Just Out of Curosity...
- Thread starter gamefreak
- Start date
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='bignick']It would be nice to show it on tv too.[/quote]
::cough::Fahrenheit451::cough::
Nice to see Orwell and Bradbury were correct in predicting the way society is heading. Let's do a chase through the city of the suspected terrorist, then, when we lose him, we'll focus on a random person roaming the streets and kill him instead! VICTOLY!
::cough::Fahrenheit451::cough::
Nice to see Orwell and Bradbury were correct in predicting the way society is heading. Let's do a chase through the city of the suspected terrorist, then, when we lose him, we'll focus on a random person roaming the streets and kill him instead! VICTOLY!
evilpenguin9000
CAGiversary!
[quote name='gamefreak']... would any Democrats out there oppose Bush dragging suspected terrorists out of bed in the middle of the night and then torturing, killing, or otherwise maiming them without a trial?[/quote]
Umm how could you not oppose this. Cat Stevens is a suspected terrorist for god's sake. Anyone could be.
Umm how could you not oppose this. Cat Stevens is a suspected terrorist for god's sake. Anyone could be.
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='evilpenguin9000'][quote name='gamefreak']... would any Democrats out there oppose Bush dragging suspected terrorists out of bed in the middle of the night and then torturing, killing, or otherwise maiming them without a trial?[/quote]
Umm how could you not oppose this. Cat Stevens is a suspected terrorist for god's sake. Anyone could be.[/quote]
Don't forget the Rubik's Cube lady.
Umm how could you not oppose this. Cat Stevens is a suspected terrorist for god's sake. Anyone could be.[/quote]
Don't forget the Rubik's Cube lady.
Yes, but only if Bush did it himself personally.
He is such a man of action.
He is such a man of action.
Admiral Ackbar
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 25 (100%)
Ya know, I don't support the President this election but that clip is gettin' old Cheapy.
What do people expect him to do? Rip his shirt off, unveil a red cape, and hold up the twin towers?
Every man responds differently to such a tragedy of that nature. I may have acted the same way if I was him. I remember watching the second plane hit the second tower on TV and my jaw dropped.
Imagine Lincoln, after hearing news of the failures of the Union in the Civil War, sitting alone, bereft with despair as was his nature. That creased face of him grimaced in unnerving thought.
To hear the news of one of the greatest tragedies in the history of America would give nearly any man cause to pause in stunned reflection. That the human quality of this was caught on tape does not necessarily make the President a lesser man.
Sorry to be off topic but I hear this over and over again and while the image does have power, it is unfair to criticise the President for his humanity.
As for the topic at hand, all men should have the right to a fair trial. It's what separates us from the dictators and tyrants of history.
What do people expect him to do? Rip his shirt off, unveil a red cape, and hold up the twin towers?
Every man responds differently to such a tragedy of that nature. I may have acted the same way if I was him. I remember watching the second plane hit the second tower on TV and my jaw dropped.
Imagine Lincoln, after hearing news of the failures of the Union in the Civil War, sitting alone, bereft with despair as was his nature. That creased face of him grimaced in unnerving thought.
To hear the news of one of the greatest tragedies in the history of America would give nearly any man cause to pause in stunned reflection. That the human quality of this was caught on tape does not necessarily make the President a lesser man.
Sorry to be off topic but I hear this over and over again and while the image does have power, it is unfair to criticise the President for his humanity.
As for the topic at hand, all men should have the right to a fair trial. It's what separates us from the dictators and tyrants of history.
Ah, Ackbar. So able to ascribe noble emotions to such an ignoble man. Bush sat there like a *chump* for seven minutes because he couldn't decide whether it was worth sacrificing a photo op to actually *talk* to people, and try to figure out what to do. He sat there, in front of the kids, doing *nothing*. Nothing.
Let me repeat that again. Nothing.
There's a difference between my reaction, when I hear this news, that America is under attack, and the President's. Last year, a house was on fire down the street from me. I ran to the house, woke up the neighbors, grabbed a hose, and saved the house next to it from burning down. Most of the rest of the neighborhood, who I didn't explicitly order to action, stood there like chumps watching the house burn down and doing *nothing*.
My reaction in a time of crisis was to get information, and take action when it was needed. Bush's reaction was to sit there like a chump, afraid of messing up a
ing photo op.
seppo
Let me repeat that again. Nothing.
There's a difference between my reaction, when I hear this news, that America is under attack, and the President's. Last year, a house was on fire down the street from me. I ran to the house, woke up the neighbors, grabbed a hose, and saved the house next to it from burning down. Most of the rest of the neighborhood, who I didn't explicitly order to action, stood there like chumps watching the house burn down and doing *nothing*.
My reaction in a time of crisis was to get information, and take action when it was needed. Bush's reaction was to sit there like a chump, afraid of messing up a
ing photo op.seppo
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='helava']Ah, Ackbar. So able to ascribe noble emotions to such an ignoble man. Bush sat there like a *chump* for seven minutes because he couldn't decide whether it was worth sacrificing a photo op to actually *talk* to people, and try to figure out what to do. He sat there, in front of the kids, doing *nothing*. Nothing.
