I understand that there are some people who seriously dislike the President, but it is EXTREMELY rude and wrong for them to try to take the decision away from the rest of us.
As much as they might not like it, those of us voting for Bush still are about 50% of the population. (Last time I checked, anyway.)
None of US bothered the democratic convention.
I don't believe they will succeed, but it just pisses me off that some of them are trying.
-Katarain
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Agreed. No matter what side of the political coin you fall on, I would hope we all agree the ideas expressed in that article are foolish and stupid.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Eh - I don't know you could even call the protestors Democrats.
I have the sneaking suspicion they'd find something to protest, no matter who was in charge.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It's easy to just blame democrats.. but it used to be that republicans and democrats might disagree but we didn't think the other group was full of demons..
Did we?? I dunno...
I'm not even a republican... I just agree with them more.
I guess dems are just unlucky enough to have a bunch of prominent evil SOBs in the party.
-Katarain
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm pretty sure this article is full of it. I tried to find the webvsite described here:
quote: One site instructs readers, "Go to a rifle, pistol or skeet shooting range, spend an hour shooting to saturate clothing with the smell of gunpowder, go directly to a New Jersey Transit, LIRR or MTA subway train headed for Penn Station.
"Also try to have at least two people on a train in different locations, sit or stand near the doors as the train approaches the station, try to get near police and dogs, loiter as long as possible around the dog, try to pet it if possible. If the dog alerts on your scent, do not leave or resist; the situation will cause a major disruption of the train schedule ... ."
"It is important that the police call in all possible resources to investigate the situation," the site says. " ... This will result in the maximum disruption. With any luck, Madison Square Garden will be evacuated."
I could not find it. All I found was this article, and a web site debunking its claim:
I can't, however, find a link to the actual posting they are referring to. I wish they had provided the link--which NONE of the sites above do.
If it was a posting by some nameless person in a forum, I'd hardly call that news. *shrugs*
I'd kinda like to think it's NOT true. It's pretty shameless.
-Katarain
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah. All I can find is articles quoting each other.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Perhaps evil SOBs was a bit harsh. I was referring to all of the celebrities who use their position to push their political agenda.
I don't like it because they're ACTORS, not even the writers of what they do. Hardly qualified to tell me who to vote for. I suppose I'd be more bothered by any regular person who decided to vote for someone because their favorite actor endorsed the candidate.
I know they have free speech, but they're using their celebrity to talk about unrelated topics.
In any case, it's not just WND running the story.
-Katarain
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Huh. I've never heard of the NY Daily, but the other two are infamous for being shamelessly partisan. Do you have anything from a reputable news source?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Perhaps evil SOBs was a bit harsh. I was referring to all of the celebrities who use their position to push their political agenda.
I don't like it because they're ACTORS, not even the writers of what they do.
Heh. As opposed to, say, Republicans, who write all their own speeches?
Actually, I'd be hard-pressed to find a "celebrity" in the Democratic party, at least as anything but a supporter. Wasn't it the Republican party that put up Arnold Schwartznegger as a candidate?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Incidentally, all of the sources you have linked so far are, to differing degrees, right-wing sources. I'm seeing links giving away Unfit for Command and loaded, unjournalistic language. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I just wonder if this whole thing is a right wing hoax to scare up sympathy for the GOP. I mean the plan itself is pretty stupid. Does anybody think tha GWB's nomination could possibly be endangered?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's all just rumor. Every single bit of it just repeats the same thing with no source for the rumour or the quotes.
Do you really think someone is going to post something on the *internet* to screw with something that the POTUS is going to be at and not have the secret service show up, like, the next minute at their elbow? Do you realize that the secret service has shown up at people's residences for a lot less serious merde than this?
Come on.
My bet is that this is just some modern version of the plumbers' dirty tricks or the press inflating some aol chat room hyperbole.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Er..I wrote my post after Katarin's links. Just for clarification that I"m not some kind of band wagon jumper or nothing. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, I don't mind if a source is partisan as long as it at least uses non-partisan facts to back up what it says. I mean, ideally you want an objective source, but we'd be here all night trying to define what that is. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I totally agree. I'm not a bandwagon jumper either.
