|
22 Feb 08 - 12:49 PM (#2269666) Subject: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Genie Ft. Worth Star-Telegram 2-2-08 [[Friday, Feb 22, 2008 Posted on Thu, Feb. 21, 2008 Police concerned about order to stop weapons screening at Obama rally By JACK DOUGLAS Jr. Star-Telegram Staff Writer DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena. The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security. Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on. "Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd." The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment. Doors opened to the public at 10 a.m., and for the first hour security officers scanned each person who came in and checked their belongings in a process that kept movement of the long lines at a crawl. Then, about 11 a.m., an order came down to allow the people in without being checked. Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection. They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event. "How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.]] Is someone trying for a replay of 1963 or 1968? This really sucks! |
|
22 Feb 08 - 12:54 PM (#2269670) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: wysiwyg I said he'd be assassinated a few weeks ago-- it was a moment in his speeches when he crossed the invisible line. If he ends up the nominee, I doubt he'll make it to the election. I have been concerned all along that with Obama, what we will get is another Presidential Figurehead, run by backgrounders as much and as dangerously as Bush has been. Trust me, the powers that be will not leave Obama in place for very long and the further he gets, the more this will be true. And we will never really know who and why ordered or carried out the hit. There will be all the same fervor for conspiracies that we have seen before, all a lovely smokescreen obscuring the record so it can never be untangled. ~Susan |
|
22 Feb 08 - 01:29 PM (#2269703) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Wesley S That bothered me too. When the need to fill the seats overshadows the need for protecting someones life then mistakes will be made. They were lucky this time. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 01:41 PM (#2269711) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Mrrzy Unbelievable! |
|
22 Feb 08 - 01:42 PM (#2269712) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Peace Where did the order come from? |
|
22 Feb 08 - 01:50 PM (#2269718) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: katlaughing I said he'd be assassinated a few weeks ago-- it was a moment in his speeches when he crossed the invisible line. If he ends up the nominee, I doubt he'll make it to the election Jaysus effing keyriced, let's keep putting THAT out there in the consciousness, shall we? Here is a follow-up. Not saying it vindicates them, but at least it is up-to-date: Published: Feb. 22, 2008 at 1:40 PM Print story Email to a friend Font size: WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- The U.S. Secret Service Friday denied reports that security measures at a recent Barack Obama rally in Texas were relaxed or deviated from established plans. Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said there was no order from the Secret Service to stop screening people going to the Obama rally Wednesday at Dallas's Reunion Arena. He said that the event's security plans didn't involve having each participant pass through a magnetometer, as may be the case at other events. The Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram reported that some police at the event expressed concern about people not passing through metal detectors. "Any allegations to the fact that we had suspended screening or deviated from the original security plan would be entirely inaccurate," Zahren said. Obama, D-Ill., spoke before some 17,000 supporters at the rally ahead of the March 4 primary election in Texas. There were no security-related incidents. While stressing that security preparations are different for each venue and event, Zahren said officials were happy with the security plan for the rally at Reunion Arena and the way it was implemented. Limited use of metal detectors "in no way constituted a security lapse at this venue," Zahren said, adding that the security measures were developed with Dallas-area law enforcement personnel. Now, how about we ALL send HIM good thoughts of safety and longevity, okay? Unless, of course, you'd like for it to happen so you can smugly say you knew it. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM (#2269725) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Wesley S Anytime you get 17,000 of us Texans together then SOMEONE will have a gun. And I'm not just talking about the police. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 01:59 PM (#2269728) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: jacqui.c Not just Texans either Wes - I would think it could apply to many parts of the USA. I agree with you Kat - the thought that this guy might be in danger has surely crossed the minds of a number of people but it ain't one I like to see in print, even on this site. I've had a feeling that he would go far from the first time I became aware of him and wish him all the luck in the world. If I could vote I would vote for Obama. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 01:59 PM (#2269731) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: PoppaGator Susan, I've had that same thought, but have tried to observe the policy that it's best not to say anything out loud. it was a moment in his speeches when he crossed the invisible line. I wonder if we both reacted to the same moment, watching a speech on TV. He was pausing a moment whie the crowd applauded/cheered, seemed to get a "faraway look in his eye," and sort of gulped ~ I just saw his adam's apple bob up and down momentarily. I had that awful thought and didn't say anything, but a few seconds later my wife said it out loud. She must have reacted to the same thing I saw. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 02:00 PM (#2269732) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: irishenglish Wysiwyg-I can't believe you think that Obama would be a puppethead? Regardless of if you would vote for him or not, the man is more intelligent in his sleep than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, etc. have been there entire life. Look at the other Obama thread on here for his response to whether he read a certain philosopher-he does, and he had an answer to an off the cuff question about that philosopher! I doubt Bush could even name 5 philosophers! |
