snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 23 September 2008, 07:58 PM
FullMetal FullMetal is offline
 
Join Date: 19 December 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,376
Default

Other than the false statement that "infidels" aren't allowed in mosques, I don't know what the problem would be with anyone visiting a mosque in general. if simply going into a mosque means you're muslim, then surely setting foot in a church means you're a christian. or is that a one way street?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 23 September 2008, 08:24 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
The U.S. Senate, for instance, has (I believe) a one-member majority; if any Democratic Senator is killed, the Senate reverts to Republican control, with Cheney assuming tiebreaking power.
I believe that current Senate rules leave the Democrats in power (at least nominally) even if the balance changes. (I'm looking for more information, though. It came up when there was talk of Lieberman switching.)
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 24 September 2008, 06:33 AM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
He had a choice. He exercised it when he chose to run for president.
That's not a choice in the matter, that's a package deal where he makes a choice in another matter and get this slapped on, like it or not.

Quote:
And a cite, please, for your claim that the risk of Obama being assassinated is negligible.
Looking at the history, with just for presidents lost, the risk is minimal.

Quote:
That is a perfectly reasonable attitude. However, an elected official also has a duty to those he represents.
Agreed, but where does that duty end? Is he allowed to smoke, which might just be as big a risk as assassination?

Another issue is the "Don't put ideas into people's heads". I saw a sign at a driving range at a golf court that said "Don't aim at the ball collecting vehicle". While the intent of the sign was probably good, you can bet that it put some ideas into the heads of some people.

The same thing goes with security. If there is heavy security and visible security, it plants the idea that someone is trying to kill that guy. This makes the nutjobs which may also dislike that guy feel that they are not alone and that it's a course of action that is "expected". It also creates a strong "Us vs them" feeling. In this way, security might create attacks. By moving around as ordinary people, doing their own grocery shopping, picking their kids up at school and so on, the Swedish parliament members make a statement that they are not targets, that they are just like the rest of us.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 24 September 2008, 06:59 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
That's not a choice in the matter, that's a package deal where he makes a choice in another matter and get this slapped on, like it or not.
My heart just bleeds for all those poor presidential candidates who have to go around with Secret Service protection whether they like it or not. IOW, tough NFBSK. If they can't deal with that, I don't want them in office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Looking at the history, with just for presidents lost, the risk is minimal.
Yeah, a 10% chance of having one's brain strewn across the streets of Dallas isn't worth worrying about at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Is he allowed to smoke, which might just be as big a risk as assassination?
That's a very big might.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
In this way, security might create attacks.
So is that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
By moving around as ordinary people, doing their own grocery shopping, picking their kids up at school and so on, the Swedish parliament members make a statement that they are not targets, that they are just like the rest of us.
Most members of the US Congress do that, too, at least when they're in their districts. Back when my former crooked congressman lived in my town, I could have walked up to his house and rang the doorbell and either he, his wife, or his daughter would have answered. Not everyone has protection. I would wager that more than 90% (total WAG) of members of Congress have no bodyguards at all.

Last edited by lord_feldon; 24 September 2008 at 07:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 24 September 2008, 07:50 AM
BrianB's Avatar
BrianB BrianB is offline
 
Join Date: 03 March 2000
Location: Camarillo, CA
Posts: 3,565
D'oh! How can anyone be this stupid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
He was allowed to enter but his guards (US military? Secret Service?) were forced to remain outside as they were deemed 'infidels.'
Obama, however, was allowed in as he was raised as a muslim.
From "Aftermath of of the 9-11 terrorist attack" at ReligiousTolerance.org:
Quote:
President George W. Bush visited a mosque in Washington DC; Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of Canada visited a mosque in Ottawa, ON, Canada; Governor Bob Taft toured the Masjid Saad mosque and school in Toledo, OH.
From a 23 May 2005 CBC.ca article:
Quote:
[First lady Laura] Bush then proceeded to the Dome of the Rock, a mosque in the Holy City known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary). Bush removed her shoes as she entered the mosque, holding her black scarf tightly around her head.
I guess they're all Muslims too.
Brian
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 24 September 2008, 07:52 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
I guess they're all Muslims too.
They don't have "Muslim names" and they're white. They're just being neighborly, silly!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 24 September 2008, 08:08 AM
Friends of Alfred's Avatar
Friends of Alfred Friends of Alfred is offline
 
