PDA

View Full Version : One of the Scariest Things You'll Ever Read


Blitzburgh
05-24-2007, 09:24 PM
This is some scary stuff ... scary as hell ..... almost too evil to even fathom.


Seems like this administration (Bush/Cheney) want to lay out the game plan *should* another attack come, even specifying Cheney's role, including "classified" things we aren't allowed to know.

Check this out ...

Marshal Law, mass "detention camps," the secret service taking people away without explanation, due process or disclosing where they are taking people.

It even looks as if they're setting up another false flag attack to create fear and panic in Americans.

I can only hope America doesn't get duped again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild

May 18, 2007

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack. In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a ?catastrophic emergency.?

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility ?for ensuring constitutional government.?

He laid this all out in a document entitled ?National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51? and ?Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.?

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled ?National Continuity Policy.?

It defines a ?catastrophic emergency? as ?any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.?

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include ?localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.?

The document emphasizes the need to ensure ?the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,? it states.

But it says flat out: ?The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.?

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be ?a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.? But this effort will be ?coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial
branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.?

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to ?provide for orderly succession? and ?appropriate transition of leadership.?

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.

She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to ?state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.?

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for ?private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,? as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

?This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.?

The document also contains ?classified Continuity Annexes.?


If you read this .... you should be afraid ... very afraid.


http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx051807

tony hipchest
05-24-2007, 09:38 PM
well i hope hes not on a plane and cant be reached when all this happens.

fansince'76
05-24-2007, 09:45 PM
Remember the good old days folks, when this used to be a Steelers, and more widely, a NFL message board? This is starting to look more like a Conservative/Liberal pissing match arena like the old Yahoo message boards every day. :rolleyes:

HometownGal
05-24-2007, 09:56 PM
Remember the good old days folks, when this used to be a Steelers, and more widely, a NFL message board? This is starting to look more like a Conservative/Liberal pissing match arena like the old Yahoo message boards every day. :rolleyes:

I totally agree Gary. It is getting beyond ridiculous.

Blitz - try posting something from a CREDIBLE source and it may get more than hysterical laughter. :toofunny:

fansince'76
05-24-2007, 09:59 PM
I totally agree Gary. It is getting beyond ridiculous.

Blitz - try posting something from a CREDIBLE source and it may get more than hysterical laughter. :toofunny:

The only thing missing from the original post is the obligatory "Buck Fush." :toofunny:

HometownGal
05-24-2007, 10:06 PM
The only thing missing from the original post is the obligatory "Buck Fush." :toofunny:

LMAO!!! Or the "Bush is a Murderer". Isn't it amazing that the same pickleheads who are outraged over the war and the American casualties are the same people who support killing hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses? :shake02:

tony hipchest
05-24-2007, 10:08 PM
I totally agree Gary. It is getting beyond ridiculous.

Blitz - try posting something from a CREDIBLE source and it may get more than hysterical laughter. :toofunny:oh... i thought that was my post getting the hysterical laughter.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/chirpingcrickets.jpg

HometownGal
05-24-2007, 10:23 PM
oh... i thought that was my post getting the hysterical laughter.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/chirpingcrickets.jpg

Blitz's was funnier - sorry - LOL! :toofunny:

Blitzburgh
05-24-2007, 10:27 PM
Mods ... take some of your own advice and attack the post and not the poster. I like the convienent way some of you immediately talk around the seriousness of the issue as if it never really happened or that it's really no big deal that we have a self-serving fascist dictator on our hands here.

When you have some time, check this out if you really want to understand the big picture.

WARNING: The information shared in this video will challenge your very system of beliefs. The system you have been taught and groomed to support since your early childhood. You will learn about the complexity of the matrix we live in. Only watch this if you are open to seeing the truth ...


TERROR STORM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230

fansince'76
05-24-2007, 10:38 PM
Mods ... take some of your own advice and attack the post and not the poster.

Uh, yeah dude - we did attack the post specifically:

Blitz - try posting something from a CREDIBLE source and it may get more than hysterical laughter. :toofunny:

The only thing missing from the original post is the obligatory "Buck Fush." :toofunny:

How are these posts attacking YOU, specifically? If you're gonna engage in political flame-baiting, you need to grow a thicker skin.

Preacher
05-24-2007, 10:41 PM
Pre-season come soon! PLEASE!

fansince'76
05-24-2007, 10:46 PM
Pre-season come soon! PLEASE!

Amen to that!

GBMelBlount
05-24-2007, 11:11 PM
Blitz, I had heard that more Clinton opponents were murdered than the total losses for Americans in Iraq.......Scary....... GO STEELERS!!!!!!!

Hammer67
05-25-2007, 06:42 AM
Blitz. Stop drinking the PROGRESSIVE.ORG kool aid man!

