WonderNine
member
....because terrorists want to disrupt the democratic process. 
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/fear.html
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/fear.html
We may have to disrupt the democratic process....
- Thread starter WonderNine
- Start date
- Status
Is Major Major in?
Yes.
Can I see him?
Not right now.
When can I see him?
When he's not in.
One of the best books I ever read was Catch-22. It makes me laugh at all kinds of things I see happening in real life.
This story would be funny, if it werent so downright dangerous and wrong.
Yes.
Can I see him?
Not right now.
When can I see him?
When he's not in.
One of the best books I ever read was Catch-22. It makes me laugh at all kinds of things I see happening in real life.
This story would be funny, if it werent so downright dangerous and wrong.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Isn't it wonderful that the Terrorists didn't perturb the democratic process in Spain? Since it didn't happen there, it can't happen here, right?
Art
Art
bountyhunter
member
Funny. I suspect as the election nears, the "alert level" will fluctuate in inverse proportion to Bush's approval ratings in the polls. The lower he dips, the louder they will be screaming "the sky is falling!".
No it's the terrorists that may attempt to disrupt the democratic process. The administration and election officials would then have to take steps to make sure the democratic process is preserved.
It's Tom Ridge's job to be prepared for such things. It's also his job to be a bit of a paranoid alarmist. He's reacting to the public outcry about the government not letting people know that there were threats of terrorism before 9/11 that they kept quiet about.
He provides what little information he can provide to the public, and the public gets to decide if it's significant to them. That seems like what the government should be doing.
bountyhunter
member
But the BS the admin is shoveling on that point comes out of both sides of their mouths. Want proof?
1) They claim Kerry is Bin laden's pick for the next president because terrorists are afraid of Bush.
2) They claim Bin laden wants to "disrupt the democratic process."
What's wrong eith this "reasoning"? IT'S CONTRADICTORY.
If Bin laden really want's a new prez, he would be making sure NOTHING disrupts the democratic process. The LAST thing he would want would be to postpone or disrupt the election because then we will stay with our current leader (the one he is so afraid of) and said leader will assume even more absolute power than he already has.
The repubs need to pick one side of this cow and show it....
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
bountyhunter, who cares what's said during an election campaign? It's all BS. It's all self-serving--except that it's reasonable to believe that a rather high alert level is justified.
What I do strongly believe is that Al Qaida is dedicated to messing up this country, any chance it gets. Since they were successful in Spain, I believe they'll try something here. When? I dunno. Where? I dunno. But I sure won't bet green money that nothing will be tried.
I don't need Ridge or anybody else to tell me a dadgummed thing about the possibilities or probabilities. Osama bin Laden, et al, are doing just fine, thank you, via their news releases on Al Jazeerah TV.
Art
What I do strongly believe is that Al Qaida is dedicated to messing up this country, any chance it gets. Since they were successful in Spain, I believe they'll try something here. When? I dunno. Where? I dunno. But I sure won't bet green money that nothing will be tried.
I don't need Ridge or anybody else to tell me a dadgummed thing about the possibilities or probabilities. Osama bin Laden, et al, are doing just fine, thank you, via their news releases on Al Jazeerah TV.
Art
Felonious Monk
Member
Art, you're right as usual. Even when you close my "rant" threads!
Bountyhunter--
1) who is "they"? According to my grandma (may she rest in peace), "they" were the authorities who told her all of the TEOTWAWKI doom scenarios and how we were all going to die early because of what we eat, drink, breathe and bathe in. Please specify...which brings me to
2) Cite your source material, please? If you're going to quote "they", please give us a link or at least a source and date (e.g. NY Times, July 4, 1776, Section G P.12)
Come back when you've done your homework.
FM walks away, muttering "typical emotional shrieking Dem...WHEN will they LEARN?"
OH! and By the Way....the original link wondernine posted IS a cute cartoon/animation!
Bountyhunter--
Ummm...dude, you have to do better thinking and "due diligence" than THAT on THIS forum!
1) who is "they"? According to my grandma (may she rest in peace), "they" were the authorities who told her all of the TEOTWAWKI doom scenarios and how we were all going to die early because of what we eat, drink, breathe and bathe in. Please specify...which brings me to
2) Cite your source material, please? If you're going to quote "they", please give us a link or at least a source and date (e.g. NY Times, July 4, 1776, Section G P.12)
Come back when you've done your homework.
FM walks away, muttering "typical emotional shrieking Dem...WHEN will they LEARN?"
OH! and By the Way....the original link wondernine posted IS a cute cartoon/animation!
FM, you're DARN tootin'! This IS the HIGH Road, where a higher standard is norm. Btw, I take it that he wants to kill all Republicans.
BH, so you're saying if NOTHING disrupts the election , Kerry'll win anyway? Care to make a gentlemen's wager on that?
