Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
2008 U.S. Presidential Election
Topic Started: Feb 22 2007, 05:49 AM (37,433 Views)
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Bag O' Nails
Jul 9 2008, 08:33 PM
I do care for you all here and while we all can't agree on everything (well, for except that Paul rules :yahoo: :giggle: )
I have to disagree again. Obviously John rules.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Jul 10 2008, 07:29 AM


There are Jewish terrorist organisations but I never hear people say not all Jews are terrorists.
Tell me about it. I remember being accused of anti-semitism just for stating the simple fact that there are Jewish Israeli terrorist organisations in the context of whether Israel really is such a poor little victim when it comes to terrorism.

I'm a Catholic, but I'm not a kiddie-fiddler. Just in case anyone was wondering.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Bill
Jul 10 2008, 06:11 AM
Well, a silly old goat who's struggling to maintain relevance saying something stupid doesn't really rattle my foundations. By whispering, it indicates he knew his mic was on and tried to get around it which shows extreme foolishness. Again, not something I feel compelled to get all that passionate about. I do find it interesting though, that it was important enough to be O'Reilly's top story. I can only surmise from that, that nothing more important happened in the world that day. So happy days!
:bounce:
If Jesse is finally exposed for the fraud that he is from this statement than yes Bill, nothing more important for the history of the US happened yesterday. Sorry the clip is from FOX, let me relate the coverage from CNN to you. David Gergan implied that a war was about to start between the politics of the charlatan and the politics of Yes We Can! A war between a man made of a happenstance photo and a self made man. One who tells his people to hold out their hands and one who tells them to get off their asses.

I think Jesse is feeling a little guilty about his "fatherless" love child and Obama's Father's Day speech.

ps Obviously the above with David Gergan is how I heard what he said and not a direct quote
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Sounds to me like a whole lot of political grave-dancing from a bunch of people who have had a hardon for Jackson for most of their adult lives. Let them have their fun. It will not change the political landscape.

My only question is this:
How is it that Jackson gets constantly investigated when the lies that led the country to war must be left in the past? Jackson may be a political opportunist but I'm not aware that he has any blood on his hands. I'm sensing double standards here. ;)

No, correction: I have one other question: why do I get asked to comment on this? :-/ Jesse Jackson is irrelevant to me and not analogous to any point I've been making.
Edited by Bill, Jul 10 2008, 03:09 PM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Mia Culpa
Jul 10 2008, 07:33 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 9 2008, 08:33 PM
I do care for you all here and while we all can't agree on everything (well, for except that Paul rules :yahoo: :giggle: )
I have to disagree again. Obviously John rules.
And that's what makes the world go round! :boogie:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Mia Culpa
Jul 10 2008, 07:29 AM
If you don't understand the problem with saying not all Muslims are terrorists imagine constantly hearing that not all Christians are terrorists. Most Christians are probably decent people. It's the extremists you have to fear. He's Christian, but it's ok, he's not a terrorist. I went to a Christian country and didn't see any terrorism.

There are Jewish terrorist organisations but I never hear people say not all Jews are terrorists. Islam has as much to do with terrorism as Judaism and Christianity do.
I don't know 100% for sure where you live; I don't know much about you but I can surmise from your posts and your avatar that you are possibly an Israeli living there?

If true, in your part of the world, how do you tell who is an extremist or terrorist? Do you have "Christian" terrorists over there? I've never even heard of that term! Which "Christian" country are you referring to? I've never heard of anyplace in this world that hasn't been touched by some type or fear of any terrorism.

Yes, extremists are the ones to fear. I think the problem is being able to identify who is one and who is not.

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Mia Culpa
Jul 10 2008, 07:29 AM
There are Jewish terrorist organisations but I never hear people say not all Jews are terrorists. Islam has as much to do with terrorism as Judaism and Christianity do.
I can only comment on what I know about this, but I do have some questions for you.

Christians read the Bible.
Jews read the Torah.
Muslims read the Koran.

As far as I know, there are no teachings in the Bible nor the Torah that would encourage any kind of terrorism. The USA, generally considered a "Christian" country, is a great ally and defender of the state of Israel and her rights to be a country.

Not being Muslim, I've never read the Koran (and not being Jewish, I've not read the Torah). But I have read/heard quoted things from the Koran like, "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51) And there are many many more passages which supposedly support the Muslim terrorists' reasons for what they do. If a religion teaches this type of hatred/retalliation towards others, then can you understand the fears that it can generally cause? I do realize that scriptures can be isolated and misquoted (it happens all the time in the Bible, at least) but I think that when you put 2 + 2 together and there are actual terrorist attacks (like the WTC), reasons will be investigated and conclusions will be made as to the motivation.

You say there are Jewish terrorist organizations and maybe so; I'm no expert. But I've never heard of them threatening or attacking our country; I've never read/heard of their teachings that encourage any type of terrorism actions (actually I thought that it was more of a defensive nature so that they can defend their right to be a nation in that area).

Some have made comments that if Hitler had won the war, we'd all be speaking German. I don't take that personally (and I could due to my family heritage) but I do certainly understand where that comes from. Everyone hated my family when they came to this country after the war for the simple fact they were Germans; they were not "Nazis" but it didn't matter...they were "evil Germans." They were simple farmers that lost everything; they could no more control what Hitler was doing than we can control what our leadership does.

All this to say that this is a hot and sensitive topic; and I can't say I have all the answers....but I do have lots of questions! :$

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Heidi, us non-Jews know the Torah as The Old Testament, though there is a bit more than what is in the Christian Bible. It is the 5 books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. You might be thinking of the Talmud which is the Jewish Scripture, their meanings, and how to apply the Laws.

As for that verse from the Qur'an, this may satisfy what you need to know (it is lengthy so will not post the page), here is the link!

Qur'an verse Surah 5:51
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Jul 10 2008, 08:35 PM

Not being Muslim, I've never read the Koran (and not being Jewish, I've not read the Torah). But I have read/heard quoted things from the Koran like, "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51) And there are many many more passages which supposedly support the Muslim terrorists' reasons for what they do. If a religion teaches this type of hatred/retalliation towards others, then can you understand the fears that it can generally cause? I do realize that scriptures can be isolated and misquoted (it happens all the time in the Bible, at least) but I think that when you put 2 + 2 together and there are actual terrorist attacks (like the WTC), reasons will be investigated and conclusions will be made as to the motivation.
And did you investigate who quoted those supposed lines and factor in their motivation? Were they quoted by actual Islamic scholars, or by fearmongering websites?

You're right that the Bible is often misquoted and misinterpreted even by people who claim to be Christians (Westboro anyone?) but we do not use that as an excuse to suspect all Christianity, so why treat other faiths differently? You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
 
If true, in your part of the world, how do you tell who is an extremist or terrorist?

They don't wear uniforms.
And when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, it wasn't by a Muslim.

Quote:
 
Do you have "Christian" terrorists over there? I've never even heard of that term! Which "Christian" country are you referring to?

You've never heard of the IRA? :blink:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Jul 10 2008, 11:54 PM
Heidi, us non-Jews know the Torah as The Old Testament, though there is a bit more than what is in the Christian Bible. It is the 5 books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. You might be thinking of the Talmud which is the Jewish Scripture, their meanings, and how to apply the Laws.

As for that verse from the Qur'an, this may satisfy what you need to know (it is lengthy so will not post the page), here is the link!

Qur'an verse Surah 5:51
Thanks for the correction!

Interesting link...thanks. It seems similar to me in the fact that many Biblical scriptures are so often misquoted/misunderstood and when you go back to the context, the original language, etc. it becomes clear(er).

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Bill
Jul 10 2008, 09:05 AM
Tell me about it. I remember being accused of anti-semitism just for stating the simple fact that there are Jewish Israeli terrorist organisations in the context of whether Israel really is such a poor little victim when it comes to terrorism.
Next time somebody calls you an anti-semite ask them what a semite is. If they say Jewish people you'll know they don't know what they're talking about.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Bag O' Nails
Jul 10 2008, 08:08 PM
I don't know 100% for sure where you live; I don't know much about you but I can surmise from your posts and your avatar that you are possibly an Israeli living there?

If true, in your part of the world, how do you tell who is an extremist or terrorist? Do you have "Christian" terrorists over there? I've never even heard of that term! Which "Christian" country are you referring to? I've never heard of anyplace in this world that hasn't been touched by some type or fear of any terrorism.

Yes, extremists are the ones to fear. I think the problem is being able to identify who is one and who is not.

I mean no offense by this, but it sounds like you know very little about the world. Racism is bad no matter where I live.

How can you tell who the terrorists are? They're the ones using fear and hate to segregate people.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Bag O' Nails
Jul 10 2008, 08:35 PM
Christians read the Bible.
Jews read the Torah.
Muslims read the Koran.