I think Eddie is, though.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm so burned out on politics I could scream. What's wrong with actors endorsing certain candidates? Does this mean that just because they are actors and say, not political essayists or something like that, they don't have the right to express their opinions on Bush? Perhaps they have done their homework. Maybe they have done a great deal of research on the issues and just don't feel, based on Bush's record, that he is a good leader for the country... Plus, this story does seem a bit bogus... But, being burnt out on politics, I don't care if they do try to block the nomination... Good for them. *still recenting the Republicans for holding their Convention in NY*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yikes. I can't tell if you understand I was just being sarcastic or not, Icky. I hope you or anyone else didn't think I was saying you or anyone else was a bandwagon jumper! Sorry if I gave that impression.
*is really tired*
But Eddie is a bandwagon jumper. Get off me and Icarus' wagon! *boot*
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Links to that article are all over the net.
However, none of them list a source or webpage where the comments were made.
I sent a message to snopes.com. They're the best at debunking myths.
-Katarain
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Cool. You're a good guy, Kata.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Thanks.
I take that as a sincere compliment even though I'm female.
Like I said, I'm happy to have that story be false. I usually hate politics, too, but recently I've been reading political things more and more.
I'm not really sure why. I've already made my mind up about who I'm going to vote for. Guess I just am really curious about who's going to win. I know I don't WANT Kerry to win, and I don't think he'll be good for the country... but my day to day life?? I don't see much changing.
I survived the Clinton years, after all.
I understand that wnd is partisan, but they post the most interesting articles sometimes. I'm addicted.
-Katarain
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Syn, nothing is precisely wrong with actors (or anyone else) endorsing candidates. The problem comes up when they do so during a performance (other than a show that is explicitly politically motivated, like that upcoming cartoon movie). A person who goes to see a performance and enjoy themselves, and who instead hears a political spiel, has some right to be annoyed by that, and to complain about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I understand that wnd is partisan, but they post the most interesting articles sometimes. I'm addicted."
Yeah, it's like the National Enquirer for dittoheads.
----
"The problem comes up when they do so during a performance (other than a show that is explicitly politically motivated, like that upcoming cartoon movie). A person who goes to see a performance and enjoy themselves, and who instead hears a political spiel, has some right to be annoyed by that, and to complain about it."
Why? What if the performer extends the show an extra two minutes to make up for the time "lost" to a political message?
[ August 30, 2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, this is probably a hoax. It is, however, very interesting to compare reactions to another, less substantiated, more debunked hoax earlier in the year:
Oh no! My plan is exposed! ...but we evil Canadian socialists were going to...
...who blabbed? *looks around dangerously*
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Hah! Ya know, I'm starting to see some benefits to requiring a two year military service from every able-bodied person after high school and before college.
-Trevor
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
This is a fairly well documented method of some right-wing sources, to spread an unsubstantiated rumor (as it is currently) and just link to each other until everyone has heard of it... Furthermore, you then get other, less-aligned groups mentioning because they are afraid to miss a scoop, and therefore inadvertently add a certain level of legitimacy to the claim. Of course, the news places can then later admit, quietly, that they never got confirmation, but by then the meme is out there.
I'm sure parts of the left do this too.
The NY Daily News is a fairly right-wing paper, and your other sources are similarly biased.
And once again, these protestors may be leftists, but that doesn't make them Democrats.
I repeat: leftist != Democrat, and vice versa...
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sure parts of the left do this too.
It's good of you to admit this, even as an afterthought. It's just as well documented on the left as the right.
Dagonee
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: "I understand that wnd is partisan, but they post the most interesting articles sometimes. I'm addicted."
Yeah, it's like the National Enquirer for dittoheads.
TomDavidson, was the insult entirely necessary? I already said I was aware of the site's bias. I'll admit I should have verified the validity of the article before posting it, but it was an honest mistake--one which I readily admitted. For you to imply that because I read wnd that I'm a dittohead is unfair and unfounded. Just because you don't like a news source doesn't mean you have the right to criticize its readers or viewers.
And as for all of you pointing out that the sources are all right-wing, thanks, but we already covered that last night.
