YOu mean like the one John McCain just called for? Well, I guess this would probably be another partisan witchunt, since McCain is a hardcore bush hater like all of us who are calling for the 9-11 investigation to not be cut off in midstream. Therefore, regardless of whether or not its a good idea, i will not object when the Republicans deep 6 that idea.
What? That wasn't funny...pictures are funny...even TJ's pictures. That last post of his was at about the same level of funny as this:
I would, once again, like to paraphrase crusty old Nietzsche: "The best way to argue against a position is to make poor arguments in favor of it." In a related story, the Bush Administration have conducted their own investigation, and have not only found that they were completely compliant with all the necessary steps to prevent 9/11, their investigation also uncovered the salient fact that they should also be granted a lifetime supply of pretzels and BBQ as part of their retirement packages. They released a statement saying that it's a travesty of justice and possibly a liberal conspiracy that pretzels and BBQ are not included in their retirement packages. The final finding of the Bush Administration's Self-Investigation is that providing all federal employees with pretzels and BBQ would be bad for the economy, and could possibly lead to increased terrorist attacks. Therefore, only smarty-smart people like those in the Bush Administration (and those who "donated" to the Bush election effort) should have pretzels and BBQ from now on, in order to ensure economic growth and homeland safety. The report was concluded with "Though children are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from eating, or even being in the presence of, any BBQ or pretzels, we assure you no child will be left behind by the 'BBQ and Pretzels for All Americans, Especially Children' Act of 2004. God bless America."
Giddy...you've made this argument before, and it's never made much sense. So you're saying that in the face of one sided criticism, you have decided to respond with equal sophmoric zeal to even the scales...is that about right? Among the problems with that are these; * It's built on the assumption that all actions are equal...that those issues which Bush is handling well deserve equal airtime as issues people have serious problems with, like war, terrorism, the economy, and civil liberties. * It ignores the fact that at times when 'pro-Bush' info has surfaced...WMD trailors discivered, uranium from Niger, limks to 9-11, etc. several posters in here were incredibly quick to post about it, and unlike anti-Bush posters, routinely disappeared when it was proven wrong. Which is more one sided, to gloat, insult, and told you so about incorrect info and then dissapear when it's proven wrong, or being here for both with a consistent reaction; where's the proof? What you call anti-Bush might just be a realistic reaction to loads of false information. * It's an unrealistic expectation from opposing political posters to begin with. How many pro-Gore, Kerry, Clark, etc. threads have you started? I know you had that one generalized Democrat thread, but there was nothing in there positive about anyone, just a brief acknowledgment of some of what's been happening. And you are unique for even doing that much. * It assumes that this is just a nomral everyday sistuation. Many, many of those who feel strongly about this are of the opinion that we are in grave danger, that Bush is the worst President ever, etc. Now even if you are of the opinion that Bush ISN'T the worst President ever, consider that SOMEONE has to have been, and your attitude would have decried acting as though he were whoever he was. * It also assumes that what you are saying...that people are saying Bush can't do anything right...is even relevant. If the interenet had existed during Watergate, would you have been in here defending Nixon simply because only his negative acytions were getting attention? We asume a basic level of competance from any leader, so accomplishing that does not deserve, and usually will not get applause from even neutral observors. Extremes get attention, and these are Bush's extremes.
Originally posted by SamFisher What law enforcement is working on this? Who? how many people? Is it the Boston Police Department? New York? FBI? State Troopers? the Jedi Council? Who and what? And who are they going to report t heir findings to? The FAA? NTSB? CIA? DOJ? White House? Governor? The Galactic Federation? <B>I hear that Barney Fife is in charge and he's deputized Gomer, Floyd, and Otis. Don't drink the water! In reality, I suppose that stuff is under the province of Homeland Security or whatever protocols were already in place for such a crime/act of terrorism.</b> YOu say all the witnesses are dead...so they killed all of the security screeners and everybody else who was at the airport when they worked on the plane? Please advise. <b>Here is what I said they have no more witness to: "how they got it on board" (if they saw them get IT on board, IT wouldn't have gotten on board) "was it in their carry on bag or on their person" (again, if IT had been seen, IT wouldn't have gotten on board) "Did they randomly pick different ones?" (the hijackers are dead, so who are you going to ask? Don't you think those screeners have been asked already? How would they know if they were randomly picked?) Did they know anything about the various screeners on duty? (Again, dead. Who you gonna ask?) What if they didn't bring any knife and just threatened that there was a bomb? (Again, dead. Who you gonna ask?) Did they have a fake bomb that they threatened the pilots or crew with? (Again, dead. Who you gonna ask?)</b> What about that 20th hijacker..thus far we have two men who the Government has said is the 20th hijacker....you sure we have the plot down? <b>What about him. Hasn't he been in custody? Do you reckon he's been interrogated or has he just been sitting around watching Yao Ming's development as an NBA center?