As far as I know, there are no teachings in the Bible nor the Torah that would encourage any kind of terrorism. The USA, generally considered a "Christian" country, is a great ally and defender of the state of Israel and her rights to be a country.
You might be surprised to learn that Christians read an abridged interpretation of the Tanakh and Muslims read parts of the Sefer Torah, Nevi'im and Bible. It's not germane to this discussion, but you can't really read the Torah.

People can easily argue that saying the only way to Heaven is through Jesus encourages people to kill in his name. The Inquisitions and Shoah were terrorism in extremes. The Tanakh tells Jews to return to Israel. That's caused all kinds of problems.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Bag O' Nails
Jul 10 2008, 08:35 PM
Not being Muslim, I've never read the Koran (and not being Jewish, I've not read the Torah). But I have read/heard quoted things from the Koran like, "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51) And there are many many more passages which supposedly support the Muslim terrorists' reasons for what they do. If a religion teaches this type of hatred/retalliation towards others, then can you understand the fears that it can generally cause? I do realize that scriptures can be isolated and misquoted (it happens all the time in the Bible, at least) but I think that when you put 2 + 2 together and there are actual terrorist attacks (like the WTC), reasons will be investigated and conclusions will be made as to the motivation.
I really don't know where to begin. Please stop watching Fox News. If you really want to investigate talk to Muslims, not people who hate Muslims.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Bag O' Nails
Jul 10 2008, 08:35 PM
You say there are Jewish terrorist organizations and maybe so; I'm no expert. But I've never heard of them threatening or attacking our country; I've never read/heard of their teachings that encourage any type of terrorism actions (actually I thought that it was more of a defensive nature so that they can defend their right to be a nation in that area).
So if it doesn't affect your country it doesn't matter? Defensive terrorism? Don't all terrorists think they're defending something?
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Jul 12 2008, 06:55 AM


How can you tell who the terrorists are? They're the ones using fear and hate to segregate people.
Quote of the week! :worship:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Mia Culpa
Jul 12 2008, 06:55 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 10 2008, 08:08 PM
I don't know 100% for sure where you live; I don't know much about you but I can surmise from your posts and your avatar that you are possibly an Israeli living there?

If true, in your part of the world, how do you tell who is an extremist or terrorist? Do you have "Christian" terrorists over there? I've never even heard of that term! Which "Christian" country are you referring to? I've never heard of anyplace in this world that hasn't been touched by some type or fear of any terrorism.

Yes, extremists are the ones to fear. I think the problem is being able to identify who is one and who is not.

I mean no offense by this, but it sounds like you know very little about the world. Racism is bad no matter where I live.

How can you tell who the terrorists are? They're the ones using fear and hate to segregate people.
Since you precluded your statement with asking me "not to take offense," I won't...but your remark is anything but complimentary. :huh: I can't help but wonder why you would surmise I'm ignorant about "the world." Is it because I ask a lot of questions? I'm not uneducated nor am I ignorant; I am curious about how others who live elsewhere see things. I realize racism is not a "good" thing, :( but if one lives in another part of the world, don't you think that their perspectives may come from a different point of view? It's obvious you don't want to share where you live; it's your perogative & I guess I really don't care anymore to try and understand you on a more personal level.

I think you're probably smart enough to understand my question about telling who is and isn't a "terrorist." Your pat answer did not address my question with the same definition of the word as I meant it (and you know it).

It seems relatively easy for you to pick apart my posts and give curt answers to specific lines only. No offense.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

There are different types of questions. If a question is based on a false assumption, then it's not an open-ended question and it does reveal something about the person asking the question. It would be like asking "Why are Americans racist?" Asking such a question, even if it is asked in good faith, reveals a comprehensive lack of understanding of America.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
The people of the Islamic faith, whichever nationality they are, that want to kill Israelis, U.S.A .ers, (that's for Michelle) and the "west;" what are we allowed to call them, without fear of being called racist, bigoted and/or stupid, so this 'discussion' can get past the bullsh*t semantics level?

Or am I not to believe what has been reported by every conceivable means of communication other than FOX News all my life. Is that really the bullsh*t? That would be say from about 1967 (about 8 years old.) Have me tell you about my flight to Greece aboard EL AL, the Israeli airliner for Christmas vacation in 1967 three months after the 6 day war, landing in Athens the same day the King tried to overthrow the junta that had taken over Greece some months prior. (or maybe not.) ;)
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

It's really very simple. Call a terrorist a terrorist. Call a Muslim a Muslim. Call a Greek a Greek. And leave out any information that is not relevant to the discussion - just like Bill O'Reilly did. :P

You mention their faith but not their nationality. Why? I find that very interesting.

People don't refer to Barack Obama as the black democratic nominee. That would be racist because he is the nominee and race is neither here nor there. Likewise, a terrorist is a terrorist. It's that simple. And the fact that some people seem to be so shocked that there are terrorists who are not in fact Muslim just goes to show how ill-informed and, yes, racist, the debate has become.
And it's become that way because people are all too keen to dumb it down to its most obvious components. Oh, it's because they're Muslim, that must be it. Why isn't it because they're male? Why isn't it because they have black hair?

Why aren't the IRA called Catholic terrorists, even when it's factually accurate to say so?
The answer is because Catholicism has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is terrorism and radicalism. The same goes for terrorists on any other creed.

It really is so very obvious.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Bill
Jul 13 2008, 06:50 AM


People don't refer to Barack Obama as the black democratic nominee. That would be racist because he is the nominee and race is neither here nor there.

Some people do--my boss and I get to hear it every day. My parents do, too. They are racist. CNN interviewed some people and one woman won't vote for Obama because he is Muslim. Go figure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 13 2008, 05:34 AM
There are different types of questions. If a question is based on a false assumption, then it's not an open-ended question and it does reveal something about the person asking the question. It would be like asking "Why are Americans racist?" Asking such a question, even if it is asked in good faith, reveals a comprehensive lack of understanding of America.
Sorry, I simply can't agree with this statement. :ermm: You're saying that every question one should ask should be based on only a truthful assumptions? I've always been taught there is not such a thing as a dumb question. Now we're qualifying the types of questions people ask! :huh: Isn't racism a complicated and multifaceted issue? It's not a simple question like "where is the closest Starbucks?"

:blink:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that when a question IS based on demonstrably false assumptions, then there's nothing wrong pointing the falsehood out and respectfully suggesting the question is misinformed - which is exactly what has happened.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 13 2008, 06:50 AM
It's really very simple. Call a terrorist a terrorist. Call a Muslim a Muslim. Call a Greek a Greek. And leave out any information that is not relevant to the discussion - just like Bill O'Reilly did. :P

You mention their faith but not their nationality. Why? I find that very interesting.

People don't refer to Barack Obama as the black democratic nominee. That would be racist because he is the nominee and race is neither here nor there. Likewise, a terrorist is a terrorist. It's that simple. And the fact that some people seem to be so shocked that there are terrorists who are not in fact Muslim just goes to show how ill-informed and, yes, racist, the debate has become.
And it's become that way because people are all too keen to dumb it down to its most obvious components. Oh, it's because they're Muslim, that must be it. Why isn't it because they're male? Why isn't it because they have black hair?

Why aren't the IRA called Catholic terrorists, even when it's factually accurate to say so?
The answer is because Catholicism has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is terrorism and radicalism. The same goes for terrorists on any other creed.

It really is so very obvious.
I don't think it's as obvious as you think, or there wouldn't be this discussion in the world.

Of course there are different nationalities that subscribe to different religious faiths. While not all Muslims are from the middle east; not all Buddhists are from the orient; not all Hindis are from India; not all Christians are caucasion...isn't is safe to say that the majority stem from there or are associated with a certain region? Don't we make assumptions all the time? So when assumptions are made, can't you say that is comes from a reasonable line of thinking?

Regarding the conflict in Ireland, from what I understand the real motivation was political and not religious, so why would Catholicism be given credit? It only makes sense that they would not be called "Catholic Terrorists!"

In contrast, the terrorists who bombed the WTC are the ones themselves who said they did it for the sake of Allah and give credit to their religious faith as their motivation...so then what are we to think??

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

And the Westboro freaks claim they're doing God's work too. What's your point? What are we to think? That Christians are evil? Or merely that "not all" Christians are evil.

Christianity teaches us to do unto others as we would have them to unto ourselves. That's all I'm suggesting. Give others the benefit of the doubt in the same way we want them to give us the benefit of the doubt despite the crimes committed in the name of our respective faiths.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Jul 14 2008, 12:27 AM

Regarding the conflict in Ireland, from what I understand the real motivation was political and not religious, so why would Catholicism be given credit? It only makes sense that they would not be called "Catholic Terrorists!"
BINGO!

Now you're getting it.

I've got news for you: ALL terrorism is political. The brainwashed footsoldiers may think they're doing it for their faith but the ones controlling them only have POLITICAL aims. There's no difference between al Qeada and the IRA. They are both organisation of a single faith with the political aims of not having others interfere in how they live. A respectable enough cause rendered trivial by their methods.