Let me repeat that again. Nothing.
There's a difference between my reaction, when I hear this news, that America is under attack, and the President's. Last year, a house was on fire down the street from me. I ran to the house, woke up the neighbors, grabbed a hose, and saved the house next to it from burning down. Most of the rest of the neighborhood, who I didn't explicitly order to action, stood there like chumps watching the house burn down and doing *nothing*.
My reaction in a time of crisis was to get information, and take action when it was needed. Bush's reaction was to sit there like a chump, afraid of messing up a shaq-fuing photo op.
seppo[/quote]
I do commend you for your bravery, sounds like you saved their home if not thier lives. However the house wasn't over a thousand miles away at the time (though my biggest concern of said situation would be why someone didn't call the fire dept.). I bet you hate Rumsfeld too, remember when the Pentagon was attacked too? many people said he was doing all he could to get people out safely. What does that have to with Bush? Well I guess not much but it has about as much to do with it as your personal example does.
Let me repeat that again. Nothing.
There's a difference between my reaction, when I hear this news, that America is under attack, and the President's. Last year, a house was on fire down the street from me. I ran to the house, woke up the neighbors, grabbed a hose, and saved the house next to it from burning down. Most of the rest of the neighborhood, who I didn't explicitly order to action, stood there like chumps watching the house burn down and doing *nothing*.
My reaction in a time of crisis was to get information, and take action when it was needed. Bush's reaction was to sit there like a chump, afraid of messing up a shaq-fuing photo op.
seppo[/quote]
I do commend you for your bravery, sounds like you saved their home if not thier lives. However the house wasn't over a thousand miles away at the time (though my biggest concern of said situation would be why someone didn't call the fire dept.). I bet you hate Rumsfeld too, remember when the Pentagon was attacked too? many people said he was doing all he could to get people out safely. What does that have to with Bush? Well I guess not much but it has about as much to do with it as your personal example does.
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='helava']Ah, Ackbar. So able to ascribe noble emotions to such an ignoble man. Bush sat there like a *chump* for seven minutes because he couldn't decide whether it was worth sacrificing a photo op to actually *talk* to people, and try to figure out what to do. He sat there, in front of the kids, doing *nothing*. Nothing.
Let me repeat that again. Nothing.
There's a difference between my reaction, when I hear this news, that America is under attack, and the President's. Last year, a house was on fire down the street from me. I ran to the house, woke up the neighbors, grabbed a hose, and saved the house next to it from burning down. Most of the rest of the neighborhood, who I didn't explicitly order to action, stood there like chumps watching the house burn down and doing *nothing*.
My reaction in a time of crisis was to get information, and take action when it was needed. Bush's reaction was to sit there like a chump, afraid of messing up a shaq-fuing photo op.
seppo[/quote]
Also remember, he was told of the SECOND plane hitting while he was in the classroon, not the first. He was told of the first on the way to the school.
Let me repeat that again. Nothing.
There's a difference between my reaction, when I hear this news, that America is under attack, and the President's. Last year, a house was on fire down the street from me. I ran to the house, woke up the neighbors, grabbed a hose, and saved the house next to it from burning down. Most of the rest of the neighborhood, who I didn't explicitly order to action, stood there like chumps watching the house burn down and doing *nothing*.
My reaction in a time of crisis was to get information, and take action when it was needed. Bush's reaction was to sit there like a chump, afraid of messing up a shaq-fuing photo op.
seppo[/quote]
Also remember, he was told of the SECOND plane hitting while he was in the classroon, not the first. He was told of the first on the way to the school.
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='helava']Ah, Ackbar. So able to ascribe noble emotions to such an ignoble man. Bush sat there like a *chump* for seven minutes because he couldn't decide whether it was worth sacrificing a photo op to actually *talk* to people, and try to figure out what to do. He sat there, in front of the kids, doing *nothing*. Nothing.
Let me repeat that again. Nothing.
There's a difference between my reaction, when I hear this news, that America is under attack, and the President's. Last year, a house was on fire down the street from me. I ran to the house, woke up the neighbors, grabbed a hose, and saved the house next to it from burning down. Most of the rest of the neighborhood, who I didn't explicitly order to action, stood there like chumps watching the house burn down and doing *nothing*.
My reaction in a time of crisis was to get information, and take action when it was needed. Bush's reaction was to sit there like a chump, afraid of messing up a shaq-fuing photo op.
seppo[/quote]
Also remember, he was told of the SECOND plane hitting while he was in the classroon, not the first. He was told of the first on the way to the school.[/quote]
You have got to be shitting me. Un-ing-believable. Then again with all the shit Bush has put us through, it's more than possible.
Let me repeat that again. Nothing.
There's a difference between my reaction, when I hear this news, that America is under attack, and the President's. Last year, a house was on fire down the street from me. I ran to the house, woke up the neighbors, grabbed a hose, and saved the house next to it from burning down. Most of the rest of the neighborhood, who I didn't explicitly order to action, stood there like chumps watching the house burn down and doing *nothing*.