BH, so you're saying if NOTHING disrupts the election , Kerry'll win anyway? Care to make a gentlemen's wager on that?
bountyhunter
member
You might try reading my posts. I have posted at least 100 times on various forums that Bush is going to win and I also posted why:
"History has not written the final chapter on Bush II yet, but I'll tell you what I think it will say: he will be the most unpopular president (lowest approval ratings) to ever get a second term. And he will "win" that second term courtesy of: Ralph nader and Osama Bin laden. Nader will (again) siphon millions of votes away from the democratic candidate as he did in 2000, and Bin laden will be the Boogie Man that the Bush machine will effectively use to scare the sheeple. The Bush propoganda (TV ads) will continue to rattle the bones of 9/11 as the first ads did.. showing the bodies carried out of the WTC. Then the math becomes simple... you tell the sheeple believe 9/11 = WOT, then sell them the lie Iraq = WOT, which they will believe because they want to believe somebody was punished for 9/11. The final component: you have the Repub attack dogs pointing out that kerry was a "war protester"... and you have the propoganda message that will carry the election for Bush:
vote for Kerry = vote for terror"
What I said is I get a kick out of listening to the repubs talk out of both sides of their mouths. They are constantly posting the fake photo of Bin laden holding a "Kerry for President" sign and then saying that Al qaeda will try to stop the election. As I said... pick the side of the cow you like, and show it. Can't have it both ways.
bountyhunter
member
Uh -huh..... I don't think you want to bait me on sources. The last time somebody hacked me off bad enough that I had to do research on a point I was being called on, I posted 40 cites along with the text and shut their server down.
And you might want to remember: if things get nasty, I can always start digging up and posting references to the "smoking gun" threads that somebody tried to shove down my throat that dried up and blew away like tumbleweeds. There was a phoney story referenced just last week about the "biggest story of the year" and a judge had found "conclusive proof" of the Iraq Al qaeda connection..... another fake story.
So far, I have been gracious enough to let those fools slide without any "I told you so", but it's awfully tempting when the same people are baiting me on "accuracy".
Last edited by a moderator:
BH said: "History has not written the final chapter on Bush II yet, but I'll tell you what I think it will say:he will be the most unpopular president (lowest approval ratings) to ever get a second term. And he will "win" that second term courtesy of: Ralph nader and Osama Bin laden. "
http://www.historychannel.com/globa...twCode=THC&timezone=1&View=Weekly&&fromTime=6
That's interesting , just this weekend I watched on the History Channel( called The Power and the Presidency) , several experts on history's Presidents and they said Bush II could be compared to Lincoln, one of the greatest Presidents ever, if he succeeds in Iraq and/or wins the war on terrorism and why Kerry will never make it to the White House and komrad klinton, will fade into obscurity. First you must answer the question, what makes a great President?
http://www.historychannel.com/globa...twCode=THC&timezone=1&View=Weekly&&fromTime=6
That's interesting , just this weekend I watched on the History Channel( called The Power and the Presidency) , several experts on history's Presidents and they said Bush II could be compared to Lincoln, one of the greatest Presidents ever, if he succeeds in Iraq and/or wins the war on terrorism and why Kerry will never make it to the White House and komrad klinton, will fade into obscurity. First you must answer the question, what makes a great President?
Felonious Monk
Member
bountyhunter--
No one is baiting you for sources. One reference is plenty, assuming it is legitimate and not some froth-drooling DU puppet.
Bluster only strengthens my assertion that you are a hysterical shrieking liberal Dem.
Frankly, I like it that way.
By the way, Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, and their spawn are OBVIOUSLY not credible references.
I am unclear if it is EVERYONE who disagrees with your ridiculous assertions who is a fool, or just me, or....?
No one is baiting you for sources. One reference is plenty, assuming it is legitimate and not some froth-drooling DU puppet.
Bluster only strengthens my assertion that you are a hysterical shrieking liberal Dem.
Frankly, I like it that way.
By the way, Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, and their spawn are OBVIOUSLY not credible references.
People in the same political party CAN disagree on things. Two Republicans can certainly see things in two different lights. To say that all Republicans believe in these two theories paints with far too broad a brush.
Besides, maybe Bin Laden thinks Bush will win, and wants to do anything he can to disrupt the process so that Kerry might have a better chance. There's no two sides of the cow in that line of thinking.
Destructo6
Member
How is that contradictory? If the bin Laden gang can be seen, whether it is the truth or not, to influence the election in any way, they can claim a victory as they did in Spain.
You also seem to be making the wild assumption that bin Laden firmly believes Kerry will be elected.
Of course, if the Bush administration plans for contengencies, it is sinister, if they don't, it is pure incompetence.
These are the same clowns who will accuse Bush/Cheney/Ridge/etc. of "not doing enough" or "not warning everybody" when something happens.