Try to research and think about things without having someone spoon feed you their agenda laced opinions! Do you think anything on that site would ever say anything good about Bush? He could rescue 1,000,000 puppies and they would still find some way to spin it around.

:coffee:

Mosca
05-25-2007, 07:04 AM
I find it interesting that the moderators are mocking a legitimate post.


Tom

HometownGal
05-25-2007, 07:04 AM
All I did was ask him to link a credible source - I didn't ask for his first-born. Political opinions are more than welcomed here and though I don't agree with some of the more liberal views, I respect those opinions. However, when someone takes them overboard and incorporates personal attacks into those opinions, it's gone a little too far. :wave:

HometownGal
05-25-2007, 07:17 AM
I find it interesting that the moderators are mocking a legitimate post.


Tom

Tom - as you have no idea of what has gone on behind the scenes, I don't feel your statement above merits a response.

fansince'76
05-25-2007, 07:32 AM
I find it interesting that the moderators are mocking a legitimate post.


Tom

What, I'm not allowed an opinion now? I don't think I gave up my 1st Amendment rights just because I signed on as a mod here. Besides, you don't know the full story, so with all due respect, I don't think you're really qualified to comment on the situation. Thanks.

Mosca
05-25-2007, 09:08 AM
With all due respect, and you folks know I'm not a troublemaker; if there are things going on behind the scenes that should stay there, then leave them there. To make comments based on that knowledge, and to then bring it out here, and then tell us that we can't comment because we don't know the whole story.... well, then you're talking about stuff out front that should be left in the back.

And of course you are allowed an opinion, fan76. But the opinion you are voicing in this thread isn't directed toward the subject, toward the issue raised in the post; it is an opinion about whether or not the post is proper, or on topic. If this is an administrative issue, then dropping it on the membership in this way is a bit high-handed, don't you think? And the first amendment is not at all relevant to this message board, as you well know.

And HTG, yes you did ask for a credible source; but you also wrote, in response to fan76's aside about the propriety of the post, "I totally agree Gary. It's getting beyond ridiculous." And then you and fan76 continue constructing straw men to knock down in mocking response; the only times "Buck Fush" and "Bush is a murderer" are mentioned in this thread is by both of you.

I take a lot of pride in telling people that this is one board where a person can find good solid discourse on both sides of an issue. Yes, it's the internet, and anyone can step in with inflammatory rhetoric, but by and large this is a good place where people on both sides can share well thought out opinions.

It would be unrealistic to expect a moderator to not have an opinion, and to refrain for voicing it; I enjoy reading opposing viewpoints, and our moderators have some of the best. But it is not unrealistic to expect moderators to refrain from attempting to influence people from posting based on whether or not they agree with the content off the post. And it is not unrealistic to expect them to give a post they disagree with the same impartiality for its validity that they would extend to one they agree with.

I've always felt that the staff here has done a great job in that manner, which is why this particular incident is so jarringly obvious. I hope it is a minor aberration borne from some behind the scenes frustration and everyone can work it out and get on with business as usual, which includes the great discussion of heavy issues that many of us have come to enjoy.


Tom

Hammer67
05-25-2007, 09:29 AM
With all due respect, and you folks know I'm not a troublemaker; if there are things going on behind the scenes that should stay there, then leave them there. To make comments based on that knowledge, and to then bring it out here, and then tell us that we can't comment because we don't know the whole story.... well, then you're talking about stuff out front that should be left in the back.

And of course you are allowed an opinion, fan76. But the opinion you are voicing in this thread isn't directed toward the subject, toward the issue raised in the post; it is an opinion about whether or not the post is proper, or on topic. If this is an administrative issue, then dropping it on the membership in this way is a bit high-handed, don't you think? And the first amendment is not at all relevant to this message board, as you well know.

And HTG, yes you did ask for a credible source; but you also wrote, in response to fan76's aside about the propriety of the post, "I totally agree Gary. It's getting beyond ridiculous." And then you and fan76 continue constructing straw men to knock down in mocking response; the only times "Buck Fush" and "Bush is a murderer" are mentioned in this thread is by both of you.

I take a lot of pride in telling people that this is one board where a person can find good solid discourse on both sides of an issue. Yes, it's the internet, and anyone can step in with inflammatory rhetoric, but by and large this is a good place where people on both sides can share well thought out opinions.

It would be unrealistic to expect a moderator to not have an opinion, and to refrain for voicing it; I enjoy reading opposing viewpoints, and our moderators have some of the best. But it is not unrealistic to expect moderators to refrain from attempting to influence people from posting based on whether or not they agree with the content off the post. And it is not unrealistic to expect them to give a post they disagree with the same impartiality for its validity that they would extend to one they agree with.

I've always felt that the staff here has done a great job in that manner, which is why this particular incident is so jarringly obvious. I hope it is a minor aberration borne from some behind the scenes frustration and everyone can work it out and get on with business as usual, which includes the great discussion of heavy issues that many of us have come to enjoy.


