AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election postponement, and "al qaeda"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Election postponement, and "al qaeda" - Page 2

post #41 of 154
7/12/04 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh come on, jimmac. "Everytime Bush has a problem?" What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Even you can't be that cynical.

"None of them have come true". Wow. Now we're faulting Bush for NOT having more terror attacks on his watch.

You come on! Don't play dumb! you know exactly what I mean.
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 #42 of 154
7/12/04 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, here we go. Nice try. Sammi, it's not me ranting and raving, it's you. Of that there can be no question. You have a long history of posting ridiculous claims back by tenuous or no information. You have a well documented history of unreasonable and idiotic conspiracy theories with reagrds to government, corporate America and well, everything worth noting . Your statements go beyond the realm of any reasonable and credible political discourse.

What "line" is it that you take issue with? You cannot possibly be suggesting that the ENTIRE media has ignored evidence suggesting bin laden wasn't responsible and that there is "no Al-Qaeda". Come on.

I am not making assertions of any kind. You are. These assertions are actually suppositions and the aforementioned conspiracy theories.

Finally, I'd like to point out that this thread isn't about 9/11. It's about delaying the election in the event of a major terrorist attack. I contend that a short delay, if implemented properly by CONGRESS, would be a good thing. Are you disagreeing?

You're one to talk about a well documented history.....

You make alot of noise with little to back it up.

Where as Bush hasn't exactly run things above board. And please before you start we've already gone over why.

No I don't think Bush should be given any more time to find a way to wriggle out of this. Which could be what this is all about. He's going down.

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
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 #43 of 154
7/12/04 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally posted by a10t2
What the hell? I responded directly to what you said. If it wasn't what you meant, word your posts more carefully.

The outcome of the election is significantly less important, IMHO, than the election itself. If someone tries to influence the outcome of an election, and the election is postponed, he HAS. Democracy is more important than some wacko with a bomb.

You're insane and you're still playing games. Influencing an election means to influence the outcome. That's what terrorism is all about; causing political change through violence.

I see no tradegy in postponing the election briefly if a major terrorist attack occurs. When I say briefly, I mean perhaps 10-20 days. So a terrorist learns he can postpone the election for 10 days...WOW! What an accomplishment.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #44 of 154
7/12/04 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're insane and you're still playing games. Influencing an election means to influence the outcome. That's what terrorism is all about; causing political change through violence.

I see no tradegy in postponing the election briefly if a major terrorist attack occurs. When I say briefly, I mean perhaps 10-20 days. So a terrorist learns he can postpone the election for 10 days...WOW! What an accomplishment.

So lets see. The goal was to disrupt the election. Which if they did this they would be successful ( thanks to Bush ).

By the way I haven't heard any mention of the timeline of postponement.
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 #45 of 154
7/12/04 at 2:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, here we go. Nice try. Sammi, it's not me ranting and raving, it's you. Of that there can be no question. You have a long history of posting ridiculous claims back by tenuous or no information. You have a well documented history of unreasonable and idiotic conspiracy theories with reagrds to government, corporate America and well, everything worth noting . Your statements go beyond the realm of any reasonable and credible political discourse.

Examples, please. I imagine this request will be met with a roaring silence.

Quote:
What "line" is it that you take issue with? You cannot possibly be suggesting that the ENTIRE media has ignored evidence suggesting bin laden wasn't responsible and that there is "no Al-Qaeda". Come on.

No. There have been numerous stories in the media, in isolation. Did you not read any of those facts about 9-11 I posted? All of those anomalies (and many more) have been published in the mainstream US media ....you know, the ones seen, heard and read by you, and I, and Joe and Jane Public. Are you accusing the mainstream media of publishing a series of stories about 9-11 that are all false, perhaps because they don't gel with the Bush administration's interpretation?

And, it is you who is being not only irrational, but misquoting, and second guessing me. Go ahead and point ou the place where I "said that bin Laden is not a terrorist or financed terrorist attacks". And, nowhere did I say that "al qaeda doesn't exist." What I did say, at the start of this thread, but you obviously can't have read it, was that bin Laden/al qaeda was responsible for the African Embassy and USS Cole attacks...they even admitted culpability. And as for 9-11, the culprits remain largely unknown. Get over it. And as for al qaeda...see the link to the original article written by people who have studied terrorism, and know more about them than you, or I, or any member of this board...that al qaeda is a different kind of entity than what has been so heavily promoted since 9-11.

Quote:
I am not making assertions of any kind. You are. These assertions are actually suppositions and the aforementioned conspiracy theories.

