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.

 

White House Speech Writer Turns Violent After 9/11 Questions

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



Salon.com

Take a look at his stand on national security measures.




posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alexi Humi

Frum demonstrates the violent nature of the Neocons by hitting Mr. Howe and his camera no less then three times. [color=786cd2]YouTube Video Description



Here's the part that is so objectionable about the story.

Anyone can be provoked to anger and even violence, if pushed enough. This was evidently was a recurring issue or there wouldn't have been such a strong response and technically Frum was wrong to push Howe, but if you play with fire, sometimes you're going to get burned, regardless of the technicalities of the law.

But the assertion that Frum's response was indicative of the nature of "neo-cons" is absurd.

There is certainly no shortage of examples of violence on the part of the left and even more examples of inciting violence by these types of obnoxious behavior.

On the whole, this was a disagreement between two men.

It is nothing more than that and it cannot be generalized to anything more.


[edit on 2008/4/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Even if you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job would you at least concede that the American public was lied to about the reasons for going to war in Iraq?

One of the architects of that lie is David Frum.

Yes he was uncomfortable being asked questions. Well can't say I have any sympathy. I have much more sympathy for our 4 thousand dead soldiers and their families. Or the countless thousands of maimed and wounded. Not to mention thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis and millions of refugees. Don't get me wrong I never liked Saddam Hussein I wish the US had not installed him as dictator.

David Frum is just one of many chickenhawk neocons of the current administration selling fear and death to make a buck. Absolutely no shame or regret.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


All he needed to do was answer the man's damn question. Who's at fault here Grady? Who assualted who?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
All he needed to do was answer the man's damn question. Who's at fault here Grady? Who assualted who?


Frum was under no obligation to answer any question and when Howe was asked to leave, he was under an obligation to stop accosting Frum, if for no other reason than common decency.

As I said this is much ado about nothing.

It's just one more example of the lunatic left stirring the pot to create discord among the general public.

However you spin it, there was not reason for anyone to accost this low-level former member of the Bush administration.

In all probability, he's probably not at liberty to answer such questions, even if he knows the answers.

Speech writers write speeches. They don't make policy.


[edit on 2008/4/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Speech writers write speeches. They don't make policy.


And the nazi generals tried at Nueremberg were only doing there job too. They didn't make the policy, right?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


That's such an absurd comparison that I can't believe you think that much less took the time to type it.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


I just hope it continues to be absurd.




[edit on 4/29/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Anyone can be provoked to anger and even violence, if pushed enough. This was evidently was a recurring issue or there wouldn't have been such a strong response


I will agree with you there, but I am left to wonder whether or not Howe would have received the same response by Frum had he not mentioned 9/11. He and the man sitting next to him didn't seem to mind cursing at Howe and telling him rather nonchalantly to go away, but the moment Howe mentioned 9/11 both Frum and the individual sitting next to him responded and at the same time. What made them so uncomfortable, I wonder?



Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
But the assertion that Frum's response was indicative of the nature of "neo-cons" is absurd.


If you follow the link then you will find by whom that assertion was made.
I have also seen similar behavior from groups that span the Scientologists to celebrities, so I agree that such a reaction is not exclusive to the Neoconservatives.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
On the whole, this was a disagreement between two men.


Two men and an annoying woman.


"Sir, I don't believe that you're credentials are required." (4:08)

"I know they're not. It's a public event."

Although, I do admit that when I began to post in this thread that I was ignorant of the amount of rules that apply to the campus.


Individuals on University property or in attendance at an official University function assume an obligation to conduct themselves in a manner compatible with the University's responsibilities as an educational institution. This means that all persons are responsible for complying with applicable University and UCLA campus policies. This includes but is not limited to the following prohibitions: no person on University property or at official University functions may block entrances to or otherwise interfere with the free flow of traffic into and out of campus buildings; obstruct or disrupt campus activities; engage in the production of amplified or non-amplified sound that disrupts campus activities; camp or lodge, except in authorized facilities or locations; engage in physically abusive, threatening or intimidating conduct toward any person; exhibit disorderly or lewd conduct; participate in a disturbance of the peace or unlawful assembly... [color=786cd2]Campus Rules and Regulations at UCLA --IV. USE OF UNIVERSITY PROPERTIES



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
The camera guy whines a whole lot about his "rights" then refuses to respect the rights of others. Very sad. Frum did nothing wrong.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
responding to verbiage with violence is wrong, dude.
torture is wrong.

neocons are trying to program us to think differently.

grady, i disagree with almost everything you say, almost always. weird, eh?




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Right on, billybob! This ain't the 70's!



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I just like this part:



David Frum was quoted as saying, "Turn off the camera. Go away!" as he smacked the camera during the book signing event.

Howe replied "I will not go away. I will not turn off the camera. We are in public. Are you worried, perhaps, about the criminal liability of being a partner to mass murder after the fact? You know that is a real concern because the truth is coming out."


Conspiracy nuts were quoted as saying, "Turn off the camera. Go away. I want my privacy! Stop looking at me!"

The Government replied, "We will not go away. We will not turn of the traffic light and CCTV camera. We are in public. Are you worried, perhaps, about the criminal liability?"




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Im sorry where was the "assualt"
It looks to me like he just pushed the camera away.
I know this place is infested with truthers, but when the guy walks over toFrum describing him as the "devil incarnate" and they have had previous encounters, meaning Frum is most likely aware of the mans sentiments torwards him, I see no reason why Frum should have acted any differently.

As to the guy crying "assualt" what a little wuss. Its a shame that "liberal activists' always act according to type.

They are happy to actually assualt crippled girls, but consider any light contact to be assualt.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


technically, knocking on someone's car window (in anger) is assault.

non-consensual touching is not allowed between teacher and student, nor peer to peer.

it IS assault, and water-boarding IS torture.

please rejoin the humane race, people.


Assault is a crime of violence against another person. In some jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand, assault refers to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, while in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, assault refers only to the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force. Simple assaults that do not involve any aggravation such as use of a deadly weapon are distinguished from aggravated assaults in some jurisdictions.



[edit on 30-4-2008 by billybob]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


so, it's okay for government, but not for the SOVEREIGN?

get with it. you are all SOVEREIGNS.

act like it. crush the bureaucracy.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob




non-consensual touching is not allowed between teacher and student, nor peer to peer.

it IS assault, and water-boarding IS torture.

@:
Yes Clearyl Frum "waterboarded" him.
Now prove he ever actually touched him. Not the camera, him.
because its not like you would ever equate pushing an offending camera with torture or anything.




please rejoin the humane race, people.

Sorry, we're all in Porportionality, population - not you.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
i see you missed the part about US law in your quote.

line two.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i see you missed the part about US law in your quote.

line two.


And people wonder why I claim theres a conspiracy against manhood?
What Man would consider what we saw on that ad "assualt"?

I would be ashamed of myself, and my society for charging me wiht assualt for such a weak, innefectual, and impotent "assualt"



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Since the guy signing his book had security, why did he have to be physical about it. seems like he wanted to lay a hurting on the Q man rather than let his security move the guy out.

Charge the fool with assault since he decided to act rather than allow his security to handle the matter.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join