Besides, it's a good thing to read varied news sources instead of just the ones with a very liberal or leftist bias, which, unfortunately, are most of the mainstream papers.
Another thought... I don't agree that Fox is right-wing, although compared to the mainstream it might seem that way because the right side has a voice.
-Katarain
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"For you to imply that because I read wnd that I'm a dittohead is unfair and unfounded."
Actually, I consider WND readers a step below dittoheads. But I'm glad you're not both.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There's really not a liberal bias to mainstream media. More like a money bias... *needs to stay out of political discussions for at least 2 weeks*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As much as they might not like it, those of us voting for Bush still are about 50% of the population.
Think again. In the last election there were 50.4 million votes for Bush and 275.6 million people living in the US so only 18.3% of the population voted for Bush. No matter what happens in this upcoming election, it is highly unlikely that those of you who vote for Bush will represent more than 20% of the US population.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There's really not a liberal bias to mainstream media.
Do you mean to say that the news media isn't biased, or that media in general does not have a liberal bent?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Republicans are hoping that the demonstrators outside will become unruly, use foul language, attack police, destroy property, and try to hurt people, etc. Because then they can point the finger and say those people are representative of those who oppose them, mainly the Democrats. It is hard to deny that the demonstrators are largely Democrats, when they carry so many Kerry signs.
The contrast between orderly and civilized Republicans on the inside, and violent and lawless Democrats on the outside, will provide a contrast that will probably gain Republican candidates many points in the polls.
And what happens if in the midst of shouted obscenities and riots and tumult by demonstrators, there is some major terrorist act somewhere in New York City? The demonstrators will automatically be linked to the terrorists at least subconsciously, in the mind of virtually everyone.
The demonstrators can only accomplish the opposite of what they want to accomplish. And they are setting themselves up so that they could be instrumental in bringing real ruin on their cause.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well-- the demonstrators have already proved to be crass.
(The pres. name is 'Bush.' I'd be crass too, if I weren't such a prude.)
And:
quote:New York Police Department officers were booed loudly when they moved onto the roof at the front of the (Madison Square Garden) arena.
What's the point of booing NYPD? The officers weren't keeping anyone from moving anywhere, they weren't even DOING anything at this point-- just making their presence known.
Much like the protestors. Good on 'em.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Think again. In the last election there were 50.4 million votes for Bush and 275.6 million people living in the US so only 18.3% of the population voted for Bush. No matter what happens in this upcoming election, it is highly unlikely that those of you who vote for Bush will represent more than 20% of the US population.
Same thing goes for Kerrey, of course. Clinton got less than 50% of the vote in both his elections, while Bush I and Reagan had majority votes both times. (The link below excludes many 3d party candidates for 1996.)
In fact, G.W.B. got more votes than Clinton did in either election, in absolute numbers and as a percent of total U.S. population.
Consider how it will play in the rest of the nation--and even among native New Yorkers--for protestors to boo New York City Police. They were the heroes of 911, who lost their lives running into doomed buldings and up the stairs of those buildings seeking to save people. Anyone who booes them now will never be forgiven.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why do Republicans always compare Bush to Clinton on EVERY point? It seems an odd approach.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because, Tom, I was comparing presidents to each other. And Gore has never been president, and Carter's too far back to care about in this regard.
I thought it was fair game since the post I was replying too jumped all over an obvious careless error as if it were an attempt at propganda.
Dagonee
[ August 30, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ron- I think you're wrong. The Republicans aren't going to make a big deal out of the protestors (unless there's some major violence, which there won't be), and the image of protestors booing police isn't making it into the news media.
I think it's ironic, though, that the coverage of the protestors just about equals coverage of the convention. What does this indicate? Liberal media bias? Fair reporting?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
A lackluster convention? (*has seen none of the coverage*)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
All conventions are lackluster, since they decide nothing.
If we could harness the hot air from these things we could end our dependence on foreign oil by 2012.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Because the massive numbers of protestors flocking to the Island are relatively unprecedented.
One more versed in recent American history might remember the riots surrounding another national convention, but I don't think the numbers were comparable.
Today carries a feeling of tension we haven't known before and the news media is covering everything because nobody knows what will explode first.
