1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Possible Bush Assisnation attempt!!!

Discussion in 'The OT' started by juan ellitinez, May 11, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    You forgot to mention Ted Williams and Tupac Shakur both of whom are on the Supreme Governing Council of the Northern Hemisphere. There ARE aliens amongs us, I live with some. :lol:
     
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Does the phrase "Out of the loop" mean anything to anyone here?
     
  3. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,840
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Kinda like you, eh, Bogy? :lol: jk

    Congrats on your call. Just don't try to convert your new congregation to liberalism on the first Sunday. Give 'em about 15-20 years to get used to you. :D
     
  4. deraz

    deraz Daydreamer DBSTalk Gold Club

    722
    0
    Sep 25, 2004
    It is illegal to threaten anyone, president or not. More commonly known as "assault."
     
  5. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    It is illegal to threaten anyone, president or not. More commonly known as "assault."

    I don't think thats universal in every state, and wording is very important.

    And of course us regular citizens don't have our own dedicated police force scanning the internet watching for other folks who are out to get us.
     
  6. Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    Very True! :lol:
     
  7. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Thanks Nick. I'll give them 2 or 3 Sundays to shape up. :D
     
  8. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Ah yes, the thought police. How thoughtless of me.:rolleyes: I imagined maybe that's what you were hinting at. Seemed a little premature, as to that point not a single hint of animus had been recorded. With all due respect to Chris and the board, I'm not about to censor my opinions because perhaps Big Brother is watching.

    As way of legal and metaphysical disclaimer though, I hereby affirm my written, spoken or contemplated thoughts and actions, expressed or implied, are entirely my own and disclaim and release any and all responsibility and liability from third parties.:D

    There. Happy!;)


    I'm sure Crawford is appropriately charming and quaint. And I imagine it will remain relatively unchanged at least 'til the end of the current Presidential term, frozen in time except for the car park and motels to accommodate media, possibly even bereft of supermarket scanners.:grin:

    Crawford however was not my point. The point was a Presidential bike ride deemed too important to disrupt for the cause of the White House going to Red Alert and government workers running from office buildings in fear for their lives. Apparently the Presidential duties of pedaling and reading children's stories supercedes the need for the President to be informed, and act if necessary for the sake of national security.

    I understand this turned out to be essentially a false alarm. But it wasn't "false" as the Vice-president and First Lady were being hustled to "secure locations" and workers scrambled from their offices.

    And for those who would divert from this embarrassment by implying I suggest a conspiracy of "they", the "they" I refer to is a general public consensus shaped by an administration and a compliant media of a President with "resolve", an independent thinker with strong convictions.:rotfl:

    We have here a President who proudly proclaims he doesn't read newspapers but instead is informed solely by his "trusted advisors". So who then really IS "in control"? What was the hold-up yesterday? Was a bike ride really deemed more important then the shutdown of the seat of government for a security threat? Or were "trusted advisors" temporarily stumped on how this situation should be presented to the Commander in Chief?:scratch:

    Would that our President could make the same disclaimer I do above.:nono: But it would be a lie, or at least a half truth. There's the question he might not fully comprehend its meaning. And of course worst of all, it would entail someone in this administration actually taking responsibility for something. A concept that has so far escaped every single member of this administration, past and present.
     
  9. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    In this administration, if you don't take responsibility, you get a medal.
     
  10. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    :nono2:
    You and Bogy completely miss the boat on this one. He was away on a bike ride. Parden me if the guy doesn't sit by the phone 24-7 waiting for something to happen. Anyway, I personally think this IS the way to run things. Find the right people and delegate authority, let them handle what they can and the president take the responsibility of it being the correct action. Or are you saying the president needed to micromanage (somehow - it would have been inefficient unless he has multiple (secure) lines to all the necessary agencies and secure computer links (broadband),... on the back of his bicycle. Anyway, the process he set up, the people who he put in charge, ... did their job as designed and it worked. The people with the best, current data handled it within the constraints set out for them. Seems to prevent a single point failure. Seems to prevent the whole blooming system crashing to the ground (pardon the pun) if (let say) that plane was a terror attack and successfully dive bombed into the White House. No dudes, you've got it all wrong yet again.
     