My reaction in a time of crisis was to get information, and take action when it was needed. Bush's reaction was to sit there like a chump, afraid of messing up a shaq-fuing photo op.
seppo[/quote]
Also remember, he was told of the SECOND plane hitting while he was in the classroon, not the first. He was told of the first on the way to the school.[/quote]
You have got to be shitting me. Un-
ing-believable. Then again with all the shit Bush has put us through, it's more than possible.Maxwell:
From Gail Sheehy:
Where was Rumsfeld on 9-11? I put the question to the commission's vice chair, Lee Hamilton, following the release of the report the commissioners call “the definitive account of 9-11.”
“We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions,” said Hamilton. “He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out.”
“He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade centers were hit and the country was under attack,” I suggested.
Was the commission comfortable with the fact that the country’s Secretary of Defense was not in the chain of command or present in the Pentagon’s command center until all four suicide hijacked planes were down?
“I’m not going to answer that question,” said Hamilton, and turned away.
------------------------
So. After the two planes had hit, Rumsfeld was still out having breakfast. This is our Secretary of Defense.
How do you explain that?
It doesn't matter than bin Laden was thousands of miles away - what matters is that the person in charge of our country, whose authorization was needed, say, to shoot down additional hijacked aircraft, had their been any, was necessary. He should have been *focused* and instead, he sat there like a marionette with its strings cut.
Have you actually *seen* the footage of him in the classroom? If you understand that during the footage, he knows that planes have been flown into both towers, it's *chilling* to watch this guy pick up the book, and start reading to the kids. It's *insane*.
And yes, I do hold him accountable for his actions that morning, and yes, I do expect him to have taken action, and yes, I fault him for sitting on his ass, then running in Air Force One, instead of going to DC and putting things in motion like a person of integrity and valor would have.
seppo
From Gail Sheehy:
Where was Rumsfeld on 9-11? I put the question to the commission's vice chair, Lee Hamilton, following the release of the report the commissioners call “the definitive account of 9-11.”
“We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions,” said Hamilton. “He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out.”
“He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade centers were hit and the country was under attack,” I suggested.
Was the commission comfortable with the fact that the country’s Secretary of Defense was not in the chain of command or present in the Pentagon’s command center until all four suicide hijacked planes were down?
“I’m not going to answer that question,” said Hamilton, and turned away.
------------------------
So. After the two planes had hit, Rumsfeld was still out having breakfast. This is our Secretary of Defense.
How do you explain that?
It doesn't matter than bin Laden was thousands of miles away - what matters is that the person in charge of our country, whose authorization was needed, say, to shoot down additional hijacked aircraft, had their been any, was necessary. He should have been *focused* and instead, he sat there like a marionette with its strings cut.
Have you actually *seen* the footage of him in the classroom? If you understand that during the footage, he knows that planes have been flown into both towers, it's *chilling* to watch this guy pick up the book, and start reading to the kids. It's *insane*.
And yes, I do hold him accountable for his actions that morning, and yes, I do expect him to have taken action, and yes, I fault him for sitting on his ass, then running in Air Force One, instead of going to DC and putting things in motion like a person of integrity and valor would have.
seppo
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='helava']Maxwell:
From Gail Sheehy:
Where was Rumsfeld on 9-11? I put the question to the commission's vice chair, Lee Hamilton, following the release of the report the commissioners call “the definitive account of 9-11.”
“We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions,” said Hamilton. “He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out.”
“He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade centers were hit and the country was under attack,” I suggested.
Was the commission comfortable with the fact that the country’s Secretary of Defense was not in the chain of command or present in the Pentagon’s command center until all four suicide hijacked planes were down?
“I’m not going to answer that question,” said Hamilton, and turned away.
------------------------
So. After the two planes had hit, Rumsfeld was still out having breakfast. This is our Secretary of Defense.
How do you explain that?
It doesn't matter than bin Laden was thousands of miles away - what matters is that the person in charge of our country, whose authorization was needed, say, to shoot down additional hijacked aircraft, had their been any, was necessary. He should have been *focused* and instead, he sat there like a marionette with its strings cut.
Have you actually *seen* the footage of him in the classroom? If you understand that during the footage, he knows that planes have been flown into both towers, it's *chilling* to watch this guy pick up the book, and start reading to the kids. It's *insane*.
And yes, I do hold him accountable for his actions that morning, and yes, I do expect him to have taken action, and yes, I fault him for sitting on his ass, then running in Air Force One, instead of going to DC and putting things in motion like a person of integrity and valor would have.
seppo[/quote]
Okay first off that quwstion wasn't answered so you don't definitively know Rumsfield knww about the other attacks. I don't mind you proving me wrong, it's probably not hard, but don't try it with simple assumptions. And going further in the post you pull a "Bushism" as you'd probably call it and confuse Bush with bin Laden.
