Umbagog wrote:Bush is the CIC. Shouldn't he be in the War Room when war breaks out? Or even some anxilliary branch of it? They were targeting planes and Bush gets into one? If he was so afraid of being a target, why did he stay at the elementary school to make all those kids targets too? It was publically known where he was going to be that day. Bush's inaction is suspicious at least, don't you think? Like he knew it was coming, and everything was in place for the stage event...maybe...I'm not saying this is the case, but all the stonewalling over 9/11 isn't helping his case out. People with nothing to hide come clean, not stonewall.
As soon as they got enough data to grasp that it could have been a co ordinated attack, they got the President on to an airplane (Air Force 1) that is set up to operate as a mobile command post. It can function as a 'War Room' much like the KNEACAP planes that have complete command and control capabilities.
The Secret Service probable evaluated that the President was safest in the air, surrounded by fighters as opposed to in a targetable building on the ground.
Calling hacking balancing is pretty funny actually. I just hope you know which way the tree falls when if finally comes down.
And you can put a steaming pile of turds on a dinner plate, but I ain't gonna eat it! Oh sorry, I thought we were doing colorful analogies.
Back to the discussion.
So Bush sat there so as not to alarm the kiddies, eh? OK, I will relent on this one. We need to know EXACTLY when Bush was informed about an attack in New York. I love the response though. We find out mostly Saudis were on board, so we escort the Saudi family out of the US while everyone else was grounded. There is a thread listing questions Bush needs to answer regarding all this. Do you really think he will? And conversely, why won't he?
Bush refusing to publically display the answers is allowing for all this speculation. I'm not on the left of anything. I have radical views if anything. I just want the answers, not the endless posturing, and now, the gross exploitation of the imagery.
Bush is an elected official, and accountible to the people, not insulated from them.
Umbagog wrote:gross generalizations do not a balance make. No link to see where the article is coming from does nothing to create balance. The idea that half the country tells the truth while the other half lies is, well, how can I say what it is and still be nice? Simplistic seems to be the proper word. Sorry. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, a pig is never pretty.
Links, links, all you want is links Umb.
I told you that I got all these articles from
www.townhall.com
But the specific articles are from the following places ON that site if you must have them:
Extremists Behind Attack on Bush Ads:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jaybryant/jb20040310.shtml
Nitpicking the 9-11 ads
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20040310.shtml
I suppose turds can be colorful, as well as dinner plates, but somehow all I got was a sense of brown. We see lots of turds here in the woods, lemme tell ya...
I suggest Fedral provides links for the articles he posts. Why does Bush and Fedral both use this technique of leaving out important information, and then refusing to divulge it?
Even a political hack has to attribute his sources.
Umbagog wrote:I suppose turds can be colorful, as well as dinner plates, but somehow all I got was a sense of brown.
I suggest Fedral provides links for the articles he posts. Why does Bush and Fedral both use this technique of leaving out important information, and then refusing to divulge it?
Even a political hack has to attribute his sources.
And like a Christmas miracle, links were provided to the masses, and they all rejoiced. All except a small furry groundhog? (or whatever your sig is, no offence meant, I just can't figure out what it is)
Again, the endless slanting. It isn't that we MUST have the links, you are SUPPOSED to provide them. Sure you did so here, but it's the first time I
've seen you do it. Not doing it is unfair to the reader, and disallows them to make a proper assessment of the situation. I can only conclude that you don't add the links so that people WON'T see where you are getting your material...and what possible reason could you have for wanting to do that. This is supposed to be an intelligent, caring forum dedicated to truth and justice and fair debate and all that, but you don't want to play the game by the rules for some reason.
hmmmmm.....no why could that be?
Umbagog wrote:Again, the endless slanting. It isn't that we MUST have the links, you are SUPPOSED to provide them. Sure you did so here, but it's the first time ... ....reason.
hmmmmm.....no why could that be?
Sorry if you were so confused by my format Umb. But now, you are complaining that I posted the links?