So what are we to think? We're to think beyond the lowest common denominator. You've chosen to do that with regard to the IRA and good for you. The next step is to do it on all the issues.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 14 2008, 12:35 AM
And the Westboro freaks claim they're doing God's work too. What's your point? What are we to think? That Christians are evil? Or merely that "not all" Christians are evil.

Christianity teaches us to do unto others as we would have them to unto ourselves. That's all I'm suggesting. Give others the benefit of the doubt in the same way we want them to give us the benefit of the doubt despite the crimes committed in the name of our respective faiths.
Yes, they are a bunch of loonies but they haven't blown up a building with 3000 innocents & given their religious beliefs as an excuse. And they don't proclaim that they have such aspirations to cause the destruction of a nation. If they did, then you can bet that Christianity would be in the hot seat, and it's already under fire because of their poor examples of the hateful message they spew.

I totally agree with your last paragraph, by the way! :flower: :clap:
Edited by Bag O' Nails, Jul 14 2008, 12:50 AM.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User


plenty of peopel call them catholic terriorists or sectairian / racist shites why coz that is what they are. the catholic church in ireland has a long history of supporting them and others like them.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 14 2008, 12:41 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 14 2008, 12:27 AM

Regarding the conflict in Ireland, from what I understand the real motivation was political and not religious, so why would Catholicism be given credit? It only makes sense that they would not be called "Catholic Terrorists!"
BINGO!

Now you're getting it.

I've got news for you: ALL terrorism is political. The brainwashed footsoldiers may think they're doing it for their faith but the ones controlling them only have POLITICAL aims. There's no difference between al Qeada and the IRA. They are both organisation of a single faith with the political aims of not having others interfere in how they live. A respectable enough cause rendered trivial by their methods.

So what are we to think? We're to think beyond the lowest common denominator. You've chosen to do that with regard to the IRA and good for you. The next step is to do it on all the issues.
The only difference between Al Quada and the IRA is that the IRA has not attacked us on our soil. They have not set out on the destruction of my country. Yes, terrorism is terrorism, and whatever reason is given for motivation, credit will be given.

If I tell you that I murdered your family because the devil made me do it, who do you give credit to...me or the devil?
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Right, so we're back to terrorism only being a bad thing when it happens to Americans and all the other victims don't matter..... right!

If you killed my family I would give full credit to you and I wouldn't give a f*ck what your religion is. I guess we differ on that.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Since this got slightly off topic, :D let me connect the dots getting back to the candidates by posting a link to this article by columnist Thomas Sowell about Obama vs McCain:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/06/05/obama_and_mccain
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Al Queda has attacked and killed all kinds of people all over the world. I dislike them because they are murderers. I would equally dislike you if you murdered me, my family or my friends and I wouldn't care what religion or where you came from. Murder ir murder no matter the so called reason for it.

I don't agree that terrorism is only bad when it happens on our soil. Terrorism is wrong no matter where it occurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 14 2008, 12:58 AM
Right, so we're back to terrorism only being a bad thing when it happens to Americans and all the other victims don't matter..... right!

If you killed my family I would give full credit to you and I wouldn't give a f*ck what your religion is. I guess we differ on that.
I never said that terrorism in other places didn't matter! I am, however, talking about terrorism in my country, as it pertains to this thread.

Well, I threw that "the devil made me do it" remark because the "Night Stalker" serial killer, Richard Ramierz used Satan as his motivation for his actions. My only point in even saying this is that whether right or wrong, people use excuses for their actions and like to cast the blame on some "religious-based" ideals.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Your Satanist example proves my point. Murder is the objective and faith is the excuse. You can find passages in the Bible that could be taken as justification for everything from wife-beating to patricide but no-one offers that as evidence that Christianity is a violent religion.

I commend you for seeing the broader picture when it comes to the IRA. You're absolutely right. So how would you respond to those who would say,
"All I know is that not all Catholics are IRA but all IRA are Catholics."
Would you say that was a gross oversimplification of the facts? I would!

So if you make the effort to understand the broader issues of terrorism committed by people who happen to be Christian (by word if not by deed), then why not try to understand the deeper issues of terrorism committed by people who happen to be Muslim (again, by word if not by deed)?
To do one and not the other looks like double-standards. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Bag O' Nails
Jul 13 2008, 04:47 AM
Since you precluded your statement with asking me "not to take offense," I won't...but your remark is anything but complimentary. :huh: I can't help but wonder why you would surmise I'm ignorant about "the world." Is it because I ask a lot of questions? I'm not uneducated nor am I ignorant; I am curious about how others who live elsewhere see things. I realize racism is not a "good" thing, :( but if one lives in another part of the world, don't you think that their perspectives may come from a different point of view? It's obvious you don't want to share where you live; it's your perogative & I guess I really don't care anymore to try and understand you on a more personal level.

I think you're probably smart enough to understand my question about telling who is and isn't a "terrorist." Your pat answer did not address my question with the same definition of the word as I meant it (and you know it).

It seems relatively easy for you to pick apart my posts and give curt answers to specific lines only. No offense.
I don't know how or why I'd preclude my own statement, but I really meant no offense and I apologise if I've hurt you in some way. My assumption that you don't know much about the world beyond the Jersey Turnpike is just that, an assumption. We all make assumptions about people without much evidence and I'm as guilty of that as anybody. You could be an expert on cultural interpretation for all I know. But what you've posted here surprises me, especially with respect to Muslims. I know what the anti-Muslim propagandists think but it's always shocking to hear people who actually follow that line, especially from somebody who lives in a country with 2 million Muslims.

Most of the terrorist attacks in your country are performed by Americans. Most were Christians. Some were Jewish. I don't know what that Korean student was. Why are you more worried about the Muslims than the others? Do you believe 911 was the only terrorist attack against Americans? Historically black Americans do more damage than Muslims. Did you guys ever figure out who sent the anthrax? I bet it wasn't a Muslim.

I agree that different perspectives make these discussions more interesting. And sometimes people with different perspectives will disagree. That's why there's chocolate and vanilla.

I don't mind sharing where I live. I live in Israel. I've been here since I moved from China. Before that I lived in Alaska. And on and on. When I said racism is bad no matter where I live I thought my point was obvious.

I guess I really didn't understand your question about who is or isn't a terrorist just as I don't understand your use of quotes. Maybe you're overestimating my intelligence. Or maybe we define the word in different ways. I think it's obvious who a terrorist is by their actions. How they worship God is irrelevant, except that God condemns terrorism performed by anybody of any religion or nationality.

I picked apart your posts because I don't know any other way to quote specific sentences without quoting the whole post. I'll apologise to anybody I've offended but I won't apologise for responding to posts. That's why we're here. If nobody responds it gets quiet real fast.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Thomas Sowell
 
When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.


Then you don't get to comment on what happened afterwards.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Bill
Jul 13 2008, 06:50 AM
It really is so very obvious.
Apparently not.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bag O' Nails
Jul 14 2008, 12:55 AM
Bill
Jul 14 2008, 12:41 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 14 2008, 12:27 AM

Regarding the conflict in Ireland, from what I understand the real motivation was political and not religious, so why would Catholicism be given credit? It only makes sense that they would not be called "Catholic Terrorists!"
BINGO!

Now you're getting it.

I've got news for you: ALL terrorism is political. The brainwashed footsoldiers may think they're doing it for their faith but the ones controlling them only have POLITICAL aims. There's no difference between al Qeada and the IRA. They are both organisation of a single faith with the political aims of not having others interfere in how they live. A respectable enough cause rendered trivial by their methods.

So what are we to think? We're to think beyond the lowest common denominator. You've chosen to do that with regard to the IRA and good for you. The next step is to do it on all the issues.
The only difference between Al Quada and the IRA is that the IRA has not attacked us on our soil. They have not set out on the destruction of my country. Yes, terrorism is terrorism, and whatever reason is given for motivation, credit will be given.

If I tell you that I murdered your family because the devil made me do it, who do you give credit to...me or the devil?
Why does it matter on who attacked who on whose soil? Terrorism is just that.......terrorism. What do you call a couple of Americans who blow up a federal building? What do you call a gang of people who create terror in their city or town? Most people call them gangs, I call them terrorist! They have no religious affiliations (yet most are brought up Christian) but they recruit many more people than Al Qaeda does. They kill over a hundred in City alone per year yet their crimes do not capture the attention of the US Homeland Security but the police have little resources to put them away as to many witness are terrified to testify against them. These are the terrorists that do more damage to any innercity than Al Qaeda can ever think of doing.

Yes you can compare Westboro with Al Qaeda. They may not kill but they certainly do condone the killing of people they don't like.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 14 2008, 03:16 AM
Thomas Sowell
 
When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.


Then you don't get to comment on what happened afterwards.
Well, that sounds reasonable but the plain and simple fact is that a great percentage of people in this country don't vote (and that's a terrible shame)...but it doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.

Any other comments on the rest of the article, or did you stop reading because he didn't vote in '72? :blink:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Quote:
 
Yes you can compare Westboro with Al Qaeda. They may not kill but they certainly do condone the killing of people they don't like.