Heck, he's already got these idiot movie-makers simeltaneously accusing the gov of over-reacting AND of underreacting prior to Sep11.
Heck, he's already got these idiot movie-makers simeltaneously accusing the gov of over-reacting AND of underreacting prior to Sep11.
CZ52GUY
Member
1) What I see are political activists doing what political activists do during elections. If you are looking for a rational discussion about Bush vs. Kerry in the mind of Al Quaeda, read Kerry's rhetoric...he wants to cede our security to the UN and the EU.
2) I see radical Jihadists as figuring a dead American is a dead American regardless of political party, race, gender, or even religion. They want us dead and gone.
I see no contradiction between the notion that Kerry's alignment with the forces of appeasement would be preferable and the idea that Al Quaeda would seek to influence the democratic process in the US in a negative way. DNC is bombed, RNC is bombed, either way a panic ensues, stocks drop, the economy suffers, and our strength as a nation is threatened. More importantly, Americans die. Osama could play it either way...a grieving JackAss party turns to Hilary to carry the flag...that would be great...geez...
The only contradiction is in trying to apply 20th century political sensibilities to the post 9/11 21st century we're living in.
Stay safe,
CZ52'
Last edited:
Written by Lloyd Garver in a CBS news article:
Color Code Confusion
July 21, 2004
Am I the only one who's confused by the various color-coded threat alerts? I know they range from Low Risk Green to "Oh, Boy!" Red. But exactly what are we supposed to do during each one? Every few weeks somebody from the government tells us that there is an increased risk of terrorism. Later that same day, sometimes somebody else from the government tells us that he disagrees, and there is no increased risk. Other days, they tell us that there is an increased risk, but they're not elevating the alert level. At all of these times, they tell us to increase our vigilance, but go on with our normal behavior. Huh?
Suppose they told us this morning that the terrorist risk has increased. What should we do differently today from yesterday? Should we look over our shoulders all day, as we buy more bottled water and freeze-dried food? Are we supposed to avoid talking to that new guy at work, the one with the moustache? Should we still bother getting our hair cut?
When I was a kid, we had air raid drills for nuclear attacks, and all the children were supposed to go under their desks. After a while, someone either figured out that this wouldn't protect anyone from a nuclear attack or too many kids were hitting their heads on the desks. Regardless, they abandoned the drill. Is it time to get rid of the terrorist threat alert system, too?
Since 9/11, we've known that there is a constant threat of terrorist attack. If people are told every single day that they might be attacked, they probably react in one of two major ways: they are in a constant state of fright and panic, or they are in denial. Since it's probably impossible to go about your life in a constant panic, most of us tend to be in denial. We just don't think about what level of risk we're in. I don't know anybody who checks the Homeland Security Web site every morning to see what color threat condition we're in before getting dressed for work. (If such people do exist, maybe that's how they choose the color of their wardrobe.)
So most people are confused. And those who aren't scared to death by the announcements have fallen victim to the "boy who cried 'wolf'" syndrome and stopped paying attention to them. So why does the government keep making them?
They say it's to keep the public informed. Some people think there are more sinister reasons. They believe any time there is a dip in the president's popularity, the government announces a new terrorist threat to scare the public. The thought is that the frightened public will want to stay with the current leadership. Not only am I not so cynical as to buy into this, but I'm not sure I even get the logic. If people become frightened about future attacks, why would that necessarily make them want to stay with the leaders who were in charge during the last attack?
In other words, none of this makes sense. But there has been so much confusion, intelligence failures, committees, and investigations that credibility is a rarer commodity then Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. People don't know what to believe.
So I'd like to find out what you believe. Please send me the answers to this survey, and I'll forward them to the Department of Homeland Security:
Ask the person next to you if he or she knows what color alert is on for today. If they do, what are they going to do about it?
Do you ever change your behavior when the threat level goes up? For example, do you buy more duct tape, finally call up that love from high school, or make sure to wear a hat when you go outdoors?
How do you react when the threat level goes down? For example, do you breathe a sigh of relief or go directly to worrying about Lyme disease and West Nile virus?
Are you one of the cynics who thinks there will be an announcement of an increased threat right before the November election?
Should the government just abandon this system?
Bonus Question: Wouldn't you like to know how many meetings it took and how much we paid the person who decided that green is a safer color than blue?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/21/opinion/garver/main630858.shtml
Color Code Confusion
July 21, 2004
Am I the only one who's confused by the various color-coded threat alerts? I know they range from Low Risk Green to "Oh, Boy!" Red. But exactly what are we supposed to do during each one? Every few weeks somebody from the government tells us that there is an increased risk of terrorism. Later that same day, sometimes somebody else from the government tells us that he disagrees, and there is no increased risk. Other days, they tell us that there is an increased risk, but they're not elevating the alert level. At all of these times, they tell us to increase our vigilance, but go on with our normal behavior. Huh?
