All Hank, all the time. - Page 230

Adder · 08-11-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Nice try, but your pals on the left fed you that. Why is so difficult to admit your fraud?

I admit it. I was trying to deceive Sebby with a true, yet misleading statement.

Of course, what I meant to say was, "The British have discovered that I paid less in taxes under Clinton." That way I wouldn't have been lying.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-11-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
I admit it. I was trying to deceive Sebby with a true, yet misleading statement.

Of course, what I meant to say was, "The British have discovered that I paid less in taxes under Clinton." That way I wouldn't have been lying.

Nicely played, sir.

Spanky · 08-11-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(2) If you read that post, you'll see that Johnson was talking about the danger of binary explosive years ago. Do you think our government has done anything about that threat since then? Johnson doesn't, and he knows a little more about the subject than you or me.

Yes, they have done something since then - they thwarted an attempt by a group that was planning to use them. With all armchair quarterbarking, the legitimacy of the criticism is inversly proportional to the vehemence and arrogance with which it is given. What is so funny about this post is that this guy has no idea what is really going on at the department. Why - because it is top secret. Yet does he use any qualifier when he makes his criticisms such as: "clearly there is information I am not privey to, but it seems....". Like with most arrogant punidits he is working with ten percent of the information at best, but act likes he knows everything. Pathetic.

Penske_Account · 08-11-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
I admit it. I was trying to deceive Sebby with a true, yet misleading statement.

.

thanks. Do you want to hug it out?

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-11-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes, they have done something since then - they thwarted an attempt by a group that was planning to use them. With all armchair quarterbarking, the legitimacy of the criticism is inversly proportional to the vehemence and arrogance with which it is given. What is so funny about this post is that this guy has no idea what is really going on at the department. Why - because it is top secret. Yet does he use any qualifier when he makes his criticisms such as: "clearly there is information I am not privey to, but it seems....". Like with most arrogant punidits he is working with ten percent of the information at best, but act likes he knows everything. Pathetic.

Until not too long ago, he worked in counterterrorism at the CIA, so I suspect he knows just a little more than your average pundit. Or you, for that matter.

If it made sense to suddenly ban people from carrying liquids onto planes yesterday, it made sense to do it -- or something more tailored and useful -- before that.

Penske_Account · 08-11-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes, they have done something since then - they thwarted an attempt by a group that was planning to use them. With all armchair quarterbarking, the legitimacy of the criticism is inversly proportional to the vehemence and arrogance with which it is given. What is so funny about this post is that this guy has no idea what is really going on at the department. Why - because it is top secret. Yet does he use any qualifier when he makes his criticisms such as: "clearly there is information I am not privey to, but it seems....". Like with most arrogant punidits he is working with ten percent of the information at best, but act likes he knows everything. Pathetic.

Exactly. If there is truly going to be an effective security policy, the sheeple (including Ty's oh-so-erudite pals in blogosphere) are on a need to know basis.

Spanky · 08-11-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Arafat was certainly better at grabbing headlines with his terror. But I doubt he was responsible for more deaths and mutilations that either Unita or the Renamo bastards that Reagan, Helms, et al gleefully supported. After all, as Spanky would apparently have it, you can't be a terrorism if you are fighting communists.

Either you didn't read my posts or are putting words in my mouth. I clearly explained what I thought terrorism was, and this definition is far from it.

sebastian_dangerfield · 08-11-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not muslim, that I know of, although I no eatta the pig, but when I got my tan on, I am swarthy enough to fit a certain profile and I would have no problem getting pulled each and every time if I thought it was part of policy that was focusing on the profile of terrorists as we know them.

Of course, the time I got pulled wearing my kilt and they asked me to lift it up, the commando thing made for an interesting scenario..........

You got the courtesy TSA handjob?

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-11-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Exactly. If there is truly going to be an effective security policy, the sheeple (including Ty's oh-so-erudite pals in blogosphere) are on a need to know basis.

If there was effective security against liquid explosives before yesterday, why did so many people have to throw out all those liquids yesterday? Penske, they were throwing out wine! Oh the humanity!

Penske_Account · 08-11-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If there was effective security against liquid explosives before yesterday, why did so many people have to throw out all those liquids yesterday? Penske, they were throwing out wine! Oh the humanity!

I would have turned around and gone home or if I was in a city other than my own, gotten an hotel room and enjoyed the wine, assuming it was boxed.

No trip is worth throwing out good wine. the humanity, indeed!~

Spanky · 08-11-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What Penske said about Israel. DHS is a mess. It's been a mess for years. I have said this for years. In particular, it drives me nuts that they can't hire smarter people who can exercise some judgment. I have said this before, and it's still true. The fact is, it's a GOP administration and a GOP Congress that have let this happen for five years since 9/11. Now we find ourselves talking about it this week, again, for obvious reasons.

If liquid explosives are a problem, then either we should have been preventing people from carrying them on for years -- Ramzi Yousef was experimenting with them in the Phillipines before 9/11, as I recall -- or we should do something else, like make people stand in a small lead-lined room and shake their baggage vigorously before they carry them on (the liquid explosives are pretty volatile). But there is simply no fucking excuse for doing nothing for years and years and then having this fire drill this week.

And you're not even trying to defend them.

You know about as much about what is going on at DHS as I know about building space shuttle guidance systems. You have heard allegations, but you really have no clue (unless of course you have done some first hand investigating that I don't know about).

SlaveNoMore · 08-11-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Until not too long ago, he worked in counterterrorism at the CIA, so I suspect he knows just a little more than your average pundit. Or you, for that matter.

If it made sense to suddenly ban people from carrying liquids onto planes yesterday, it made sense to do it -- or something more tailored and useful -- before that.

It would have made sense to ban boxcutters from airplanes - from the dawn of aviation until 9/10/01 - given that some wacko could conceivably slit some stewardess' throat.

But they didn't.

SlaveNoMore · 08-11-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

[i]Penske, they were throwing out wine! Oh the humanity!

This is actually a good point.

I wonder how many carry-on two-packs of Silver Oak Napa Valley were confiscated yesterday at SFO?

Spanky · 08-11-2006, 05:02 PM

Did you miss this post Sidd?

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
No you are not a terrorist if the leadership does not directly target women and children. As I said, the contra soldiers sometimes got out of line (like all soliders of all armies do) but the contra leadership never targeted innocent women and children. They targeted government troops.

As I said before the attack against the Cole was not an act of terrorism. The attack on the Pentagon was only an act of terrorism in that they used a civilian airliner to carry out the act.

And sometimes Patriots did target Tory homes for burning and looting and raped Tory women. The difference is such activity was never sanctioned or ordered by the leadership.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-11-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It would have made sense to ban boxcutters from airplanes - from the dawn of aviation until 9/10/01 - given that some wacko could conceivably slit some stewardess' throat.

But they didn't.

I don't recall that counterterrorism experts were on TV warning about the threat posed by boxcutters before 9/11. Johnson was talking about liquid explosives two years ago. And Ramzi Yousef was making bombs with them before that.