In this thread, I take off my pants

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: In this thread, I take off my pants
SCORPIUS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!!!
Member # 314
Profile Homepage #0
Actually, I have several questions about planes flying into skyscrapers.

Why did the United States Air Force fail to scramble interceptor jets — in defiance of all long-standing rules and well-established practice — for almost two hours after it was known that an unprecedented four planes had been hijacked?

How could the world's most powerful military fail to react throughout a prolonged, horrifying attack on the financial and political capitals of the nation?

How did the FBI know the exact identities of the hijackers within 24 hours of the attacks? If their files were so readily to hand, why hadn't they been apprehended earlier? After all, several conscientious FBI agents had raised the alarm about a number of known Al Qaeda sympathizers at U.S. flight schools, and had been ignored.

Why did Donald Rumsfeld call for a war on Iraq (not Afghanistan) the morning after the Saudi hijackers had accomplished their attack?

Why did the two squadrons of fighter jets at Andrews Air Force base, 19 kilometres from Washington, not zoom into action to defend the White House, one of their primary tasks?

Why did George Bush sit for half an hour in a Florida classroom, listening to a girl talk about her pet goat, after his chief of staff told him about the second plane? For that matter, why did he pretend that he first learned of the attacks in that classroom, when he had actually been briefed as he left his hotel that morning?

Why has there been no public investigation into the billions of dollars "earned" by insider trading of United and American Airlines stock before 9/11?

I don't think these questions have been answered yet.

--------------------
CLICK HERE IF YOU LOVE JESUS

ADoS is like a magical punching bag that swings into your fist even when you're not trying to hit it. -Djur
Posts: 554 | Registered: Sunday, November 25 2001 08:00
Guardian
Member # 2080
Profile #1
The US did bring in planes, but the planes were from really far away. Very strange when you consider the fact that an Airforce base in New York could have launched planes and stopped the second plane from crashing into the towers. But I'm assuming this is for the same reason as the lack of defence of Washington DC.

As for the FBI knowing who did the hijacking, I'm reasonably sure the whole 9/11 thing was planned by very powerful government agencies/officials.

The whole thing is too weakly thought out by the guys who planned it, the gov ppl. Fortunately for them, the masses are too stupid to actually think things through.

If the select few people obversant enough were to get together and review the collections of tapes of all of the news reports, I think the real story will come out. But the media has gotten too wrapped up in believing what the government has been telling them, so that's not going to happen.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Sunday, October 13 2002 07:00
Triad Mage Banned Veteran
Member # 165
Profile Homepage #2
quote:
Originally posted by Vladimir Scorpius:
Actually, I have several questions about planes flying into skyscrapers.

Why did the United States Air Force fail to scramble interceptor jets — in defiance of all long-standing rules and well-established practice — for almost two hours after it was known that an unprecedented four planes had been hijacked?

I don't believe it's accepted practice to destroy hijacked planes. Hijackers, more often than not, have a goal in hijacking a plane besides destroying buildings, and sending jets to scare the bejesus out of the highjackers gives them the wrong idea and jeopardizes any people in the aircraft.

How could the world's most powerful military fail to react throughout a prolonged, horrifying attack on the financial and political capitals of the nation?

"Prolonged, horrifying attack"? You make it sound as if we saw this coming. The attacks were bolts of the blue, and the US would consume massive amounts of time and resources vigorously pursuing every potential threat. As it is in this kind of affair, by the time you know for sure what's going on, several weeks have passed since the attack.

How did the FBI know the exact identities of the hijackers within 24 hours of the attacks? If their files were so readily to hand, why hadn't they been apprehended earlier? After all, several conscientious FBI agents had raised the alarm about a number of known Al Qaeda sympathizers at U.S. flight schools, and had been ignored.

Suspicions were raised on them -- but not credible suspicions, not ones which would lead an immediate investigation or apprehension. In the US, it is not possible to arrest a man because you have a hunch about him being willing to commit a crime, nor should it ever be so.

