_BiB_ Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 You are a newcomer here and have missed a lot of conversation about this stuff. 1. Things are being observes, reconned and probed every day. Slow news days, it can fill some pages. 2. Sometimes you actually want THEM to know that YOU know. 3. What rights have you lost because of the current administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 If someone nukes Central Park while I am walking in it, the likeliest of situations to be sure, please, give me a call. I wouldn't want to be a mile away where I would also get nuked. Thanks for your concern. Look, I understand heightened alert. I know what it's about. But releasing the threat info can be damaging, as 1) it pinpoints what our response to the situation would be and may even make it easier for terrorists to figure out what holes might exist in that response 2) it freaks people out unnecessarily. If you don't live in NYC you may not understand. Comments like "stop whining" don't cut it. I would rather not know about the threats, or have a general idea of what can happen, which we generally do, and we look out for things, instead of a lot of false alarms, which if you know your children's stories generally make people complacent and unprepared when the 'real alarm' comes. Not to mention that the last false alarm cost this city a lot. 9112[/snapback] I was right across the river, and got a phone call just as the plane hit the pentagon, friends sister in a "government agency" who happened to know it was happening real time. It was probably 1/4 to 1/2 mile away. Don't tell me I don't understand. I was off a ship for 2 weeks near beirut. Soon after a bunch of my friends died when an !@#$ drove a !@#$ing car bomb into the barracks. Don't tell me I don't understand. You don't understand. If we had better alerts then, and Our country wasn't trying to recover from the stupidity at the time of the two previous admins in both cases, they both probably would have been avoided. Alerts are good, trust me. It means they know we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 You are a newcomer here and have missed a lot of conversation about this stuff. 1. Things are being observes, reconned and probed every day. Slow news days, it can fill some pages. 2. Sometimes you actually want THEM to know that YOU know. 3. What rights have you lost because of the current administration? 9122[/snapback] "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" thought I addressed that, sorry (genuinely). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I think that's exactly what happened. We're in agreement here. But the story got from the FBI to the AP. The FBI doesn't have to share this information if it doesn't want to. 9118[/snapback] Not the FBI. It was an open DHS bulletin to law enforcement organizations nationwide that the press can get a hold of a number of ways (they probably just looked on the DHS site, though any reporter with half a brain could probably call their local poilce station and ask "Any DHS bulletins today?") Just because the media reports a government statement doesn't mean the government made the statement to the media... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" thought I addressed that, sorry (genuinely). 9129[/snapback] Where is that not happening? As I understand it, several thousand plan on assembling? (Which, BTW-makes an attractive soft target...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I was right across the river, and got a phone call just as the plane hit the pentagon, friends sister in a "government agency" who happened to know it was happening real time. It was probably 1/4 to 1/2 mile away. Don't tell me I don't understand. I was off a ship for 2 weeks near beirut. Soon after a bunch of my friends died when an !@#$ drove a !@#$ing car bomb into the barracks. Don't tell me I don't understand. You don't understand. If we had better alerts then, and Our country wasn't trying to recover from the stupidity at the time of the two previous admins in both cases, they both probably would have been avoided. Alerts are good, trust me. It means they know we know. 9126[/snapback] I didn't mean you don't understand the situation, and I definitely didn't mean you specifically. Your service is commendable and the loss of your friends is tragic, and I wish it could have been prevented. But I do think the situation is different in the military than in an urban setting. Military personnel generally know they can be put in harm's way and should get all the information they need to be safe. I just don't think an entire city necessarily needs to know intelligence information unless it is a very real possibility that citizens are in danger. I think we can differ on our opinions of administrations. I think the current one had plenty of time and indications that the Sept. 11 attacks were possible -- not necessarily on that date, but that it was possible. There was a lot of vacation time (recovering?) there that could have been used to fight terrorism. I think Clinton could have done better and I think Bush could have done better. So does the Sept. 11 Commission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Where is that not happening? As I understand it, several thousand plan on assembling? (Which, BTW-makes an attractive soft target...) 9133[/snapback] Yes, but the city has been warning people that they can be arrested for assembling in the park this weekend. The reason being that the lawn could be hurt (if there is a more crybaby rationale out there please share). My point was, I could be walking my dog, and because of the city's policy I could be arrested if I stay and listen to what people are saying, or if I'm even walking around a big group of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I'm sure the timing of the warning has nothing to do with yesterday's report that 4.5 million more people have fallen into poverty in the past 3 years, average family income has fall by $1,400 over that same period, and 1.4 million people lost health insurance last year.... Yeah, watch out for those terrorists at VA hospitals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I'm sure the timing of the warning has nothing to do with yesterday's report that 4.5 million more people have fallen into poverty in the past 3 years, average family income has fall by $1,400 over that same period, and 1.4 million people lost health insurance last year.... Yeah, watch out for those terrorists at VA hospitals. 9164[/snapback] Tinfoil hat a little tight today? Of course, it has been at least 24 hours since the last conspiracy theory from the lefties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I'm sure the timing of the warning has nothing to do with yesterday's report that 4.5 million more people have fallen into poverty in the past 3 years, average family income has fall by $1,400 over that same period, and 1.4 million people lost health insurance last year.... Yeah, watch out for those terrorists at VA hospitals. 