^ I was still in the editing process. Can you not be so dense?

8/22/2007 1:07:43 PM

....


He's trying to make a point... I know it... There's like words and stuff next to his name... and hyperlinks... heck he even quoted some people...

And yet... none of it makes ANY FUCKING SENSE...

Lets start with this:

Quote :

"Since many of you younglings do not remember, affordability of operation, which included fuel efficiency, was a primary reason for the creation of compact cars."

Agreed.

Quote :

" In addition, whether you like it or not, fuel efficient vehicles, which are pushed incessantly by liberals, tend to be smaller, while larger larger vehicles tend to be less fuel efficient."

Agreed

Quote :

" As evidence of this, the following is the latest from the EPA: ::lots of stats demonstrating that fuel efficient cars are most smaller, while less fuel efficient cars are bigger"

Nice stats, they're very pretty. However, you forgot to explicitly state your conclusion:

Quote :

"Therefore, liberals encouraging people to buy fuel efficient cars are encouraging people to buy smaller cars. Since 11 of the 16 highest fatality rated cars are small, liberals are encouraging people to drive less safe cars."

WRONG!!!


1) Fuel efficient cars tend to be small cars. yes
2) High fatality rated cars tend to be small cars. yes
3) Therefore, fuel efficient cars have high fatality rates. NO!!!


Did you fucking read my stats?! The cars high fatality rated cars had an average fuel efficiency of 23.4/28.5. THAT'S NOT FUEL EFFICIENT!!!!



God fucking damnit I need a bigger crayon...

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 1:14 PM. Reason : image]

8/22/2007 1:14:22 PM

^^Can you answer my question? Was the whole point of that post just to point out that smaller cars are, in fact, more fuel efficient than larger cars?

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 1:22 PM. Reason : Oh, yeah ]

8/22/2007 1:15:09 PM

how many of these top 10 fuel efficient vehicles are in the top 10 of the most dangerous list?

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2007 1:17:41 PM

From the EXACT article hooksaw originally posted:

http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.aspx?contentid=4024763#rate_table

Quote :

"Care should be taken when evaluating this data because there are driver factors (such as demographics and region) that might greatly affect the fatality rates per model. We believe models that appeal to a more careful driver tend to have a lower fatality rate than those that attract a more risk-prone driver. "

O....M....F.....G!!!!!! You mean individual responsibility is more influential in fatality rates than their choice of automobile? Get the fuck outa here...

Also, how about look at the flip side of the coin? Republicans generally promote abstinence only sex education in schools, yet studies show that girls who sign abstinence pledges are more likely to give oral sex and consent to anal sex. I suppose we better get started on berating conservatives for causing so much sexual promiscuity...

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 1:38 PM. Reason : sexor]

8/22/2007 1:37:16 PM

This is hilarious.

A, B, and C are true.

Therefore, D is true.


He's not even able to understand why we're laughing at him.

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2007 2:31:50 PM

^ et al Bullshit. Like I posted, you can manipulate the numbers any way you like but the facts remain--and ignoring facts does not mean that those facts cease to exist.

BTW, you've all latched on to the one example. What about the plastic bag and liberal women's radio network fiascos? Nothing to add? Thought so.

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 4:01 PM. Reason : PS: --For the foamy only. ]

8/22/2007 4:00:45 PM

just tell them that SUVs are bad...thats all they really want to hear

8/22/2007 4:04:48 PM

Hahah-- grocery bags and a failed radio station

AAAAYYYEEEEE!1 my whole ethos is crumbling around me!


P.S. If you think liberalism brought about the adoption of plastic bags, you've clearly never spent time working in a grocery store (POST 1970's THAT IS, YOU OLD PERSON)

8/22/2007 4:22:20 PM

^ That's one of the reasons you're so stupid--you haven't lived long enough to have any context and you simply won't recognize that fact. Whether you choose to believe it or not, a primary reason for the widespread adoption of plastic shopping bags was the "Save the Trees" campaign by tree huggers of the 1970s.

