PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: GigaShadow on July 09, 2004, 07:25:56 AM
-
Just hours before attending an all-star celebrity fundraising concert in New York, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry revealed how he has been too busy for a real-time national security briefing.
"I just haven\'t had time," Kerry explained in an interview.
Kerry made the startling comments on CNN\'s LARRY KING LIVE Thursday night.
KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn\'t increase the -- you see any politics in this? What\'s your reaction?
KERRY: Well, I haven\'t been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven\'t had time.
And this guy is better than Bush?!?
:laughing:
-
Tom Ridge and the Bush Administration put out yet another vague, uncertain warning to keep americans nervous, and Kerry is supposed to change his campaign travel plans within 12 hours to appear for a briefing? Bush could have him yo-yo ing across the country all year long if he went along with that. It\'s all BS anyway, and he knows it.
The best they can say is al-Qaida wants "to do something during this time period of the elections." WTF does that mean? The whole system of these terror alerts is completely screwed up anyway. I don\'t see why we need any public announcements at all.
-
Don\'t start crying we should have been warned when the next attack happens.
Anyway, I don\'t let announcements like that ruin my day... I just go about my business as usual. Any American that gets nervous over these announcements needs therapy.
-
Besides if the terror level is higher and someone knows, this would be more adapt for them to maybe report something suspicous rather than just dismissing it. Its a good thing, but know one is forcing you to worry that is your own decision.
-
When something goes KA-BOOM in the US, that\'s when you know our security has failed.
-
Warnings don\'t help people do anything.
-
Hey dude, don\'t forget, we could panic. That\'s what we\'ll do when something actually does happen, like we did last time.
Basically, these terror warnings say "Hey, be prepared to panic. Something might happen within the next 4 months. Something bad. Be on your toes." Seriously, what are we supposed to do with that?
See Yuz.
-
What if all the warnings in the past were true and the attacks were prevented by a) nabbing terrorists that we\'re going to do it, b) killing them oversees in a fight (like Iraq or something), c) driving them away because now the terrorists realize that the public knows and will be near impossible to execute.
-
Originally posted by Titan
What if all the warnings in the past were true and the attacks were prevented by a) nabbing terrorists that we\'re going to do it, b) killing them oversees in a fight (like Iraq or something), c) driving them away because now the terrorists realize that the public knows and will be near impossible to execute.
Yeah, because it would be impossible to execute an attack with the vague Bush Adminstration warnings.
:rolleyes:
-
Have any of you honestly done anything different because of a warning?
A warning won\'t stop people from dying. It won\'t do anything except give the gov a reason to say.
"Ha! told you so!"
-
Doesn\'t matter in this case, the gov is damned if they do and damned if they don\'t.
I\'m guessing whenever the security level rises it\'s because they received a piece of credible information suggesting an attack may occur soon. Maybe this warning displayed all over the news scares off the terrorists, who really knows?
Remember when that nutjob tried to light his shoe on fire on a plane because he filled the sole with explosive material soon after 9/11? Everyday cavilians on the plane bumrushed him and subdued him on the ground till they landed. This was on the news over & over... Possibly Joe Terrorist saw that and decided to lay low on the plane hijackings for a while.
Fact of the matter is if an explosion did happen and there was no warning, people would still point fingers at the government. What can you do?
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Yeah, because it would be impossible to execute an attack with the vague Bush Adminstration warnings.
:rolleyes:
Uh...obviously. If the Administration knew that the terrorists were going to blow up a Miami club and announced exactly where and when, OBVIOUSLY the terrorists will pick another target.
Originally posted by THX
Remember when that nutjob tried to light his shoe on fire on a plane because he filled the sole with explosive material soon after 9/11? Everyday cavilians on the plane bumrushed him and subdued him on the ground till they landed. This was on the news over & over... Possibly Joe Terrorist saw that and decided to lay low on the plane hijackings for a while.
He was turned away from entering the plane twice. Eventually, they let him on. If you recall, witnesses said he looked quite the creep and everyone was creeped out by him. Now let\'s say he was never let on the plane and he decided to sue the airlines for descrimination based soley on his looks?
Sucks, eh? It could happen.
It\'s so easy to use one system (the justice system) against another system (security).
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Have any of you honestly done anything different because of a warning?
I keep a roll of duct tape on me at all times :p j/k
-
John Kerry walks into a bar. The bartender says, hey, John, why the long face.
-
You know, Kerry may not be the greatest choice in the world (though I am confident that Edwards would be a great VP or even President), but he is certainly better than our current dim-witted President.
Make your jokes, but come November we may have a new President and you can all whine about how he is screwing up. It won\'t matter, just like it has not mattered when us Bush haters have went on our little rants.
As for the homeland security, I honestly don\'t believe these terror alerts amount to anything. They are so vague it is pathetic. Not to mention you can almost time when they are goin\' to come in. It is just enough to keep the American people in a panic and keep the American people on Bush\'s side and his homeland security (which is a joke - did I mention that?).
Fact is, it took years to plan the attack that we suffered on 9/11. Do you honestly think that Osama dn his croonie\'s could come up with another huge scheme in such a short time? Espically if they are on the run.
-
The administration can\'t win with you guys so it\'s pointless. I\'m gonna wait for November.
