Seriously suspend hooksaw.

You don't even back up your own statements.

1/7/2010 10:45:38 AM

You keep coming back to this thread.

But not answering the question.

1/7/2010 10:46:38 AM

^ On the contrary, I have supported my position numerous times--yet, all some of you can muster is to continue to troll and call me a poopyhead or some such.

Let's try this again. This asshole claims the following:

Not So Scary "Terror"
Dec 26th, 2009

Quote :

"Obviously, people shouldn't be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat."

--Matthew Yglesias, Center for American Progress

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/not-so-scary-terror.php

I claim that (1) he is wrong--and I have supported this multiple times with evidence (see previous page). And (2) that comments like his hurt liberal credibility. What say you?

BTW, God, you should focus less on me and more on trying to make one thread of your own that's worth a fuck. Go ahead--try it. Seriously.

1/7/2010 10:52:31 AM

someone cut and paste my last post, maybe he has me blocked and thats why he won't respond

what he is trying to do is change the topic so everyone is forced to agree with him or defend their position against a new topic so he can shift that into trying to show how he "won" the previous topic. its so transparent its a joke, you all should ignore it.

1/7/2010 10:56:09 AM

Quote :

"^ On the contrary, I have supported my position numerous times--yet, all some of you can muster is to continue to troll and call me a poopyhead or some such. Let's try this again. This asshole claims the following: Not So Scary 'Terror' Dec 26th, 2009 'Obviously, people shouldn't be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat.' --Matthew Yglesias, Center for American Progress http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/not-so-scary-terror.php I claim that (1) he is wrong--and I have supported this multiple times with evidence (see previous page). And (2) that comments like his hurt liberal credibility. What say you?"

Address the current topic or shut the fuck up.

1/7/2010 11:03:02 AM

jesus christ he is doing it again, completely incapable of creating an original thought.

1/7/2010 11:06:36 AM

Quote :

"^ On the contrary, I have supported my position numerous times--yet, all some of you can muster is to continue to troll and call me a poopyhead or some such. Let's try this again. This asshole claims the following: Not So Scary 'Terror' Dec 26th, 2009 'Obviously, people shouldn't be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat.' --Matthew Yglesias, Center for American Progress http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/not-so-scary-terror.php I claim that (1) he is wrong--and I have supported this multiple times with evidence (see previous page). And (2) that comments like his hurt liberal credibility. What say you?"

Address the current topic or shut the fuck up.

1/7/2010 11:07:33 AM

This is the Groundhog Day of threads.

Page 2, and hooksaw is acting as if the bottom half of the last page never happened.

1/7/2010 11:10:31 AM

maybe he missed my post asking him to explain his position on the last topic?

1/7/2010 11:12:28 AM

Where is the hooksaw credibility watch thread?

1/7/2010 11:19:17 AM

he has to just be trolling now, he's a regular salisburyboy.

1/7/2010 11:26:30 AM

Huffington Post + Joe Biden = such a heart filled drama piece about trains. enjoy

"How are we going to pay the heating bills? Did you hear the company may be cutting our health care? Now that we owe more on the house than it's worth, how are we going to send the kids to college? How are we going be able to retire?"

"I would look out the window and hear their questions, feel their pain."

I cried... btw... ride a train. LOL Jesus, they stack this shit deep.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/why-america-needs-trains_b_412393.html

1/7/2010 11:36:58 AM

^ Yeah, whenever Biden communicates, I cry, too--from laughing so hard.

1/7/2010 12:09:01 PM

lol, thread derailed with a train story

1/7/2010 12:09:59 PM

^ Actually, it was derailed earlier by these stooges. . .



Boone-Tard, pullknobs, and OopsPoofers

1/7/2010 12:18:50 PM

I'm just waiting for an answer.

1/7/2010 12:24:05 PM

Quote :

"^ On the contrary, I have supported my position numerous times--yet, all some of you can muster is to continue to troll and call me a poopyhead or some such. Let's try this again. This asshole claims the following: Not So Scary 'Terror' Dec 26th, 2009 'Obviously, people shouldn't be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat.' --Matthew Yglesias, Center for American Progress http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/not-so-scary-terror.php I claim that (1) he is wrong--and I have supported this multiple times with evidence (see previous page). And (2) that comments like his hurt liberal credibility. What say you?"

Address the current topic or shut the fuck up.

1/7/2010 12:28:40 PM

well if cooksaw wasn't such a RETARD heh we could actually get some debate going here

At least one dead in Missouri factory shooting
Jan 7, 2010

Quote :

"iss-based ABB Ltd, a wounded worker hid in an office and others fled to the rooftop awaiting rescu"

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6063D420100107

what now IDIOTS?