To answer your question yes I've seen it, but you can't just immediately put things in motion, both you and bin Laden made it sound like he should hop in Air Force One and fly to where the attacks were happening (you even suggest he go to DC, which was just attacked via the air) that would never happen with any president. Whether or not he should've got up to talked with his people to gather further intelligence (btw there's no way to gather fast enough intelligence in those 10 mins to even come close to knowing whether or not to start firing on civilan flights like you suggest may have needed to be done, you have to 100% absolutely certain) is debatable, yes. However talking to the press/public or going to someplace like DC would've gotten both him and the people nowhere.
From Gail Sheehy:
Where was Rumsfeld on 9-11? I put the question to the commission's vice chair, Lee Hamilton, following the release of the report the commissioners call “the definitive account of 9-11.”
“We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions,” said Hamilton. “He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out.”
“He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade centers were hit and the country was under attack,” I suggested.
Was the commission comfortable with the fact that the country’s Secretary of Defense was not in the chain of command or present in the Pentagon’s command center until all four suicide hijacked planes were down?
“I’m not going to answer that question,” said Hamilton, and turned away.
------------------------
So. After the two planes had hit, Rumsfeld was still out having breakfast. This is our Secretary of Defense.
How do you explain that?
It doesn't matter than bin Laden was thousands of miles away - what matters is that the person in charge of our country, whose authorization was needed, say, to shoot down additional hijacked aircraft, had their been any, was necessary. He should have been *focused* and instead, he sat there like a marionette with its strings cut.
Have you actually *seen* the footage of him in the classroom? If you understand that during the footage, he knows that planes have been flown into both towers, it's *chilling* to watch this guy pick up the book, and start reading to the kids. It's *insane*.
And yes, I do hold him accountable for his actions that morning, and yes, I do expect him to have taken action, and yes, I fault him for sitting on his ass, then running in Air Force One, instead of going to DC and putting things in motion like a person of integrity and valor would have.
seppo[/quote]
Okay first off that quwstion wasn't answered so you don't definitively know Rumsfield knww about the other attacks. I don't mind you proving me wrong, it's probably not hard, but don't try it with simple assumptions. And going further in the post you pull a "Bushism" as you'd probably call it and confuse Bush with bin Laden.
To answer your question yes I've seen it, but you can't just immediately put things in motion, both you and bin Laden made it sound like he should hop in Air Force One and fly to where the attacks were happening (you even suggest he go to DC, which was just attacked via the air) that would never happen with any president. Whether or not he should've got up to talked with his people to gather further intelligence (btw there's no way to gather fast enough intelligence in those 10 mins to even come close to knowing whether or not to start firing on civilan flights like you suggest may have needed to be done, you have to 100% absolutely certain) is debatable, yes. However talking to the press/public or going to someplace like DC would've gotten both him and the people nowhere.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
So you're SERIOUSLY saying that the president of the United States, commander in chief of the military, sworn to defend our country, really had absolutely nothing better to do after being told that the country was under attack, and so its just fine that he decided to sit there and read about a goat?
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
No Like i said it's debatable as to whether or not he should've talked to his people there to see if he could've got more intelligence on the matter. However I do not see talking to the press or the public as productive options and I certainly don't see heading immediately back to DC or going to NYC as options at all.
Lee Hamilton didn't answer the question as to whether Rumsfeld had heard of the planes crashing into the WTC. But he did say that Rumsfeld was having breakfast at the time the plane hit the Pentagon. That doesn't leave doubt as to what Rumsfeld was doing. He was having breakfast. Now, this means one of two things. He didn't know the two planes had hit the WTC, in which case, he was extraordinarily negligent, and not doing his job properly, or he did know, and was having breakfast as a response.
Neither of those options exactly inspires confidence, does it?
We're also not talking about a 10 minute span on whether they would decide to shoot down a plane or not. The FAA knew for some time that the planes had been hijacked, but no one realized they were being used as weapons. The moment that the second plane hit, people knew that there was a third plane in the air that was hijacked, and likely going to be used in the same manner. Bush, at that very moment, should have been forced to make that call. Cheney claims to have given the order to shoot the plane down, as I recall, and one thing that's under investigation is whether he actually got authorization from the President beforehand. He claims to have called Bush, but strangely, no record of such a call exists. And every call the President makes, or receives, is logged.
The point is simple. There were a billion things that Bush could have done when Andy Card came to him and said the country was under attack. Billions, even. But sitting on his ass and not screwing up a photo op was just about the most inane, insipid thing a person could have done. I'd challenge you to come up with something more vapid.
seppo
Neither of those options exactly inspires confidence, does it?
We're also not talking about a 10 minute span on whether they would decide to shoot down a plane or not. The FAA knew for some time that the planes had been hijacked, but no one realized they were being used as weapons. The moment that the second plane hit, people knew that there was a third plane in the air that was hijacked, and likely going to be used in the same manner. Bush, at that very moment, should have been forced to make that call. Cheney claims to have given the order to shoot the plane down, as I recall, and one thing that's under investigation is whether he actually got authorization from the President beforehand. He claims to have called Bush, but strangely, no record of such a call exists. And every call the President makes, or receives, is logged.
