"Think You Have All Of The Answers?"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

If I were the strategic planner for an international terrorist organization, this is just the scenario I would pray for. Get the American’s fighting internally and the battle is won.

People, it really doesn’t matter which end of the political spectrum you lean towards….use your common sense.

Lets say that the current administration was given solid information that Islamic terrorists were planning to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into the World Trade Centers. I seriously doubt that ‘definitive’ intel such as this was known, but ‘what if’?

What would you have expected our Government to do?

Skip the carping and mudslinging….”WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE WITH THIS INFORMATION”?

Is there intelligent life on this forum?

-- Free (head@case.analysis), May 17, 2002


Ground all planes immediately and close down the WTC. All air travel would be banned forever!

Or, cover the entire surface of the WTC with silly putty so then the planes would just bounce right off.

Add a third question to the standard two:

1) Has anyone unknown to you asked you to bring any items with you aboard the plane?

2) Have your bags been with you at all times?

3) Are you a fucking islamic terrorist? Well?????

Cover the entire surface of every plane with silly putty so then the planes would just bounce right off.

Seriously, though, the one aspect of this event that really surprised people was not the hijacking itself, but what they did with the planes. It was widely believed that the pilots of the first three planes had no idea what the terrorists were planning. Those on flight 93 DID know and we saw the result.

So, one thing they really could do with this information, assuming they had it, is to notify the FAA that standard hijacking procedures should no longer be followed. Some pilots were interviewed after the incident and said that, if something like this were to happen now, they would have no problem using some of the more interesting aircraft maneuvers to retain control of the aircraft. I believe the words of one pilot were "They probably wouldn't be able to get up after I was done."

-- (what@i.think), May 17, 2002.

I DO have all the answers. Now if I could only remember where I put them.

-- (cin@cin.cin), May 17, 2002.

You're getting awfully defense there, nut case. Dumbya fucked up "big time". Just accept it, get over it, and get your head right before the next election.

-- Limp Dick Cheney (ashamed to work @ with. bozo), May 17, 2002.

Damn ‘Limp Dick’, were you offended by my intelligent life question?

Most understandable.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), May 17, 2002.

Get the American’s fighting internally and the battle is won.

This is rich! Americans are always fighting internally. It is called politics.

This has nothing to do with whether Americans are confused about the desirability of terrorists flying airplanes into buildings. Nobody's fighting about that. This has everything to do with figuring out if mistakes were made, if so, who made them, then holding them responsible.

Did it ever occur to you that part of the job of leadership is bearing responsibility? If you never have to answer for your actions, how can responsibility exist?

You might recall that in 1944 America was engaged in total warfare, fighting for its very survival. But we held an election anyway, and the Republican candidate dared to criticize FDR and question his fitness for the job anyway! Take a lesson. If Bush is fit for the job, he'll prevail. Don't get your undies in a knot over the process of testing that hypothesis. Have a little faith in the American people.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 17, 2002.

“This has nothing to do with whether Americans are confused about the desirability of terrorists flying airplanes into buildings.”

I can’t imagine ANY American being confused about the DESIRABILITY of terrorists flying airplanes into buildings.

Little Nipper, you need an attitude adjustment.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), May 17, 2002.

You might recall that in 1944 America was engaged in total warfare, fighting for its very survival. But we held an election anyway, and the Republican candidate dared to criticize FDR and question his fitness for the job anyway! Take a lesson ...

Nipper, it's becoming clear to me that you need some night classes in history, because you're mixed up again (same as you were confused a few weeks ago about *Teddy* Roosevelt's affiliation with the Republican Party).

Thomas E. Dewey did *not* attack Roosevelt personally and he did *not* criticize the war effort or even FDR's handling of that war. In fact, relations between Dewey and FDR were generally amicable and Dewey did NOT question FDR's "fitness" for the job, certainly not in the way that you imply. Dewey focused on economic issues and the New Deal.

From Grolie r's Encyclopedia American online:

When the United States entered World War II in 1941, Republicans closed ranks behind the president in support of mobilization measures. The wartime atmosphere made it difficult for the GOP to stage a political comeback. Several Republicans even served in Roosevelt's cabinet. In 1944 the Republican party's presidential nominee, Gov. Thomas E. Dewey of New York, criticized the New Deal but avoided war issues. Roosevelt won a fourth term ...

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 18, 2002.

I can't understand this "at war" thing. We didn't declare a war, we are not legally at war with another country. We are in a process of attempting to wipe out terrorism, which there is no possibility of "winning" and so bringing to an end. Does this mean we will be "at war" forever, as long as there are terrorist existing in the world?

