. . .at it again.

Sacramento
UC Regents find new speaker for event

Quote :

"(09-15) 16:10 PDT -- Lawrence Summers, the controversial [emphasis added] former president of Harvard University, has been replaced as the planned speaker at a UC Board of Regents dinner next week after complaints from faculty members. '(UC Regents) Chairman Richard Blum and Dr. Summers talked last Thursday and agreed that the regents would have a different speaker,' Trey Davis, director of special projects for the UC system, said Saturday. Davis was unable to say whether a protest letter signed by more than 300 people from the university system had any effect on the decision to find a different speaker for the regents' dinner in Sacramento on Wednesday. He referred those questions to Blum, who is out of the country. Summers, who was Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, resigned from Harvard last year after a long-running clash with some faculty members over his questioning whether women might not have the same innate ability as men in disciplines such as science, math and engineering. He also had thorny relations with minority faculty members during his time at the university. While Summers later apologized for his remarks, which he said were misinterpreted, it didn't slow the criticism, which continues to this day."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/16/BAULS751G.DTL&tsp=1

- BUT -

Columbia U. to Let Iran President Speak

Quote :

"Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust 'a myth' and called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.' The White House has said Iran sponsors terrorism and is trying to develop nuclear weapons [emphasis added]."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDap0mFM5AWVqH5n9rOyjrPlJutg

- AND -

From The Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan resource for information and analysis:

What terrorist activities have been linked with Iran?

Quote :

"The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in 1984. Among its activities have been the following [at least] [comment added]: Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a UN observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina. Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses. U.S. officials say Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/#2

Do I even need to point out what's wrong with this fucking situation?

9/22/2007 3:19:18 AM

um, well.... lets see.


one guy is a foreign Head of State, the democratically-elected leader of a sovereign, modern and industrialized nation composed of some 70 million ethnically and linguistically diverse people. A regional economic, political and military powerhouse, a nation poised to become a significant global force to be reckoned with in our lifetime.

the other guy isnt.























:roll:

:roll:




[Edited on September 22, 2007 at 3:36 AM. Reason : ]

9/22/2007 3:35:30 AM

^ You are a stupid fucking buffoon.

9/22/2007 3:37:24 AM

Maybe he'll share your criticism of Leftists when he speaks
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8JUSJU80&show_article=1

9/22/2007 3:47:49 AM

buffoon, eh? is that it? youre slipping, my friend..

anyhow, i'm more interested in the question: why you think a university's board of regents, should not be capable of determining whether an ex-university president (ie, one of their professional peers) is an appropriate keynote speaker for their mundane industry dinner function...

and that this ex-university president must be afforded the same dignitary status as a foreign head of state from a major UN member nation, on what is undoubtedly an internationally historic occasion?

try and formulate a coherent response.

of course, i'll accept your taunts and personal insults if that's all you can muster.

9/22/2007 3:49:52 AM

^ If you weren't so busy thinking that you're smart and would just realize that you're not, things would go better for you, joe_shithead. The UC Regents obviously thought that Summers was an appropriate speaker--because they fucking invited him to speak, dumbass. They folded, however, like a two-dollar suitcase when some campus feminazis et al started complaining.

You do read English, right?

9/22/2007 3:57:32 AM

Ja, ich kenne Englisch, aber nur ein bisschen.

apparently the regents changed their mind. They can do that, can't they? Unfortunately, the chairman is out of the country, we'll have to wait to he gets back to find out why.

Look, i think any censorship is unfortunate, but you damn well cant compare some disenfranchised ex-university president to a foreign head of state.

anyhow, I see you failed to get upset that UC also rescinded the job offer of law school dean to a distinguished Duke University constitutional scholar, because the professor was "an outspoken liberal ... [and they] would have "a bloody fight" over approving him in the face of conservative opposition"

How'd you miss that bit of right-wing academic conspiracy? It was in the very article you cited. oh yeah, that's right. you only select the bits that support your personal skew.

