PDA

View Full Version : Assassinate Obama? Bush?


Preacher
09-05-2009, 07:30 PM
Ok. SO here is an interesting topic starter.. Is the GOP more open to freedom of speech? The Secret Service was NOT directed to look into these threats under Bush, but they where under Obama. Either that, or media bias (as the second link) plays the part in it as it brings light to it.

So... what do you all think. (Please read the links first).
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Death-to-Obama-Sign-Holder-Detained-53134147.html

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Ok. Let me start with the inivitable first. Yes. THe second is a blog.. its a blog which I am allowing to make much of my arguments, as the blogger has resourced HIS material. I don't fully agree with him. But look at his material and HIS resources.

Two... This is a discussion of methodology between two parties... but nevertheless, let me get Tony's post out of the way now.

:shout: panic panic.

7SteelGal43
09-05-2009, 07:39 PM
Two... This is a discussion of methodology between two parties... but nevertheless, let me get Tony's post out of the way now.

:shout: panic panic.


No, no Preacher, it's.....

:shout: Panic !!!!

MACH1
09-05-2009, 07:55 PM
Either way its a double standard. Maybe Bush gave the order not to waste time or money chasing down every lunatic out there.

As far as the pics on the blog, they can still I.D most of the people with the signs and arrest them, but after all its the kitten eating evil Bush.

tony hipchest
09-05-2009, 08:22 PM
:shout:- PANIC!!!

its just not right unless i do it. (no space, all caps- dash after smiley is most impt)

and its refreshing to know that anytime anyone googles "assassinate obama" our beloved board will probably show up on the first page. in a way it is kinda fitting considering the popular sentiment around here.

7SteelGal43
09-05-2009, 08:43 PM
:shout:- PANIC!!!

its just not right unless i do it. (no space, all caps- dash after smiley is most impt)

and its refreshing to know that anytime anyone googles "assassinate obama" our beloved board will probably show up on the first page. in a way it is kinda fitting considering the popular sentiment around here.

You're quite right, it's much better when you do it. And may I commend you on your flawless execution of a deflection ?

stillers4me
09-05-2009, 08:45 PM
And may I commend you on your flawless execution of a deflection ?

It seems Tony has mastered that at home with his beloved family. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
09-05-2009, 10:59 PM
while i really dont care, i dont think it is too wise to try and make my family a running joke around here...

Preacher
09-06-2009, 01:04 AM
while i really dont care, i dont think it is too wise to try and make my family a running joke around here...

Here here.

We can discuss politics all we want. But IMO... enough of the personal crap. I carry no more weight than anyone else . . . but if I am able to voice my opinion.... it would be, ENOUGH ALREADY.

_________


Though politically TONY is whacked in the head! :laughing:

But I am sure Tony thinks the same of me!

MACH1
09-06-2009, 02:52 AM
while i really dont care, i dont think it is too wise to try and make my family a running joke around here...

Yea, I agree.

Just for you. :chuckle:

http://blog.theavclub.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/4th-2nd-annual-grilled-cheese-invitational.gif

#1 Big Ben Fan
09-06-2009, 04:43 AM
I think any threat on the president should be looked into rather its a Dem or a Rep. Those matters shouldn't be taken lightly. But I can't blame Obama for looking into these maters especially when you have Grand Dragon's of the KKK around the US making open threats on shooting the president.

steelwalls
09-06-2009, 05:56 AM
I'm sure Obama's security has to be super tight, being the first black president, has to come with a higher degree of threats ( I guess)

Not saying Bush didnt have his enemies either ask senior about assasination plots.

I personally do not like Obama, I dont like where he is taking us, but I would honestly be very sad if something aweful was to happen to him and ashammed as an American (if it was an American that did the theoretical deed)

As far as the KKK and the plethora of other racists groups ( not only white groups) they make threats all the time thats their MO. IMO most are just idiots who probably couldnt find their way to D.C.

HometownGal
09-06-2009, 06:03 AM
while i really dont care, i dont think it is too wise to try and make my family a running joke around here...

Awwwww c'mon hipcheese - lighten up. :hug: It was just a joke and besides - you supplied the fodder in another thread! :chuckle: :wink:

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=38465&page=10

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
09-06-2009, 09:24 AM
What happend to the Dixi Chicks? Turns out there were right all along!

fansince'76
09-06-2009, 10:18 AM
What happend to the Dixi Chicks?

They opened their mouths without realizing who their fanbase was and a great number of their fanbase in turn exercised their right not to buy their music in protest. Quite a bit different than a death threat.

SteelTalons
09-06-2009, 11:03 AM
I think any threat on the president should be looked into rather its a Dem or a Rep. Those matters shouldn't be taken lightly. But I can't blame Obama for looking into these maters especially when you have Grand Dragon's of the KKK around the US making open threats on shooting the president.

Not to mention numerous incidents where even during the primary people were tryna whack Obama. Whether they were with the KKK or just some wing-nut tryna avenge their sick little "reality". I find it ironic, how Republicans will go out and say, we are the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt!

When politically, they resemble the Dixiecrats more than Lincoln or Teddy. Hell I'd be thrill if you nominated a guy that was anything like Roosevelt. But instead we are getting wing-nuts like Reagan and Bush. And don't feed me the bullshit, oh but Reagan beat the USSR, Mickel Gorbachev is so docile he was practically asking his neighbor to take down a fence in their backyard.

If Bush was in office when JFK was dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, we wouldn't have an Earth left.

The Democrats aren't great. They leave a lot to be desired, but they are more in the realm of reality, just rather poor and dealing with things. Its like theirs two sets of facts for everything...

