Strife767
-
Posts
2,138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Strife767
-
-
I know it's very difficult but try not to be an idiot.
If the pattern's taught me anything, a post starting with this is sure to have little to no actual content. Let's see...
The parents can't be in the same room with the team.Why in the world not, if concern over the safety of the kids spending a night at a hotel is so great? Surely it would do a lot more good than a piece of tape.
Non-sequitur, it seems.
-
Hey Bern, do you have any kids?
Maybe before you open your trap to try to make a big deal out of nothing, you should ask these kids parents how they feel about the safety of their kids.
Look at that fallacious appeal to emotion.
The tape does not create safety in the least, so the above statement is total non-sequitur.They know these doors are taped, many of these kids parents are there as well.There are parents with them? And you still think the tape is necessary? If the kids aren't even left 100% alone, then all the less reason.
Looks like the question that you started your post with wasn't sincere--you were more than happy to make the assumption that was necessary for this last part here.
-
That is the point of the tape.
It's not silly when you have 60 girls on the team that he is responsible for.
It is considering that if something happened to them, the tape would make no difference overall. Not to mention that if multiple people are in a room (as I imagine they'd have to be), what would Paszkiewicz do, yell at all the occupants even if it was just one of them who snuck out?
What's next, cowbells around the neck?
Unless there's one person per room, it would only narrow it down at best, actually.
-
Garcia,
Let's pretend your sister was part of the crew team.
Lets pretend that she was on one of these overnight trips and Mr.P. did not take the time to tape the door and make sure that she was safe and something did happen to her?
Wait, are you saying that tape on the door would magically prevent anything form happening?
Taping the doors doesn't make anyone safe all by itself. That's like saying that putting a "do not rob" sign on your front lawn will keep your home from getting burglarized.
Your reasoning is silly. The tape would keep tabs on someone sneaking out, but it would do absolutely zero to protect them while they're in their room. However much protection that locked door gives, the tape does not add to.
-
It directly agrees with this terrorism expert who is a consultant to several government agencies:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006...the_terror.html
Wonder why that is?
-
-
What makes you such an authority on the mindset of terrorists (they want to
scare us)?
The word is TERRORist. How do you think they earned that name? Dictionary definition: "noun: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon"
You don't have to be an authority to know how something as basic as how terrorism works. Just open a history book once in a while. Hell, it's right in the name, come on.
That's ridiculous. They want to kill us. Were the 3,000+ people on9/11 scared or killed?
The people in the towers and the planes were not the real targets; the rest of us were. IIRC, Osama was pleasantly surprised because he didn't expect the towers to fall at all.
When you cannot be assured of having a phone call with someone overseas without it being listened in on by the government, that liberty is already lost. Where is the paranoia there? You just confirmed that what you're alleging I'm "paranoid" about is already actually happening! Please explain how being outraged at something that is already actually F**KING happening is "paranoid." Listen to yourself. Listen to how desperate you are to dismiss what I'm saying. Think about what is being given up in exchange for the illusion of security.
I ask again: whatever happened to probable cause? Attacks like 9/11 are not planned in one phone call. The government would have plenty of time to get a warrant to record suspicious communication. So why doesn't it? Because it doesn't care about the freedoms of all of us who aren't planning terrorist attacks on the phone, don't you see?
-
For the record, you're a nut job too.
Coming from someone who is wrong as often as you are, I'll take that as a compliment.
-
-
I'm a registered democrat and I agree with you. Clinton didn't have the
backbone to be president in this time of global terrorism. I hear my friends
complaining about the Patriot Act, saying it takes away our freedom. Well,
would you prefer that we not try to discover terrorists plotting against us?
Again, those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither. It's a sad day when this country has forgotten the meaning of "essential liberties" and how important it was to have them.
I read on this board some people saying Bush didn't protect us from theterrorists on 9/11, that the intelligence wasn't good enough. These are the
same people complaining about the Patriot Act!
Actually, most of that 'sentiment' is just a jab at the Bush-heads who seem to think that having Bush in office makes us impervious to terrorist attacks. Pointing out the fact that he didn't stop 9/11 is just injecting a bit of reality back into the equation.
Well which way do you want it?Do you want your "freedoms" protected or do you want to prevent terrorism?
Don't you see how terrorism works? The whole point is to SCARE you. If we had been able to show that their plans failed, that would deter them a whole hell of a lot more than the woefully misnamed "Patriot Act". You know what would kill their morale? Rebuilding the Twin Towers immediately (and hell, make them one floor higher just to spite them). I'm sure we could have rebuilt them in less time than it took them to plan the attacks! What better way to demoralize terrorists and their cause than to negate all of their efforts and planning and show them that we can build faster than they can destroy?
Instead, people like you do exactly what they want. You get scared, and you become willing to hand over the freedoms that generations of people have fought and died for, just for the illusion of security. Yes, it's an illusion. You CAN'T make an airplane 100% safe; too many people have access. Even with all of the added checking and stopping going on in airports since 9/11, it's still only a small percentage of people who are actually stopped and thoroughly checked. What terrorist wouldn't take those odds? Even if it was 99% (and even something like 50% would slow airports down to the point of unusability), the terrorists would still try, because of their fanatical devotion to their cause. And eventually, one of them would get through and cause another disaster. Then what?