Join Date: 11 November 2004
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
That's not a choice in the matter, that's a package deal where he makes a choice in another matter and get this slapped on, like it or not.
Another excellent example of you completely and utterly missing the point. Any functioning adult understands that the office of POTUS is heavily guarded, and understands that to run for this office means you will be surrounded by the secret service at all times, certainly when not in the safety of your office. It is not a scenario whereby you get elected president and are then told about the security arrangements. The candidates make an informed choice to run for office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
The same thing goes with security. If there is heavy security and visible security, it plants the idea that someone is trying to kill that guy. This makes the nutjobs which may also dislike that guy feel that they are not alone and that it's a course of action that is "expected". It also creates a strong "Us vs them" feeling. In this way, security might create attacks. By moving around as ordinary people, doing their own grocery shopping, picking their kids up at school and so on, the Swedish parliament members make a statement that they are not targets, that they are just like the rest of us.
Let me see if I understand this. You believe that by protecting the President, he is more likely to be the target of an assasination attempt? I almost never do this, but I'm going to need a cite for that please.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 24 September 2008, 09:00 AM
Il-Mari's Avatar
Il-Mari Il-Mari is offline
 
Join Date: 27 January 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
The same thing goes with security. If there is heavy security and visible security, it plants the idea that someone is trying to kill that guy. This makes the nutjobs which may also dislike that guy feel that they are not alone and that it's a course of action that is "expected". It also creates a strong "Us vs them" feeling. In this way, security might create attacks. By moving around as ordinary people, doing their own grocery shopping, picking their kids up at school and so on, the Swedish parliament members make a statement that they are not targets, that they are just like the rest of us.
Forgive me, but as others have implied, this sounds incredibly stupid.

The first three US presidents to be killed didn't have security details with them and were assasinated. It was about at that time that losing three presidents within 35 years while they were going about their regular affairs (seeing a play, going to give a speech at a college, attending an exhibition), that it was thought to be prudent to give the president an official security detail.

- Il-Mari
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 24 September 2008, 10:16 AM
Squirt's Avatar
Squirt Squirt is offline
 
Join Date: 16 February 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,115
Default

I doubt US Congress men have security details when they go out shopping for groceries. A presidential candidate in Iraq is a hugely, vastly different state of affairs. Whilst not quite a "war zone", the security situation is massively different.

Out of interest, would the Secret Service command structure work the same in Iraq? I imagine the local military commander would have a pretty significant say in matters like that.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 24 September 2008, 02:45 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
Another excellent example of you completely and utterly missing the point. Any functioning adult understands that the office of POTUS is heavily guarded, and understands that to run for this office means you will be surrounded by the secret service at all times, certainly when not in the safety of your office. It is not a scenario whereby you get elected president and are then told about the security arrangements. The candidates make an informed choice to run for office.
Why is USA so special in this respect? Why so extreme needs for security that even the president can't go without bodyguards? Surely, the best person in the entire nation should be able to make decisions about his/her security arrangements?

Even the royal family of Jordan moves around without bodyguards most of the time, and even though Jordan is a peaceful place, it's a tiny island in a very stormy sea (figuratively speaking).

Basically, it all boils down to this:

It is a high risk job. Live with it. If an assassin don't get you, chances are that stress related problems will. Why not give our soldiers bodyguards as well? Their job is just as dangerous...

Quote:
Let me see if I understand this. You believe that by protecting the President, he is more likely to be the target of an assasination attempt? I almost never do this, but I'm going to need a cite for that please.
I can't find the data now, but I've seen research that shows that metal detectors at school actually increase the risk of violence. The same line of reasoning should apply here. Create an image of a threat, and his opponents will feel like they are part of that threat. Sure, most are sane enough to not act on it, but in a nation with over a quarter billion people, there is bound to be a few crackpots.

I also believe that bodyguards are not that effective. They may increase your chance of survival somewhat, but most of the time, what they can do is to make sure the assassin don't get away. Look at most planned political assassinations, even against heavily guarded targets. Kennedy, Gandhi (Indira, not Mahatma), Saddat.