Why did Donald Rumsfeld call for a war on Iraq (not Afghanistan) the morning after the Saudi hijackers had accomplished their attack?

Because Donald Rumsfeld is an irrational warmonger. You knew this, right?

Why did the two squadrons of fighter jets at Andrews Air Force base, 19 kilometres from Washington, not zoom into action to defend the White House, one of their primary tasks?

Why were the planes at Pearl Harbor mostly destroyed on their carriers? After all, there were obvious warnings about the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
The answer to both is that there was no state of alarm at the time of the attacks. Asking the US to be on constant alert against any remotely credible threat would be insane.

Why did George Bush sit for half an hour in a Florida classroom, listening to a girl talk about her pet goat, after his chief of staff told him about the second plane? For that matter, why did he pretend that he first learned of the attacks in that classroom, when he had actually been briefed as he left his hotel that morning?

So far as I'm aware, the final sentence of this paragraph makes false assumptions -- Bush couldn't have been briefed about the attacks before they happened, could they? He was there for PR, plain and simple.

Why has there been no public investigation into the billions of dollars "earned" by insider trading of United and American Airlines stock before 9/11?

1½ good questions out of 7.

I don't think these questions have been answered yet.

It's idiotic questions like most of these that prevent more valid, sane ones from being answered, too. Conspiracy-theory nonsense allows the powers that be to propaganda away genuine concerns about the events following the 9/11 attacks as "insane conspiracy theories".



--------------------
desperance -- je me souviens
arena -- et je me souviens de vous
Posts: 2449 | Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #3
I half agree with Scorp, and half disagree. While I doubt that the US had any knowledge that Abdul Wasim el-Jaber and Malis ad-Rajim were going to crash such-and-such planes into the towers, I believe that our absolutely horrendous foreign policy and failure to help other nations out of extreme destitution while we sit on our happy, gold-plated asses is good enough reason why we shouldn't be so surprised if we get attacked. I won't say the attacks are right, and I won't say that however many people who died deserved their deaths (well, anymore than the rest of us, anyway), but history has taught us that when people get poor, people get desperate and violent. If only for reasons of personal safety to avoid these "horrendous tragedies", we have three choices- we can assist countries in not withering away in the desert from starvation, we can mold them into passive colonies through sheer force (as Bush has opted to do twice), or we can sit on the proverbial egg and ***** when our proverbial ass gets proverbially wet.

No, I don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy that was assisted/allowed/etc. by the Americans, but history has taught us that we had it coming- I'm surprised we didn't get "attacked" sooner.

--------------------
We're all amazed but not amused
By all the things that you said you'd do.
You're much concerned but not involved by
Decisions that are made by you
But we are sick and tired of hearing your song,
Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong,
'Cause if you really want to hear our views,
You haven't done nothin'.

Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #4
Ditto, and (in 70's speak) "Right on!"

--------------------
I want my Desert Plah back, (Drakey, check your PM's.)

"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Shaper
Member # 496
Profile #5
This strikes me as paranoid. I hear too much of it and--no offence, I'm not saying you're one--too much of it from people (Palestinian or not)carrying "Death to Israel signs.

Pre-9/11, I think the idea of shooting down fully-laden passanger jet would have ben unthinkable. Recall the KAL 007 fuss, which almost turned the Cold War hot. They were panicking, at one point even considering turning off GPS worldwide to stop the towers beig targetted, until they realised this would probably kill even more people worldwide.

I would like proof Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11, even hours before it happened

I think the relationship between Bush and bin Laden clans certainly would merit investigation, as it likely diverted attention from the 9/11 preparations on simple matters lik prioritisation of investigtion. I also think the political exploitation of 9/11 by an illegitimate president is way more horrifying and unjustified than the attack itself (yes, I do mean this).