Quote :

"feminazis"

LOLDITTOS

9/22/2007 4:27:17 AM

^ If UC didn't want Summers, officials there never should have invited him in the first place. Since they did invite him, they should had stood by that decision, but leftists rarely have the courage of their convictions.

One more thing: Summers was "Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton," which is a quotation from the article above and a fact that you obviously missed. Call me "right-wing" if you want to, but I think that a former US cabinet secretary, former president of Harvard, and distinguished economist from America should be treated at least as well as the head of a state that sponsors terror against Americans, why don't you?

9/22/2007 4:36:24 AM

The head of the forum pwnt the crap out of Ahmadinejad today.

So much for hooksaw's argument.


SURPRISE

9/24/2007 11:25:12 PM

^ Yeah, let's give a "petty and cruel dictator" a world-class platform to spew his hate-filled propoganda--and open up the possibility for an international incident. GG!

Quote :

"'In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment and don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty.' He added, to some cheers. 'Nonetheless, I shall not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world/worldspecial/24cnd-iran.html?ex=1348372800&en=76b740c3a32d96a7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

And Columbia does not have a very good record on the issue of free speech--hell, even The New York Times almost recoginizes this fact. In addition, in 2006, Columbia canceled an invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for him to speak there. What's different now?

Free Speech? It Depends on Speaker

Quote :

"Mr. [Jim] Gilchrist had been invited by the Columbia University College Republicans, a group whose name comes close to being an oxymoron, given prevailing political sentiments on the Morningside Heights campus. 'Minuteman' could have described Mr. Gilchrist as a speaker. His program barely got rolling when protesters from the Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization stormed the stage. What followed was yelling, kicking and punching, with each side later blaming the other. The result was that the Minutemen, think of them what you will, never got a chance to be heard. Not that this unduly upset the protesters. Some of them said that Mr. Gilchrist — described with words like 'racist,' 'fascist' and 'thug' — had no business being at Columbia. It was not free expression's shining hour, many agreed, Columbia officials among them. Yesterday, Lee C. Bollinger, the university’s president, said in a statement that the student protesters may be charged with violating the school's rules. Their charging the stage was the figurative first stone that was cast. Outsiders involved in the violence, Mr. Bollinger said, will not be allowed on the campus again."

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/nyregion/13nyc.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fC%2fColumbia%20University%20

BTW, where's Columbia's ROTC program?

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 12:09 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 12:08:11 AM

The Army doesn't think there would be sufficient interest to merit the cost of starting a new program and the faculty opposes it because the program discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation (among other things).

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 12:16 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 12:14:12 AM

Columbia University to Army ROTC: Stay the fuck out.

Columbia University to a "petty and cruel dictator": Come to our campus and spew your hate-filled propaganda.

Can you not see this?

9/25/2007 1:01:49 AM

Quote :

"one guy is a foreign Head of State, the democratically-elected leader of a sovereign, modern and industrialized nation composed of some 70 million ethnically and linguistically diverse people. A regional economic, political and military powerhouse, a nation poised to become a significant global force to be reckoned with in our lifetime."

Wow, Ahmadinejad has you snowed about as well as he does his own people. At this point Iran is still struggling for regional hegemon status. Their global position is what we say it is. By the time Iran even sniffs the possibility of being a "global force," we'll have found a source of energy to replace oil, and the basis of their economy will go up in smoke. And yes, I realize it will be a long time before we find the source of said energy.

And I'd have to agree with hooksaw. Liberals are all for free speech, as long as it's speech that they agree with, and especially if it advances their own agenda. They're just as bad as the far right in that they are so certain of their own intellectual and moral superiority they refuse to consider the possibility that the other side could even be partially right on certain issues. And rather than trying to engage the other side in serious debate, they hurl the labels of racist, sexist, etc. etc. to ensure that the other side's point of view won't be heard, much less considered.

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 1:32 AM. Reason : Liberal and Right-wing extremism is getting so old]

9/25/2007 1:31:02 AM

^ Thanks. But the left-wing moonbats will be coming for you now--watch out!

This is where you went wrong--in their eyes:

Quote :

"And I'd have to agree with hooksaw."

