Saturday, January 09, 2010

How Long Did It Take YOU...

TO REALIZE THE SYSTEM FAILED???


Keep America Safe: "100 Hours" from Keep America Safe on Vimeo.

22 comments:

Teresa said...

Great Find.
This administration is clueless. For them to have thought that the system worked at all is ludicrous. Then, Obama had an awful response three days after the attempted terrorist attack happened. These people need to wake up and face reality.

GMpilot said...

Gee, and Bush only waited six days to comment on the "shoe bomber" back in '01...I suppose W was being more deliberate and thoughtful than Obama.

And please STOP SHOUTING IN PRINT SO MUCH!! Using all caps doesn't make your points any clearer, it just means you're being shrill.

Christinewjc said...

You are absolutely right Teresa! How naive can Obama and his cohorts possibly get? It's chilling...

Christinewjc said...

Oh GM - put a sock in it!

IT'S MY BLOG AND I'LL SHOUT IF I WANT TO

SHOUT IF I WANT TO

SHOUT IF I WANT TO...

YOU WOULD SHOUT TOO IF YOU HAD A CLUE!

DAT DAT DAT DA DA
DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA...

GMpilot said...

Stamp your feet right through the floor
But your rants are still a bore


Until next time, hostess!

Christinewjc said...

GM wrote:

"But your rants are still a bore."

And....you keep right on readin' em'....so....what does that say about YOU??

Christinewjc said...

The first music video for GM...just change the words in it to:

IT'S MY BLOG AND I'LL SHOUT IF I WANT TO

SHOUT IF I WANT TO

SHOUT IF I WANT TO...

YOU WOULD SHOUT TOO IF YOU HAD A CLUE!

DAT DAT DAT DA DA
DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA...

Lesley Gore - It's My Party (1963)

Then watch and listen to this:

Leslie Gore- "You Don't Own Me" Live

Teresa said...

GM Pilot,
The shoe bomber incident happened on December 22, 2001 and GW had much on his plate only 3 months after 9/11. There were many complications that resulted from 9/11 and Bush responded to the HUGE tragedy with great resolve. Obama did not just have a 9/11 attack happen to the country. Plus, Obama had an awful response which was in stark contrast from Bush's response. Bush understood the threat of terrorism and Obama treats terrorists better than patriotic Americans who disagree with him politically.

GMpilot said...

Yeah, I do. I don't deny it.
But as you said to me in another topic, "May miracles never cease!"

Of course I don't own you! I never claimed to. That's a big difference between us; you believe someone does, and I know no one does...unless we allow them to.

"Oh, what a birthday surprise--Judy's wearin' his ring..."

GMpilot said...

Teresa, I consder myself a patriot, and I do not agree with all Obama's policies. But those who slammed Obama's "slow response" to the apprehended bomber are simply wrong. No matter how hard you stretch it, three days is fewer than six, and GW did not comment on the shoe bomber until six days after the attempt. No one, of either party, ranted about some perceived foot-dragging.

How does Obama "treat terrorists better than patriotic Americans"? You mean by giving them a civil trial, rather than a court-martial? GWB did that too, and there were few people who disagreed then.

So what has changed in the past few years? Only our choice of president...which seems, offhand, to be the real source of most of the "disagreements" I've seen.

Christinewjc said...

GM wrote:

"That's a big difference between us; you believe someone does, and I know no one does...unless we allow them to."

Being a friend of God and having a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ is the best and most important decision a person can make in this life. Choosing to love God and knowing I am loved by Him isn't "ownership" - it's salvation.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"You mean by giving them a civil trial, rather than a court-martial? GWB did that too, and there were few people who disagreed then."

You must be remembering a different situation than I do. I remember the Bush administration being repeatedly sued for his handling of detainees. There was quite a bit of furor of the idea of granting criminal (not "civil") trials to detainees (who also were not "court martialed", but given "military tribunals.")

"No matter how hard you stretch it, three days is fewer than six, and GW did not comment on the shoe bomber until six days after the attempt. No one, of either party, ranted about some perceived foot-dragging."

I have to agree that three days is fewer than six. I trust that you will agree that six days is shorter than eight years, as in Bush was facing new situations quite often and trying to determine what policies should be made and adapted. Obama has had over eight years to form opinions of how bombers should be treated, unlawful combatants, etc. He ran for the office as one who already knew how to handle the situation, not one who would be making it up as he went along. Whether he agreed with how Bush handled situations or not, he should have gone into the campaign, and definitely into office, with a firm grasp of what was going on. Should have. His complete inability to cope the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea, Russia, and China shows how vain any such hope was.

