We keep hearing from some "truthers" that we...

[SDuderstadt]

debunkers can't be true progressives.

Actually, that can be measured at:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/progressive_quiz.html

I scored a 374 out of 400, which means I am extremely progressive.

Another "truther" myth down the drain.

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. just as a matter of logic

I don't see how that could persuade someone who seriously suspects that you are paid to post here.

(I just love unfalsifiable hypotheses, don't you?)

[SDuderstadt]

4. I should have pointed out that...

among the 40 questions, not one was along the lines of "9/11 was an inside job, right?", so the "truthers" could complain that the Center for American Progress is, somehow, biased against them.

[BeFree]

39. Who seriously suspects that you are paid to post here?.

If anyone is getting paid to post here.......

It would be me, or other Truthers.


Because the OCTers are a complete and utter failure and even two cents spent on them would be a monumental, and I do mean mental, waste of money.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. ooh, that's very resourceful

Not very cogent, but resourceful nonetheless. Thanks for your contribution.

[spooked911]

2. wow,

how could anyone not be persuaded by your infallible logic?

[SDuderstadt]

6. Are you entering this post into the competition for...

"most unintentionally ironic post of the year", dude?

If I were you, I'd immediately write the Center for American Progress and demand to know why none of the 40 questions concerned the "obvious inside job" on 9/11.

[spooked911]

34. Obviously, the poll is just their definitions, and I'm sure they have some level of control keeping

them from talking about 9/11 truth. Who funds them?

But, I never said you weren't progressive. My point has always been that 9/11 truth is fully compatible with progressive views, and ultimately it would help progressive causes if insanely unnecessary military spending were reduced.

Btw, I got a 283, though I did it quickly and some answers I would probably redo if I did it again.

[SDuderstadt]

35. " I'm sure they have some level of control keeping

them from talking about 9/11 truth"/

Yeah, Spooked...the control is they want nothing to do with goofy "9/11 was an inside job" CT bullshit taht embarrasses progressivism. Neither does the Democratic Party.

I'm with them, but open to changing my mind if evidence is presented. In 9 years, the "truth movement" has come up with exactly dick.

[spooked911]

36. Dick?

I know what the "dick" is, and it's not the abundant evidence of an inside job.

Jesus, why do you have to be so obnoxious and clueless about this?

What don't you understand about massive numbers of improbabilities occurring on one day? What is it that you don't understand about how covert operations work? What is it that you don't understand about criminals not wanting to get caught?


And again, if you really cared about people and this country-- putting aside what the definition of "progressive" is (I prefer the term liberal actually)-- you would understand what 9/11 was all about and how blowing up the sham for good would help the country and its people.

I really don't know why you can't see that.

[BeFree]

37. Dick?

It destroys a poster's integrity when a poster claims there isn't dick about how bushco handled 9/11.

There are so many facts about the case that are questionable, that one, imo, would have to have an agenda averse to democracy to claim there is nothing 'there'.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Spooked...

It shouldn't be hard for you to understand why people don't try to debunk your "laundry lists", especially when you get basic facts so dramatically wrong.

Most of your "probabilities" are simply manufactured.

Doesn't it bother you to be so roundly ridiculed all over the Internet?

[spooked911]

40. Again

What don't you understand about massive numbers of improbabilities occurring on one day?

What is it that you don't understand about how covert operations work?

What is it that you don't understand about criminals not wanting to get caught?

[SDuderstadt]

41. I understand those things perfectly.

What you don't seem to understand is that most, if not almost all, those "improbabilities" exist mostly in your head.

For example, the "boxcutters" were not a violation of airline security pre-9/11, which you would know if you had the slightest idea what you're talking about.

[spooked911]

43. that's not actually true

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/12/attack/main528967.shtml

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12, 2002
Boxcutters Weren't Allowed Pre-9/11
Airlines' Own Rules Instructed Screeners To Confiscate Such Knives

-------

So I actually do know what I am talking about.