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/7/2010 12:30:00 PM

Hands On: Google Nexus One
January 7, 2010

Quote :

"y, but it's just my taste. It's thin and sleek like an iPhone, but has a plastic feel whereas every part of the iPhone feels like a sheath of glass. The Android experience is just flat-out fast. Not to say my Motorola Droid is slow; applications consistently load and close extremely fast and applications fly. But what is not consistent are the flashy graphics transitions that take place when I close applications. Sometimes an application will dissolve into the homescreen; sometimes it will just flash to the homescreen. The dissolving transitions on the Nexus One were consistently smooth, though I don't know if it's because it has a faster processor or because it has the newer software build, Android 2.1 versus the Motorola Droid Android 2.0.1. A few new additions in Android 2.1 include a quick view of all your homescreens, a weather and Google news app and a revamp of the screen where all of the applications are laid out. They were all svelte. There's also animated w"

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357810,00.asp

sht the fuck up conservetards!

1/7/2010 12:31:56 PM

^^ and ^ Those affect liberal credibility?

1/7/2010 12:33:33 PM

nice job addressing the point IDIOT

Cell Phone Radiation Cuts Alzheimer's... in Mice
Jan. 7, 2010

Quote :

"ey're mice"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AlzheimersNews/cell-phone-radiation-prevent-reverse-alzheimers-mice/story?id=9497387

Address the current topic of shut the fuck up.

1/7/2010 12:36:20 PM

^ That affects liberal credibility?

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 12:41 PM. Reason : How's that one worth-a-fuck thread of yours coming? No luck, huh? ]

1/7/2010 12:40:16 PM

^ That affects liberal credibility?

1/7/2010 12:40:37 PM

Address the current topic or shut the fuck up.

1/7/2010 12:41:34 PM

Dog, your way of thinking is stupid.

Now allow me to insult you then post a few links and defend my point with some obtuse circular logic

1/7/2010 12:57:53 PM

Hahaha this thread served its purpose.

1/7/2010 1:20:11 PM

God nailed it

1/7/2010 3:17:54 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO1oJPps1I

1/7/2010 3:32:40 PM

*Sigh* Against my better judgment, I will attempt to explain my position once more--even though I have already explained it well enough for a child to understand and further explanations will only lead to more trolling and sophistry.

Here goes:

1. A left-wing blogger, Matthew Yglesias with the Center for American Progress, posted this:

Not So Scary "Terror"
Dec 26th, 2009

Quote :

"Obviously, people shouldn't be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat."

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/not-so-scary-terror.php

I took issue with the excerpted portion above.

2. Why did I take issue? I explained it in this post and posed a question:

Quote :

". . .[H]orrifically murdering hundreds of people in a violent explosion over U.S. soil on Christmas Day is definitely 'first-order national security.' Have you given any thought whatsoever to where such a catastrophically damaged plane might land?"

hooksaw

3. Some here took issue with my legitimate claim that "horrifically murdering hundreds of people in a violent explosion over U.S. soil on Christmas Day is definitely 'first-order national security.'" Furthermore, they ignored that the fact that an aircraft damaged in such a way would become a missile--or many missiles--of a sort and could potentially kill even more people on the ground.

4. So, I explained why the attack in question and other potential attacks like it are "first-order national security."

a. Because the United States is actively attempting to kill or capture al-Qaeda members every day:

Quote :

"As far as I know, the United States is not targeting any of these groups with Predator drones."

hooksaw

b. Because the United States has designated al-Qaeda as an FTO:

Quote :

"[A]l-Qaeda has been designated a 'Foreign Terrorist Organization' by the U.S. State Department because its members and affiliates have attacked and continue to attack civilian and military targets in various countries--including the United States."

hooksaw

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

And because al-Qaeda train to and fully intend to attack us and our allies in any way they possibly can. I posted an al-Qaeda training manual to support this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050305074732/www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf

c. Because al-Qaeda is continually trying to attack the United States everywhere they can right now and have successfully attacked and killed thousands of Americans and others on U.S. soil--in ways that are quite obviously completely unlike the "IRA and various Latin American leftist groups," as one fool posted.

d. Because it appears Obama--to his credit--has finally begun to recognize that a war of terror is upon him and the United States, whether he admits it or not. And even though he's been late to the game, Obama has said and done the following that would only be said or done in response to a 'first-order national security' threat:

Obama says al Qaeda still greatest threat to U.S.
Nov 16, 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AF1PS20091116

Obama seen weathering fallout from failed plane attack
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – National security has jumped to the top of President Barack Obama's agenda, but it is unlikely to distract him from overhauling healthcare and tackling double-digit unemployment over the long term.
Jan 6, 2010

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60548820100106

Obama Orders Air Marshal Surge by Feb. 1: 'Race Against Time'
U.S. Fears More Airplane Bombers Are in the Terrorist Pipeline.
Jan. 6, 2010

Quote :

"Under a preliminary plan, the officials said the already existing federal air marshal force of more than 3,200 personnel would be deployed almost exclusively to overseas flights flown by U.S. carriers. Domestic high-risk flights will be covered by agents from other federal law enforcement agencies who were trained as air marshals in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks."