You have whatever university, news organizations, and so forth put out. And theres Fox News and Talk Radio. And the facts look nothing a like... How the hell can anyone expect to reason with people looking at an entirely different set of facts.

And their only talking point is... Well if its good for me its good for you. Or no thats to much government. Why are we like the only country in the world afraid of people we elect? Why are we the only country in the world that puts the cooperation first and the people last.

I can't understand the logic behind a lot of this, and I could go on for days and days. Its like this plays back into the anti-intellectual movement. Which has pretty much been the mouth piece of conservatism for the last couple thousand years.

We need education reform... :banging:

To many simple people and not enough thinkers. :banging:

RANT OFF! :hatsoff:

Preacher
09-06-2009, 12:19 PM
Not to mention numerous incidents where even during the primary people were tryna whack Obama. Whether they were with the KKK or just some wing-nut tryna avenge their sick little "reality". I find it ironic, how Republicans will go out and say, we are the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt!

When politically, they resemble the Dixiecrats more than Lincoln or Teddy. Hell I'd be thrill if you nominated a guy that was anything like Roosevelt. But instead we are getting wing-nuts like Reagan and Bush. And don't feed me the bullshit, oh but Reagan beat the USSR, Mickel Gorbachev is so docile he was practically asking his neighbor to take down a fence in their backyard.

Goodness... where do I begin? Maybe with the idea that people always want to assasinate the president. And those who do, normally don't advertise it on signs. So while I think it is a bit of rhetoric that is WAY over the top... and actually should be looked at, it is also telling that the administration who really does so is the Dem administration.

And um, the GOP is the party of TR and Lincoln. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" However, going back to the SPanish American war, we see that TR also understood that the Big Stick had to be used... which is EXACTLY the philosophy Bush had. He was a tad bit isolationist for me when he was first elected, until 9-11 happened. And it isn't the GOP that is trying to re-enslave people onto a govt. plantation.

As to Reagan and Gorby. I guess you either weren't alive back then or have too many filters to remember, but Reagan came in to office in January, 1981. The USSR had just invaded Afganistan, through Cuba they were making inroads in central America, Cuban troops in Africa (angola). They had just successfully funded a leftest revolt in America which virtually handed them the victory in vietnam (yes, they were... here is some proof)

"Only in our second year did we learn about our operational target's military. In my case, it was the Chinese People's Liberation Army and Special Services. This was while the United States was pulling out of Vietnam. We spent a great deal of time studying the Vietnam War, which was considered a Vietnamese victory over American imperialism. While the GRU instructors would not state it directly, they strongly implied that the GRU was responsible for the Vietnamese success. The GRU had a massive presence in both North and South Vietnam; their operatives worked under cover of the North Vietnamese Special Services.
Our instructors also told us about how the GRU influenced the American public. The GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad. Funding was provided via undercover operatives or front organizations. These would fund another group that in turn would fund student organizations. The GRU also helped Vietnam fund its propaganda campaign as a whole.
What will be a great surprise to the American people is that the GRU and KGB had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States that it did for economic and military support of the Vietnamese. The antiwar propaganda cost the GRU more than $1 billion, but as history shows, it was a hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost. The antiwar sentiment created an incredible momentum that greatly weakened the U.S. military."

Stanislav Lunev and Ira Winkler, Through the Eyes of the Enemy (Basic Books: Cambridge, 2005) p. 78. (he was a GRU agent).

The US was in double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, bad recession, our military was bad enough that the USSR actually fired a missile at the US to test our defenses, if we were even able to respond (proof of this can be given via PM... I can put you in touch with one of the people sitting at the bottom of one of the Missile silo's in mid-america, who got the launch-preparation order in the late 70's.

Reagan came in turned that around, driving the one weak link that the Soviets really had... they couldn't keep up with our industry. Yes, we essentially spent the USSR into destruction. They tried and tried to keep up with our military expenditures and simply couldn't, until it all started to collapse. Not to mention a number of other things going on "behind the scenes."

If Bush was in office when JFK was dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, we wouldn't have an Earth left.

This shows that you simply have no idea what happened. JFK actually stood stronger than Reagan or Bush did. The famous "blink" came about not by negotiation, but by JFK basically stating that if the ships did not turn around, they would be sunk... and military ships sinking military ships is an act of war.

The later backdoor deal to remove out old missiles from Turkey was as much a saving face deal as anything else.

The Democrats aren't great. They leave a lot to be desired, but they are more in the realm of reality, just rather poor and dealing with things.

Realm of reality? Like thinking that the world's dictators will suddenly all lay down in peace? Like thinking if we are just nice enough, the terrorists will go away? Like thinking that even though every govt. ran healthcare system in the world is sorely lacking and causing serious problems, the US should try the same thing? Please.

Its like theirs two sets of facts for everything...
You have whatever university, news organizations, and so forth put out. And theres Fox News and Talk Radio. And the facts look nothing a like... How the hell can anyone expect to reason with people looking at an entirely different set of facts.

its called perspective.

And their only talking point is... Well if its good for me its good for you. Or no thats to much government. Why are we like the only country in the world afraid of people we elect? Why are we the only country in the world that puts the cooperation first and the people last.

Once again, I think you are showing that you are either very young, or very blind. Shall I list the nations that are afraid of their govts?

China, N. Korea, Virtually a third of Africa, Afganistan (until 8 years ago) Iraq (until 6 years ago) Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. etc. and those are just off the top of my head. The fact of the matter is. The US Nation was BORN with the idea that govt. is unnecessary except in certain cases such as printing money, defending the nation, international contracts, and justice within and between the states. We are not France. There is no "social contract" here. Just the opposite. We contract the govt. to provide us with the very basic of protections against enemies, so that we may do ourselves what we believe we must.