In the original thread, I asserted that the chance from dying from an international terrorist act in America is extremely rare, because it is just that...the number of International terrorist acts on American soil since I have been alive.....extremely rare. And the administration has been busy putting fear into the US people for its own agenda, using the images of 9-11 as a tool. Assertion coming...look out...this fortunate lack of international terrorism in the US would have more chance of staying that way if Bush and his blundering Laurel and Hardy team hadn't created the almighty and ongoing mess in Iraq.

Quote:
Finally, I'd like to point out that this thread isn't about 9/11. It's about delaying the election in the event of a major terrorist attack. I contend that a short delay, if implemented properly by CONGRESS, would be a good thing. Are you disagreeing?

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.

This statement is ambiguous. It could mean delaying the election because of an actual attack "on or about that day"...or delaying the election because of the threat of an event of a terrorist attack on or about that day. What is to stop Homeland Security from postponing the election indefinitely, citing national security reasons and threats of terrorism, or until such times that the administration deems it the "best time" to hold the election?
"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 #46 of 154
7/12/04 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're insane and you're still playing games. Influencing an election means to influence the outcome. That's what terrorism is all about; causing political change through violence.

I see no tradegy in postponing the election briefly if a major terrorist attack occurs. When I say briefly, I mean perhaps 10-20 days. So a terrorist learns he can postpone the election for 10 days...WOW! What an accomplishment.

I've made the statement I meant to make twice, to wit, that postponing the election sends a message that democracy can be defeated by force, and that that is a message the US can't afford to send to the rest of the world. Your judgements as to my sanity are irrelevant to me, but I never play games when it comes to democracy. My convictions are too strong to allow it. You, on the other hand, make a statement, then back away from it when it's challenged, resorting to personal attacks instead of defending yourself. Don't bother insulting me again; I won't respond.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 154
7/12/04 at 2:46pm
Here ya go SJO. Grab one of these.

Reply
Reply
post #48 of 154
7/12/04 at 3:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Agreed. And Sammi's post is telling, because it's obvious from reading it that she wants terror to be treated as criminal law enforcmement matter. Gee, where have we seen that tried before?

SDW, here are some of the most recent notorious cases of terrorism on US soil, all of which led to innocent people being killed:

Oklahoma City bombing...
The Unabomber......
The Olympic Bomber,
The abortion clinic bombers and shooters
The World Trade Center bombing, 1993
The Maryland Sniper attacks 2003
The anthrax biological weapons attacks of 2001

I believe the FBI investigated these cases and in a number of the cases, brought the perps to justice. Whjat are you suggesting here? What is your solution here? That we bring in the military with B-52s and bombs, and keep the FBI etc. out of the picture???

Oddly, in the case of the anthrax attacks, the FBI was all over it for a few weeks. Then it was discovered that the anthrax originated from the US bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick, MD. Right at that point, the story all but disappeared from "all anthrax all the time"...to virtual silence. Remember the notices sent with the powder... "Death to Israel, Death to America, God is Great, Allah is Great"? Recall the way the dates were written in those crude notes, in the US order...ie Month/Day/Year? Middle eastern people customarily write dates as Day/Month/Year. Incidentally, when it became obvious and apparent that the whole thing was a ruse, nothing to do with muslims or international terrorism, it was deemed unimportant, even though some 5 Americans were killed by anthrax infection and many others became seriously ill.

Don't forget....Cheney said that everyone in the White House started taking Cipro on September 12 when the first anthrax letter wasn't postmarked until September 18 ..... WHY?

I may have been born on a Tuesday....but it wasn't last Tuesday.
"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 #49 of 154
7/12/04 at 3:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Here ya go SJO. Grab one of these.


Oh look, its Scott and SDW. awwwww so cute...



Enjoying the sand, huh?
"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 #50 of 154
7/12/04 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Here ya go SJO. Grab one of these.


sounds like Bush and his right wing only party is grabbing for these.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #51 of 154
7/12/04 at 3:19pm
By the way, in case anyone missed it:

The reports that the administration is trying to get the election rescheduled if there is a terrorist attack are patently false. It's not happening.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #52 of 154
7/12/04 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
By the way, in case anyone missed it:

The reports that the administration is trying to get the election rescheduled if there is a terrorist attack are patently false. It's not happening.

Yeah its not happening now that they know 90% of Americans say no! America is ran by its people not rich corporations who only interest is their next buck! sorry George, no amount of scheming will get you out of the fact you led us to war under false pretense. and your domestic policies rot for lack of a better term. I would work a little more on that golf swing of yours because everything else wont matter come Nov.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #53 of 154
7/12/04 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
By the way, in case anyone missed it:

The reports that the administration is trying to get the election rescheduled if there is a terrorist attack are patently false. It's not happening.