The point is simple. There were a billion things that Bush could have done when Andy Card came to him and said the country was under attack. Billions, even. But sitting on his ass and not screwing up a photo op was just about the most inane, insipid thing a person could have done. I'd challenge you to come up with something more vapid.
seppo
ValkyrieVF-1S
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='gamefreak']So um... what I'm hearing is that most would be opposed.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
Is that why we went to war against Iraq?
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
Is that why we went to war against Iraq?
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']No Like i said it's debatable as to whether or not he should've talked to his people there to see if he could've got more intelligence on the matter.[/quote]
How is this debateable?
If the commander in chief is told the country under attack, I expect him do something. At least find out more about the situation, esepcially when YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS HAPPENING.
True, in this case, probably not much could have been done, but Bush had no way of knowing this, because all he knew was that a plane hit the world trade center and that we were under attack.
In this, the nuclear age, when every minute counts, we can't afford to have a president who sits there like a deer in headlights when he is told we are under attack.
How is this debateable?
If the commander in chief is told the country under attack, I expect him do something. At least find out more about the situation, esepcially when YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS HAPPENING.
True, in this case, probably not much could have been done, but Bush had no way of knowing this, because all he knew was that a plane hit the world trade center and that we were under attack.
In this, the nuclear age, when every minute counts, we can't afford to have a president who sits there like a deer in headlights when he is told we are under attack.
I've said this before.
Have a 7 minute moment of silence, so that you'll know what an eternity that is, when the largest attack on American soil ever is in progress.
There was a power vacumn as this was going on. People didn't know what to do, or who had the authority to do what. The military was asking the FAA for clearance to shoot down the planes, because they couldn't get anyone else. Could Bush reacting immediately have helped? I don't know, but it couldn't have been any worse than sitting in a room full of kids, wondering what to do.
I want a president that will take charge of the situation and do something. John Kerry is a take charge kind of guy.
I agree with CheapyD, it is not only not debatable, its totally unacceptable. The biggest attack on American soil ever is In Progress, and you're going to sit there like a dumbass for 7 minutes?
Have a 7 minute moment of silence, so that you'll know what an eternity that is, when the largest attack on American soil ever is in progress.
There was a power vacumn as this was going on. People didn't know what to do, or who had the authority to do what. The military was asking the FAA for clearance to shoot down the planes, because they couldn't get anyone else. Could Bush reacting immediately have helped? I don't know, but it couldn't have been any worse than sitting in a room full of kids, wondering what to do.
I want a president that will take charge of the situation and do something. John Kerry is a take charge kind of guy.
I agree with CheapyD, it is not only not debatable, its totally unacceptable. The biggest attack on American soil ever is In Progress, and you're going to sit there like a dumbass for 7 minutes?
7 minutes is a long time in a stressful situation.
Would have been plenty of time for Kerry to take action, he could conduct 2 or 3 polls in that time, maybe even call France or the UN to see what we should do.
Unlike most of you, I don't profess to be able to know what was in the President's mind at that time [apart from something like 'Holy shit.'] I can definitely understand a pause from being stunned, I know I was, and I had absolutely no responsibility relating to it.
I will say this though: Not many people can react instantly to anything, especially when the only information is whispered into your ear, when you're also trying to be calm for the kids and yes, the press that was there. Sometimes acting too quickly results in acting rashly. The planes were hijacked, yes. But what if they weren't? What if the info he got was somehow flawed, and he ordered them shot down? What if it was transporting nuclear waste, or something like that? There's a lot of variables that go into making any decision, much less an immense on-the-spot one like that. Some of that time was probably spent inventorying where everyone was, what today's security codes were, how best to make a quick exit so as not to alarm the kids and the public, etc. Not only were we attacked, but it was a totally surprise attack in its style and substance.
And to answer the original question, No, I wouldn't support that. If the person *was* a terrorist/criminal, and the crime was deserving of the death penalty, I'd have no problem with that, except in the case of US citizens, it does indeed violate due process and right to trial etc.
Would have been plenty of time for Kerry to take action, he could conduct 2 or 3 polls in that time, maybe even call France or the UN to see what we should do.
Unlike most of you, I don't profess to be able to know what was in the President's mind at that time [apart from something like 'Holy shit.'] I can definitely understand a pause from being stunned, I know I was, and I had absolutely no responsibility relating to it.
I will say this though: Not many people can react instantly to anything, especially when the only information is whispered into your ear, when you're also trying to be calm for the kids and yes, the press that was there. Sometimes acting too quickly results in acting rashly. The planes were hijacked, yes. But what if they weren't? What if the info he got was somehow flawed, and he ordered them shot down? What if it was transporting nuclear waste, or something like that? There's a lot of variables that go into making any decision, much less an immense on-the-spot one like that. Some of that time was probably spent inventorying where everyone was, what today's security codes were, how best to make a quick exit so as not to alarm the kids and the public, etc. Not only were we attacked, but it was a totally surprise attack in its style and substance.