Quote :

"Officials said the augmented force of air marshals would include agents from other departments within the Department of Homeland Security, including Customs, Border Patrol, ICE and the Secret Service."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/air-marshal-surge-race-time/story?id=9493323

e. Finally, if one airliner being blown out of the sky wouldn't be enough to rate a "first-order national security" threat by some far-left loons here and elsewhere, perhaps multiple planes would be:

Quote :

"The officials said intelligence reports and the debriefing of the accused underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, indicated that there could be more than a dozen other young men trained for suicide missions against U.S. aircraft."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/air-marshal-surge-race-time/story?id=9493323

I fully realize that this explanation will accomplish nothing--my position was already clearly posted in straightforward language for any lucid person with a mind to comprehend it. Perhaps some of you will now stop giggling in PMs to one another about how you "trolled the shit out of hooksaw" and perhaps you will stop posting nothing more than garbage here and perhaps you will begin to actually offer something meaningful to this site--and perhaps not.

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ^ It's about time somebody at CNN woke up. ]

1/7/2010 4:06:13 PM

Quote :

"I'm gay"

hooksaw

1/7/2010 4:27:31 PM

Right on cue.

1/7/2010 4:41:00 PM

Define what a first-order national security threat is.

1/7/2010 4:46:06 PM

Quote :

"So, I explained why the attack in question and other potential attacks like it are "first-order national security.""

Followed by

Quote :

"Because the United States has designated al-Qaeda as an FTO"

You obviously don't understand what circular logic is, because you effectively just said that we should consider them to be a threat because we consider them to be a threat.

1/7/2010 6:19:43 PM

Speaking of liberal credibility, how many years post 9/11 did we have to fix the information silos before this most recent attempt?

1/7/2010 8:56:53 PM

Speaking of what you just posted, how many years have Liberals been in power since 9/11?

1/7/2010 9:03:01 PM

You know, we really misuse the term "liberal." Modern liberals are in no way liberals. They're more like authoritarians. They don't advocate maximizing individual liberty. They advocate having a government that determines who can have what and how much they can have. Of course, if you point this out, they'll cry foul and claim to be moderates. It's simply not true, though.

http://mises.org/daily/4000

Quote :

""Liberalism" in the historic sense is the struggle of man to assert his liberty against authority. In the political field, this struggle is against the authority of the state. Those who, today, call themselves liberals believe in increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty. It is true that they do so for the laudable purpose of advancing the public welfare but, whatever their motives, they have taken their stand against individual liberty and in favor of authority. Whatever they may call themselves, they are not liberals. ... "Liberalism," as the term is used today, looks upon the citizen with suspicion and upon government with approval. It seeks to build a strong government to control and regiment the individual for the good of society, to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, to offset inequalities in wealth and incomes, and to play the historic role of Robin Hood, who robbed the rich and distributed some of the proceeds to the poor. ... Modern liberals, as the term is currently used in the United States, are faced with an inescapable moral and intellectual dilemma. This dilemma arises from the fact that they are trying to go in two different directions at once and to follow two wholly conflicting and opposite philosophies of life. Sincere, modern liberals do not deliberately desire to set up an authoritarian government. All they want to do is to improve the lot of mankind. They want everyone to be decently housed, decently fed, decently clothed, and they are willing to give government unlimited authority to accomplish desirable ends. They wish to override individual liberties only when individual liberties hinder government in accomplishing results which they approve. They want government to be powerful to do good without being powerful to do harm."

1/8/2010 11:32:11 AM

Would you classify the ACLU as being part of modern liberalism or modern conservatism?

1/8/2010 12:13:44 PM

That's kind of a false dichotomy, isn't it? I would say that in a lot of ways, it's just normal liberalism. They actually fight for people's civil liberties. Now, you might be able to find examples of where they're not fighting for liberties, but rather, entitlements or something of that nature. I'm actually not sure why the ACLU is demonized by the right. Why shouldn't we be defending civil liberties?

