm just doubtful that it does any good for the public space to know. to pursue cosmonut's elaboration on my previous example, while it is true that i should be more careful (edit: if i know the weather will be bad when i walk the dog, causing bad driving conditions and reducing visibility), i would say that everyone 'believes' they are more cautious under adverse circumstances (whether they actually are is another story), (edit: because you're guard is up. you expect the worst.) but the vast amount of injuries happen close to home, and when we're least expecting it. it's when our guard is down. that's why it sneaks past our defenses. but it doesn't mean that i should report hazardous drivers any MORE under those conditions than i should be obliged to report idiot drivers under sunny skies and smiling faces.

personally, sdw, i believe i will be more creeped out when the terror alert GOES DOWN, because that i when i believe the other shoe will drop.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #42 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dean's an idiot. Capturing Saddam certainly made our troops and the Iraqi people safer. Did it not?

I can't believe how far you'll go to hide from an argument. You'll stretch the truth beyond transparency.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #43 of 277
Call it the macabre side of me, but just once I would like to see the alert status go all the way to red just to see how people freak out. At the least, we'll know if the red bar works on that TV picture. Wouldn't that suck if we find we cannot light the red bar on the day we actually need it?
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #44 of 277
Quote:
.... we find we cannot light the red bar on the day we actually need it? [/B]

The "red bar" is what the alert will be raised to, if and when the next big terrorist attack happens. General Tommy Franks' comments a few weeks back refers to the suspension, perhaps indefinitely, of the US Constitution, in the event of a major incident. That is what the "red bar" light will signify. I imagine that Gen. Franks is in the loop and well informed: for sure, he's retired, but in the event of this kind of re-definition of the US government, the Pentagon brass will (presumably) have a far larger say in the direct governance of the nation should those circumstances bear out, and some variety of martial law is imposed. Perhaps that's why (Franks) was ambivalent in his commentary, almost sounding as if he was looking forward to the potential opportunity.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #45 of 277
Aquatic, you might want to check with your Dad to make sure that he's cool with you letting people know that bit of info....it might not bug him at all, but it might be considered a security issue to have that info floating on the net...just a thought.

Fighting a phantom is a game fraught with dangers.
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #46 of 277
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I can't believe how far you'll go to hide from an argument. You'll stretch the truth beyond transparency.

Dean's comments were ridiculous and purely rhetorical. And what's this...YOU'RE talking about "truth"?

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dean's comments were ridiculous and purely rhetorical. And what's this...YOU'RE talking about "truth"?


Talk about lying liars who tell them. What an assinine comment to make when you deliberately take Dean's comments out of context and apply them to a different meaning.

WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IN CUSTODY!

What's so ****ing hard to understand? Who gives a shit if the Iraqi's are safer? I want to know if WE, the American people here in the continental United States, are now safer that Saddam Hussein has been captured. The answer is NO. To insinuate that Dean's comments are "ridiculous" and "purely rhetorical" shows that you do not understand the application of rhetorical questions and that you are truly a "dittohead" of the GOP!

Let me say it loud so everyone can hear...

WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #48 of 277
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Talk about lying liars who tell them. What an assinine comment to make when you deliberately take Dean's comments out of context and apply them to a different meaning.

WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IN CUSTODY!

What's so ****ing hard to understand? Who gives a shit if the Iraqi's are safer? I want to know if WE, the American people here in the continental United States, are now safer that Saddam Hussein has been captured. The answer is NO. To insinuate that Dean's comments are "ridiculous" and "purely rhetorical" shows that you do not understand the application of rhetorical questions and that you are truly a "dittohead" of the GOP!

Let me say it loud so everyone can hear...

WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!

That's not true. That's such political, non-thinking bullshit. We are much safer than four years ago. Security procedures are greatly enhanced. We are hunting terrorists down with the military everywhere. The FBI and CIA have a new mission: Stop Terrorism. Budgets for everything from protecting domestic targets, to real person intelligence assets, to technology to combat terror and other threats have been increased. This statement is just patently false and utterly unsupportable.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #49 of 277
I have to agree with SDW. It's one thing to say "we're not as safe as we *should* be," and it's another to say "We are not safer than we were."

I'd agree with the first, but totally disagree with the second. Since 9/11 things have been stepped up. Before 9/11, the Dept. of Homeland Security had never been thought of. All arguments for and against it aside, the threat alert level system is new since 9/11. Security all across the country is higher than ever before.