And to answer the original question, No, I wouldn't support that. If the person *was* a terrorist/criminal, and the crime was deserving of the death penalty, I'd have no problem with that, except in the case of US citizens, it does indeed violate due process and right to trial etc.
[quote name='gamefreak']So um... what I'm hearing is that most would be opposed.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
Wait, WHAT? THat was the payoff for your setup? THAT?! Comeing on, you stupid shit. Grow a goddamned brain. You think we're supposed to be on moral parity with a dictator?!?!?! You idiotic ignorant .
We have *rights* in this country, that form the basis of our democracy. Taking away those rights undermines democracy *itself*. If you have no problem with someone dragging you out of bed, and throwing you in jail with no explanation, post your name and address on this board. I'll write an anonymous tip to the Department of Homeland Security, and I expect we'll never hear from you again. Do you even *UNDERSTAND* what is happening in America today?
God dammit. You know, sometimes, I see that right-wingers sometimes are intelligent people who just believe vastly different things than I do. And then there's idiots like this chump, that remind me that no, it's just that some people are completely brainless wastes of skin.
seppo
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
Wait, WHAT? THat was the payoff for your setup? THAT?! Come
ing on, you stupid shit. Grow a goddamned brain. You think we're supposed to be on moral parity with a dictator?!?!?! You idiotic ignorant .We have *rights* in this country, that form the basis of our democracy. Taking away those rights undermines democracy *itself*. If you have no problem with someone dragging you out of bed, and throwing you in jail with no explanation, post your name and address on this board. I'll write an anonymous tip to the Department of Homeland Security, and I expect we'll never hear from you again. Do you even *UNDERSTAND* what is happening in America today?
God dammit. You know, sometimes, I see that right-wingers sometimes are intelligent people who just believe vastly different things than I do. And then there's idiots like this chump, that remind me that no, it's just that some people are completely brainless wastes of skin.
seppo
gamefreak
CAGiversary!
[quote name='ValkyrieVF-1S'][quote name='gamefreak']So um... what I'm hearing is that most would be opposed.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
Is that why we went to war against Iraq?[/quote]
Are you saying if I buy you a birthday present thinking it's your birthday and its not that the action of me giving you an object is any less good? Do you think it matters to the average Joe Iraqi that we didn't find any nuclear weapons? No, not really.
I can buy the argument that Bush "mislead America" but I can't stand that people don't acknowledge that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
Is that why we went to war against Iraq?[/quote]
Are you saying if I buy you a birthday present thinking it's your birthday and its not that the action of me giving you an object is any less good? Do you think it matters to the average Joe Iraqi that we didn't find any nuclear weapons? No, not really.
I can buy the argument that Bush "mislead America" but I can't stand that people don't acknowledge that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='gamefreak']... would any Democrats out there oppose Bush dragging suspected terrorists out of bed in the middle of the night and then torturing, killing, or otherwise maiming them without a trial?[/quote]
Without proof?
That would reduce us to a terrorist nation also.
You could call the FBI and tell them you think your neighbor is a suspected terrorist. That instantly makes them a suspect and they are immediately arrested.
If your ideology became law, I would call the FBI on you and they would come to your house, take you away, and beat you to death. Then I would take a shit on your grave (if they release your body).
Without proof?
That would reduce us to a terrorist nation also.
You could call the FBI and tell them you think your neighbor is a suspected terrorist. That instantly makes them a suspect and they are immediately arrested.
If your ideology became law, I would call the FBI on you and they would come to your house, take you away, and beat you to death. Then I would take a shit on your grave (if they release your body).
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='gamefreak']... would any Democrats out there oppose Bush dragging suspected terrorists out of bed in the middle of the night and then torturing, killing, or otherwise maiming them without a trial?[/quote]
Without proof?
That would reduce us to a terrorist nation also.[/quote]
Not quite terrorist, but it would reduce to the level of many of the nations you admire in the UN.
CTL
Without proof?
That would reduce us to a terrorist nation also.[/quote]
Not quite terrorist, but it would reduce to the level of many of the nations you admire in the UN.
CTL
gamefreak
CAGiversary!
[quote name='helava'][quote name='gamefreak']So um... what I'm hearing is that most would be opposed.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
Wait, WHAT? THat was the payoff for your setup? THAT?! Come shaq-fuing on, you stupid shit. Grow a goddamned brain. You think we're supposed to be on moral parity with a dictator?!?!?! You idiotic ignorant shaq-fu.
We have *rights* in this country, that form the basis of our democracy. Taking away those rights undermines democracy *itself*. If you have no problem with someone dragging you out of bed, and throwing you in jail with no explanation, post your name and address on this board. I'll write an anonymous tip to the Department of Homeland Security, and I expect we'll never hear from you again. Do you even *UNDERSTAND* what is happening in America today?
God dammit. You know, sometimes, I see that right-wingers sometimes are intelligent people who just believe vastly different things than I do. And then there's idiots like this chump, that remind me that no, it's just that some people are completely brainless wastes of skin.
seppo[/quote]
Ahhhh. So it is only people under democratic govenments that have rights. Thank you for correcting me.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
Wait, WHAT? THat was the payoff for your setup? THAT?! Come shaq-fuing on, you stupid shit. Grow a goddamned brain. You think we're supposed to be on moral parity with a dictator?!?!?! You idiotic ignorant shaq-fu.
