It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jeb Bush hides in a closet to avoid a crowd who hate him!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
This has NOTHING to do with Democrat/Republican nonsense.

This has EVERYTHING to do with politicians in general. There are more than a handful of Democrats who should be in the process of finding a closet to hide in, if this outburst is any indication of how the public feels.

Everyone I know is certainly fed-up with do-nothing corporate cronies holding political office, screwing the people at every turn, and lying through their teeth to maintain power.

What is it going to take to break people out of this false dichotomy mindset that they've been programmed with? There are only two kinds of polticians, those who serve the people and those who serve themselves. Both parties are stuffed to bursting with the latter, and practically devoid of the former.

That's a problem that transcends party affiliation.

So enough with the Republican/Democrat nonsense already - it's so incredibly tiresome!




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

from Waiting2awake

I don't condone violence, but violence begets violence, and when people feel betrayed they will lash out at those they feel betrayed them. Now clearly you can see how people may feel their government in general, and the bush Co specifically, has betrayed many of them... so what is there not to understand?

What is not to understand? The fact that you accept violence as a method of protest, and see it as normal behavior.

The fact that Jeb Bush had nothing to do with Iraq should go without saying. But you and others continue to try the "guilt by association" ruse.

The fact that these thugs were not even Jeb's constituents should go without saying. But you somehow try to say it's justified, because he is a) a politician, b) a Republican, no less!, and c) has the same last name as the POTUS.

The fact is, if you disagree with a politician's actions, there are methods specified to deal with it. Like elections, for example.

Adults live under the rule of law. Adolescents haven't yet grasped that, and live on the sour milk of unbridled emotion. That's what happened in Pittsburgh - a group of emotionally adolescent thugs chased a visitor to their city down into the subway.



Besides there was no violence, nor from what I gather, any threat of violence. Merely one fraidy cat running from the public, no doubt in order to sign some law that will send more of those crazynut jobs over seas to be killed for a make beleive war... but hey, why would anyone be angry with them right?

"Fraidy cat". Now that says a lot about which group you belong to.


If you piss off people, they will want to hurt you. So that is way we evolved manners, and being polite and comman edicate. It is something that while the US may have had more might than the British they were never half the world leaders the British were.

No, that is the way you have evolved. I believe in the rule of law, not a drunken mob reaction to a situation.


Jso, I think you'll find that after you illegally invade a country, cause the deaths of 10's if not 100's of thousands of people, the illegal maming and torturing of people, tend to tick people off. Why is that so hard to see?

Once again, you're totally muddled. It is George Bush who is the President of the US, not Jeb Bush.

Look, you can hate Jeb Bush all you want. It makes no difference to me; he has no effect on my life, one way or another. But when you start hating him for the Iraq war, or for being George's brother, I have to say, there's something wrong with your thinking. And when you extrapolate that to condone mob rule, I have to worry about our country. A real dictator could get into office, and you'd be putty in his hands.

Edit to add: I resent you referring to the members of our military as "crazy nutjobs". I'm sure I'm not alone in that sentiment.


[edit on 9-10-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

from Waiting2awake

I don't condone violence, but violence begets violence, and when people feel betrayed they will lash out at those they feel betrayed them. Now clearly you can see how people may feel their government in general, and the bush Co specifically, has betrayed many of them... so what is there not to understand?

What is not to understand? The fact that you accept violence as a method of protest, and see it as normal behavior.


- Are you being obtuse intentionally? What did I say? Violence, begets violence. I don't agree with it but I understand it. Should you speak to me face to face, you wouldn't get away with half the crap you do online. If you harm me, or your friend harms me then we will have an issue that will have to be dealt with. You obvious understand the guy running into a closet. Which is what I suppose most of the war mongering people would do when/if they come in contact with a real problem.




Originally posted by jsobecky
The fact that Jeb Bush had nothing to do with Iraq should go without saying. But you and others continue to try the "guilt by association" ruse.

The fact that these thugs were not even Jeb's constituents should go without saying. But you somehow try to say it's justified, because he is a) a politician, b) a Republican, no less!, and c) has the same last name as the POTUS.

The fact is, if you disagree with a politician's actions, there are methods specified to deal with it. Like elections, for example.