Really? :blink: While I agree that that "church" is not a true representation of Christianity and preach a terribly wrong message, they don't have secret terrorist cells all over the world that are recruiting people towards destroying America as we know it.

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Jul 14 2008, 06:18 AM
Well, that sounds reasonable but the plain and simple fact is that a great percentage of people in this country don't vote (and that's a terrible shame)...but it doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.

Any other comments on the rest of the article, or did you stop reading because he didn't vote in '72? :blink:
Since you ask, it's the usual bullsh*t scaremongering, at odds with Pentagon intelligence, that we come to expect from right wing sites like Town Hall. It's funny how it all sound so much like what was said about Iraq six years ago, with one letter changed. Does anyone remember how that turned out.

He is entitled to his opinion of course, but his opinion doesn't count because he chose not to make it count when it mattered. No matter how dull the candidates may be (and that's certainly not the case in this election, unless you're a right-wing ideologue) there is always the lesser of two evils. I have no respect for people who don't vote at the best of times, but when someone who unashamedly admits he didn't vote in the past now tells people how important it is to vote this time, I think that stinks. It also shows a fundamental ignorance of history because according to my memory, America was at war in 1972 and this joker cared so much about that and the threats to his country that not only would he not get off his shitter and vote then, he remains proud of the fact now. What a loser!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bag O' Nails
Jul 14 2008, 06:35 AM
Quote:
 
Yes you can compare Westboro with Al Qaeda. They may not kill but they certainly do condone the killing of people they don't like.


Really? :blink: While I agree that that "church" is not a true representation of Christianity and preach a terribly wrong message, they don't have secret terrorist cells all over the world that are recruiting people towards destroying America as we know it.

They may not but they, and groups like them, have an outreach preaching their brand of hatred worldwide to destroy the country they live in (and yes not just the US). I live in the US, too but am concerned about terrorism worldwide as well as in our local streets. Al Qaeda has nothing on groups like the Bloods and the Crips who are now being found in places like the Phillippines. The LA's gangs are not just the US and LA problem anymore, they are the world's.
Edited by beatlechick, Jul 15 2008, 01:10 AM.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Next question:

Can someone explain to me the humour and satire in THIS and why it isn't offensive?

I do hope those who jumped up and down about the "General betray us" ad will be as vocal in their outrage over this, since they care so much about standards. :ponder:

And while we're at it.... what liberal media?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Jul 15 2008, 01:06 AM
Next question:

Can someone explain to me the humour and satire in THIS and why it isn't offensive?

I do hope those who jumped up and down about the "General betray us" ad will be as vocal in their outrage over this, since they care so much about standards. :ponder:

And while we're at it.... what liberal media?
And with the US flag burning in the fireplace. Nice job New Yawker!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 15 2008, 01:06 AM
Next question:

Can someone explain to me the humour and satire in THIS and why it isn't offensive?

I do hope those who jumped up and down about the "General betray us" ad will be as vocal in their outrage over this, since they care so much about standards. :ponder:

And while we're at it.... what liberal media?
Here's the article that goes along with this picture.

Shame on the New Yorker for doing that! :nono:
I'm not an Obama supporter but don't think he and his wife deserve that!

"Liberal" media? All I can say is THANK GOD it didn't come from a conservative source! :whistle:
Edited by Bag O' Nails, Jul 15 2008, 01:18 AM.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Jul 15 2008, 01:04 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 14 2008, 06:35 AM
Quote:
 
Yes you can compare Westboro with Al Qaeda. They may not kill but they certainly do condone the killing of people they don't like.


Really? :blink: While I agree that that "church" is not a true representation of Christianity and preach a terribly wrong message, they don't have secret terrorist cells all over the world that are recruiting people towards destroying America as we know it.

They may not but they, and groups like them, have an outreach preaching their brand of hatred worldwide to destroy the country they live in (and yes not just the US). I live in the US, too but am concerned about terrorism worldwide as well as in our local streets. Al Qaeda has nothing on groups like the Bloods and the Crips who are now being found in places like the Phillippines. The LA's gangs are not just the US and LA problem anymore, they are the world's.
I agree the gang problems are very big. If we're not careful, our country will implode on its own. :o
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Which is exactly what the terrorists want! ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Bill
Jul 15 2008, 01:06 AM
Next question:

Can someone explain to me the humour and satire in THIS and why it isn't offensive?

I do hope those who jumped up and down about the "General betray us" ad will be as vocal in their outrage over this, since they care so much about standards. :ponder:

And while we're at it.... what liberal media?
I find this totally offensive. Somebody in my Obama group emailed the New Yorker and was told it was satire and the magazine with the cover would stay on the stands. There is nothing funny about it. It is highly offensive and should not be on the stands. And I will be proudly voting for Obama. :peace:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

To quote from the brilliant Drop the Dead Donkey on the subject of irony:

Just because you know it's crap doesn't stop it being crap!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Jul 15 2008, 01:28 AM
Which is exactly what the terrorists want! ;)
Thank you, Bill, for that! I think the bigger issue than Al Qaeda is the growing gang problem and not just in the US. The gangs strike fear wherever they are. Innocent people, literally, get caught in the crossfire. Sure not on as grand a scale as WTC but just think that the fear they strike is longer lasting and more far-reaching than anything Al Qaeda does.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

It's all about economies of scale. There are more people who fear air travel than car travel despite it being statistically the safest for of travel.

That's because when there's an air crash that kills 100 people it's big spectacular news. But in any given week, far more people are killed on the road and it's, "Meh! sh*t happens!"
Likewise, if Arabs kill 100 Americans it's an attack on the American way of life but if 200 Americans kill each other..... well, what can you do? Some might suggest that IS the American way of life. :unsure:
Edited by Bill, Jul 15 2008, 02:17 AM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
A while back, we were discussing the Muslim radicals using their faith as their shields for war with the rest.

I have been thinking of this song a lot lately and it definitely fits in this discussion

It is a Bob Dylan song, sung brilliantly here by Joan Baez in 1966, called With God on Our Side.

Here are the words:

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adilah
Member Avatar

Regardless of what Americans think of Muslims, the outcome of this election will not affect my life in any way.
"We call 10 American deaths a catastrophe. One hundred European deaths are a tragedy. One thousand Asian deaths are a shame. And 10,000 African deaths we call a Monday." - Lissa (1981-2007) ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã æÑÍãÉ Çááå æÈÑßÇÊå
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Bag O' Nails
Jul 15 2008, 01:18 AM
"Liberal" media? All I can say is THANK GOD it didn't come from a conservative source! :whistle:
Good catch.

As smart as Obama is you would think that he would highlight that both his dads were Muslim and as such he has a better understanding of it and that wouldn't be a bad thing in this enviornment.
Edited by fab4fan, Jul 15 2008, 04:26 AM.
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
I think he should point out that his foreign policy experience comes from living outside the United States but that wouldn't sit well with Americans who think anything outside America is bad. You don't want people in the voting booth thinking maybe his father wasn't a terrorist and maybe he was. Who knows? Can we really afford to take the chance?
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
fab4fan
Jul 15 2008, 04:25 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 15 2008, 01:18 AM
"Liberal" media? All I can say is THANK GOD it didn't come from a conservative source! :whistle:
Good catch.

Well well well...what a difference a day makes. :ponder:
Now we find out the real reason behind this cover from the New Yorker...

The editor of the magazine today said that it's intended message was misunderstood. "It's not a satire OF Obama; it's a satire about the attacks and rumors ABOUT Obama."

Lest I quote from an evil news source like FOX :whistle: , here's what was said on MSNBC:

Tanya Ackerman:
"If the cartoon made clear that this was a right-wing machine at work; if Rush Limbaugh was painting that cartoon; then it would've been much funnier and we would've gotten it."

Oh, we would've "gotten it," alright! :boxer: Can you imagine the outcry from the left if it came from a right-wing source?? :pinch:
"it would've been funnier?" Oh yeah, it would've been hilarious! :yawn: Is this woman serious?? :blink:

So the smear was actually meant to stereotype the conservatives as racist, sexist throwbacks. -_-

Let's be clear here. The New Yorker does not want McCain in the office, but in their lame attempt to smear the "right-wing machine," they are the ones with egg on their face!
Edited by Bag O' Nails, Jul 15 2008, 11:15 PM.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bag O' Nails
Jul 15 2008, 11:01 PM
The editor of the magazine today said that it's intended message was misunderstood. "It's not a satire OF Obama; it's a satire about the attacks and rumors ABOUT Obama."

