4

definitely best of quality

[Edited on August 25, 2007 at 12:48 AM. Reason : 4]

8/25/2007 12:48:15 AM

1.) I'm not as old as hooksaw but I remember grocery stores pushing plastic in order to "save the trees".

2.) Also, are you guys seriously saying that on the average smaller cars are safer than larger cars ?

Anyway, continue trolling hooksaw, I know you want to.

8/25/2007 1:00:02 AM

3) And was the liberal feminist radio effort by Fonda, Steinem, O'Donnell, et al not well-intentioned? The answer is, of course, self-evident.

COMING SOON: More "'Good' Liberal Intentions Gone Bad"! Check TSB for details.

8/25/2007 1:26:41 AM

^ your steadfast refusal to concede defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... it's kind of impressive, albeit in a tragically comic "Black Knight" sort of way.

you know,

Quote :

" 'Tis Merely a Flesh Wound! "

8/25/2007 6:20:49 PM

^ You and your ilk have defeated no one and proved nothing--and you know it. Time for you to catch the ferry, schmoe!

8/25/2007 6:52:29 PM

feel free to use this photoshop any time you wish







[Edited on August 25, 2007 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/25/2007 10:17:45 PM

hahaha

8/25/2007 10:38:10 PM

^^ That one was kind of funny.

8/26/2007 1:50:54 AM

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57593

Quote :

"A new plan approved by the California Legislature could be used to ban the words "dad" or "mom" in all public schools as being discriminatory against "partner 1"' and "partner 2" in same-sex relationships, according to critics. "

9/12/2007 4:44:41 PM

^ Liberal or not, that's fucking retarded.

9/12/2007 5:33:57 PM

yeah...luckily it sounds like Schwarzenegger is going to veto it

9/12/2007 5:36:31 PM

This legislation is written by girly men and as such I must veto it.

Free speech anyone? Oh, I forgot, the public schools are no place for free speech. We can
speak freely at home in private away from the prying ears of government censors...

Political correctness is the death of freedom. And I'm not talking about the freedom for all you weirdos
to exhibit your perversion in the public square, I'm talking about the freedom for ordinary folks to speak their mind w/o apology to the myriad of special interest groups which all clamor for acceptance (gays, feminists, hippies,...)

9/12/2007 11:17:15 PM

^ Aha! That inspired my next edition of. . ."'Good' Liberal Intentions Gone Bad"!

Today we examine campus speech codes:

Quote :

"Some professors stress that part of their job is to challenge students to question their beliefs. 'We're in the business of helping people become critical thinkers,' says Shippensburg sociology professor Debra Cornelius. Though she acknowledges her own liberal politics [LMAO!], she says, 'We on a daily basis struggle with ... making sure people behave in a tolerant way (without) chilling speech.'"

Quote :

"'Legislators, taxpayers, tuition payers, and donors have no idea what their dollars are underwriting,' says Luann Wright, the parent of a senior at the University of California-San Diego. So outraged was she by her son's 2001 freshman writing syllabus — 'basically the whole thrust was on the toxicity of the white race,' she says — that she created a non-profit Web site (noindoctrination.org) where students can anonymously post incidents of bias on their campuses."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-02-free-speech-cover_x.htm

Campus speech codes: definitely a "good" liberal intention gone bad. Discuss.

9/13/2007 1:40:24 AM

^^^^^

yeah ... worldnetdaily ... "prisonplanet" for the thinking man.

come on, people. please continue to take at face value anything that prisonplanet worldnetdaily quotes from the lead agitator at the Capitol Resource Family Impact Institute. I mean, please dont bother to try and read the actual legislation.

because we all know that lesbians and witches run our public schools so they can boil children and eat them for dinner.







[Edited on September 13, 2007 at 2:09 AM. Reason : ]

9/13/2007 2:01:50 AM

^ WTF? (1) The story at issue is from USA Today; (2) I never even heard of "prisonplanet" until you loons started howling about it--and I still don't visit the site or even know what it's about, and (3) your post didn't address the topic and was basically worthless--you know, like usual.

PS: Oh, now I see what you're raving about. Well, will you condemn Daily Kos et al, too?

[Edited on September 13, 2007 at 2:10 AM. Reason : .]