Link? Proof? You're going to have solid proof that someone else's false claims are wrong around here.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 154
7/12/04 at 5:23pm
Here's a little something related to chew on.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...rry/index.html
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 #55 of 154
7/12/04 at 5:24pm
Can we fit the faked moon landing into this somewhere before locking this doomed topic?
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #56 of 154
7/12/04 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I see no tradegy in postponing the election briefly if a major terrorist attack occurs. When I say briefly, I mean perhaps 10-20 days. So a terrorist learns he can postpone the election for 10 days...WOW! What an accomplishment.

What else do you propose a terrorist is able to change in the Constitution just by blowing up some people? You're anti-American if you find changing the date of the election non-tragic.
"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 #57 of 154
7/12/04 at 8:13pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
sounds like Bush and his right wing only party is grabbing for these.

All the better to snort coke with.
"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 #58 of 154
7/12/04 at 8:35pm
Quote:
Originally posted by a10t2
I've made the statement I meant to make twice, to wit, that postponing the election sends a message that democracy can be defeated by force, and that that is a message the US can't afford to send to the rest of the world. Your judgements as to my sanity are irrelevant to me, but I never play games when it comes to democracy. My convictions are too strong to allow it. You, on the other hand, make a statement, then back away from it when it's challenged, resorting to personal attacks instead of defending yourself. Don't bother insulting me again; I won't respond.

I have backed away from nothing. Postponing and election for 10 days is not "defeating Democracy". Please, explain to me how it is and what is to be gained for terrorists witha short term delay.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #59 of 154
7/12/04 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
SDW, here are some of the most recent notorious cases of terrorism on US soil, all of which led to innocent people being killed:

Oklahoma City bombing...
The Unabomber......
The Olympic Bomber,
The abortion clinic bombers and shooters
The World Trade Center bombing, 1993
The Maryland Sniper attacks 2003
The anthrax biological weapons attacks of 2001

I believe the FBI investigated these cases and in a number of the cases, brought the perps to justice. Whjat are you suggesting here? What is your solution here? That we bring in the military with B-52s and bombs, and keep the FBI etc. out of the picture???

Oddly, in the case of the anthrax attacks, the FBI was all over it for a few weeks. Then it was discovered that the anthrax originated from the US bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick, MD. Right at that point, the story all but disappeared from "all anthrax all the time"...to virtual silence. Remember the notices sent with the powder... "Death to Israel, Death to America, God is Great, Allah is Great"? Recall the way the dates were written in those crude notes, in the US order...ie Month/Day/Year? Middle eastern people customarily write dates as Day/Month/Year. Incidentally, when it became obvious and apparent that the whole thing was a ruse, nothing to do with muslims or international terrorism, it was deemed unimportant, even though some 5 Americans were killed by anthrax infection and many others became seriously ill.

Don't forget....Cheney said that everyone in the White House started taking Cipro on September 12 when the first anthrax letter wasn't postmarked until September 18 ..... WHY?

I may have been born on a Tuesday....but it wasn't last Tuesday.

Keep talking, sammi. Maybe if we ignore international terror it will all go away.

And oh, I forgot: Now you're implying that the administration knew about the anthrax attacks in advance too?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #60 of 154
7/12/04 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
Yeah its not happening now that they know 90% of Americans say no! America is ran by its people not rich corporations who only interest is their next buck! sorry George, no amount of scheming will get you out of the fact you led us to war under false pretense. and your domestic policies rot for lack of a better term. I would work a little more on that golf swing of yours because everything else wont matter come Nov.

Yep..it's all a power play by Bush. It will give him time to complete his secret bunker and updated Swastika.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #61 of 154
7/12/04 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
What else do you propose a terrorist is able to change in the Constitution just by blowing up some people? You're anti-American if you find changing the date of the election non-tragic.

Oh shut up and get real.

I see nothing wrong with a short delay in light of a catastrophic attack. If you do, then argue the point or go away.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #62 of 154
7/12/04 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh shut up and get real.

I see nothing wrong with a short delay in light of a catastrophic attack. If you do, then argue the point or go away.

I just did and, as usual, was able to expose the fallacy of your words. The Constitution states when we have an election. You can't change that. If you think it's OK to change the Constitution because of a terrorist attack, how much are you willing to change?

Answer the question or admit you were wrong. Hell, even if you answer the question you're still wrong.
"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 #63 of 154
7/12/04 at 8:59pm
All they were trying to do was make sure that they have answers for any potential situations that may arise. They have the answer and the election day isn't going to change. Good we can move on.