How are we not any safer?
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #50 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I have to agree with SDW. It's one thing to say "we're not as safe as we *should* be," and it's another to say "We are not safer than we were."

I'd agree with the first, but totally disagree with the second. Since 9/11 things have been stepped up. Before 9/11, the Dept. of Homeland Security had never been thought of. All arguments for and against it aside, the threat alert level system is new since 9/11. Security all across the country is higher than ever before.

How are we not any safer?

Not true. Homeland Security was created by Bill Clinton's administration. It was presented to Bush's brand new administration so they could impliment it. Of course, BushCorp instead chose Operation Ignore. It wasn't until 9/11 that they thought it was a good idea to implement Homeland Security (albeit a very very different version of the original).

I'll say it two ways:

WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HAS BEEN CAPTURED

WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO


There is no irrefutable proof to say otherwise.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #51 of 277
Uber-conservative Matt Drudge's website proclaims (in large letters):

ORANGE CHRISTMAS: WARPLANES TO PATROL CITIES

Boy do I feel safer! I'm so glad that the war on terrorism is now over because, after all, WE CAUGHT SADDAM! Woo hoo! Gig of joy. We can all relax now.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #52 of 277
Bush Gets a 'Can Do Better' From Terror Panel
Federal advisory body complains of lack of strategy guiding domestic security efforts

By TIMOTHY J. BURGER/WASHINGTON

President Bush's anti-terrorism policies are about to come under fire from a somewhat unlikely source: A federal advisory panel headed by a former Republican Party chairman is set to rap the President's knuckles this week when it issues a report criticizing the administration for failing to develop a comprehensive, pro-active anti-terror strategy more than two years after the 9/11 attacks.

FULL STORY:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Sorry about posting this. I know that every time I point out that Bush's policies are wrong for America by pointing to articles like this, Majorspunk will have a fit and start screaming "You are actively taking part in a destructive self fulfilling prophecy. So you are doing more than just rooting for bad things to happen."

So, I apologize in advance for doing my part to destroy my mother country.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #53 of 277
Man some of you people are deluded.

To Northgate: Nobody ever said that the war on terror is over now that Saddam has been caught -- well, maybe the media wants you to think that -- but no one in the Bush administration has said that. In fact, they pretty much flat out said that we shouldn't think that.

And I don't see how you can say that there's no proof that we're safer. Have you been paying attention the last two and a half years? Did you hear the news reports that thousands of extra policing staff have been put on duty for this orange level? That doesn't make us safer? The fact that our Air Marshal program is significantly larger doesn't make us safer? Disrupting Al-Qaida's core organization in Afghanistan doesn't make us safer?

I'd like to see what proof YOU have that we AREN'T safer! And I also find it curious that instead of saying, "We are not safer since 9/11," you say "We are not safer than four years ago." What the hell happened four years ago? (December 1999) Are you alluding to something?

Sorry, Northgate. Your arguments have gigantic flaws in them. Shore them up and get back to us.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #54 of 277
HEY! SHUTUP A MINUTE you guys.

Here's a question that cuts deeper to the heart....would we be any safer if Bill Clinton had implemented an office of Homeland Security? How about if Al Gore had become President and been in charge? What if Al Roker were the President?

Basically, would you feel the same way if someone else were the Commander In Chief and were facing terrorists who were willing to murder large populations of American citizens? Even if that alternate President had not elected to take the war to the spawning grounds of terror in the Middle East ?

I personally feel that we are better-prepared to respond to acts of terror. The men and women who work in security and safety positions are better-trained for it. It's no longer a paper fantasy that bad things can happen in the USA, our emergency workers, police and military are being trained with this in mind. We should share that mindset to some degree. Be prepared for emergencies: be vigilant.

Now, while we are certainly better-prepared than we were four years ago, it's still too early to get a read on how the capture of Saddam has affected the big picture; I wouldn't say that his capture won't have any effect for the citizens of the United States of America....it's just too early to tell what that effect will be. Saddam certainly was not a spiritual influence on the members of Al Queda, more likely he was considered a jumped-up warlord who made good. Whatever happens to Hussein will have little (if any) consequence to the members of Osama's little nest of vipers.
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #55 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by drewprops
'
I personally feel that we are better-prepared to respond to acts of terror.

That'll be because of the full, frank and honest investigation into all the communication problems, mismanagment, petty-politics and various and sundry other mistakes that contributed to 9/11 ... or maybe not.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #56 of 277
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Not true. Homeland Security was created by Bill Clinton's administration. It was presented to Bush's brand new administration so they could impliment it. Of course, BushCorp instead chose Operation Ignore. It wasn't until 9/11 that they thought it was a good idea to implement Homeland Security (albeit a very very different version of the original).

