The persistence of Urban Legend.

[SpeedRacer 1]

http://olivernorth.com

The secretary in my office, a hardcore Republican, and I got into a discussion regarding urban legends, rumors, and warnings circulated by email. Specifically, the one about the 9/11 coincidences.

She said that sometimes people debunk or disregard these stories when they are in fact true. As an example, the one about how Oliver North warned us all about Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra trials during the '80s.

I said, no, he was talking about Abu Nidal, who was associated with Qaddafi. Not Osama bin Laden.

She shook her head and insisted that he had warned us about Osama bin Laden. I showed her the letter at Oliver North's own website (clicky above)where he debunks the email & says it was Abu Nidal, not Osama.

She is still unconvinced. She INSISTS that she heard him warn us about Osama bin Laden, and that was why he paid for increased security around his home. She just doesn't trust the website.

She HEARD him say Osama bin Laden, and everyone who says it was Abu Nidal is just wrong.


how do you argue with that???

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

how do you argue with that???

The same way you argue with creationists: you don't.

She clearly is unbalanced. She may be dangerous. Fire her ass.

[SpeedRacer 1]

um, she's not MY secretary.


anyway, you have to admire her stay-the-course attitude. She's definitely not someone who flip-flops on issues. She won't be swayed by some candy-ass liberal pointing out some picky little "facts."

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,454]

>She won't be swayed by some candy-ass liberal pointing out some picky little "facts."

Well, reality does have a well-known liberal bias.

[Gawain 0]

It's possible that Oliver North did testafy about OBL, just not during Iran-Contra, her confusion is her only shortcoming. Even when the CIA was supporting him through the ISI during the occupation of Afghanistan, a lot of people knew he was dangerous. People were trying to fire-up warnings about him in the 90s too. Personally, I don't recall (pun intended).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SpeedRacer 1]

well, she specified the email, and that she saw/heard him say it during the Iran-Contra hearings during the '80s.

The thing about Osama bin Laden is that no one knew who he was until AFTER 1991. The aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War was what set him off, after all.

As a matter of fact, during Iran-Contra (1987) he was if anything fighting on the same side as us, ie, supporting the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Anyway, I know Oliver North is supposed to be a staunch supporter of the Republican Party.

But isn't he slacking off a little here? Shouldn't he be boldly staring reality in the face and denying it???

I mean, especially at times like this, the Republican party needs a little unity. STAND TALL, OLLIE!!

It seems as though Oliver's supporters are backing him more than he is backing himself. WHO CARES if a little reality gets in the way? I was just in an argument with a TRUE REPUBLICAN who doesn't let reality interfere with a just cause.

Why can't Ollie North back her up?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The thing about Osama bin Laden is that no one knew who he was until AFTER 1991. The aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War was what set him off, after all.

Nuh uhhh....what set him off was that he hates freedom. At least that's what I was told

[Skyrad 0]

Abu Nidal + Osama bin Laden..... Notice how no one ever saw them in a room together

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[SpeedRacer 1]

or Saddam Hussein either....


....Hey, wait a minute!.....

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,454]

>Why can't Ollie North back her up?

Clearly, he hates america.

[kallend 1,661]

Quote

>Why can't Ollie North back her up?

Clearly, he hates america.

I thought he hated everyone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

It would be interesting to find out who believes in Ideology-based foreign policy vs. Reality-based foreign policy.

I know it has been said that reality has a liberal bias. But still, it is important to know why some people will deny reality when it stares them in the face.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

It would be interesting to find out who believes in Ideology-based foreign policy vs. Reality-based foreign policy.

Seems like a combination of the two would be the best policy.

Quote

I know it has been said that reality has a liberal bias.

This seems to be in contrast to the premise that liberals are emotional and conservatives are logical.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

This seems to be in contrast to the premise that liberals are emotional and conservatives are logical.

Lib: Is there any logical reason why these two guys shouldn't marry?
Con: These two guys can't marry! I'd never be able to look at my wife in the same way again!

Lib: I don't see why flag burning should be criminal - for many people it is the best way to demonstrate dis-satisfaction with the direction the country is moving, and the belief that curent policy is getting ever more distant from the ideals of the constitution.
Con: America hater! America hater! Agree with every policy we make or move to Canada!

Lib: I don't think there was sufficient evidence to go into Iraq under the reasons that we did, and I think we had a poorly thought through strategy for the post invasion restructuring. This in turn has diverted essential materials and manpower from Afghanistan, where we had been seeing notable successes and mobilised a large part of the Arab world against us.
Con: Hey man, Iraq is doing great. Are you questioning the dedication of our troops in turning Iraq back into Eden? Man I hate you spineless bastards who don't support our troops!

Lib: Couldn't we at least have medical trials into the effectiveness of marijuana as a pain and symptom reliever for diseases such as Aids, Parkinsons, Rheumatism etc? The anecdotal evidence for such benefits should surely be properly investigated - after all we already use medical versions of far more potent illegal drugs in hospitals everyday.
Con: Are you kidding me, marijuana is evil and the curse of todays youth. Do you want your child turning into a raving violent thug? Now pass me another beer.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Thanks for such a fair-minded portrayal of conservative views.

Your open honesty is so refreshing.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

Thanks for such a fair-minded portrayal of conservative views.

Your open honesty is so refreshing.

In these areas in particular (although debatable in the Iraq example) I would say that the leftist arguments are far more rational than the rightist ones.

In other cases it may well be that lefties are more emotional. Being on the inside looking out it is more difficult for me to pick up on those

Still, it seems to me enough to put the lie to your premise.