- Agreed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a public servent ran from the public. Try to spin it if you like but the end result, the bosssttom line is he(And I suspect more than just him) has shown himself to be a coward. If you hit someone, you must expect to be hit back, and you shouldn't call foul when it happens.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Adults live under the rule of law. Adolescents haven't yet grasped that, and live on the sour milk of unbridled emotion. That's what happened in Pittsburgh - a group of emotionally adolescent thugs chased a visitor to their city down into the subway.


You know, I can't argue with you. You see it as someone prestine being chased. I see it as a member of a clan that has done untold damage to your country and those people that chased him. You will call it a thug, but in reality they are American people, American tax payers and as such they OWN him and have every right to expect his ear without him running away.

Tell me, how can you(or anyone for that matter) claim to be tough, claim to stand up to the enemies of the world when you can't even stand up to protestors??

Shamefull. Worse, those that defend the actions are equally to blame. Violence begets violence. If you can't take the violence without hiding in the closet then maybe you should just [snip] and [snip].

mod edit: language

[edit on 9-10-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
OK, I understand if you can't supply facts to back up your allegation.


jsobecky, are you being intentionally obtuse? If I say Kenneth Starr no link is needed. It's like saying OJ Simpson. You KNOW what they did. You asked when a Rep's went after a Dem like it hadn't ever happened, I give you Kenneth Starr, he was a lot more tenasious imo.



And what has it got to do with the topic? Let's see... chasing an innocent man down the subway... impeding his freedom of movement... the seeds of mob rule.. oh, I don't know, let me think about it for awhile. I'm sure I can connect the dots.


:bnghd:

THAT'S IN PARIS. What the hell has it to do with THIS topic. Is your arguement that weak?

Edit: Fixed title.




[edit on 9-10-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
[I think you mean Constiuents? Ushered, Crammed, Hidden, we can play with synonyms all day and it doesn't really change the fact that he didn't want to talk to the people that sign his paycheck and instead went into a closet and had them tasered. What a looser.


Um twitchy, do you have a clue how the political system in the US works? "CONSTITUENTS" are those who elect you and whom you serve as THEIR elected official. In your moronic glee to bash anything that is Bush, you failed to grasp that he was invited to speak on behalf of a politcal ally in PENNSYLVANIA. Ergo, these were NOT his "CONSTITUENTS" as you imply - they were a riotous gang of liberal goons! His constituents reside in the state of Florida, whre he was elected to serve as Governor!



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
jsobecky, are you being intentionally obtuse? If I say Kenneth Starr no link is needed. It's like saying OJ Simpson. You KNOW what they did. You asked when a Rep's went after a Dem like it hadn't ever happened, I give you Kenneth Starr, he was a lot more tenasious imo.

Get with the program, intrepid. When was Ken Starr ever chased by an unruly mob?


THAT'S IN PARIS. What the hell has it to do with THIS topic. Is your arguement that weak?

Wrong again, intrepid. Read the article. He was pursued by a mob.

Maybe you should wait till the weekend wears off a bit....

Edit to remove detritus

[edit on 9-10-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Your question was, "When did the Rep's go after a Dem" The answer is below.


Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by intrepid
jsobecky, are you being intentionally obtuse? If I say Kenneth Starr no link is needed. It's like saying OJ Simpson. You KNOW what they did. You asked when a Rep's went after a Dem like it hadn't ever happened, I give you Kenneth Starr, he was a lot more tenasious imo.

Get with the program, intrepid. When was Ken Starr ever chased by an unruly mob?


Has NOTHING to do with him being chased.



THAT'S IN PARIS. What the hell has it to do with THIS topic. Is your arguement that weak?

Wrong again, intrepid. Read the article. He was pursued by a mob.

Maybe you should wait till the weekend wears off a bit....


My weekend was fine until my mind had to try and digest this tripe.

Let's revisit your original post:


Originally posted by jsobecky
Post a link about Starr, please.

So, is this the logical next step to these type of actions?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


OK, slowly here intrepid. Click on YOUR link. That news bit is from FRANCE. What does it have to do with Jeb, Starr or anything in this topic.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Your question was, "When did the Rep's go after a Dem" The answer is below.


Look, intrepid, you're doing nothing but playing word games. It's juvenile, and I don't care to participate.

I've been denouncing the people that chased Jeb Bush down the street. You respond with an allegation that Ken Starr suffered the same fate. I ask you to provide a link. You can't.

Starr was pursued in the press and in the courts. Once again, I ask you: when was he chased by an unruly mob?

You cite OJ Simpson? What the hell does that have to do with this thread, except to give you an attempt to wiggle-worm out of the first fact you couldn't prove.