9/25/2007 1:45:36 AM

^^ oh please

Like you have ever witnessed anything like you described. You are just band-wagoning based on something you heard on a website.

9/25/2007 1:57:29 AM

Quote :

"Like you have ever witnessed anything like you described. You are just band-wagoning based on something you heard on a website."

You've just proven my point. You have no idea what I do or do not know. I will tell you I'm more informed than most. Whether I know more than you, I can't say because I don't know you, but I'm not so quick to call you ignorant because of your opinion. And how can I be bandwagoning when I said that both liberals and conservatives are guilty of reading their own press and noone else's. Who's bandwagon am I on? hooksaw's? You can check my post history, and you'll see I don't have a habit of agreeing with very many people when it comes to politics. I just thought in this case he brought up a valid point, as it is something I've seen numerous times before in other places and instances. You basically telling me I'm ignorant isn't going to go a long way in changing my mind in your favor.

Maybe you should try reading this again

Quote :

"And rather than trying to engage the other side in serious debate, they hurl the labels of racist, sexist, etc. etc. to ensure that the other side's point of view won't be heard, much less considered."

I think bandwagoner fits in there nicely.

9/25/2007 2:12:10 AM

Quote :

"Liberals are all for free speech, as long as it's speech that they agree with"

Ahmadinejad's views aren't on the same planet as liberals

9/25/2007 3:13:12 AM

Quote :

" Yeah, let's give a "petty and cruel dictator" a world-class platform to spew his hate-filled propoganda--and open up the possibility for an international incident. GG!."

It's dumbasses that think like you that get us in to messes like the Iraq war.

First, it's clear they weren't giving him a platform to spew hate. He was dug in to really well not only during his speech, but also during an interview.

Secondly, there's several politicians and Bush himself rattling about bombing Iran. You don't think it's at least somewhat of a good idea to see what their leader has to say? Have you heard the statement "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"

You already know you have a problem processing information ( http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=493869 ), you should start correcting for this.

Quote :

"Liberals are all for free speech, as long as it's speech that they agree with, and especially if it advances their own agenda."

I don't think you're as dumb as hooksaw (yet) but you come close when you say things like this. Why did you even bring this up? Where does this fit in this thread?

If calling Ahmedenijab out on his bullshit is part of the liberal agenda, then what's wrong with liberals? Are you somehow implying that a conservative, unlike those evil liberals at Columbia, wouldn't have called Ahmedenijab a cruel dictator to his face, in front of thousands of people? Seems like those liberals have WAY more balls that any conservative.

9/25/2007 3:38:34 AM

Quote :

"And rather than trying to engage the other side in serious debate, they hurl the labels of racist, sexist, etc. etc. to ensure that the other side's point of view won't be heard, much less considered."

Hold on, how can you say this, when you want to label someone as a "petty and cruel dictator" and don't want to hear their views, much less consider them?

Jesus, the hypocrisy is stifling.

(now you are going to tell me "but he IS a petty and cruel dictator"!!!)

9/25/2007 5:23:42 AM

Quote :

"and open up the possibility for an international incident. GG!"

Riiiight. And when was the last war that was started when a professor talked badly about another country's leader?

You just have sand in your vagina that your expected Academia-Iranian love fest didn't break out.



It's hilarious how much maneuvering right-wingers are having to do over this (did anyone catch Limbaugh yesterday )

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:36 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 8:33:00 AM

Quote :

"Columbia U. to Let Iran President Speak Quote : "Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust 'a myth' and called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.' The White House has said Iran sponsors terrorism and is trying to develop nuclear weapons [emphasis added].""

Not that I agree with his views or his threat to world stability but how exactly is letting the head of state of another country speak; a part of the leftist agenda
If anything it reinforced the negative opinions we have of him

b.c we all know that if you disagree with bush you are a terrorist loving, radical, communist, freedom hater. One objective of any accredited university is to educate people and provide alternative viewpoints for rational scholarly critique and analysis among other things.