BTW, have you noticed that whilst Bush spouts about another "victory" in the war on terror, his inept Gulf War II 'diplomacy' and al-Qaeda's laest bombings have just kicked the US out of Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's prime war aim? Orwellian or wot?
Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00
SCORPIUS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!!!
Member # 314
Profile Homepage #6
quote:
Originally posted by el presidente:
I don't believe it's accepted practice to destroy hijacked planes. Hijackers, more often than not, have a goal in hijacking a plane besides destroying buildings, and sending jets to scare the bejesus out of the highjackers gives them the wrong idea and jeopardizes any people in the aircraft.

I see you've dished out the rhetoric right from the get-go. You've changed "the accepted practice of interceptor jets" to "the accepted practice of blowing up planes". Then you go on to describe why blowing up planes is a bad thing. And then you automatically equate the "better choice" to military policy. All I have to say is...huh?


"Prolonged, horrifying attack"? You make it sound as if we saw this coming. The attacks were bolts of the blue, and the US would consume massive amounts of time and resources vigorously pursuing every potential threat. As it is in this kind of affair, by the time you know for sure what's going on, several weeks have passed since the attack.


(I didn't phrase the questions. A well-respected Canadian journalist did.)

So...you think it would be a waste for the US would consume "vast amounts of time and resources" in order to stop further terrorist attacks? You don't consider two wars to be "vast amounts of time and resources"?

Suspicions were raised on them -- but not credible suspicions, not ones which would lead an immediate investigation or apprehension. In the US, it is not possible to arrest a man because you have a hunch about him being willing to commit a crime, nor should it ever be so.

It's not possible to arrest a man for a potential crime? What about all those people sitting in jail with no evidence and no trials forthcoming? What about the USA's policy on dealing pre-emptively with Saddam? Do you agree with these now, Alec? The US does what it likes.

Because Donald Rumsfeld is an irrational warmonger. You knew this, right?

It's so easy and fun to say "the Bush administration is filled with idiots". Sort of like how Disney poked fun at Hitler during the war, by making him out to be incompetent. (Except that...gasp! He wasn't!) But they all got their jobs because they're at least of average intelligence.

Why were the planes at Pearl Harbor mostly destroyed on their carriers? After all, there were obvious warnings about the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
The answer to both is that there was no state of alarm at the time of the attacks. Asking the US to be on constant alert against any remotely credible threat would be insane.


Again, you've transformed "protecting the leader of the country" to "being on constant alert against any remotely credible threat". Not the same, Alec. It's not hard to protect a single, vital target. Once again, drop the rhetoric.

So far as I'm aware, the final sentence of this paragraph makes false assumptions -- Bush couldn't have been briefed about the attacks before they happened, could they? He was there for PR, plain and simple.

It was after the attacks, before the PR event.

1½ good questions out of 7.

Wow. A "good question", and you decided not to answer it.

It's idiotic questions like most of these that prevent more valid, sane ones from being answered, too. Conspiracy-theory nonsense allows the powers that be to propaganda away genuine concerns about the events following the 9/11 attacks as "insane conspiracy theories".

6 000 000 people died in the world's largest conspiracy. Killing 2000 is a hell of a lot easier. Especially when they're helpless sheep who consider asking questions to be "idiotic".

I'm not saying it's probable that the USA launched an attack on itself. Just possible.



--------------------
CLICK HERE IF YOU LOVE JESUS

ADoS is like a magical punching bag that swings into your fist even when you're not trying to hit it. -Djur
Posts: 554 | Registered: Sunday, November 25 2001 08:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 147
Profile #7
Scorp, they can arrest people now because of the Patriot Act. Before the planes hit, that bill would probably have been murdered, if not by the legislative chambers, then by the press.

I don't see any conspiracy to cause the attack here. It just doesn't seem credible.