So you spin, and spin.

Take it somewhere else, please.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
OK, you need to be spoon fed. Your original post on this:


Originally posted by jsobecky


When was the last time you saw Republicans chasing a Democrat?



Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by intrepid
Your question was, "When did the Rep's go after a Dem" The answer is below.


Look, intrepid, you're doing nothing but playing word games. It's juvenile, and I don't care to participate.


Then please don't.


I've been denouncing the people that chased Jeb Bush down the street. You respond with an allegation that Ken Starr suffered the same fate. I ask you to provide a link. You can't.

Starr was pursued in the press and in the courts. Once again, I ask you: when was he chased by an unruly mob?


See your original post, it's up by the top of THIS post. I wasn't refering to Starr being chased but HIS persuit of Clinton. I think I FINALLY answered that question. Oh, here's the link that you so truely need to GET THE POINT:

www.salon.com...


You cite OJ Simpson? What the hell does that have to do with this thread, except to give you an attempt to wiggle-worm out of the first fact you couldn't prove.

So you spin, and spin.

Take it somewhere else, please.


I sited Simpson as a point that anyone that isn't truely blind would have gotten the point of what I was saying about STARR!

Take THAT!



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I believe in the rule of law, not a drunken mob reaction to a situation.
[edit on 9-10-2006 by jsobecky]


Where do you get taht the mob was drunken or even acted like drunks? Where do you get that ANY violence was used? If there had been, there would have been arrests, but there were NO ARRESTS, meaning no one did anything wrong and that the police weren't concerned about the event. How is telling Jeb Busy to go home, a violent action? And how in the world can you accuse the protesters of mob rule? They weren't trying to rule anything, just to let their wishes, as American citizens, be known to Jeb Bush.

There were 30 people there, not a large crowd. And any elected politician should be answerable to the People. A coward runs and hides. If he'd had any courage or even the courage of his convictions, he would have stayed and talked with the People. Protests always have speakers, they WOULD have listened if he had taken the time. I can't think of any politician who would hide instead of talking to the People. If Nixon did. There were police there, do you really think they would let the gov be harmed? The police themselves seemed to not be too alarmed, they didn't even follow up on the closet incident and they made not one arrest. Or do you think the poilce were being lazy that day?

Ya know, this halppened in Pennsylvania, the home of the Quakers, a people who believe in complete non-violence. More than likely, at least a good portion of the protesters were Quaker, since it was an anti-war protest as well.

As for your comment about women being safe on the streets at 2 a.m., well yes I believe that SHOULD be the case, don't you? Don't you want your mother, sister, wife to be safe? But apparently you think that is a liberal issue for some reason. But then again, to listen to you, you obviously think that liberals are evil filth and you hate every last one of us. You accuse us of hate, when you spew more venom than any liberal I've ever met. It doesnt matter what the thread is, you insist on blaming liberals for everything that is wrong in this world. Why are you so prejudiced? How can you so completely make blanket statements about ANY one group of people?

Our Founding Fathers were protesters, demonstrators (think Boston Tea Party) and revolutionaries. You think they were wrong to fight a tyrannical govt? Well the Bushes have taken away almost all of our rights and not by doing it the legal way thru amendments, but through passing unconstitutional laws. I have news for you, the elections of 2000 and 2004 were FIXED. Even our own govt agency, the GAO, said that at the very least, the 2004 election was fixed. ANd Jeb Bush participated in that fix, both times. He's NOT an innocent man. He's corrupt and a criminal.

I'm really getting tired of reading all your venomous, hate-filled, anti-Liberal tripe JSO. THe Admins have been asking for a long time for people to not be so hateful against a political party. I'm surprised they let you continue with this drivel. It's divisive and solves nothing. And in case you're wondering, I would be just as much against a Liberal bashing any Repubilcan, without providing anything of substance, while spewing hate speech against Republicans/conservatives.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK, you need to be spoon fed. Your original post on this:


Originally posted by jsobecky


When was the last time you saw Republicans chasing a Democrat?


Try using the entire quote, intrepid. Grabbing a snippet out of the middle of the reply is not how to do things.



These were not Jeb's constituents; he was in Pittsburgh to attend an event.

You may defend these protestors all you like, but their actions were immature and stupid. I wonder if they treat all visiting Republicans this way. Is that OK with you if they do?

This comes on the heels of the Columbia students assault of the Minutemen. These people think that their actions are justified. They certainly are condoned, judging by the responses to this thread.

