Yeah, there was no threat made. It was a sick thing
Posted By: to read, but the poster threatened nobody.nm on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: I did not see promotion of it; not how I took it... - nm
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Yeah, it was, sorry.....I just don't think poking fun at sick people is a good thing to do....
and that was the thread. I think we are ALL better than that, much better things to talk about than that. So, I apologize...I will keep my indignation on the part of those who are the butt of jokes because of physical deformities to myself. I am better than stinging rebuttals myself..I will take my own advice.
Have a good day, vv, my friend.
Was there a threat made?
I'm afraid that this is what is going to happen everywhere. Anytime ANYTHING is said that sounds bad somebody is going to be reporting it to the FBI. We are slowly going to lose freedom of speech at this rate.
The post was inappropriate, but was a threat made??
Bye bye freedom of speech.
FBI has better things to be working on and I'm afraid if this is any indication they are going to be bombarded with inappropriate statements.
Please describe the actual physical threat that you allege was made on this internet chat board.
Thank you.
The sick thing about you is that you HOPE it is true. Don't even tell me
x
Oh yeah, that is exactly the same thing
Give me a break, I'm done having this conversation with someone who can't is so irrational.
Yeah and another thing s/m
anyone else wonder why Bush/Cheney are conspiciously absent in McCain's campaign?
Yeah, and the really interesting thing about...
....my mom is, she has always been party faithful. She couldn't tell me why she voted for either Gore or Kerry, she simply did. You never heard an unkind word from her on either party. And you don't now either. Last I semi-talked politics with her, she was for Hillary, but again, she couldn't exactly tell me why, except that she was a democrat. I have yet to ask if she's now for Obama, though.
I voted for McGovern in high school (not the real deal as I was underage), but I remember the dems as having real ideals back then...then something happened along the way...may have been Carter, I don't know.
Hey sam, my test got buried in posts today, but if you go to page 2, I posted a website that tested if you are liberal or conservative....I was so surprised to see that I was still 20% liberal!. No one else bothered to post their results, after I bared my political soul (so to speak....lol), so I wondered if maybe some of our liberal friends here, had a mite bit of conservative leaning in their makeup, and were afraid to post it!!
Yeah, and the SP thing is ridiculous. She is found
nm
Yeah, I agree about the rebellion thing....(sm)
I was talking about Sarah herself being the example, not her daughter. I think politicians should be held to a higher standard. Yeah, I know that Sarah wasn't the one that got pregnant, but in this day and age that doesn't matter too much. I think given the fact that the republican party was going to have a hard time winning the election anyway (considering the war, the economy, Bush, etc), it was just a bad choice to pick someone in that situation as a running mate. Having said that, I'm not sure just how much, if any, that situation actually hurt the ticket. If it did hurt the ticket then I would think that it hurt them more with pub votes more than with dems.
Yeah...good thing she isn't debating Obama...
nm
Yeah, it's the reverse racism thing. Happening in
nm
Threat?
GT explained what she meant in the post afterwards, which you conveniently ignored. She said: Yes, as in prove you are a bigoted fool, FRYE your butt.
Any reasonably intelligent person can see she was challenging this poster to be civil and honest and to debate instead of attack, as she herself explained in her above post. Obviously, the poster wasn't up for that challenge. 
So much for the threat. SM
This is what *I* consider a serious threat...sm
Not discounting whatever went on this weekend, but I thought this was of interest.
By the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:11 a.m. EST
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Complains of Right Wing Death Threats
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is complaining that she's getting death threats from detractors who belong to the irrational fringe of society - people she says who have been egged on by mainstream conservatives who have been critical of the High Court.
In quotes picked up by The Associated Press Wednesday, Ginsburg told the Constitutional Court of South Africa last month that somebody in an Internet chat room had issued a death threat against herself and her former colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Ginsburg, the chat room perpetrator declared:
OK commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our republic and constitutional freedom ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.
In a follow-up speech earlier this month, the Clinton-appointed justice said the whole experience had been disquieting for her.
The AP cited Ann Coulter as an example of a conservative who may have inadvertently encouraged radicals to threaten members of the court by joking during a recent speech that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
Democrat: It goes on to say that Ginsberg did not speak up when a liberal commentator made a *wish him an early death* about Clarence Thomas, but was that Ginsberg's place to do so? And if so, did Clarence Thomas speak out for her?