-
Originally posted by Ace
The administration can\'t win with you guys so it\'s pointless. I\'m gonna wait for November.
We\'re all waiting for November.
-
Yes we are. Will you be able to take it if GWB wins. Something I believe is going to happen.
-
You guys do realize that when they do those terror alerts, they may really know something, but just trying to weed out some info. don\'t you?
I mean by announcing that somethign is up, even though it\'s vague to us, may not be vauge at all to the people they are watching.
Whatever. Shit, you guys are actually going to vote for Kerry. There is absolutely no use.
-
I would vote for a non-English speaking person before I would vote for the f**kwad known as George W. Bush , but that\'s not the point.
Will he win in November? Maybe. Maybe not. Will I be able to take it? Yes, because I can\'t change it. I will simply do what I am doin\' now...Stating that I cannot stand Bush and think that we a chimp would do a better job .... I will also look on the bright side, if he wins again, it\'ll only be four years and then he\'ll be gone for good .. Thank God.
-
Ummm...he can run again in 2012...
-
What if they capture Bin Laden come end of October? I think that he would win the election if he did. I personally think its too strange that they didn\'t catch him yet. IMO, he\'s pinned down and the troops just need to get him and just waiting for the opportune moment (election time). I remember like a year and a half ago, they were hearing him talking on handheld walkie talkies. They can\'t have THAT good of range. Kind of funny how he just slipped through their fingers.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
You guys do realize that when they do those terror alerts, they may really know something, but just trying to weed out some info. don\'t you?
I mean by announcing that somethign is up, even though it\'s vague to us, may not be vauge at all to the people they are watching.
Whatever. Shit, you guys are actually going to vote for Kerry. There is absolutely no use.
This post reminded me of somthing that I think is a key difference between people we define as broadly "conservative" or "liberal."
Conservatives seem more willing to accept authority, and liberals are more inclined to question authority. The thing you said above, indicating that the terror alerts may be authentic... suggests that you\'re willing to accept Bush\'s or Tom Ridge\'s authority, possibly believe him, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt on these alerts.
On the other hand, when I hear a president or most any other high ranking politician tell me what they\'re doing for my own good, I almost immediately assume it\'s bullshit. I feel this way about BOTH republican and democratic politicians. Clinton was one of the greatest bullshitters of our time. The big difference was that when he spun a line about something, it was usually something harmless, and you could sort of figure out where he was going with it, and see which side of the fence he was on.
When Bush spouts off about something like terror alerts, or weapons of mass destruction, or "enemies of freedom" you really cannot tell what planet he is from. I can\'t tell if he really believes the bullshit, or he doesn\'t believe it and thinks he\'s a master deceiver, or if he\'s just a complete idiot and has no idea what he\'s saying. Sometimes it honestly sounds like he\'s just stringing together phrases and soundbytes into a random sequence, and he doesn\'t know where the sentence is going to end.
That sort of quality in a president deeply frightens me. I\'m trying to help you understand why we\'re going to vote for Kerry. :) So anyway, I think it\'s a fundamental instinct of mine to question authority, and my Bullshit-o-meter has a very sensitive trigger.
-
spam someone emailed me
http://kerry-04.com/
-
I personally don\'t care about these terror updates. There is nothing we as citizens can do other than call the authorities if we see a dude with dynamite strapped to his car.
I just don\'t really think these terror allert are for us. They are obviously changed to adjust budgets and to activate more or less people at certain times, but I think it\'s also used for psychologiacl purposes against the terrorists. To thwart an attack based on the public knowledge that we may know it\'s coming.
-
Originally posted by THX
spam someone emailed me
http://kerry-04.com/
:laughing: It\'s amazing that there are people out there criticizing Kerry for being against the Vietnam War. Do these people think the war was a good idea? They\'re like flat-earthers. :rolleyes:
-
Kerry is a war criminal by his own admission.
-
After viewing that site and seeing all the reasons not to vote for Kerry, the one that stays in the back of my mind is who would the terrorists and the French want to see in power over here? In my mind I will not vote for the candidate that enemies of this country wish to see in power.
If our perception in the world is the main reason people would vote against Bush, we might as well turn our sovereignty over to this man:
-
Originally posted by Ace
Kerry is a war criminal by his own admission.
Huh? That\'s a crazy accusation coming from your side of the fence. Even this stupid conservative website says he was not a war criminal:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/28/145534.shtml
Last May the Globe recounted Sen. John Kerry\'s televised confession in 1971, delivered on the old "Dick Cavett Show," where the ambitious anti-war Democrat admitted to taking part in military action that was "contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions."
The top Democrat said his wartime conduct would have rendered him "guilty" of violating the Nuremberg Principles.
Kerry\'s full statement went as follows:
"I personally didn\'t see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.
"And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."
In reality, there\'s no reason to believe that any Vietnam veteran who engaged in the actions described by Sen. Kerry is a war criminal.
He is a man with a conscience who followed orders in combat, and later discovered that he had been lied to about the war, and about the morality and legality of those orders.
He redeemed himself by speaking out against the Vietnam war.
-
Hey, he claimed he took part in the atrocities that he sited in front of the committee when he came back from Nam.
I\'ll look at the link, though.