I don't need any confirmation--I lived it. Now those types of bags are choking Bambi. Evil liberals.

8/22/2007 4:41:28 PM

Holy sweet fucking Jesus, you're an idiot.

Let's start with the cars:

"Generally, the smallest, lightest vehicles have the highest fatality rates in crashes." Well, no fucking shit you're more at risk during an accident in a small car than when you are in a larger vehicle. This has been known colloquially for years as "The Law of Gross Tonnage." However, that fact alone is essentially meaningless in the way that you're using it; i.e., being more likely to be injured in an accident involving a small car does not make small cars inherently more dangerous. There are numerous other factors which affect accident rates, none of which are accounted for in the study that you linked. The study even stated that it did not control for these other factors and urged caution when using their numbers. You however, threw caution to the wind and decided to plow on with this misguided thread idea that you lifted from a Rush Limbaugh show. On the other hand, you might have a case if you provided statistics that illustrated normalized fatality rates (e.g. deaths per mile) in a manner that controlled for driver age, vehicle price, region/locales driven, etc. You would have a convincing argument if you could demonstrate that not only are fatality rates higher, but also that accident rates are higher for smaller vehicles, across all demographic groups. But you haven't and you probably won't. You'll continue to sit in your steaming pile of a thread and accuse the rest of us being foaming, moonbat liberals.

Plastic Bags:

Do you even read what you link to?

Quote :

"Many studies comparing plastic versus paper for shopping bags show that plastic bags have less net environmental effect than paper bags, requiring less energy to produce, transport and recycle; however [...] recycling rates for plastic are significantly lower than for paper."

So, the problem isn't that plastic bags are worse than paper bags. Plastic is in fact superior to paper. The problem is assholes who litter and people who don't recycle. The laws you cited are intended to modify human behavior in order to reduce littering and increase recycling. Those laws in no way encourage a return to paper and, quite the opposite, should promote the use of re-usable bags--a superior alternative to both paper and plastic.

"liberal women's radio network fiasco"

I fail to see how this is even a canidate for "'Good' Liberal Intentions Gone Bad". GreenStone, a business, produced a product that nobody wanted to buy. The business failed. Sounds like some free market action to me.

You're a fucking idiot, hooksaw. And it's not even because you listen to Limbaugh or that you're a conservative, or the everyone else is an evil liberal. It's because you mindlessly swallow what others tell you.

For good measure

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2007 5:13:15 PM

Quote :

"plastic bags have less net environmental effect than paper bags"

maybe net effects

course you know what happens if you throw a plastic bag and a paper bag in an ocean or on the ground...the paper bag decomposes in a month or so while the plastic bag takes dozens to hundreds of years (we dont know for sure since they havent been around long enough to measure)

let alone i doubt that study was out in the 70s when we were all fearing for our lives from the threat of global cooling

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2007 5:20:28 PM

Oh, I agree.

However, littering is a people problem and not a plastic bag problem. The environmental impact from paper bags is a result of the manufacturing process; the ill effects of paper bags is inherent to the bag itself, whereas the ill effects of plastic bags can be solved (or at least reduced) by putting them into a recycling bin.

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2007 5:31:10 PM

but i dont know if you could say plastic bags are more "environmentally friendly" than paper bags when that assumes people will recycle...i mean glass bottles and styrofoam have even longer lives than plastic bags (when not recycled) and styrofoam is generally regarded as a less than optimal material for cups, etc because if NOT recycled it takes so long to decompose...but you could SAY it was more environentally friendly than something that took more energy to produce initially, if you simply qualify it by assuming it will be recycled

Quote :

"the ill effects of paper bags is inherent to the bag itself, whereas the ill effects of plastic bags can be solved (or at least reduced) by putting them into a recycling bin"

but the ill effects of paper bags are mostly in the production right? the ill effects of either can be reduced by recycling...but dont we try to make things more environmentally friendly to factor in the people who DONT recycle?

i mean didnt Ben and Jerry's switch from plastic spoons to wooden tongue supressor type "sticks" for the people who DONT recycle?

but i think hooksaw's point all along was at the time people thought that reducing paper bags would decrease deforestation...but again we didnt have your study back then in the 70s, so i dont see how you can give the guy so much shit for pointing out one of the reasons that people wanted to switch and encourage plastic bags

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 5:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2007 5:38:13 PM

^x4 First, fuck you, too.