9164[/snapback] Come on now. If they were going to issue a warning to distract from yesterday's poverty report, don't you think they'd pick something more enticing to the public than "VA hospital bombings"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Yes, but the city has been warning people that they can be arrested for assembling in the park this weekend. The reason being that the lawn could be hurt (if there is a more crybaby rationale out there please share). My point was, I could be walking my dog, and because of the city's policy I could be arrested if I stay and listen to what people are saying, or if I'm even walking around a big group of people. 9160[/snapback] Does this have anything to do with "spontaneous" gatherings? I was given the impression that many of the protesters have applied for, and have been granted permits for their activities. So, if you can't walk the dog in a particular spot of your choosing one time out of a century, your rights have been usurped? I don't see it. I don't think anyone is prohibiting gathering and demonstration as long as it's being done responsibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Does this have anything to do with "spontaneous" gatherings? I was given the impression that many of the protesters have applied for, and have been granted permits for their activities. So, if you can't walk the dog in a particular spot of your choosing one time out of a century, your rights have been usurped? I don't see it. I don't think anyone is prohibiting gathering and demonstration as long as it's being done responsibly. 9184[/snapback] No. There was a specific application for a permit for a gathering in Central Park that was denied on the "It'll ruin the lawn" grounds. Instead, they get to march somewhere else. (So technically, their freedom to assemble isn't being violated...just their freedom to do it in Central Park. Can't say I necessarily agree with the decision...but then, I don't really care whether a bunch of professional crybabies and spoiled college brats get the chance to chant "Bush sucks!" in Central Park anyway...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I'm sure the timing of the warning has nothing to do with yesterday's report that 4.5 million more people have fallen into poverty in the past 3 years, average family income has fall by $1,400 over that same period, and 1.4 million people lost health insurance last year.... Yeah, watch out for those terrorists at VA hospitals. 9164[/snapback] Yes, and the right never claimed that Clinton bombed Sudan (or Iraq?) to take the heat off of the Lewinsky scandal.... Gee, yes, I really believe that politicians never try to manipulate the media. Karl Rove would never do that would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Yes, and the right never claimed that Clinton bombed Sudan (or Iraq?) to take the heat off of the Lewinsky scandal.... 9199[/snapback] No, they did (though I think it may have been Afghanistan. Not Sudan, at any rate). And some of us believe that was a load of crap, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I don't think anyone is prohibiting gathering and demonstration as long as it's being done responsibly. 9184[/snapback] I think that's the point; UFPJ was trying to organize a rally in the park responsibly rather than have it be spontaneous, as it may well be, if people decide to go there. Trivialize it if you must, I supposed I opened it up by mentioning my dog, but if someone was telling you where you could and could not go and spend a day with people in a public place where you were causing no harm, I am certain you would not be happy about it. There is a right to assemble, and this 'isolated' point in the century happens to be at the dawn of an important election. I think it is no less than un-American to try and suffocate protest or move it into locations that are more desirable for the very people whom the protest is aimed at. Like it or not, that right is part of our constitution and part of what terrorists want to destroy. I will return to my original point, which is that terrorists have already succeeded in making ours a less free country. I personally believe the Bush administration to be complicit in this, citing the Patriot Act and surveillance on peaceful protesters using anti-terrorism funding, and I think the warnings amount to scare-tactics. That's my view, everyone is entitled to his or her own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 No. There was a specific application for a permit for a gathering in Central Park that was denied on the "It'll ruin the lawn" grounds. Instead, they get to march somewhere else. (So technically, their freedom to assemble isn't being violated...just their freedom to do it in Central Park. Can't say I necessarily agree with the decision...but then, I don't really care whether a bunch of professional crybabies and spoiled college brats get the chance to chant "Bush sucks!" in Central Park anyway...) 9198[/snapback] "there" freedom is as good as yours, DC Tom. This 'professional crybaby' worked his ass off for two degrees, is paying 90% of his salary in rent and is knee-deep in loans. Good to see that intellectual discourse is alive and well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Does it really matter what the target is? All you need is a terror warning. In fact, seems to me that using VA hospitals has a greater impact than something people would expect. Do a Google search tomorrow and see what got more press. BTW, I noticed Drudge had the terror warning, but not the poverty numbers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 "there" freedom is as good as yours, DC Tom. This 'professional crybaby' worked his ass off for two degrees, is paying 90% of his salary in rent and is knee-deep in loans. Good to see that intellectual discourse is alive and well. 9211[/snapback] Wow, Tom got zinged on his spelling. Now back to the discussion. Peaceful means quiet, calm, etc... If these folks are demostrating, carrying signs and shouting, then without a permit they could/would be cited for inciting a riot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 "there" freedom is as good as yours, DC Tom. This 'professional crybaby' worked his ass off for two degrees, is paying 90% of his salary in rent and is knee-deep in loans. Good to see that intellectual discourse is alive and well. 9211[/snapback] Thought you were just walking your dog, though... I've been to enough protests to believe they're primarily composed of two groups of people: the professional protester who spends his life travelling from demonstration to demonstration, and the college kid who's either bored with studying or just wants to impress chicks with his sensitivity. Doesn't preclude other people joining in, of course...but without either of the above two groups, most demonstrations would be still-born, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Wow, Tom got zinged on his spelling. Now back to the discussion. Peaceful means quiet, calm, etc... If these folks are demostrating, carrying signs and shouting, then without a permit they could/would be cited for inciting a riot. 9219[/snapback] My spelling's fine. His reading sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts