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.
|
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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.Quote:
Anyway if you haven't done anything wrong they you have nothing to worry about, it won't affect you.
Hate to tell you but your next sentence is exactly what you just criticized.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
"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.
Lol...Quote:
because no one was spreading rumors.
The 9/11 Truth Movement - 911truth.org
Electronic Voting The stolen election of 2004
How Jeb Bush Stole the 2000 Election for His Brother
Untitled Document
Bush Postpones 2008 Election | The Nation
... nope none at all .
There you go tom, set up a website and debunk them!
That was a big one... more than onceQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Bush administration takes steps to cancel US election
Will Bush Cancel the Election?
Will Bush Cancel The 2008 Election?
Could Bush Cancel the Election?
Congressman John Olver Believes Bush Will Cancel 2008 Elections, Still Refuses to Support Impeaching Him or Cheney
Bush Cartel Talks of Steps to Potentially Cancel ("Postpone") the Presidential Election: This is For Real Folks!
Evidence That Bush Will Cancel Elections & Declare Martial Law
My favorite has always been Theocracywatch, but I bet they've turned their attention to those Dominionists running now.
Where's the disinformation there?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
From one of your articles:
Quote:
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,"
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.
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.
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'?
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.
Dude, just admit when you're wrong instead of constantly moving the goal posts to C Y A.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
Show me what he has done differently than any other president and I;'ll agree with you. Please use facts not emotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
That was in the OP, first line. See, if you'd just read the first sentences you wouldn't be wrong so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
How does that show that other presidents have tolerated dissent? I don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:21 AM. |