9/13/2007 2:07:34 AM

^ not talking to you. I'm referring to SalisburyTwister lunacy du jour.

i'm bored with your issues, anyhow.

9/13/2007 2:10:35 AM

^ Good--now you'll have more time to ride the ferry. BTW, I see that you're doing that tired old "You're salisburyboy" bullshit again. Fucking weak.

9/13/2007 2:14:19 AM

i dont think either you or Twista are salisburyboy.

you both are, without a doubt, salisburyboy-esque in your tactics of employing red herrings, obfuscation, and other logical fallacy games to avoid addressing credible criticisms of your preconceived notions and foregone conclusions.

anyone here with at least half a brain and a modicum of intellectual honesty will agree with me.




[Edited on September 13, 2007 at 2:25 AM. Reason : ]

9/13/2007 2:23:05 AM

^ What a fucking joke. Logical fallacies, huh? Let's examine the turd you just shat, shall we?

Quote :

"anyone here with at least half a brain and a modicum of intellectual honesty will agree with me."

So what? What does that prove? Not a goddamned thing.

Quote :

"Argumentum ad numerum ('argument or appeal to numbers'). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right."

I've been trying to give you a break, but you're earning the joe_shithead title a lot lately. Seriously, man, your ideology and ideas are fucked up and you know it. Why don't you get suspended or just take a break for a while?

9/13/2007 2:32:54 AM

another fine attempt at sophistry.

but you fail: i'm not appealing to numbers.

as you can see, i purposely excluded those with less than half a brain and/or lacking a shred of intellectual honesty. there may very well only be one person here meeting my criteria for agreement, and that would be sufficient.

(as it is, there happens to be much more than one meeting the criteria, but my claim doesnt require it.)

9/13/2007 3:06:47 AM

Quote :

"And I'm not talking about the freedom for all you weirdos to exhibit your perversion in the public square, I'm talking about the freedom for ordinary folks to speak their mind w/o apology to the myriad of special interest groups which all clamor for acceptance (gays, feminists, hippies,...)"

So you're saying freedom is conditional in the fact that is must conform to your societal norms? Isn't that the complete opposite of freedom?

9/13/2007 7:25:02 AM

Both of hooksaw's quotes are NOT examples of "good liberal intentions gone bad." They may be even worse than the "fuel-efficient cars are unsafe" bullshit.

Here's why:

Quote :

""Some professors stress that part of their job is to challenge students to question their beliefs. 'We're in the business of helping people become critical thinkers,' says Shippensburg sociology professor Debra Cornelius. Though she acknowledges her own liberal politics [LMAO!], she says, 'We on a daily basis struggle with ... making sure people behave in a tolerant way (without) chilling speech.'" "

What precisely is the problem here? Are you suggesting that professors should not challenge students to question their beliefs? What exactly do we gain if we accept what we're told as 100% correct? I've learned most of what I know about my religion, catholicism, by challenging my beliefs. I asked myself "Why do we do/believe/worship ______" and I'd go seek the answer. Challenging what you take for granted does not weaken faith. It strengths it.

Furthermore, if challenging a belief causes you to stop believing it's true, then how strong or valid was this belief in the first place?

Quote :

""'Legislators, taxpayers, tuition payers, and donors have no idea what their dollars are underwriting,' says Luann Wright, the parent of a senior at the University of California-San Diego. So outraged was she by her son's 2001 freshman writing syllabus — 'basically the whole thrust was on the toxicity of the white race,' she says — that she created a non-profit Web site (noindoctrination.org) where students can anonymously post incidents of bias on their campuses.""

So... what is the "good liberal intention" that went wrong here? Liberals, like conservatives, are just as capable of taking their views to the extremes as anyone else. If the professor 's syllabus is honestly casting white authors' literature in a negative light, then by all means I concur with Luann Wright's sentiments and support her efforts with the new website.

When "supporting minority authors" starts becoming "marginalizing white authors," all of us should rightfully express our disgust.

9/13/2007 12:54:36 PM

thanks for the tip joe_schmoe...your idea of a non-biased source is moveon.org or the new york times...you sure are credible yourself

9/13/2007 4:34:37 PM

^ Exactly. And check this shit out:

New York Times Gave MoveOn.org Discount for 'Betray Us' Ad

WASHINGTON — The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296696,00.html

Un-fucking-believable!

