Integrity

[BinaryLife]

So here's a thought. A large number of FOX broadcasters have been quoted lately as saying that during the Bush administration there were no terrorist attacks, but during Obamas administration there have been many. These attakcks they are referring to are domestic.

But here is my problem, they are neglecting 9/11 as well as other attacks like the shoe bomber. Their blatant disregard for the truth disturbs me personally. I was wondering what everyone else thinks. Even if you disagree and think that there is some explanation that exonerates these fox broadcasters and anchormen/women.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

So here's a thought. A large number of FOX broadcasters have been quoted lately as saying that during the Bush administration there were no terrorist attacks, but during Obamas administration there have been many. These attakcks they are referring to are domestic.

But here is my problem, they are neglecting 9/11 as well as other attacks like the shoe bomber. Their blatant disregard for the truth disturbs me personally. I was wondering what everyone else thinks. Even if you disagree and think that there is some explanation that exonerates these fox broadcasters and anchormen/women.

The shoebomber incident occurred in December of 2001, less then 3 months after 9/11. I've always understood that when individuals say that they mean that terrorist attacks on American soil were averted after the barriers between intelligence agencies created by the Clinton administration were removed and Bush's intelligence and monitoring policies were put into effect. Most of the extent of Clinton's failings were removed by Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, so chances are we'll never know how much more was their fault. Lately Obama's made it clear that if you do something that even has a hint of improprity in the intelligence community that you'll be prosecuted. He's given terrorists the rights of citizens. Working under those restrictions, I'd be damn careful about what I did, who I talked to, what I asked, as well. We'll see what that costs us over the next few years I guess. Look at how much information we had on this guy and how careful we were being to preserve his constitutional rights to get on a plane...

Scuzzy

[stray kitten]

The shoebomber incident occurred in December of 2001, less then 3 months after 9/11. I've always understood that when individuals say that they mean that terrorist attacks on American soil were averted after the barriers between intelligence agencies created by the Clinton administration were removed and Bush's intelligence and monitoring policies were put into effect. Most of the extent of Clinton's failings were removed by Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, so chances are we'll never know how much more was their fault. Lately Obama's made it clear that if you do something that even has a hint of improprity in the intelligence community that you'll be prosecuted. He's given terrorists the rights of citizens. Working under those restrictions, I'd be damn careful about what I did, who I talked to, what I asked, as well. We'll see what that costs us over the next few years I guess. Look at how much information we had on this guy and how careful we were being to preserve his constitutional rights to get on a plane...

Scuzzy

Proof that Bush's 48 billion dollar (this years cost) TSA federal jack booted mindless thugs and the Dept. Of Homeland Security are worthless? 48 Billion dollars and the attack is stopped by some Dutch dude. Now we are going to be scanned by microwaves even though that is not 100 percent. You can't get 100 percent security just like you can't get 100 percent health care. It's the fucking same. TSA and it's big brother the Dept. Of Homeland Security is like the Social Security office, the post office and soon to be health care. HALF ASS.

But fox news is right, after those shitty policies that created mega federal departments along with the Founding Father Coffin Nail "Patriot" Act, there wasn't any terrorist attacks. Until Obama took over and it's only year 1. Not blaming Obama, after all he is a well spoken Negro. It's just reality. But he too will knee-jerk a response just like Bush and enable the terrorists to gain more power by removing more of our freedoms. Along with the help of this Liberal fucking congress who were right there holding hands when they all decided it was a good idea to turn the American military onto its citizens. The opposite mind set being deeply entrenched into the military tradition and culture before that time. That is why they all stood around holding their balls when playing were smacking into shit.

[Credge]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

Not blaming Obama, after all he is a well spoken light-skinned Negro.

I fixed a critical error for you.

[Etzell]

So, Scuzzy, let me get this straight: You're blaming Clinton for what happened in the first year of the Bush administration, and not blaming Bush for what happened in the first year of the Obama administration?

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Etzell

So, Scuzzy, let me get this straight: You're blaming Clinton for what happened in the first year of the Bush administration, and not blaming Bush for what happened in the first year of the Obama administration?

irony overload right here

[uBeR]

There's a word for that. When someone says an attack in the December after one election is the fault of the predecessor, but also says an attack in the December after another election is the fault of the incumbent, it's perfectly transparent what this person understands the term "Integrity" to mean.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Etzell

So, Scuzzy, let me get this straight: You're blaming Clinton for what happened in the first year of the Bush administration, and not blaming Bush for what happened in the first year of the Obama administration?