|
22 Feb 08 - 02:04 PM (#2269738) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Wesley S This just in this afternoon: DALLAS - A police motorcycle officer died after a crash while escorting Hillary Rodham Clinton's motorcade to a campaign rally. "We are just heartsick at this loss of life in the line of duty," a subdued Clinton said in a statement to reporters after the rally. Clinton cut short her next appearance in Fort Worth, Texas, so she could visit the officer's family. The officer died after apparently crashing into a concrete barrier along a viaduct near downtown Dallas. Aerial video showed wreckage scattered for several yards and emergency medical technicians laboring to treat the officer. Dallas police spokesman Sgt. Gil Cerda said he had no details on the crash, which happened shortly after 9 a.m. The New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate also said she planned to contact the police chief to express her sympathy. "It is important that we respect and appreciate their service," she said. "I certainly am grateful for all they do for me." After the wreck, the victim was taken to nearby Methodist Medical Center, where Police Chief David Kunkle was seen arriving shortly afterward. The name of the officer was not released. In August 2006, an Albuquerque, N.M., police officer in President Bush's motorcade died in a motorcycle crash. Germaine Casey, 40, died on Aug. 27 when he crashed as Bush returned to the airport after a fundraiser for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. In November 2006, Honolulu police Officer Steve Favela died when he and two other motorcycle officers crashed while part of a presidential motorcade. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 03:55 PM (#2269801) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: McGrath of Harlow "...the security measures were developed with Dallas-area law enforcement personnel. Now that's a reassurance that just sends shivers up the spine, doesn't it, with its echoes of 1963. .............................. ..."the thought that this guy might be in danger has surely crossed the minds of a number of people but it ain't one I like to see in print, even on this site." Does printing it on screen makes it more likely to happen? That strikes me as close to magical thinking. Obviously there's a real risk. A larger risk than the one that any President or presidential candidate has. Undoubtedly Obama knows that, and has considered it, and decided he wouldn't let it stop him doing what he felt was the right thing. That's the only way to deal with this aspect of American politics, not to pretend it's not there, but to face it and to set it aside. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 04:21 PM (#2269834) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: katlaughing McGrath, the subconscious is like a sponge soaking up what it hears/reads/sees, anything we "input" just as we input on our computers. Like a computer it takes in negative and positive without any directive as to which is which, unless we tell it through meditation/prayer/mindfull awareness/etc., IMO. If Chicken Little says enough times "the sky is falling"...his subconscious will believe it and manifest some kind of disaster as directed, IMO. If one doesn't believe in the cause and effect of words/beliefs/etc. then of course, predict away, print it all over, tell it to the world. If, instead you'd like to help the planet to be a safer place, then send out those Good Thoughts we Mudcatters seem to be so good at and seem to believe in so much and watch what happens...every positive thought/action is worth ten times any negative one, IMO. In other words, why feed the negative by sanctimoniously announcing you'd already predicted an assassination? IF you believe in the power of prayer, why negate your god by announcing someone will not live beyond a certain time? Talk about pre-empting one's god's will! And, all of this before we've ever heard anything about who his running mate will be, so we know who would serve if something did happen. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 04:47 PM (#2269864) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: McGrath of Harlow I don't think that facing up to and articulating fears about the bad things that could happen can somehow negate God's will. The most damaging fears ("most negative") are the ones we don't allow ourselves to face. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 04:49 PM (#2269868) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: wysiwyg God forbid we mention the elephant in the living room! Hushhushhush!!!!! ~S~ |
|
22 Feb 08 - 04:52 PM (#2269871) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: McGrath of Harlow Elephant in the White House. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 04:57 PM (#2269874) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: wysiwyg Kat, I don't use my belief system to condemn you, and I'll thank you for the same courtesy you've expected of me for years. ~S~ |
|