I can't understand the logic behind a lot of this, and I could go on for days and days. Its like this plays back into the anti-intellectual movement. Which has pretty much been the mouth piece of conservatism for the last couple thousand years.

We need education reform... :banging:

To many simple people and not enough thinkers. :banging:

This is a pseudo-intellectual argument. There are MANY many thinkers on the left and right. What you are REALLY saying is, there aren't enough people who think LIKE ME.



RANT OFF! :hatsoff:

revefsreleets
09-06-2009, 12:23 PM
Too be fair, it's ALWAYS wrong to even think about assassinating the President, left or right, GOP or Dem, BUT I don't think there has been this level of paranoia in the WH since Clinton, and, if my suspicions about Obama turn out to be correct, maybe even Nixon.

Obama is so far out of his depth it's scary, and he keeps spreading himself thinner and thinner with each new thing he tries to take on. Problem is, there wasn't much initial substance to begin with, so when you spread nothing out over a lot, well...nothing gets done right...

And, LOL at steel talons....just LOL...all I can do is just shake my head at that mish-mash of leftie mid-tier pseudo-intellectual (at the VERY most generous and best) college liberal conveyor belt gibberish. Preach handled it deftly and with a greater degree of sympathy than I ever could....and knocked EVERY single half-assed argument down, point by point, with facts and cited information.

THAT'S how you make an argument, and SHAME on you for claiming to be the "great thinker" while fobbing off that textbook hippie 101 "I hate the GOP" nonsense and trying to package it as some sort of high level intellectual though. Shame shame shame...

Godfather
09-06-2009, 02:02 PM
Too be fair, it's ALWAYS wrong to even think about assassinating the President, left or right, GOP or Dem, BUT I don't think there has been this level of paranoia in the WH since Clinton, and, if my suspicions about Obama turn out to be correct, maybe even Nixon.


Well, in fairness you can't blame Obama for being paranoid. He is more of a target for nutjobs than other Presidents.

The Secret Service needs to come down hard on anyone who threatens any President. Better safe than sorry...and anyone dumb enough to joke about it deserves no sympathy.

tony hipchest
09-06-2009, 02:22 PM
Yea, I agree.

Just for you. :chuckle:

http://blog.theavclub.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/4th-2nd-annual-grilled-cheese-invitational.gif

holy mother of God, thats hilarious.

:laughing: *added to photobucket*

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

who needs foil hats when you got these-

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

revefsreleets
09-06-2009, 02:39 PM
Well, in fairness you can't blame Obama for being paranoid. He is more of a target for nutjobs than other Presidents.

The Secret Service needs to come down hard on anyone who threatens any President. Better safe than sorry...and anyone dumb enough to joke about it deserves no sympathy.

I didn't mean paranoid of nutjobs, I meant his Nixonesque rampant paranoia, seeing political enemies everywhere and taking that extra crazy step of trying to collate them and categorize them...and ultimately have a portfolio of political enemies that he can do.....what? I don't know what, too....

THAT is scary shit!

HometownGal
09-06-2009, 09:02 PM
What happend to the Dixi Chicks? Turns out there were right all along!


http://www.ncc-1776.org/tletoon/obama-koolaid.jpg

xfl2001fan
09-06-2009, 10:10 PM
What happend to the Dixi Chicks? Turns out there were right all along!

HAHAHAHAHA

They found out that their opinion was bigger than their musical career...and since their opinion wasn't well thought out (or properly executed in it's delivery) their career ended. Too bad some of their more ardent followers couldn't have followed similar paths. You know...disappearing into obscurity.

JackHammer
09-07-2009, 02:39 AM
I think at least part of it is due to Obama being black. We'll never know for sure if having a black president causes more people to want to kill him or not. What seems to be obvious, though, is that having a black president has made everyone more paranoid about a possible attempted assassination. So, like the rape awareness classes, having a black president has piqued all of our awareness towards the threats that have existed for years.

Preacher
09-07-2009, 03:15 AM
Well, in fairness you can't blame Obama for being paranoid. He is more of a target for nutjobs than other Presidents.

The Secret Service needs to come down hard on anyone who threatens any President. Better safe than sorry...and anyone dumb enough to joke about it deserves no sympathy.

I am not sure that is true. With all the venom and hatred being spewed towards George Bush the PERSON... I would have to think that he was as big or bigger a target for nutjobs.

MACH1
09-07-2009, 09:43 AM
I think at least part of it is due to Obama being black. We'll never know for sure if having a black president causes more people to want to kill him or not. What seems to be obvious, though, is that having a black president has made everyone more paranoid about a possible attempted assassination. So, like the rape awareness classes, having a black president has piqued all of our awareness towards the threats that have existed for years.

It's his stupidity that makes people want to off the guy.

stillers4me
09-07-2009, 10:11 AM
It's his stupidity that makes people want to off the guy.

I agree with that. But if something were to happen, racism will be blamed. Period.

7SteelGal43
09-07-2009, 01:14 PM
I agree with that. But if something were to happen, racism will be blamed. Period.

And of course all hell would break loose.

Preacher
09-07-2009, 05:34 PM
Dang.

I am quite surprised that no one is really taking up the original question here.

-- Does the arrest of this guy for having this sign, when similar people with similar signs were not arrested while Bush was in office, show the GOP protecting freedom of speech more?

augustashark
09-07-2009, 08:28 PM
Dang.

I am quite surprised that no one is really taking up the original question here.