Oh, we would've "gotten it," alright! :boxer: Can you imagine the outcry from the left if it came from a right-wing source?? :pinch:
"it would've been funnier?" Oh yeah, it would've been hilarious! :yawn: Is this woman serious?? :blink:

So the smear was actually meant to stereotype the conservatives as racist, sexist throwbacks. -_-

Obviously no one watched Anderson Cooper on CNN or else they would've seen the outcry by James Carville and William Bennett, radio talk show host. They devoted nearly 2 hours of his show to this. The excuse that has been pointed out here was talked about last night. No one was laughing, no one thought it was satire, no one liked it one bit and really criticized, and rightly so, the New Yorker. The criticism was played on all the talk shows, radio and tv, and news shows here in LA. The only news story that overshadowed this is the Indymac/FNMA/FHLMC fiascos. Those stories have a much heavier hit than anything else, including the 300 new fires that were spotted in Northern California yesterday.

No the smears were not directed at the Conservatives but at the stupid rumors of Obama being Muslim and Michelle being a terrorist. Plain and simple. If you take it as a smear about Conservatives, than wake up and listen to what the editor really said. It is what was said on the news last night, including Fox, and is still being said today.

I do not condone what the New Yorker did. It was stupid but I have to admit that it took me awhile to understand what they were getting at.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
No matter what the New Yorker says, the cover was not in the least bit funny. I did watch Anderson Cooper last night. And Bill Bennett is a convervative.

Heidi, would you like to see Cindy McCain with an AK47 in her hand on a magazine cover?

Obama is just saying how much he respects Muslims on Larry King now. He said the cover was an insult to all Muslims.

Adilah, I doubt very much if the election will change your life--unless the new president decides to invade your country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Jul 15 2008, 11:59 PM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 15 2008, 11:01 PM
The editor of the magazine today said that it's intended message was misunderstood. "It's not a satire OF Obama; it's a satire about the attacks and rumors ABOUT Obama."

Oh, we would've "gotten it," alright! :boxer: Can you imagine the outcry from the left if it came from a right-wing source?? :pinch:
"it would've been funnier?" Oh yeah, it would've been hilarious! :yawn: Is this woman serious?? :blink:

So the smear was actually meant to stereotype the conservatives as racist, sexist throwbacks. -_-

Obviously no one watched Anderson Cooper on CNN or else they would've seen the outcry by James Carville and William Bennett, radio talk show host. They devoted nearly 2 hours of his show to this. The excuse that has been pointed out here was talked about last night. No one was laughing, no one thought it was satire, no one liked it one bit and really criticized, and rightly so, the New Yorker.

No the smears were not directed at the Conservatives but at the stupid rumors of Obama being Muslim and Michelle being a terrorist. Plain and simple. If you take it as a smear about Conservatives, than wake up and listen to what the editor really said.

So sorry to pass on "old news," -_- but I didn't watch any tv last night. I only heard this on talk radio and the internet today! It's quite obvious that nobody on either side of the campaign liked this "satire" (And what about Tanya Ackerman's remark...saying "it would've been funnier" and "they would've got it" if Limbaugh was shown painting it)! You mean only THEN it would've been okay to laugh at it? I bet it would've been absolutely hysterical seeing Rush or Hannity painting that kind of picture! :ponder: :roll:

Granted the editor didn't directly accuse conservatives, but it was certainly implied, and everyone else "heard" it loud and clear! For you to say that it was not an attack on conservatives is absolutely incorrect! Just whom do you think this cover was attempting to show was thinking Obama was a Muslim, Michelle a terrorist, and unpatriotic? And why?

Dan Abrams said, "...doesn't Barack Obama have to make it absolutely clear he is not a Muslim...that he does not have any ties to terrorists that some conspiracy wack-jobs on the right want to suggest?"

If you listen to this you will clearly see that it's obvious to everyone here what the motive was and to whom it was truly directed towards:
http://www.truveo.com/Cartoon-controversy/id/57231603
Edited by Bag O' Nails, Jul 16 2008, 01:21 AM.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
maccascruff
Jul 16 2008, 01:06 AM
Heidi, would you like to see Cindy McCain with an AK47 in her hand on a magazine cover?



No, Linda, and nowhere did I say that I thought the magazine cover was appropriate or accurate! :huh: Actually if you go back and read my other posts, you will see that I thought it was done in poor taste!







Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I haven't read every single post. I'm glad you said this, Heidi.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Sorry I don't see it as you do. I have heard Conservatives say the exact same thing as the panel here is saying. William Bennett said the same exact thing, almost verbatim, as the older man with black hair (sorry didn't catch his name) when he said that if you have to explain a joke it just isn't a joke. Rush Limbaugh is not the spokesperson for Conservatives, he is a spokesperson for the Right-Wing Whack Jobs. Right-Wing Whack Jobs are not necessarily associated with true Conservatives just like the Left-Wing Whackos are not necessarily associated with Liberals.

Face it, so many people still believe Obama as being a Muslim. No matter what Church he belongs to some nutcases will always associate him with Muslim radicals regardless of the fact that he is, was born a Christian.

Nowhere was it implied that this was directed at Conservatives. That is just the way you are taking it. It was supposed to be directed at the less-informed. If that is a Conservative, than so-be-it!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Jul 15 2008, 11:01 PM
Well well well...what a difference a day makes. :ponder:
Now we find out the real reason behind this cover from the New Yorker...

The editor of the magazine today said that it's intended message was misunderstood. "It's not a satire OF Obama; it's a satire about the attacks and rumors ABOUT Obama."

Lest I quote from an evil news source like FOX :whistle: , here's what was said on MSNBC:

Tanya Ackerman:
"If the cartoon made clear that this was a right-wing machine at work; if Rush Limbaugh was painting that cartoon; then it would've been much funnier and we would've gotten it."

Oh, we would've "gotten it," alright! :boxer: Can you imagine the outcry from the left if it came from a right-wing source?? :pinch:
"it would've been funnier?" Oh yeah, it would've been hilarious! :yawn: Is this woman serious?? :blink:

So the smear was actually meant to stereotype the conservatives as racist, sexist throwbacks. -_-

Let's be clear here. The New Yorker does not want McCain in the office, but in their lame attempt to smear the "right-wing machine," they are the ones with egg on their face!


You needed cable news to explain THAT to you?
I though it was pretty obvious from the outset.

However, by not drawing attention to the attempted satire, it had the added "benefit" of pandering to right wing lunatics. After all, their money is as good as anyone else's right?

Two words kids: own goal.
So is it still shameful? :whistle:

I CAN think things through for myself, thank you very much. :P
Edited by Bill, Jul 16 2008, 01:42 AM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Jul 16 2008, 01:13 AM
(And what about Tanya Ackerman's remark...saying "it would've been funnier" and "they would've got it" if Limbaugh was shown painting it)! You mean only THEN it would've been okay to laugh at it? I bet it would've been absolutely hysterical seeing Rush or Hannity painting that kind of picture! :ponder: :roll:
THEN it would be an accurate representation of what's going on. The Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world attempt to paint that picture every day, hence the ridiculous misinformation that as underpinned some of the posts on this very thread. :o
Creeps like that deserve no respect. It's the business they're in. You live by lies and cheap shots, you die by lies and cheap shots.

Quote:
 

If you listen to this you will clearly see that it's obvious to everyone here what the motive was and to whom it was truly directed towards:
http://www.truveo.com/Cartoon-controversy/id/57231603

If it's obvious, then we don't need anyone to explain it to us.
What is being touted as "obvious" today is nothing I didn't know when I first asked the question :whistle: but nobody mentioned it then.

George Harrison said it best.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

beatlechick
Jul 15 2008, 11:59 PM
Obviously no one watched Anderson Cooper on CNN or else they would've seen the outcry by James Carville and William Bennett, radio talk show host. They devoted nearly 2 hours of his show to this.
Two hours?

Oh for pity's sake, I'm sorry I mentioned it.
Obviously it's notable, but two hours of windbagging about this, on something that proports to be a serious news program? Didn't anything else happen in the world?

Satire gone wrong? No. Marketing gone very, very right!
They get plausible deniability to the left, pandering to the right and two hours of free publicity on CNN. Genius!

Don't ask me what lame cable show told me that. I worked it out all on my very own. :P
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 16 2008, 01:50 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 16 2008, 01:13 AM
(And what about Tanya Ackerman's remark...saying "it would've been funnier" and "they would've got it" if Limbaugh was shown painting it)! You mean only THEN it would've been okay to laugh at it? I bet it would've been absolutely hysterical seeing Rush or Hannity painting that kind of picture! :ponder: :roll:
THEN it would be an accurate representation of what's going on. The Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world attempt to paint that picture every day, hence the ridiculous misinformation that as underpinned some of the posts on this very thread. :o
Creeps like that deserve no respect. It's the business they're in. You live by lies and cheap shots, you die by lies and cheap shots.

Quote:
 

If you listen to this you will clearly see that it's obvious to everyone here what the motive was and to whom it was truly directed towards:
http://www.truveo.com/Cartoon-controversy/id/57231603

If it's obvious, then we don't need anyone to explain it to us.
What is being touted as "obvious" today is nothing I didn't know when I first asked the question :whistle: but nobody mentioned it then.

George Harrison said it best.


What I said was "obvious" was the intentions of the article and I was trying to explain this to Cathy.