Tom

The irony of this whole discussion as that board members are off limits but can post personal attacks against the President. I find that disrespectful regardless of political beliefs and whether you think his policies are any good.

As a moderator, myself, at another site (which is much stricter then this one), I have seen nothing wrong in the posts so far.

:coffee:

fansince'76
05-25-2007, 09:35 AM
And of course you are allowed an opinion, fan76. But the opinion you are voicing in this thread isn't directed toward the subject, toward the issue raised in the post; it is an opinion about whether or not the post is proper, or on topic. If this is an administrative issue, then dropping it on the membership in this way is a bit high-handed, don't you think? And the first amendment is not at all relevant to this message board, as you well know.


Again, with all due respect, I have to question the propriety of a post when we have been forced to dole out infractions for other politically-based threads that have devolved to name-calling over less controversial subjects than the one dealt with in the initial post of this thread. I don't have a choice but to question the propriety of the thread on the open board when the post itself is made on the open board. Would you rather we lock the thread from behind the scenes? I doubt you would. You can post and simply leave, whereas we have to deal with things when they explode. I was simply trying to head the problems off at the pass, because honestly, I don't see any other purpose of this post than to incite. Thanks.

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-25-2007, 09:37 AM
It's called the first amendment to the US. Constitution

Livinginthe past
05-25-2007, 09:43 AM
The irony of this whole discussion as that board members are off limits but can post personal attacks against the President. I find that disrespectful regardless of political beliefs and whether you think his policies are any good.

As a moderator, myself, at another site (which is much stricter then this one), I have seen nothing wrong in the posts so far.

:coffee:

This post is way, way off.

We going to stop 'personal attacks' on Marv Lewis too?

You seem like a moderate guy from what i've read in your previous posts, but I dont feel its reasonable to stop people critcising the President - otherwise we are promoting values that America generally abhors - namely the stifling of free speech.

As I understand it, it is against the rules to personally attack another member....everyone else (within reason) is up for grabs.

I have to side with Tom on this issue, if there is stuff going on 'behind the scenes' it shoudn't be spilling onto the main forum.

The thread originator is now banned, anyhow.

Livinginthe past
05-25-2007, 09:46 AM
Again, with all due respect, I have to question the propriety of a post when we have been forced to dole out infractions for other politically-based threads that have devolved to name-calling over less controversial subjects than the one dealt with in the initial post of this thread. I don't have a choice but to question the propriety of the thread on the open board when the post itself is made on the open board. Would you rather we lock the thread from behind the scenes? I doubt you would. You can post and simply leave, whereas we have to deal with things when they explode. I was simply trying to head the problems off at the pass, because honestly, I don't see any other purpose of this post than to incite. Thanks.

How about letting these threads work themselves out, and doling out infractions after people actually break the rules?

The original post could only be thought of as 'incitement' by those who do not wish to debate the subject - if that is so, then the opportunity is always there to just ignore the thread.

Politics is a part of this board, for better or worse, and I don't think heading problems off with heavy sarcasm is the way to go either.

Mosca
05-25-2007, 09:54 AM
Hammer, I don't see any personal attack on the president in the original post, nor in the article quoted. there is an attack on his policies, but there is no attack on the man himself. But two others did say that others do attack him, and use that as justification to head off discussion of the initial topic. Nevertheless I do think that the policy has been established that it's OK to discuss prominent people in those terms, otherwise we would also not be permitted to mock Chris Henry, or say that Ben was stupid for throwing into triple coverage. And it is certainly fair to throw words at Michael Moore. Bush and Cheney shouldn't be exempt, just like Hillary and Bill and Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be. If you've decided it's OK to gore oxes, then you shouldn't also get to decide which ones people want to gore.

If the owner of the board wants to restrict all discussion, I'll abide. If he wants it open, let it be open. If he wants all political comment to toe a specific line, then it's his forum and he can do that, with no squawk from me. But if so, then tell us what the line is; don't imply it through asides and mockery.


Tom

Mosca
05-25-2007, 10:01 AM
The thread originator is now banned, anyhow.

Oh, wow. Tough for him, holding that opinion so strongly.

I'd read about that policy just last night, somewhere else. I'll do some research on it and figure it out. Honestly on the surface it doesn't look all that different from anything planned out in the 50s and 60s when we had the threat of nuclear annihilation; there were even plans to deliver mail and collect taxes, IIRC. I think the only question is, who gets to call and define the emergency?


Tom

Hammer67
05-25-2007, 10:05 AM
This post is way, way off.

We going to stop 'personal attacks' on Marv Lewis too?

You seem like a moderate guy from what i've read in your previous posts, but I dont feel its reasonable to stop people critcising the President - otherwise we are promoting values that America generally abhors - namely the stifling of free speech.