9/13/2007 5:55:22 PM

Quote :

"^ Liberal or not, that's fucking retarded."

Additionally, I take exception to the proverbial "War on Gen. Petraeus' integrity." I was fortunate enough to catch an interview on NPR last night discussing Petraeus' record in Iraq, and I have to say I was impressed.

Granted this is a Wikipedia article, but the information in the 2003-2007 sections strongly mirror the tidbits I picked up from the NPR segment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

Quote :

"An often-repeated story of Petraeus's time with the 101st is his habit of asking embedded reporters to "Tell me where this ends," an anecdote many journalists have used to portray Petraeus as an early recognizer of the difficulties that would follow the fall of Baghdad. Indeed, it was during the year after the invasion that Petraeus and the 101st gained fame for their performance in Iraq, not for the combat operations in Karbala and Najaf but for the rebuilding and administration of Mosul and Nineveh Province. Described by one former subordinate as "the most competitive man on earth," and by another as "phenomenal at getting people to reach their potential"; these two traits of intensity and cultivation of subordinate officers have widely been reported as key to his success in Mosul. Petraeus oversaw a program of public works projects and political reinvigoration that made the city one of the most peaceful in Iraq during the first year of the war. (One of Petraeus' catch phrases during this period was, "Money is ammunition," supporting the use of commanders' discretionary funds for public works.)"

Quote :

"During his time at CAC, Petraeus oversaw two major changes geared toward improving the Army performance in Iraq and Afghanistan: he presided over the 1st Infantry Division's revamped training of advisory teams for deployment to Iraqi military and police units, and, with Marine Lt. Gen.James N. Mattis and Lt. Col. John A. Nagl, he coauthored Field Manual 3-24, the Army's new official counterinsurgency doctrine.[11] FM 3-24 relies on counterinsurgency tactics Petraeus has long espoused, particularly in Mosul, chiefly the protection of the population from insurgent violence even at greater risk to counterinsurgent personnel."

Petraeus was among the first in the US Military to recognize that this was going to be a long fight in Iraq. His ascension to top commander in Iraq was not a political appointment to support Bush, but instead an act of desperation from an administration that realized their strategy was NOT working.

He may be cherry picking, but Petraeus (from what i've read) appears to be the right man for the job. The problem is that it may be too little, too late...

[Edited on September 13, 2007 at 7:01 PM. Reason : Petraeus]

9/13/2007 6:44:06 PM

^ Good move. MoveOn.org and some of the other liberal organizations have realized that the "General Betray Us" ad has backfired, and they are now focusing attacks on the president again. In fact, what MoveOn.org did to this career military officer is shameful and I hope it comes back to them, in spades.

9/14/2007 1:07:29 AM

i didnt even know what you were referring to with MoveOn. I dont follow what they're doing, in general, and i missed that campaign.

FWIW (nothing, really). I support Petraeus' call for continuing to support the surge, if only because it would be a waste not to. we have to have security before we can have political stability

I've been against this ill-conceived adventure from the beginning, but I don't want us (or Iraq) to fail. I just want to see its architects face criminal charges after we clean up the mess.

9/14/2007 11:14:03 AM

sadly, there are people who have a hard time understanding a well thought out position like that.

9/14/2007 11:59:24 AM

Sometimes I wonder if this Hooksaw guy has parents that were already closely related before they got married.

9/14/2007 1:50:09 PM

Quote :

"^ Good move. MoveOn.org and some of the other liberal organizations have realized that the "General Betray Us" ad has backfired, and they are now focusing attacks on the president again. In fact, what MoveOn.org did to this career military officer is shameful and I hope it comes back to them, in spades."

Thanks for the kudos, but my post was not a "move." It was an objective response to a partisan attack that was ill-founded. Liberal hackery/bullshit should be shot down just as surely as conservative hackery.

Secondly, this is indeed Bush's mess, not Petraeus'. He was vague for a reason - the situation really is that bad. Had Bush listened to Petraeus in 2004 we'd likely not have made as little progress as we have in the past 3 years.

Thirdly, I agree that MoveOn.org's ad was exceptionally shameful and I do hope it knocks some sense into them. You know they've gone to far when you see me agreeing with hooksaw

[Edited on September 14, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : sf]

9/14/2007 4:04:52 PM

^ Wow! Hell just froze over! I don't agree with everything in your post, but it was quite reasonable.

