Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Matt Foley

Fox anchor makes great point

24 posts in this topic

Somewhere like Guam couldn't handle the security or the crowds, unless they held it on a military base, and a military base would be a horrid site for a multitude of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere like Guam couldn't handle the security or the crowds, unless they held it on a military base, and a military base would be a horrid site for a multitude of reasons.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the G20 is not made of allies and it sends a bellicose message.

How would you feel if our President had to go spend several days on a Chinese military base? How bout if we were on bad terms with the Chinese?

Also, what does that say to the world when we're so scared of terrorist, we have to hide our leaders in secret bunkers? Wanna talk about looking wimpy?

NYC is fully capable of security in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just a grunt. No offense...

wha?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the G20 is not made of allies and it sends a bellicose message.

How would you feel if our President had to go spend several days on a Chinese military base? How bout if we were on bad terms with the Chinese?

Also, what does that say to the world when we're so scared of terrorist, we have to hide our leaders in secret bunkers? Wanna talk about looking wimpy?

NYC is fully capable of security in this case.

Well honestly I'd feel safer with him on a military base than in...say...downtown Beijing. But I see your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere like Guam couldn't handle the security or the crowds, unless they held it on a military base, and a military base would be a horrid site for a multitude of reasons.

Having been to Guam, I think they could handle security quite easily. Easier in fact than New York or London. Since its Guam, they wouldn't have to worry about crowds as much. How many protestors are going to fly to Guam to protest? And for those that do, they are a US territory, and would get assistance from the US government. The FBI, the Secret Service, and the US Coast Guard, Navy, and the Guam national guard (1700 members) would likely handle most aspects of security. Points of entry are relatively few, so its easier to know who is coming in and out. Very little land to watch, and not much in the way of air traffic except for aircraft actually coming to or leaving Guam. Not much traffic, so no traffic jams to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you'd prefer all the world leaders perish in one terrorist act...

8 out of 9 engines surveyed preferred all the world leaders were to perish in one terrorist act.

Having been to Guam, I think they could handle security quite easily. Easier in fact than New York or London. Since its Guam, they wouldn't have to worry about crowds as much. How many protestors are going to fly to Guam to protest? And for those that do, they are a US territory, and would get assistance from the US government. The FBI, the Secret Service, and the US Coast Guard, Navy, and the Guam national guard (1700 members) would likely handle most aspects of security. Points of entry are relatively few, so its easier to know who is coming in and out. Very little land to watch, and not much in the way of air traffic except for aircraft actually coming to or leaving Guam. Not much traffic, so no traffic jams to worry about.

...oh what the hell do YOU know :rolleyes5: I read a pamphlet and saw a youtube on Guam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Fox news actually made a good point for once. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 out of 9 engines surveyed preferred all the world leaders were to perish in one terrorist act.

...oh what the hell do YOU know :rolleyes5: I read a pamphlet and saw a youtube on Guam.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • i just took this test again for shits and i got infj, whereas last year i got intj. so my thinking got flipped to feeling but it's still fairly close. other than that, i'm still an introvert but it went down from last year from 72% to 59%. i'm not really surprised because i got a job in nyc in the last year that has forced me to adapt to social interaction. other than that there were no massive changes though.
    • Jesus. A 3-4 OLB at #8? Two major off-field character concerns in the 2nd round? Another slow WR in the 3rd? Never. Gonna. Happen. There's at least a decent chance that his top three picks won't even be on our draft board. Gettleman has said numerous times in the past that guys who aren't scheme fits for us aren't on our draft board. There goes McKinley. Given our past with guys like Carruth and Hardy, there's zero chance that Mixon is on our board. Given Robinson's off-field issues involving a stolen gun, I'd say there's a better than average chance that he's not on our board either. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a more unrealistic mock draft for the Panthers if you set out to try to do just that.