As I understand it, it is against the rules to personally attack another member....everyone else (within reason) is up for grabs.


I am just pointing out an example of irony, not commenting on forum rules. The OP has personally bashed the Pres in other threads. Not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do so but if one engages in that kind of political rhetoric, one should also be prepared for the reaction.

I was only stating that I saw no issue with the moderator responses posted.

That is all...continuing with my coffee.

Livinginthe past
05-25-2007, 10:09 AM
I am just pointing out an example of irony, not commenting on forum rules. The OP has personally bashed the Pres in other threads. Not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do so but if one engages in that kind of political rhetoric, one should also be prepared for the reaction.

I was only stating that I saw no issue with the moderator responses posted.

That is all...continuing with my coffee.

Ok man! :cheers:

I didn't see any problem with the opinions voiced in the responses either, unless they became confused with forum policy.

Enjoy the coffee :wink02:

Atlanta Dan
05-25-2007, 10:29 AM
This post is way, way off.

We going to stop 'personal attacks' on Marv Lewis too?

You seem like a moderate guy from what i've read in your previous posts, but I dont feel its reasonable to stop people critcising the President - otherwise we are promoting values that America generally abhors - namely the stifling of free speech.

As I understand it, it is against the rules to personally attack another member....everyone else (within reason) is up for grabs.

I have to side with Tom on this issue, if there is stuff going on 'behind the scenes' it shoudn't be spilling onto the main forum.

The thread originator is now banned, anyhow.

Banned for this or was he already on double secret probation?

Mosca
05-25-2007, 10:39 AM
AD, I abide by the moderators decision to ban him. They don't need to justify it. I took on Bburgh in a different thread, pointing out to him that his attacks on Bush were not in any way helpful or on-topic; he's a hardhead in that way, I guess.

HOWEVER. The knife should cut both ways. Similar punishment should be meted out if the subject of attacks were to be the duly elected Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, or the esteemed Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. They, too, represent their peoples' choice. And were Hillary to be elected president I would expect her to get the same respect that is being requested for President Bush. Since the office should be respected, after all; she WOULD be our leader, and we should all stand behind her.


Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-25-2007, 10:44 AM
Mods ... take some of your own advice and attack the post and not the poster. I like the convienent way some of you immediately talk around the seriousness of the issue as if it never really happened or that it's really no big deal that we have a self-serving fascist dictator on our hands here.

When you have some time, check this out if you really want to understand the big picture.

WARNING: The information shared in this video will challenge your very system of beliefs. The system you have been taught and groomed to support since your early childhood. You will learn about the complexity of the matrix we live in. Only watch this if you are open to seeing the truth ...


TERROR STORM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230

He may be banned..but you have to give him his due....His passion sometimes overwhelmed his insanity...

....seriously mods....thanks for seeing the difference between someone willing to debate and one who is purposefully flaming posts ...and in the process cause division among people who would otherwise be able to have an intellectual discussion.:thumbsup:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-25-2007, 10:47 AM
AD, I abide by the moderators decision to ban him. They don't need to justify it. I took on Bburgh in a different thread, pointing out to him that his attacks on Bush were not in any way helpful or on-topic; he's a hardhead in that way, I guess.

HOWEVER. The knife should cut both ways. Similar punishment should be meted out if the subject of attacks were to be the duly elected Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, or the esteemed Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. They, too, represent their peoples' choice. And were Hillary to be elected president I would expect her to get the same respect that is being requested for President Bush. Since the office should be respected, after all; she WOULD be our leader, and we should all stand behind her.


Tom

Tom...I dont think it was the topic ..but the nastiness of the poster towards not only the topic..but towards those that dared to disagree with him....I would debate against him all day if necessary..except for the fact that he ALWAYS resorted to name calling and rarely used facts to back up staement...making for a flame-fest.

Atlanta Dan
05-25-2007, 10:53 AM
I am not challenging the mods decision and appreciate their efforts & ability to keep this board from devolving to where other boards on which I used to post have plummeted.

It just is helpful to see where the line is drawn, especially when references are made to "behind the scenes" action.

Since this post I have been advised of some background

X-Terminator
05-25-2007, 11:00 AM
With all due respect, and you folks know I'm not a troublemaker; if there are things going on behind the scenes that should stay there, then leave them there. To make comments based on that knowledge, and to then bring it out here, and then tell us that we can't comment because we don't know the whole story.... well, then you're talking about stuff out front that should be left in the back.

And of course you are allowed an opinion, fan76. But the opinion you are voicing in this thread isn't directed toward the subject, toward the issue raised in the post; it is an opinion about whether or not the post is proper, or on topic. If this is an administrative issue, then dropping it on the membership in this way is a bit high-handed, don't you think? And the first amendment is not at all relevant to this message board, as you well know.