-- Does the arrest of this guy for having this sign, when similar people with similar signs were not arrested while Bush was in office, show the GOP protecting freedom of speech more?

While I think the GOP does protect and defend freedom of speech more, I think when it came to Bush he just had bigger fish to fry then worry about half wits with signs. I think the Obama admin will take every opportunity they can to keep these people in the news because it makes normal americans have empathy for the president.

When you feel sorry for someone it is only human nature to try and help them.

7SteelGal43
09-07-2009, 09:12 PM
Dang.

I am quite surprised that no one is really taking up the original question here.

-- Does the arrest of this guy for having this sign, when similar people with similar signs were not arrested while Bush was in office, show the GOP protecting freedom of speech more?

:scratchchin: of course the GOP truly understands freedom of speech. But I think in this case, they're not as easily thrown into :shout:-PANIC!!!

revefsreleets
09-08-2009, 08:38 AM
Dang.

I am quite surprised that no one is really taking up the original question here.

-- Does the arrest of this guy for having this sign, when similar people with similar signs were not arrested while Bush was in office, show the GOP protecting freedom of speech more?

Um...I did. Obama is exhibiting Nixon-esque levels of paranoia, and he's devolved to that level REALLY quickly in comparison...

Godfather
09-08-2009, 12:53 PM
I am not sure that is true. With all the venom and hatred being spewed towards George Bush the PERSON... I would have to think that he was as big or bigger a target for nutjobs.

There's a lot of venom being spewed at Obama too (seekrit Moozlin, illegal alien, communist, etc.)

Every POTUS has to worry about the nuts on the opposite side, as well as people who would be happy to off whoever is in the White House (crazies like Hinckley, America-haters like OBL, etc.)

But Obama adds another dimension--people who can't accept a black President. In fact, the two plots that were uncovered so far were both white supremacists. Predictably, in both cases they also uncovered meth rings.

PisnNapalm
09-08-2009, 12:56 PM
Great.... Now the Feds are gonna be scrutinizing the forums...

7SteelGal43
09-08-2009, 01:25 PM
Yes preacher, I do believe more is being made of the death threats to Obama, at least in the media. I also think more is being made of ANY opposition towards Obama. It's just too damn easy, right ? "It's 'cause he's black" they say. How many times have we heard that ? I know there's a few wacko white supremists who'd love to "off da black prez", and it sickens me. But am I to believe that because Kanye said "George Bush hates black people" that a great number of blacks held some racially motivated hatred towards Bush ? Am I to believe since groups like the Black Panthers would've loved to see Bush assasinated that a majority of blacks did to ?

Preacher
09-08-2009, 02:07 PM
There's a lot of venom being spewed at Obama too (seekrit Moozlin, illegal alien, communist, etc.)

Every POTUS has to worry about the nuts on the opposite side, as well as people who would be happy to off whoever is in the White House (crazies like Hinckley, America-haters like OBL, etc.)

But Obama adds another dimension--people who can't accept a black President. In fact, the two plots that were uncovered so far were both white supremacists. Predictably, in both cases they also uncovered meth rings.

Thing is, those same white supremacists hate the GOP just as much because they "support the zionist pigs"

IMO, I think the issue is that it is being reported more. I SERIOUSLY think that have the newsrooms in America would have cheered in private if Bush was assassinated. So why report on plots?

Willbert
09-12-2009, 03:42 AM
Why does it seem like everybody hates Obama?

I assume some people voted for him.

If you're planning on assasinating one of them, please make sure that you shoot the bumbling useless idiot. I'll leave it to you to decide which one that is.

Preacher
09-12-2009, 04:49 PM
Why does it seem like everybody hates Obama?

I assume some people voted for him.

If you're planning on assasinating one of them, please make sure that you shoot the bumbling useless idiot. I'll leave it to you to decide which one that is.

Chris Matthews? What would that do?

Leftoverhard
09-12-2009, 05:54 PM
My opinion:

1: Since when did conservatives care about things being fair anyway? I thought that "to each his own" and "every man for himself" was the basis of most conservative thought anyhow. If liberals were arguing something this petty, you would say "tough sh**."

2: Prove me wrong but Bush protesters didn't brazenly pack firearms at protests. Angry people with guns draw very specific attention from the Secret Service.

3: We don't hear the true stories - unless the Secret Service is on twitter now and they just aren't. I love how lopsided that blog is (a great example of petty grasping-at-straws). That is a prime example of how irrelevant this argument is.

4: As for the "threats" by celebrity talk show hosts against Bush...those aren't threats. Neither are most protest sign "threats."

THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT - 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;

Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and

Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.

A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.

The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

5: Go Steelers

Preacher
09-12-2009, 06:15 PM
My opinion:

1: Since when did conservatives care about things being fair anyway? I thought that "to each his own" and "every man for himself" was the basis of most conservative thought anyhow. If liberals were arguing something this petty, you would say "tough sh**."

2: Prove me wrong but Bush protesters didn't brazenly pack firearms at protests. Angry people with guns draw very specific attention from the Secret Service.

3: We don't hear the true stories - unless the Secret Service is on twitter now and they just aren't. I love how lopsided that blog is (a great example of petty grasping-at-straws). That is a prime example of how irrelevant this argument is.

4: As for the "threats" by celebrity talk show hosts against Bush...those aren't threats. Neither are most protest sign "threats."

THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT - 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;

Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and

Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.

A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.

The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

5: Go Steelers

Um, this has NOTHING to do with people showing up with firearms. This guy was far away from that, simply holding a sign. He was doing the same think liberal protesters were doing, but was treated in a much different way than them.

Why?

Let's try again.