Second, plastic shopping bags are so great for the environment that a number of cities are banning them or are considering banning them:

S.F. FIRST CITY TO BAN PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS
Supermarkets and chain pharmacies will have to use recyclable or compostable sacks

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/28/MNGDROT5QN1.DTL

Plastic bags may be banned in Boston
Councilors cite ecological harm

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/04/26/plastic_bags_may_be_banned_in_boston/

Annapolis Measure Would Ban Plastic Grocery Bags

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101312.html

Santa Barbara Takes Step Toward Banning Plastic Bags

http://www.santabarbaranewsroom.com/news/govenment--politics/santa-barbara-takes-step-toward-banning-plastic-bags.html

NEWSFLASH: Some people will never stop littering--except where you live. You know, Fantasy Island.

Third, the product was liberalism and liberal feminism--and, yes, they both failed. Now you have it.

Fourth, piss off.

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 5:56 PM. Reason : BTW, yes, you are still "foaming, moonbat liberals." (For foamies only.)]

8/22/2007 5:49:00 PM

Grocery stores don't instruct their employees to push plastic on customers ("Will plastic be alright?") for environmental reasons.

They're cheaper, they take up less space, and they're quicker to bag.

The environmental movement may or may not have been behind it, but it's laughable to attribute the switch to "the liberals."


ANYWAY, it's a retarded argument to begin with. What's it trying to prove? That liberals are fallible? Should I dig into the history of conservatism?

8/22/2007 6:08:42 PM

^^^ I don't think littering plastic bags increases deforestation.

Really, I think the question becomes

Do we

a)Continue to use paper bags with the knowledge that they will never equal the potential of plastic, regardless of whether they are recycled or not.

or

b) Do we use plastic and recognize that (1) for plastic to be better than paper it needs to be recycled and (2) that littered plastic is worse than littered paper.

Personally, I would go with b and recognize that some sort of organized push to encourage recycling needs to happen. I'm not so cynical about the human race (like hooksaw) to just say "Fuck it, people will always litter. Let's stick with paper."

hooksaw's point was that plastic is the worse idea ever and it should have never supplanted paper in the first place. He cites all these newspaper articles as proof while failing to recognize that these laws really mark a move towards things like re-usable bags which are better than both paper and plastic. These laws are not a validation of his view that plastic is inherently bad or that we should return to paper. Granted, it's difficult to figure out what he's really trying to say since all he does is post links to newspaper articles and say "Look, liberals are bad!"

-----

^^ Great form and little substance. Salisburyboy would be proud. Give yourself an atta-boy! Or maybe a , since you really like those.

[Edited on August 22, 2007 at 6:11 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2007 6:10:17 PM

Quote :

"Fifty years ago, plastic bags -- starting first with the sandwich bag -- were seen in the United States as a more sanitary and environmentally friendly alternative to the deforesting paper bag. Now an estimated 180 million plastic bags are distributed to shoppers each year in San Francisco. Made of filmy plastic, they are hard to recycle and easily blow into trees and waterways, where they are blamed for killing marine life. They also occupy much-needed landfill space."