And HTG, yes you did ask for a credible source; but you also wrote, in response to fan76's aside about the propriety of the post, "I totally agree Gary. It's getting beyond ridiculous." And then you and fan76 continue constructing straw men to knock down in mocking response; the only times "Buck Fush" and "Bush is a murderer" are mentioned in this thread is by both of you.

I take a lot of pride in telling people that this is one board where a person can find good solid discourse on both sides of an issue. Yes, it's the internet, and anyone can step in with inflammatory rhetoric, but by and large this is a good place where people on both sides can share well thought out opinions.

It would be unrealistic to expect a moderator to not have an opinion, and to refrain for voicing it; I enjoy reading opposing viewpoints, and our moderators have some of the best. But it is not unrealistic to expect moderators to refrain from attempting to influence people from posting based on whether or not they agree with the content off the post. And it is not unrealistic to expect them to give a post they disagree with the same impartiality for its validity that they would extend to one they agree with.

I've always felt that the staff here has done a great job in that manner, which is why this particular incident is so jarringly obvious. I hope it is a minor aberration borne from some behind the scenes frustration and everyone can work it out and get on with business as usual, which includes the great discussion of heavy issues that many of us have come to enjoy.


Tom

One last post on this, and then we can get back on topic...

I understand and respect your opinion here, Mosca. But a lot of what I'm seeing here in some of the responses is a little bit of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" aspect of being a moderator. If we bring things out in the open, that's seen as "unprofessional" or borne of frustration, and people question it. If we handle everything behind the scenes, which is what we always attempt to do...then there's always someone who will question it because it's NOT out in the open for all to see. I understand that it comes with the territory - I've been a mod/admin for 5 years now. But it doesn't make it any less frustrating.

As for this particular incident, I'm not going to discuss everything that went on behind the scenes. The only thing I will say is that we do not take any action or make any comments WRT member conduct or potential problems (the latter being the case with this thread, IMHO) unless we have good reason to. We try to be preemptive and proactive in recognizing a situation that may get out of hand, and try to nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem. It's our way of keeping the board running as smoothly as possible, while making everyone feel comfortable and giving them the freedom to express themselves within the boundary of the rules. If anyone has bothered to read some of my posts, you know I have no problem at all expressing my opinions - LOL!

No one here, least of all any moderator, is trying to suppress anyone's right to free speech or their opinions. And there certainly is no move to restrict anyone's political views, whether they be right, left, center...whatever. It's just that oftentimes these threads degenerate into name-calling and flame-baiting, and any good conversation and debate gets completely lost, because some people are unable to carry on a debate without resorting to such conduct. So long as everyone involved in the political discussions - or any other discussion - debate respectfully, there shouldn't be any issues, and us moderators can stay quietly on the sidelines, so to speak.

I hope this clears things up.

Mosca
05-25-2007, 11:20 AM
I agree with everything except the challenge to the validity of the initial post; it is a legitimate topic for discussion.

The guy got banned for acting like a jerk and going off when challenged. That is an accepted fact. Like I wrote, too bad for him, for being such a hardhead.

I trust that things behind the scenes are being handled on the up and up; it's an internet forum, fergoodness' sake. there's no power to be gained from gaming things. There's nothing to game! Again, the jarring aspect was the way it did boil out into the open. I would have expected a warning against the topic devolving, rather than what happened.

Thanks for the explanation, and I accept what happened. Thanks for letting me say my piece. Whether I agree or disagree, it makes no difference in what I think of folks here; often there is no right or wrong, just differences that need to be accepted. I accept. If I offended anyone, I apologize; but I did try to stay on explaining my position on the issue I was addressing, not on attacking anyone. I did stand back and reread the entire thread, and I can see some of where everyone was coming from; Bburgh often posted to incite, and this comes as another fire to be put out. I'd only ask that you do the same and see where I was coming from. Take out the fact that Bburgh often acted as a provocateur and simply read the thread, and you'll see what I mean.


Tom

HometownGal
05-25-2007, 02:36 PM
I am not challenging the mods decision and appreciate their efforts & ability to keep this board from devolving to where other boards on which I used to post have plummeted.

It just is helpful to see where the line is drawn, especially when references are made to "behind the scenes" action.

Since this post I have been advised of some background

All members need to do when questioning our actions around here is to refer to the board COC which stares you in the face at the top of every forum. That is what we base our decisions on.

My ONLY purpose for mentioning on the open board that there was some behind the scenes "action" in this case was because a member didn't understand (and had no way of understanding as he is not a Mod) why we came down so hard on the member in question. Please go back and read my post - I did not reveal in detail what the issues were nor did I break a confidence, something I would never do. I posted what I did to alert Tom (and others who may have been left with a question mark) to the fact that he didn't have all of the facts - nothing more, nothing less. If put in the same situation again, I would do exactly what I did.

Mosca
05-25-2007, 03:23 PM
It's OK, HTG. You NEVER need to explain a ban to me. I would always trust it to be deserved. At the time you wrote that, I didn't even know he'd been banned, btw. I only saw it when LITP posted it.

