lukeduke 8 Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Breaking news I didn't see posted anywhere else, mods please merge if it's posted elsewhere Breaking News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Call me a bad person, but I can't help but wonder if she or her campaign wasn't behind this somehow. Look at what a martyr she's becoming. Free face time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,028 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Call me a bad person, but I can't help but wonder if she or her campaign wasn't behind this somehow. Look at what a martyr she's becoming. Free face time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autiger4life 3 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Call me a bad person, but I can't help but wonder if she or her campaign wasn't behind this somehow. Look at what a martyr she's becoming. Free face time too. Wow, I mean wow. I can't stand Hilary and would sooner vote for a republican over her, but wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Call me a bad person, but I can't help but wonder if she or her campaign wasn't behind this somehow. Look at what a martyr she's becoming. Free face time too. Wow, I mean wow. I can't stand Hilary and would sooner vote for a republican over her, but wow. Throw a few more wow's in there and Snoop might accuse you for copyright infringement. The guy threatened no one. He walked in there with a fake bomb - he obviously just wanted to scare people. This is no different than the MIT chick walking through the airport with a fake bomb. There's no need sensationalizing the event, the media did a bang up job already. If he marched in there with an AK or a real bomb looking to off someone, I wouldn't have been so "intolerant" and made such an "insensitive" remark. The fact is, he wasn't. He's got a few screws loose, just like the MIT girl. No one was harmed, or even in any remote danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autiger4life 3 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Throw a few more wow's in there and Snoop might accuse you for copyright infringement. The guy threatened no one. He walked in there with a fake bomb - he obviously just wanted to scare people. This is no different than the MIT chick walking through the airport with a fake bomb. There's no need sensationalizing the event, the media did a bang up job already. If he marched in there with an AK or a real bomb looking to off someone, I wouldn't have been so "intolerant" and made such an "insensitive" remark. The fact is, he wasn't. He's got a few screws loose, just like the MIT girl. No one was harmed, or even in any remote danger. First of all, next time you have a family member taken hostage by a mental ill person, go ahead and say that it really wasn't a big deal and that he just had a few screws loose. Second of all, I never said intolerant or insensitive so don't try to pull the, "oh here comes the bleeding heart liberal" ploy. The point is that while no one was harmed and he didn't have a real bomb, you still jump to it being a ploy from the Clinton campain. Is it a story that should be covered for a month, no. I don't even think that he was there because he was anti-clinton, he was just messed up in the head and wanted someone to pay attention to him. But to suggest that it was her behind it just because the press is covering it(as they should cover any hostage situation) is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,055 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Throw a few more wow's in there and Snoop might accuse you for copyright infringement. The guy threatened no one. He walked in there with a fake bomb - he obviously just wanted to scare people. This is no different than the MIT chick walking through the airport with a fake bomb. There's no need sensationalizing the event, the media did a bang up job already. If he marched in there with an AK or a real bomb looking to off someone, I wouldn't have been so "intolerant" and made such an "insensitive" remark. The fact is, he wasn't. He's got a few screws loose, just like the MIT girl. No one was harmed, or even in any remote danger. First of all, next time you have a family member taken hostage by a mental ill person, go ahead and say that it really wasn't a big deal and that he just had a few screws loose. Second of all, I never said intolerant or insensitive so don't try to pull the, "oh here comes the bleeding heart liberal" ploy. The point is that while no one was harmed and he didn't have a real bomb, you still jump to it being a ploy from the Clinton campain. Is it a story that should be covered for a month, no. I don't even think that he was there because he was anti-clinton, he was just messed up in the head and wanted someone to pay attention to him. But to suggest that it was her behind it just because the press is covering it(as they should cover any hostage situation) is ridiculous. Call me a bad person, but I can't help but wonderif she or her campaign wasn't behind this somehow. Look at what a martyr she's becoming. Free face time too. Just for clarification Big 65 said I can't help but wonder if. Now you are jumping to the "First of all, next time you have a family member taken hostage by a mental ill person,". Get a grip. In fact I and many others can't help but wonder why you would be so outraged over 6 - 5's response but Muslim murders you defend at every opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Heck, I'll admit that when I heard about this, the first thing that went through my mind was wondering if Clinton was behind it to get some sympathy. Seeing how she has taken a beaten lately for planting people to ask questions in more then one debate, I do not think that would be illogical. Hell, investigators in law enforcement have to ask questions like that all the time instead of assuming anything. So why would you bash a person for wondering the same thing? I did dismiss the idea because I thought not even Hilary Clinton, as shady as the Clintons are, would not be that stupid to pull something like that. Something like that getting exposed is much worse then planting her own people in debate and would kill her chances, not to mention get her arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,028 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 So do you guys think it is okay to "wonder" if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 in so that they could win popularity and new powers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,055 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 So do you guys think it is okay to "wonder" if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 in so that they could win popularity and new powers? Do you not see a difference? In fact the dems went way beyond just wondering in the situation you referenced, didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,028 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 So do you guys think it is okay to "wonder" if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 in so that they could win popularity and new powers? Do you not see a difference? In fact the dems went way beyond just wondering in the situation you referenced, didn't they? It's not "the dems". The difference is a matter of degree. It is frankly silly to suspect either to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,055 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 So do you guys think it is okay to "wonder" if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 in so that they could win popularity and new powers? Do you