Suppose they told us this morning that the terrorist risk has increased. What should we do differently today from yesterday? Should we look over our shoulders all day, as we buy more bottled water and freeze-dried food? Are we supposed to avoid talking to that new guy at work, the one with the moustache? Should we still bother getting our hair cut?
When I was a kid, we had air raid drills for nuclear attacks, and all the children were supposed to go under their desks. After a while, someone either figured out that this wouldn't protect anyone from a nuclear attack or too many kids were hitting their heads on the desks. Regardless, they abandoned the drill. Is it time to get rid of the terrorist threat alert system, too?
Since 9/11, we've known that there is a constant threat of terrorist attack. If people are told every single day that they might be attacked, they probably react in one of two major ways: they are in a constant state of fright and panic, or they are in denial. Since it's probably impossible to go about your life in a constant panic, most of us tend to be in denial. We just don't think about what level of risk we're in. I don't know anybody who checks the Homeland Security Web site every morning to see what color threat condition we're in before getting dressed for work. (If such people do exist, maybe that's how they choose the color of their wardrobe.)
So most people are confused. And those who aren't scared to death by the announcements have fallen victim to the "boy who cried 'wolf'" syndrome and stopped paying attention to them. So why does the government keep making them?
They say it's to keep the public informed. Some people think there are more sinister reasons. They believe any time there is a dip in the president's popularity, the government announces a new terrorist threat to scare the public. The thought is that the frightened public will want to stay with the current leadership. Not only am I not so cynical as to buy into this, but I'm not sure I even get the logic. If people become frightened about future attacks, why would that necessarily make them want to stay with the leaders who were in charge during the last attack?
In other words, none of this makes sense. But there has been so much confusion, intelligence failures, committees, and investigations that credibility is a rarer commodity then Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. People don't know what to believe.
So I'd like to find out what you believe. Please send me the answers to this survey, and I'll forward them to the Department of Homeland Security:
Ask the person next to you if he or she knows what color alert is on for today. If they do, what are they going to do about it?
Do you ever change your behavior when the threat level goes up? For example, do you buy more duct tape, finally call up that love from high school, or make sure to wear a hat when you go outdoors?
How do you react when the threat level goes down? For example, do you breathe a sigh of relief or go directly to worrying about Lyme disease and West Nile virus?
Are you one of the cynics who thinks there will be an announcement of an increased threat right before the November election?
Should the government just abandon this system?
Bonus Question: Wouldn't you like to know how many meetings it took and how much we paid the person who decided that green is a safer color than blue?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/21/opinion/garver/main630858.shtml
Thumper
Member
oooooooooooooooh...
Last edited by a moderator:
Who? Which republican? Was it someone in Bush's administration talking in an official capacity?
I'm sure you can find someone out there who's registered republican that says both Bush and Kerry are aliens. I'm not sure what it means in the scheme of things, but I bet they're out there.
The two statements also are not contradictory. They could only be contradictory if the only result of the democratic process proceeding without disruption would be for Kerry to win the election, which you've stated isn't what you believe.
You appear to be getting upset about some outrageous comments by others and responding by making outrageous comments of your own.
The outrageous comments made by people about political issues irritate the crap out of me too, but don't make the mistake of assuming that because some raving lunitics are republicans that all republicans are raving lunitics.
2nd Amendment
member
Well, I don't think anyone has noted another obvious logical fallacy in BH's rant...
bin Laden may or may not want one or the other candidate to win and may or may not see a certain course of action regarding election time as most beneficial. So what? You think Binny is the only terrorist? Think he has real-time hands on control of all his "operatives"? Think only Al Queda can hit the US, or wants to? Think that no other terrorist or group could come to the conclusion that they can exert some form of control over Binny by attempting to manipulate our election in some way?
I could go on but the point remains, BH exemplifies the simplistic rationalizing that is the cornerstone of most leftist arguments. With them it's "either/or" and to hell with the broader possibilities. Also, by all means link to your heart's content. A bulk of bad information is worth no more than unsupported propaganda...except maybe in discrediting the propagandist.
bin Laden may or may not want one or the other candidate to win and may or may not see a certain course of action regarding election time as most beneficial. So what? You think Binny is the only terrorist? Think he has real-time hands on control of all his "operatives"? Think only Al Queda can hit the US, or wants to? Think that no other terrorist or group could come to the conclusion that they can exert some form of control over Binny by attempting to manipulate our election in some way?
I could go on but the point remains, BH exemplifies the simplistic rationalizing that is the cornerstone of most leftist arguments. With them it's "either/or" and to hell with the broader possibilities. Also, by all means link to your heart's content. A bulk of bad information is worth no more than unsupported propaganda...except maybe in discrediting the propagandist.
- Status