I don't believe that anyone know the debacle of security that existed when Bush entered office, otherwise the need for the 9/11 commission wouldn't have existed. Obama came into office telling everyone he knew the problem and kew how to solve it. He spent more money then anyone in history trying to solve the problem when everyone told him they didn't want it and that it wouldn't do anything but increase the unemployment rate. (which is exactly what happened) I see those are two extremely different set of circumstances. I don't see it as irony, it's just clear that both in and out liberal policies are a bad idea.

Scuzy

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I don't believe that anyone know the debacle of security that existed when Bush entered office, otherwise the need for the 9/11 commission wouldn't have existed. Obama came into office telling everyone he knew the problem and kew how to solve it. He spent more money then anyone in history trying to solve the problem when everyone told him they didn't want it and that it wouldn't do anything but increase the unemployment rate. (which is exactly what happened) I see those are two extremely different set of circumstances. I don't see it as irony, it's just clear that both in and out liberal policies are a bad idea.

Scuzy

Sounds to me like you're making excuses for the Bush administration. Tell us, what security hurdles was the Bush administration facing that Obama wasn't?

[FrenchToast]

I get this feeling that everytime Scuzzy posts in this forum he leans back in his chair, crosses his arms and thinks 'That got him' while smirking unbelievably smugly.

Unfortunately he never makes any sense...

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

I get this feeling that everytime Scuzzy posts in this forum he leans back in his chair, crosses his arms and thinks 'That got him' while smirking unbelievably smugly.

Unfortunately he never makes any sense...

So you believe that our economy is in better shape with what Obama's increase debt, larger taxes, and bailouts of banks/etc?

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

It seems the economy is finally begining to recover from the Great Recession, which was realized under Bush, BTW. But that's beside the point, isn't it?

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

So you believe that our economy is in better shape with what Obama's increase debt, larger taxes, and bailouts of banks/etc?

Scuzzy

Do you know what a logical fallacy is, sir?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

It seems the economy is finally begining to recover from the Great Recession, which was realized under Bush, BTW. But that's beside the point, isn't it?

I think we have a differing view on what economic recovery is. Bush, during a very lenghty time of recession, actually created a net of 3 million jobs. Obama, in his first year in office, has lost 2.1 million jobs and continues to do so. His announcement of raising taxes on everyone about 9 billion dollars a year for the next 10 years. Now, who here believes that banks are going to take 9 billion a year out of their profits without passing those costs onto their consumers? Anyone? You think buying a house and a car was expensive before, wait until you start paying the new banking tax. Does anyone here believe that raising taxes in a recession is good economic policy?

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

I think it's a recurring theme that Scuzzy (the representative of "The Fortress Forever Development Team") must derail any thread he posts in.

[Credge]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Sounds to me like you're making excuses for the Bush administration. Tell us, what security hurdles was the Bush administration facing that Obama wasn't?

It wasn't only the Bush administration that had hurdles. Those who worked for intelligence agencies during the Clinton administration also had hurdles. One example of such a hurdle was created by Jamie Gorelick. You can read a short bit about it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gorelick

Tons of small, and large, stuffs like this was set up by people in the Clinton Administration.

Being too young to remember much of anything other than the Monica Lewinsky thing, it's been kind of eye opening reading about all the various other scandals and bullshittery that happened during the Clinton years.

Edit to clarify: I'm not blaming Clinton for these hurdles, I'm blaming the people who he put in charge... which is kind of like blaming him but not.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

I think it's a recurring theme that Scuzzy (the representative of "The Fortress Forever Development Team") must derail any thread he posts in.

You claimed that we were in an economic recovery caused by Obama from a recession realized under Bush. I countered that statement with facts about job gains under Bush and job losses under Obama including 12 straight months of them. I firmly believe that unemployment numbers are related to economic recovery.

The Fortress Forever Development Team does not have a position on the economics of our country that I am aware of. If you post in the Public to Team communication section that you're looking for a specific statement about the economic recovery from the team they may consider your request. However, we do hope you enjoy visiting our forums and would like it if you would contribute positively to the mod's environment in the future.

Scuzzy

[FrenchToast]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

So you believe that our economy is in better shape with what Obama's increase debt, larger taxes, and bailouts of banks/etc?

Scuzzy

I feel like you're not aware of the conversation that I started..