Quote:
Forgive me, but as others have implied, this sounds incredibly stupid.
That's because they knee-jerk-defend their argument rather than considering what I said.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 24 September 2008, 02:49 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
It is a high risk job. Live with it. If an assassin don't get you, chances are that stress related problems will.
If an assassin doesn't get you, actually, it is likely you will live throughout your presidency.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 24 September 2008, 02:57 PM
Tarquin Farquart's Avatar
Tarquin Farquart Tarquin Farquart is offline
 
Join Date: 20 November 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 16,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FullMetal View Post
Other than the false statement that "infidels" aren't allowed in mosques, I don't know what the problem would be with anyone visiting a mosque in general. if simply going into a mosque means you're muslim, then surely setting foot in a church means you're a christian. or is that a one way street?
Well I'm a Catholic Protestant Christian Muslim Hindu.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 24 September 2008, 03:02 PM
BringTheNoise's Avatar
BringTheNoise BringTheNoise is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 7,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
If an assassin doesn't get you, actually, it is likely you will live throughout your presidency.
And usually quite a while after that. Jimmy Carter, Bush Snr and Bill Clinton* are all still alive, and Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, etc all lived to old age as well.

* OK, he's not that old, but the stress hasn't killed him after 8 years in office and 8 years out of it - that's pretty good going really.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 24 September 2008, 03:13 PM
Friends of Alfred's Avatar
Friends of Alfred Friends of Alfred is offline
 
Join Date: 11 November 2004
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Why is USA so special in this respect? Why so extreme needs for security that even the president can't go without bodyguards? Surely, the best person in the entire nation should be able to make decisions about his/her security arrangements?
It does not matter *why* it is the case, the point is that the candidates know full well that it is the case, and freely choose to run anyway, therby accepting the restrictions. You claimed it was not a choice when you said....
Quote:
That's not a choice in the matter, that's a package deal where he makes a choice in another matter and get this slapped on, like it or not.
Quote:
I can't find the data now, but I've seen research that shows that metal detectors at school actually increase the risk of violence. The same line of reasoning should apply here.
Slight nitpick, but regarless of the validity or otherwise of this supporting research, there is a *world* of difference between installing metal detectors in schools, presumably on the basis that there have been violent incidents in the school already, and protecing the person who holds the office of POTUS.

Last edited by Friends of Alfred; 24 September 2008 at 03:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 24 September 2008, 03:59 PM
Il-Mari's Avatar
Il-Mari Il-Mari is offline
 
Join Date: 27 January 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
I also believe that bodyguards are not that effective. They may increase your chance of survival somewhat, but most of the time, what they can do is to make sure the assassin don't get away. Look at most planned political assassinations, even against heavily guarded targets. Kennedy, Gandhi (Indira, not Mahatma), Saddat.

That's because they knee-jerk-defend their argument rather than considering what I said.
At least in terms of American presidents, history totally contradicts what you're saying.

There have been 55 presidential terms so far (including the current one) - of the first 28 terms, three Presidents were assassinated, with one being killed in office after the Secret Service was assigned to protect the president during the 29th term. And this after it has become much easier for loonies to try to kill the president with modern technology - like the guy who tried to fly a plane into the White House during the Clinton administration.

I've considered what you've said and rejected it as nonesense, because that's what it sounds like and you have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your hypothesis.

- Il-Mari
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 24 September 2008, 07:46 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Why is USA so special in this respect? . . .
I suspect it's the same reason we have so many gun crimes in general. Nobody seems quite to know why our society is so very violent: is it our tv shows and movies? Our frontier history? Our Civil War? Our political system?

Still, the sad fact is that the U.S. is a gun-violent culture, and your country is much less so.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 24 September 2008, 11:59 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Look at most planned political assassinations, even against heavily guarded targets. Kennedy, Gandhi (Indira, not Mahatma), Saddat.
Kennedy was hardly "heavily guarded." Gandhi was killed by her own guards, so there's no real point to mentioning her (as the guards never failed to protect her from outside threats). In the case of Sadat, the officers running the security were in Mecca, so they weren't much good.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.