You have to be realistic about this. Those freedoms you're so willing to concede? A whole lot of people have fought pretty damned hard to get them. Don't squander them. It isn't worth it. Handing over essential liberties will not stop maniacs from trying to kill us, it will not stop the occasional one from succeeding, and too many people have given their lives for these freedoms for me to be willing to just hand them over for the illusion of safety.
Everyone would like to see America as it was in 1968 (the summer of love),but it's a different world today and if we don't adapt to todays threats we'll
suffer another attack possibly worse than 9/11. I wish some of you that hate
Bush would stop and think about this, if we don't keep a step ahead of the
terrorists, if we let them catch us with our guard down, they will attack us in
any way they can. I'm grateful that Bush is doing all he can to protect us and
I will vote republican in the next election, I don't think Hilliary, Obama or
Edwards is capable of protecting us.
NO ONE is capable of perfectly protecting us. If you think that's possible, you are living in a dream world. Nothing short of housing the entire population of the US in bomb shelters and never allowing them to leave would come even close to doing the job. I wonder if you would be willing to go that far just to feel safe.
-
-
The first attack on the WTC was much less sophisticated with far less planning
involved.
So, it would have been easier to thwart, and yet it wasn't. Bush Sr. had even less of an excuse to fail at it, by your logic.
-
"resign the presidency in disgrace"??? You're confused. Even though Bubba
Clinton
I think he meant Nixon, hotshot; he was a Republican.
disgraced the presidency by committing adultry in the white houseI'd rather have a president who sleeps around than one who racks up trillions of dollars in a pointless "war" anyday.
and lying -
-
-
-
If you were a Jew which obviously you're not, you would know it is spelled with a C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah#Alte..._Hebrew_letters
In short, classic Hebrew = H, modern Hebrew = Ch. He wasn't wrong.
-
WRITING IN ALL CAPS DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=78039
-
I'm still waiting for Nancy Pelosi and her merry band of defeatocratic
fools to acknowledge the dramatic decrease in violence in Iraq.
We're all still waiting for your ilk to acknowledge the dramatic increase of violence in Iraq, caused by this ridiculous invasion that's done nothing but increase terrorism in the Middle East.
Our troops are doing a terrific job under terrible conditionsNo thanks to the woefully substandard equipment they're using.
and yet even at Christmas thedefeatocrats cannot find it in their hearts to acknowledge the great job our
troops are doing.
Increasing violence dramatically and then reducing it to a level still well above what it was before the initial increase is nothing to be proud of. Bring the soldiers home.
"According to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll released here Tuesday, only 26 percent of poll respondents approve Republicans in Congress, compared with 33 percent of approval in Feb.
There is no good news for Democrats either. The poll also finds the approval rating for Democrats in Congress down to 30 percent, a drop of 11 percent from Feb.
Bush's approval rating stands at 32 percent and has been low for the past two years.
"The American people just decided that Washington is either incompetent or irrelevant," said Frank Luntz, a pollster.
"Republicans made promises they didn't keep, and Democrats made promises they couldn't keep. And now it's a pox on all their houses," he said.
Nevertheless, there is still a silver lining for Democrats, as poll respondents favor the party by a 53-percent to 40-percent margin in next year's elections.
The poll was conducted from Dec. 14-16 among 1011 American adults nationwide."
-
-
"better to die on your feet than live on your knees" ??
Yes.
More lies and confirmation of your cowardice. You're willing to give up your freedoms for the illusion of security, not me. You'll believe anything your idol tells you, and you hide from reality whenever it isn't what you want it to be.
You're spineless.
-
So you consider our soldiers who have died as "dying in vain."
They were given an impossible task. That isn't their fault, but the fact is that because of that, nothing is being accomplished, regardless of their sacrifice. That breaks my heart, and it would affect you too, if you had any compassion whatsoever.
-
I don't think that the persons here believe that the Soldiers are dying in vain in the literal sense. What I think they are trying to say is that the soldiers are dying because of an ill advised foreign policy debacle that should never have occurred in the first place.
There's that, and the fact that the soldiers obviously aren't accomplishing (very understandably, don't get me wrong) the insane task that the Bush Administration has dropped on them--to stabilize Iraq with nothing but military force.
That's exactly it. Guns alone cannot solve this problem, and that was something anyone with common sense knew from the beginning. Bush himself criticized the idea of invading a nation without an exit strategy, and yet there we F**KING are.
It is no wonder that all but the most indoctrinated Bushites are pissed the hell off at this lying, doubletalking, freedom-snatching administration.
-
This is just the kind of response I did not ask for. What happened to you people, that you can't just wish someone "Happy Holiday"? I bet you would find a problem wishing someone to "Have a nice day". I said it that way, because I have friends in many faiths, and who don't have any religious beliefs, it doesn't make them a bad person. Like I said, "religion is a private matter". So to those of you that don't like Christmas, couldn't care less or whatever your problem is, "Have a nice day!". And to those of you who celebrate, again "Happy Holiday"
Cheers!
The tape does not create safety in the least, so the above statement is total non-sequitur.
David Paszkiewicz should be fired
in Kearny
Posted
Pathetic and infantile. Grow the hell up.
You're totally incapable of thinking of any 'setup' between taping the rooms and that? Talk about a false dichotomy; very black and white world you must live in.