Edit: Give me a logical reason not to allow gay marriage.
Give me a logical reason not to let someone burn a piece of their own property.
Give me a logical reason not to allow potentially useful drug to be tested that is far less potent than those we already use.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

If you want to start other threads about these topics, I'll chime in, but your comparative viewpoints above were pretty ridiculous.

The con view on gay marriage was one I've never heard of.

You talk about medical benefits of pot versus opposition to complete legalization.

This comparing the reasonable aspects of your POV versus the extremist, unreasonable (read - fringe element) side of the other side is lame.

[billvon 2,454]

>This seems to be in contrast to the premise that liberals are
>emotional and conservatives are logical.

Hmm, never heard that premise. That seems as silly as "conservatives believe in religious superstition and liberals believe in secular reality."

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

If you want to start other threads about these topics, I'll chime in, but your comparative viewpoints above were pretty ridiculous.

The con view on gay marriage was one I've never heard of.

Then you have never read a thread on this forum about gay marriage. The number two opposition (behind biblical reasons) for non-legalisation of gay marriage is the idea that it will make the respondant feel differently about the worth of his own marriage.

Quote

You talk about medical benefits of pot versus opposition to complete legalization.

Nope again, as the rhetoric goes the legalisation of pot for medicinal use will of course lead to a push for full legalisation, then your child will be lead on from marijuana to heroin! Whats that, we use a stronger version of heroin in hospitals already? Alcohol is more dangerous than pot anyway? Damn liberal lies!

Now think about it - which side is outraged (Outraged!!) by the moral decline of todays scientific society? Which side wants to teach ID instead of evolution because "I don't want to be a monkey," which side is funded by excitable televangelists, which side opposes embryonic stem cell research because "the little clusters might have a soul already," which side is tearing down constitutional rights to privacy because "the terrorists are coming and you'd better be damn scared!"

I don't think all conservatives are hysterical nervous wrecks, and I don't think they are fundamentally illogical, but your premise that they are fundamentally more logical than liberals is obviously absurd.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

If you want to start other threads about these topics, I'll chime in, but your comparative viewpoints above were pretty ridiculous.

The con view on gay marriage was one I've never heard of.

Then you have never read a thread on this forum about gay marriage. The number two opposition (behind biblical reasons) for non-legalisation of gay marriage is the idea that it will make the respondant feel differently about the worth of his own marriage.

So, what you're saying a people who take issue with dramatically changing the historical definition (and institution) of marriage are really saying "These two guys can't marry! I'd never be able to look at my wife in the same way again"?

WOW. Talk about distorting one's position. Are you familiar with the concept of critical thinking?

Quote

Quote

You talk about medical benefits of pot versus opposition to complete legalization.

Nope again, as the rhetoric goes the legalisation of pot for medicinal use will of course lead to a push for full legalisation, then your child will be lead on from marijuana to heroin! Whats that, we use a stronger version of heroin in hospitals already? Alcohol is more dangerous than pot anyway? Damn liberal lies!

Again, it's about critical thinking.

Quote

Now think about it - which side is outraged (Outraged!!) by the moral decline of todays scientific society? Which side wants to teach ID instead of evolution because "I don't want to be a monkey," which side is funded by excitable televangelists, which side opposes embryonic stem cell research because "the little clusters might have a soul already," which side is tearing down constitutional rights to privacy because "the terrorists are coming and you'd better be damn scared!"

I don't think all conservatives are hysterical nervous wrecks, and I don't think they are fundamentally illogical, but your premise that they are fundamentally more logical than liberals is obviously absurd.

You sound off in a rather dramatic fashion (kind of a leftwing version of Rush Limbaugh) and then try to take the logic high ground?

How ironic?

Back to the thread topic - do you think the girl in the OP is representative of conservatives in general or more of a fringe zealot?

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

Back to the thread topic - do you think the girl in the OP is representative of conservatives in general or more of a fringe zealot?

How should I know, I've never met her. I can infer by the information presented that she's a bit gullible but beyond that I have no idea what particular stances she takes on political issues.

Now back to the logic thing - yes, I've been choosing extreme examples but they are examples that I have actually heard and read.

As I said - I wouldn't accuse conservatives (especially moderates) of being particularly more or less able to think logically than liberals (especially moderates). You have made an accusation of that type and I've picked examples to refute your view.

Just think of the many types of legislation pushed by conservatives that pander to fire and brimstone preachers and 'our country, right or wrong' patriots. It's not logic that that pushes those types, its emotion. You can say the same about anti gun zealots with armed bodyguards or whatever on the lib side.

So far though, you haven't attempted to justify your accusation so I'll now consider the matter settled.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

So far though, you haven't attempted to justify your accusation so I'll now consider the matter settled.

I made no accusation. I merely offered a premise. I'm a bit unclear if you understand the meaning of accuse.

Throughout this exchange, you've compared the rightwing extremist POV to the leftwing moderate POV.

To me that seems like a dishonest comparison or an illogical one?

I'm not sure which. What do you think?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Back to the thread topic - do you think the girl in the OP is representative of conservatives in general or more of a fringe zealot?

the "girl" is over 60 years old.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

I made no accusation. I merely offered a premise. I'm a bit unclear if you understand the meaning of accuse.

It sounds more dramatic. What if you made a point on conservative policy and I replied with "And how does that fit the premise that conservatives are inbred redneck morons?"

Quote

Throughout this exchange, you've compared the rightwing extremist POV to the leftwing moderate POV

I've shown that there are libs who act with logic and cons who act with emotion.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?