22 Feb 08 - 05:07 PM (#2269881) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: katlaughing McGrath, the way Poppa said no, I agree with you. It was the way Susan stated it...not just facing it, but declaring it to be so. Make fun of it if you will, Susan. The power of the spoken word is no stranger to your belief system. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 09:01 PM (#2270061) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: wysiwyg Making FUN of it?!?!?!? Take another look. You have been off on your estimates of me all day. Way off, lady. ~S~ |
|
22 Feb 08 - 09:13 PM (#2270073) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: GUEST,Guest Obama isn't any more at risk than Clinton is. Both are equally vulnerable to nut cases who don't want them, and not just because of their race/gender. Let's grow up a bit, people. They are targets, because high profile presidential candidates are ALWAYS targets. If two Catholics can be assassinated, then of course the first woman and African American are gonna be targets too, that's true. But the last major target for an assassin was Reagan, a wildly popular WASPM. So go figure. The likelihood of assassination of either of them? Not very likely, IMO. A LOT has changed in terms of security since the heady days of political assassinations in the 60s, and in the post 9/11 era, there is a much bigger bubble around the candidates, keeping everyone very far away from them. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 10:03 PM (#2270088) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Sorcha Play nice, kids. All of you. And yes, the spoken/written word DOES have power. Lots of it. No matter which belief system you opt into. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 10:44 PM (#2270097) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Genie All candidates for high office are at risk and need security protection. Just look at the history of political elections over the past few decades. And those who are perceived as threatening by The Powers That Be are even more vulnerable. I agree that putting out the meme that so-and-so is likely to be assassinated may make that more likely to happen, if only by way of putting the idea in the head of some nut case who had not yet chosen a target. So, yeah, I, too, am bothered by prophecies about Obama (or Clinton or anyone) being assassinated, because prophecies can too easily become self-fulfilling. That said, I think when there is a security lapse of the sort initially reported by the Ft Worth Star-Telegram it needs to be reported. And I don't find the subsequent 'Calm-down,-it was no big deal" reports from TPTB all that reassuring. G |
|
22 Feb 08 - 11:22 PM (#2270106) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: katlaughing God forbid we mention the elephant in the living room! Hushhushhush!!!!! Well, that was way too clever and such a put-down, too. |
|
22 Feb 08 - 11:25 PM (#2270108) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: wysiwyg I'm known for being in the minority of people who can and do speak bluntly when it is called for. Some people have opined about my post, and that's fine. Some have tried to control what I say. IMO that is a boundary violation-- bullying-- much more serious (and fear-based BTW) than my simple observation of the obvious. Motives have been assigned to me that have nothing to do with my thought or my beliefs. I don't like that. I can and will be equally blunt about that. I don't do "nice." I do "honest." Someone is looking for a fight where there was none, IMO. ~Susan |
|
23 Feb 08 - 01:32 PM (#2270440) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: McGrath of Harlow "All candidates for high office are at risk and need security protection. Just look at the history of political elections over the past few decades... I agree that putting out the meme that so-and-so is likely to be assassinated may make that more likely to happen, if only by way of putting the idea in the head of some nut case who had not yet chosen a target." The first of Genie's paragraphs is self evidently true. The second seems very unlikely indeed to me. "I feel like assassinating someone - now whom should I pick. Let's have a look around the Internet for suggestions..." |
|
23 Feb 08 - 11:49 PM (#2270760) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: fumblefingers Obama came to Dallas, made his speech to thousands of swooning fans, then left for south Texas to make more promises of change to a horde of wetbacks. He left Texas as alive as he was when he arrived. Much ado... |
|
24 Feb 08 - 09:17 AM (#2270916) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: GUEST,Guest 'a horde of wetbacks'? What a racist thing to say. |
|
24 Feb 08 - 09:26 AM (#2270922) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: kendall Susan, have you ever had an unspoken thought? Since I lost my voice, I have been amazed at how little what I wanted to say is worth saying. |
|
24 Feb 08 - 10:19 AM (#2270952) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: katlaughing Honest is owning up to spiritual malpractice when one has mis-used the power of the written/spoken word, esp. when one Knows of that power. |
|
24 Feb 08 - 10:25 AM (#2270958) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Amos Since I lost my voice, I have been amazed at how little what I wanted to say is worth saying. Man, if it's the case with you, how much more so with those who spend their days saying twice as much as they think. But what is really important is what you think. In a funny way, that is what the living minds around you respond to, with the words acting more as an important bridging device, but not essential. A |
|
24 Feb 08 - 10:59 AM (#2270971) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: wysiwyg Kat, you seem determined to pick a fight with me that I do not have time or desire to conduct. I respectfully decline. BTW, folks, um-- the whole premise of this thread was about concerns for Obama's safety in light of assassinations. Excuse me for contributing MY reaction to the news, the thread, and the topic! :~) Sheeshe. I just gotta work on that mind-reading thing-- you know, knowing in advance who is going to be offended, how, why, and when. ;~) ~Susan |