Quote :

"Liberals are all for free speech, as long as it's speech that they agree with"

Not that my views are even that liberal but hard-core neo-cons are a lot more guilty of the above quote then the left which tends to be more open-minded. Usually it is the bush lovers on this board and on a the national soapbox that are hold the view, "if you do not like it then get the fuck out," referring to disagreement of current US policy. I could quote several right minded TWWers who result to name calling on a consistent basis when presented with an argument contrary to their own ideas.

Quote :

"GG indeed. fuck yourself."

- DaBird when countering an argument of Golovko

Quote :

" to make assumptions that you do is retarded"

- Ouerver invalidating a response about snipers killing Iraqi civilians by claiming a user has a mental handicap.

Quote :

"they're supposed to get the point across without offending pussy faggots like you"

- TreeTwista10 while supporting our trigger happy friends from Blackwater

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 10:13 AM. Reason : l]

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 10:18 AM. Reason : l]

9/25/2007 10:00:27 AM

This thread title is redundant. Should've just read, "Academics..."

9/25/2007 11:54:50 AM

I dont think its a surprise that those in universities lean left.

However, I dont have any problem with them bringing in speakers with different points of views. The only problem I would have with that if they made them manditory in some way. But a main goal of college is to expose you to different people and different views.

However it is tacky not to let the armed forces on campus.

9/25/2007 12:03:58 PM

shouldve just read "another liberal TWW thread...thank god these idiots are confined to a messageboard"

9/25/2007 12:04:50 PM

^^^^ You'll notice that nowhere in there did you see statered rebutting someone's point with profanity. That's a lazy approach, and I haven't met one of you yet whose debating skills could frustrate me to the point of throwing out reason and swearing at you. I said I agreed with hooksaw, but only in this instance. Please don't try to pigeonhole me with other extremists, when I've already made it clear that I wouldn't want to be associated with them (from either side of the aisle). See

Quote :

"Liberal and Right-wing extremism is getting so old"

from above.

Quote :

"Ahmadinejad's views aren't on the same planet as liberals"

Really? Awww shucks, I guess because I'm not a genius left-winger, I must have been too stupid to know this. But really, all sarcasm aside, you're right Ahmadinejad is not a liberal in any sense of the word; however, allowing him to speak does advance the liberal agenda, which I alluded to above.

It shows

1) That liberals are willing to hear an extremist's point of view, if it will make them seem more open
minded than their conservative counterparts.
2) And then when they take said extremist to task for his point of view, it makes them appear
tough on what some have referred to as a state sponsor of terror.

They only let Ahmadinejad speak so they could bolster their credibility when dealing with hardliners from other countries. Basically they were trying to out-Bush Bush and at the same time appear open-minded. This is supported by the fact that the moderator for Columbia tore into Ahmadinejad before he even started speaking. If he was really trying to have an open discourse, why not hear what the man has to say before tearing him a new one.

Quote :

"I don't think you're as dumb as hooksaw (yet) but you come close when you say things like this. Why did you even bring this up? Where does this fit in this thread?"

Why did I bring this up and where does it fit in the thread? Hmmm...Maybe I brought it up because it was basically a summation of hooksaw's reason for making the thread in the first place. He was pointing out the hypocrisy in allowing a dictator to speak in an open forum, but uninviting a (once) respected member of academia to speak in a similar forum at another liberal institution. And I'm sure you'll counter that he was uninvited because in the past he has called into question the credentials of women and minorities. How does this make him any different from Ahmadinejad? Why not have him come speak and then take him to task for his close-mindedness. And if the response would be he's not as important to listen to as Ahmadinejad, why did they invite him in the first place? The only thing that changed was 300 people from the university system (that prides itself on being one of the most liberal in the country) signed a letter of protest voicing their displeasure with the choice of speaker. Why such displeasure? Maybe because they didn't agree with his point of view, and they felt they had nothing to gain (read: advance their agenda) by listening to him.

Quote :

"Hold on, how can you say this, when you want to label someone as a "petty and cruel dictator" and don't want to hear their views, much less consider them? Jesus, the hypocrisy is stifling. "

So you quote me, and then attribute the phrase "petty and cruel dictator" to me as well. If you actually read what I said, nowhere did I refer to Ahmadinejad as a petty and cruel dictator. That was the Columbia moderator. And before you say I agreed with this characterization, let me clarify that I agreed with the point which hooksaw was trying to make.