Teresa said...

@GMpilot So, you put playing golf and fighting terrorism on the same plane?

It is self evident that Obama's response was both awful and showed how naive he is as our President.

GWB had just gotten the military tribunals approved and nothing was in place to try the shoe bomber back then. The administration learned from all the disadvantages that went along with trying the shoe bomber in a Federal courthouse and that is why after the shoe bomber the Bush administration NEVER tried another foreign terrorist or a terrorist caught on foreign soil in Federal court as if they were merely a civilian who stole something from the candy store instead of in the case of KSM, a person who had planned the killing of 300o innocent lives. There is a HUGE difference between a common criminal and our enemy. The military tribunals have been in place for years so Obama has no excuse as far as that's concerned.

sh007r said...

EXACTLY, Teresa!!!

Now, gm Pilate; " No matter how hard you stretch it, three days is fewer than six,..."

BUSH, was NOT playing GOLF for hours & days after any terrorist act.
When did Dear Leader come back to DC from Hawaii? After his #3 anti-terrorist guy was done skiing if I recall.
Have you no comprehension of the vast difference? Are you so willing to look that idiotic just to back your liberal mindset and far left buddies? You can't for a moment believe that anyone over 13 years old buys your nonsense.

Playing GOLF (yes I too am SCREAMING) is how bho looks at worldwide isalmic terrorism, like it doesn't really exist. He pretends it isn't real.(probably how he keeps score as well)

We are in danger.
13 islamic terror attacks attempted, three that already killed many Americans in the US since b hussein took office.
Why?
WHY?????????????????????
the CIA (when they're not getting demeaned &/or belitteld) is looking at ICE,for global warming, watching our own returning military (per Obama/Napolitano's memo) and teaparty taxpayers.

NO WONDER THEY MISSED A TERRORIST with semtex in his crotch.
Eunuch bomber is just not a big deal to you fools on the left, so there will be more.
Answer this, smart guy...why did AQ send this kid when they KNEW he was being watched?
Huh? Can't wait for your intel on this intel.
Actually, I doubt I'll waste my time reading your narcissistic and naive thoughts.

Kevin said...

Hi everyone,
Plain and simple--no one on the Republican side would be happy with Obama regardless of what he did or would have done. He could have spoken out in the same minute it happened and someone on that side would still be upset! Why it matters how long a president comments on something (which doesn't change anything) is a mystery to me.

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,

"Plain and simple--no one on the Republican side would be happy with Obama regardless of what he did or would have done."

I really don't think you have any evidence for that. You need to have something to base that on. For example, the way that the libs kept calling Bush a liar for saying that Iraq had WMD's but ignored the issue when both Clintons, Gore, Edwards, and Kerry said the exact same thing.

On the other aspect of your comment, what Obama said, we are kind of in agreement. I don't think it matters very much what Obama says because in most cases I don't think that he is being truthful, at least with regards to his reasons, and this is what touches on the delay issue. I'm of the opinion that most of the time spent during those delays is either sending out underlings to make statements so that they can look stupid if, as is usually the case, the statement is a complete misread of the situation, or to buy time for a focus group so that he doesn't have to look stupid personally. I think the man is in so far over his head that it would be laughable if he wasn't taking the rest of the country down with him. He seems completely focused on trying to pass his health care bill, and the real functions, such as national security, of the executive branch which he should be looking after are simply annoyances.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary--maybe my circle of Republican friends that I know of (mostly here) are skewing my opinions...What evidence would you prefer to see? Words from here? Or words from other Republicans? If you want me to cite all Republicans in this country, you are going to have to wait a mighty long time. Maybe you can point me to some Republicans who are happy with President Obama. I would love to read about them and what they have to say!

I also find your statement "I don't think it matters very much what Obama says because in most cases I don't think that he is being truthful..." highly ironic since right before you were complaining about liberals complaining about Bush lying...

You also state "I'm of the opinion..." So where is your proof? (and now I am being snarky).

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

"What evidence would you prefer to see?"

How about citing some actions that Obama took promptly that would be expected to please Republicans or conservatives. You asserted that we wouldn't be pleased no matter what he did. It's hard to come up with evidence of that when just about everything he has done that I can think of has pretty much been a smack in the face to conservatives. Despite his talk about taking responsibility, he has spent the past year blaming the Bush administration for all of the problems despite the fact that Dems in Congress and Clinton before can be shown to be at least as much fault. Before you claim we can't be pleased, how about giving some examples where we should have been?