|
24 Feb 08 - 12:19 PM (#2271027) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Stilly River Sage God forbid we mention the elephant in the living room! Hushhushhush!!!!! [snip] I'm known for being in the minority of people who can and do speak bluntly when it is called for. . . I don't do "nice." I do "honest." That "elephant" only appeared when you wrote the word. Amazing how that works, and it's an indefensible position once it is out there. The "nice" vs "honest" argument is the rhetorical equivalent of lipstick on a pig. IMHO SRS |
|
24 Feb 08 - 12:37 PM (#2271047) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Jeri It was something a lot of people thought, especially since there's been quite a bit of comparison to JFK. Everybody knew the elephant was there, it wasn't a secret. Nobody wanted to state the bloody obvious possibility, let along say it with such conviction. I see you, and raise your faux pas by $100 of crassness. Susan, if really feel so sure the man's going to be dead in a few months that you stick to your original statement, I'll make this bet: You say Obama dies before the election if he's nominated. I say he'll live until the election if he's nominated. If he's not nominated, the bet's off. Loser donates $100 to Mudcat. |
|
24 Feb 08 - 01:58 PM (#2271113) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: wysiwyg Jeri, you make far too much sense as usual. :~) No bet. No bucks! I am sorry if my post came across as either conviction or desire; it was a shared worry, nothing more. We all seem to have strong feelings about this (Obama) and far too little time to mindread perfectly or to write for imperfect mindreaders. ~S~ |
|
24 Feb 08 - 02:01 PM (#2271114) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: wysiwyg (Jeri, [PS], I was thinking earlier this AM that maybe when the thread originator asked if it was going to be Dallas all over again, she MUST have meant that Michelle Obama had been seen in a pink suit and pillbox hat and that the thread really was meant as a fashion slam. No?...... No, it was the elephant. ~S~) |
|
24 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM (#2271117) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: GUEST,Guest I can't believe you people. Did you not read what fumblefingers wrote? He said "a horde of wetbacks". This raises no outrage, when people speak like this in your midst? You keep on fueling a cat fight in the other room, and let the racist stuff slide? Where is your conscience, people? Or better question--where is your damn backbone? |
|
24 Feb 08 - 02:12 PM (#2271127) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: McGrath of Harlow I would assume that most people assume that a racist post like that will be removed before too long. Commenting on it just threatens to give it a more permanent presence (even if it is removed its traces are liable to remain). In any case giving it attention serves to reward the person who made the post in question. |
|
24 Feb 08 - 02:13 PM (#2271131) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: GUEST,Guest Not in my world, honey. |
|
24 Feb 08 - 03:07 PM (#2271178) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: katlaughing Around here, in western Colorado, where we have a high population of Latino/a, MY backbone is in the streets protesting for immigrant rights, better schools, etc. MY backbone was there when we were lobbying for better schools, etc. for migrant workers' children, etc. It doesn't take a lot of backbone to assume and castigate people online whom you have never met, esp. when you don't even sign your name. Look to your own and own up to whatever you do that might be exemplary besides write diatribes on a music forum. |
|
24 Feb 08 - 03:45 PM (#2271219) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: McGrath of Harlow But then anyone coming on as "GUEST,Guest" is by definition not going to do that... |
|
24 Feb 08 - 03:54 PM (#2271231) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: GUEST,Wesley S MY suggestion "Guest" is that if you're going to call a stranger "honey" that you better do so with a pot of coffee in your hand. As in "Can I warm that up for you honey"?? |
|
24 Feb 08 - 04:20 PM (#2271259) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Jeri What bugs me about the whole [original] deal is how reporters can get suckered in by these you'd-think-it-would-be-easy-to-check rumors. I can understand how the people who get their news in between reality shows and soaps can swallow 'Obama is a Muslim' crap, and I can even understand how fairly intelligent folks can be make a mistake and trust the wrong source, but this was a reporter, and what I would think is a respectable newspaper. I think what it comes down to is not believing anything inflammatory without trying to verify its accuracy - especially not if one is planning to do something because of it. |
|
24 Feb 08 - 05:28 PM (#2271303) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: McGrath of Harlow It takes a certain kind of journalism to ask the question that will kill the story before its been printed. |
|
25 Feb 08 - 03:30 AM (#2271621) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Genie McGrath, I wasn't suggesting that some "nutcase" who had ALREADY decided to assassinate SOMEONE would then pick a target based on internet rumors or media coverage. My thinking is more along the lines that there are disturbed individuals in need of either attention/recognition or an outlet for their frustrations or both and that the IDEA of ASSASSINATING someone as a means to such ends might be put into their minds by the media talking about the likelihood of that happening. |
|
25 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM (#2271721) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: jacqui.c Exactly so Genie. |
|
25 Feb 08 - 09:17 PM (#2272389) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Stilly River Sage Follow-up is always a good idea.