From what I understand, the Taliban has been removed from power in Afghanistan, which is what we wanted to accomplish. Yes there are still some Al Queda and Taliban fighters still hidden in the hills, which need to be eradicated. But I'm tired of hearing that "we are at war" in one statement and then being told that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the prisoners (they are not considered POW's) so their treatment does not fall under the rules for treatment of POWs.

How can they have it both ways?

Will this administration and each and every one that comes after be able to justify their actions and decisions because "we are at war".

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), May 18, 2002.

If there's a demonstrable threat to American lives on American soil that satifies the American public then yes Cherri "they" will.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 18, 2002.

Cherri said "From what I understand, the Taliban has been removed from power in Afghanistan, which is what we wanted to accomplish."

Cherri, I think this statement strikes to the heart of the problem. The people who you trust to keep you informed on world events have told you that the only reason we attacked Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power (so we could build a pipeline). This was not the case at all, but you are convinced it is.

The reason we attacked Afghanistan was because the Taliban harbored both Bin Laden and Al Queda. The reason the "war" is still being held is because both Laden and Al Queda are still in existence.

If you would stop letting yourself be manipulated by people who have an agenda against the current administration the news might make more sense to you. As it is, you sound just as ridiculous as the "Klintoon is selling secrets to the Red Chineese" crowd. They much like yourself allowed themselves to be manipulated by cowards and liars.

-- dr. pibb (drpibb@new.formula), May 18, 2002.

Dr. Pibb:

Hear, hear!

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), May 18, 2002.


Please read more carefully. I said the Republican candidate "dared to criticize FDR", Which he did. I did not say he specifically criticized FDR's war policy. Your quote from Grollier's actually confirms what I did say, and only refutes what I did not say.

Moreover, one of the primary Republican issues of the 1944 election was FDR's state of health. This quite clearly constitutes questioning his "fitness for the job".

As for 'my mistake' about Teddy Roosevelt, this is again a misreading of what I said. You can go back and grab the quote if you like, but it would only be the same story as in this thread: you read my words and then made assumptions by reading more into them than was there.

It rankles a bit to have you condescending to me about my knowledge of history, when the source of your presumed superiority is your own incomprehension of what I wrote.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 18, 2002.


-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 19, 2002.

Actually, Pibb, that is a marvelous point.

I wonder what "the pipeline, stupid!" crowd is going to say when the war moves *BEYOND* Afghanistan into other theatres (such as Iraq). I tremble with anticipation at the twisted, tortured illogic that they'll invent to link THAT to Bush/Cheney And The Evil Oil Men.

You know, we've already sent advisory-level force concentrations to other regions (ex., the Phillipines). This doesn't exactly jive with the Grand Unified Pipeline Theory, either.

(Why, there must be oil in the Phillipines, too! There's a heyday comin'! Gas at 30 cents a gallon![g])

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 19, 2002.


Don't get your panties in a knicker. In the thread in which we discussed Teddy Roosevelt, you made statements that were demonstrably incorrect. I took you to task for them. It's just that simple.

I did the same here. Now, if I misread you, that's my fault, and I apologize.

What I specifically disagree with here is the impression that you create about WWII, because one of the most remarkable things about that era is that the Republicans and Democrats agreed to bury the hatchet for the duration -- even to the point of accepting that FDR would probably remain president, and that the makeup of Congress would remain about the same.

They at least TRIED to be statesmen who were willing to put aside their disagreements (in the case of the Republicans, STRONG disagreement with the "New Deal") for the good of the country.

In plain English: the Republicans *ACCEPTED* that they would probably get hammered for 4-8 years. They *ACCEPTED* it. I don't see that from Daschle, Gephardt (gack, what a maggot) and company, so your comparison/analogy was, and remains, INVALID.

They are rehashing old news, trying to put a new spin on old reports, solely because mid-term elections are coming and ALL they care about is the fact that Bush is just too darned popular for their tastes.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 19, 2002.

... you made statements that were demonstrably incorrect.

So you say. I disagree. Since you are the one making the assertion, either provide the link or quote them.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 20, 2002.

... even to the point of accepting that FDR would probably remain president, and that the makeup of Congress would remain about the same.

I think that was in the hands of the voters, Stephen. If the voters wanted FDR back (as they clearly did), then "accepting" this is only facing facts - something smart politicians learn to do with good graces. There is nothing very remarkable about that.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 20, 2002.

OK, Stephen, I did your work for you. The thread your referenced is here.

Our exchange in regard to TR was as follows:

If Theodore Roosevelt was a "conservative" Republican, I would welcome a fair amount of the same brand of conservatism from the present administration. As I recall, he formed the Bull Moose Party precisely because the Republican Party was too conservative to follow him.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 01, 2002.


Erm ... no. Your chronology is off.