"highly ironic since right before you were complaining about liberals complaining about Bush lying..."

Not ironic at all. Bush was accused repeatedly of lying for saying the exact same things that Kerry, Edwards, Clintons, Gore, etc., were saying, i.e., that Iraq had WMDs and needed to be stopped. Despite the fact that they are on video repeatedly making these assertions as fact, Bush was the only one tagged as a liar by the left.

Now, compare Obama -
Said repeatedly that he was going to be bipartisan - Now holding meetings exclusively with Democrats to settle health care - Lie.
Said repeatedly that negotiations for major bill would be held openly and broadcast - Negotiations are being held behind closed doors. Lie.
Said that he would eliminate influence of special interests - Granted major exemptions in cost to both favored Democrats and unions supporting him - Lie.
Said that every major bill would be available in printed form on line at least several days before a major vote, which was promptly thrown out when voting on the stimulus bills and all but one version of the health care bills - Lie.

All of his statements are part of the audio and video record, most preserved on the web. I would say that's reasonably compelling evidence for his "liar" status. And that doesn't even begin to account for his campaigns of lies about the health care bills (get to keep your own doctor, taxes won't go up on families making less than $250,000, etc.)

I can't think of one statement or promise with regards to transparency of government or policy making that he has kept. Can you?

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
I find it interesting that I said "no one on the Republican side would be happy with Obama regardless of what he did or would have done" and you then prove me correct: "You asserted that we wouldn't be pleased no matter what he did. It's hard to come up with evidence of that when just about everything he has done that I can think of has pretty much been a smack in the face to conservatives" but now you ask "how about giving some examples where we should have been?" Sorry. I did my duty in terms of what I was asserting.

And I am always shocked when the issue of health care is compared to a war that has lasted many, many years and has fueled the debt we are in (thanks to Bush). Healthcare or death and destruction? For me it is an easy choice to make.

Teresa said...

Kevin,
Maybe if Obama actually used that brain God gave him and made a common sense decision, a good decision, or a logical decision than conservatives would support him. But, as of todays date, Obama hasn't made any good decisions. All of his decisions have been of an anti-American nature and of a radical nature.

Obama and the Dems health care "reform" is not actually true health care reform. It is about power and giving more control over to the government. The government has proven itself to be inept in its handling of the post office, welfare and medicaid with many abuses and wastes being rampant across the board so Obama and the Dems are only making the problem worse with their so-called health "reform". They are not fixing the problems associated with health care costs and accessability. Obama and his gang of backroom deal makers are making radical moves and radical decisions with regards to health "reform" because they are ALL RADICALS. They are making the wrong decisions and ignoring the will of the people in the process. Only 32% of people support either of the bills, yet the pompous, arrogant punks in congress are ignoring their constituents.

I guess you would like to let the terrorists live and allow them the opportunity to kill civilians on our soil again instead of solving the problem head on now.

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,

"Sorry. I did my duty in terms of what I was asserting."

Yes, I know. Liberals believe they are only responsible for making accusations. Heaven forbid they should actually have to prove anything. That requires actual reasoning.

"Healthcare or death and destruction? For me it is an easy choice to make."

Me also:

Constitutional power of government:

War and defense? Yes. Health care? No.

"And I am always shocked when the issue of health care is compared to a war that has lasted many, many years and has fueled the debt we are in"

If it goes the way it has in other countries, health care costs will quickly over-ride the costs of this war or any war. It's also likely that the health care program will cause many more deaths over time than this war, and they will be just as horrible. I am reminded of how France's government health care system served their seniors one summer when most all of the health care workers went on their long government paid vacations and about 10,000 senior citizens in nursing homes died of heat and neglect. Government health care is more expensive, less efficient, and provides no real incentive to care for the individual patient. At least when we send a soldier into battle, he or she is doing the job as though their life depended on it.

Christinewjc said...

Thanks for your input Teresa and sh007r! Just don't be surprised if your excellent points are ignored by GMPilot. He hates to lose an argument. In most cases, he won't even acknowledge when he has lost an argument!

Anyone who continues to support Obama through all the lies, terrible policies, bankrupting of our country, pushing unwanted Hellcare, lack of transparency, siding with Muslims over Americans, weakness against radical Islam etc. - is either drunk with the ObamaBORG Kool-Aid or has their head in the sand - or both.