Do I think Ahmadinejad is a petty and cruel dictator? Yes I do. I think his past actions would go pretty far in proving him as such. But would I listen to the man speak? Again, yes I would, although as long as he dodges questions and changes topics everytime he is corner, I don't much see the point.

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 12:17 PM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 12:31 PM. Reason : V thanks for the correction]

9/25/2007 12:16:32 PM

the moderator of the event introduced Ahmadinejad as a petty and cruel dictator, and rightfully so

I swear some of you seem to bend over backwards to defend this terrorist leader...some of you guys are all fucked up in the head

9/25/2007 12:22:24 PM

Quote :

"I swear some of you seem to bend over backwards to defend this terrorist leader"

I do not think anyone here is actually advocating or supporting AJ. The issue is that people should actually have an open mind and not sit around scarfing down the biased propaganda based handouts from the white house. I think if anything the Columbia speech dug AJ further into a hole with his answers to the questions during the event. I guess the right wingers in this thread do not support free speech from someone with ideas starkly contrast to that of American society. Perhaps authorities should throw any dissenters into jail. oh wait that would probably actually give them something more in common with AJ then a group of students letting him make a fool of himself on campus.

9/25/2007 12:48:56 PM

Quote :

"I do not think anyone here is actually advocating or supporting AJ"

I'm pretty sure you and Golovko, among others, are clearly supporting him

Quote :

"I guess the right wingers in this thread do not support free speech from someone with ideas starkly contrast to that of American society"

I guess the left wingers would like for Hitler and Saddam and Osama to all speak at Columbia

9/25/2007 12:51:06 PM

well, if they could get any of these three to talk, i would be VERY impressed.

9/25/2007 12:52:37 PM

Quote :

"1) That liberals are willing to hear an extremist's point of view, if it will make them seem more open minded than their conservative counterparts. 2) And then when they take said extremist to task for his point of view, it makes them appear tough on what some have referred to as a state sponsor of terror. They only let Ahmadinejad speak so they could bolster their credibility when dealing with hardliners from other countries. Basically they were trying to out-Bush Bush and at the same time appear open-minded."

The fact that so many right-wingers think that all liberal actions are part of some giant political chess match speaks volumes about themselves.

Here's a thought-- instead of this being part of some PR campaign for the elitist liberal establishment, maybe it's simply some professors wanting to hear both sides of the story.

Also,
why the hell do tenured poly-sci professors at Columbia care about "bolster[ing] their credibility when dealing with hardliners from other countries???"

9/25/2007 12:53:49 PM

Quote :

"maybe it's simply some professors wanting to hear both sides of the story"

i think i need to be literally shot with a gun to understand that guns are dangerous

9/25/2007 12:55:06 PM

i think i literally need to hear a person talk rather than taking the american media spin on it.

9/25/2007 12:56:10 PM

That metaphor is so awesome, tree.

It really works in this situation.

Because by allowing him to speak, we were doing some sort of harm to ourselves.

Just like a gunshot would.

9/25/2007 12:57:18 PM

Quote :

"I guess the right wingers in this thread do not support free speech from someone with ideas starkly contrast to that of American society."

Again, how was the behavior of the liberals in the University of California system in regards to Lawrence Summers, any different than the right wing's protestations to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia. Summers is far less extreme than Ahmadinejad, and other than for reasons I've already specified in my post above, why wasn't he allowed to speak?

There's a double standard here, and I don't understand why some of you fail to see that.

9/25/2007 12:58:39 PM

yeah Boone, cause clearly PhD holding professors need to hear a crazy dictator to speak to verify that he's crazy

I mean simply hearing Usama Bin Ladin speak wouldnt cause any physical harm, and obviously that would also be fine...free speech for all, even people who wish death on our country and are willing to put those wishes into action

9/25/2007 1:01:10 PM

^^There will be a double standard as soon as Lawrence Summers is the President of a large country.