Maybe you should've enlightened me when you first posted the original question...excuse me if I didn't "get it" like you did by "thinking for yourself!"

No offense, but it's comments like this that that make me feel like I'm spinning my wheels trying to discuss things.
Edited by Bag O' Nails, Jul 16 2008, 05:40 AM.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Jul 16 2008, 02:01 AM
beatlechick
Jul 15 2008, 11:59 PM
Obviously no one watched Anderson Cooper on CNN or else they would've seen the outcry by James Carville and William Bennett, radio talk show host. They devoted nearly 2 hours of his show to this.
Two hours?

Oh for pity's sake, I'm sorry I mentioned it.
Obviously it's notable, but two hours of windbagging about this, on something that proports to be a serious news program? Didn't anything else happen in the world?

Satire gone wrong? No. Marketing gone very, very right!
They get plausible deniability to the left, pandering to the right and two hours of free publicity on CNN. Genius!

Don't ask me what lame cable show told me that. I worked it out all on my very own. :P
Bill, it wasn't the entire 2 hours. AC's show is only 2 hours and the bigger news story was talked about, that being the banking crisis.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

None taken, or intended. :peace:

But I'm not going to apologise for not telling you what to think.

Something I find a real drag (and I'm not talking about you here Heidi) is the way so many people regurgitate pundits' comments as a substitute for actually thinking things through and discussing things. Too many people just let their favourite blowhard do all the thinking for them. If I want to know what Bill Kristol or Rachel Maddow thank, I know where to find that. But I'm not talking to them. I want to discuss things with my friends here.

Full disclosure:
I first learnt of that picture from crooksandliars.com - a political commentary site. I could have linked to that and many other sites that have commented on the issue, but I chose not to because that would colour people's own thoughts on the matter. That's why I linked only to the picture itself, so that people could make up their own minds. And I think the fact that a lot of pretty clever people don't immediately see it as a satire on right wing smears says an awful lot.

I also don't think it merits two hours of news time. I thought Anderson Cooper was supposed to be a serious journalist. But who needs journalism when you can wring two hours of airtime out of this kind of manufactured controversy? And yes, I know I'm the one who brought it up, but I had no idea that people were making this big a deal of it. My ignorance on that score has been corrected and I thank you all for that- depressing as it is.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

beatlechick
Jul 16 2008, 06:11 AM
Bill, it wasn't the entire 2 hours. AC's show is only 2 hours and the bigger news story was talked about, that being the banking crisis.
So it was Bennett's show that devoted two hours?
Again, my ignorance has been corrected. Still, two hours of talk radio doesn't come cheap. Imagine if the New Yorker had had to pay for it!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThirdHarmony
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Jul 15 2008, 04:25 AM
As smart as Obama is you would think that he would highlight that both his dads were Muslim and as such he has a better understanding of it and that wouldn't be a bad thing in this enviornment.
Just to clarify - not that there would have been or should have been any problem at all with Obama's father and step-father being Muslim - both of them were Muslim only inasmuch as they were "born into the faith" (which is hardly a guaranteed indicator of personal faith). Obama's father left the religion at a young age and considered himself an atheist. Lolo Soetoro (Obama's mothers second husband) was not a practicing religious person - much like Obama's mother (described as a secular humanist agnostic by family members, although she was born into a Christian family). None of these people are alive today to comment on all the media attention, so any in-depth "conclusions" about them remain speculation.

From reading Obama's (IMO very well written) 1995 autobiography "Dreams from my father" - I get the distinct impression that his own religious opinions are more the result of his personal spiritual quest rather than having a parent's or someone else's beliefs automatically carbon copied onto himself.

Speaking as a non-religious person, I find it somehow reassuring that he has had plenty experience of dealing with loved ones of several different faiths and non-faiths as it might help provide a more nuanced and calm relationship between his own faith and others.
Edited by ThirdHarmony, Jul 16 2008, 11:02 AM.
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Jul 15 2008, 04:25 AM

As smart as Obama is you would think that he would highlight that both his dads were Muslim and as such he has a better understanding of it and that wouldn't be a bad thing in this enviornment.
No argument from me on worldly experience being a good thing. But he's up against the perverted logic of people who write garbage like THIS.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThirdHarmony
Member Avatar

Bill
Jul 16 2008, 12:56 PM
But he's up against the perverted logic of people who write garbage like THIS.
Yikes, what a hideously ignorant article, and it's stunning how it openly attempts to position itself on the intellectually dim side of its own imagined divide. Talk about patronizing the reader!
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Jul 14 2008, 05:41 AM
Why does it matter on who attacked who on whose soil? Terrorism is just that.......terrorism. What do you call a couple of Americans who blow up a federal building? What do you call a gang of people who create terror in their city or town? Most people call them gangs, I call them terrorist! They have no religious affiliations (yet most are brought up Christian) but they recruit many more people than Al Qaeda does. They kill over a hundred in City alone per year yet their crimes do not capture the attention of the US Homeland Security but the police have little resources to put them away as to many witness are terrified to testify against them. These are the terrorists that do more damage to any innercity than Al Qaeda can ever think of doing.

Yes you can compare Westboro with Al Qaeda. They may not kill but they certainly do condone the killing of people they don't like.
(the above was Beatlechick's post)

I was pondering over why Americans are so much more consumed over radical Islamic terrorism vs gang terrorism. Here's what I concluded... :ponder:

1. While gang violence is truly terrible and definitely a form of terrorism, they don't have a defined plan to destroy our country as a nation. Islamic terrorists do; they boldly burn our flags & have mass demonstrations in their countries. They have threatened to use dirty bombs, nuclear devices, etc. and due to the threat of mass destruction of key places (like nuclear facilities, electrical grids, etc) they pose a much greater threat of shutting us down.

2. Gang violence is not for political profit; rather it's for personal gain. They need our people in this country to purchase their drugs in order to financially become wealthy.

3. Gangs do not hide behind their religion to give creedence to their reasons why they are doing what they do. Despite the argument that Bill gave that terrorism is politically motivated, Islamic groups have repeatedly used their religion as an excuse for what they do. Unfortunately, this puts Muslims of any race into a pool of uneasiness and mistrust among many people...not that it's right but it's what has happened.

These were just some thoughts I had as to why Islamic terrorism is more of a frightening threat than gang violence.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Jul 16 2008, 06:19 AM
beatlechick
Jul 16 2008, 06:11 AM
Bill, it wasn't the entire 2 hours. AC's show is only 2 hours and the bigger news story was talked about, that being the banking crisis.
So it was Bennett's show that devoted two hours?
Again, my ignorance has been corrected. Still, two hours of talk radio doesn't come cheap. Imagine if the New Yorker had had to pay for it!
I don't know about William Bennett's show I just know that he and James Carville were on AC 360 off and on for 2 hours.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I think that's an excellent description of the differences (apart from our obvious disagreement on point 3) but I think it's interesting that you say it's a "more frightening" threat than a greater threat.

It gets back to my air travel analogy. More people are frightened of air travel than road travel but anyone who has crunched the numbers knows they have far more chance of being killed or injured in a car accident than on a plane - and that's factoring in the assumption that people will be travelling by air. You only have to browse this board and people's own experiences here to see that statistic born out.

In the same way, you have far more chance of being horribly murdered by your own countrymen than by any international terrorist, regardless of their professed or alleged motivation. That's provable.

So the fear of international terrorism over domestic violence may have its reasons, but the reasons are irrational - unless you care less about being killed than who you are killed by. When it comes down to it, the gangs may not have a political agenda or any kind of religion but if they get you, you won't be any less dead.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

What about Tim McVeigh? While so busy chasing Islamics lets let the blonde haired white Americans show you what terrorism is.

Which is why George W Bush is the biggest terrorist of them all.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Don't forget he was also a gulf war veteran.

And his personal justification for what he did was the Waco siege.
Just imagine government agencies attacking and killing men, women and children just because of what they believe. Time for liberation I say!

And there are some who still insist McVeigh was involved with al Qaeda. Give me a break!

And hey, never mind even domestic terrorism. More people have been killed by government incompetence in the last 8 years.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bag O' Nails
Jul 16 2008, 10:49 PM
beatlechick
Jul 14 2008, 05:41 AM
Why does it matter on who attacked who on whose soil? Terrorism is just that.......terrorism. What do you call a couple of Americans who blow up a federal building? What do you call a gang of people who create terror in their city or town? Most people call them gangs, I call them terrorist! They have no religious affiliations (yet most are brought up Christian) but they recruit many more people than Al Qaeda does. They kill over a hundred in City alone per year yet their crimes do not capture the attention of the US Homeland Security but the police have little resources to put them away as to many witness are terrified to testify against them. These are the terrorists that do more damage to any innercity than Al Qaeda can ever think of doing.