^^ And you look like you were born on Goon Island, herpball. Stop fucking trolling.

9/14/2007 5:52:58 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw: you look like a goon. nyahh nyahh nyahh."

oh, are we back to this again? and when are you going to put your mug online?

if terpball is trolling, at least he has the balls to be up front about it.

unlike some people who, say, continually attempt to antagonize others by throwing out flamebait all the while hiding behind internet anonymity.

let's review the situation as it stands, shall we?

you "say" you're a 40-year old CHASS grad student and TA, prior law enforcement as a state prison guard, with a 24-year old smartypants fiancee who has 15 bachelor's degrees and is "hot as fuck"

but I "say" you're a 60-year old geezer who flunked out of undergrad business school back in 1968 because you dropped too much acid, worked for a while performing rectal exams at the Wake County Jailhouse prisoner intake, eventually claimed disability for diabetes-related obesity, and now spend your time alternately railing at college kids on online message boards and fapping to tinyteentittys.com

who's to say who's right or wrong here? no one has any evidence. it's not like anyone knows who you are, since you prefer to hide in the shadows.





[Edited on September 14, 2007 at 8:26 PM. Reason : ]

9/14/2007 8:20:13 PM

^ Nobody--and that includes me--gives a fuck what you think, joe_shithead. Take your lame attempt at baiting me and shove it up your ass. Somebody here already tried to get me in trouble at work--just like I knew someone would--but that person didn't succeed.

In any event, if you weren't so fucking stupid, you could have figured out who I am long ago. Loser.

9/15/2007 1:17:41 AM

"figure out who you are"? well, i live 3000 miles away. i guess maybe when i visit Raleigh again, we can go out for coffee. sure... that'd be nice. thanks

but you know, i'm just surprised that someone who takes such great pains to conceal his own identity and appearance, would feel compelled to call someone else out based on publicly accessible photos.

but hey, whatever, if that's your thing.




[Edited on September 15, 2007 at 1:31 AM. Reason : ]

9/15/2007 1:30:33 AM

^ Um. . .my post was in response to alleged inbreeding by my parents, asshole. Did you miss that part?

And your last post further verifies your stupidity. I posted that "if you weren't so fucking stupid, you could have figured out who I am long ago"--name, photos, everything. But you're not smart--like so many others here, you just think that you are.

9/15/2007 1:37:59 AM

....

Guys... give it rest huh?




[Edited on September 15, 2007 at 11:43 AM. Reason : ]

9/15/2007 11:42:25 AM

is that supposed to be a reference to baldsaw ?

9/15/2007 1:03:52 PM

jesus christ

hooksaw is not an alias

9/15/2007 1:26:06 PM

fine.

but he still attacks people based on appearance while refusing to reveal his own.

9/15/2007 1:36:45 PM

if i had my way, everyone would have to have their real name in their user info

it could cut down on a lot of poop talking and racial slurs

but then this place would probably collapse and dry up

9/15/2007 1:45:34 PM

Quote :

"Sometimes I wonder if this Hooksaw guy has parents that were already closely related before they got married."

terpball

Quote :

"And you look like you were born on Goon Island, herpball. Stop fucking trolling. "

hooksaw

I think my response--however sophomoric it may be--was proportionate considering that my parents were needlessly brought into to this ridiculous exchange.

Now, could we get back to the topic currently at issue? Since everyone's apparently forgotten it, the topic is campus speech zones.

9/15/2007 9:45:54 PM

Quote :

"Now, could we get back to the topic currently at issue? Since everyone's apparently forgotten it, the topic is campus speech zones."

I already addressed this issue. The proverbial ball is in your court, or anyone else that wants to respond to it.

9/19/2007 6:51:29 PM

Yale Loses Military Recruiting Lawsuit
By KIM MARTINEAU The Hartford Courant

Quote :

"NEW HAVEN - A federal appeals court has struck down Yale Law School's efforts to limit military recruiters on campus, in protest of the military's ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces. The ruling all but ends years of litigation by Yale and other law schools to uphold their policies of equal treatment of all students, regardless of sexual orientation. Yale's lawsuit, similar to a suit brought by other law schools, challenged a 1996 law that forced the schools to extend the same welcome to military recruiters as other employers, despite the military's discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. The law, called the Solomon Amendment, forced Yale to back down from its equal-rights stance or risk losing $300 million in federal funding."

http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hcu-yale-recruiting-0919,0,3777273.story?coll=hc_sports_highschool_util

And please don't make this about gays in the military. I've posted here before--and I will again--that it's probably time to let gays serve openly in the military.