I do doubt some of the evidence convicting the hijackers. I've always had (completely unsubstantiated) doubts about the finding of the copy of the Qu'ran at the airport- it just sounds like a cheap ploy, and I'm very doubtful about how one of the hijackers' passports was found somewhere near the wreckage of the towers, as those planes very literally exploded. It would not surprise me in the slightest if, believing they knew who was responsible, certain individuals planted evidence to corroborate this. And if they were right, which it appears they were, I'm not even sure they should be blamed for this, as it would all have panned out the same in the end anyway.
Posts: 1000 | Registered: Thursday, October 11 2001 07:00
Triad Mage Banned Veteran
Member # 165
Profile Homepage #8
quote:
Originally posted by Vladimir Scorpius:
quote:
Originally posted by el presidente:
I don't believe it's accepted practice to destroy hijacked planes. Hijackers, more often than not, have a goal in hijacking a plane besides destroying buildings, and sending jets to scare the bejesus out of the highjackers gives them the wrong idea and jeopardizes any people in the aircraft.

I see you've dished out the rhetoric right from the get-go. You've changed "the accepted practice of interceptor jets" to "the accepted practice of blowing up planes". Then you go on to describe why blowing up planes is a bad thing. And then you automatically equate the "better choice" to military policy. All I have to say is...huh?


Okay, my bad if I screwed this up. The second point still stands, though -- sending out interceptors to meet the hijackers is going to give them the wrong idea in a serious way.


"Prolonged, horrifying attack"? You make it sound as if we saw this coming. The attacks were bolts of the blue, and the US would consume massive amounts of time and resources vigorously pursuing every potential threat. As it is in this kind of affair, by the time you know for sure what's going on, several weeks have passed since the attack.

(I didn't phrase the questions. A well-respected Canadian journalist did.)

So...you think it would be a waste for the US would consume "vast amounts of time and resources" in order to stop further terrorist attacks? You don't consider two wars to be "vast amounts of time and resources"?

(I love how you try to rile people up by using the material of a third party. It's like you don't even think about these things until after you've posted them.)
I didn't say I agreed with the war. I said that it would be patently insane to pursue any vaguely reasonable terrorist threat, as it would involve a clampdown on civil liberties and a huge amount of resources being expended. Your arguement seems to state that not predicting the attacks' occurence lead inevitably to two wars.

Suspicions were raised on them -- but not credible suspicions, not ones which would lead an immediate investigation or apprehension. In the US, it is not possible to arrest a man because you have a hunch about him being willing to commit a crime, nor should it ever be so.

It's not possible to arrest a man for a potential crime? What about all those people sitting in jail with no evidence and no trials forthcoming? What about the USA's policy on dealing pre-emptively with Saddam? Do you agree with these now, Alec? The US does what it likes.

I said that pre-emptive arrest is wrong, and that it's not something that is accepted process here. Learn to read, dickweed.[/qb]

Because Donald Rumsfeld is an irrational warmonger. You knew this, right?

It's so easy and fun to say "the Bush administration is filled with idiots". Sort of like how Disney poked fun at Hitler during the war, by making him out to be incompetent. (Except that...gasp! He wasn't!) But they all got their jobs because they're at least of average intelligence.

I didn't call him an idiot. I called him "irrational" because he has produced no evidence to substantiate his claims of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the Bill of Rights being threats to American security. Please learn to read these things more carefully; this will be the fourth out of four times you've "refuted" me on something I didn't say, implicitly or explicitly, and on something I'd agree with you on.
Please read these things before responding to them.

Why were the planes at Pearl Harbor mostly destroyed on their carriers? After all, there were obvious warnings about the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
The answer to both is that there was no state of alarm at the time of the attacks. Asking the US to be on constant alert against any remotely credible threat would be insane.

Again, you've transformed "protecting the leader of the country" to "being on constant alert against any remotely credible threat". Not the same, Alec. It's not hard to protect a single, vital target. Once again, drop the rhetoric.