Quote :

"Recycling of paper bags also is far more active today than it was when the plastic bag was first introduced to U.S. consumers."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/28/MNGDROT5QN1.DTL

Quote :

"Plastic grocery bags were first introduced in the United States in 1977 and now account for 90 percent of the bags handed out at grocery stores nationwide, according to the Progressive Bag Alliance, a group of plastic bag manufacturers. In 2005, 5.2 percent of plastic bags and sacks were recycled, compared with 21 percent of paper bags and sacks, according to the Environmental Protection Agency."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/04/26/plastic_bags_may_be_banned_in_boston/?page=2

Quote :

"The City of Annapolis might soon officially answer -- and render moot -- one of the most burning questions of our time: paper or plastic? The city's answer could be paper, at least according to a proposed ordinance that would ban plastic grocery bags from being distributed in the city."

Quote :

"Alderman Sam Shropshire (D-Ward 7) said his measure, which is similar to legislation in the works in Baltimore, is designed to eliminate the environmental threat of discarded plastic bags. Fish, birds and turtles can die from intestinal problems when they accidentally ingest discarded plastic bags that find their way into the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding tributaries, Shropshire said. And paper, he said, is more easily composted than plastic bags, which can take as long as 1,000 years to degrade."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101312.html

Quote :

"The decision came after a presentation by a group of Santa Barbara City College students who are part of a sustainability workshop that encourages more efficient use of natural resources. Because plastic bags are made petroleum-based, leakage from these products can cause negative effects to animals, particularly birds, and the ecosystem, said James Griffin, one of the students."

http://www.santabarbaranewsroom.com/news/govenment--politics/santa-barbara-takes-step-toward-banning-plastic-bags.html

Ha! (That last quotation--I'm sure they are not liberals, right?) And the foamies lose--again.

(For foamies only.)

8/23/2007 12:28:42 AM

Quote :

"I don't think littering plastic bags increases deforestation"

of course not, but i also dont think its unreasonable to think somebody back in the day had the simple idea that:

- paper bags originate from trees
- plastic bags do not
- making less paper bags (and more plastic bags) will reduce deforestation / "save trees"

i also doubt they knew the facts about net pollution of creating each bag...but i think my little 3 step reasoning above seems very very plausible

8/23/2007 12:39:23 AM

^ That's exactly how it happened--like I posted, I lived it. In the 1970s, "Save the Trees" meant, among other things, demanding plastic bags from grocers and other stores.

Quote :

"Fifty years ago, plastic bags -- starting first with the sandwich bag -- were seen in the United States as a more sanitary and environmentally friendly alternative to the deforesting paper bag."

Quote :

"Plastic grocery bags were first introduced in the United States in 1977 and now account for 90 percent of the bags handed out at grocery stores nationwide, according to the Progressive Bag Alliance, a group of plastic bag manufacturers."

8/23/2007 1:31:31 AM

this thread is so sad, it makes Jesus cry.

8/23/2007 2:01:04 AM

This is another "Public Transportation Riddled with..." gem.

At some point he'll be losing so completely that he'll backpedal and claim he was never really trying to make a point.

8/23/2007 7:27:44 AM

Quote :

"And the foamies lose--again."

Your thread started out with cars, plastic bags, and radio stations and has now ended with you standing on a pile of plastic bags claiming victory not because plastic bags are an inherently dangerous substance, but rather because someone in the 70's failed to predict urban tumbleweed.

Is that right?

I just want to be clear on how low your standards for 'victory' are. You should print up a 'Mission Accomplished' sign.

[Edited on August 23, 2007 at 7:32 AM. Reason : PS: Salisburyboy says use more PrisonPlanet links.]

[Edited on August 23, 2007 at 7:32 AM. Reason : Oh, yeah: ]

8/23/2007 7:31:24 AM

VICTORY IS MINE

8/23/2007 7:34:11 AM

This thread is fucking hilarious.

8/23/2007 9:26:40 AM

^^^ Please produce one post of me using "PrisonPlanet." I had never even heard of it until you moonbats started posting about it--and I don't visit it.