not see a difference? In fact the dems went way beyond just wondering in the situation you referenced, didn't they? It's not "the dems". The difference is a matter of degree. It is frankly silly to suspect either to be the case. Agreed it is silly, but then many distrust Hillary less than I do. As for 'It's not "the dems".". If it was not the dems, who was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,028 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 So do you guys think it is okay to "wonder" if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 in so that they could win popularity and new powers? Do you not see a difference? In fact the dems went way beyond just wondering in the situation you referenced, didn't they? It's not "the dems". The difference is a matter of degree. It is frankly silly to suspect either to be the case. Agreed it is silly, but then many distrust Hillary less than I do. As for 'It's not "the dems".". If it was not the dems, who was it? "The nuts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Well, Hillary DID plant questioners in the Republican debate, so we know she's capable of some seriously dirty pool. But this is waaaaaaayyyyy over the top. We're talking "Wag The Dog" kind of stuff. And far too easy to trace back. No operative is going to jail for a stunt like this. So, maybe scale back on the paranoia just a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 So do you guys think it is okay to "wonder" if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 in so that they could win popularity and new powers? Only you would compare a nut case strapping a flare onto his chest to the murder of 3,000 US citizens as being on par w/ each other so some can gain support politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,028 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 So do you guys think it is okay to "wonder" if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 in so that they could win popularity and new powers? Only you would compare a nut case strapping a flare onto his chest to the murder of 3,000 US citizens as being on par w/ each other so some can gain support politically. I didn't compare the two, moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 So do you guys think it is okay to "wonder" if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 in so that they could win popularity and new powers? Only you would compare a nut case strapping a flare onto his chest to the murder of 3,000 US citizens as being on par w/ each other so some can gain support politically. I didn't compare the two, moron. Yes, you did. Moron. It's not " ok " to wonder if Bush/Cheney had anything to do w/ 9/11, because that was such a blatent and horrific attack on the US as well as humanity in general. But whether or not Hillary would pull a stunt like this ? Why even bring up 9/11 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autiger4life 3 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 In fact I and many others can't help but wonder why you would be so outraged over 6 - 5's response but Muslim murders you defend at every opportunity. I swear to God you should be in politics. You have an uncanny ablility to point to one thing and say a completely different thing. I have never once defended anyone who has ever murdered someone else. I have defended Islam as not being a religon that teaches violence but never have I denied that some muslims are violent or defend those that are. Point to one time I have defended a person who has killed another. Name one. From here on out on this topic every time I see your name I will ask for you to name the time I defended a murderer. If you can find that I will write an apology to you in PM and in a public post, so everyone be looking for it because if he can find it then the apology will come and I promise you that I will back up what I have just said. If however that he cannot find something that shows that I defended a murder(not Islam, I have defended Islam and the fact that if a person claims a religon and commits a crime it does not make that religon violent) then we all need to step back and realize how ridiculous it is that people(on both sides) make comments that are unfounded and untrue and stop allowing it. Please do not argue about the view I put forward here about Islam, its the stuff in the (). We can discuss that on its own topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Well, Hillary DID plant questioners in the Republican debate, so we know she's capable of some seriously dirty pool. But this is waaaaaaayyyyy over the top. We're talking "Wag The Dog" kind of stuff. And far too easy to trace back. No operative is going to jail for a stunt like this. So, maybe scale back on the paranoia just a bit. I don't think anybody is being paranoid by having a passing thought if this was a setup. Like you said, since she had planted those questioners, I think it was only natural to have that thought, not paranoid. It would not have been the first time a politician did something really crazy out of desperation. I do think comparing the fleeting thought of this being some campaign ploy to the serious accusations made about 9/11 is a bit much, Tex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 So do you guys think it is okay to "wonder" if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 in so that they could win popularity and new powers? Do you not see a difference? In fact the dems went way beyond just wondering in the situation you referenced, didn't they? It's not "the dems". The difference is a matter of degree. It is frankly silly to suspect either to be the case. Agreed it is silly, but then many distrust Hillary less than I do. As for 'It's not "the dems".". If it was not the dems, who was it? "The nuts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,055 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 In fact I and many others can't help but wonder why you would be so outraged over 6 - 5's response but Muslim murders you defend at every opportunity. I swear to God you should be in politics. You have an uncanny ablility to point to one thing and say a completely different thing. I have never once defended anyone who has ever murdered someone else. I have defended Islam as not being a religon that teaches violence but never have I denied that some muslims are violent or defend those that are. Point to one time I have defended a person who has killed another. Name one. From here on out on this topic every time I see your name I will ask for you to name the time I defended a murderer. If you can find that I will write an apology to you in PM and in a public post, so everyone be looking for it because if he can find it then the apology will come and I promise you that I will back up what I have just said. If however that he cannot find something that shows that I defended a murder(not Islam, I have defended Islam and the fact that if a person claims a religon and commits a crime it does not make that religon violent) then we all need to step back and realize how ridiculous it is that people(on both sides) make comments that are unfounded and untrue and stop allowing it. Please do not argue about the view I put forward here about Islam, its the stuff in the (). We can discuss that on its own topic. Your panties are a little tight tonight aren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autiger4life 3 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Your panties are a little tight tonight aren't they? Please show me where I defended a murderer. And maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.