If most protest signs are not threats...then why was he picked up?

______________

and to your first point... that shows your ignorance of the philosophy behind conservative thought. You couldn't be more wrong.

Leftoverhard
09-12-2009, 07:13 PM
and to your first point... that shows your ignorance of the philosophy behind conservative thought. You couldn't be more wrong.

Really? Sorry Preacher, the evidence so far shows otherwise. But please, enlighten me.

If you were protecting a president and there were people packing guns in the crowd, you would be likely to take those "protest sign threats" (how do you know that one guy isn't packing?) in a more serious way.
That's one explanation.

The better explanation is my other point - this is just another bs attempt to get people riled up over nothing. Seriously? The secret service is showing Obama preferential treatment over Bush? Really? Just say that out loud. It is such hogwash.

I would like to see the people who are wasting time spreading this urban legend nonsense on the internet confront a special agent and tell him or her that they are just Obama's patsy. That would be funny.

7SteelGal43
09-12-2009, 07:41 PM
Lefoverhard, I seriously doubt anyone actually planning physical harm to the POTUS would be packin' a side arm or totin' a rifle in a crowd, in plain view. I seriously doubt that anyone holding a sign saying "death to Bush" or "Death to Obama" is actually planning on acting on it. I don't think the secret service are patsies for any POTUS. But you have to admit there is a bigger deal being made in the media over these kinds of incidents because we have our first black POTUS.

Now I'm gonna have to call ya on your other assertions which sound very much like the stereotypical cliche's Olbermann and Maddow like to spew. Conservatives/Republicans are NOT a bunch of racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists and all the other BS the lefties portray us as. "I've got mine, screw you if you're doing without" is NOT a conservative principal. Never has been. You obviously understand very little of Conservatism if that's what you think it is.

SteelersMongol
09-12-2009, 08:28 PM
Hey how about neither. Though I think it would b awesome if someone does something 2 Hugo Chavez, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or that North Korean moronic ruler 4 being a pain in the arse of the UN. :chuckle: That would B the good news, wouldn't U think?

Leftoverhard
09-12-2009, 08:40 PM
I don't want to hijack this thread - but my point about the "fairness" factor which is the main gripe in this argument applies. Let me clear this up, conservative ideals in 2009 are based upon "me and mine" and what's best for my immediate family. It's unfortunate because I think that without some traditional conservative views this country wouldn't work. I feel that the need for balance from both the left and right is an important factor in the success of this country.
My opinion is based on arguments against healthcare, illegal immigrants, poor people - conservative ideals lately have been about temporary fixes, short sighted views, smoke and mirrors on important issues and vile hatred towards our president.

Speaking of that.

Remember - just 50 some years ago black people were being lynched, shot and denied their civil rights. We have our first black president and you think it's outrageous that his security might have to be a little tighter than for previous presidents? Are there quite a few racist wing nuts that belong to the republican party? Yeah, more than quite a few. I work in a very conservative environment and hear it all. The things people say when they think no one who opposes them (i.e. no black people, LBGTs or a dirty liberal like me) is listening. People just assume I'm in on it and let loose. It reminds me of that Eddie Murphy skit where he gets on the bus dressed as a white guy and they start partying when the black guy gets off the bus.

Conservatives/Republicans are NOT a bunch of racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists and all the other BS the lefties portray us as.

There are plenty of good people on the right. But the painful truth is that racists, bigots and homophobes exist - and they tend to lean right and that's putting it nicely. Except the sexists - those are pretty bipartisan.

tony hipchest
09-12-2009, 08:48 PM
Lefoverhard, I seriously doubt anyone actually planning physical harm to the POTUS would be packin' a side arm or totin' a rifle in a crowd, :rolleyes:

tell that to gerald ford, ron reagan, or abe lincoln. even kennedy.

X-Terminator
09-12-2009, 08:53 PM
I don't want to hijack this thread - but my point about the "fairness" factor which is the main gripe in this argument applies. Let me clear this up, conservative ideals in 2009 are based upon "me and mine" and what's best for my immediate family. It's unfortunate because I think that without some traditional conservative views this country wouldn't work. I feel that the need for balance from both the left and right is an important factor in the success of this country.
My opinion is based on arguments against healthcare, illegal immigrants, poor people - conservative ideals lately have been about temporary fixes, short sighted views, smoke and mirrors on important issues and vile hatred towards our president.

Speaking of that.

Remember - just 50 some years ago black people were being lynched, shot and denied their civil rights. We have our first black president and you think it's outrageous that his security might have to be a little tighter than for previous presidents? Are there quite a few racist wing nuts that belong to the republican party? Yeah, more than quite a few. I work in a very conservative environment and hear it all. The things people say when they think no one who opposes them (i.e. no black people, LBGTs or a dirty liberal like me) is listening. People just assume I'm in on it and let loose. It reminds me of that Eddie Murphy skit where he gets on the bus dressed as a white guy and they start partying when the black guy gets off the bus.



There are plenty of good people on the right. But the painful truth is that racists, bigots and homophobes exist - and they tend to lean right and that's putting it nicely. Except the sexists - those are pretty bipartisan.

Trust me, the arguments against illegal immigration ain't just limited to the right. There are PLENTY of people on the left who have the same views.

You are correct about Obama needing more security because of the racist nutjobs not being able to accept a black president. I said this long before the election. There are still far too many people in this country who think blacks should be picking cotton, not become the POTUS. It's unfortunate and downright STUPID, but that's the reality of the situation.