Yes you can compare Westboro with Al Qaeda. They may not kill but they certainly do condone the killing of people they don't like.
(the above was Beatlechick's post)

I was pondering over why Americans are so much more consumed over radical Islamic terrorism vs gang terrorism. Here's what I concluded... :ponder:

1. While gang violence is truly terrible and definitely a form of terrorism, they don't have a defined plan to destroy our country as a nation. Islamic terrorists do; they boldly burn our flags & have mass demonstrations in their countries. They have threatened to use dirty bombs, nuclear devices, etc. and due to the threat of mass destruction of key places (like nuclear facilities, electrical grids, etc) they pose a much greater threat of shutting us down.

2. Gang violence is not for political profit; rather it's for personal gain. They need our people in this country to purchase their drugs in order to financially become wealthy.

3. Gangs do not hide behind their religion to give creedence to their reasons why they are doing what they do. Despite the argument that Bill gave that terrorism is politically motivated, Islamic groups have repeatedly used their religion as an excuse for what they do. Unfortunately, this puts Muslims of any race into a pool of uneasiness and mistrust among many people...not that it's right but it's what has happened.

These were just some thoughts I had as to why Islamic terrorism is more of a frightening threat than gang violence.
What hogwash. I live pretty damn near gang territory. I have known, and worked with, gang and ex-gang members. They're not in it for wealth, though for some that does happen, they're in it for multiple reasons. 1) acceptance amongst their peers, 2) it's either join up or pay up (paying up is either with getting beat up within an inch of your life or just plain with your life) as commanded by the leader, 3) there is nothing else to do, no supervision (like Barack Obama has been stating taking responsibility for their own lives) because their sole support - mothers, sisters, or grandmothers is working.

I have known elementary school teachers, teaching 8 year olds, who were threatened by one of their pupils because they were displaying gang signs and clothing and were told to stop. Gang activity is growing among 5 & 6 year olds who are stealing, beating up, and shooting guns just like their elders do and praised for it. East Los Angeles, Watts, Pacoima, Van Nuys, Burbank, North Hollywood, etc are not anywhere near being rich neighborhoods yet all of them have minor to major gang activity. Some of these are amongst the poorest depressed neighborhoods in the US. I know, I lived and worked in a couple of those hoods.

I've been conversing with a gang member these last few days. He's in it for the violence and the terror, as are most gang members. Not for the money.

Gangs are not just a form of terrorism, they are the highest form of terrorism. I defy just about anyone to walk down a street in East Los Angeles at night. Some of the neighborhoods there are so unsafe that not even cops want to go there without back-up. Institutionalized gang members are so ingrained with violence and hatred they couldn't give a sh*t who is there, they will shoot. They have shot at the cops, firemen, the National Guard (when they were actually helping in the US and not in Iraq), EMT's (who will not now go in certain areas without police escort the same as fire trucks).

I'm sorry but you are soooooooo wrong about gangs. They have more weapon at their disposal, talking groups like the Bloods and Crips, than just your garden variety AK47's and Saturday Night Specials. They may not have blown anything up, yet, but they do set fire to people's houses and have been arrested with bomb making materials. You willl think what you want but as you do that come to Pacoima, Watts (which has cleaned up a bit), Compton, parts of North Hollywood and Burbank, all of Van Nuys and walk around at night especially during a heatwave and you tell me how secure you feel.

And thank you Bill. You put it very well when you said you are no less dead when killed by a gang member.
Edited by beatlechick, Jul 17 2008, 01:49 AM.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Here is something that I saw earlier today. What bullshite this is!

Controversial Billboard

Posted Image


Controversial billboard sparks outrage

Wednesday, July 16, 2008 ORANGE COUNTY, FL -- A controversial billboard in Florida has a picture of the burning World Trade Center and the message, "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat." The man who paid for the ad says he's trying to help Republicans, but officials with both political parties are calling the billboard inappropriate.

There are billboards up and down busy Orange Blossom Trail, but this at John Young Parkway one sticks out.

"Just looking at it, I'm not thinking about Democrat or Republican, I'm thinking about the twin towers and all the people killed," said resident Mary Anderson.
The ad went up last week and is causing quite a reaction.

Why use the twin towers for that purpose?" Anderson questioned. The man behind the billboard is Mike Meehan, a St. Cloud businessman and musician. His website advertises a CD and music video titled "The Republican Song," with the chorus, "Don't vote for a Democrat." He's selling CDs for $ 5.

"This is a blatant exploitation of that terrible tragedy for political and, perhaps even worse, personal gain," said Bill Robinson, Orange County Democratic Party Chair.
Orange County Democrats are calling for the billboard to come down and the local Republican Party has said the ad is "inappropriate." Meehan hadn't returned calls or e-mails Monday afternoon, but some are defending his right to free speech.

"They can have their opinion. It's a free country, if they want to pay for the ad. I'm sure it's expensive," said resident Louis Champeau.

The company that owns the billboard, Beech Outdoor Advertising, views it as a fundamental first amendment issue and for that reason wouldn't sensor the ad.
The billboard will be up until after the November election. Beech Outdoor Advertising declined to say how much the billboard costs to rent.

Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Just a few questions:

Who was president on Sept. 11?
Who held congress on Sept. 11?
Who had the senate on Sept. 11?
Who was mayor on Sept. 11?

Vote Republican? They let it happen!

Rudy 9iu11iana claims that after he saw the towers fall he said, "Thank God George Bush is out president."
Funny how he never saw the towers STAND and say "Thank God Bill Clinton is our president."

I'll never understand some people's priorities. :no:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Just to clarify, AC 360 is pretty much a repeat of the first hour in the second hour unless there is breaking news. I saw Bennett and Carville on that show. I don't know if Bennett has a radio show.

I am thankful that my boss is on vacation and I don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh this week. :clap:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
The company that owns the billboard, Beech Outdoor Advertising, views it as a fundamental first amendment issue and for that reason wouldn't censor the ad.


Let's see if the first amendment also applies when someone wants to put up a billboard of a giant erect penis and the slogan "f*ck me daily," (without the asterisk). It would be no more offensive than this.

Larry Flint, your moment awaits.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
tonyhemp
Jul 17 2008, 01:23 AM
What about Tim McVeigh? While so busy chasing Islamics lets let the blonde haired white Americans show you what terrorism is.

Yes, there will always be the occasional Tim VcVey's that cause a great deal of horror :( ; but so do serial killers, for that matter. We've had our share of horrific stories of school shootings, too. Again, the difference is that Islamic terrorist groups pose a "greater threat" overall because of their recruitment efforts and numbers all over the country.

And if you don't think they are recruiting, just work in a maximum security prison for awhile...my good friend who is a security guard tells me stories that are sobering....



Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 17 2008, 02:02 AM
Just a few questions:

Who was president on Sept. 11?
Who held congress on Sept. 11?
Who had the senate on Sept. 11?
Who was mayor on Sept. 11?

Vote Republican? They let it happen!

Rudy 9iu11iana claims that after he saw the towers fall he said, "Thank God George Bush is out president."
Funny how he never saw the towers STAND and say "Thank God Bill Clinton is our president."

I'll never understand some people's priorities. :no:
Typical. :roll:

Let's blame whoever was in office for a terrorist attack! :wacko: :ponder:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Cathy,

You haven't told me anything that I already don't know about gangs. What I said is not a bunch of "hogwash." Point #3 did not include the psychological reasonings of why a person is in a gang. I totally realize that there are other reasons why a person belongs to a gang; it's not strictly for money. The need to belong is a strong thing; people who live in such dangerous areas and in poverty don't have a lot of opportunities in this life and make hard choices to be in gangs or be beaten/killed. I don't have to walk around in Compton to know this, thank you. No matter where you live in CA, there are gang issues. :mellow:

I stand by what I said earlier; while gangs are a horrible form of terrorism, people whose lives are not affected on a daily basis by these gangs are not as worried about them as they are about having their entire country's electrical grid being destroyed and then not being able to get food, water, money, etc. Simultaneous mass destruction is a much greater fear among most Americans by a group you can't identify by the city they're from or the colors that they're wearing.
Edited by Bag O' Nails, Jul 17 2008, 05:38 PM.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Jul 17 2008, 05:25 PM
Bill
Jul 17 2008, 02:02 AM
Just a few questions:

Who was president on Sept. 11?
Who held congress on Sept. 11?
Who had the senate on Sept. 11?
Who was mayor on Sept. 11?

Vote Republican? They let it happen!

Rudy 9iu11iana claims that after he saw the towers fall he said, "Thank God George Bush is out president."
Funny how he never saw the towers STAND and say "Thank God Bill Clinton is our president."

I'll never understand some people's priorities. :no:
Typical. :roll:

Let's blame whoever was in office for a terrorist attack! :wacko: :ponder:
ABSOLUTELY!

Let's blame the ones who ignored the warnings they were given by the previous administration.
Let's blame the ones who didn't translate the coded warnings received prior to the attacks until the week after the attacks.
Let's blame the ones who were too thick to know what "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE U.S." meant.
Let's blame the ones who didn't read security briefings.
Let's blame the ones who deliberately took counter-terrorism off the agenda.
Let's blame the ones who put the command centre inside a known terrorist target.