Roosevelt was elected as Vice President in the McKinley administration (1900) as a Republican. When McKinley was assassinated, he became President and easily won reelection in 1904, as a Republican. His first serious trust-busting occurred in 1902, when he took on the railroads -- as a Republican.

Roosevelt decided not to run for a third term and William H. Taft became president. But in time, Roosevelt started disagreeimg with Taft -- publicly -- and ran for office again in 1912. The Republican machine squeezed him out in Chicago, and it is *THEN* that he started the Progressive, or "Bull Moose" Party. He was never elected to any office as a Bull Moose, and he returned to the Republican party a few years later.

You know what your problem is? You think that "conservative" must automatically mean a wealthy, blue-blood, minority-hating, worker-exploiting neanderthal.

In fact, as a conservative, I view Teddy as one of my heroes and role models (which is why I know so much about him[g]).

-- Stephen (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 02, 2002.


I would be interested if anyone can show me where "made statements that were demonstrably incorrect". Stephen, as shown in the quote above, "took me to task" because my "chronology" was "off".

Except, my statement didn't contain a chronology, but only one sequence of cause and effect. And that sequence was correct. According to his own words, Stephen says TR: started to disagree with McKinley; consequently he ran against McKinley as a Republican; the Republican convention rejected him as the Republican candidate; and he started the Bull Moose party as a result. In that order. And what I said fits fairly well with Stephen's version of events, too.

Now in this thread, Stephen asserted that I was:

"...confused a few weeks ago about *Teddy* Roosevelt's affiliation with the Republican Party"

Uh, Stephen. Now that the facts are here to look at, do you still stand behind this version of what happened?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 20, 2002.

You may be wasting your time with Nipper, Poole. He's the person who thinks ravens feel pride... because he thinks so. Of course, Nipper will disguise flawed logic with a fire hose of prose. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain!

Like some liberals, Nipper often confuses the way the world is with the world the world ought to be. In Nipper's world, animals have richly textured emotional lives and spend off hours mastering complex new behaviors like reading Mother Jones. Nipper's world is divided into good (liberal) and evil (conservative). In this mystical land, good intentions translate perfectly into good outcomes. You must realize Nipper thinks of himself (or herself) as a sublime intellectual, nuanced and reasoned. If you do not agree with the self-evident conclusions, you must be a knuckle-dragging conservative. Because I disagree with many liberal notions, Nipper thinks me conservative... a notion I find truly amusing.

Just move Nipper into the deep end of the pool (no pun intended) where research is required. Nipper has a great many opinions, but tends towards the lazy side when actually required to dredge up evidence, proof or data. Enjoy your swim.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), May 20, 2002.

First, I misspoke in my post above. TR's disagreements were with Taft, not KcKinley (who was dead).

Ken, I thank you for that marvelously non sequitor posting. You apparently had an overwhelming urge and gave in to it. Now zip up.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 20, 2002.

LOL, Ken and LN

-- (lars@indy.net), May 20, 2002.

No, Nipper. You have selectively edited from that thread, in which I was speaking of Roosevelt having served as a *Republican* President. (One should think that my point was clear from the context, if nothing else.) You countered that he formed the Bull Moose Party because the Republicans were too conservative for him. I pointed out that your chronology was wrong.

Didn't it ever occur to you to wonder WHY I should even *think* that your chronology was wrong? I may be a knuckle-dragging conservative, but ah kin read jes' fine.

So in this thread. You argued that the current squabbling on Capital Hill is just politics as usual, and used WWII as your example, when in fact, WWII was a period of remarkable bipartisanship. That's the bottom line.

(If that's not what you meant, I await further explication with bated breath.)

Comparing what's happening in Washington right now with the way our government behaved during WWII is not only incorrect, it's just plain silly.

Hey, if you'd engage me in meaningful dialog, I'd even admit that people like Karl Rove are pond scum when it comes to bipartisanship, too. I'm willing to be fair. :)

-- Stephen (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 20, 2002.

Stephen, you brought this whole subject into this thread when you said I was: "...confused a few weeks ago about *Teddy* Roosevelt's affiliation with the Republican Party"

This was and is wrong. Not only was it wrong, but it was grossly wrong, completely wrong and wrong in every particular.

In terms of characterizing my grasp and knowlege of history it constitutes a libel, similar to my characterizing a person's grasp of baseball by saying "He thinks a double play is a two base hit."

Now I have found the thread where you alleged this confusion occured, provided a link to it, quoted the relevant exchange, shown there was never any such confusion, asked you to admit you were wrong and... you say "No, Nipper, you got your chronology wrong."