However, if you REALLY think it's only people on the right who have views like this, you need a major reality check. Or just go to West Virginia, where many white Democrats openly stated they would never vote for a black man for President, and promptly pulled the lever for Hillary in the primary. There are also a TON of Dems in New England who do not like blacks. Boston in the past has consistently been thought of as the most racist city north of Dixie, and that is a heavily Democratic city in a heavily Democratic state. Racism knows no political party, my friend.

Leftoverhard
09-12-2009, 09:02 PM
X -

I said those people tend to lean right - but It's not 50/50 by any means, not by a long shot. If it were, Obama would have been lucky to get 20 percent of the vote.

7SteelGal43
09-12-2009, 09:08 PM
:rolleyes:

tell that to gerald ford, ron reagan, or abe lincoln. even kennedy.

My point is, they didn't "show" the gun 'til the very last second.

tony hipchest
09-12-2009, 09:14 PM
My point is, they didn't "show" the gun 'til the very last second.no.

actually your point was that you " seriously doubt anyone actually planning physical harm to the POTUS would be packin' a side arm or totin' a rifle in a crowd". i provided 4 instances to the contrary.

:busted:

put the deception, diversion, and deflection away. :nono:

you were completely wrong. you got called on it. now own it, or abandon your words.

SteelTalons
09-12-2009, 09:41 PM
no.

actually your point was that you " seriously doubt anyone actually planning physical harm to the POTUS would be packin' a side arm or totin' a rifle in a crowd". i provided 4 instances to the contrary.

:busted:

put the deception, diversion, and deflection away. :nono:

you were completely wrong. you got called on it. now own it, or abandon your words.

Lets not forget James Garfield and William McKinley.

Preacher
09-13-2009, 12:30 AM
Really? Sorry Preacher, the evidence so far shows otherwise. But please, enlighten me.

If you were protecting a president and there were people packing guns in the crowd, you would be likely to take those "protest sign threats" (how do you know that one guy isn't packing?) in a more serious way.
That's one explanation.

The better explanation is my other point - this is just another bs attempt to get people riled up over nothing. Seriously? The secret service is showing Obama preferential treatment over Bush? Really? Just say that out loud. It is such hogwash.

I would like to see the people who are wasting time spreading this urban legend nonsense on the internet confront a special agent and tell him or her that they are just Obama's patsy. That would be funny.

No. First, the guy with the sign was not in a crowd of people with guns.

2. I never said the SS is showing preferential treatment. The SS operates out of the treasury department. It is by the compulsion of the president that the SS operates. If a president tells the SS not to bother with the people carrying signs, they don't and won't otherwise they would be violating a direct order and would be fired. The SS is not the same as the FBI, for who there is a bit of autonomy.

So my point was, the Repubs. seem to have let the signs go by, even though they were hateful and cruel. They were also plentiful. Yet, this ONE SIGN gets this guy arrested and investigated. Hmmm. And carrying a gun when you are NOT in the presence of the president is NOT a crime... and he was NOT carrying a gun. There is none evident on him.

3. Beyond all of that, you took my post out of context, as I was referring to your statement concerning what conservatives believe and don't believe. I see you have not shown any change on that. So, do you really know what conservatives believe... or do you just sprew what you have been taught?

Preacher
09-13-2009, 12:33 AM
My point is, they didn't "show" the gun 'til the very last second.

no.

actually your point was that you " seriously doubt anyone actually planning physical harm to the POTUS would be packin' a side arm or totin' a rifle in a crowd". i provided 4 instances to the contrary.

:busted:

put the deception, diversion, and deflection away. :nono:

you were completely wrong. you got called on it. now own it, or abandon your words.


Um.... tony, that is your deception and diversion. I notice you failed to quote the next two words... Here, let my highlight them for you.

I seriously doubt anyone actually planning physical harm to the POTUS would be packin' a side arm or totin' a rifle in a crowd, in plain view.

Hey Tony... :busted:

try taking the ENTIRE quote :chuckle:

tony hipchest
09-13-2009, 12:35 AM
So, do you really know what conservatives believe... or do you just sprew what you have been taught?

conservatives believe in Rush, first and foremost.

themselves second

God third.

country fourth.

family may come in 5th (depending on how many of individuals family members use any sort of welfare. :smile:

Preacher
09-13-2009, 12:38 AM
conservatives believe in Rush, first and foremost.

themselves second

God third.

country fourth.

family may come in 5th (depending on how many of individuals family members use any sort of welfare. :smile:

Yep... exactly... And Liberals?

Marx,

Stalin,

Lenin,

Hitler

Mao Tse Tung.

Dang, that list was quite a bit easier!

tony hipchest
09-13-2009, 12:41 AM
Um.... tony, that is your deception and diversion. I notice you failed to quote the next two words... Here, let my highlight them for you.



Hey Tony... :busted:

try taking the ENTIRE quote :chuckle:if youre gonna defend her trash, knock yourself out.

ravenfans will contend that ray lewis never even witnessed a murder to save some sort of face and john wilks booth's gun was in plain sight when he pulled the trigger... as was hinkley.... etc.

grasp at straws, but you bust me at nothing.

tony hipchest
09-13-2009, 12:49 AM
Dang, that list was quite a bit easier!
i forgot t mention that our 2 last conservative presidents were members of the satan worship society at yale and a main reason muslims consider us devil spawn.

plus the letter of the ol gipper's name = 6...6...6

Preacher
09-13-2009, 12:50 AM
if youre gonna defend her trash, knock yourself out.

ravenfans will contend that ray lewis never even witnessed a murder to save some sort of face and john wilks booth's gun was in plain sight when he pulled the trigger... as was hinkley.... etc.

grasp at straws, but you bust me at nothing.