When was the last time you saw Republicans chasing a Democrat?

So you see, I was referring to a physical event. Mob action.

My point about the author meant that if today you condone chasing someone, is the next step death threats? Will you also condone that, intrepid? You've already demonstrated that you support a mob chasing a person down the street.

Look, it's obvious you got yourself a good whupping. You're dancing because you decided to go with the "Fraidy cat" spouting crowd and you know you haven't got a leg to stand on. No defense for their actions.

Just tuck your tail between your legs and go lick your wounds. Live to fight another day.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

So you see, I was referring to a physical event. Mob action.


Well thank you for the clarification, about time you made yourself clear, even if your question was answered 4 times.



My point about the author meant that if today you condone chasing someone, is the next step death threats? Will you also condone that, intrepid? You've already demonstrated that you support a mob chasing a person down the street.


No where did I do that. It's good that a reader can make their own deternination on reading a debate. They may just pass on the rest of your posts.



Look, it's obvious you got yourself a good whupping. You're dancing because you decided to go with the "Fraidy cat" spouting crowd and you know you haven't got a leg to stand on. No defense for their actions.

Just tuck your tail between your legs and go lick your wounds. Live to fight another day.


Keep telling yourself that, you'll be able to sleep tonight.


I will no longer derail THIS thread, it's about Jeb after all BUT I would LOVE to engage you about this in Head-2-Head. You willing to go head to head over this and have it judged by others?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

My point about the author meant that if today you condone chasing someone, is the next step death threats? Will you also condone that, intrepid? You've already demonstrated that you support a mob chasing a person down the street.

First of all, you're dramaticizing the entire event. Second of all, no one mentioned death threats. You're speaking in hypotheticals. How about we stick to reality and what is actually being discussed?


Look, it's obvious you got yourself a good whupping. You're dancing because you decided to go with the "Fraidy cat" spouting crowd and you know you haven't got a leg to stand on. No defense for their actions.

Just tuck your tail between your legs and go lick your wounds. Live to fight another day.

You get a kick out belittling other members and gloating? That's pretty sad, especially for a member that's been around for a while. I would expect that from a new member, but not someone of your stature being here this long. You ran someone around trying to mix up the discussion and then gloat over it? It makes it a little more difficult to take postings authored seriously.

I'm not even discussing intrepid as a mod, I'm discussing this as him being a member of this site who still falls under the T&C. You however Becky have turned this around and made it personal, and you aren't creating one bit of good for any other new members coming around with that behavior. Until new members get to know our "online personalities" you're making me look just as bad as you have made yourself look. I find that to be offensive.

A crowd protested (legal), no arrests were made (so obviously legal), and Jeb ran and hid like a coward. Free speech zones, Becky? Take that to another country, because here we have a rule of law, and our Constitution makes it reasonably clear what is to be thought of those willing to undermine it for the sake of keeping their partisan lines intact.



'That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...'


The people were protesting legally against a man who they disagreed with. They have every right to do it in a peaceful way. Just because someone is scared of the idea of being protested, and is unreasonably terrified (if it was reasonable, the protesters would be in jail), that is not cause to defend taking away other's rights so anyone else can feel better about their partisan BS.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Where do you get taht the mob was drunken or even acted like drunks? Where do you get that ANY violence was used? If there had been, there would have been arrests, but there were NO ARRESTS, meaning no one did anything wrong and that the police weren't concerned about the event. How is telling Jeb Busy to go home, a violent action? And how in the world can you accuse the protesters of mob rule? They weren't trying to rule anything, just to let their wishes, as American citizens, be known to Jeb Bush.

Bless us and save us. They're coming out of the woodwork now.


Oh, the meek little protestors just wanted to talk to Jeb? And there were only thirty of them to one of him? And they had to break out in a run and chase him to keep up with his fast pace of walking, huh?



Ya know, this halppened in Pennsylvania, the home of the Quakers, a people who believe in complete non-violence. More than likely, at least a good portion of the protesters were Quaker, since it was an anti-war protest as well.

This shows how very little you know about the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and about Quakers.


But then again, to listen to you, you obviously think that liberals are evil filth and you hate every last one of us. You accuse us of hate, when you spew more venom than any liberal I've ever met. It doesnt matter what the thread is, you insist on blaming liberals for everything that is wrong in this world. Why are you so prejudiced? How can you so completely make blanket statements about ANY one group of people?

