|
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 11:44 AM
|
|
Of course Bush had Fox News on his side.
Anyway if you haven't done anything wrong they you have nothing to worry about, it won't affect you.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 01:01 PM
|
|
Bush didn't need a website like this because no one was spreading rumors. All the nasty Ish he was doing was true. Like the post from smoothy about all the late night talk show guys making jokes about Obama non of them were real. No one said any of them. The tea baggers just send these BS emails around that have no truth what so ever.
But I do find it funny that the tea baggers freaked out over death panels then at the debate they became the death panels let people without insurance die is what they want. I'm sure Jesus would do the same thing.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 01:32 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Of course Bush had Fox News on his side.
The 3 legacy networks alone have 6.62 times more viewers of their evening news than Fox' biggest draw. And again, that's not counting CNN, MSNBC, HNN and the print media. Obama has a much, much larger news network in his corner than Bush ever did.
Anyway if you haven't done anything wrong they you have nothing to worry about, it won't affect you.
I said creepy, nothing abut being worried. This silly effort of his only invites more criticism and I'm certain he's going to get what he deserves in return.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 01:35 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Bush didn't need a website like this because no one was spreading rumors. All the nasty Ish he was doing was true. Like the post from smoothy about all the late night talk show guys making jokes about Obama non of them were real. No one said any of them. The tea baggers just send these BS emails around that have no truth what so ever.
Hate to tell you but your next sentence is exactly what you just criticized.
"But I do find it funny that the tea baggers freaked out over death panels then at the debate they became the death panels let people without insurance die is what they want. "
No one on this side of the aisle is pushing granny over the cliff.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 01:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 01:54 PM
|
|
There you go tom, set up a website and debunk them!
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 02:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 02:45 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Where's the disinformation there?
From one of your articles:
The article reported that the Bush-appointed chair of the Election Assistance Commission, DeForest B. Soaries, sent letters in late April to National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to raise the possibility of a terror attack occurring at election time. (The Sept. 11, 2001 attack fell on Election Day in New York City.)
Newsweek magazine reported Soaries wanted Ridge to request that Congress pass legislation authorizing Ridge's agency to re-schedule elections.
Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that developing such plans was a necessary contingency effort in response to "doomsday scenarios,"
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 03:09 PM
|
|
I believe the word tom and I addressed was "rumors". The article you cite calls it a rumor in the first sentence.
"Canceling or postponing the Nov. 2 presidential election may sound like ultimate paranoia, but the rumor floating around..."
Rumors, see? Thank you for trying.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 03:12 PM
|
|
Yea rumors exist, I don't deny that. That's not what the website is about, it's about correcting the planned misinformation sent out by the republicans.
You really had to reach deep to find examples, articles that contain the word regardless of their content. Hehe.
|
|
|
Marriage Expert
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 03:54 PM
|
|
NK, it is set up for more than the 'planned' misinformation.
I read their form for reporting 'attacks'. They have a drop down menu that includes 'rumors' as one of the ways to hear about misinformation/attacks. They list emails, radio ads, TV ads, websites/blogs, and other forms of media separately. So, obviously, AttackWatch believes they should be reported along with all other forms whether they are in 'articles' or not.
If they aren't in articles, then where else do you hear 'rumors'?
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 05:34 PM
|
|
I agree, rumors is pretty vague and should probably be omitted from that. In that article we were speaking of the rumor was confirmed by the Republican member so it was all dealt with in the same article.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 07:21 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yea rumors exist, I don't deny that. That's not what the website is about, it's about correcting the planned misinformation sent out by the republicans.
You really had to reach deep to find examples, articles that contain the word regardless of their content. Hehe.
Dude, just admit when you're wrong instead of constantly moving the goal posts to C Y A.
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Sep 15, 2011, 09:54 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah report me !!! I encourage eveyone to report my posts to AttackWatch . What better way to bring exposure to AMHD !!!!
Hi Tom,
There is a big difference between you and others who create left and right wing websites just to post ridiculous drivel and then meld into the background and watch the nonsense spread. They do this under the guise of free speech. All freedom and no responsibility?
In other words, you have demonstrated that your are a person who is prepared to take responsibility for his political comments. Very important in my view.
Attack Watch seems to be a belated attempt to make people take responsibility for their comments rather than an attempt to keep 'files' on 'dissidents'
Probably not the right way to go about it, but it is at least an attempt.
Tut
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 16, 2011, 03:46 AM
|
|
Tut, point taken but with Obama it is not about making others take responsibility. He has shown time and again he doesn't tolerate dissent, he can't take the heat. If you haven't noticed, in his world there is one way, his. I'll be glad to tell him he's wrong and take responsibility for it.
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Sep 16, 2011, 04:16 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Tut, point taken but with Obama it is not about making others take responsibility. He has shown time and again he doesn't tolerate dissent, he can't take the heat. If you haven't noticed, in his world there is one way, his. I'll be glad to tell him he's wrong and take responsibility for it.
Hi Speechless,
I don't Know that much about your politico/legal system and how Obama fits in. On that basis I am happy to go along with your observations.
The only point I would make is that despite my lack of knowledge of American politics I would be very confident in the ability of 'systems' to deal with ambitions politicians. In the end Obama may well not tolerate dissent, but I would be confident that in the final analysis there is nothing he can do about it.
Not sure who said this but," you have nothing to fear but fear itself".
Tut
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Sep 16, 2011, 04:22 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
He has shown time and again he doesn't tolerate dissent
Show me what he has done differently than any other president and I;'ll agree with you. Please use facts not emotions.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 16, 2011, 06:10 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by TUT317
In the end Obama may well not tolerate dissent, but I would be confident that in the final analysis there is nothing he can do about it.
Not sure who said this but," you have nothing to fear but fear itself".
Tut
No, the people will not surrender their right to criticize our government, I can assure you of that. And that was Franklin D. Roosevelt who said that.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Sep 16, 2011, 06:12 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Show me what he has done differently than any other president and I;'ll agree with you. Please use facts not emotions.
That was in the OP, first line. See, if you'd just read the first sentences you wouldn't be wrong so much.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Sep 16, 2011, 06:23 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That was in the OP, first line.
How does that show that other presidents have tolerated dissent? I don't understand.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
The stealth regime
[ 19 Answers ]
Who can forget that before passing Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi said they'd have to pass it before we could know what was in it. She's proving that to be the case more and more.
Today, Congress passed financial reform legislation and the "teary-eyed" guy who led the charge, Chris "Countrywide" Dodd...
New regime 2?
[ 2 Answers ]
OK so I'm on the retin a and hq regime...
But I'm going to buy more retin a in at a lower percentage maybe 0.5 to reduce the irritation/face loating/pain lol
But I have also bought the f&w Serum Exclusive Whitenizer and f&w Gel Crème Exclusive Whitenizer
I'm also using tea tree oil foaming...
New regime
[ 47 Answers ]
OK so I know your all having a go at weezing about the bio claire but they have a new product called bio claire maxi tone milk
And it has different ingredients listed and it seems to be working diffeferntly
The original made my skin raw and white but like it was really dry and thin and not nice
...
Your skin lightening regime
[ 8 Answers ]
Hey, guys!
What is your current skin lightening regime? And what results do you want to achieve?
What do you cleanse, treat and moisturise with? Whatever it is, post it to let us all know! ;)
I am currently trying to achieve even toned skin.
My current skin lightening regime:
View more questions
Search
|