BTW, smartass, I do occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh. But I listen to Diane Rehm on NPR just about every day--even though she's probably about one cocktail away from declaring her support for communism. I never heard you bitching about anything I've picked up from that show.

^^


"I knows everythings! I read some books and I Googles!" STFU, troll. (For foamies only.)

8/23/2007 12:38:41 PM

Reading comprehension really isn't your thing, is it? "Salisburyboy says use more PrisonPlanet links" is a pretty clear reference to your habit of posting news articles peppered with bolded highlights. Similar to...oh, I don't know...maybe salisburyboy?

"I knows everythings! I read some books and I Googles!" -- Says the guy whose self-asserted claim to superior knowledge is simply that he's older than everyone else.

[Edited on August 23, 2007 at 12:52 PM. Reason : ]

8/23/2007 12:51:35 PM

^ And who's got the reading comprehension problem again? First, you can't post a link to me using "PrisonPlanet" because I never have. You're a liar and a fraud and your salisburyboy comparison is stupid and invalid--but it's all you've got.

Second, if you had comprehended the post at issue concerning age, you would have seen that I was referring to putting things in context over time. In my day, what Boone failed to do would have come under the heading of respect for your elders, which is an alien concept to many of you and is a big part of why society is going down hill. You know, pausing for a second before you open your mouth or start typing to fully realize that you don't know every goddamned thing.

[Edited on August 23, 2007 at 1:08 PM. Reason : PS: (For foamies only.) ]

8/23/2007 1:07:24 PM

^ Someone's got sand in their mangina...

Seriously, hooksaw, you brought this on yourself. You started a thread based on perhaps the most fundamentally flawed argument I've seen in recent memory. It had nothing to do with the fact that, yes, TWW has a considerably stronger liberal presence than conservative. It had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that you were parroting conservative talking points that, surprisingly enough, were based on little more than fact twisting nonsense. No one supported your argument. No one came to your defense. GrumpyGOP, the best example of a sane conservative on TSB, thought you were batshit crazy.


This catastrophe of a thread, and all the smack you've received for it, is your own fucking fault. Quit bitching about the liberal moonbats, foamies, and trolls. It's old, it's not witty, and it's fucking pathetic.

8/23/2007 1:53:46 PM

brb guise going to my foamies castle

8/23/2007 2:12:47 PM

lol

8/23/2007 2:21:03 PM

Quote :

"First, you can't post a link to me using "PrisonPlanet" because I never have. You're a liar and a fraud and your salisburyboy comparison is stupid and invalid--but it's all you've got."

He never said you used PrisonPlanet. He is saying your system of posting is very similar to Salisburyboy and Salisburyboy's favorite website is PrisonPlanet. Hence, the "Salisburyboy says use more PrisonPlanet."

Can you fail more at simple concepts of english writing and rhetoric?

8/23/2007 3:03:09 PM

[Edited on August 24, 2007 at 1:22 AM. Reason : ^x9 True story: I actually laughed at that one. Pretty funny--I'll give you that. ]

8/24/2007 1:19:43 AM

Quote :

"And who's got the reading comprehension problem again? First, you can't post a link to me using "PrisonPlanet" because I never have. You're a liar and a fraud and your salisburyboy comparison is stupid and invalid--but it's all you've got."

Maybe you just need new reading glasses. I'm sure the AARP has a great group eye care plan. You should look into it.

Quote :

"In my day, what Boone failed to do would have come under the heading of respect for your elders, which is an alien concept to many of you and is a big part of why society is going down hill. You know, pausing for a second before you open your mouth or start typing to fully realize that you don't know every goddamned thing."

Ah, yes. Inter-generational finger pointing. Are you still mad at Elvis for swinging his hips? With all due respect, you bitter, crotchety ephebiphobe, let me tell you about respect.

First of all--and I say this respectfully--you're a fucking idiot if you come to TWW looking for respect. You realize that the only t-dub taboo is goatse.cx, right?

Secondly--and I say this prostrated in humble submission to his sage elderness--anyone who asks for respect, particularly in the manner you are, is pretty much undeserving of any respect whatsoever. Respect is something accorded to you by others. Respect also goes both ways. How can you demand respect from anyone here when you make it clear that 'liberal' is a pejorative, you disdain youth, and you refer to all who disagree with you as foaming moonbats ?

Lastly--and I say this with both middle fingers extended in the most respectful way possible--I cannot stand geriatric motherfuckers who believe they have some great gift of knowledge and experience that they must pass on to the misguided youth of America. Let me clue you in on something, old man: YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL. Your life experiences are not unusual. Granted, you have more life experience than most others on here, but you have not illustrated any sort of extraordinary introspection that would allow you to pull new and unusual insights from the mundanity of your existence. The best you can do is naked imitation of an idealogue and a whiney plea that your opinion be given weight because you're older.

I'm pretty sure that most in Soap Box realize that they don't know it all. I suggest you do the same.

8/24/2007 9:11:43 AM

[/thread]

8/24/2007 9:14:22 AM

^^ Hmm. Looks like I hit a nerve--all sound and fury signifying nothing. Oh, and fuck you, too.

8/24/2007 10:49:09 AM

more like he said it how it is. maybe in YOUR day you were gifted respect. If people want my respect now they earn it. for the most part i just lurk these threads, i have pretty strong opinions but i dont voice them too often because many other people have already generally covered bits and pieces of what i would say myself.

we have no obligation to respect you, and really, youre not dealing with 10 year olds here, so your age doesnt grant you any special knowledge over many of us in these discussions. i dont know if ive ever seen you use your own 'knowledge aquired with age' to present ideas, rather you come in here echoing others' (often misinterpreted) ideas that are easily available to any of us younger 'less informed' inidividuals.

[Edited on August 24, 2007 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ]

8/24/2007 10:59:47 AM

^^^^ Game, set, match. Telling people you deserve respect is like saying you have a big cock. If you have to repeat it often, chances are it's not true (thank you Bill maher).

Quote :

"^^ Hmm. Looks like I hit a nerve--all sound and fury signifying nothing. Oh, and fuck you, too."

A pathetic response to a thorough TWW-style bitch slapping.

8/24/2007 12:11:10 PM

^^^^^ I say this with full appreciation of the irony, "Dittos".

8/24/2007 12:25:50 PM

MEGA DITTOS FROM HUCKLEBUCK, INDIANA

8/24/2007 1:28:59 PM

^^^ Actually, the post in question was nothing of the sort. And the backslapping by you et al that resulted was easily achieved because of the already close proximity of participants in your ongoing liberal circle jerk. As I posted, the squeals of excitement coming from your left-wing ideological echo chamber are all sound and fury signifying nothing.

And "ephebiphobe"? Please! How pathetically pedantic.

8/24/2007 5:36:02 PM

goddamn that was just brutal.

i feel like i should go down to the station and file a witnesses' report.

8/24/2007 6:14:41 PM

8/24/2007 6:57:25 PM

^ Reports of my demise are premature, to say the least.

8/24/2007 7:48:54 PM

okay, maybe not dead...

but definitely:

8/24/2007 8:04:57 PM

Quote :

"^ You wish. V A Tanzarian: You're an old retard. ^ hooksaw: You're a young retard. (For foamies only.)"

Your bar is obviously set quite low.

8/24/2007 10:01:17 PM

now that was some classic ownage

[Edited on August 24, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2007 11:13:53 PM

Quote :

"Your bar is obviously set quite low"

oh, i don't think so. this is one for the books. people are going to be bringing this one up at every "Best Of" rememberance for years to come.

seriously, i even felt bad for you. it was painful to watch.

8/25/2007 12:28:48 AM

^ That's just unbelievably stupid.

8/25/2007 12:34:03 AM

this hooksaw thread needs a 4th page

someone make it happen

8/25/2007 12:38:54 AM