By JACK DOUGLAS Jr. link, STAR-TELEGRAM EDITOR'S NOTE: Comments are flooding in on the original version of this story. ยป TAKE ME THERE FORT WORTH -- The U.S. Secret Service on Friday defended its handling of security during a massive rally in downtown Dallas for Barack Obama, saying there was no "lapse" in its "comprehensive and layered security plan," which called for some people to be checked for weapons, while others were not. A report in the Star-Telegram that said some security measures were lifted during Wednesday's rally sparked a public outrage across the country, with most people saying they were shocked that a routine weapons search was lifted at the front gates of Reunion Arena an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage. "This relaxed security was unbelievably stupid, especially in Dallas," Jeff Adams of Berkeley, Calif., said in an e-mail to the Star-Telegram, noting the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas more than four decades ago. Others said they had recently attended large political events, many for Obama, where security screening was halted. Jeremy Dibbell of Boston said in an e-mail that he attended an Obama event in Boston at which "the same thing happened there. We waited for hours in line as people were screened, and then suddenly everyone was just allowed in without going through any inspection at all." Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for Obama in Texas, said the campaign would have no comment on whether there was a security breech in Dallas. Shapiro referred questions to the Secret Service. "There were no security lapses at that venue," said Eric Zahren, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington. He added there was "no deviation" from the "comprehensive and layered" security plan, implemented in "very close cooperation with our law enforcement partners." Zahren rebutted suggestions by several Dallas police officers at the rally who thought the Secret Service ordered a halt to the time-consuming weapons check because long lines were moving slowly, and many seats remained empty as time neared for Obama to appear. "It was never a part of the plan at this particular venue to have each and every person in the crowd pass through the Magnetometer," said Zahren, referring to the device used to detect metal in clothing and bags. He declined to give the reason for checking people for weapons at the front of the lines and letting those farther back go in without inspection. "We would not want, by providing those details, to have people trying to derive ways in which they could defeat the security at any particular venue," Zahren said. Lt. V.L. Hale III, a spokesman for the Dallas Police Department, said in a statement Friday that he would not comment on security measures at the Obama rally except to say there was no arrest or incident and that it was a "success from a police standpoint." A tempest in a Texas teacup. SRS |
|
25 Feb 08 - 09:54 PM (#2272400) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: pdq We, as private citizens, have no right to know the details of our federal security programs. Making such details public makes them easier to defeat. O'Bamma was given just as good protection as any other presidential candidate. This is another attempt to slime anyone and anything our current administration can be linked to. More rubbish for the Oprah Winfrey crowd of morons. |
|
25 Feb 08 - 11:26 PM (#2272451) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: Ron Davies Uh, pdq--your knee-jerk defense of the Bush regime is very impressive. Just one thing. Where did anybody in this thread suggest that Bush is to blame for the poor security at this Obama rally? Sounds like you might be a little oversensitive. Poor boy. That's all right. As of 20 Jan 2009, the criticism of GWB may possibly start to taper off just a bit--so you won't have to see imagined slights to your hero everywhere. As for the "horde of wetbacks" quote--you just consider the source and you know how much to value his contribution. |
|
26 Feb 08 - 09:02 AM (#2272662) Subject: RE: BS: Sec. Svc. stops Obama protection in TX From: McGrath of Harlow "...IDEA of ASSASSINATING someone as a means to such ends might be put into their minds by the media talking about the likelihood of that happening. Unfortunately we are living in a world where assassinations of one sort or another do actually take place so frequently that I can't see how media speculation could be likely to make much contribution to it. I accept that here can be a copycat element, as in other crimes - but I see the trigger as overwhelmingly likely to be real events and the press coverage of these, rather than speculation about the events that haven't taken place. |