^Heck... let's just put cotton in our ears. EVERYONE'S CRAZY LA LA LA LA

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 1:01:36 PM

Quote :

"Also, why the hell do tenured poly-sci professors at Columbia care about "bolster[ing] their credibility when dealing with hardliners from other countries???"

If I answer this question, are you really going to pay attention to my response, or are you just going to write it off as some inferior conservative trying to make up for his inadequacies?

I mean who's really being close-minded here anyway?

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 1:09 PM. Reason : Nevermind Boone, I've got to go to class, leave an answer to my question, and I'll be back later]

9/25/2007 1:01:43 PM

I'm very open to your response.

I'm just hoping for one that doesn't portray the university system and the Democrats working hand-in-hand in some sort of overarching liberal battle plan.

9/25/2007 1:08:20 PM

^ See edit

9/25/2007 1:09:30 PM

Quote :

"Heck... let's just put cotton in our ears. EVERYONE'S CRAZY LA LA LA LA"

thank you for completely conceding the argument

9/25/2007 1:15:55 PM

Quote :

"There will be a double standard as soon as Lawrence Summers is the President of a large country."

Boone-Tard

Being a head of state is not a requirement to speak at a university. In any event, Summers is a former Treasury secretary, a former Harvard president, and a world-class economist. These achievements more than qualify him to speak at a fucking UC Board of Regents' dinner, you buffoon. And he was invited to do so until the invitation was rescinded as a result of actions by left-wing loons like you.

FYI, statered: I am not an "extremist" of any sort. But I am portrayed as one by the moonbats in TSB.

9/25/2007 1:31:40 PM

hooksaw for your own good, I'd like you to try an experiment. Every time you feel the need to call someone a name, and respond to every asinine comment don't.

For one week, pick your battles, and completely drop the name calling and see if your status on TWW doesn't rise some.

Just a suggestion, don't bother responding b/c I won't respond to you.

9/25/2007 1:34:09 PM

^ Have you ever noticed that I don't call you names? In any event, (1) I am not particularly concerned about my "status" here, and (2) I consider the name-calling a form of self-defense against the foamies (okay, I did that one as a joke).

I shall ponder your suggestion, though.

9/25/2007 1:49:08 PM

^^i generally try to do that when i get the urge, simply because i usually regret when i resort to personal attacks, because in the end it either derails the thread, weakens my argument, or both.

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 2:27:47 PM

exactly. when two people argue, the one who appears more calm and confident usually wins, whether or not they have the facts on their side.

9/25/2007 2:34:00 PM

Quote :

"Again, how was the behavior of the liberals in the University of California system in regards to Lawrence Summers, any different than the right wing's protestations to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia. Summers is far less extreme than Ahmadinejad, and other than for reasons I've already specified in my post above, why wasn't he allowed to speak?"

It is the same and I don't agree with the decision to deny him to speak regardless of the different contexts.

Quote :

"There's a double standard here, and I don't understand why some of you fail to see that."

Because they are different universities. Hooksaw should have used the ROTC example instead.

9/25/2007 3:15:47 PM

Quote :

"I am not an "extremist" of any sort. But I am portrayed as one by the moonbats in TSB."

Does "extremely" poor arguer qualify?

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : or "extremely" old?]

9/25/2007 3:53:19 PM

Quote :

"extremely old"

hey now. im almost as old as he is.

like it or not, theres a certain amount of knowledge that only experience can provide.

(now in hooksaws case, he may have filtered out and discarded all that doesn't support his preconceived world-view, but that not the fault of his age)

9/25/2007 4:27:00 PM

Quote :

"like it or not, theres a certain amount of knowledge that only experience can provide"

lol at the responses i'd get if i posted that

9/25/2007 4:29:28 PM

Quote :

"Columbia University to Army ROTC: Stay the fuck out. Columbia University to a "petty and cruel dictator": Come to our campus and spew your hate-filled propaganda. Can you not see this?"

Can you see how establishing an entire new program at the school is different from letting someone speak for an hour?

9/25/2007 4:42:00 PM