:clap: The judges give you a 10... even the east german judge! at deflection.

See, I wasn't defending anything. I was simply pointing out how you misquoted someone, and then claimed to bust them when it was you that got busted.

That's all! :chuckle:

Oh yeah, and :busted: :thumbsup:

tony hipchest
09-13-2009, 12:55 AM
:clap: The judges give you a 10... even the east german judge! at deflection.

See, I wasn't defending anything. I was simply pointing out how you misquoted someone, and then claimed to bust them when it was you that got busted.

That's all! :chuckle:

Oh yeah, and :busted: :thumbsup:my quote of them was a direct cut and paste of their own words.

and now you own them. :toofunny:

you do know what a misquote is dont you? dont make me pull out the grammar police badge or anything else on your ass. i can quote a dictionary if you need it.

MISQUOTE

Preacher
09-13-2009, 01:16 AM
my quote of them was a direct cut and paste of their own words.

and now you own them. :toofunny:

you do know what a misquote is dont you? dont make me pull out the grammar police badge or anything else on your ass. i can quote a dictionary if you need it.

MISQUOTE

Fine.. it wasn't a misquote.. It was a manipulation of a quote by not quoting the entire sentence.

either way.

You played a game and it didn't work out!

try again.

Just this time, trying quoting the ENTIRE SENTENCE.

You know, the entire thing between the first word and the period at the end.

7SteelGal43
09-13-2009, 03:05 PM
no.

actually your point was that you " seriously doubt anyone actually planning physical harm to the POTUS would be packin' a side arm or totin' a rifle in a crowd". i provided 4 instances to the contrary.

:busted:

put the deception, diversion, and deflection away. :nono:

you were completely wrong. you got called on it. now own it, or abandon your words.



Nice try tony. EPIC FAIL, but nice try. Olbermann would be proud. :thmbup:

Steelerama
09-13-2009, 03:35 PM
:scratchchin: of course the GOP truly understands freedom of speech. But I think in this case, they're not as easily thrown into :shout:-PANIC!!!

LOL you're kidding right? That's why no one with an opposing opinion was allowed anywhere near a Bush speech, or even McCain when he was stumping for Pres.
Shoot, go to political boards (especially Fox's) and the hatred and racism towards our President, who's been in office only a little over half a year is already getting. Pathetic

Preacher
09-13-2009, 05:13 PM
LOL you're kidding right? That's why no one with an opposing opinion was allowed anywhere near a Bush speech, or even McCain when he was stumping for Pres.
Shoot, go to political boards (especially Fox's) and the hatred and racism towards our President, who's been in office only a little over half a year is already getting. Pathetic

Just like the hatred and reverse racism thrown out at Bush. Sorry. The Dems are getting what they gave, and now are whining about it.

Leftoverhard
09-13-2009, 05:32 PM
Just like the hatred and reverse racism thrown out at Bush. Sorry. The Dems are getting what they gave, and now are whining about it.

There's no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is racism and that is certainly not one of Bush's problems. That's just a cop out. People hate Bush because of everything he and his administration stood for. Those people trampled all over our constitution, the American people, the rest of the world, the poor, the middle class - started a nasty "war" on "terror" that they had no intention of finishing, trashed our economy; if anything is reverse, I would label Bush a reverse Robinhood...and on and on.
You know this stuff Preacher. You just choose to ignore it and concentrate on more important things - like fair treatment (by the evil liberal media) of people who "threaten" presidents and how black and brown people are keepin' poor Bush down.
I don't get it. :noidea:

Preacher
09-13-2009, 05:59 PM
There's no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is racism and that is certainly not one of Bush's problems. That's just a cop out. People hate Bush because of everything he and his administration stood for. Those people trampled all over our constitution, the American people, the rest of the world, the poor, the middle class - started a nasty "war" on "terror" that they had no intention of finishing, trashed our economy; if anything is reverse, I would label Bush a reverse Robinhood...and on and on.
You know this stuff Preacher. You just choose to ignore it and concentrate on more important things - like fair treatment (by the evil liberal media) of people who "threaten" presidents and how black and brown people are keepin' poor Bush down.
I don't get it. :noidea:
Sigh. "Bush hates blacks" was pushed specifically because he was a WHITE conservative. If he was a liberal, or if he was black, that would NOT have been said. So yes, there is racism there.

You say he trampled all over our constitution? Where? The wiretaps which have been happening since the Carter administration or before? The Patriot act which the congress passed? That is a nice piece of rhetoric, but there is simply no proof of that at all. Now, Obama forcing a PRIVATE CITIZEN to resign from a company is much closer to a trampling of our constitution. Obama's plan for healthcare which makes people pay over 3000 dollars in penalties for not having health care is a lot closer to trampling our constitution.

Funny thing about Robin Hood. He stole from the TAX COLLECTING GOVT.. and gave the money back to the poor. Seems to me, under Bush, I got a tax cut when Bush first came in, and a couple other checks to pay back some of my taxes, which went too pay off bills. So Bush was actually very close to Robin Hood. Obama, who wants to raise taxes is much closer to the reverse Robin hood, the one that steals money from the poor (3000 plus dollars) for not having health insurance.

I choose to look beyond what is being spoon fed to me by the media and the parties. I despise as much about the GOP as I do about the Dems... but this thread is about who has more compulsion to violate our rights... and right now it seems that it is the Dems which will push back on freedom of speech much more than the GOP.