I accept the explanations, I got to say what I wanted to, and I'm content with the outcome.

Thanks,

Tom

SteelCzar76
05-25-2007, 09:57 PM
punishment should be meted out IF the subject of attacks were to be the duly elected Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, or the esteemed Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. And WERE Hillary to be elected president I would expect her to get the same respect that is being requested for President Bush. Since the office should be respected, after all; she WOULD be our leader, and we should all stand behind her.


Tom



But Tom,.... this not the case. George Bush is our President. Henceforth the prospective 'Job' that any other would do in such said position is but mere speculation.

Meaning,....it's easy to point out the shortcomings of one in such a position of power. As he is looked at to have 'all of the answers' to everyones problems. But the reality is,...ANYONE whom has or will ever hold office is far from having the 'last word' so to speak in regards to how things 'actually' play out.

Simply put, George Bush is no more a "moron" given free reign to 'make our lives difficult' than Hillary or any other prospective candidate of either "Party" is a savior. It's simply not solely up to them to be so.

Bottom line,.......no matter who's in office,...it's simply not possible to please everyone. And there will always be 'debates' between those whom support the said leadership of that time,...and those whom feel they are 'on the outside looking in ' because the said 'Leader' is not of their particular "Party".

But with that said,......it's far more effective if you will to conduct yourself with tact and or class regarding 'politics' in a public forum. Humor is one thing, but to resort to childishness when faced with having to support a stance that you feel so passionately about,....essentially renders you impotent.

Which after viewing this thread,...among others,... is exactly what IMO Blitz did to himself. Regardless as to whether or not there was validity to his 'arguments'.

As it's my belief that order should be respected whether you 'like it or not " and should never be called into question 'publicly'. As though you may feel as though you are having the effect of calling into question the merit of such structure,.... you are actually doing yourself even more of a disservice as,.......are you not part of it as well ?

Mosca
05-26-2007, 10:25 AM
SteelCzar76,

I believe that there is merit in "Question Authority". And I believe to some degree it should be questioned publicly. In this instance I believe I had a good point, and I can also see where the mods had a point as well. As far as I'm concerned, I got to say my piece and they said theirs, and it's over. There were no confidences violated. And I wasn't questioning any moderators' use of their authority (I didn't even know Bburgh'd been banned when I posted), I was questioning the way they were reacting publicly, as members who were also moderators, to the subject posted. The explanation I was given (that Bburgh has a history of posting for the sole purpose of rabble rousing) satisfied me. Whether or not I agree with it is not important; I see where they were coming from. Done.

Much of what you quoted from me was meant to point out any pending future hypocrisy that might arise if the candidate of the left gets elected; she won't get the same respect that is being requested for Bush. There was some gentle sarcasm there, nothing to be taken seriously but only to point out indirectly that if you want to dish it out, in the past (Clinton) and in the future (Clinton), be prepared to take it now (Bush). And you and I both know, there is going to be some strong hate. Hillary is nothing if not polarizing.

I've never been much personally for tossing strong invective; like others have pointed out, no one takes that seriously and it only serves to harden opinions, not bring them together. But there are plenty of people in this world who enjoy that stuff, and if they want to go at it, great; but don't say, "It's ok for me but not you."


:cheers:


Tom

Preacher
05-28-2007, 09:07 PM
Dang people....

We have a debate about the MODS... In a political thread...

AND IT DOESN'T GET UGLY??


Wow... Great Job EVERYONE!

SteelCityMan786
05-28-2007, 09:21 PM
Dang people....

We have a debate about the MODS... In a political thread...

AND IT DOESN'T GET UGLY??


Wow... Great Job EVERYONE!

I guess everyone realizes calling out the mods means trouble.

Preacher
05-28-2007, 09:25 PM
I guess everyone realizes calling out the mods means trouble.

I am taking it more that people are able to debate/discuss and keep it within reason. I am happy about that.

tony hipchest
05-28-2007, 10:08 PM
actually, i was kinda enjoying the wonderful sound of crickets this thread had generated.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/h1sciQcricketsChirp.gif

Preacher
05-29-2007, 02:16 AM
actually, i was kinda enjoying the wonderful sound of crickets this thread had generated.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/h1sciQcricketsChirp.gif

Are you sure those aren't cicadas?

Stlrs4Life
05-31-2007, 09:37 PM
All I did was ask him to link a credible source - I didn't ask for his first-born. Political opinions are more than welcomed here and though I don't agree with some of the more liberal views, I respect those opinions. However, when someone takes them overboard and incorporates personal attacks into those opinions, it's gone a little too far. :wave:

What's credible to you? Rush Limbaughs web site?

Blitzburgh
06-26-2007, 08:20 PM
I find it interesting that the moderators are mocking a legitimate post.