And anyway, it was also the idea of getting bomb-like stuff and pepper spray past screeners.

But I'm sure you'll just glibly ignore this now.

[SDuderstadt]

45. From your own link, dude...

Though the federal government did not specifically bar the objects before Sept. 11

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said keeping boxcutters off planes was an industry requirement, not a government order. She said the FAA allowed airline passengers to carry blades less than four inches long before Sept. 11. Government rules now prohibit such items.

Other items allowed into airplane cabins, according to the manual, included baseball bats, darts, knitting needles, pocket utility knifes less than four inches long and scissors.

If you'd bother to do the additional research, you'd find that what the hijackers brought on board was more akin to a 4" or less knife. It's also worth noting that the government was not in charge of airline security prior to 9/11. Are you suggesting that American and UNited wanted those planes to be hijacked?

[spooked911]

46. Of course I read that and I knew you'd say that

you said "For example, the "boxcutters" were not a violation of airline security pre-9/11"

when in fact, they WERE a violation of AIRLINE security.

And as you point out, the govt was NOT in charge of security, the airlines were.

Thus, I never said this proved anything. Nonetheless, it was improbable that the airline-run security never found a boxcutter, pepper spray or fake bombs on any of the 19 official hijackers.

[immune]

48. "9/11 truth is fully compatible with progressive views"

Apparently its also compatible with (some) conservative views. Last night on coast to coast, Richard Gage (the ultimate challenger of the OCT), described himself as a Reagan republican.

This "meeting in the middle", at least on this one particular issue, is something that needs to be explored and exploited more. True bipartisanship.

[planetc]

3. Just for comparison

When I was about twelve years old, I was able to spot the questions on a questionnaire which was "testing" whether people were for or against a linguistic approach to language teaching. I deliberately skewed my answers so that my results for the questionnaire showed me to be positively hostile to linguistics. I stress that I wasn't hostile to linguistics; I just hated being manipulated, and that "test" was manipulative. So, I believe that opinion pollsters will tell you that the results will often depend on the wording of the questions, and I can easily believe that.

[BeFree]

5. So

Are you saying someone would cheat on a test, like the one in the OP?

[planetc]

8. I'm just pointing out ...

that it would be easy to respond to a set of questions designed to measure attitudes so as to get the result you want. Whether this constitutes cheating is a whole nother question. I'm saying that people can manipulate "tests" of certain kinds for their own ends. I could absolutely not manipulate a test in physics, for instance, but I sure could manipulate a lot of other tests.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Actually...

I'm just pointing out how silly it is for "truthers" to claim that someone who rejects their goofy "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit cannot be a progressive.

[immune]

13. I assume you're speaking of me since we did have a conversation

along those lines. Guess I should have added "I assume you don't mean" so it would have fit into your definition of rhetorical.

And I would add that I know a ton of right wing radicals who believe the OCT and others just as righty tighty who don't beieve it, so its a moot point.

[SDuderstadt]

14. You, as well as others...

it's one of the silliest litmus tests of the "truther movement"

[immune]

16. And conversly,

being a "truther" is not a real good litmus test of party affilliation or political leanings.

But I will grant you that it is a movement and its getting bigger all the time. Like I said the other day, in the end the truth will slip right through the fingers of palace guards.

[SDuderstadt]

17. "it's getting bigger all the time"

No, it's becoming less minuscule.

You realize that AE911truth is the laughingstock at AIA and ASCE functions, right?

[immune]

18. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,

then they fight you, then you win.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Yeah...

and the same thing happens to those who lose.

You realize that you're way outgunned on the facts, right?

[immune]

21. Way outgunned, yes.

Which has nothing to do with facts.

Hell, even Kennedy was way outgunned and we still don't know those facts. I just love official commission reports. Chaos, confusion, good intentions. :puke:

[SDuderstadt]

22. "we still don't know those facts"

Actually, we do. You just like committing the "genetic fallacy".