The way sammy can change a simple topic into a Bush conspiracy is quite comical I must say.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 154
7/12/04 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by kozchris
All they were trying to do was make sure that they have answers for any potential situations that may arise. They have the answer and the election day isn't going to change.

Why on earth would they even need to consider changing the date of an election?
"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 #65 of 154
7/12/04 at 9:24pm
After all, as drum points out, we didn't need to do it in 1864, so one would have to be a lunatic to support it now.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 154
7/12/04 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I just did and, as usual, was able to expose the fallacy of your words. The Constitution states when we have an election. You can't change that. If you think it's OK to change the Constitution because of a terrorist attack, how much are you willing to change?

Answer the question or admit you were wrong. Hell, even if you answer the question you're still wrong.

I know it's wrong to generalize, but Americans can be so funny sometimes.

Bunge, you do realize that most of the countries in the civilized, democratic world don't have fixed election dates. Most elections are generally called whenever the Government decides to go to the people within its five year term.

If a catastrophic attack led to a bipartisan call to delay the election for a month, I really can't see how American democracy is diminished.

Constitutions are changed on a daily basis, which is why Congress or Parliament exists in the first place. I really can't understand the alarmist tone that's being taken here.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #67 of 154
7/12/04 at 10:15pm
Were elections even disrupted during the Civil War? I seem to remember that they weren't.

Edit: oops. Didn't see that this comment had been made.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #68 of 154
7/12/04 at 10:23pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
I really can't understand the alarmist tone that's being taken here.

The gradual inconspicuous subjugation of the human race by the crab people is not warranting of your alarm? Dear God, man! We're talking about colonization here! Get your bottled water now while you can...
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #69 of 154
7/12/04 at 10:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
most of the countries in the civilized, democratic world don't have fixed election dates. Most elections are generally called whenever the Government decides to go to the people within its five year term.



Not us.
Quote:
If a catastrophic attack led to a bipartisan call to delay the election for a month, I really can't see how American democracy is diminished.

Because the American democratic process will have been postponed.
Quote:
Constitutions are changed on a daily basis,

Not ours.
Quote:
I really can't understand the alarmist tone that's being taken here.

Come down for a lengthy visit in Sept/Oct/Nov. It's pretty crazy right now.

Now here's what I don't understand: Why does this admin stonewall on matters where it needs to be transparent (e.g. the energy policy meetings) and leak like a sieve on matters that are just, well, stupid. I understand that admins have their legal divisions work through all kinds of scenarios. And I understand that having them play out a "what if" contingency plan in case of a catastrophic event (like a nuke going off in the port in Baltimore, NYC, or Boston) is to a degree reasonable. I also understand that an admin in a war and in need of intelligence would have lawyers look into issues of torture.

But HOW ON EARTH does this stuff get leaked/do they leak this stuff? I mean, if it's on purpose and designed to change the subject, that's one thing. If it's to frighten folks, that's another. If it's all out of their control, that's another.

But good lord. Harumph.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #70 of 154
7/12/04 at 10:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Constitutions are changed on a daily basis

It didn't used to be a "daily basis", but in fact happened periodicly, following a well proscribed process requiring a vote of ratification by two-thirds of the states.

And, it wasn't called "changing" the constitution - it was called "amending" it.

But yes, these days, it seems to be changing daily, and certainly not in a good way, much less one that follows our longstanding principles of democracy.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #71 of 154
7/12/04 at 10:35pm
Quote:
Why on earth would they even need to consider changing the date of an election?

Maybe some wackos figure out a way to take out all the canidates. Who the hell knows. Does a disaster need to happen before people can prepare. If you'd call losing all the canidates a disaster
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 154
7/12/04 at 10:45pm
Now that is an interesting proposition.

[Nader enters scene]
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #73 of 154
7/13/04 at 7:01am
Quote:
Originally posted by kozchris
Maybe some wackos figure out a way to take out all the canidates. Who the hell knows. Does a disaster need to happen before people can prepare. If you'd call losing all the canidates a disaster

Well, there's a clear precedent for that. If the candidates were dead we'd vote for their spouses. ;-)
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 154
7/13/04 at 7:31am
Quote:
Originally posted by a10t2
Well, there's a clear precedent for that. If the candidates were dead we'd vote for their spouses. ;-)

Hey, if Ashcroft can lose an election to a dead guy, why can't anyone else?
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 154
7/13/04 at 8:42am
Do you think Bush might be getting any new ideas?
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 154
7/13/04 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
Yeah its not happening now that they know 90% of Americans say no! America is ran by its people not rich corporations who only interest is their next buck! sorry George, no amount of scheming will get you out of the fact you led us to war under false pretense. and your domestic policies rot for lack of a better term. I would work a little more on that golf swing of yours because everything else wont matter come Nov.

Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Link? Proof? You're going to have solid proof that someone else's false claims are wrong around here.





</sarcasm>
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #77 of 154
7/13/04 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You're one to talk about a well documented history.....

You make alot of noise with little to back it up.

Where as Bush hasn't exactly run things above board. And please before you start we've already gone over why.

No I don't think Bush should be given any more time to find a way to wriggle out of this. Which could be what this is all about. He's going down.

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

It's like talking to goddamned wall. It has nothing to do with history, it has to do with prudence. Jesus Christ, it's not even a partisan issue. Get over it.

Oh, and since you've kindly explained "why Bush hasn't run things above board", I guess I should accept your bullshit and move on.

Your last comment is just hilarious. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO IS PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #78 of 154
7/13/04 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Examples, please. I imagine this request will be met with a roaring silence.



No. There have been numerous stories in the media, in isolation. Did you not read any of those facts about 9-11 I posted? All of those anomalies (and many more) have been published in the mainstream US media ....you know, the ones seen, heard and read by you, and I, and Joe and Jane Public. Are you accusing the mainstream media of publishing a series of stories about 9-11 that are all false, perhaps because they don't gel with the Bush administration's interpretation?

And, it is you who is being not only irrational, but misquoting, and second guessing me. Go ahead and point ou the place where I "said that bin Laden is not a terrorist or financed terrorist attacks". And, nowhere did I say that "al qaeda doesn't exist." What I did say, at the start of this thread, but you obviously can't have read it, was that bin Laden/al qaeda was responsible for the African Embassy and USS Cole attacks...they even admitted culpability. And as for 9-11, the culprits remain largely unknown. Get over it. And as for al qaeda...see the link to the original article written by people who have studied terrorism, and know more about them than you, or I, or any member of this board...that al qaeda is a different kind of entity than what has been so heavily promoted since 9-11.



In the original thread, I asserted that the chance from dying from an international terrorist act in America is extremely rare, because it is just that...the number of International terrorist acts on American soil since I have been alive.....extremely rare. And the administration has been busy putting fear into the US people for its own agenda, using the images of 9-11 as a tool. Assertion coming...look out...this fortunate lack of international terrorism in the US would have more chance of staying that way if Bush and his blundering Laurel and Hardy team hadn't created the almighty and ongoing mess in Iraq.





This statement is ambiguous. It could mean delaying the election because of an actual attack "on or about that day"...or delaying the election because of the threat of an event of a terrorist attack on or about that day. What is to stop Homeland Security from postponing the election indefinitely, citing national security reasons and threats of terrorism, or until such times that the administration deems it the "best time" to hold the election?

1. I have not misquoted you. Your statements and implications have been clear to all.

2. The culprits of 9/11 ARE known.

3. Your notion of international terror being rare is absurd. 3,000 people died, sammi jo. Say it with me: 3,000 people. It doesn't matter if domestic terror is more frequent. We have a wide ranging organization currently planning the mass murder of thousands or millions of our citizens. "Rare" or not, the threat must be dealt with.

4. The adminsitration has not exploited 9/11 images, because the media refuses to keep showing the images. God forbid we remember what happened. You know what...I think it would be best if just forgot 9/11, treated it like a law enforcement operation and assumed it won't happen again.

5. The LAW and how it is written would stop such a scenario of a long delay. I of course would not support a long delay or language that is too vague.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #79 of 154
7/13/04 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I just did and, as usual, was able to expose the fallacy of your words. The Constitution states when we have an election. You can't change that. If you think it's OK to change the Constitution because of a terrorist attack, how much are you willing to change?

Answer the question or admit you were wrong. Hell, even if you answer the question you're still wrong.

Slippery Slope tactic..or should I say "slimey slope".

It depends on the situation and how the law/amendment would be worded. It's all academic anyway because it's not going to happen.


kozchris:

Quote:
All they were trying to do was make sure that they have answers for any potential situations that may arise. They have the answer and the election day isn't going to change. Good we can move on.

The way sammy can change a simple topic into a Bush conspiracy is quite comical I must say.

She's quite the magician.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #80 of 154
7/13/04 at 4:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
It depends on the situation and how the law/amendment would be worded. It's all academic anyway because it's not going to happen.

I just asked YOU to word it, not someone else. How much are YOU willing to give up in the face of a terrorist attack?

The only acceptable answer is none, but you've already overstepped that answer.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election postponement, and "al qaeda"