Nothing like the threat of a
brisk IRS proctological exam to get a politician's mind right.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've said before that you're leaving, but you and your goons can't sta
*Islamic Threat*
The *Islamic threat* grew over the past 50 years of our foreign policy. This did not happen just because as Bush says, they are jealous of our freedom. OMG, their ideology and ours are totally different and frankly, I dont think we will ever get a functioning democracy set up in the Middle East. Instead of doing what Blair is doing now, setting up meetings with Islamic organizations to try to defuse the situation, we went head strong into Iraq..Oh, we are America, we are gonna kick butt, and what happened, we are now fighting a world wide terrorist war with it's breeding ground Iraq and to a minimum Afghanistan. This was such an error in judgment and we will pay for it for decades to come. Bush and his administration dont have to worry. If we get attacked, they have bunkers, they have secret service that will be with them even after the term ends. It is us, who ride the subways, rail roads, buses, shop at the malls..we are the ones..the poor slobs on the farms, who are fighting Bush's war and will die in terrorist attacks. Thank you, Bush!
chavez threat
There have been many arrested over the past few years for just voicing threats that were meaningless, not like Robertson broadcasting all over the world about assassinating Chavez. That most certainly is a crime. You cannot threaten leaders of other countries, especially in a forum like Robertson has.
Iran is CLEARLY a threat and that was what he
was conveying. Making a statement about AVOIDING World War III is not irresponsible and I didn't hear him assume WWIII would evolve out of Iran specifically. ANY country with nuclear weapons could spawn WWIII.
American is clearly a threat to some
America is clearly a threat to many countries, especially seeing what we have been doing for the past four plus years and how we have fueled the hatred and terrorism around the world by chosing to invade and kill instead of holding diplomatic sessions..the thinking mans way of handling a disagreement/problem..no not cowboy Bush, he thinks nothing of sending over our loved ones to fight his illegal, immoral so wrong war, just as long as his daughters and the children of the lawmakers dont have to go.
She is a threat to Obama. and they will do
nm
Approaching threat.s are......
Israel and Aghanistan, not Iraq.
It all started in Afghanistan.
Obama threat already.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/10/obama.threat/?iref=mpstoryview
Perhaps. But to ignore the Islamic threat would mean sm
the end of life as we know it and we don't even want to imagine what the "new" life would be like. Be careful what you wish for.
Sounds like a threat to me. And hey, I am being nice here. SM
How about trying to be nice in return. This sounds like a threat:
Can I call your arse to task when you step off your ******* truce*******..You bet I will..So, honey, keep posting good posts, debate posts and you will be **in**, jump off that and your arse is fried..
The answer is, there is no terrorist threat. sm
That sums it up.
Thinly veiled threat
It was a thinly veiled threat. Like someone stating..if you are interested in my punching you in the nose, keep up the baloney. It was stated to make other countries shiver in their boots, however, what it does is make other countries race faster to make the nuclear bombs to protect themselves from the country they perceive as a terrorist country, the USA...you know the country that pre-emptively invaded a soverign nation which was no threat to them.
IED threat was known before war but troops not protected
I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this. Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.
Report: IED threat known before war |
By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.
The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.
The report is to be made public today.
Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.
Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.
The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.
When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.
The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.
Two U.S. senators Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.
"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."
USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.
Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.
The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.
MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm
threat to national security
and YOU have undisputed proof of this?
No threat to national security?
We just posted where these facilities are and what is going on, but hey....don't worry....no national security risk. OMG! What a bunch of flipping morons!!!
P.S. I don't recall anyone posting a near death threat to the
remote to that.
Why is it you are the only ones who are "free" to display your anger on your board?
If you take a look at the posts on this board, the only time they get nasty is when a troll from your board comes here and begins spewing your hatred and rage.
Why are you so angry? Your guy won.
Whenever a liberal raises an issue concerning a Bush administration policy or decision, I seldom see an intelligent thoughtful response come from most of you. Instead you attack the poster on a personal level when that poster never personally attacked YOU. They complained about Bush. Are you BUSH??
Time and time again, most of you come back with "all liberals" insults and rarely, if ever, address the question or issue that was raised.
If you can begin to understand that it isn't YOU PERSONALLY that we are referring to, maybe then we can begin to have an intelligent conversation on this board.
If you are a conservative, I respect your right to your opinions, and I'd like to learn more about them. I can't do that if all you do is throw insults, which you are "free" to do on your board, but if we are angered or insulted by them, we are not likewise "free" to express that.
I had hoped that these new boards would eliminate the personal favorites that seemed to exist on the other board. Looks like that isn't the case.
And as far as approaching the administrator about fairness, if I can't do that, then I truly don't belong in a forum like this one. I belong in one that doesn't play favorites, where intelligent discourse can occur, where personal insults and attacks are prohibited for everyone, not just for some.
I just wonder how many people you've chased away from here, besides me.
I don't think this quote refers to ignoring a threat...