You claimed that fighters should have been scrambled to protect the White House. The President was not in the White House after the attack, and before the attack there was no state of alert. We don't make a practice of protecting the President with combat aircraft unless there is a state of alert. So either you're asking why we didn't protect a President who was not there, or why we didn't protect him before and risked having him get killed in an attack we had no evidence to suggest.

So far as I'm aware, the final sentence of this paragraph makes false assumptions -- Bush couldn't have been briefed about the attacks before they happened, could they? He was there for PR, plain and simple.

It was after the attacks, before the PR event.

Again, so far as I'm aware, the PR event was at the same time as the attacks, more or less.
1½ good questions out of 7.

Wow. A "good question", and you decided not to answer it.

Do I look like the CIA to you? I can't very well answer good questions, as they're the sort I'd ask myself.

It's idiotic questions like most of these that prevent more valid, sane ones from being answered, too. Conspiracy-theory nonsense allows the powers that be to propaganda away genuine concerns about the events following the 9/11 attacks as "insane conspiracy theories".

6 000 000 people died in the world's largest conspiracy. Killing 2000 is a hell of a lot easier. Especially when they're helpless sheep who consider asking questions to be "idiotic".

Exactly. Why are you giving the people conspiring against them fuel by asking stupid questions?

I'm not saying it's probable that the USA launched an attack on itself. Just possible.

It's possible. It's also possible that Israel engineered this attack on us. It's no more likely, but hey, the various theocracies and despotisms of the Middle East sure latched onto it.




[ Wednesday, May 14, 2003 14:38: Message edited by: el presidente ]

--------------------
desperance -- je me souviens
arena -- et je me souviens de vous
Posts: 2449 | Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #9
Actually, the title of this topic fits very well...

First of all, our president, while being below average intelligence, is neither a sadist nor a complete idiot (I know I have called him an idiot before -- I semi-retract those statements to make the "complete" more pronounced). He would not screw purposely screw up the economy for something like that, especially if it killed his own citizens. And don't use the war in Iraq to prove that he would -- that's very different.

Second of all, WTH? Prolonged and horrifying? You make 9/11 sound like the Inquisition, or the Holocaust. And as far as I know, "a well-respected Canadian journalist" is an oxymoron. No offense to Canadians.

Third of all, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. The FBI, contrary to popular belief, is not composed of a bunch of big scary guys in virtually opaque sunglasses who know everything about everything. Of course they shouldn't make mistakes, but they do. And as for the identities? They are very skilled (which does not mean they can't make mistakes.)

Fourth, PR. What did you expect him to do, grab the nearest uzi, fly to the Middle East, and start shooting terrorists? What was done was done; of course it needed quick reactions, but I think those who were needed (such as firefighters and medical professions) did very well.

Fifth, WTH?

Sixth, they didn't need to be, really.

Seventh, thank you for being on my side for once (no, twice, ciggarettes), Alec.

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL

Les forum de la chance.

In case of emergency, break glass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 2247
Profile Homepage #10
quote:
Scorp, they can arrest people now because of the Patriot Act. Before the planes hit, that bill would probably have been murdered, if not by the legislative chambers, then by the press.

I don't see any conspiracy to cause the attack here. It just doesn't seem credible.

While I don't believe in the conspiracy thing myself in the least, your above argument supports the idea. What does the Patriot/Homeland Security Act do? Gives massive power to the government that is treading on the gray line of being unconstitutional (or, in my opinion, has stepped over it). Could the government have done this before the attacks? No, every activist group in the country would have leaped down their throats, along with the press.

No, what the conservative government needed to pass something like that was a disaster on a scale the US hadn't seen for a long time. And it happened. If you're a conspiracy theorist, you might connect those two things and start stroaking your goatee (real or imagined) in thought. Or if you're like me, you just think that it's an idiot (for god's sake, the man used the word "gooder" three times in a recent speech) with very intelligent advisors capitalizing on a tragedy.