I'll say it two ways:

WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HAS BEEN CAPTURED

WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO

There is no irrefutable proof to say otherwise.

Now really. That's the first time I've heard that claim. You'll need to support it. I'll tell you what WAS created during Clinton's terms: A total disregard for national security. Clinton was offered bin laden in 1996 and turned him down. Clinton did nothing about the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. He launched a few cruise missles and laid waste to some aspirin factories...but what was accomplished to increase security during HIS terms? I seem to remembver a little nuke deal wtih North Korea.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #57 of 277
Absolutely, the rough spots have been addressed...but the preparedness doesn't hinge upon some expulsive result of "9/11 investigations"...it is instead attributable to the diligence and training of agencies charged with response to national emergencies. That preparedness extends to agencies assigned with preventing emergencies from occurring in the first place.

Remember, the White Water Twins made no demonstrable impact on the war against terror, other than a bit of cruise-missile rattling and "aspirin factory" bombing. The French assisted the Americans in their ouster of the British...look at how rancorous our relationship with them is 200+ years later. Things change.

For all we know, all of Canada is gathered over at Murbot's house drinking beer and plotting the overthrow of our prime brewing facilities even as we speak!
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #58 of 277
Preparedness, in my opinion, depends upon each of us. We are the government. Each person has to be diligent and report suspect activity to the proper authorities. Get to know your neighbors. Stand up for those who cannot defend themselves when you can. Help those who need help.

There is little room for apathy. Apathy breeds terrorism and violence.

If we all become part of our respective communities terrorism will be choked out.
post #59 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by drewprops
Remember, the White Water Twins made no demonstrable impact on the war against terror, other than a bit of cruise-missile rattling and "aspirin factory" bombing.

What about the well-known (as in, you guys should know this) Hart-Rudman study that spent the last year of clinton's presidency coming up with what eventually became the basis of the post-9/11 homeland security changes. Note that it was shelved by the incoming bush admin until 9/11. Oh, and before the fanatics piss themselves, yeah, it was a bipartisan committee.

Here's a story from sept 12, 2001 with a bit of detail: http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html

As for the rest of Clinton's record, here's a nice quick run-down: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/30/135644/95

With the sudan offer, my understanding was that we couldn't indict him at the time in US courts, and the efforts to get the saudis to take him failed because that could have eventually caused a collapse of the government. A saudi government, mind you, that is so extremely close to the bushes that you have a royal saying they are like her adoptive mother and father.

This can't be used as an attack on clinton since any administration, republican or democrat, would have had this problem at the time.

Anyway, it's irrefutable that the pre-9/11 bush admin was doing less to combat terrorism than the clinton admin was before leaving office. If you want to argue with it, good luck searching for anything to support it. You'll need it.

Happy Holidays
post #60 of 277
There's obviously a difference between being safer and being safe. Those in denial either think that nothing has been done, or they think that it's all safe now. I see a lot more of the former in here than the latter.

Also, red alert does not mean the Constitution gets tossed out the window even for a moment. It'a a living document, so we'd sooner see some paranoid and ultimately unconstitutional laws being passed, even poor amendments being made before then. Path of least resitance. Mistakes will be made for sure. Mistakes can be repealed, albeit too late in plenty of cases. But let's not get completely weirded out. It's not a decision that's up to the military, any part of the Executive branch, or anyone else alone. All branches of government would have to collude, or someone could stage a coup. And I don't see the latter going over too well for very long.
post #61 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
What about the well-known (as in, you guys should know this) Hart-Rudman study that spent the last year of clinton's presidency coming up with what eventually became the basis of the post-9/11 homeland security changes. Note that it was shelved by the incoming bush admin until 9/11. Oh, and before the fanatics piss themselves, yeah, it was a bipartisan committee.

Here's a story from sept 12, 2001 with a bit of detail: http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html

As for the rest of Clinton's record, here's a nice quick run-down: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/30/135644/95

With the sudan offer, my understanding was that we couldn't indict him at the time in US courts, and the efforts to get the saudis to take him failed because that could have eventually caused a collapse of the government. A saudi government, mind you, that is so extremely close to the bushes that you have a royal saying they are like her adoptive mother and father.

This can't be used as an attack on clinton since any administration, republican or democrat, would have had this problem at the time.