Stephen, allow me to quote a favorite saying of a gentleman who used to frequent your Poole's Roost II forum: ESAD. In case you have never learned its meaning, it is an acronym for "eat shit and die". No, don't thank me for this honor. Believe me, this time you earned it.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 21, 2002.

/what the world needs now, is love, sweet love ...

-- helen (I'd@like.to.teach.the.world.to.sing...), May 21, 2002.

I am certain Nipper is not an attorney, because nothing Poole has written comes close to meeting the legal definition of "libel."

Posting under a silly psuedonym on a password-protected forum makes the legal charge highly suspect on its face. Even if one moves from the specific disagreement over Roosevelt to claim Poole has questioned your overall historical knowledge, it still isn't a libel... more a problem with unusually thin skin.

The fact that you can post here, though under a fake name (and respond immediately) raises you to the status of a public figure. The threshold for libel of a public figure is much higher than that of a private person (though I feel a bit silly taking the point this far regarding an anonymous person who is utterly unidentifiable outside this miniscule forum).

As such, you would have to prove Poole acted with malice and demonstrate damages. Poole has several defenses to any action you might take, including the defense a your weak grasp of historical knowledge is provably true. He could also claim your reputation here was so damaged that his characterization was not a libel. (It would be a weaker defense, but one I would find vastly entertaining.)

If Snippy sues you, Poole, send me an email. I will send a contribution to your legal defense fund.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), May 22, 2002.

Ken, I used the word "libel" in its broad non-legal sense, in that it is an untruth that does damage my reputation. I didn't make any mention of law, lawyers, or suing. You have skillfully extracted those thoughts from the space between your ears.

The same could be said of Stephen's accusation that I "selectively edited" the contents of the thread. All anyone has to do to find out is to follow the link I provided and read what they find there.

Stephen, how about answering me this:

If I set out to warp the truth by restricting people's view only to what I thought they ought to see, then what was my purpose in providing a link? Doesn't that defeat the whole idea of selective editing?

And as for my "confusion" about TR's party affiliation, just what do you think are the odds of my knowing TR founded the Bull Moose party, but not knowing that he was a Republican president?

You are wrong, Stephen. Wrong. Wrong. And you should know better by now. I freely admit that I am very angry at your conduct. I think it is well justified. I was polite for a time, and showed you that you were misremembering matters. I provided you with all the information needed to realize your mistake and to apologize. When you simply persisted in your error, it became something more than an error, it became a lie. It is infuriating to be lied about. The only Right Thing to do is to apologize, and it is getting a bit late for that.

As for you, Ken -- defending a man in his lie, when you have all the information needed to understand the matter is not much better. I can only believe you have such respect for Stephen and contempt for me that you did not follow the link, have no interest in the truth of the matter, and are just being disagreeable on general principles. How sweet of you. once again you justify my low expectations of you. I knew you were a shit. But I am surprised at Stephen.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 22, 2002.

Ah, the "hissy fit" in all of its glory. As for the word "libel," Nipper, it is most often used in a legal context. I am a bit pressed as to how an anonymous Internet poster in an obscure password- protected forum can have a reputation "damaged," but let's save that plum for another day.

Having read the thread in question, it seems to me you and Poole were too busy picking at threads to agree on the cloth. I can see how Poole reached his conclusion. I also note that he apologized if he misread you. I can also see where Poole may have misunderstood you, but your reaction seems quite petulant.

I readily admit to needling you. You are a person, Nipper, who holds your own Truths to be self evident. When you are questioned, or criticized, you react like a bishop watching a man piss on the Holy Grail.

You have some silly ideas, Nipper, like the notion that ravens feel pride. I weighed in because I prefer not to let idle speculation pass as fact. I have the same reaction to your liberal dogma. Apparently, criticizing your sacred notions makes me excrement or even worse... conservative. This characterization reflects the depth of your intellect, Nipper, dross with pretty gilding. As for the insults, frankly, I received much better from Paul Milne.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), May 24, 2002.

POW! WHAM!! KERPOW!!! Bravo, one and all.

-- (lars@indy.net), May 24, 2002.

Better lay off the juice Lars, you're losing it.

-- (take@chill.pill), May 24, 2002.

I enjoyed LN and Ken's exchange. Witty, sharp-edged repartee is in short supply here lately. The last time I saw one this good was when Brian McLaughlin and Flint went toe to toe for a week during the 2000 elections.


-- (lars@indy.net), May 27, 2002.

Uh-oh, Lars is hitting the sauce again. Better watch it or you're gonna be a full time alkie.

-- (ease@off.loopy), May 27, 2002.

As I say--

Witty, sharp-edged repartee is in short supply here lately

-- (lars@indy.net), May 28, 2002.

" POW! WHAM!! KERPOW!!! " ???

-- lol (yeah@very.witty), May 28, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