X-Terminator
09-13-2009, 06:11 PM
LOL you're kidding right? That's why no one with an opposing opinion was allowed anywhere near a Bush speech, or even McCain when he was stumping for Pres.
Shoot, go to political boards (especially Fox's) and the hatred and racism towards our President, who's been in office only a little over half a year is already getting. Pathetic

Funny, I'm seeing the same thing with Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Apparently, no one is allowed to oppose Obamacare, because you know, it's just "manufactured hate," and they really are just opposing it just because they're nothing but a bunch of racists who hate Obama. :jerkit:

It goes both ways.

So if you're going to start pointing your fingers at Conservatives, it might be a good idea to get your own house in order first.

Godfather
09-13-2009, 06:26 PM
Now, Obama forcing a PRIVATE CITIZEN to resign from a company is much closer to a trampling of our constitution. Obama's plan for healthcare which makes people pay over 3000 dollars in penalties for not having health care is a lot closer to trampling our constitution.

Funny thing about Robin Hood. He stole from the TAX COLLECTING GOVT.. and gave the money back to the poor. Seems to me, under Bush, I got a tax cut when Bush first came in, and a couple other checks to pay back some of my taxes, which went too pay off bills. So Bush was actually very close to Robin Hood. Obama, who wants to raise taxes is much closer to the reverse Robin hood, the one that steals money from the poor (3000 plus dollars) for not having health insurance.


Disagree with the first part. He didn't force any Ford executives out. Waggoner was the guy who ran GM into the ground to the point where it needed a bailout. I would prefer no bailouts at all but if you're going to do them the executives should be tossed out with no golden parachute.

I left the rest up because it's spot on. As far as reverse Robin Hood goes, Obamacare has other provisions that hurt the little guy and benefit the rich. The people who go without insurance voluntarily are young and healthy--and have low incomes. The Senate wants to not only force them to buy insurance, but do so at a higher premium than would be justified by their individual risk.

Preacher
09-13-2009, 07:06 PM
Disagree with the first part. He didn't force any Ford executives out. Waggoner was the guy who ran GM into the ground to the point where it needed a bailout. I would prefer no bailouts at all but if you're going to do them the executives should be tossed out with no golden parachute.

I left the rest up because it's spot on. As far as reverse Robin Hood goes, Obamacare has other provisions that hurt the little guy and benefit the rich. The people who go without insurance voluntarily are young and healthy--and have low incomes. The Senate wants to not only force them to buy insurance, but do so at a higher premium than would be justified by their individual risk.

The problem is, Obama basically strong-armed a CEO out of his position. That should scare the pee out of any and everyone.

Had he said, You get no money with the current leadership. It is up to your shareholders what you do, I would have had no problem with it. But that is not how it seemed to happen. Instead, the Obama task-force told the CEO that he needed to quit.

Wagoner was told on Friday, during a meeting with Obama's Auto Task Force, that he needed to resign and he agreed, ABC News has learned.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=7203022&page=1

tony hipchest
09-23-2009, 10:10 PM
Barack Obama faces 30 death threats a day, stretching US Secret Service


US President Barack Obama is the target of more than 30 potential death threats a day and is being protected by an increasingly over-stretched and under-resourced Secret Service, according to a new book.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service.

Some threats to Mr Obama, whose Secret Service codename is Renegade, have been publicised, including an alleged plot by white supremacists in Tennessee late last year to rob a gun store, shoot 88 black people, decapitate another 14 and then assassinate the first black president in American history.

Most however, are kept under wraps because the Secret Service fears that revealing details of them would only increase the number of copycat attempts. Although most threats are not credible, each one has to be investigated meticulously.

According to the book, intelligence officials received information that people associated with the Somalia-based Islamist group al-Shabaab might try to disrupt Mr Obama's inauguration in January, when the Secret Service co-ordinated at least 40,000 agents and officers from some 94 police, military and security agencies.

More than a dozen counter-sniper teams were stationed along the inauguration parade route and the criminal records of employees and hotel guests in nearby buildings were scrutinised.

Despite all this, there were glaring loopholes in the security. Kessler describes how more than 100 VIPs and major campaign donors were screened by metal detectors but then walked along a public pavement before boarding "secure" buses and were not checked again.

It could have been relatively simple for an assassin to have mingled with them in order to get close enough to shoot the new president.

After Mr Obama was elected president, his two children Malia, 11, codenamed Radiance, and Sasha, eight, codenamed Rosebud, began receiving Secret Service protection. Mr Obama's wife Michelle is codenamed Renaissance. The Secret Service also started to protect Vice-President Joe Biden's children, grandchildren, and mother.

Instead of bringing in more agents - instantly identifiable because of their bulky suits, worn over bullet-proof jackets, and earpieces - the Secret Service directed agents to work longer hours to cover the extra load and to miss firearms training, physical fitness sessions and tests.

"We have half the number of agents we need, but requests for more agents have fallen on deaf ears at headquarters," a Secret Service agent told Kessler. "Headquarters' mentality has always been, 'You can complete the mission with what you have. You're a U.S.S.S. agent'."

Mr Biden's constant travel, including back to his home state of Delaware-the burden has meant that all agents on his team have ceased training. According to Kessler, however, they fill in forms stating they have "taken and passed all tests, when they have not, creating a dishonest culture".

The Secret Service has increasingly cut corners after it was absorbed by the new Homeland Security Department under Mr Bush. Kessler said that when Mr Biden threw the first pitch at the first Baltimore Orioles game of the 2009 season, the Secret Service did not screen any of the more than 40,000 fans, stunning his agents and the local Secret Service field office.

Preacher
09-23-2009, 10:27 PM
Thanks Tony... good info.

I do wonder how "threat" is being defined compared to before.

But never the less, it goes to show just how much our presidents have to deal with.