--------------------
"Because giant worm repellant costs money, Comrade Mother!"

The Brak Show
Posts: 24 | Registered: Friday, November 15 2002 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 2247
Profile Homepage #11
quote:
And as far as I know, "a well-respected Canadian journalist" is an oxymoron. No offense to Canadians.
Interesting that you can say this after an American journalist from that well-respected newspaper the New York Times recently admitted to making up stories. And that it's not the first time it's happened. There was an interesting bit on CNN about this problem and all the people mentioned were American journalists.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like I assumed you were American ^^ Just re-read it and realised that it sounded like that, my apologies.

[ Wednesday, May 14, 2003 14:52: Message edited by: Tendai ]

--------------------
"Because giant worm repellant costs money, Comrade Mother!"

The Brak Show
Posts: 24 | Registered: Friday, November 15 2002 08:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 147
Profile #12
So far as I know, insulting a group of people then saying 'no offence' is grounds for a good kicking from said group of people. If you're going to make cheap jokes, learn to stand by them.

Tendai, that doesn't work. If that was the plan, the entire Green Party, the heads of the Trade Union movement, liberal commentators and quite possibly the Democrats would be in Guantanamo Bay right now. Well, once they get rid of these mysterious under 16s who "aren't children."
Posts: 1000 | Registered: Thursday, October 11 2001 07:00
Apprentice
Member # 2247
Profile Homepage #13
Rantallion - Who's to say that's not coming? And before you call me absolutely insane, look at history. Loss of personal freedoms starts with a group that a number of people dislike or distrust and then move on to any opposition to the current political leaders of that nation.

--------------------
"Because giant worm repellant costs money, Comrade Mother!"

The Brak Show
Posts: 24 | Registered: Friday, November 15 2002 08:00
SCORPIUS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!!!
Member # 314
Profile Homepage #14
quote:
Originally posted by el presidente:
Learn to read, dickweed.
quote:
Please learn to read these things more carefully;
quote:
Please read these things before responding to them.
I guess I'm just an illiterate hick. You know what, Alec? If you don't have the guts to belittle people in real life, don't bother doing it behind the safety of a computer screen.

And if you don't can't participate in a discussion without being juvenile, no matter how what the topic may be, don't even bother replying in the first place.

--------------------
CLICK HERE IF YOU LOVE JESUS

ADoS is like a magical punching bag that swings into your fist even when you're not trying to hit it. -Djur
Posts: 554 | Registered: Sunday, November 25 2001 08:00
Triad Mage Banned Veteran
Member # 165
Profile Homepage #15
Yeah, I'm an awful person. After all, I didn't respond to you with anything more than "learn to read" three times.

And I'm curious as to what you mean by the first comment.

--------------------
desperance -- je me souviens
arena -- et je me souviens de vous
Posts: 2449 | Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2669
Profile Homepage #16
IMAGE(http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/includes/olympics/2000/kids/images/boxing.jpg)
Alec: 16 Scorp: 9
Rebuttal! Rebuttal! Rebuttal!

--------------------
...
Posts: 647 | Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00
Shaper
Member # 496
Profile #17
Well, it wouldn't be the first time Republicans killed Americans to win power. You're recall they told Tehran the rescue helicopters were on the way to the US Embassy back in 1979. A mate there even hear it announced from the prayer towers! Of course, the sandstorm got 'em first and Carter was mainly doing it for a pre-election PR stunt too.

No doubt Democras kill people vfor electoral advanag too. I recall a certain William Jefferson Clinton was very fond of death row spectaculars whenever his governorshp was at issue.

Do Republicans kill thousands of people--yea, rich Americans in NYC--to stay in power? Well, they're capable of it, but I think post-9/11 oportunism is more of an issue here.
Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 147
Profile #18
What? Carter was a Democrat.
Posts: 1000 | Registered: Thursday, October 11 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 496
Profile #19
Nominally though of course the Democrats started out as the slave-owners' party (Lincoln, a Republican, abolished slavery).