Tsk, tsk, forestlady, you really must control yourself. I don't hate liberals; the world is much more amusing with them in it. But you really must do something about that paranoia.


I'm really getting tired of reading all your venomous, hate-filled, anti-Liberal tripe JSO.

First of all, forestlady, I never once called them liberals. But hey, thanks for identifying them! I called them thugs, an unruly mob, and other things, but never once did I mention the word LIBERAL.

I don't care if they're liberal, Democrat, republican, Commie, or Libertarian. Their actions were shameful.

And if you don't like what I say here,there's always the ignore button.


THe Admins have been asking for a long time for people to not be so hateful against a political party. I'm surprised they let you continue with this drivel.

You mean, like the stuff you just said about the Bush family? Oh, I forgot, it's OK if you do it, right.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You mean, like the stuff you just said about the Bush family? Oh, I forgot, it's OK if you do it, right.


Just to remind you, the Bush family is not a political party.
No matter how you look at it, they aren't.

I'm not ignoring any other member, it destroys the idea of a fluid thread. All members that have been here at least as long as I have (which isn't long) should understand that. Not many serious members, I expect, like to ignore other members, it kills the idea of a community which most of us would want.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
So your logic is this - because the mob could have gotten violent, they were violent...

You could convert to radical Islam and blow up a train station in some European resort town - does that make you a terrorist?

Nobody threw a punch, nobody threw a rock, nobody threw anything but disdainful words.

You keep calling the mob violent, but in plain fact THEY WERE NOT VIOLENT - they were just PISSED OFF!



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
First of all, you're dramaticizing the entire event. Second of all, no one mentioned death threats. You're speaking in hypotheticals. How about we stick to reality and what is actually being discussed?

How about you not jumping in without understanding the entire context of the discussion, eh?


You get a kick out belittling other members and gloating? That's pretty sad, especially for a member that's been around for a while. I would expect that from a new member, but not someone of your stature being here this long. You ran someone around trying to mix up the discussion and then gloat over it? It makes it a little more difficult to take postings authored seriously.

I'm not going to defend myself to you, niteboy. You conveniently overlook anything they said. and try to judge me.


I'm not even discussing intrepid as a mod, I'm discussing this as him being a member of this site who still falls under the T&C. You however Becky have turned this around and made it personal, and you aren't creating one bit of good for any other new members coming around with that behavior. Until new members get to know our "online personalities" you're making me look just as bad as you have made yourself look. I find that to be offensive.

Yeah, well I find it offensive that you mangle my username and pretend some type of familiarity that isn't there.


A crowd protested (legal), no arrests were made (so obviously legal), and Jeb ran and hid like a coward.

Spoken like a true adolescent.


Free speech zones, Becky? Take that to another country, because here we have a rule of law,

Who said anything about free speech zones here, niteboy?

And "rule of law"? You don't know what that is. You condone mob rule, chasing a man down an escalator so that he has to hide.

What's next? You gonna call him "Fraidy cat"?



'That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...'

Uh, that doesn't mean that mob rule should be allowed merely because you disagree with someone.


The people were protesting legally against a man who they disagreed with. They have every right to do it in a peaceful way. Just because someone is scared of the idea of being protested, and is unreasonably terrified (if it was reasonable, the protesters would be in jail), that is not cause to defend taking away other's rights so anyone else can feel better about their partisan BS.

You're so damned anti-administration that you don't even understand what the debate is about.

It's not about politics. It's not about party. It's about the actions of a mob that chases a visitor to a city so that he has to seek shelter.

That's not the way we do things. That's the very last resort. Even then it is only justified if your cause is just.

To condone chasing a man down the street is the mark of a mouth-breathing cretin. To find it amusing is the mark of an adolescent.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Still waiting to see if YOU are willing to put this to a logical debate. Yes or No?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
So your logic is this - because the mob could have gotten violent, they were violent...

And you know what they would have done had they caught him, correct? How do you know that?

You think the cops tased 2 of them just for fun, or is it maybe the crowd was getting ready to rush the closet?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by jsobecky
You mean, like the stuff you just said about the Bush family? Oh, I forgot, it's OK if you do it, right.


Just to remind you, the Bush family is not a political party.
No matter how you look at it, they aren't.

Yeah, they just happen to be Republican.



Not many serious members, I expect, like to ignore other members, it kills the idea of a community which most of us would want.

Kumbaya.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join