</b> Again, what's your objection ot the continuation of the investigation? Do you have one or not? First you say its a witchhunt (even though it's not) then you say it has no value, then you say it has some value, then you say its useless anyway, then you say we already know, then you say somebody else is handling it, then you go in a circle and go back to the first thing or things you said and say them again..you are all over the map and I don't know what your position is here. <b>All those things can be, and in my estimation, are true. Give me your evidence that it's not a witch hunt or that those things aren't true. I've cast serious doubt in the value that you think is in such activity; we have already been down those roads for 2 1/2 years with local police, FBI, CIA, NSA and God knows who else. We know about as much as we will know because all those who know are either dead, in hiding, or unknown to us. Is this commission going looking for bin Laden or will they do anything to expedite that? We already know he is at the root of it. Somebody is handling all these things. Are you denying that? If I went in a circle it was only in response to the various attempts to find an opening. I was mostly responding, I believe, to the various arguments. Don't blame me for their sequence! My position is that this will be a bureaucratic waste of time and energy and money.</b> You are right that we have pros working on it. The pros are called the 9-11 independent commission.. And the republicans are trying to stop them...for reasons of pure, naked self interest and making you and me be at risk. <b>They are looking into a past event which has been looked into already. Homeland security is working on the present and the future. Does it matter if their is much confusion on the part of the public? This commission won't change that. A good cover story in Time or Newsweek with the accurate facts will accomplish that. </b>
The truth is that there is no single answer. Sometime I just get sick of all the attack hacks here and I parry just to fend them off. Yes, sometimes my arguments are weak-- usually because the opposition has a point-- but not always. These attack-hacks never offer a balanced view of the President of the Presidency... yet they castigate me for my single-minded devotion. I find that, at the very least, laughable and when I'm really fed up... hypocritical. Sometime my backing of Bush is fully realized in my heart and mind. I'm just trying to have fun: make a few points, learn a little bit, stretch the argument, take it where no man has gone before, consider the extreme (and see what intelligent people have to say about it). I get insulted while almost never insulting anybody. Mostly I get a loutish bunch who want to change my mind, figure me out, and congratulate themselves on a job well done. As John Stoessel say, "GIVE ME A BREAK!"
So giddyup, what you are saying is that you assume sombody from the department of homeland security is investigating something..but you actually don't know if it did, or is, or even if it has an investigative wing, but you presume that they probably do so you are fine with it. Well, you are certainly well grounded in facts tonight. Your various contentions are that there is nothing left to investigate (I'm not going to bother with the minutiae, there's no point really--although just to clarify, when you said "he is in custody" with respect to the 20th hijacker, are you referring to the first 20th hijacker or the 2nd 20th hijacker? What will you say if a third 20th hijacker is found? ) These contentions are contradicted by the Committee, who claims that it has so much left to investigate that it needs more time. Who is better situated to make that judgment, you or them? I've given you your evidence that it's not a witchhunt. The committee was established by Congress, controlled by Republicans. It's head is Thomas Kean, a Republican. The committee was created to be independent for a reason, expressly so that partisan/political matters would not be considered. That's its very reason for being.. Now, what evidence do you have that it IS a witchhunt? You have alluded to it more than once...yet not provided one shred of evidence that it is..ever. Serious doubt? YOur casting of serious doubt consists of sayingn "whatever, somebody else is handling it, probably, but I'm not sure" That's laughable, and you know it. However, if we have been down this road, please point me to the comprehensive report on the September 11 attack by the appropriate government agency; Does it have a URL? What about the comprehensive reform plan that was developed in response to the findings of fact regarding the attacks, you know for the FBI, CIA, FAA, alll that stuff? WHere is it? Again, if all of this was done, like you presume (but don't know) then the Committtee would have access to it. Yet they don't feel that enough has been done; again, who's best suited to make that judgment, You, who has no access to any information and presumes that it is probably good enough? Or them, who have access to this information that may or may not exist? You can't be making a serious argument here, honestly, only a complete simpleton would be satisfied with such flimsy logic, if you can even call it that. A good cover story in Time or Newsweek, huh? Yeah, maybe we can just turn the whole f-king thing into a special episode of Newlyweds Nick and Jessica.
giddyup, I was curious about something for a while and it occurred to me that you might know... where did "Homeland" come from? When did we become a "Homeland"? How come this idea of the United States being a "Homeland" was bee-bopping around, germinating, as it were, and I missed it. Have we been a "Homeland" all this time and I never knew it? I've had sleepless nights before, tossing and turning, and realized I was muttering, "Homeland... what the hell is that??" and so on. Do you have a clue as to when we became this place and who thought it up and why it was chosen and so on and so forth? If so, thank you in advance. Your friendly Replicant... too skinny to be loutish.
Batman, With me chopping it down to a single statment.......the context was lost. It wasn't in regards to the topic this thread, but in regards to the type of behavior exhibited by posters on this BBS. Just reread it and realized there is a <i>tense</i> error. I will edit it.
Not saying you're wrong, though I think you are. I know I haven't disappeared on account of anything Bush did. Can you give us a for instance?