Actually, I have time for Carter. Who else would have the bottle to sack half the CIA with detente and the end of the Vietnam War?
Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 147
Profile #20
Not in the 1970s though. The last vestiges of the 19th century democratic party were disappearing.
Posts: 1000 | Registered: Thursday, October 11 2001 07:00
Triad Mage Banned Veteran
Member # 165
Profile Homepage #21
The Republicans were the liberals in the 1800s and early 1900s, where their fiscal policies drifted out into right field but they remained socially liberal. Then came the Depression, and groups going against the grain fiscally had to adapt to survive. This meant taking on the conservative, faux-populist attitude the GOP has today.
Lincoln would probably be ashamed to be the horse they rode in on.

--------------------
desperance -- je me souviens
arena -- et je me souviens de vous
Posts: 2449 | Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #22
Aw, would you people shut up? Your simple, stupid little formulas, Republicans = Bad and Democrats = Good, do not work; nor does Liberal = Good, or Conservative = Bad. EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. As far as I know, the only people who have exactly the same views as someone else are identical twins.

Now that that's cleared up...( :rolleyes: )

Alec, "dickweed" is indeed quite childish. And to everyone else, Alec is always like this - why do you care about it now that it's directed at Scorpius, but completely ignore it when it's directed at me? No, I am not whining, but merely inquiring.

Sorry about the Canadian journalists thing, sort of... I mean, it's no worse than the opinions of a lot of Europeans on Spiderweb of Americans, in fact it's much nicer, but hey. And by the way, I am American.

And about elections? You people are being too cynical. People don't purposely kill each other to win elections. They may be a little more careless than they usually would be, but they're not murderers. And I don't think Bush's response has earned him a reelection, anyway.

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL

Les forum de la chance.

In case of emergency, break glass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Triad Mage Banned Veteran
Member # 165
Profile Homepage #23
I never claimed conservatives were bad and liberals good. I merely claimed that the Republican Party was originally a very liberal organization, Lincoln was for all appearances a very liberal man, and both the original Republican Party and Lincoln would be ashamed of the way the modern Republican Party works.

--------------------
desperance -- je me souviens
arena -- et je me souviens de vous
Posts: 2449 | Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #24
Alec- To be more honest, Lincoln was a moderate. He may have been too liberal for the south, along the lines of his saying that slavery isn't necissarily a good thing and probably shouldn't expand, but he felt fine letting slavery exist as it had been doing. His primary concern was not emancipation- that's why the Emancipation Proclamation only affected states in the South. Under the Emancipation Proclamation, slave states that weren't in rebellion to the Union such as Missouri were still allowed to have slavery. The true purpose of Lincoln, as this shows, is keeping the Union in order. Slavery just happened to be a vehicle to convince Europe not to invervene on the side of the Confederates, along the lines of Saratoga.

Sir David- My god, where the hell do I begin? First, let me comment that you are a fool. Next, let me argue your "points".

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Manfluffer:
Aw, would you people shut up? Your simple, stupid little formulas, Republicans = Bad and Democrats = Good, do not work; nor does Liberal = Good, or Conservative = Bad. EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.
You mean there are differences between the two main parties? I agree that anything good is good, but good is relative. I just happen to be liberal-minded with every situation that I've ever had to encounter in my life. Conservatives aren't the enemy, ignorance is. Therefore, we must as people work to reduce ignorance. Maybe liberals are ignorant. Maybe conservatives are ignorant. You give me your political views and I'll give you mine, we'll see where we're at there.

--------------------
We're all amazed but not amused
By all the things that you said you'd do.
You're much concerned but not involved by
Decisions that are made by you
But we are sick and tired of hearing your song,
Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong,
'Cause if you really want to hear our views,
You haven't done nothin'.

Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00

Pages