I’ve tried, google, altavista and babelfish but for the life of me I can’t find a translator to convert The_Raven’s rant to english.
Can anyone help?
I already posted that I didn’t think it was a conspiracy to allow an attack, just an arrogant indifference to warnings.
Saint Zero:
I am absolutely interested in the truth. I have no desire to see anyone swept out of office for anything they didn’t do. I don’t want to win by cheating. I want to convince people fairly and squarely that they are better off voting Bush out of office. I don’t want to lie to do it.
I just find it darkly amusing to compare the Administration’s rhetoric about their commitment to fighting terrorism with their continued stonewalling of Congressional investigations into the causes of the 9/11 attacks.
I don’t suppose it’s occurred to anyone that perhaps she doesn’t want to have to divulge a whole bunch of classified information?
I am posting from the local library, where I have found an antique “Foaming At The Mouth Loonie to English” dictionary. Unfortunately, it was printed in 1946, and seems to miss a lot of The_Raven’s more modern slang version of the almost extinct FATML-language. After a lot of deduction and extrapolation, however, I have come to the following translation:
"I have a small penis, and for some reason I talk an incredible amount of bollocks. I like to yell at people on message boards to compensate for my rather low intellectual capabilities. Never bothering to back up any of my assertions, I am often ignored or riduculed. This, I chalk up to a Liberal Conspiracy. My dad lets me drive slowly, on the driveway. 97X - BAM! The future of rock and roll. 97X - BAM! The future of rock and roll."
It might be lacking a bit in the nuances here and there, but that’s the gist of it. Fascinating stuff, dead languages.
I’m still marveling at the wonder that is “God didn’t give a fucking squirrel the brains he gave you Ubermenchen, eh?”
I mean, what? God didn’t give a squirrel the brains he gave Diog (guessing it’s aimed at the OP). Erm, probably not. A left leaning squirrel who posts on the internet would be a tad unusual, really.
And yet she volunteers as George’s national security advisor? Seems to me she has a fetish for dumb questions.
Unlike those right wing ones, as can be seen further up.
Let’s just forget that Clinton was given bin Laden on a silver platter by the Sudanese.
Condi Rice not wanting to publicly testify? Er, National Security Advisor Rice, I should say. Where to begin?
Give an SDMB poster a login and suddenly he knows how national security should be handled. There are some things that shouldn’t be made public until it’s safe to do so.
Why didn’t JFK’s advisors tell us they KNEW the USSR would back off the Cuban missle crisis? Hindsight shows that there was no way the Soviets were going to risk war with us. Rudimentary study will show what state the USSr was truly in at the time. We were scared shitless, but our leadership knew better.
Think you can do better? Why aren’t you in a position to do so? I suspect you’re like the rest of us, just posting opinion.
just waiting for the rants on the 'establishment" keeping you out of power
Actually Coldfire, the more I think about it, the more I belive The_Raven might be onto something. This led me to do further research, comparing observed habits of Diogenes with information to be found here: http://www.squirrels.org/t_faq.html
Now I’d noticed Diogenes posting more frequently of late, which would seem incongruous, as I always thought squirrels hibernated. However
A creature who is still awake, but stuck at home with little to do. Is that not the very profile of an internet poster?
It’s also got to be said that Diogenes is known for enjoying a good argument. Again, what do we find but:
It all starts to add up. But then, and this was the decider for me, I did a little searching on relations between squirrels and ravens and what should I find but: http://www.thepurpleiris.com/Welcome%20Home/ravenswood_summer2001.htm
I’m sorry, but I feel the evidence is clear. Step forward, Diogenes the Squirrel
I could be making this up, but can’t she take the oath, answer all the innocent questions, and then answer, “I’m sorry, that’s classified information” when something potentially oogy comes along?
Huh? I’m having a bit of trouble with this.
Rice was told that OBL would attack, but Rice KNEW that OBL wouldn’t?
Rice was told that OBL would attack, but Rice KNEW that everything would turn out for the best?
I guess I’ve misinterpreted what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could clarify?
Priceless. 
yeah, cuz we can trust the media to not twist that one six ways to Sunday.
Sorry, but who are you referring to here?
Also, isn’t your claim about media twist a little redundant? It’s a given that newspapers and tv companies do have their own bias, but that still doesn’t stop them from reporting what’s actually been said by Ms Rice, and then letting you form your own opinion?
Desmos, I was saying that intel to JFK’s admin knew the state of the USSR and knew they weren’t in a position to go to war with us over that.
Gary, my reply was to quixotic78, please try to read the “thread”.
It’s a living thing
Sounds like 90% of your posts.
Regards,
Shodan
Succinct, pithy, vacuous - Shodan.
elucidator asked:
Clarence Thomas? We’ve seen Ted Kennedy perform before; there’s no reason to believe he’ll be absent for an encore. You tell me, how many hearings before Congress aren’t filled with posturing partisan hacks, from either side of the aisle? There are none.
rjung says:
I think we know the cause(s) of the attacks quite well. The real question here is, were there sufficient pieces information known by the intelligence community, which, if assembled properly, would have enabled us to act to prevent the attacks.
Diogenes the Squirrel speculated:
Well, you may be correct about Bush’s laziness and indifference, as well as Rice’s political motivations, but the assertion you make that Clinton gave the incoming Bush administration sufficient warnings is unsubstantiated. You have no knowledge of the information exchanged. And given Clinton’s distinct lack of action on terrorism for eight years, it is entirely possible that he had nothing of substance to tell. The thing falls the same way for both Clinton and Bush - if they’d had sufficient information with which to act, they would have - for all sorts of reasons. There’s absolutely no sane reason to not act.
So, as I said, the only question that remains is whether there were enough pieces of the puzzle known and if so, why they weren’t assembled properly. As for Condi’s reluctance to testify, has any National Security Adviser ever been eager to go before Congress - for any reason? Given the historical record of leaks from that wickedly partisan body of political hacks, I think not. There’s nothing at all surprising about Condi’s reluctance to appear.
Oh piss off and next time give an indication who you’re responding to. It’s bad enough to post dumb comments about media, without being vague as to who you’re aiming them at.
Oh, and I’d love to know just what sort of irony you’re trying to show with ‘the “thread”’? Either that, or who are you quoting? Failing that, may I recomend a basic guide to punctuation?