1/8/2010 12:30:06 PM

Quote :

""Liberalism," as the term is used today, looks upon the citizen with suspicion and upon government with approval."

Im assuming that you think "Modern Conservatism" is the exact opposite of this? It approves of citizens and does not approve of government?


thats pretty laughable

1/8/2010 12:55:21 PM

No, I don't think that.

1/8/2010 1:11:08 PM

^x8 Did you happen to notice the other items on the list? They support that item being a part of the list--but don't let that fact stop the trolling.

Oh, and there's this:

January 7, 2010 5:05 PM
Obama: "We Are at War"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/07/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6069043.shtml

Finally! I guess it's no longer an "overseas contingency operation" when al-Qaeda attempts to blow up your planes over U.S. soil--wait. . .that already happened, didn't it?

1/8/2010 1:21:02 PM

Quote :

"That's kind of a false dichotomy, isn't it? I would say that in a lot of ways, it's just normal liberalism. They actually fight for people's civil liberties. Now, you might be able to find examples of where they're not fighting for liberties, but rather, entitlements or something of that nature. I'm actually not sure why the ACLU is demonized by the right. Why shouldn't we be defending civil liberties?"

You're exposing your strawman.

You state that the ACLU is classic liberalism (or in your eyes, "good" liberalism). We agree that the ACLU is endorsed by "modern" liberalism and shunned by modern conservatism. Yet you insist that modern liberals are authoritarians.

We all know that liberals are generally social libertarian-lite/economic authoritarian-lite and modern conservatives are generally social authoritarian-lite/economic libertarian-lite. For anyone to wag their finger at either school of thought and call it authoritarian/pro-gov't/anti-freedom is silly.

1/8/2010 1:58:50 PM

^Republicans (or modern conservatives, as we're using the term) shout for "economic libertarian-lite" issues constantly, but they don't reflect this in office. By and large, when in power they spend heavily and don't mind inflating the size of government or increasing regulation (so long as they're the ones doing the regulating). Incidents where they do manage to reduce the effectiveness of some government bureaucracy is usually due more to laziness or incompetence than ideology. When not in power, they do fight against government regulation of business... but it's primarily to reduce the power of Democrats and make the Dems look bad.

Democrats (aka modern liberals) do support certain civil liberties such as gay marriage, but then they also tend to support regulations like smoking bans and various health concerns that amount to trying to make people eat or behave in a healthier manner (these tend to manifest as increased taxes on some item, which disguises it as an economic regulation, despite the purpose of attempting to control or cause certain behavior).

I'd say it's more accurate to call our current parties Authoritarian and Authoritarian-lite, respectively.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 2:14:01 PM

Quote :

"You're exposing your strawman."

There's no strawman. This is just something you like throw around.

Quote :

"You state that the ACLU is classic liberalism (or in your eyes, "good" liberalism). We agree that the ACLU is endorsed by "modern" liberalism and shunned by modern conservatism. Yet you insist that modern liberals are authoritarians."

So, because modern liberals support something that might be considered classic liberalism at times, modern liberalism cannot be authoritarian in nature? And you're accusing me of using fallacies?

1/8/2010 2:27:19 PM

Come on now. You're a poly sci major. When have political ideologies or terms to describe them been static or monolithic? That's like defining right and left based on the French Revolution terms. Liberalism has been used to describe everything from 19th century Russian emperors who loosened social controls to the radicals of the French Revolution. It's a diverse term and always was. You're just trying to scold liberals for not holding to your preferred definition.

1/8/2010 2:31:55 PM

I guess I just think it'd be better if modern liberals would call themselves what they are: Social democrats, socialists, communists, fascists, or any number of ideologies (with definitions) that tend to fall under liberalism. It'd be one thing if it was the Liberal party and we accepted that it was just a label. When we call someone a liberal, though, we're referring to the actual ideology. Liberalism is defined on dictionary.com as:

"a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties."

That's in direct opposition to "modern liberalism," in many cases, so I think it's a misnomer. Party names are arbitrary, but ideologies have some meaning.

1/8/2010 2:55:50 PM

Quote :

"I guess I just think it'd be better if modern liberals would call themselves what they are: Social democrats, socialists, communists, fascists, or any number of ideologies (with definitions) that tend to fall under liberalism."

strawman complete

congrats

1/8/2010 2:58:20 PM

Let me wikipedia that for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

1/8/2010 3:21:40 PM

FYI:

Quote :

" Fascism, pronounced /'fæ??z?m/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10] "

1/8/2010 3:31:20 PM

which proves nothing. He didn't say fascism was leftist. You might want to google strawman yourself

1/8/2010 3:48:16 PM