Tom


Not only that Tom, I was immediately banned after making this post ... no questions asked or no warnings.

It's amazing the lengh some will go to to stiffle opposition to ensure an issue being discussed has only a one sided voice. Isn't it funny how society has a way of emulating it's current administration?

But hey, far be it from me to start another thread that might present an opposing view other than the lock-step right of one particular mod who doesn't take kindly to governmental dissent against

http://www.american-pictures.com/gives/liberation/Bush.jpg

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 08:26 PM
Not only that Tom, I was immediately banned after making this post ... no questions asked or no warnings.

Wrong, pal. Nice way to spin it. How about calling out a mod via a reply to a PM that was sent to warn you to knock it off?

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 08:29 PM
Wrong, pal. Nice way to spin it. How about calling out a mod via a reply to a PM that was sent to warn you to knock it off?

That's why you were banned Blitzburgh. Do it again and you're out again/

revefsreleets
06-26-2007, 08:31 PM
You are unbanned now, so I guess your theories about "stiffling opposition and emulating the current administration in lock-step" need amending, eh?

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 08:36 PM
You are unbanned now, so I guess your theories about "stiffling opposition and emulating the current administration in lock-step" need amending, eh?

We thought a vacation would be good for him.

revefsreleets
06-26-2007, 08:41 PM
It's okay...he's really just in "lock-step" with his own leadership who at one time was on "lock-step" with Bush:

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
-- Hillary Clinton, 10/10/02


As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

Statement on U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
-- Nancy Pelosi, 12/16/98

Sen. Kennedy Said Saddam Hussein Was Developing WMDs: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Remarks At The Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C., 9/27/02)
Sen. Kennedy: "Saddam Hussein Is A Dangerous Figure. He's Got Dangerous Weapons." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 10/6/02)

Blitzburgh
06-26-2007, 08:46 PM
Keep quoting others who were also "hoodwinked" on the mis-truths that the Bush administration was out selling support for this occupation on ... it won't change the fact of what it really was

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2007, 08:53 PM
If you want to read something scary that is meticulously reported, check out The Washington Post's series this week on Vice President Cheney. The article that ran on Monday on Vice's role in developing the policy of "robust interrogations" of prisoners is chilling.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/?hpid=topnews

revefsreleets
06-26-2007, 09:13 PM
Keep quoting others who were also "hoodwinked" on the mis-truths that the Bush administration was out selling support for this occupation on ... it won't change the fact of what it really was

If your best and brightest political leaders from the left are so easily hoodwinked by an "idiot" like Bush, shouldn't you be madder at them then you are at Bush?

Really, I just don't get it. At least Bush was consistent. I think I'd rather have someone consistent then a bunch of flip-floppers who pretend that they never supported him.

Blitzburgh
06-26-2007, 09:14 PM
Dan - Great article ... thanks for sharing. Nothing surprises me with this guy ... he oozes evil and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw 'em.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 09:22 PM
If your best and brightest political leaders from the left are so easily hoodwinked by an "idiot" like Bush, shouldn't you be madder at them then you are at Bush?

Really, I just don't get it. At least Bush was consistent. I think I'd rather have someone consistent then a bunch of flip-floppers who pretend that they never supported him.

:thumbsup::cheers::thumbsup: Right on the money.

Blitz - I explained to you in my Administrative Note when I infracted you why I did so and it had absolutely nothing to do with my political affiliation or my support of the President. Does the word "snaggletooth" ring a bell? :blah:

tony hipchest
06-26-2007, 09:33 PM
Really, I just don't get it. At least Bush was consistent. I think I'd rather have someone consistent then a bunch of flip-floppers who pretend that they never supported him.if admitting youre wrong when youre obviously wrong means youre a flip flopper, then i gotta say ive "flip-flopped" a time or 2 in my life.

personally i'd rather support somebody who can admit mistakes rather than somebody who lies, and tries to cover them up. im not accusing anyone im particular, just using the whole "flip-flopper" argument....

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 09:38 PM
if admitting youre wrong when youre obviously wrong means youre a flip flopper, then i gotta say ive "flip-flopped" a time or 2 in my life.

personally i'd rather support somebody who can admit mistakes rather than somebody who lies, and tries to cover them up. im not accusing anyone im particular, just using the whole "flip-flopper" argument....

The problem with that theory is - none of them ever admitted they made a mistake. They just continued (and still do) to point their hypocritical fingers and feign innocence.

Blitzburgh
06-26-2007, 09:39 PM
:thumbsup::cheers::thumbsup: Right on the money.

Blitz - I explained to you in my Administrative Note when I infracted you why I did so and it had absolutely nothing to do with my political affiliation or my support of the President.