I think it speaks about creating and justifying a war, and in the Iraq war's case, a hasty and simple-minded war. I don't know what Goering's thoughts were, but my own are that war should be a last resort and that seems like common sense. This is in no sense to be construed as downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism. I would like to mention there that a big complaint about the Iraq war was that Bush ignored or didn't wish to consider the advice of folks who had a solid background in the Middle East. The insurgency and threatening civil war were all predicted when we went to war but the advice was ignored. Bush, it seems, reversed the usual order in which a country is forced to go to war: He decided FIRST that he would go to war, then created justification, then ignored all the sage advice that Iraq was a potential powderkeg, and then he did what Goering prescribed to get the U.S. to rally around his cause (or at least some of the U.S.). That's how it appears anyway. I hope I am wrong about this but with the mounting well-documented evidence to the contrary I believe this will become the ultimate truth of the matter.
dorky song threat realized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPBxmrWqI-g&feature=related
Right! Beck is a threat to the left so as usual,
nm
Any ideas on how paying down too much debt could be a terrorist threat?nm
Careful! Some neocon troll might twist your post into a threat!!!
Who honestly cares, as long as the terrorist threat was stopped. sm
Until all of you stop your Bush rabid hatred, the terrorist threat is not only lost on you, you look for something more sinister and it all has to point to Bush. This is really disturbing.
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.
British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.
Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.
Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.
The evidence?
The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide very good cover and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.
The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.
So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.
Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.
What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?
Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.
The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.
It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.
This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.
Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.
The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?
Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?
In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.
In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.
What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?
The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?
If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!
I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.
Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!
Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.
Fortunately, Lurker, many on the left realize the threat from radical Islam. sm
It isn't political, but it has been made that way. That's why a lot of you have been lulled into being apologist for murdering Islamofascists.
yeah, yeah, yeah.....what he failed to mention...
is that the Dems are responsible for the mortgage meltdown which is responsible for the wall street meltdown. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank...totally to blame. Blocked every attemmpt by Bush Admin and yes, McCain, to regulate fannie/freddie. Dems certainly have selective memories...convenient bouts of amnesia. lol.
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
sick?
It is YOU who is coming off as sick..in the soul and psyche..Check yourself..Look into yourself..You are the one who is sick..
not sick of it at all
Its fascinating and I look forward to developing News. It is so much more important than what the girls on the Hills are wearing or who is dating who. If I was sick of it, I just would not come to a politic board though.
I do not want anything more. Whatever. Just sick
of the whole thing. So frustrated. Not sure what to believe or who to trust. I have stated this before, I do not trust either of them. McCain or Obama. Neither of them know what they are doing. I want to hear facts about what they are going to do to help the ECONOMY. That is the most important thing right now, not who Obama knows, etc. etc. The whole campaign has gotten hateful and turning me OFF. It is just wonderful to hear McCain supporters yelling "Kill him" (meaning Obama) at his rallies. What a country. GEEZ
you are sick?
Well I am sick of every time a Christian even MENTIONS their belief, people just automatically ASSUME that someone is trying to shove religion down their throat. At the first mention of any ACCOUNTABILITY in this world, then all of a sudden I am a Bible thumping fanatic. I am sick of MY RIGHTS for freedom of religion and freedom of speech being trampled all over by atheists, Muslims and any body who thinks that Christianity is wrong. I have rights too and I am ALLOWED to say that homosexuality is a sin and so is murder and so is racism. I am ALLOWED to say OUT LOUD that gay marriages are againts God. And by the way, this country was FOUNDED on Christian principles with God in our constitution, in our pledge of allegiance, on our money, and then this country becomes so politically correct it is all taken out. That goes against MY RIGHTS. I am sick of hearing all the new age blah blah blah that states there is no God or god is in everyone crap. So if I have to listen to YOU then I guess you have to listen to ME.
That is sick, would never wish for that. However, the
nm
That's almost as sick as...(sm)
priests molesting little boys. The church operated w/o government regulations over this sort of thing for how long? -- Your post exemplifies the idea of christianity. -- Let's point a finger and induce guilt. Oh, and by the way, you might want to check on how those children who were put up for adoption are getting along. They don't all go to those nice, loving homes you talk about. A large majority grow up bouncing from foster parent to foster parent or in orphanages, halfway houses and the like. Yeah, their future looks bright. Geeez.
FOR THE SICK.....(sm)
I thought I would post this as a helpful hint for those of you who are being sickened by the celebration that is being covered on TV. I understand that this sickness has some very compelling side effects, such as making the affected post derogatory comments on message boards. It seems to have turned into an epidemic. Thankfully there are people like myself who are concerned for those of you with the sickness. I have studied it and have come to the scientific conclusion that there is only one definitive cure:
TURN OFF THE TV
How sick is this?
A philadelphia, PA abortion clinic is going to offer free abortions (murders) in "honor" of george tiller, the murdered abortionist. This country has become so depraved that we honor a killing by killing others (babies nonetheless; the most helpless in our society)!!!
What a sick bunch of people!
What's even more sick...(sm)
is that a right-wing anti-abortion group wants to buy Tiller's building and set up a memorial for Tiller's killer.
|