  11. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    So according to you, the president goes off riding his bike all by himself, totally out of touch with the world. Somehow, I don't think so. I'm just a lowly pastor, but I have provided everyone in my family with a phone so they can contact me in the event of an emergency. I can only hope that among the entourage who accompany the president wherever he goes, someone has the means to communicate with folk back at the WH. Personally, I would be pissed as hell to learn that my wife had been whisked away to a bunker because of a plane violating the WH airspace, and nobody thought it was important to inform me, whether I could do anything about it or not. Another aspect is that obviously there was fear that the WH was a possible target. The VP is whisked to his "secure location" but the President is allowed to continue cycling. As a citizen, I think moving the President to a more secure location until the situation was stabilized would be a logical thing to do. I'm not all that happy with George Bush as President, but I sure don't want to see Dick Cheney take his place. I know this is the President and administration that can do no wrong, but he is not just any person, he is the President of my nation, and I expect him to know what is going on and to take precautions to make sure he will be around until the end of his term.
     
  12. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I didn't say he was totally out of touch - whether he should have been informed or not is hard to say. I would think the secret service would tell him, but apparently not this time. But you and jonstad seem to be implying that Bush should have charged ahead and taken command, even though he was not at a location to really allow him to do that effectively. And your comment The VP is whisked to his "secure location" but the President is allowed to continue cycling. -- perhaps the fact that he was in a different state and probably not in immediate danger, perhaps that had something to do with why he was not whisked off to some bunker. Just a thought, 'eh Bogy?
     
  13. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    And how does the Secret Service get to be the ones who decide what is important enough to tell the president? As I said before, if I were George Bush, and no one had thought it important enough to tell me that while I was out on a bike ride my wife was taken to a bunker, somebody would be very uncomfortable.

    And if the White House is under possible attack, how can anyone be sure that is the only attack that is possible? Four planes were involved on 9/11. Just a thought.
     
  14. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    No, pardon me! The Presidency IS a 24/7/365 job. If that's too much to ask, half this country and strong majorities in most other countries would be more then happy to see him step down.

    We're not quite four years past an unprecedented attack at the very heart and soul of America. This latest incident turned out to be rather silly and innocuous, a clueless student pilot and his instructor. But it was deemed serious enough in the short term to evacuate Congress, the White House and SCOTUS, scramble fighter jets and attack helicopters, and I assume at least contemplate blasting the Cessna out of the sky. All this took a little time at least. During that time, could you please describe to me the discussion that should have taken place over whether to inform the President or not? And how they came to the astounding decision NOT to? Did the conversation even take place? Or in the panic did it slip their minds who was President? As Cheney was being escorted to his secure location, probably under armed escort, perchance might he have inquired about the whereabouts or the President? If informed he was cycling in Maryland, was his instruction not to interrupt his leisure time?

    The whole scenario is ludicrious. In fact it's surreal! Informing the President the Capital was literally shut down and evacuated because of what was obviously thought to be a credible security threat seems to have been an afterthought.

    I don't begrudge Bush his relaxation time. Although he seems to require it regularly more then most. But he IS "on call". Whether biking in Maryland, clearing brush in Crawford, or choking on a pretzel, he should never be more then 10-15 seconds from SOME sort of communications devise connected directly to his "trusted advisors". And I assume someone in his cycling party, or closely monitoring it, were within this timeline and KNEW what was going on nearby in DC. Obviously they choose not to inform him, or, they were ordered not to. Is this how Dubbya "delegates authority"? Wake me when it's over???:confused:
     
  15. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,840
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Wrong again! By definition and under law, a "threat" does not equal an "assault". In fact, until a threat is acted upon, the terms are mutually exclusive.

    Ignorance of the law, or the language, is no excuse. :nono2:
     
  16. deraz

    deraz Daydreamer DBSTalk Gold Club

    722
    0
    Sep 25, 2004
    Wrong.

    My law dictionary states:
    assualt: the crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact

    battery is the crime or tort of intentionally or recklessly causing offensive physical contact or bodily harm (as by striking or by administering a poison or drug) that is not consented to by the victim
     
  17. Laverne

    Laverne Guest

    2,498
    0
    Feb 17, 2005
    Is that why they call it assault AND battery?? :confused:
     
  18. deraz

    deraz Daydreamer DBSTalk Gold Club

    722
    0
    Sep 25, 2004
    Correct.
     
  19. mainedish

    mainedish Hall Of Fame

    2,196
    0
    Mar 25, 2003
    This Bush hate is getting so old. But as long as Democrats spend time posting on the internet and not winning elections it's fine with me.
     
  20. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    you got that right! And the dems failure to learn from their mistakes - the dems are going to be losing elections for quite some time to come.:)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page