What's not to get about that?

If the people in office are not to blame for the most comprehensive and humiliating security lapse in the nation's history, then who the hell is?

I'll say it again. They let it happen by being asleep at the wheel. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

What people should fear and what they do fear are two completely different things.

Most people fear being blown up far more than they fear things like diabetes heart disease, and they'll happily tell you all about it over a Big Mac, coffee and a cigarette.

These things kill more people than terrorism and gang violence combined but no-one is scaremongering about them. Why not? I suggest it's because a heart attack doesn't go BOOM! on television.

It's a poor idea to assess the level of threat based on people's irrational fears. People can fear terrorism all they like. That doesn't make it a greater threat than gang violence. People can fear gangs all they like. That doesn't make it a greater cumulative threat than poor lifestyles.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978,00.html

And I'm not saying that I'm this great rational thinker. I am petrified of heights and if I get water over my nose I think I'm drowning. I am, what is technically described as, a wimp! But the thing is, I know I'm a wimp. I know my fears, however real they are to me, are mostly irrational. And when I really think about it, my waistline is a bigger threat to my life than falling to a grisly death from a great height.
Or being blown up by terrorists.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I don't think anyone could predict what happened. It was a terrorist attack. It's easy to point mistakes, blame this and that person after the tragedy. I don't think you would make different if you were the President, or whoever you want to blame.

After September 11, Spain suffered a terrorist attack too.


Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bag O' Nails
Jul 17 2008, 05:36 PM
Cathy,

You haven't told me anything that I already don't know about gangs. What I said is not a bunch of "hogwash." Point #3 did not include the psychological reasonings of why a person is in a gang. I totally realize that there are other reasons why a person belongs to a gang; it's not strictly for money. The need to belong is a strong thing; people who live in such dangerous areas and in poverty don't have a lot of opportunities in this life and make hard choices to be in gangs or be beaten/killed. I don't have to walk around in Compton to know this, thank you. No matter where you live in CA, there are gang issues. :mellow:

I stand by what I said earlier; while gangs are a horrible form of terrorism, people whose lives are not affected on a daily basis by these gangs are not as worried about them as they are about having their entire country's electrical grid being destroyed and then not being able to get food, water, money, etc. Simultaneous mass destruction is a much greater fear among most Americans by a group you can't identify by the city they're from or the colors that they're wearing.
I'm not at all worried about the country's electrical grid going out. We're in summer mode here. We get threatened by blackouts and brownouts when it gets hot. In my City our power just goes out with no warning. When we have earthquakes power can be out for days, the last big quake we had some neighborhoods had no power for nearly 2 weeks. I fear mother nature's wrath more than I do any terrorist. We never know when she is going to strike.

You should worry about gangs more. They are not just located in California anymore. They have branched out nationwide AND worldwide. Just because they are not in your neighborhood does not mean they don't exist. in my City we have gangs but they are less a problem than regular everyday folk. We have little tagging and gang violence but we do have drunk drivers and the Ronald Reagan Library, which is on the last target list for terrorism.

Seeing our local news and newspapers, I stand by my "hogwash" you may think you know the terror that gangs strike but it appears you don't really know. When you have law enforcement afraid to go into certain areas at night, you know it's bad.

Our own Gov't can't contain the national gang problem, how the hell are they going to contain a international gang of terrorists? Hell this administration can't even help our own people when it's needed. Why?!?
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

9/11 Commission Report
 
By late July, Tenet said, it could not "get any worse."30 Not everyone was convinced. Some asked whether all these threats might just be deception. On June 30, the SEIB (Senior Executive Intelligence Brief) contained an article titled "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real." Yet Hadley told Tenet in July that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz questioned the reporting. Perhaps Bin Ladin was trying to study U.S. reactions. Tenet replied that he had already addressed the Defense Department's questions on this point; the reporting was convincing.


9/11 Commission Report
 
During the spring and summer of 2001, President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions, the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger. Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious.35 The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." It was the 36th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States.

The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature.
:o President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President.....

.....He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.


August 6 2001 PDB
 
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [-] service.


9/11 Commission Report
 

Clarke mentioned to National Security Advisor Rice at least twice that al Qaeda sleeper cells were likely in the United States. In January 2001, Clarke forwarded a strategy paper to Rice warning that al Qaeda had a presence in the United States. He noted that two key al Qaeda members in the Jordanian cell involved in the millennium plot were naturalized U.S. citizens and that one jihadist suspected in the East Africa bombings had "informed the FBI that an extensive network of al Qida 'sleeper agents' currently exists in the US." He added that Ressam's abortive December 1999 attack revealed al Qaeda supporters in the United States.44 His analysis, however, was based not on new threat reporting but on past experience.

The September 11 attacks fell into the void between the foreign and domestic threats. The foreign intelligence agencies were watching overseas, alert to foreign threats to U.S. interests there. The domestic agencies were waiting for evidence of a domestic threat from sleeper cells within the United States. No one was looking for a foreign threat to domestic targets. The threat that was coming was not from sleeper cells. It was foreign-but from foreigners who had infiltrated into the United States.


9/11 Commission Report
 
Attorney General Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA in May and by (Acting FBI Director) Pickard in early July about the danger. Pickard said he met with Ashcroft once a week in late June, through July, and twice in August. There is a dispute regarding Ashcroft's interest in Pickard's briefings about the terrorist threat situation. Pickard told us that after two such briefings Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore. Ashcroft denies Pickard's charge. Pickard says he continued to present terrorism information during further briefings that summer, but nothing further on the "chatter" the U.S. government was receiving.52


9/11 Commission Report
 
In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat.54 State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public was not warned.

The terrorists exploited deep institutional failings within our government. The question is whether extra vigilance might have turned up an opportunity to disrupt the plot. As seen in chapter 7, al Qaeda's operatives made mistakes. At least two such mistakes created opportunities during 2001, especially in late August.


http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
Our own Gov't can't contain the national gang problem, how the hell are they going to contain a international gang of terrorists? Hell this administration can't even help our own people when it's needed. Why?!?


I think governors and mayors should be responsible for the gang problem.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Agreed. As my correspondent in New Orleans says, there's plenty of blame to go around.
The problem is that each layer of government passes the buck to the other. But that's none of my business. :innocent:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
How about the part, under sworn testimony in front of the Senate, Condi Rice was asked about the memo Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US, and she said that it was believed that he would attack US installations!

Bin Laden Determined to attack Inside the US


White House releases bin Laden memo
Presidential briefing was at center of Rice's testimony



(CNN) -- The White House declassified and released Saturday the daily intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush a month before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The declassified intelligence report said the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings."

The names of countries that supplied the CIA with intelligence have been removed from the memo dealing with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and dated August 6, 2001.

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to secure the release of 'Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists," the memo says in part.

Rahman is serving a life sentence for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to blow up New York landmarks.

The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was requested by Bush, who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.

"The PDB article did not warn of the 9/11 attacks," the White House said in a statement released Saturday night. "Although the PDB referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons."

The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.

The memo includes intelligence on al Qaeda threats as recent as three months before the attacks.

Highlights of the report include:

• An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

• An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.

• An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.

• Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.

• A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.

The two-page document became the highlight of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony Thursday before the commission investigating the attacks.

Rice told the commission Thursday that the briefing included mostly "historical information" and that most of the threat information known in the summer of 2001 referred to overseas targets.

She said she did not recall any reports about al Qaeda using aircraft as weapons before September 11.

Former counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke had testified two weeks before that the White House had ignored warnings about bin Laden's terrorist organization. Clarke said the Bush administration, including Rice, was aware of al Qaeda threats but did not treat them as "urgent."

The commission asked that the presidential daily briefing be declassified after Rice's testimony.

"This was the commission's hope," spokesman Al Felzenberg said Saturday.

"The White House has now complied. The White House agreed to release the documents. This is what the commission had hoped."

The August briefing was delivered to Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Some commission members said the administration was given enough information about bin Laden's intentions and capabilities to have warned the public that an attack was possible.

Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Here's a question for the Americans [since we've established what happens outside America doesn't matter]. How many times have "Islamic" terrorists [such a stupid phrase] killed people on American soil? How many times have American terrorists killed people on American soil? Which is the greater number? Which is the greater threat to your way of life?

Ok, maybe that was more than 1 question.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Ah, but they are valid questions, Mia. As far as I am concerned, Bush's invasion of Iraq was a terrorist attack and it has killed far more people than the 9/11 attacks.

Bill, thanks for the testimony from the 9/11 commission report. You saved me some research.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I love this guy!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wW1NUQZ0qew

(language warning)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Thats funny Bill but I like this one better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU
Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Love it, Tony. Saw some of the Why I'm Voting Democrat and all I can say is they have been pretty pathetic.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Some of you might want this
Posted Image
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

Bill is that guy related to you? :clap: Excellent.

Tony that is superb. Thank you.
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"