Anyway, it's irrefutable that the pre-9/11 bush admin was doing less to combat terrorism than the clinton admin was before leaving office. If you want to argue with it, good luck searching for anything to support it. You'll need it.

Thanks Giant. Your information about the Gary Hart and Warren Rudman report is right on the money. I'll add even more to this story:

Richard Clark, a former Clinton appointee, presented an entire al Qaeda plan. According to TIME, there were some questions about how seriously BushCorp accepted Clarke's warnings. One outgoing Clinton official felt that "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism." While BushCorp was focused on Rumseld's review of the military and missile defense.

The Hart Rudman Commission studied every aspect of national security over several years and concluded: "This commision believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government." Congress passed a bill to establish a National Homeland Security Agency. But over at the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon, they decided that the best course of action was not to implement the recommendations of the Hart Rudman report.

In "Let Freedom Ring" Sean Hannity outlines a charge that he frequently makes on his radio and television shows: that Clinton let Bin Laden slip his grasp. That's a pretty astonishing charge and one would hope he had his facts absolutely straight. He doesn't. His entire case is centered around a Pakistani named Mansoor Ijaz. Sandy Berger only had to meet with him once to realize he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz wanted sanctions lifted off Sudanese oil and tried bartering Bin Laden. Why didn't we negotiate? First, we don't negotiate with terrorist states. Two, because Sudan remains a notorious sponsor of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hazbollah, and al Qaeda. Third, Sudan is the leading state sponsor of slavery and is considered by many to be genocidal. However, the US pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.

The good news is that Moonsor Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for Fox News. Surprise surprise.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #62 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
There's obviously a difference between being safer and being safe. Those in denial either think that nothing has been done, or they think that it's all safe now. I see a lot more of the former in here than the latter.

Technically, I'm safer driving at 80MPH rather than driving at 120MPH. But I really want to drive 120 so I installed Z rated tires rather than V rated tires. I feel a lot safer now, rather than just safe.

It's all relative. Look, the chances of you or I getting killed by a new terrorist attack are slim. But, I refuse to allow this false sense of security to be used as political gain by the current administration. It's intellectually dishonest. So, yeah, I will counter that claim vigorously.

WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #63 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate

That's a pretty astonishing charge and one would hope he had his facts absolutely straight. He doesn't. His entire case is centered around a Pakistani named Mansoor Ijaz. Sandy Berger only had to meet with him once to realize he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz wanted sanctions lifted off Sudanese oil and tried bartering Bin Laden. Why didn't we negotiate? First, we don't negotiate with terrorist states. Two, because Sudan remains a notorious sponsor of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hazbollah, and al Qaeda. Third, Sudan is the leading state sponsor of slavery and is considered by many to be genocidal. However, the US pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.

The good news is that Moonsor Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for Fox News. Surprise surprise.

I knew I was forgetting something. It's been a few months since I read that book.
post #64 of 277
So the measure of "safety" is a political one?
post #65 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
So the measure of "safety" is a political one?

I don't know. According the Carl Rove it is.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #66 of 277
I'm so bad at baiting people. \
post #67 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I'm so bad at baiting people. \

Merry Christmas
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #68 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I knew I was forgetting something. It's been a few months since I read that book.

Well, I did paraphrase.

Doesn't change the facts though.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #69 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Well, I did paraphrase.

Doesn't change the facts though.

BTW: I downloaded expired about a month ago. Very cool. Are the other two available anywhere?
post #70 of 277
You guys should move to Israel or Afghanistan or Iraq if your think safety is entirely relative.

The fact that 9/11 proved to terror entities that a major attack on the US could be effected, opened the door for every wacky extremist group to follow suit. The fact that no other attack on US soil since proves that our government is taking serious measures to keep it's citizens safe as possible.

Giant, I know you will probably disagree with this, but who knows how many attempts have been thwarted by different agencies in our government.

Safety is relative, I will agree. But to state we are no safer than before 9/11 goes in the face of mounting evidence otherwise. And to imply that GWB is making token measures to achieve greater safety just because you are on the opposite end of the political spectrum, is blatantly irresponsible.

There are people on this earth that have decided that everything is America's and Israel's fault. They are banding together as we speek. They have decided that your life and the lives of your family should be cut short, if they have anything to do with it. You are the enemy, even if you think you are not. They care little about your political leanings. Stating "Wait, I am a liberal Democrat, I defend your cause!" will not save you from their hatred. Sending brotherly love or gifts will not make them like you. Understanding why they hate you will not prevent them from wanting to kill you. You and your children mean nothing to them, except maybe another notch on their gun-stalk. You should come to grips with sooner or later.