No, I'm sure it didn't .....I'm sure it was the sheer harshness of the word "snaggletooth" that did promped you to play the ban card rather than just send me a warning. :jerkit:

You did what you had to do right? ...... Kind of like a cop giving an elderly man in a wheel chair a ticket for jay-walking. :toofunny:

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 09:40 PM
if admitting youre wrong when youre obviously wrong means youre a flip flopper, then i gotta say ive "flip-flopped" a time or 2 in my life.

personally i'd rather support somebody who can admit mistakes rather than somebody who lies, and tries to cover them up. im not accusing anyone im particular, just using the whole "flip-flopper" argument....

One more reason a good majority of the people in the Republican Party are either A. Mad at Bush or B. have turned their back on him.

revefsreleets
06-26-2007, 09:40 PM
if admitting youre wrong when youre obviously wrong means youre a flip flopper, then i gotta say ive "flip-flopped" a time or 2 in my life.

personally i'd rather support somebody who can admit mistakes rather than somebody who lies, and tries to cover them up. im not accusing anyone im particular, just using the whole "flip-flopper" argument....

You mean like this?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the eve of Iraq's historic election, President Bush took responsibility Wednesday for "wrong" intelligence that led to the war, but he said removing Saddam Hussein was still necessary.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Mr Bush said. "As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."

Bush admits Iraq intelligence was wrong



Staff and agencies
Wednesday December 14, 2005

Bush Admits Faulty Iraq Intel

Related: Plan Outlines President's Iraq Goals (http://cbs4denver.com/national/topstories_story_334081744.html)

(CBS) WASHINGTON On the eve of landmark elections in Iraq, President Bush on Wednesday accepted responsibility for going to war despite intelligence that "turned out to be wrong."

But, he insisted, the decision to oust Saddam Hussein was still correct.

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 09:43 PM
No, I'm sure it didn't .....I'm sure it was the sheer harshness of the word "snaggletooth" that did promped you to play the ban card rather than just send me a warning. :jerkit:

You did what you had to do right? ...... Kind of like a cop giving an elderly man in a wheel chair a ticket for jay-walking. :toofunny:

You're right, there was A LOT more involved, as you've still conveniently forgot to mention. A friendly word of advice: drop it.

X-Terminator
06-26-2007, 09:47 PM
No, I'm sure it didn't .....I'm sure it was the sheer harshness of the word "snaggletooth" that did promped you to play the ban card rather than just send me a warning. :jerkit:

You did what you had to do right? ...... Kind of like a cop giving an elderly man in a wheel chair a ticket for jay-walking. :toofunny:

But of course, you conveniently left out the fact that you WERE issued a warning to knock it off after using that term, and it was AFTER you decided to act like a little kid and stomp your feet because you didn't get your way that you were issued the ban.

If you're going to complain on the open board, at least tell the WHOLE story. Otherwise your credibilty gets flushed right down the toilet.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 11:19 PM
No, I'm sure it didn't .....I'm sure it was the sheer harshness of the word "snaggletooth" that did promped you to play the ban card rather than just send me a warning. :jerkit:

You did what you had to do right? ...... Kind of like a cop giving an elderly man in a wheel chair a ticket for jay-walking. :toofunny:

Pssssssst. I infracted you for a personal attack on another member. I didn't temp ban you, but to be perfect honest here - if another Mod hadn't "arrived there first" , I would have. :flap: The infract I gave you was your warning - it was your own decision to not let it drop and carry it one step farther.

P.S. I don't appreciate being told to "jerk it" as your smiley suggests for simply doing my job. You broke the very simple rules we have around here and you have no one to blame but yourself. If you haven't read the board COC, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with it. Now let's drop this and move on.

tony hipchest
06-27-2007, 12:00 AM
You mean like this?



But, he insisted, the decision to oust Saddam Hussein was still correct.

translation: "i was wrong, but i still think im right".

yeah, i think thats pretty much what i meant. anyways, who was it that was "flip-flopping"? :busted:

SteelCityMan786
06-27-2007, 07:42 AM
translation: "i was wrong, but i still think im right".

yeah, i think thats pretty much what i meant. anyways, who was it that was "flip-flopping"? :busted:

You were Tony.

SteelCityMan786
06-27-2007, 09:34 PM
You mean like this?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the eve of Iraq's historic election, President Bush took responsibility Wednesday for "wrong" intelligence that led to the war, but he said removing Saddam Hussein was still necessary.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Mr Bush said. "As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."

Bush admits Iraq intelligence was wrong



Staff and agencies
Wednesday December 14, 2005

Bush Admits Faulty Iraq Intel

Related: Plan Outlines President's Iraq Goals (http://cbs4denver.com/national/topstories_story_334081744.html)

(CBS) WASHINGTON On the eve of landmark elections in Iraq, President Bush on Wednesday accepted responsibility for going to war despite intelligence that "turned out to be wrong."

But, he insisted, the decision to oust Saddam Hussein was still correct.

I'm happy the Bush at least is at least taking responsibility for his actions.