We have *rights* in this country, that form the basis of our democracy. Taking away those rights undermines democracy *itself*. If you have no problem with someone dragging you out of bed, and throwing you in jail with no explanation, post your name and address on this board. I'll write an anonymous tip to the Department of Homeland Security, and I expect we'll never hear from you again. Do you even *UNDERSTAND* what is happening in America today?
God dammit. You know, sometimes, I see that right-wingers sometimes are intelligent people who just believe vastly different things than I do. And then there's idiots like this chump, that remind me that no, it's just that some people are completely brainless wastes of skin.
seppo[/quote]
Ahhhh. So it is only people under democratic govenments that have rights. Thank you for correcting me.
Look, if you think it's good enough that our country is on moral parity with tyranny, then I suggest that you actually go find a tyranny to live under, and let us work on making sure that our democratic republic actually adheres to the laws and principles it was founded on.
seppo
seppo
gamefreak
CAGiversary!
[quote name='helava']Look, if you think it's good enough that our country is on moral parity with tyranny, then I suggest that you actually go find a tyranny to live under, and let us work on making sure that our democratic republic actually adheres to the laws and principles it was founded on.
seppo[/quote]
Did not the Congress pass the PATRIOT Act? Do they not have the power to get rid of it? Didn't Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq? Why aren't you yelling at Senator Kerry who would rather blame Bush for the issues rather than try to get them solved via power HE ALREADY HAS?
seppo[/quote]
Did not the Congress pass the PATRIOT Act? Do they not have the power to get rid of it? Didn't Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq? Why aren't you yelling at Senator Kerry who would rather blame Bush for the issues rather than try to get them solved via power HE ALREADY HAS?
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='helava']Look, if you think it's good enough that our country is on moral parity with tyranny, then I suggest that you actually go find a tyranny to live under, and let us work on making sure that our democratic republic actually adheres to the laws and principles it was founded on.
seppo[/quote]
Did not the Congress pass the PATRIOT Act? Do they not have the power to get rid of it? Didn't Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq? Why aren't you yelling at Senator Kerry who would rather blame Bush for the issues rather than try to get them solved via power HE ALREADY HAS?[/quote]
Please, everybody's much too busy campaigning to waste time doing their jobs.
seppo[/quote]
Did not the Congress pass the PATRIOT Act? Do they not have the power to get rid of it? Didn't Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq? Why aren't you yelling at Senator Kerry who would rather blame Bush for the issues rather than try to get them solved via power HE ALREADY HAS?[/quote]
Please, everybody's much too busy campaigning to waste time doing their jobs.
gamefreak
CAGiversary!
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='helava']Look, if you think it's good enough that our country is on moral parity with tyranny, then I suggest that you actually go find a tyranny to live under, and let us work on making sure that our democratic republic actually adheres to the laws and principles it was founded on.
seppo[/quote]
Did not the Congress pass the PATRIOT Act? Do they not have the power to get rid of it? Didn't Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq? Why aren't you yelling at Senator Kerry who would rather blame Bush for the issues rather than try to get them solved via power HE ALREADY HAS?[/quote]
Please, everybody's much too busy campaigning to waste time doing their jobs.[/quote]
Yeah. Thing is Kerry had 3 years to try to get it changed or scraped entirely.
seppo[/quote]
Did not the Congress pass the PATRIOT Act? Do they not have the power to get rid of it? Didn't Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq? Why aren't you yelling at Senator Kerry who would rather blame Bush for the issues rather than try to get them solved via power HE ALREADY HAS?[/quote]
Please, everybody's much too busy campaigning to waste time doing their jobs.[/quote]
Yeah. Thing is Kerry had 3 years to try to get it changed or scraped entirely.
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='gamefreak']So um... what I'm hearing is that most would be opposed.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
I'm damn glad you don't endorse the behavior you stated in your topic title. What scares me is that BigNick did w/o knowing it was a lead-in to this question.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
I'm damn glad you don't endorse the behavior you stated in your topic title. What scares me is that BigNick did w/o knowing it was a lead-in to this question.
gamefreak
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Dead of Knight'][quote name='gamefreak']So um... what I'm hearing is that most would be opposed.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
I'm damn glad you don't endorse the behavior you stated in your topic title. What scares me is that BigNick did w/o knowing it was a lead-in to this question.[/quote]
The problem when you come right out and say it is that people aren't honest. I plead guilty to it as well.
Why then aren't you opposed when Saddam Hussein does it?[/quote]
I'm damn glad you don't endorse the behavior you stated in your topic title. What scares me is that BigNick did w/o knowing it was a lead-in to this question.[/quote]
The problem when you come right out and say it is that people aren't honest. I plead guilty to it as well.