This is mostly about busy-body leftists wanting to ban military recruiting on "their" campus, especially during an unpopular war. In any event, you get a three-fer of "'Good' Liberal Intentions Gone Bad" here:

1. The left-wing nutballs at Yale got their asses handed to them because they are simply wrong. Military recruiters cannot sign a "nondiscrimination pledge" before recruiting on campus as long as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is in effect. And that leads me to my second point. . .

2. If you have a problem with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, take it up with Bill Clinton--he started it. So, yes, Bill Clinton actually did do it this time.

3. The MSM continues to carry water for the Clintons by not more closely examining Bill Clinton's contribution to the situation at issue. They should just wear "Go, Hillary!" buttons on the air.

9/22/2007 2:22:14 AM

^ Colin Powell and the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were requested by Clinton to investigate the issue of gays serving in the military and make recommendations on what, if anything, should be done.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff described and unanimously proposed the "don't ask don't tell" policy as the best of all possible options available at that time.

It was widely agreed among all in the military -- and no secret -- that this was ultimately a temporary measure designed to acknowledge the reality, while giving military time to prepare for the eventual and unavoidable full integration of gays into the military in the not-so-distant future.

Bill Clinton accepted their recommendation at face value, and made an executive decision.

...

as for the "leftwing nutballs" at Yale University, apparently they have enough business acumen to recognize the value of $300M in federal funds.

...

its a well known fact of our republican nation (lower-case "r") that the Federal law always trumps state law.

...

so what's your point again? you don't like Hilary? so what? neither do I.

thanks for another brilliant contribution to your brilliant thread.

9/22/2007 3:20:09 AM

^ Un-fucking-believable.

9/22/2007 3:24:05 AM

yeah, i know.

historical facts are hard to digest when you're already full of foregone conclusions.

i have to say, your tenacity is admirable.

9/22/2007 3:40:16 AM

^
Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Quote :

"It was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 and approved by then President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask%2C_don%27t_tell

So, that SOB even lied to gays. Piss off, okay?

And I told you this isn't about the gay issue anyway. Those fucking leftists realized that they would be effectively banning military recruiters from recruiting on campus--get it ?--and the gay issue is (1) a way to get there and (2) the second bird.

9/22/2007 4:04:33 AM

yeah, wikipedia. great stuff. and maybe it will say the same thing tomorrow?

i'm fully aware of what Clinton campaigned on relating to gays in miltary. it was a big issue at that time. I was in during Gulf I, and there were a lot of gays that were trying to be accepted after fighting in Kuwait.

the fact is, whether or not your recent wikipedia editors are aware of, or partial to, the information: Clinton gave the Joint Chiefs, headed by then-Chairman Powell, broad latitude in determining what changes would be implemented and how. this was the unanimous advice of the Joint Chiefs, and Clinton accepted it at significant loss to his own political capital.

9/22/2007 4:43:38 AM

Quote :

"So, that SOB even lied to gays. Piss off, okay? "

"Piss off, okay"... stop bitching like a British school girl...

Quote :

""Now, could we get back to the topic currently at issue? Since everyone's apparently forgotten it, the topic is campus speech zones.""

Funny how I challenged you to respond to my refutation, and you change the subject.

9/23/2007 1:22:06 AM

^ Um. . .I responded in such a way because I made it clear that's what I didn't want the debate to be about: gays in the military.

As to your assertion that I changed the subject, you are wrong again. I brought up the issue of military recruiting on campuses because it seems to me to be closely related to the current topic.

While "the military" may or may not have the same rights guaranteed to individuals under the US Constitution, the banning or restricting of military recruiters--individuals who enlist our nation's protectors--on college campuses sure as hell limits the free speech of those recruiters and possibly the military as a collective. Limiting campus military recruiting also weakens America's ability to defend itself.

9/23/2007 4:07:26 AM