Like I said the greatest promoter of safety is involvement in your community.
post #71 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Giant, I know you will probably disagree with this, but who knows how many attempts have been thwarted by different agencies in our government.

There was a very real threat to the Brooklyn Bridge that the NYPD claimed was stopped because of the stepped up security here.

Like I said earlier, if anyone is going to be a target it's us in NYC. Hell we've been attacked twice.
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
post #72 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
BTW: I downloaded expired about a month ago. Very cool. Are the other two available anywhere?

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it.

OT: FETWICK is just about finished. Once we get through the holidays we're going to finish up post-sound. It's a very crazy goof-ball comedy that couldn't be more polar opposite to EXPIRED. Roughly 45 minutes.

OT: THE DEAD is a gothic-noir-thriller that was shot in 1998 before The Matrix, Underworld and Kill Bill came out. Unfortunately, because it took so long to finish, those film's plots, visual design have killed any potential my film might've had. I doubt I'll ever finish it now (despite constant pressure from my cast and crew). We may release it Onliine via my website even though it'll get hammered for being "derivative".

Merry Christmas!

Robert
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #73 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Now really. That's the first time I've heard that claim. You'll need to support it. I'll tell you what WAS created during Clinton's terms: A total disregard for national security. Clinton was offered bin laden in 1996 and turned him down. Clinton did nothing about the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. He launched a few cruise missles and laid waste to some aspirin factories...but what was accomplished to increase security during HIS terms? I seem to remembver a little nuke deal wtih North Korea.

SDW! God are you at this again? ( Head shakes ). Your right about one thing Clinton wasn't a warmonger. A great leader knows when to attack ( and for the right reasons ). Clinton handled this much better than Dubbya. Besides he knew we had work to do here at home to make are country strong financially. Something that our current leader doesn't seem to grasp.


Deficit, deficit, dance to the music!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #74 of 277
Just so you guys know:

When I read these posts, I tend to filter out the blatant partisanship displayed by both extremes. You guys know who you are!

I think that there is a place where agreement lies, I feel it is somewhere in the middle. Right?

As far as Clinton V. Bush: Running a country is so much more complicated than any of us realize. There is no way Clinton had the time he needed to dedicate to important things, he was too busy defending against his actions. I know, I know, some will say it was the republican's fault or the independent counsel or what have you. But the fact remains he could not have done as good a job as the current Pres. if only taking that into account.

Clinton had a habit of taking issues from his opposition to form a direction of his presidency. This President was confronted by a major problem and took on a cause to fight terrorism. Agree or not with the methods you can respect his steadfastness. Clinton was primarily a peacetime president. GWB has had a war brought to his doorstep. Comparisons, to me, seem a bit lacking. It's a whole new ball-game.

I am sure President Clinton was a good guy and he did a lot of good things, And, I would Imagine that if your were President you would too. Clinton was human and made human mistakes. I think you all should get over it on both sides. Live in the here an now.

My 2 cents.....
post #75 of 277
" GWB has had a war brought to his doorstep "

Are you sure he didn't bring the war to our doorstep?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #76 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
" GWB has had a war brought to his doorstep "

Are you sure he didn't bring the war to our doorstep?

Or are you talking about the first one with Afganistan?

Or maybe the war on terrorism? I have to say I would have been much more impressed if they had caught Osama instead of Saddam.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #77 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
" GWB has had a war brought to his doorstep "

Are you sure he didn't bring the war to our doorstep?

pay attention class;

That was a good example of partisan wackiness.
post #78 of 277
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
pay attention class;

That was a good example of partisan wackiness.


Nope! It's all in what you mean and how you look at it.


Was it wacky that he lied about the situation in Iraq?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #79 of 277
You guys don't get it do you?

Al-qaeda hit the US and the every wacky Muslim group cheered and considered it a rallying cry. Saddam praised it, they all did. The wacko wing of Islam declared war on the US and freedom, if all of the other terrorist acts did not convince anyone. All of us here are their enemy whether we like it or not. get used to it.

As far as WMD, all of you lefties will be eating your accusations, IMO, very soon. There has been rumors about proof of nuclear material being sent out of Iraq, along with eyewitnesses. Next week will be very interesting, I think.

My .02
post #80 of 277
So, have you lot in America been blown up, or was this just another scare brought to you by the totally clueless?
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Terror Alert Moves to High, Orange.