-Trevor
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Today carries a feeling of tension we haven't known before . . .
You think this tension is beyond that felt during the Vietnam conflict??
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Viet Nam never launched an attack on our shores.
1. 9/11 2. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 3. The quagmire of Iraq 4. The economy 5. Fear of future terrorist attacks in the US 6. The lack of large quantities of WMD material in Iraq
All of the factors above blur into a general discontentment with the government. Enough to spur the numbers of protesters we've seen during the RNC.
Certainly, this doesn't speak to the entire US population, but there are enough elements to motivate people who might have been otherwise undecided before.
I think it's safe to say there are more stress factors present now than during the Viet Nam war.
-Trevor
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So far the protestors have generally seemed to be pretty peaceful.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Syn, nothing is precisely wrong with actors (or anyone else) endorsing candidates. The problem comes up when they do so during a performance (other than a show that is explicitly politically motivated, like that upcoming cartoon movie). A person who goes to see a performance and enjoy themselves, and who instead hears a political spiel, has some right to be annoyed by that, and to complain about it.
So you prefer your entertainment to be completely devoid of serious content?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ron, i think that you're not really a person, that in fact you are a GOP operative sent to infiltrate hatrack and push the republican agenda. am i right? i mean, i haven't read anything that you've written that diverges in the slightest from the spin coming from the white house, it's as though you're our own personal condiut to how the republican party wants us to think.
anyway...
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Very funny, Foust.
I usually prefer serious content in my entertainment. But not always. Sometimes, after a hard day, I want to just shut down and vegetate for a little while. Sometimes, after a frustrating day of serious topics, I just want to laugh.
If I then turn on the television to watch Stargate and the episode is about terrorism, I'll be annoyed. Even if it clearly wasn't intended as a "message" episode (which sometimes it was).
Posted by Khal Drogo (Member # 6786) on :
quote: Websites have urged readers to trick specially trained NYPD Labrador retrievers with gunpowder or ammonium nitrate-laced tablets in a plan to stop trains and cause the evacuation of the Garden during the convention.
One site instructs readers, "Go to a rifle, pistol or skeet shooting range, spend an hour shooting to saturate clothing with the smell of gunpowder, go directly to a New Jersey Transit, LIRR or MTA subway train headed for Penn Station.
"Also try to have at least two people on a train in different locations, sit or stand near the doors as the train approaches the station, try to get near police and dogs, loiter as long as possible around the dog, try to pet it if possible. If the dog alerts on your scent, do not leave or resist; the situation will cause a major disruption of the train schedule ... ."
"It is important that the police call in all possible resources to investigate the situation," the site says. " ... This will result in the maximum disruption. With any luck, Madison Square Garden will be evacuated."
Honestly this is not just stupid it's sick. To draw all available forces away from the convention could result (heaven forbid) in large causalties if terrorits attacked the convention. In my opinion anyone who pulls one of these things should get the bok thrown at him, and the brick, and the dirt clods, and the rocks, and the ice pick, and the shovel, and the hand grenade, etc.
Posted by Khal Drogo (Member # 6786) on :
Mabus which Stargate episode was that? Some Anubis subterfuge?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I'm not sure, Drogo. But it wasn't a subterfuge. I think it was the one that aired recently (and will be on again this weekend). A group of religious fanatics (who don't know what the Goa'uld really are) tried to take over an alien planet as soon as they found out the Stargate was real.
Posted by Khal Drogo (Member # 6786) on :
Oh right from season Eight, where they cause the global war because of the Stargate being active, and al the god guys kindof look ike nazis. I don't really see the Terrorism connection in that episode, do explain.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I'm not really clear on that episode--I was kind of half-asleep while I was watching it. It seems to me now, thinking back, that the fanatics had risen up and seized power through terrorist activity, but I may not be remembering it correctly. I'm certain I have seen terrorists in previous seasons, but I don't remember when.
Posted by Khal Drogo (Member # 6786) on :
As I remember they took ocntrol of a nclear weapon silo, which caused the other superpower to attack preventatively, the weapons systems were automatic, boom, all dead.
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
No, I am. The Republicans want to you go download Madlax.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)