"I told you that I got all these articles from
www.townhall.com "
Gee, now you lie too? You say you told me when you were telling me for the first time. Do you ever knock off the slanting? And why are you knocking the idea that someone wants to see the source of your position? Are you saying my demand for links is not a legitimate one? Are we just supposed to accept your pronouncements and defer to your superiority? I'm not sure you have the fangs for the position, which is all the more reason why I want links to verify what you are posting FROM OTHER PEOPLE's works. It's called attribution. Do I need to go into the history and need for attribution and public speech?
And I have to remind you that nicking my name is inappropriate, and condescending in this forum. We are not friends, and nor do I want people thinking we are. My name is Umbagog, thank you very much.
You are a piece of work, to be sure.
Umbagog wrote:"I told you that I got all these articles from
www.townhall.com "
Gee, now you lie too? .... ...Do I need to go into the history and need for attribution and public speech?
No umb, I do not lie, I thought you might have ready my OTHER response to your asking for a link in the OTHER thread. I thought you had at least taken a look and would have been able to press the link to that location:
As per your posting in America, land of the Ashcroft haters, I suggested you stop by for a look then.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20367
Maybe the headline should have been:
Extremist Defending Attacks On Bush Ads
That at least would be better attribution, and be more honest as well.
I can see where this is going, however, and the plausible deniability linked to questionable reasoning on the part of the questioner is an old, old game.
And there are literally tons of people in this forum with vibrant minds and glowing light that actually gives me hope for the future of this country.
I suppose I have a kink in that I need to look under every rock and into every shadowy crevice to see what might be there. Nothing to report from this corner of the woods.
I am not an "extreme liberal" -- and in fact, I am not a "liberal" at all.
I think that the use of the 9/11 stuff for the Bush campaign ads -- sucks.
I consider Bush to be one of the dumbest human beings ever to be entrusted with great authority -- and I consider the people around him to be evil, dangerous dross.
I think American conservatism is the most disgusting philosophy I've ever personally had to contend with -- and I can only hope that the excesses of these reprobates currently exercising power in Washington provide the icy slope needed to send them sliding back into the gutter where they belong.
If I've been unclear in how I feel about all this -- please do not hesitate to ask. I will be happy to flesh out anything that is foggy.
Oh, by the way...
...the comment:
Quote:The President's actions in the immediate wake of 9/11 were nothing short of heroic, and were so accepted by a great majority of the American people.
...honestly was one of the funniest lines I've heard in years. Damn near peed my pants on that one.
With all the respect in the world, Fedral, it is incredible to me that anyone would write a sentence like that -- and just as incredible that anyone would think to quote it.
Frank Apisa wrote:I am not an "extreme liberal" -- and in fact, I am not a "liberal" at all.
I think that the use of the 9/11 stuff for the Bush campaign ads -- sucks.
I consider Bush to be one of the dumbest human beings ever to be entrusted with great authority -- and I consider the people around him to be evil, dangerous dross.
I think American conservatism is the most disgusting philosophy I've ever personally had to contend with -- and I can only hope that the excesses of these reprobates currently exercising power in Washington provide the icy slope needed to send them sliding back into the gutter where they belong.
If I've been unclear in how I feel about all this -- please do not hesitate to ask. I will be happy to flesh out anything that is foggy.
Don't sugar coat it Frank, tell us how you
REALLY feel.
I'm not a therapist but I feel you are blocking here. Don't hold it back, just say what you mean.
Frank Apisa wrote:Oh, by the way...
...the comment:
Quote:The President's actions in the immediate wake of 9/11 were nothing short of heroic, and were so accepted by a great majority of the American people.
...honestly was one of the funniest lines I've heard in years. Damn near peed my pants on that one.
With all the respect in the world, Fedral, it is incredible to me that anyone would write a sentence like that -- and just as incredible that anyone would think to quote it.
Hey man, I don't write them, I just post them in response to what I see here.