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='helava']Look, if you think it's good enough that our country is on moral parity with tyranny, then I suggest that you actually go find a tyranny to live under, and let us work on making sure that our democratic republic actually adheres to the laws and principles it was founded on.
seppo[/quote]
Did not the Congress pass the PATRIOT Act? Do they not have the power to get rid of it? Didn't Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq? Why aren't you yelling at Senator Kerry who would rather blame Bush for the issues rather than try to get them solved via power HE ALREADY HAS?[/quote]
You know they didn't authorize force as much as told him he could be the one to declare it himself since they didn't want to bother doing it. But wait! There's a catch they CAN'T give him that ability unless we passed an Amendment to the Constitution.ing idiots in Congress.
seppo[/quote]
Did not the Congress pass the PATRIOT Act? Do they not have the power to get rid of it? Didn't Congress authorize the use of force in Iraq? Why aren't you yelling at Senator Kerry who would rather blame Bush for the issues rather than try to get them solved via power HE ALREADY HAS?[/quote]
You know they didn't authorize force as much as told him he could be the one to declare it himself since they didn't want to bother doing it. But wait! There's a catch they CAN'T give him that ability unless we passed an Amendment to the Constitution.
ing idiots in Congress.If you think one Democratic Senator in a Republican controlled congress, with a Republican President, can get the Patriot act removed, then you're out of your mind.
And if you'd actually done your homework, Kerry is a co-sponsor of the SAFE act, which sets limits and much needed judicial oversight on the Patriot act. It restores a lot of the checks and balances that were removed. So in reality, he is using his power as a senator to get it changed.
gamefreak
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dafoomie']
And if you'd actually done your homework, Kerry is a co-sponsor of the SAFE act, which sets limits and much needed judicial oversight on the Patriot act. It restores a lot of the checks and balances that were removed. So in reality, he is using his power as a senator to get it changed.[/quote]
But it's still bad enough that he complains about it. Besides, if as many people hate it as he says, he should have no problem getting rid of it.
If you think one Democratic Senator in a Republican controlled congress, with a Republican President, can get the Patriot act removed, then you're out of your mind.
And if you'd actually done your homework, Kerry is a co-sponsor of the SAFE act, which sets limits and much needed judicial oversight on the Patriot act. It restores a lot of the checks and balances that were removed. So in reality, he is using his power as a senator to get it changed.[/quote]
But it's still bad enough that he complains about it. Besides, if as many people hate it as he says, he should have no problem getting rid of it.
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='dafoomie']
And if you'd actually done your homework, Kerry is a co-sponsor of the SAFE act, which sets limits and much needed judicial oversight on the Patriot act. It restores a lot of the checks and balances that were removed. So in reality, he is using his power as a senator to get it changed.[/quote]
But it's still bad enough that he complains about it. Besides, if as many people hate it as he says, he should have no problem getting rid of it.[/quote]
EXCUSE me?! Do youing PAY attention to Politics? There was a bill or some modification to the Patriot Act in Congress for some of it's more controversial measures and guess what happened? It was about to be passed in the Senate. What happened? Some of the Republicans ing STALLED it into overtime which you're not allowed to do to convince the Republicans voting for it to vote against it to kill it so don't give anyone that shit.
If you think one Democratic Senator in a Republican controlled congress, with a Republican President, can get the Patriot act removed, then you're out of your mind.
And if you'd actually done your homework, Kerry is a co-sponsor of the SAFE act, which sets limits and much needed judicial oversight on the Patriot act. It restores a lot of the checks and balances that were removed. So in reality, he is using his power as a senator to get it changed.[/quote]
But it's still bad enough that he complains about it. Besides, if as many people hate it as he says, he should have no problem getting rid of it.[/quote]
EXCUSE me?! Do you
ing PAY attention to Politics? There was a bill or some modification to the Patriot Act in Congress for some of it's more controversial measures and guess what happened? It was about to be passed in the Senate. What happened? Some of the Republicans ing STALLED it into overtime which you're not allowed to do to convince the Republicans voting for it to vote against it to kill it so don't give anyone that shit.
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='dafoomie']
And if you'd actually done your homework, Kerry is a co-sponsor of the SAFE act, which sets limits and much needed judicial oversight on the Patriot act. It restores a lot of the checks and balances that were removed. So in reality, he is using his power as a senator to get it changed.[/quote]
But it's still bad enough that he complains about it. Besides, if as many people hate it as he says, he should have no problem getting rid of it.[/quote]
Silly me. I thought politicians were allowed to complain about things they didn't like. Free speech and all that.
If you think one Democratic Senator in a Republican controlled congress, with a Republican President, can get the Patriot act removed, then you're out of your mind.
And if you'd actually done your homework, Kerry is a co-sponsor of the SAFE act, which sets limits and much needed judicial oversight on the Patriot act. It restores a lot of the checks and balances that were removed. So in reality, he is using his power as a senator to get it changed.[/quote]
But it's still bad enough that he complains about it. Besides, if as many people hate it as he says, he should have no problem getting rid of it.[/quote]
Silly me. I thought politicians were allowed to complain about things they didn't like. Free speech and all that.
bread's done