[immune]

24. What, the magic bullet again?

Who has been indicted, convicted or punished for killing Kennedy? Nobody, right? When that happens we can call it over, and not one day sooner.

[SDuderstadt]

25. It's kinda hard to indict and convict a dead man....

and, it wasn't a "magic bullet"...that's just more CT bullshit.

Have you ever studied Dale Myer's work?

[immune]

26. Yeah, conveniently dead.

Give me a synopsis of Dale's work. Has he ever gone target shooting with a defective gun? I've heard the barrel of Oswald's rifle was so far out of plumb (literary license) that he couldn't have hit the side of a barn with it.

But now I know what another poster was saying yesterday about there not being an OCT that you haven't swallowed hook, line and sinker. That's a lot of metal in the old tummy. Be careful if they ever take you in for an MRI.

[SDuderstadt]

27. Like I thought...

you're not familiar with him. Your "you just buy the OCT" defense is getting stale. My knowledge of the facts of both the JFK assassination and 9/11 is far better than yours. You might think about that name change.

[immune]

28. Do you know how many books there are out there

about the Kennedy assassination? Are you suggesting that you've read them all?

You can call me anything that tickles your cute little fancy. I may or may not respond.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Yeah...

there are hundreds and I probably read (and still have) 10-15 of them. The thing I started to notice is they can't seem to converge upon a person or persons that killed JFK. On the other hand, the WC, the HSCA, Post
ner and Bugliosi all offer striking similar conclusions that all synch with physical evidence. Have you studied them? Or, again, have you let someone else do your thinking for you?

[immune]

32. So you've read maybe 15 out of hundreds..

and since the one's you cite "stike similar conclusions", dollars to donut holes the only one's you believe are supportive of the OCT. Not particularly shocking.

I seldom (make that never) let anyone else do my thinking for me and it frequently gets me into trouble with people who do. But that's okay, it keeps me on my toes.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Funny how you leave out the part where I said they...

sync with the physical evidence.

Since you appear to be a self-appointed expert here, maybe you can answer a question none of the rest of the JFK "assassination community" can seem to answer. Here's your big chance.

We know from the surgeon who operated on Connally that his entrance wound was in his back and the initial exit wound was in his chest. Given the relative positions of Connally and JFK in the limo, how could the bullet have struck Conally where it did WITHOUT first going through JFK?
Take your time.

[spooked911]

42. Good one

maybe we should start calling him "Leadbelly".
:)

[immune]

49. I like it.

And somebody's gotta keep an eye out for the equipment, too, all those hooks and sinkers sticking out everywhere could really ruin the next patient's day.

[SDuderstadt]

7. What do you make of the fact that...

the Center for American Progress failed to include any questions about 9/11? Doesn't that prove they are "biased" against "truthers"?

[planetc]

10. Heavens, no

No mainstream news source or large institution or respectable think tank can afford to talk about 911 truth seriously. The entire public face of our society can't afford to take the questions seriously--to do so would be traumatic, and people don't volunteer for that much pain. Democrats, Republican, and everyone else at the moment are all heavily invested in believing that our enemies are external, they're not like us, and they can be easily located and identified.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Better answer...

they don't talk about it because it's goofy.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Bizarre and infantile

and typical.

[SDuderstadt]

15. I agree it is bizarre and infantile for some...

"truthers" to claim progressives can't reject goofy "9/11 was an inside job" theories.

What was your score? Mine was 374.

[zappaman]

20. 327

where was the "was 9/11 an inside job" question?

[SDuderstadt]

23. No one cares about it except...

the "truthers".

[zappaman]

30. I took it again and got

33!!!!!!
Spooked, help!!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

31. Damn you, Z-man...

That's another new keyboard you owe me.

[txaslftist]

47. You keep hearing that?

Weird. I've never heard it.

I didn't know "truthers" had a political leaning.

Or maybe you just made up that myth to debunk it?

[SDuderstadt]

50. By your own admission...

you haven't been here in a while. You also might want to take note of the modifier, "some".